Had not actually noticed the spellcasting change until I was filling out the druid feedback survey last night. I absolutely hate it.
The main reason I don't like it is that, as a full caster, the thing I love is trying out new spells in creative ways. **Even as it is now** it's hard enough to predict what spell you'll need for the adventuring day ahead. With the proposed new system of spell prep, suddenly I'm only ever going to get to prepare 1 of the coolest set of spells in the game at a time. Good luck guessing which one you'll need.
It also has the "sorcerer" effect on spell selection. There's going to be so much more gravity to prep the spells that have the widest or most efficient application. "Those 6th level investiture spells sound pretty nifty. Or maybe Wall of Thorns. I should try those out sometime. Too bad my party needs me to prep Heal every day." I'm not saying that's the vibe in everyone's group. But it is definitely a factor.
I've never. ever. understood why there is such an emphasis in the ruleset to limit spellcasting choice. See 4-elements-monk ("Here's a couple pages of cool-sounding abilities--most of which you'll never even get to try out."). The only way I get to see most spells in action has been to play in about 4 campaigns at once and specifically play characters that use the lesser-used spells (only to confirm in most cases why they are seldom used). And, yeah, tactics isn't everything. But it's definitely a part of the fun.
This restricts that fun in a way that adds stress. It's the worst when we get to a big encounter and my character has the perfect spell for it... in his spellbook... unprepared.
I don't like the new system at all. It makes it difficult to pick any spells (especially level 6 and higher) that are situational. It also forces you to prepare more low-level spells that you're less likely to cast as you level up. I've seen plenty sorcerers use nearly all of their 1st and 2nd level slots to gain sorcery points. In this case that's 7 wasted prepared spells.
I get that their goal is to make it easier for new players, but they might as well remove 2/3 of the level 6-9 spells from the game as if they are situational, they're likely to never be used by anyone as you can only prepare 1 of each, you're going to want to make sure you pick on that will be useful nearly every day.
I think they should add a new column to the chart "spells prepared" (which matches the 3rd poll entry) then add text to tell players to either prepare spells based on the number of spell slots (if they are a new player) or freely (if they have more experience).
Another option would be to assign spells as per new rule, but you can also prepare additional spells based on your spell casting modifier freely.
The fact that players are forced to choose between a powerful high level spell and a situational utility spell is the point of the change. Casters in 5e just have too much power and utility.
It's not just that casters can cast powerful combat ending spells like fireball, or that they can cast powerful situational utility spell that can completely negate non-combat encounters, like the fly spell. The problem is that casters can choose on the fly whether they want to cast the powerful utility spell or the powerful combat spell. This means that if the casters needs to cast their powerful situational utility spell, they can if they need to, but if they don't, no problem, they can just cast their encounter ending combat spell instead. They don't actually need to make any difficult choices, they just get simultaneously great at everything.
Overall I think it is a really good and necessary nerf to casters. Its a simple and subtle change that doesn't actually nerf casters power or their utility. It just forces them to choose between the two.
The point seems to more be they think their players are incapable of any advanced thought so they need to make the process as easy as possible with as few negative consequences for those choices as possible.
It is a bad nerf imo as it does very little for balance but nerfs fun a great deal.
Edit to add and assuming free access to entire lists continues in the mage list its not even a nerf for mages and bards, its a buff. It only really nerfs druids and clerics.
It's not just that casters can cast powerful combat ending spells like fireball, or that they can cast powerful situational utility spell that can completely negate non-combat encounters, like the fly spell. ... They don't actually need to make any difficult choices, they just get simultaneously great at everything.
Having to choose between your example of Fireball or Fly (setting aside the whole resource management side of DnD, the number of encounters per day, number of rests, etc.) seems punitive, to me. It's as ridiculous as asking fighters to choose between wearing armor/protection and having skill/feats with a weapon. After all, why should a warrior be able to attack AND defend themself well?
Spells break all sorts of rules, and breaking the rules in creative ways is just part of the fun of playing casters. The content created within 5e is designed to account for it. I really don't agree that the current amount of choice casters get is too powerful. Experiences may differ, certainly.
I'll absolutely grant that powerful magic spells can create wild shifts in momentum in an encounter. However, I'd argue the system balances for that in an endless number of ways. In other words, there are certainly spells that sound great in theory, but they don't work in every situation. Even Fireball: sure, it covers a huge area in decent damage. In practice, I really only see it wipe out all of the enemies a few times in Tier 2 play--which, by the way, makes for some thrilling, memorable moments--and then it's not quite so definitive. Sure, there are other spells. But they've all got quirks--and by design. Casters have to balance waiting for just the right moment to cast them, the type of damage, what type of saving throw it offers, how loud the effect is, any follow-on ramifications ("the dock's on fire!" "They've got a caster--get im!"). It's a lovely chess game that is great fun.
But it's only fun if the casters have multiple options. If they have to wait for one, and only one, set of specific circumstances to transpire before they cast their one really fun spell... that just sucks the life out gameplay.
I don't like the new system at all. It makes it difficult to pick any spells (especially level 6 and higher) that are situational. It also forces you to prepare more low-level spells that you're less likely to cast as you level up. I've seen plenty sorcerers use nearly all of their 1st and 2nd level slots to gain sorcery points. In this case that's 7 wasted prepared spells.
I get that their goal is to make it easier for new players, but they might as well remove 2/3 of the level 6-9 spells from the game as if they are situational, they're likely to never be used by anyone as you can only prepare 1 of each, you're going to want to make sure you pick on that will be useful nearly every day.
I think they should add a new column to the chart "spells prepared" (which matches the 3rd poll entry) then add text to tell players to either prepare spells based on the number of spell slots (if they are a new player) or freely (if they have more experience).
Another option would be to assign spells as per new rule, but you can also prepare additional spells based on your spell casting modifier freely.
I think what will end up happening is that casters will have to depend more on bonus preparations via their subclasses, races, feats etc in order to get that kind of variety. And I see that as a good thing - not only because it means spellcasters will be slightly weaker in 5.5e, but because it means that your subclass and other choices will carry more weight. A Clockwork Soul Sorcerer for example will be a bit more Abjuration or Transmutation-heavy for their top end, and thus feel very different in play than an Aberrant Mind.
I don't like the new system at all. It makes it difficult to pick any spells (especially level 6 and higher) that are situational. It also forces you to prepare more low-level spells that you're less likely to cast as you level up. I've seen plenty sorcerers use nearly all of their 1st and 2nd level slots to gain sorcery points. In this case that's 7 wasted prepared spells.
I get that their goal is to make it easier for new players, but they might as well remove 2/3 of the level 6-9 spells from the game as if they are situational, they're likely to never be used by anyone as you can only prepare 1 of each, you're going to want to make sure you pick on that will be useful nearly every day.
I think they should add a new column to the chart "spells prepared" (which matches the 3rd poll entry) then add text to tell players to either prepare spells based on the number of spell slots (if they are a new player) or freely (if they have more experience).
Another option would be to assign spells as per new rule, but you can also prepare additional spells based on your spell casting modifier freely.
I think what will end up happening is that casters will have to depend more on bonus preparations via their subclasses, races, feats etc in order to get that kind of variety. And I see that as a good thing - not only because it means spellcasters will be slightly weaker in 5.5e, but because it means that your subclass and other choices will carry more weight. A Clockwork Soul Sorcerer for example will be a bit more Abjuration or Transmutation-heavy for their top end, and thus feel very different in play than an Aberrant Mind.
I don't think it has anything to do with balance. Their goal is simply to make it easier for new players even if it's at the expense of experienced players... I guess it's easier to point at a chart and say prepare that many spells per level than to explain the current system to a new player.
I have a new suggested fix that will give players more options without making it harder for new players: Give us a 1st level feat that allows us to prepare additional spells based on our spell casting modifier (for a single class only).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Had not actually noticed the spellcasting change until I was filling out the druid feedback survey last night. I absolutely hate it.
The main reason I don't like it is that, as a full caster, the thing I love is trying out new spells in creative ways. **Even as it is now** it's hard enough to predict what spell you'll need for the adventuring day ahead. With the proposed new system of spell prep, suddenly I'm only ever going to get to prepare 1 of the coolest set of spells in the game at a time. Good luck guessing which one you'll need.
It also has the "sorcerer" effect on spell selection. There's going to be so much more gravity to prep the spells that have the widest or most efficient application. "Those 6th level investiture spells sound pretty nifty. Or maybe Wall of Thorns. I should try those out sometime. Too bad my party needs me to prep Heal every day." I'm not saying that's the vibe in everyone's group. But it is definitely a factor.
I've never. ever. understood why there is such an emphasis in the ruleset to limit spellcasting choice. See 4-elements-monk ("Here's a couple pages of cool-sounding abilities--most of which you'll never even get to try out."). The only way I get to see most spells in action has been to play in about 4 campaigns at once and specifically play characters that use the lesser-used spells (only to confirm in most cases why they are seldom used). And, yeah, tactics isn't everything. But it's definitely a part of the fun.
This restricts that fun in a way that adds stress. It's the worst when we get to a big encounter and my character has the perfect spell for it... in his spellbook... unprepared.
I don't like the new system at all. It makes it difficult to pick any spells (especially level 6 and higher) that are situational. It also forces you to prepare more low-level spells that you're less likely to cast as you level up. I've seen plenty sorcerers use nearly all of their 1st and 2nd level slots to gain sorcery points. In this case that's 7 wasted prepared spells.
I get that their goal is to make it easier for new players, but they might as well remove 2/3 of the level 6-9 spells from the game as if they are situational, they're likely to never be used by anyone as you can only prepare 1 of each, you're going to want to make sure you pick on that will be useful nearly every day.
I think they should add a new column to the chart "spells prepared" (which matches the 3rd poll entry) then add text to tell players to either prepare spells based on the number of spell slots (if they are a new player) or freely (if they have more experience).
Another option would be to assign spells as per new rule, but you can also prepare additional spells based on your spell casting modifier freely.
The fact that players are forced to choose between a powerful high level spell and a situational utility spell is the point of the change. Casters in 5e just have too much power and utility.
It's not just that casters can cast powerful combat ending spells like fireball, or that they can cast powerful situational utility spell that can completely negate non-combat encounters, like the fly spell. The problem is that casters can choose on the fly whether they want to cast the powerful utility spell or the powerful combat spell. This means that if the casters needs to cast their powerful situational utility spell, they can if they need to, but if they don't, no problem, they can just cast their encounter ending combat spell instead. They don't actually need to make any difficult choices, they just get simultaneously great at everything.
Overall I think it is a really good and necessary nerf to casters. Its a simple and subtle change that doesn't actually nerf casters power or their utility. It just forces them to choose between the two.
The point seems to more be they think their players are incapable of any advanced thought so they need to make the process as easy as possible with as few negative consequences for those choices as possible.
It is a bad nerf imo as it does very little for balance but nerfs fun a great deal.
Edit to add and assuming free access to entire lists continues in the mage list its not even a nerf for mages and bards, its a buff. It only really nerfs druids and clerics.
Having to choose between your example of Fireball or Fly (setting aside the whole resource management side of DnD, the number of encounters per day, number of rests, etc.) seems punitive, to me. It's as ridiculous as asking fighters to choose between wearing armor/protection and having skill/feats with a weapon. After all, why should a warrior be able to attack AND defend themself well?
Spells break all sorts of rules, and breaking the rules in creative ways is just part of the fun of playing casters. The content created within 5e is designed to account for it. I really don't agree that the current amount of choice casters get is too powerful. Experiences may differ, certainly.
I'll absolutely grant that powerful magic spells can create wild shifts in momentum in an encounter. However, I'd argue the system balances for that in an endless number of ways. In other words, there are certainly spells that sound great in theory, but they don't work in every situation. Even Fireball: sure, it covers a huge area in decent damage. In practice, I really only see it wipe out all of the enemies a few times in Tier 2 play--which, by the way, makes for some thrilling, memorable moments--and then it's not quite so definitive. Sure, there are other spells. But they've all got quirks--and by design. Casters have to balance waiting for just the right moment to cast them, the type of damage, what type of saving throw it offers, how loud the effect is, any follow-on ramifications ("the dock's on fire!" "They've got a caster--get im!"). It's a lovely chess game that is great fun.
But it's only fun if the casters have multiple options. If they have to wait for one, and only one, set of specific circumstances to transpire before they cast their one really fun spell... that just sucks the life out gameplay.
I think what will end up happening is that casters will have to depend more on bonus preparations via their subclasses, races, feats etc in order to get that kind of variety. And I see that as a good thing - not only because it means spellcasters will be slightly weaker in 5.5e, but because it means that your subclass and other choices will carry more weight. A Clockwork Soul Sorcerer for example will be a bit more Abjuration or Transmutation-heavy for their top end, and thus feel very different in play than an Aberrant Mind.
I don't think it has anything to do with balance. Their goal is simply to make it easier for new players even if it's at the expense of experienced players... I guess it's easier to point at a chart and say prepare that many spells per level than to explain the current system to a new player.
I have a new suggested fix that will give players more options without making it harder for new players: Give us a 1st level feat that allows us to prepare additional spells based on our spell casting modifier (for a single class only).