Spell Lists (Basic Rules/Starter Set Info)

[SpawnOfMorbo]

So the 4th level wizard spell title isn't bolded but here is this...

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140630

The cleric has a smaller list than the wizard, I'm guessing that the domain spells will make io with the difference.

Astral Projection is a cleric spell, not a wizard spell...

Wizards also don't get silence, sort of weird.


Any other thoughts?

[pwykersotz]

I notice that the Summon Monster line is missing. That interested me.

[Millennium]

The wording seems to indicate that Wizards considers Basic to be a subset of the PHB, rather than considering the PHB to be a superset of Basic. That has implications for what "core" is. I admit that it also gives me some concerns on just how playable Basic will be: it could well be Wizards' honest intent that Basic be playable, but it's much easier and safer to build things onto a small system than it is to cut things out of a large system.

It also means that I'm not sure we can count on these being the complete spell lists in core. For example, it wouldn't make sense for the cleric spell list to include spells that are unavailable to clerics using the Life domain. Likewise, the mage spell list probably omits spells that are unavailable to a mage using the School of Evocation tradition. Notably, animate dead is not on either list, even though it is a vital spell for both necromancers and Death-domain clerics. But it's also not needed for the character types as presented here.

That said, I'm not sure I hold with omitting them. Fighting monsters is a staple of heroic fantasy storytelling, but so is fighting people. At the very least, Basic should include things that would let the DM stat out a necromancer for the party to fight, and necromantic spells are an important part of that.

(Of note, I couldn't help noticing that the "essential" mage is what 3e would call an Evoker. Does this mean that all mages are specialists?)

[Doug Lampert]

Wizards also don't get silence, sort of weird.

How is this weird? It's just the usual legacy stuff. Silence in 3.0 and 3.5 is a bard/cleric spell.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I notice that the Summon Monster line is missing. That interested me.

I'm so glad about that, the Warlock will be very special.



(Of note, I couldn't help noticing that the "essential" mage is what 3e would call an Evoker. Does this mean that all mages are specialists?)

I hope so! The best way to balance 3.5 was to run the set list casters (Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Warmage) instead of Wizard/Cleric/Druid and such. It also makes you special, special is good in a heroic fantasy game.


How is this weird? It's just the usual legacy stuff. Silence in 3.0 and 3.5 is a bard/cleric spell.

Huh, I was thinking it was a Cleric/Wizard Spell.

[da_chicken]

(Of note, I couldn't help noticing that the "essential" mage is what 3e would call an Evoker. Does this mean that all mages are specialists?)

The final playtest implied that. You're required to pick a class path (well, I suppose you don't have to, but you don't get anything if you don't). The three paths presented in the final playtest were Evoker, Illusionist, and Enchanter.

[obryn]

The wording seems to indicate that Wizards considers Basic to be a subset of the PHB, rather than considering the PHB to be a superset of Basic. That has implications for what "core" is. I admit that it also gives me some concerns on just how playable Basic will be: it could well be Wizards' honest intent that Basic be playable, but it's much easier and safer to build things onto a small system than it is to cut things out of a large system.

It also means that I'm not sure we can count on these being the complete spell lists in core. For example, it wouldn't make sense for the cleric spell list to include spells that are unavailable to clerics using the Life domain. Likewise, the mage spell list probably omits spells that are unavailable to a mage using the School of Evocation tradition. Notably, animate dead is not on either list, even though it is a vital spell for both necromancers and Death-domain clerics. But it's also not needed for the character types as presented here.

That said, I'm not sure I hold with omitting them. Fighting monsters is a staple of heroic fantasy storytelling, but so is fighting people. At the very least, Basic should include things that would let the DM stat out a necromancer for the party to fight, and necromantic spells are an important part of that.
Basic is a stripped-down version of the PHB. I expect a lot of these will, indeed, be in the PHB. It still looks totally playable to me, though you'll certainly want to look at getting the PHB past level 5 or so.


(Of note, I couldn't help noticing that the "essential" mage is what 3e would call an Evoker. Does this mean that all mages are specialists?)
Sorta? There's no school limitations - so Evokers don't lose out on Conjuration or something. It's a collection of perks for specific kinds of spells, or at least it was in the playtest.

At one point, there was a generalist, too, who may reappear in the PHB.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Basic is a stripped-down version of the PHB. I expect a lot of these will, indeed, be in the PHB. It still looks totally playable to me, though you'll certainly want to look at getting the PHB past level 5 or so.


Sorta? There's no school limitations - so Evokers don't lose out on Conjuration or something. It's a collection of perks for specific kinds of spells, or at least it was in the playtest.

At one point, there was a generalist, too, who may reappear in the PHB.

I'm hoping there will be a rule in basic that either allows the player to Barr X number of schools or the book with do it doe them.

If not then I guess each DM could.

But this is mostly determined if the spells are unbalanced against the rest of the game or not.

[da_chicken]

At one point, there was a generalist, too, who may reappear in the PHB.

If it's not in the PHB, then it'll be in the splat books to come. Class paths seem like an obvious choice for supplemental material.