Thought Experiment: Redesigning Spell Lists as Themes

[PhoenixPhyre]

In this thread I hope to spark discussion (civil please!) about the pros and cons of having spell lists set by the spell-casting class. I will also present an alternative and its WIP reference implementation. Commentary on the current situation as well as on possible alternatives is welcome, even if it's to tell me that the effort is quixotic and pointless. This is only a thought experiment and would need significant polishing before being play-tested.

Some pieces of this are in spoilers, because I'm rather long-winded. :smalltongue:

Pros:

Tradition: Thus it has ever been. There is value in keeping with traditions, as was learned the hard way with 4e.
Balance: This is often cited as to why Sorcerers don't have a greater spell-list--their other features would be OP if they had access to those spells. I'm sure it also applies to many other classes as well.
Simplicity: Makes answering the question "Can I cast that?" very easy.

Con:
There is no opportunity cost in spell choices (except for Sorcerers who don't have enough spells known). Optimized characters of class X tend to cast the same spells in the same ways, leading to poor character distinctions. Because spells are atomic in nature (as opposed to 3.5e's feat chains), someone who has never cast a transformation spell can pick up True Polymorph and be just as good as someone dedicated to that, which leads to cherry-picking.

For spells-known casters, choices matter strongly and one of two things is true: either they know enough spells that they all have access to all the "necessary" ones and some to spare or they have to spend all their spells known just getting the basics, leading to samey-samey builds (sorcerers, I'm looking at you).

For spells-prepared casters, choices don't really matter (unless the DM doesn't seed in spells to learn as a wizard). Clerics and Druids can always prepare something different tomorrow; wizards usually can as well. Paladins don't have very many spells to play with and fewer slots. This all leads to the Batman/Swiss-army knife style--a tool for every occasion (and thus causes balance issues with other classes).

Thematic Lists
What if instead of class-based lists, the lists were based around themes (character concepts)? That is, you would pick from a wider selection of more narrow lists and pull your spells from there, with classes setting the range of lists available as well as how you gain access to more lists. This of course requires substantial work--deciding what themes should be built in as well as allocating and balancing spells.

Reference Implementation
Note: I'm not wedded to any of the details here.

I went ahead and took a crack at that task. The full (WIP) breakdown can be found in this Google Doc (commenting enabled) (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AU6QqpZOSi8nrnBytp21wQmg3Ref2zI6Zu_pecVrKwE/edit?usp=sharing). The spell lists by theme and themes for each spell can be found in this Google Sheet. (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Of2RXwi0a3n0KWswQitrXjH6FHO_wCQk8zm6XWYRHxM/edit?usp=sharing)

Basically, I defined 30 themes ranging from elemental casters (air, fire, water, earth, and cold) to guardians, to holy warriors, to illusionists and mesmers as well as witches and seers. I then allocated all the 421 spells from the PHB, EE, and UA: Starter Spells between these themes (with substantial overlap).

Each class has access to a select variety of themes by default, as well as a way to choose spells from additional themes. When the character gains access to spell slots (1st for full casters, 2nd for half-casters, and 3rd for ⅓ casters), they pick a primary theme from the list provided for their class. Depending on the class, they either pick one or more secondary themes at that time or they pick one when they gain access to additional spells as provided by the classes. Some themes are prohibited to certain classes--they can never learn spells from this theme (without multi-classing) or use items such as scrolls to cast these spells unless the spell is also found in their chosen primary or secondary theme. Some themes are limited enough in selection that they only occur as secondary themes.

Primary themes: Illusionist, Mesmer
Secondary themes: Communications, Healer, Kineticist, Light-bringer, Spiritualist, Transmuter
Spells Known at 1st level: Choose 3 from your primary theme and one from any of your secondary themes.
Spells Known at higher levels: Choose from primary theme. If there are no choices at that spell level, choose one from a secondary theme. You may exchange one spell for another from the same theme.
Magical Secrets: Choose a spell from any non-prohibited theme.

Primary themes: Divine Warrior, Light-bringer, Spiritualist
Bonus Theme: Healer
Secondary themes (by domain):
Arcana: Seer, Planeswalker, Conjurer
Death: Conjurer, Necromancer, Shadow-dweller
Knowledge: Seer, Infernal, Planeswalker
Life: Guardian, Mesmer, Purifier
Light: Illusionist, Pyromancer, Purifier
Nature: Animalist, Conjurer, Guardian, Gardener
Storm: Aeromancer, Pyromancer, Conjurer
Trickery: Illusionist, Mesmer, Shadow-dweller
War: Guardian, Infernal, Purifier
At 1st level: Choose a primary theme and one of the secondary themes from your chosen domain. You always have access to the spells of the Healer theme.
Spells prepared: Choose cleric level + WIS mod spells to prepare from any combination of your primary and secondary themes. You can change these every day.

Primary themes: Animalist, Conjurer, Gardener, Geomancer, Spiritualist, Transmuter
Unrestricted secondary themes: Healer, Purifier
Circle themes:
Land--Arctic: Cryomancer
Land--Coast: Hydromancer
Land--Desert: Light-bringer
Land--Forest: Gardener
Land--Grassland: Illusionist
Land--Mountain: Geomancer
Land--Swamp: Witch
Moon: Guardian
Prohibited themes: Infernal, Necromancer
At 1st level: Choose a primary theme and one of the unrestricted secondary themes.
At 2nd level: you gain the secondary theme of your chosen circle.
Spells prepared: Choose druid level + WIS mod spells to prepare from any combination of your primary and secondary themes. You can change these every day.


Primary themes: Aeromancer, Cryomancer, Guardian, Pyromancer, Geomancer
Secondary themes: Anti-mage, Kineticist, Light-bringer, Mesmer, Transmuter, Transporter
Prohibited themes: Animalist, Gardener
At 3rd level: Choose a primary theme; you gain two cantrips and two 1st level spells from it. Your 3rd 1st level spell can come from any secondary theme.
Beyond 3rd level: All your spells come from your primary theme except those gained at 8th, 14th, and 20th level which can come from any of your secondary themes.

Primary themes: Aeromancer, Cryomancer, Geomancer, Hydromancer, Pyromancer
Prohibited themes: Infernal, Mesmer, Spiritualist
At 3rd level: You have access to all 5 primary themes. At 3rd, 7th, 13th, and 19th levels you gain access to 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th level spells (respectively). At each of those levels, choose two spells; you may also switch one known spell for a new spell when you increase in level. Casting spells costs ki points equal to the spell level (including upcasting).


Primary themes: Divine Warrior, Guardian, Light-bringer, Purifier
Secondary themes by Oath:
Devotion: Healer OR Spiritualist
Ancients: Animalist OR Gardener
Vengeance: Anti-mage OR Transporter
Oathbreaker: Necromancer OR Infernal
At 2nd level: Choose a primary theme.
At 3rd level: Gain one of the two secondary themes for your chosen Oath.
Spells Prepared: Choose ½ paladin level + CHA mod spells (minimum 1) to prepare from your primary and secondary themes. You can change these every day.


Primary themes: Animalist, Spiritualist, Transmuter
Secondary themes: Divine Warrior, Gardener, Geomancer, Healer, Shadow-dweller, Witch
Prohibited Themes: Infernal, Necromancer
At 2nd level: Choose a primary theme and gain two 1st level spells from it.
At higher levels: Whenever you gain access to a new spell level (5th, 9th, 13th, 17th), you can choose your new spell from your primary theme or any of the secondary themes for the class.


Primary themes: Illusionist, Mesmer
Secondary themes: Alchemist, Communications Mage, Kineticist, Pyromancer, Seer, Shadow-dweller, Temporalist, Transporter, Witch
At 3rd level: Choose a primary theme; you gain two cantrips and two 1st level spells from it. Your 3rd 1st level spell can come from any secondary theme.
Beyond 3rd level: All your spells come from your primary theme except those gained at 8th, 14th, and 20th level which can come from any of your secondary themes


Primary themes: Aeromancer, Cryomancer, Geomancer, Hydromancer, Kineticist, Pyromancer
Secondary themes: Special
Prohibited themes: Healer (except Favored Soul)
At 1st level: Choose a primary theme and gain 3 cantrips and 2 1st level spells from it. The 4th cantrip can come from any non-prohibited theme.
At higher levels: Choose your spells from your primary theme.
New ability (level 3): Spell Emulation: Your mastery of the magic in your blood allows you to mimic spells you’ve heard of. You may attempt to cast any spell from any non-prohibited theme, using the regular casting time, concentration, and components. The spell emulated must be at least one level lower than that of the highest spell slot you have. Once you use this feature, you must wait until after a short rest to use it again. At 13th level, you gain an extra use of this feature per short rest. Metamagic can be applied as normal.
Primary theme: Kineticist
Secondary themes by Patron:
Fiend: Infernal OR Planeswalker
Fey: Illusionist OR Shadow-dweller
Great Old One: Mesmer OR Void-walker
Celestial: Divine Warrior OR Guardian
Hexblade: Witch OR Guardian
Raven Queen: Spiritualist OR Witch
Seeker: Planeswalker OR Seer
Spells Known: Your primary theme is kineticist; choose one of the secondary themes granted by your patron. Choose your spells known from this list; you can trade out one per level.

Primary themes: Conjurer, Illusionist, Kineticist, Necromancer, Transmuter
Secondary themes: Any non-prohibited.
Prohibited themes: Animalist, Divine Warrior, Gardener, Healer, Purifier
Spells at 1st level and above: Choose a primary and a secondary theme. Your 2 free spells per level (as well as those at 1st level) come from these themes. You can scribe any spell you find from a non-prohibited list into your spellbook, paying the usual costs in gold and time.

[Naanomi]

Eh... it is a power boost to casters, to be sure... cherry pick the best spells and all that. Especially a wizard, who could just write everything down and have it all in the long run. I'm not sure casters need the boost... are martial characters also getting options from all of the martial classes?

There are also a few direct power issues to consider; mostly around warlock casting (animate dead gets silly on a short rest timer)... maybe some other Spell interactions as well, though nothing springs to mind

Ultimately, if you were going this route; I would make a custom 'spell-caster' class... no need for so many types when their main distinguishing feature is abolished

Also; you don't have anything listed for SCAG undying patron warlocks; or crown paladins

[Haldir]

Bad idea. As I had to explain calmly in a thread on Swordmages, spell lists are hand massaged in this system to be balanced with other class features. Handing a bunch of awesome wizard spells to a class with good weapon and armor proficiencies will seriously counteract game design.

[Eric Diaz]

IMNSHO casters have too many options as it is... I like your idea in principle, but not for 5e.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Eh... it is a power boost to casters, to be sure... cherry pick the best spells and all that. Especially a wizard, who could just write everything down and have it all in the long run. I'm not sure casters need the boost... are martial characters also getting options from all of the martial classes?

There are also a few direct power issues to consider; mostly around warlock casting (animate dead gets silly on a short rest timer)... maybe some other Spell interactions as well, though nothing springs to mind

Ultimately, if you were going this route; I would make a custom 'spell-caster' class... no need for so many types when their main distinguishing feature is abolished

Also; you don't have anything listed for SCAG undying patron warlocks; or crown paladins

Did you look at the lists? They're much narrower than the current ones. For example, there's no way to get both Simulacrum and Wish on the same wizard without multi-classing. As for the SCAG subclasses--I don't own that book so I left them out (along with the SCAG spells).

The classes are distinguished by their features--having a particular spell list isn't a main feature for me (although I understand others may disagree). It's one of the things I hated about 3.5--wizards basically had no class features other than ALL THE SPELLS, which made them strongly resistant to balancing since that's where all their power came from. Why should all wizards be the same anyway? Or all clerics? Or certainly all bards and sorcerers (who should be the least similar to one another)?


Bad idea. As I had to explain calmly in a thread on Swordmages, spell lists are hand massaged in this system to be balanced with other class features. Handing a bunch of awesome wizard spells to a class with good weapon and armor proficiencies will seriously counteract game design.

So you lean heavily toward the balance aspect of the current lists. I acknowledge that it's that way in principle, but surely that's not the only concern. Are there spells of particular concern? I'm not wedded to any of the current lists as they are.


IMNSHO casters have too many options as it is... I like your idea in principle, but not for 5e.

Unless I'm missing something tremendous, the reference implementation would narrow the options for most casters (Sorcerers are kind of an exception, but they need more options it seems). You'd have to pick a theme and stick with it, instead of cherry-picking from a huge range.

[Eric Diaz]

Unless I'm missing something tremendous, the reference implementation would narrow the options for most casters (Sorcerers are kind of an exception, but they need more options it seems). You'd have to pick a theme and stick with it, instead of cherry-picking from a huge range.

Hadn't seem the spoiler part, my bad. Yeah, that might work.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hadn't seem the spoiler part, my bad. Yeah, that might work.

Yeah, I took the "no limits" approach as an example of what not to do.

[Naanomi]

As for the SCAG subclasses--I don't own that book so I left them out (along with the SCAG spells).
... you did Arcana Cleric

[PhoenixPhyre]

... you did Arcana Cleric

Yeah, that one I happened to remember about, although I couldn't remember where it came from (I thought it was UA for some strange reason). If I knew more about the other ones, I'd add them as well. :shrug: Care to suggest anything for them? What are they good at or what does their fluff point toward?

As I said, I'm not particularly wedded to any of the implementation details here. I'm more interested in seeing if this idea can be made useful without serious surgery--I'd fully accept "no" as an answer with appropriate reasoning or evidence.

[Naanomi]

Crown is tanking focused in Spell-list and abilities; but also some 'command person' and team healing/buffing type stuff as well. The fluff is about serving one ruler unconditionally (think... classic cinematic samurai 'loyalty to death')

Undying patron has death related/necrotic damage spells (but not animate dead, because it is broken with warlock casting) and mostly undeath/durability related abilities. Fluff is about getting along with Undead, becoming more like an Undead creature, and generally cheating death as much as possible

[gloryblaze]

From what I can see of your WIP, it is impossible for Rangers to learn any of:

>Conjure Barrage
>Conjure Volley
>Lightning Arrow

without multiclassing. Maybe it's just me, but that seems like a pretty major problem. These three spells are all Ranger-exclusive* in D&D 5E, along with Hunter's Mark, Hail of Thorns, Ensnaring Strike, Cordon of Arrows, and Swift Quiver. In fact, I would say that they are iconic to what the ranger is and what it represents. I would probably either add all of these spells (including HM, HoT, ES, CoA, and SQ) to the "Divine Warrior" theme (who says divine warriors can't be archers?) or else create a new theme including them and some other quintessential ranger goodies (pass without trace, goodberry, etc) and create a "primeval wanderer" theme to be one of the primary themes for Ranger, and maybe give it to druids and OotA pallys as a secondary.

*as in, the only spell list they appear on is the Ranger list - some subclasses yoink them, i.e. Vengeance pally with hunter's mark

[8wGremlin]

It is an interesting and well thought out concept - I would be very interested in it getting some decent play testing.

You have put a lot of thought into your area, and spell selection.

Well done.

edit: I would like to see the Sorcerer's Primary themes; be pick any 4 themes. (as an experiment)

[PhoenixPhyre]

From what I can see of your WIP, it is impossible for Rangers to learn any of:

>Conjure Barrage
>Conjure Volley
>Lightning Arrow

without multiclassing. Maybe it's just me, but that seems like a pretty major problem. These three spells are all Ranger-exclusive* in D&D 5E, along with Hunter's Mark, Hail of Thorns, Ensnaring Strike, Cordon of Arrows, and Swift Quiver. In fact, I would say that they are iconic to what the ranger is and what it represents. I would probably either add all of these spells (including HM, HoT, ES, CoA, and SQ) to the "Divine Warrior" theme (who says divine warriors can't be archers?) or else create a new theme including them and some other quintessential ranger goodies (pass without trace, goodberry, etc) and create a "primeval wanderer" theme to be one of the primary themes for Ranger, and maybe give it to druids and OotA pallys as a secondary.

*as in, the only spell list they appear on is the Ranger list - some subclasses yoink them, i.e. Vengeance pally with hunter's mark

Ah thanks. I don't usually play with many rangers, so I tend to forget their iconic abilities. I'll consider the suggestions--I'm leaning toward a new theme for them. Some of the themes are too narrow and could probably go away as well.

[8wGremlin]

Also many Warlock spells are not in the Kineticist list.

I would look and check to see that the classic spells of each class is available.
(this is classic User Experience Card sort, get some more people involved to break up the spells lists)

but you've done a great start.

[Toadkiller]

Look at Fantasy Hero (Champions system, at least the old one). You could make any “spell” you could dream up, but it all cost you. Maybe not that exact system but something like it would be needed. You “pay” for each damage die and also for control or utility effects. It feels, without doing be math, that a tremendous amount of math is needed to balance it.

It may be easier to get what you want via playing with multiclassing and, perhaps, a second selection Of the MI feat gives you a higher level spell, or maybe a higher level one and one more first level. Probably no more cantrips.

[Sorlock Master]

This would annihilate the balance of the game. No.

[90sMusic]

I'm on the fence with something like this.

On the one hand, I think it's rather silly to have spell lists in general because I mean, why can a wizard who dedicates their entire life to studying arcane secrets not learn Cure Wounds but a bard who also uses arcane magic somehow can? Or why do some classes have different bonus spells assigned to them like paladin oaths? Why couldn't a devotion paladin learn haste for example if it is available to vengeance? It doesn't really make much logical sense, especially if they serve the same god, are part of the same order, and so on. It's just silly honestly.

On the other hand... I worry that if you allowed this, you would end up with all casters being the same. They'd all take the same handful of "best spells" regardless of class just because they are useful to anybody. Why wouldn't you pickup cure wounds or healing word as all classes just to be able to pop up a downed ally? Why wouldn't everyone take fireball or lightning bolt to have an AOE option?

Then you have added complications with ranger and paladin spells because they were designed to be used exclusively by those classes with slower spell progression. Some DM's already have baby attitude fits when a lore bard picks up one of these spells from the paladin or ranger list.

In order to have something like this work you'd need to do a total rework of the spell system. You'd need a way to balance out the class-specific spells that are always more powerful than other kinds, you'd need a lot more spell options available to keep every caster from having the almost exact same playstyle, and so on.

I wouldn't do something like this unless I was going to put a lot of real work into making it functional OR if it was a game with only one spellcaster. I could see giving them the option to take any spells since they are the only ones casting, they wouldn't be stepping on anyone else's toes and could provide all the healing, utility, or damage they wanted to focus on. They wouldn't have enough spells known to do it all.

[Cynthaer]

PhoenixPhyre, I think you're doing yourself a disservice by titling the thread "Abolishing [...] Spell Lists" and hiding your deep, effort-intensive proposal down in a spoiler tucked under a secondary proposal. As a result, everybody seems to be under the impression that you're mostly trying to justify removing all restrictions, and not seeing your actual new system.

Since you're working only with existing spells, we'll set aside the obvious fact that many of the themed lists are vastly over- or under-filled. That's a detail that can be solved by removing spells from overstuffed lists, recombining the smaller lists out of existence, and/or homebrewing spells to fill in for anything that needs it (poor Alchemist :smallfrown:).

From a purely structural perspective, I really like the idea. In theory, combining spells into this sort of vertical package can give otherwise underappreciated spells new life. You can't just take the best spell for that spell level; you're further limited by the lists you've chosen. Previously suboptimal choices become optimal within the new restrictions.

That said, I see a few structural problems that you'd need to solve to make this truly workable.

1. Elemental themes are limiting.

I know why so many of the themes are based around elements -- it's thematic, evocative, and intuitive. But in terms of gameplay, it can feel terribly redundant. It's generally good strategy to keep a few options on hand in your spell list, because damage type resistances could show up anywhere. If your Pyromancer Sorcerer is up against something immune to fire damage...well, I guess she's flinging daggers for the rest of the fight.

Additionally, this can end up undoing some of the thematic list-based restrictions the original designers put in -- in the form of class lists. Any given class probably has a couple of spells with different damage types to choose from at any given level, but here anybody with the Pyromancer list gets to choose between Burning Hands, Flaming Sphere, and Scorching Ray for their damage. It's not terribly exciting.

(I'm afraid it's getting late and I have to go to bed, but I'm going to post this now and expand on some more points later. Cheers. :smallsmile:)

[moveable feats]

PhoenixPhyre, I think you're doing yourself a disservice by titling the thread "Abolishing [...] Spell Lists" and hiding your deep, effort-intensive proposal down in a spoiler tucked under a secondary proposal. As a result, everybody seems to be under the impression that you're mostly trying to justify removing all restrictions, and not seeing your actual new system.

Agreed. Very impressive. But implementing it would seem to redesign the entire (spell-casting) class system. Not necessarily a bad thing but maybe more of an overhaul than you're going for. Still very cool.

[PhoenixPhyre]

PhoenixPhyre, I think you're doing yourself a disservice by titling the thread "Abolishing [...] Spell Lists" and hiding your deep, effort-intensive proposal down in a spoiler tucked under a secondary proposal. As a result, everybody seems to be under the impression that you're mostly trying to justify removing all restrictions, and not seeing your actual new system.


Agreed. Edited OP to fix that and bring the implementation out of spoilers.



Since you're working only with existing spells, we'll set aside the obvious fact that many of the themed lists are vastly over- or under-filled. That's a detail that can be solved by removing spells from overstuffed lists, recombining the smaller lists out of existence, and/or homebrewing spells to fill in for anything that needs it (poor Alchemist :smallfrown:).


Yeah, that's a problem I've noticed. I don't mind that not all themes are identical--I see some themes as primary themes and others as secondary. For example, that Alchemist is only available as a secondary theme to AT and wizards, both of whom are not restricted to it. Void-walker is only available as a secondary to warlocks. That is, they're an additional set of spells, not a primary restriction.



From a purely structural perspective, I really like the idea. In theory, combining spells into this sort of vertical package can give otherwise underappreciated spells new life. You can't just take the best spell for that spell level; you're further limited by the lists you've chosen. Previously suboptimal choices become optimal within the new restrictions.


Thanks! That was my big point with all of this.



That said, I see a few structural problems that you'd need to solve to make this truly workable.

1. Elemental themes are limiting.

I know why so many of the themes are based around elements -- it's thematic, evocative, and intuitive. But in terms of gameplay, it can feel terribly redundant. It's generally good strategy to keep a few options on hand in your spell list, because damage type resistances could show up anywhere. If your Pyromancer Sorcerer is up against something immune to fire damage...well, I guess she's flinging daggers for the rest of the fight.

Additionally, this can end up undoing some of the thematic list-based restrictions the original designers put in -- in the form of class lists. Any given class probably has a couple of spells with different damage types to choose from at any given level, but here anybody with the Pyromancer list gets to choose between Burning Hands, Flaming Sphere, and Scorching Ray for their damage. It's not terribly exciting.


That (Pyromancer Sorcerer) is basically the worst case. All the other elemental types have multiple damage types, and all other classes have more access to other lists. I'm of two minds here--in my own games I'd probably solve that by upgrading the Draconic sorcerer thing to full elemental adept (ignore resistance, convert immunity to resistance). On the other hand I can see the problem. If you have suggestions for how to deal with this particular case, I'm all ears.


Agreed. Very impressive. But implementing it would seem to redesign the entire (spell-casting) class system. Not necessarily a bad thing but maybe more of an overhaul than you're going for. Still very cool.

It's actually kind of amazing how easily it worked once I had the basic idea. The core of the slot-based design doesn't have to change, just what spells they have access to. I'm also very open to suggestions as to new themes, how to shift spells around, or how to assign themes to classes.

[lunaticfringe]

Yeah I'm all for customizing spell lists to fit a theme. I don't know about making an 'official theme list'. Doesn't that lead back to the original problem? Character X wants Spell X. I think I'll stick to a case by case basis. An interesting idea though.

[Mjolnirbear]

Regarding the class-only spells, the solution is easy: create a theme unique to each class that has those spells, and only that class gets that theme.

Paladin smite spells and Find Steed;
Ranger archery spells;
Warlock spells; (note: most unique warlock spells have a GOO flavour, but the other patrons don't really get unique spells, and this should be addressed)

Fey spells should be a theme. They shouldn't be stuck in Nature, because they're unique.



In essence, it's like you're redefining schools. Gust of Wind isn't evocation, it's Air. Misty Step is a Fey spell. Fireball is a Fire spell.

You may also want a Universal one if you haven't already (I'm only looking at the thread at the moment); some spells are just too widespread to cram into only one theme, like Identify and Detect Magic and Counterspell.

Edit: this is, however, going to cause issues with refluffing spells, I think, because you're kind of defining the fluff. And it won't fix issues like Acid Dragon Sorcerers vs Fire Dragon Sorcerers.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Regarding the class-only spells, the solution is easy: create a theme unique to each class that has those spells, and only that class gets that theme.

Paladin smite spells and Find Steed;
Ranger archery spells;
Warlock spells; (note: most unique warlock spells have a GOO flavour, but the other patrons don't really get unique spells, and this should be addressed)

Fey spells should be a theme. They shouldn't be stuck in Nature, because they're unique.



In essence, it's like you're redefining schools. Gust of Wind isn't evocation, it's Air. Misty Step is a Fey spell. Fireball is a Fire spell.

You may also want a Universal one if you haven't already (I'm only looking at the thread at the moment); some spells are just too widespread to cram into only one theme, like Identify and Detect Magic and Counterspell.

Edit: this is, however, going to cause issues with refluffing spells, I think, because you're kind of defining the fluff. And it won't fix issues like Acid Dragon Sorcerers vs Fire Dragon Sorcerers.

One of the major goals is that there are no class-exclusive spells. A couple small themes are only available to one class directly, but others have access as class features. All spells are shared between at least two themes, most are in three or more themes. Those themes (of which I'm currently at 30+) are narrower than schools. This allows variety, but restricts breadth.

[Mjolnirbear]

Having taken a quick look, Spare the Dying is far more a Healer spell than Mending. Many I might quibble or disagree with but that one seemed egregious.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Having taken a quick look, Spare the Dying is far more a Healer spell than Mending. Many I might quibble or disagree with but that one seemed egregious.

Probably true. I'll fix that.

Consider the list a first draft and please feel free to state ones you disagree with (and why). I'm sure there are many that are improperly categorized.

[Mjolnirbear]

One of the major goals is that there are no class-exclusive spells. A couple small themes are only available to one class directly, but others have access as class features. All spells are shared between at least two themes, most are in three or more themes. Those themes (of which I'm currently at 30+) are narrower than schools. This allows variety, but restricts breadth.


So you want, say, wizards like bladesingers to have smite spells? Bonus action spellcasting is largely limited to half-casters currently. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about that. It seems a bit powerful to give to a full caster, or to an Eldritch knight for instance.

[Easy_Lee]

Having a particular spell list is a defining feature for casters. All spells of a given level should be equally useful, but it isn't the case because they all do different things. Furthermore, having the largest spell list is the defining wizard characteristic. They are their spells.

If all casters could pick any spell they wanted, sorcerers would be the best casters because they would be the most specialized. A cleric could not compete with a sorcerer who could twin healing word or raise dead. An evoker wizard could not compete with a sorcerer who could cast Empowered Subtle versions of all of the same spells - as is, the evoker's chief advantage is his spell list. And so on.

Spells ought to be more specialized by class, not less. The only reason they aren't is because of sacred cow wizards.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Having a particular spell list is a defining feature for casters. All spells of a given level should be equally useful, but it isn't the case because they all do different things. Furthermore, having the largest spell list is the defining wizard characteristic. They are their spells.

If all casters could pick any spell they wanted, sorcerers would be the best casters because they would be the most specialized. A cleric could not compete with a sorcerer who could twin healing word or raise dead. An evoker wizard could not compete with a sorcerer who could cast Empowered Subtle versions of all of the same spells - as is, the evoker's chief advantage is his spell list. And so on.

Spells ought to be more specialized by class, not less. The only reason they aren't is because of sacred cow wizards.

You didn't read the proposal, did you? I find "spell let as class feature" to be a problem, not a good thing. It leads to cookie cutter "optimal" lists and makes wizards all identical.

Under the proposed system, wizards still have the widest access since they can scribe spells from outside their theme. But they have to specialize for their "free" spells. Sorcerers have a much more narrow direct selection, but can emulate any spell (of the appropriate level) once per rest. And so on. That is, your class sets how you access spells (spell slots, spells known/prepared) as well as setting the outside boundaries of available themes and access to spells outside the theme.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So you want, say, wizards like bladesingers to have smite spells? Bonus action spellcasting is largely limited to half-casters currently. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about that. It seems a bit powerful to give to a full caster, or to an Eldritch knight for instance.

Edited: added ones that EKs can get that wizards can't.

For reference, here are the wizard/EK-available smite spells:

* Edit: blinding smite: Light-bringer (EK but not wizard, but available through secondary themes)
* Edit: branding smite: Light-bringer (EK but not wizard, but available through secondary themes)
* banishing smite: planeswalker (a quite limited secondary-only theme, not EK available).
* searing smite: Pyromancer (basically all the fire damage spells, but a sub-par spell)
* thunderous smite: Aeromancer
* wrathful smite: Guardian, Mesmer (Mesmer needs un-stuffing I'll admit)
* Edit: Staggering smite: Guardian (EK primary theme, not available to wizards)

So of the 7, two five are available to EKs and 4 are available to wizards if they choose the right theme. Blinding and branding require using one of the free choices at level 14 or 20 to get. They are also all concentration, bonus action spells (meaning only a cantrip/attack and breaking concentration on whatever else you're casting). I'm not too worried about these ones in particular.

[Easy_Lee]

You didn't read the proposal, did you? I find "spell let as class feature" to be a problem, not a good thing. It leads to cookie cutter "optimal" lists and makes wizards all identical.


I did read the OP. The problem with your proposal is that spell lists are class features.

Spell lists are sets of abilities you can choose from and use a limited number of times per day. When phrased in that manner, they sound like class features. And that's what they are.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I did read the OP. The problem with your proposal is that spell lists are class features.

Spell lists are sets of abilities you can choose from and use a limited number of times per day. When phrased in that manner, they sound like class features. And that's what they are.

And I find that to be one of the flaws of D&D generally. As a pathological case, it led to the 3.5e wizard who simultaneously had mostly blank levels and massive power and versatility--it acts as a freely changeable class feature that cements spell casters as better than martials. Martials have to trade ASIs for feats that they can't change out later, while casters get floating features that are better than feats in many cases.

My proposal doesn't fix that entirely, but it does limit the cherry-picking and cookie cutter optimization while promoting picking spells with reference to the character concept, not maximum theoretical power.

[GorinichSerpant]

One of the major goals is that there are no class-exclusive spells. A couple small themes are only available to one class directly, but others have access as class features. All spells are shared between at least two themes, most are in three or more themes. Those themes (of which I'm currently at 30+) are narrower than schools. This allows variety, but restricts breadth.

So, should the spells that have been designed to be class features of a certain class be converted from spells into class features in this new system?

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, should the spells that have been designed to be class features of a certain class be converted from spells into class features in this new system?

I would not have a problem (pending implementation) with that. I'm a fan of balancing things through class features.

What spells are you thinking of in particular? Find steed, Eldritch blast, and ??. I know that warlocks all get access to Eldritch blast through the kineticist theme, but would have to check on find steed.

[bronzemountain]

Love the thinking here. I'm not sure I would use it, as is, but this is after all a thought exercise and is thus a worthy effort.

On the topic of spell lists as class features, I 100% agree with the OP. This design philosophy is why Wizards are simultaneously bland and powerful - the absolute worst combination of things in a game.