What if... Spell List access

[8wGremlin]

Thought Experiment with discussion.

What if any caster could pick what list they wanted to cast spells from.
A Wizard picking Paladin spell list.
A Paladin picking Bard spell list.
A Druid picking Sorcerer spell list.
An Eldritch Knight picking Druid spells.
An Arcane Trickster picking Ranger spells.

Yes some fo these lists would have to be expanded.
Yes some of the restrictions on school for EKs and ATs might need to be changed.

Thoughts, pro's and con's

[MoiMagnus]

Thought Experiment with discussion.

What if any caster could pick what list they wanted to cast spells from.
A Wizard picking Paladin spell list.
A Paladin picking Bard spell list.
A Druid picking Sorcerer spell list.
An Eldritch Knight picking Druid spells.
An Arcane Trickster picking Ranger spells.

Yes some fo these lists would have to be expanded.
Yes some of the restrictions on school for EKs and ATs might need to be changed.

Thoughts, pro's and con's

Spells exclusive to a slow-progression spell-caster tend to be pretty good. (e.g. Destructive Wave from Paladin in quite brutal as a 5th level spell).
So I think a Priest with Paladin spell list or Ranger Spell list would be quite brutal, if you extend the list with some cantrips because they don't have any. Sure, you might want to multi-class past level 11 because there is no high level spells, but that's not really problematic.

And if the school restriction for EKs are changed to be divination & transmutation, I absolutely want to play and EKs with the Ranger spell list [extended with cantrips], and rely on Hunter's mark at the beginning, and latter on the arrow spells.

[Kyutaru]

Thought Experiment with discussion.

What if any caster could pick what list they wanted to cast spells from.
A Wizard picking Paladin spell list.
A Paladin picking Bard spell list.
A Druid picking Sorcerer spell list.
An Eldritch Knight picking Druid spells.
An Arcane Trickster picking Ranger spells.

Yes some fo these lists would have to be expanded.
Yes some of the restrictions on school for EKs and ATs might need to be changed.

Thoughts, pro's and con's

So I've got a joke that goes with this....

A Lightbringer, Song Knight, Bog Witch, Beastlord, and Robin Hood walk into a topic...

Use whatever you want, all that changes is the flavor.

[Wizard_Lizard]

but.... What about the warlocks? now everyone can eldritch blast.....

[BloodSnake'sCha]

but.... What about the warlocks? now everyone can eldritch blast.....

The difference between 2d10 and 1d10+1d10 it that the first is all or nan and the second is all, half or nan.(fire bolt vs eldritch blast).

You need to be a warlock to get it higher.




And to the OP:
The Bard special is the spell stealing on level 10 ect'(paladin and ranger super LV5 spells).

Give the bard something else or play a no bard game.
Make sure you also give the ranger and paladin something or ban them to(or make sure everyone is a ranger/paladin).

[Wizard_Lizard]

[QUOTE=BloodSnake'sCha;24020747]The difference between 2d10 and 1d10+1d10 it that the first is all or nan and the second is all, half or nan.(fire bolt vs eldritch blast).

You need to be a warlock to get it higher.



ok, thanks...

[MrStabby]

So I could be a sorcerer, with all their advantages but with the wizard spell list? A bit much maybe?

A valor bard with spirit guardians and holy weapon and still two magical secrets free?

[Man_Over_Game]

I believe each list is catered to each class, in order to ensure that none of them stand out more than the others.

The Cleric chassis, for example, has a ton of benefits, from a Short Rest power, to martial/armor proficiencies, and full casting. They have a LOT. The reason they're acceptable despite that is because they're so limited in how selfish they can actually be. There are only about 2 or so spells a Cleric can pick to be selfish. Most of the rest of their spells are focused on making others succeed or stand out, in order to ensure that they don't stand out themselves. Or, put another way, you can make someone as unbalanced as you want, so long as they can't help themselves (See: Bards). Adding non-spell features means they're more sustainable, but that's not a balance problem when that sustain can only be used to make others better. You'll note that there are exactly 2 spells that people use to make the Cleric selfish, and everyone knows them by heart: Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians. WotC anticipated the fact that people are naturally selfish, and so made Clerics be very limited (still doesn't keep people from not picking those spells, though).



On the flipside, classes that are able to steal a lot of the spotlight with their spells (Sorcerers, Wizards) lack a lot of benefits to their chassis, having no armor, few proficiencies, and a 1d6 hit die.

Or, put another way, the more selfish the spell list, the weaker the chassis. The more supportive the spell list, the more powerful the chassis.

You'll note that the Paladin, who naturally has a combat-oriented chassis, has a ton of spells that don't provide much in combat, yet the Ranger (with plenty of RP-related features that don't do much in combat) is filled to the brim with a plethora of combat spells that are very easy to use.

I don't think this is all a coincidence, and is worth minding whenever you consider swapping around spell lists. People are naturally selfish, so consider what that means when making changes. The first thing that this would be infamous for would be "My awesome, high AC Tempest Cleric-Wizard destroyer build!"

[MrStabby]

I believe each list is catered to each class, in order to ensure that none of them stand out more than the others.

The Cleric chassis, for example, has a ton of benefits, from a Short Rest power, to martial/armor proficiencies, and full casting. They have a LOT. The reason they're acceptable despite that is because they're so limited in how selfish they can actually be. There are only about 2 or so spells a Cleric can pick to be selfish. Most of the rest of their spells are focused on making others succeed or stand out, in order to ensure that they don't stand out themselves. Or, put another way, you can make someone as unbalanced as you want, so long as they can't help themselves (See: Bards). Adding non-spell features means they're more sustainable, but that's not a balance problem when that sustain can only be used to make others better. You'll note that there are exactly 2 spells that people use to make the Cleric selfish, and everyone knows them by heart: Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians. WotC anticipated the fact that people are naturally selfish, and so made Clerics be very limited (still doesn't keep people from not picking those spells, though).



On the flipside, classes that are able to steal a lot of the spotlight with their spells (Sorcerers, Wizards) lack a lot of benefits to their chassis, having no armor, few proficiencies, and a 1d6 hit die.

Or, put another way, the more selfish the spell list, the weaker the chassis. The more supportive the spell list, the more powerful the chassis.

You'll note that the Paladin, who naturally has a combat-oriented chassis, has a ton of spells that don't provide much in combat, yet the Ranger (with plenty of RP-related features that don't do much in combat) is filled to the brim with a plethora of combat spells that are very easy to use.

I don't think this is all a coincidence, and is worth minding whenever you consider swapping around spell lists. People are naturally selfish, so consider what that means when making changes. The first thing that this would be infamous for would be "My awesome, high AC Tempest Cleric-Wizard destroyer build!"

I think much of this is coincidence. I also think that you forget the spells clerics have to be awesome. Hold person and banishment spring to mind immediately. If it were intended as a principal then I would expect to see it echoed in the domain spell lists and to not see spells like fireball on there. I think it is more that the image of a cleric doesn't entail blasting much of the time - it isn't about selfishness.

Then the comparison between ranger and paladin - I put this down to one of these being designed when the team was hungover. It isn't like the paladin doesn't get RP features; I have seen more use out of detect good and evil than natural explorer. Paladin isn't short on combat spells either - a whole series of smites, destructive wave, banishment, holy weapon, elemental weapon AND all of their oath spells which can include some like hunters mark and ensnaring strike.


Sustainability not being a problem works for so many classes though. Sure you can call a cleric selfless and say that is why they get channel divinities and solid attacks, because they make others awesome. But what about valor bards being awesome by themselves already (if you take those spells) but gain sustainability through extra attacks? Or are moon druids also selfless, so they can be more sustainable through combat wildshape? Maybe wizards and land druids are selfless as well, so they get bonus sustainability though arcane/natural recovery? Most casters get a way to be sustainable, those that don't are the exception.

I think you are over interpreting this.

[Fable Wright]

My sorcerer casts Twin Magic Jar.

Land circles and cleric domains that had granted in-list spells auto prepared become staggeringly good.

My Warlock cats Animate Dead, Polymorph, and Wall of Force on a short rest.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think much of this is coincidence. I also think that you forget the spells clerics have to be awesome. Hold person and banishment spring to mind immediately. If it were intended as a principal then I would expect to see it echoed in the domain spell lists and to not see spells like fireball on there. I think it is more that the image of a cleric doesn't entail blasting much of the time - it isn't about selfishness.

Then the comparison between ranger and paladin - I put this down to one of these being designed when the team was hungover. It isn't like the paladin doesn't get RP features; I have seen more use out of detect good and evil than natural explorer. Paladin isn't short on combat spells either - a whole series of smites, destructive wave, banishment, holy weapon, elemental weapon AND all of their oath spells which can include some like hunters mark and ensnaring strike.


Sustainability not being a problem works for so many classes though. Sure you can call a cleric selfless and say that is why they get channel divinities and solid attacks, because they make others awesome. But what about valor bards being awesome by themselves already (if you take those spells) but gain sustainability through extra attacks? Or are moon druids also selfless, so they can be more sustainable through combat wildshape? Maybe wizards and land druids are selfless as well, so they get bonus sustainability though arcane/natural recovery? Most casters get a way to be sustainable, those that don't are the exception.

I think you are over interpreting this.

I think most of those are exceptions, stemming from specific subclasses, usually. I think the subclasses were designed around shifting a playstyle towards a specific goal.

Is your Wizard a bit too damage focused for what you want? Divination or Abjuration can add some of the support you'd need. Cleric a bit too supportive? Consider the War, Tempest or Light Clerics. Whether you want to be the hero or the support, Moon or Dreams Druids got you covered.

The chassis sets the trend, and the subclass shifts that trend towards something a bit more specific. An Ancestral Guardian will never be more supportive than the most damage-oriented Cleric.

The problem with what you're bringing up is that you're comparing subclasses against outside classes, and that's not exactly a fair comparison. A Moon Druid seems selfish...until you realize it's the only selfish Druid subclass you can pick, meaning Druids, overall, aren't a selfish class. Similarly, only one of the Sorcerer and Warlock subclasses provide support benefits. The exceptions are there to increase diversity, but they should also be considered exceptions to the trends.

[Fable Wright]

Wait. Tempest Cleric with Wizard list was mentioned. That is staggeringly horrifying.

"My evoker traded his ability to exclude allies from AoEs in exchange for his capstone, 12 levels early and on a short rest recharge and affecting spells above fifth level, and heavy armor proficiency, and his spellbook has ALL Wizard spells, and his miracle from his level 10 ability can replicate Wish and Meteor Swarm. This is a balanced homebrew Wizard, right guys?"

[Griswold]

Wait. Tempest Cleric with Wizard list was mentioned. That is staggeringly horrifying.

"My evoker traded his ability to exclude allies from AoEs in exchange for his capstone, 12 levels early and on a short rest recharge and affecting spells above fifth level, and heavy armor proficiency, and his spellbook has ALL Wizard spells, and his miracle from his level 10 ability can replicate Wish and Meteor Swarm. This is a balanced homebrew Wizard, right guys?"

Chain Lightning and Lightning Bolt---what you'll use the channel divinity on from the Wizard list---aren't a huge improvement on what the Tempest Cleric had already. All of the other things you're mentioning are just how the Cleric's class features in general are better than the Wizard's.

I think your criticism does focus on something important, though: there's some sense in which the Wizard's spell list is "better" than the Cleric's, in order to balance the class features. If that weren't true, then the Wizard would suck. Giving away that spell list to anyone who wants it won't be balanced.

Look at Sorcerers: with a few (unexciting) exceptions, their spell list is just a ****tier version of the Wizard's. It's almost true of the Warlock, except that the Warlock's unique spells are generally pretty cool, even if there's only 3 anyone cares about.

[Trickery]

Main problem with this is the Wizard spell list. Other lists could be swapped or even combined in some cases (see Divine Soul) without hurting anything. But the Wizard? Their spell list is their primary class feature. There are so many powerful spells that only Wizards get, and they have spells for every occasion. Wizards are considered by many to be the best class in the game because of that list.

Getting access to that on any other caster would be insane (except maybe for warlocks and sorcerers with their extremely limited spells known - that might not cause too many problems other than if the Sorcerer gets cheeky with Twin). A Druid or Cleric in particular could wreck shop with free access to the exact spells they needed chosen on a long rest from the entire Wizard spell list.

Playtest it first in a one shot before running a serious campaign like this.

[Fable Wright]

Chain Lightning and Lightning Bolt---what you'll use the channel divinity on from the Wizard list---aren't a huge improvement on what the Tempest Cleric had already. All of the other things you're mentioning are just how the Cleric's class features in general are better than the Wizard's.

Maximize a 3rd level Call Lightning: 30 damage, if you can fit it in the room, hitting one target, maybe two.
Maximize a 3rd level Lightning Bolt: 48 damage, always castable, hitting two targets, maybe three.

Maximize a 6th level Call Lightning: 60 damage, if you can fit it in the room, hitting one target, maybe two.
Maximize a 6th level Chain Lightning: 80 damage, always castable, hitting definitely 3-4 targets, possibly 5.

At 5th level, that's over a 50% increase in damage on a single target, and over three times the damage if you can hit two targets in a straight line.
At 11th level, there's just no contest. You're not beating that damage. I've seen DMs who allowed Tempest Clerics to cast those spells thinking the difference wasn't that bad, and then getting blown away by the impact of the change.

[Kyutaru]

Maximize a 3rd level Call Lightning: 30 damage, if you can fit it in the room, hitting one target, maybe two.
Maximize a 3rd level Lightning Bolt: 48 damage, always castable, hitting two targets, maybe three.

Maximize a 6th level Call Lightning: 60 damage, if you can fit it in the room, hitting one target, maybe two.
Maximize a 6th level Chain Lightning: 80 damage, always castable, hitting definitely 3-4 targets, possibly 5.

At 5th level, that's over a 50% increase in damage on a single target, and over three times the damage if you can hit two targets in a straight line.
At 11th level, there's just no contest. You're not beating that damage. I've seen DMs who allowed Tempest Clerics to cast those spells thinking the difference wasn't that bad, and then getting blown away by the impact of the change.

I think you're missing the duration of Call Lightning and the area of a 5-ft burst can hit multiple melee targets standing together. Your frontliners have control of their movement and can cause enemies to lump together by being engaged.

So that Lightning Bolt gets fired ONCE just as the Chain Lightning does. Yet you can conjure another Call Lightning every 6 seconds for 10 straight minutes. Great use of a single spell slot. You're comparing apples to oranges as this is not an inferior spell but a completely different one with different mechanics to the single use wizard ones.

So redoing that with the bias shifted the other direction:

Maximize a 3rd level Lightning Bolt - 48 dmg, always castable, enemies need to be in a line
Maximize a 3rd level Call Lightning - 30 dmg, sometimes castable, enemies hit in a burst, every round usable, potential 3000 dmg total over ten minutes, decimates armies in prolonged warfare

Maximize a 6th level Chain Lightning - 80 damage, always castable, hits up to 4 targets, not 5 because it's at 6th level so primary target plus three more targets
Maximize a 6th level Call Lightning - 60 dmg, sometimes castable, enemies hit in a burst, every round usable, potential 6000 dmg total over ten minutes, annihilates armies in prolonged warfare

At 5th level, that's over a 600% increase in damage on single targets over time, and TWELVE times the damage if you can hit three targets per burst
At 11th level, there's just no contest. You're not beating that damage. It's 6000 per cast. Tempest Clerics are walking catapults with the greatest outdoor castle defense spells.

[Fable Wright]

Maximize a 3rd level Lightning Bolt - 48 dmg, always castable, enemies need to be in a line
Maximize a 3rd level Call Lightning - 30 dmg, sometimes castable, enemies hit in a burst, every round usable, potential 3000 dmg total over ten minutes, decimates armies in prolonged warfare

Very well, let's look at them in the full contexts of the spell.

1. Channel Divinity applies only on one damage roll. Call Lightning can have one bolt maximized per CD use and everything else down to 16.5 damage.
2. Call Lightning may last 10 minutes, but it affects a 100ft area total and cannot move beyond that. Unlike Spirit Guardians, it can't move with you, and... I'll be honest, I have never seen it move from one encounter to the next because of that. And I play a lot of Druids, and with a lot of Tempest Clerics. You can deal damage to an entire army... slightly more than cantrip damage, because they've heard of loose formations to deal with artillery... as long as they stay within 100ft of the point where you cast the spell... wooo.
3. Call lightning takes Concentration.

So then, let's take a look at them in the context of the standard three-round combat, and total resource expenditures.

Lightning Bolt: Round 1, it's cast, and deals 48 damage to two targets, or 48 damage to one and two save. Total damage: 96.
Lightning Bolt: Round 2, you cast Toll the Dead. It fails. Total damage: 96.
Lightning Bolt: Round 3, you cast Toll the Dead. It succeeds. Total damage: 109.

Call Lightning: Round 1, it's cast, and deals 30 damage to the two biggest targets. They both fail saves. We're being generous. Total damage: 60
Call Lightning: Round 2, you spend your action and do it again, dealing 16.5 damage to one target/half to two. Total damage: 76.5
Call Lightning: Round 3, you spend your action and do it again, dealing 16.5 damage to one target/half to two. Total damage: 93

Lightning Bolt dealt more damage in round 1 than Call Lightning did over the course of the entire encounter, and saving the party more resources because of the front-loading. And you can sustain damage with cantrips. And Concentrate on Spirit Guardians while shooting that 96 damage Lightning Bolt. It doesn't sound like much of a difference on paper, but it really is. Call Lightning still has a place, don't get me wrong, but Lightning Bolt is an enormous upgrade for Tempest Cleric.

(If you want to decimate an army, just use Control Water. Flooding the supply train under a 20ft flash flood is going to do way more long-term damage than Call Lightning will.)

Also, for fun, let's do a damage comparison of Chain Lightning, shall we?
Chain Lightning: Round 1, it's cast, and deals 80 damage to three targets, or 80 damage to two and two save. Total damage: 240
Chain Lightning: Round 2, you cast Toll the Dead. It fails. Total damage: 240
Chain Lightning: Round 3, you cast Toll the Dead. It succeeds. Total damage: 259.5

Call Lightning: Round 1, it's cast, and deals 60 damage to the two biggest targets. They both fail saves. We're being generous. Total damage: 120
Call Lightning: Round 2, you spend your action and do it again, dealing 16.5 damage to one target/half to two. Total damage: 153
Call Lightning: Round 3, you spend your action and do it again, dealing 16.5 damage to one target/half to two. Total damage: 186

[8wGremlin]

Thanks everyone for posting.

My take away is that on the whole it would work with some caveats

The biggest issue is that the class feature of Wizards is their enhanced, more potent spell list.
The interaction of a known exploitation of the Tempest Cleric feature, when combined with specific lightning and thunder spells. (which is already achievable, but this makes it achievable at an earlier level)
Some spell lists would require additional spells to be added as well as cantrips.



Any other thoughts on the spell list access?

[Kyutaru]

Lightning Bolt dealt more damage in round 1 than Call Lightning did over the course of the entire encounter, and saving the party more resources because of the front-loading. And you can sustain damage with cantrips.
Again though, the spells are for different purposes. Any spell with a duration of 10 minutes can be used as a prolonged engagement weapon. You can cast it at the beginning of any battle to replace your weapon and merely call down bolts of lightning instead. Three rounds or one round, you're still comparing it to very short time-frames where Lightning Bolt has the advantage with front-loaded damage against a limited range of targets. The latter spell favors repetition throughout the battle with 3d10 far surpassing anything your weapon can accomplish for the cost of a single spell slot. The fact that it costs an action to reuse should indicate that Call Lightning is effectively summoning a thundercloud as your weapon. The fact that it has a ten minute duration should indicate it's not for burst damage or limited targets.

The two are quite incomparable and that's been my point from the beginning. One-off bomb effects versus conjured weapons. Next you'll say that Mordenkainen's Sword is a worthless spell for consuming bonus actions to deal 3d10 as a 7th level spell.

Swapping spell lists is fine. It merely changes the role of the caster. A Call Lightning caster has a role in extended combats lasting more than a mere 3 rounds and the party has no need to leave the cover of the cloud area if it's defending the stronghold. Enemies will come to you. Formations that eliminate the potential for artillery fire also eliminate the potential for density of troops, identical to the problems adventurers face in hallways in dungeons. Either bunch up and let the fireballs hit you or spread out and not be able to get as many melee players in for their attacks. Tower defense games just love it when you let your troops flow in a trickle a time because you refused to lump them together. Though lumping together makes them vulnerable to AOE it also makes them more likely to reach their target unless you're planning on your opponent running out of ammo. Marching side by side across vast plains numbering hundreds or thousands doesn't come with ample shoulder room to avoid flying rocks if you want your men to remain effective columns.

Likewise, Call Lighting remains effective at being a weapon replacement while available Lightning Bolts are quickly burned through each day. Are people complaining about Fighters not dealing as much damage as the wizard or is it understood that they have different roles? The role is not wearing armor since Wizards can learn to do the same. Clerics are frontline fighters as are Druids and while the spell is in effect it does not provoke attacks of opportunity to call down more bolts. Every single Lightning Bolt cast will. Having the Wizard spell list is not an immediate upgrade unless you fancy burst damage and expending resources quickly.

[Bjarkmundur]

Go for it, but exclude the Ranger and the Paladin. They got special treatment regarding spell selection.
Also, don't give non-wizards access to the wizard spell list. The wizard spell list IS their class feature, so any wizard in your group might resent everyone having his spells.

In my game I allow swapping spell lists, but not multiple spell lists. If you're a bard that wants to blast, you're gonna have to sacrifice the amazing utility found in your spell list. Sorry, you can't have both unless we make it a subclass.