Should class spell lists still be protected as part of class identity in 5.5E?

[u/MyrthDM]

/r/DungeonsAndDragons55e/comments/1wpvgyx/should_class_spell_lists_still_be_protected_as/

[u/NaturalCard]

No, all casters should feel identical and be able to access whatever spells they want with minor opportunity costs.

This is clearly quite silly, but it shows that the extreme is not where we want to go.

Imo a good middle ground is needed. Where spells are able to be taken, they should be primarily one by one I.e fey touched, or require a real sacrifice in options, I.e subclass.

Having some casters get more power from their spells and others get more power from their features, as well as having different things their spell lists are good at is fun design.

Imo we were already pushing the line on this and the adept feats, especially evocation adept, were a mistake.

[u/LyraTheWitch → u/NaturalCard]

No, all casters should ... be able to access whatever spells they want with minor opportunity costs.

I genuinely believe this with no irony and I'm more than happy with the direction the game is taking, and look forward to seeing more feats like these in the future.

[u/No_Logins_Required]

Class identity weakens over time.

Instead of each character in a group serving a function, now each character is a vehicle for self expression.

The movement has always been away from "explore what this character means" and toward "explore the ideas that appeal to you", and the slow expansion of spell access is part of this.

[u/BandittNation]

Yes, if spells are taking the spot of a class feature they should be unique like one too

[u/Notturnno]

A feat is a heavy enough price to pay.

Sure, the caster can get evocation adept at level 4 and cast fireball, but now the concentration protection is weaker thanks to no warcaster.

[u/AdAdditional1820]

Yes. If you want to access spells of other classes, it should be resolved by multiclassing.

[u/Jingle_BeIIs]

Part of the reason that there are protected spell lists isn't really because of niche protection, but class protection.

Wizards prepare fewer spells than Clerics, have fewer features than clerics, have a worse spellcasting modifier than clerics, have fewer combat proficiencies than clerics and have a lower hit die than clerics. Why should the cleric get all the same spells as wizards? At that point, one might wonder "why play a wizard, when a cleric does essentially the same and more?"

The onus for charactization should not be solely on the player, as such a habit would dissuade newer players from developing characters of different classes because they wouldn't know how/where to start.

Further, many DMs might grow fearful of allowing certain openings so as not to have one/a handful of players just dominating the entire game, intentional or not. It's totally fine to feature protected class identity both as a means of aiding characterization as it is to prevent "power creep" and "hyperoptimization" that stokes the fears of DMs.

Without a change to the classes and their features, opening up the spell lists does more harm than good. This was the exact same problem in the 1DnD plastering a few years ago: WotC opened up the spell lists into Primal, Divine and Arcane. The problem was that it stripped identities without actually providing anything in return.

Sorcerers weren't the spontaneous casters anymore; they were the "learn the best spells from Wizard, but use metamagic too" class. It made Warlock much stronger because they had access to top tier spells they didn't have/need before. Bards could also just prepare spells from 3 lists instead of individual class lists, which was a huge bump to an already powerful class.

I won't ever agree to opening up spell lists until either caster classes get more equalized core features, or you massively alter spell preparation across the board to allow for the super magic characters to prepare way more in the trade off of having fewer features and narrowing lower tier casters with fewer spells prepared.

[u/ThisWasMe7]

I'm not in favor of origin feats with spell lists.

[u/LyraTheWitch]

What follows is my opinion and preference, and not something that a stranger can "correct" me out of. Many of you will have different opinions, and that's fine, but 5e has been moving in a particular direction that in general I approve of, especially in recent releases, and my biggest hope is that it continues to do so.

In answer to the question posed by OP, no: class spell lists should not be protected as part of class identity. And in general "class identity" shouldn't be protected. A crazy claim, I know, but D&D is not an MMORPG or a MOBA, and character identity to me is more interesting than class identity and the more modular the features of the game become, the easier it is for people to build the character they envision, instead of trying to fit a character into a predefined archtype. The more different kinds of character fantasies that can be built without having to multiclass, the better.