D&D (2024) There needs to be a 4th spell list.

[Frozen_Heart]

So with the new UA, Bards are now keyed to the arcane spell list, but are only able to take divination, enchantment, illusion, and transmutation spells. This has resulting in them losing a huge number of thematic and iconic spells which really do suit a bard, as well as gaining many which don't suit it. In order to gain any more of its iconic spells under the current system, it would end up with even more spells which are traditionally wizard spells.

A few examples of 'bard themed' spells which have been lost: animal friendship, heroism, calm emotions, enhance ability, and speak with dead.

In pathfinder 2e, there is an 'occult' power source used by bards and witches, and something similar could definitely work here. Classic bard spells like vicious mockery and hideous laughter suit it perfectly. The name could be something different of course, but I really do think that it would help the bard spell list feel more 'bardy' than what we have now.

 

[Minigiant]

There needs to be 6-7 spell lists.

Arcane
Bardic
Divine
Elemental
Primal
Psionic
Shadow

If "Everything is a spell" then spell lists need to feel more special.

 

[Delazar]

I also want a Martial spell list! Down with maneuvers, give me Final Fantasy Limit Breaks!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No. Arcane, divine and primal are fine.
Bards get a small selection of divine spells that are always prepared. I think they could also get the few low level primal spells they just lost back with a similar feature.
Maxbe give a choice of divine or primal when chosing the level 2 feature.

I do however have the feeling they want to protect the ranger niche a bit more.

Coming from 2e, the bard somehow feels more bardy to me as in 2014 5e.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

No. Arcane, divine and primal are fine.
Bards get a small selection of divine spells that are always prepared. I think they could also get the few low level primal spells they just lost back with a similar feature.
Maxbe give a choice of divine or primal when chosing the level 2 feature.

I do however have the feeling they want to protect the ranger niche a bit more.

Coming from 2e, the bard somehow feels more bardy to me as in 2014 5e.

And I hate bards being forced to have all their healing spells prepared constantly. Healing bard was one potential flavour in 5e, but there were options which didn't have healing at all. This is just pigeonholing them and forcing them into this particular niche.

To me, this Bard is feeling more like a wizard with a guitar than an actual bard.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And I hate bards being forced to have all their healing spells prepared constantly. Healing bard was one potential flavour in 5e, but there were options which didn't have healing at all. This is just pigeonholing them and forcing them into this particular niche.

I can see what you mean. I think they don't need auto prepare them and just have them available.

On a different note, I don't like seplls prepared = spell slots. Takes aways freedom. Especially at lower levels, this feels unnecessarily restricting.

Why not stay with spells prepared = stat bonus + level, or maybe going with the trend: proficiency bonus + level.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

They should try just having a list for each class. For some reason it feels like that would work just fine...

 

[Aldarc]

There should at least, IMHO, be Psionic (or something akin to it: i.e., PF2's Occultic) added as a spell list.

They should try just having a list for each class. For some reason it feels like that would work just fine...

I'm not really a fan of it. PF2 has demonstrated that one of the major benefits to this system is that when you adding new spells to the game, you are really only worried about adding spells to about 4 spell lists that are shared between classes. That makes it easier to manage than having to determine whether each class gets access to a spell or not and then writing it out for each. That likewise helps reduce word count and redundant layout. This also makes it easier when adding new classes or options to the game. You can point them to the appropriate spell list rather than having to make a unique for the class.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I'm not really a fan of it. PF2 has demonstrated that one of the major benefits to this system is that when you adding new spells to the game, you are really only worried about adding spells to about 4 spell lists that are shared between classes. That makes it easier to manage than having to determine whether each class gets access to a spell or not and then writing it out for each. That likewise helps reduce word count and redundant layout. This also makes it easier when adding new classes or options to the game. You can point them to the appropriate spell list rather than having to make a unique for the class.

If D&D is going the direction of having spells added so frequently and so many classes that they can't just think about which of the relevant classes should get a new spell when they make one then I'll have bigger issues than I do with the silly three list system.

More to your point perhaps, they are still 100% going to be thinking about which classes should get things, they just now have to do it locked into how each class interacts with generalized lists and needing to work around that commitment.

 

[Aldarc]

If D&D is going the direction of having spells added so frequently and so many classes that they can't just think about which of the relevant classes should get a new spell when they make one then I'll have bigger issues than I do with the silly three list system.

More to your point perhaps, they are still 100% going to be thinking about which classes should get things, they just now have to do it locked into how each class interacts with generalized lists and needing to work around that commitment.

I'm not sure how you can't see how this is not easier for designers and players.