# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  What if spell "spheres" came back?

## Schwann145

Ala 2nd Edition AD&D.
Clerics could have their Major and Minor Spheres, where they're allowed access to all levels of their Majors and only up to 3rd level of their minors, and they'd be based on Domain flavor, obviously.
You could even extend it to Arcane and instantly solve the "Wizards just get *all* the spells" problem, and force Major/Minor Sphere mechanics onto the Schools, so specialists (as all Wizards are now) only gain full access to certain schools and minor access to opposed schools.

----------


## JonBeowulf

I dunno if it's the popular opinion here, but that's one of the things I really liked about 2e.  As with everything else WotC is playing with, how they implement it will be the deciding factor (if they bring spheres back in the first place).  Spell list balance is going to be tricky.  There are sooo many spells now!

It's not enough to get me to give One D&D a shot, though.

----------


## MrStabby

> Ala 2nd Edition AD&D.
> Clerics could have their Major and Minor Spheres, where they're allowed access to all levels of their Majors and only up to 3rd level of their minors, and they'd be based on Domain flavor, obviously.
> You could even extend it to Arcane and instantly solve the "Wizards just get *all* the spells" problem, and force Major/Minor Sphere mechanics onto the Schools, so specialists (as all Wizards are now) only gain full access to certain schools and minor access to opposed schools.


Yeah, its something I have been playing about with off and on for a few years.

I think that there are a few... challenges.  

I have tended to think more about schools than spheres as we don't know what the spheres would be, but probably more restrictive than schools.

Some schools scale better than others.  Look at abjuration for example.  If you can have a "protection" sphere that gets shiel and counterspell and armour of faith and so on then you get massive value out of a Minor Sphere that won't feel like it is holding you back as you level up.  If, on the other hand you want to do some kind of "cold" sphere you are probably looking at a lot of evocation spells and some conjuration spells.  Not only are there a relative shortage of ice damage spells, but damage doesn't really scale well - in the sense of a low level spell still being as viable at higher levels.

This is not prohibative - a few more spells to provide lower level damage, more non damaging spells like sleet storm and wall of ice and so on and it starts to fall into line a lot better.  There is effectively a lot of missing content though.


I think it also useful to draw attention to the imperfect parallel we have at the moment.  Clerics "Major" sphere is basically generic cleric divine list and their Domain acts as a Minor Sphere in that they get only lower level spells of that sphere.  How well you feel this works might guide you on what you think a more fleshed out spheres might look like for 5e.

As for wizards, yes this fixes a lot of things... but it is probably too draconian.  I did try a house rule for wizards in one of my games - each level up one of the two spells they get to add to their spellbook must be from their school, however they can take it from any class list.  I imagine it wouldn't hold well at high levels but I think we took that game up to level 8 and it seemed to work reasonably well.

----------


## Amnestic

> Ala 2nd Edition AD&D.
> Clerics could have their Major and Minor Spheres, where they're allowed access to all levels of their Majors and only up to 3rd level of their minors, and they'd be based on Domain flavor, obviously.
> You could even extend it to Arcane and instantly solve the "Wizards just get *all* the spells" problem, and force Major/Minor Sphere mechanics onto the Schools, so specialists (as all Wizards are now) only gain full access to certain schools and minor access to opposed schools.


With spell schools, at the moment, they'd need to do a large look at what spells are in what school.

For example, there are _no_ 7th or 8th level Divination spells - not just no wizard spells, no spells of that school period, for any class. That makes taking Divination as one of/your only Major prohibitive.

I would prefer it, frankly, if wizards had a more curated list - I've said so before - but if they wanted to adequately do it around spell schools they'd either have to reclassify some existing spells or create a decent number of new spells to help fill out the lists for under-represented schools. 

Now you could argue that having majors with more spells at [x] level than [y] level is itself a balance choice but since games don't always touch the same levels I fear such a choice would end up turning it into a trap option or just feel plain bad.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> With spell schools, at the moment, they'd need to do a large look at what spells are in what school.
> 
> For example, there are _no_ 7th or 8th level Divination spells - not just no wizard spells, no spells of that school period, for any class. That makes taking Divination as one of/your only Major prohibitive.


 Bingo. The spell school balance is roughly non existent. Needs a major scrub to take this idea and make it workable.

----------


## Pex

I wouldn't mind it if they avoid the garbage that was The Priest's Handbook. The Guardian priest had Guardian sphere as a Minor, not Major. The Astral Sphere only had two spells, total, but counted against you fully for a sphere slot. I don't remember which Priest had it, but there was one that had Summoning as a Minor, meaning no higher than 3rd level spells. The lowest level Summoning spell was 4th level. Summoning finally had low level spells when Tome of Magic came out, which was later than the Priest's Handbook and was never updated to include new spheres. Also bad was not all Priests had healing. For 2E, a cleric without healing was a dead party. I played a Priest of Justice/Revenge that did not get healing. The DM saw how horrible it was for the game and granted me healing.

I like the concept. 2E's implementation was pathetic.

----------


## Catullus64

> Ala 2nd Edition AD&D.
> Clerics could have their Major and Minor Spheres, where they're allowed access to all levels of their Majors and only up to 3rd level of their minors, and they'd be based on Domain flavor, obviously.
> You could even extend it to Arcane and instantly solve the "Wizards just get *all* the spells" problem, and force Major/Minor Sphere mechanics onto the Schools, so specialists (as all Wizards are now) only gain full access to certain schools and minor access to opposed schools.


I would need a strong argument that casters having access to their full spell list is a problem in need of solving. Before I assume anything, what do you see as the nature of the problem to begin with?

----------


## Osuniev

> I would need a strong argument that casters having access to their full spell list is a problem in need of solving. Before I assume anything, what do you see as the nature of the problem to begin with?


I don't know about the OP, but IMO:
- since there are very few constraints on the spell lists, there's a strong incentive to pick spells that are powerful, ven if they are not flavourful. IE : theme and optimisization are at odds with each other
- casters get "samey" : the same top 10 spells will show up in most casters lists

----------


## Mark Hall

> Ala 2nd Edition AD&D.
> Clerics could have their Major and Minor Spheres, where they're allowed access to all levels of their Majors and only up to 3rd level of their minors, and they'd be based on Domain flavor, obviously.
> You could even extend it to Arcane and instantly solve the "Wizards just get *all* the spells" problem, and force Major/Minor Sphere mechanics onto the Schools, so specialists (as all Wizards are now) only gain full access to certain schools and minor access to opposed schools.


To an extent, I think a lot of this gets covered with Domains.

Spheres, to an extent, differentiated types of specialty priests, giving them unique sets of spells they could cast. While they had a few spheres in common, a druid was a FAR different spellcaster than a cleric, with a much narrower selection of spells, somewhat offset by granted powers. However, between the cleric and the druid, they had pretty much every kind of priest spell available (which makes sense, since you wouldn't put a bunch of spells no one could cast in the PH).

In a large part, domains cover this now. Your domain gives you a slate of spells unique to your type of cleric, and a selection of granted powers. While all clerics carry a core of common spells (i.e. the cleric list), the uniqueness of a given cleric type comes from that.

If I were to do something like spheres, I'd be more inclined to make them something akin to feats... an option that divine casters can take to add certain spells as domain spells.

----------


## Atranen

I love this idea, and I think that implementing it properly could solve a lot of the issues with casters feeling like they can do everything and every caster picking the same spells. The problem is that the system isn't currently built for this; spell schools (or spheres) aren't balanced with each other. Moreover, attempting to do so is a tricky problem, as there are so many moving parts. 

That said, it's one that's worth doing. I'm in favor of some pretty severe restrictions, like only half the schools being available to wizards. I've used that rule for myself just for fun and it's made very thematic characters.

----------


## Mark Hall

> I love this idea, and I think that implementing it properly could solve a lot of the issues with casters feeling like they can do everything and every caster picking the same spells. The problem is that the system isn't currently built for this; spell schools (or spheres) aren't balanced with each other. Moreover, attempting to do so is a tricky problem, as there are so many moving parts. 
> 
> That said, it's one that's worth doing. I'm in favor of some pretty severe restrictions, like only half the schools being available to wizards. I've used that rule for myself just for fun and it's made very thematic characters.


Something I liked from 2e's Birthright was the "Magician" class. They were double specialized in Divination and Illusion, and could cast any level 1 or 2 spell they learned... but they could not do any magic of level 3 and higher, except for Illusions and Divinations.

----------


## Witty Username

I don't think spheres are a solve for large spell lists so much as small spell lists:
Wizard for example has a large spell list, but no subclass lists, with the understanding that the list trends towards thematic for individual wizards.
Cleric on the other hand has a small spell list, supplemented by the subclass lists, in theory this means that clerics feel more different from each other, but in practice it is very dependent on the subclass list effectiveness, and since spells existing on a list is a design principle, it causes spell bloat for other classes.

If spells were moved to spheres, it solves that second problem, and moving away from the base cleric list would allow for the promised difference in play of the different cleric subclasses.

I personaly prefer wizard design, as it allows for greater tailoring of concept. A large list does not powerful characters make, if they have to choose a small collection from that list.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

I actually worked through an exercise on these lines a while ago. (google doc here)Significantly more complex, however--I tagged all the spells with "themes" and then decided how different classes would pick from the themes. Each theme-list had a much smaller number of spells on it than most class lists--25-30 or so. A character's overall list would be the union of all their themes.

So for instance, the wizard got to pick any non-prohibited theme as their primary at level 1, and then the subclass dictated the secondary theme (with a couple choices for evocation). Their "free spells" had to come from their two themes, while they could scribe any scroll from any non-prohibited theme. Their prohibited themes were Animalist, Divine Warrior, Gardener, and Healer.

On the other hand, clerics all got the Healer theme, then could choose any of Divine Warrior, Light-bringer, and Spiritualist as primary themes. Each domain granted the choice of one or two secondary themes. Domain spells were "each time you would gain a new set of domain spells, you can instead prepare two extra spells of your choice from any of the secondary themes of the domain".

Still needs tons of work to trim down the number of themes, as some of them are way too small and some are too broad. I like the concept, but the implementation needs work.

----------


## JNAProductions

> I actually worked through an exercise on these lines a while ago. (google doc here)Significantly more complex, however--I tagged all the spells with "themes" and then decided how different classes would pick from the themes. Each theme-list had a much smaller number of spells on it than most class lists--25-30 or so. A character's overall list would be the union of all their themes.
> 
> So for instance, the wizard got to pick any non-prohibited theme as their primary at level 1, and then the subclass dictated the secondary theme (with a couple choices for evocation). Their "free spells" had to come from their two themes, while they could scribe any scroll from any non-prohibited theme. Their prohibited themes were Animalist, Divine Warrior, Gardener, and Healer.
> 
> On the other hand, clerics all got the Healer theme, then could choose any of Divine Warrior, Light-bringer, and Spiritualist as primary themes. Each domain granted the choice of one or two secondary themes. Domain spells were "each time you would gain a new set of domain spells, you can instead prepare two extra spells of your choice from any of the secondary themes of the domain".
> 
> Still needs tons of work to trim down the number of themes, as some of them are way too small and some are too broad. I like the concept, but the implementation needs work.


I like the sound of this. At work for now, but Ill take a gander later.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> To an extent, I think a lot of this gets covered with Domains.
> 
> 
> If I were to do something like spheres, I'd be more inclined to make them something akin to feats... an option that divine casters can take to add certain spells as domain spells.


 I like where you are going with this. 


> Something I liked from 2e's Birthright was the "Magician" class. They were double specialized in Divination and Illusion, and could cast any level 1 or 2 spell they learned... but they could not do any magic of level 3 and higher, except for Illusions and Divinations.


 OK, +1 for the Birthright mention.  :Small Big Grin:  



> Still needs tons of work to trim down the number of themes, as some of them are way too small and some are too broad. I like the concept, but the implementation needs work.


 If you can neck down the themes to 5, since I think fewer makes for better implementation, I think you'd be in a good place.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> If you can neck down the themes to 5, since I think fewer makes for better implementation, I think you'd be in a good place.


5 is too few. I'd like to narrow it down to more like 10-12. Don't want them to be too big, otherwise you just have the whole class list mess again. But too small means everyone with those themes is identical. So yeah. It's a balancing act.

@JNAProductions--fair warning. It's *rough*. I've found it useful for picking NPC spells since I don't even try to adhere to class lists there. But it needs a lot more work to be suitable for PCs.

----------


## JonBeowulf

> @JNAProductions--fair warning. It's *rough*. I've found it useful for picking NPC spells since I don't even try to adhere to class lists there. But it needs a lot more work to be suitable for PCs.


It's not too bad once you get your head around that a spell is just fluff for a game effect.  I homebrewed the sorcerer class to be similar to what spheres did (but broken down by damage type).  All I had to do was modify the damage type, give it a new name, and tweak the description a bit.

Firebolt became Stream of Venom, Clap, Minor Bolt, etc.
Fireball became Poison Nova, Sonic Boom, Static Discharge, etc.

Balancing spheres won't be as easy as swapping damage types, but it isn't a daunting undertaking, either.

Also, I strongly recommend keeping it as an option the players can use if they want.  Let them follow PHB if they choose to.

----------


## 5eNeedsDarksun

> I don't know about the OP, but IMO:
> - since there are very few constraints on the spell lists, there's a strong incentive to pick spells that are powerful, ven if they are not flavourful. IE : theme and optimisization are at odds with each other
> - casters get "samey" : the same top 10 spells will show up in most casters lists


Ageed.  With or with out the OP's proposal, the game would be far better off if the floor and ceiling among spells were considerably closer together.

----------


## Willie the Duck

> Ala 2nd Edition AD&D.
> Clerics could have their Major and Minor Spheres, where they're allowed access to all levels of their Majors and only up to 3rd level of their minors, and they'd be based on Domain flavor, obviously.
> You could even extend it to Arcane and instantly solve the "Wizards just get *all* the spells" problem, and force Major/Minor Sphere mechanics onto the Schools, so specialists (as all Wizards are now) only gain full access to certain schools and minor access to opposed schools.


People have already used the examples of the issues with 2e AD&D's Spheres and specialist wizard systems, and with 5e wizard schools, but here's another, perhaps simpler, analogy: draconic sorcerers. The idea makes intuitive sense: dragon-blooded sorcerers probably would get elemental themes related to the *ahem* donor dragon's breath weapon, symmetry is nice so why not make it the same bonus for each type, and then the spell list makes hash of that being balanced*
*plus, on top of there simply not being as many spells in each element, monster resistances are going to make poison simply a really rough choice.

That's a really brief example of why I don't think this would work well _in the game we actually have_. I'm all in favor (particularly for what-if-style hypothesizing) of an alternate version of 5e where spell lists and resistances/constraints were balanced and actual specialty caster types were viable. I think that's a wonderful design space I wish D&D had gone down the route of a long time ago. 




> To an extent, I think a lot of this gets covered with Domains.
> 
> Spheres, to an extent, differentiated types of specialty priests, giving them unique sets of spells they could cast. While they had a few spheres in common, a druid was a FAR different spellcaster than a cleric, with a much narrower selection of spells, somewhat offset by granted powers. However, between the cleric and the druid, they had pretty much every kind of priest spell available (which makes sense, since you wouldn't put a bunch of spells no one could cast in the PH).
> 
> In a large part, domains cover this now. Your domain gives you a slate of spells unique to your type of cleric, and a selection of granted powers. While all clerics carry a core of common spells (i.e. the cleric list), the uniqueness of a given cleric type comes from that.
> 
> If I were to do something like spheres, I'd be more inclined to make them something akin to feats... an option that divine casters can take to add certain spells as domain spells.


The primary difference is that Domains add a subset to a much larger all-cleric spell list, whereas spheres can be no universal list or (like 2e) a very minimalist universal list (the 'All' sphere for the actual spheres and lesser divination school for specialty wizards). So a difference in scope but not kind (big trunk, little branches vs little trunk big branches). The closest thing (IMO) later D&Ds have had to this is the post-core 3e spellcasters like Warmage and Beguiler and Dread Necromancer -- casters with a thematically curated sub-list of spells mostly from the existing wizard spell list (I think Dread Necromancer poached some Cleric necromancy spells and Beguiler grabbed some Bard-only enchantments and illusions). I guess those would be more like examples of finished results of an unpublished spell-group build-a-bear system, but overall they capture the concept well: this caster does this and only this theme of spells.

I think it also highlights the major challenges of such a system. The first is that you have to start out with the setup as the base system for your game* or else the classes that don't do this are almost always going to be overbalanced in comparison. The second is that the base game still has some major 'core concept' spells for each class (the _cures_ and _raises_ for clerics being the iconic example, but depending on campaign everything from _dispel magic_ to _fly_ to _passwall_ also count) that, if you are instead playing a specialty type, well then the party still needs a member of the base class (or access to their services).  
*I guess in theory it would work if the specialist option had genuinely better spells or a whole host of non-spell benefits, but that too is a complete-system-rebuild




> I dunno if it's the popular opinion here, but that's one of the things I really liked about 2e.





> I like the concept. 2E's implementation was pathetic.


I don't have any survey research or anything, but my take is that Priest Spheres and Priests of Specific Mythos in general were incredibly popular 2e developments at the theoretical level, but that everyone house-ruled the bejeezus out of the thing (or just picked and chose the few workable options out of the total, or gave up, etc.) because of the poor implementation. And that was 2e where the concept of inter-class/race/other-build-toggles balance was all over the map and other splatbooks would do things like (here I'm thinking of things like the_ Vikings, Celts_, and _Charlemagne's Paladins_ sourcebooks) turn off spellcasting, leave everything else the same, and see what happens.

----------


## Zuras

> Ageed.  With or with out the OP's proposal, the game would be far better off if the floor and ceiling among spells were considerably closer together.


Is this really the case?  I agree that spell lists with a few over-powered spells create some balance and especially re-play concerns, but some of the best and most memorable D&D sessions Ive had involved the use of over-powered spells.  Pass Without Trace, Conjure Animals and Animate Objects in particular seem a bit out of line but also have many happy gaming memories associated with them.

My feelings on this are all over the placemy biggest annoyance with the Bard list is that at first level Dissonant Whispers and Sleep are their best available combat spells that feel bard-y by a mile, so I feel obliged to take at least one of them if I dont want to die, every time I play a bard.

On the other hand I also pick Vicious Mockery every time I play a Bard, but I feel exactly the opposite about it.  Im actually looking forward to spamming damage via insultsits one of the reasons Im playing a Bard.  Honestly Id prefer a Bard class you could build with options to buff and add effects to your Vicious Mockery (like Warlock modify and enhance Eldritch Blast) so it remains a viable combat option through your entire adventuring career.

Similarly, I dont particularly mind that Mass Suggestion is far and away the best 6th level spell on the Bard list.  It feels right that their best spell is the most Bard-y, if that makes sense.  If you regularize the power of spells across the board, I think you will either lose that feeling or go back to AD&D style mechanics where Mass Suggestion is 6th level for Bards but 7th level for Wizards (which would definitely be an egregious sin against simplicity).

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> 5 is too few. I'd like to narrow it down to more like 10-12. Don't want them to be too big, otherwise you just have the whole class list mess again. But too small means everyone with those themes is identical. So yeah. It's a balancing act.


 We already have bloat with 8 spell schools, and the divine/primal/arcane classification muddies the water.  Reducing the number of schools/categories allows bloat to be addressed, and IMO meets the KISS principle far better.  As you have noted before, the interactions between spells and that whole 'exponential choice' aspect isn't helped with more.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> We already have bloat with 8 spell schools, and the divine/primal/arcane classification muddies the water.  Reducing the number of schools/categories allows bloat to be addressed, and IMO meets the KISS principle far better.  As you have noted before, the interactions between spells and that whole 'exponential choice' aspect isn't helped with more.


This would replace the spell schools and the class lists entirely. So 3-5 is just too few for the purpose. In fact, it would make the effective lists more bloated than they are now.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> This would replace the spell schools and the class lists entirely. So 3-5 is just too few for the purpose. In fact, it would make the effective lists more bloated than they are now.


 TBH, each of the list needs a trim first ... and I can see 5-7. 

FWIW, over at Delta's OD&D site he got rid of clerics and just had fighting man and magic user for basic classes.  Based on the book I reviewed some years ago (not sure which hard drive it is on) being able to fuse the Cl/Mu spells list certainly made for a more coherent approach to magic.
One list, go.   :Small Smile: 

With that in mind, I'd like to see the schools utterly erased, and Primal/Arcane/Divine as the sole categories.  But that runs into your thematic approach and probably isn't compatible with it.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> TBH, each of the list needs a trim first ... and I can see 5-7. 
> 
> FWIW, over at Delta's OD&D site he got rid of clerics and just had fighting man and magic user for basic classes.  Based on the book I reviewed some years ago (not sure which hard drive it is on) being able to fuse the Cl/Mu spells list certainly made for a more coherent approach to magic.
> One list, go.  
> 
> With that in mind, I'd like to see the schools utterly erased, and Primal/Arcane/Divine as the sole categories.  But that runs into your thematic approach and probably isn't compatible with it.


I'd *hate* having Primal/Arcane/Divine as the only distinctions. That's the current state...but even more bland and anti-thematic. And leaves little or no room for class-unique spells.

Now if about 50% of all spells stopped being spells (becoming other things like class features or universal options or being removed as appropriate) and so the lists were way smaller and less of a primary focus of classes, that might work. Which would be good--no more "full caster/half caster/third-caster/no casting" divide as a primary consideration. More "everyone is mostly class features, but may have spellcasting as a low-budget-cost add on for some flexibility on utility options". But the howls would be audible from orbit.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Now if about 50% of all spells stopped being spells (becoming other things like class features or universal options or being removed as appropriate) and so the lists were way smaller and less of a primary focus of classes, that might work. Which would be good--no more "full caster/half caster/third-caster/no casting" divide as a primary consideration. More "everyone is mostly class features, but may have spellcasting as a low-budget-cost add on for some flexibility on utility options". But the howls would be audible from orbit.


 I think your 4e experience may inform this, and I say that because it looks a little bit like what _13th Age_ did, which is a mix of 3.5 and 4e.

----------


## Mark Hall

A lot comes down to why and where and how you draw the lines.

In 5e, the lines are drawn at the 8 schools of magic, which 2e's Spells and Magic termed "Schools of Philosophy". They govern by what process magic does its thing... an Alteration spell makes a change to a thing, an Evocation spell conjures or creates energy, etc. These are not always consistently applied, and I don't think they are well defined, but those are the divisions made. IME, the actual power source doesn't matter much in 5e... sure, this is "Primal" and this is "Arcane", but just because you put Thunderclap in a robe, a kilt, or a cassock doesn't really affect anything about the spell.

In S&M (giggle now, I'm just going to keep saying it), they also discussed "Schools of Effect"... spells that didn't care about HOW, but rather WHAT. A spell that protected someone from fire, and one that created fire, and one that summoned a fire elemental, are all part of the "Elemental Fire" school, despite being abjuration, evocation, and conjuration, respectively. This is similar to what spheres did.

S&M also had "Schools of Thaumaturgy" which, in theory, altered how magic was done... a standard mage cast spells using chants and hand gestures and material components, while a artificer, alchemist, geometer, wild mage, or song mage used entirely different methods (in theory; the practice was not well-done). Their thaumaturgy chops got a lot stronger in the alternate spellcasting methods later in the book, but they kept some design elements that made the whole thing work poorly (almost all schools of Effect and Thaumaturgy had opposition schools... and almost all of them had opposition schools that were Schools of Philosophy).

Now, power source has always been somewhat fluff-based, and gotten moreso since 3e started; in AD&D, you had some pretty hard lines ("No healing for wizards!"), and the idea that priests could memorize from their entire list, while arcane casters had to keep a spellbook. However, spells were spells, for the most part. If I had Detect Magic memorized, it took up a 1st level spell slot, and was cast identically from an out-of-game perspective... cast spell, spell gone, memorize same or other spell in the morning. Post 2e, you got a lot more variety, and these restrictions got wiggly... bards were good healers, and neither they nor sorcerers maintained a spellbook. Classes like Warmages and Beguilers had their full spell-list available to them, but narrower spell lists. 4e did its own thing, and 5e shook things up again.

I don't have an inherent opposition to "spheres" being included, but I think adding them after the fact, on a large scale, would be difficult.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> I don't have an inherent opposition to "spheres" being included, but I think adding them after the fact, on a large scale, would be difficult.


 Very much so; build it from the ground up as spheres.

----------


## Leon

Wouldn't change much, new "way" to get the same magic which is the borked part. Without a whole take down and rebuild of the magic system in D&D (no matter the edition) its going to keep perpetuating the same problems.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Very much so; build it from the ground up as spheres.


Yeah. This isn't something that can be assembled out of existing schools. It's a matter of 
a) determining what spheres are going to exist
b) going through the existing spells and for each spell deciding
   i) should this spell still exist in the new world as a spell (or be moved to a class feature, a universal feature/feat, or removed entirely)
   ii) if so, what sphere(s)[1] should it fall under
c) going through the classes and deciding which spheres they should have access to

And in doing so, completely replacing any class spell list, spell school, etc.

It's a crap-ton of work with lots of room for unexpected disassembly (aka breaking things). One of the reasons my attempt has kinda stalled.

----------


## Theodoxus

I've done something similar, though adding the four additional 'schools/spheres' from PF2: Life (finally a logical spot for healing!), Matter (to finally differentiate material creating spells from evocation (energy) and conjuration (summoning) (, Mind (a place for psychics!), and Spirit (phantasms, non-corporeal undead and life affirming asperations). (I have an affinity for 12.)  I like the idea of scrubbing the spell lists to cull the bad, convert those that make more sense as abilities and re-assess where things should belong.

My personal belief is that spells should only go to 5th level - 6th, if you're really pushing it) and all spells above 5th should be ritualized - and not just 5E style rituals, but 4E style, requiring multiple casters, and a base casting time that is sped up by throwing more bodies at it (both figuratively in a caster sense, and sometimes literally, in a sacrificial sense).

In this respect, every caster is a half-caster (5th level max) and then utilize something akin to the Warlocks' Mystic Arcanum; Wizards would just get rituals, Sorcerers might burn sorcery points to generate a high level slot on the fly, Bards don't get any high level spells (boohoo), and Warlocks keep their Arcanum. Clerics and Druids are also half-casters, Druids are like Bards (cry moar). Clerics would work like Wizards, having everything be a ritual past 5th level. But Wizards would require arcane knowledgeable folk - apprentices would be ideal, where Clerics could just use the faithful to empower their rituals.

So far, I've really only scratched the surface of part 1: converting all the spells to the 12 schools. I did that before Tasha's though, so it's far from complete now... But I'm pretty excited to start splitting out bad spells and spells that make better abilities... see if I can't pare down the 1K+ spells into something a bit more manageable.

----------

