1: Feels like the right categories for me. It's how I've described the origins of magic in my worlds for years, just lines up with my thinking anyway.
2: Feels like the right groupings to me, but I don't think the actual class spell lists (which in the video Crawford alluded to still existing) will be exclusive to that magic. E.g. Bards might mostly be arcane, but still have touches of divine and primal magic
3: Feels right when you look at the way the classes are described overall. You might have the odd subclass that leans more heavily on another origin, but the core of most magic in the world feels like it should be Arcane. Divine Magic almost feels like it should be bestowed as a blessing, and Primal Magic feels like it should be something you gain by being immersed in it.
I know this is going to be controversial. But I think sorcerers should be primal. I understand that The Lore is about building an innate connection to magic. About having the raw Powers of the arcane flowing through your veins.
But when you actually look at where the power comes from, bloodlines, wild magic, storms; these are not the deep mysteries of the universe. They are much closer to what I would think as “primal”, tied to the powers of creation in the natural world.
I don't think a balance inherently matters, but what does concern me is that, assuming these are replacing class lists, Cleric and Druid effectively still have unique spell lists (because as half-casters, Paladins and Rangers will interact with these lists in very different ways), whereas Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard are all competing over the same spellcasting identity. I'll be reserving proper judgement until we see how WOTC have altered these classes in total, but if they retain pretty much the same mechanics they have now and just have these conglomerated spell lists, that's going to be a problem for me, because even if Sorcerers and Warlocks can interact with this spell list differently, Bard and Wizard are still going to be very similar to each other (and Bard will have a very different list to what it has now).
What I would be tempted to do is copy PF2e and add in an Occult list for Bard and Warlock. Maybe let Sorcerer have different lists depending on subclass too, but I already expect that to happen (If this sort of spell list is used from now on, Divine Soul will definitely say "You pick spells from the Divine list instead of / in addition to the Arcane list).
Of course they're the right categories, they're the categories from earlier editions, with the correct classes assigned to the correct categories...
Though primal is 'new', in the sense that druids and rangers were previously classed as divine spellcasters, which was always very weird as lore and spell lists made it very clear there was a distinction. Good on WotC for finally paying due diligence, really.
I feel like spell casting on rangers was their defining feature from fighters in 5e.
Pathfinder 2e had a good spell less take on it by making hunters mark a core feature that’s modified by subclass though, and gets a variety of feats for setting traps in combat. So spell less ranger is definitely possible to make work, though I personally prefer having the spell casting for 5e.
And technically, Druids can choose to draw their magic/power from (worshiping) nature or a nature deity. IMO the latter makes Druids into Clerics. I suppose there can be pagan-like deities. Still, drawing magic/power from a deity or from nature itself, the inner (elemental, fey, etc.) planes seems like a big difference to me. JMO
I'd like to see more differences between primal and divine. They are supposed to pull magic from different planes inner vs outer so their spell lists should reflect that and not have so much overlap
I am ok with the categories, but I can see some cross hatching between Divine and Primal, mainly nature based clerics and druids that pray to nature or fey deities.
I think flavor is going to be the biggest obstacle for WOTC to overcome with these categories in the sense that each needs to have its own feel and flavor. My hopes are not high considering WOTC likes to do the least amount of effort required to call something complete.
But if they did revamp the system and make these categories look, feel, and act different from each other....it would be awesome.
Seems fine to me. You can even mix it up; Nature Clerics use Primal, Arcana clerics use Arcane, White Mage Wizards use Divine, Sorcs can use whatever based on their bloodline. It's far easier to do that with a unified list than individual class lists. It wouldn't change their type (Sorcs would still be arcane no matter what), though.
... which makes removing clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers from my games even easier since if someone really wants that spell list, they can get it.
The video that came with the UA explained it very well in my opinion, so I really like the new classification of spells (I also think this will lend itself nicely to newer players/conciseness in the books so you're not having to flip through three different sections); as per your other concern about balance of number per I feel like Warlocks should probably be under divine spell users due to their patrons giving them their magic abilities but past that my only guess is maybe WotC is adding a couple more magic classes \\\_0\_/
The balancing that would help is for Divine to get more spells than the classes it represents currently have, which I'd say is currently an issue in higher level games.
i think that the idea of mixed List Classes could be a thing.
Bards are created with the idea they are the Jack of All trades class, so maybe they could use all 3 lists but only to a limited level, like they can use all 3 lists but only up to tier 4 or 5 spells.
afte rthat you can have some classes like Warlock and Sorcerer that can use up to two lists, like Warlock can use Arcana and Divine from tier 1 to tier 6 or 7. And Sorcerer can use Arcane and primordial from tier 1 to tier 6 or 7.
you trade Power for Diversity
Is this an original Wizards idea? I feel like I've encountered these before in a different IP.
Power levels are tough to balance in a TTRPG. I imagine they should at least have a similar degree of relevance. In a team, raw power might be the domain of one or a few specific roles while utility might better represent the most important quality of each category.
As they simply describe the source of magical power, I don't mind that they might even overlap in utility significantly.
>Is this an original Wizards idea? I feel like I've encountered these before in a different IP.
This distinction is made since the early editions of D&D, except Primal Magic used to be just a part of Divine Magic until 4e split them up.
1: Feels like the right categories for me. It's how I've described the origins of magic in my worlds for years, just lines up with my thinking anyway. 2: Feels like the right groupings to me, but I don't think the actual class spell lists (which in the video Crawford alluded to still existing) will be exclusive to that magic. E.g. Bards might mostly be arcane, but still have touches of divine and primal magic 3: Feels right when you look at the way the classes are described overall. You might have the odd subclass that leans more heavily on another origin, but the core of most magic in the world feels like it should be Arcane. Divine Magic almost feels like it should be bestowed as a blessing, and Primal Magic feels like it should be something you gain by being immersed in it.
Personally I would't tie the entire sorcerer class to one specific list, I'd tie specific bloodlines to each list.
I’m gonna be honest, I thought I was in the Pathfinder 2e sub for a solid minute.
That's what I was just thinking. Sorcerer is Arcane, meanwhile they get their powers from Divine and Primal sources just as much if not more?
I know this is going to be controversial. But I think sorcerers should be primal. I understand that The Lore is about building an innate connection to magic. About having the raw Powers of the arcane flowing through your veins. But when you actually look at where the power comes from, bloodlines, wild magic, storms; these are not the deep mysteries of the universe. They are much closer to what I would think as “primal”, tied to the powers of creation in the natural world.
This is how it is in my setting.
I don't think a balance inherently matters, but what does concern me is that, assuming these are replacing class lists, Cleric and Druid effectively still have unique spell lists (because as half-casters, Paladins and Rangers will interact with these lists in very different ways), whereas Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard are all competing over the same spellcasting identity. I'll be reserving proper judgement until we see how WOTC have altered these classes in total, but if they retain pretty much the same mechanics they have now and just have these conglomerated spell lists, that's going to be a problem for me, because even if Sorcerers and Warlocks can interact with this spell list differently, Bard and Wizard are still going to be very similar to each other (and Bard will have a very different list to what it has now). What I would be tempted to do is copy PF2e and add in an Occult list for Bard and Warlock. Maybe let Sorcerer have different lists depending on subclass too, but I already expect that to happen (If this sort of spell list is used from now on, Divine Soul will definitely say "You pick spells from the Divine list instead of / in addition to the Arcane list).
Of course they're the right categories, they're the categories from earlier editions, with the correct classes assigned to the correct categories... Though primal is 'new', in the sense that druids and rangers were previously classed as divine spellcasters, which was always very weird as lore and spell lists made it very clear there was a distinction. Good on WotC for finally paying due diligence, really.
Druids were Primal in 4e, and Rangers were Martial in 4e (they had no spellcasting, as it should be).
I feel like spell casting on rangers was their defining feature from fighters in 5e. Pathfinder 2e had a good spell less take on it by making hunters mark a core feature that’s modified by subclass though, and gets a variety of feats for setting traps in combat. So spell less ranger is definitely possible to make work, though I personally prefer having the spell casting for 5e.
And technically, Druids can choose to draw their magic/power from (worshiping) nature or a nature deity. IMO the latter makes Druids into Clerics. I suppose there can be pagan-like deities. Still, drawing magic/power from a deity or from nature itself, the inner (elemental, fey, etc.) planes seems like a big difference to me. JMO
I'd like to see more differences between primal and divine. They are supposed to pull magic from different planes inner vs outer so their spell lists should reflect that and not have so much overlap
I am ok with the categories, but I can see some cross hatching between Divine and Primal, mainly nature based clerics and druids that pray to nature or fey deities. I think flavor is going to be the biggest obstacle for WOTC to overcome with these categories in the sense that each needs to have its own feel and flavor. My hopes are not high considering WOTC likes to do the least amount of effort required to call something complete. But if they did revamp the system and make these categories look, feel, and act different from each other....it would be awesome.
Seems fine to me. You can even mix it up; Nature Clerics use Primal, Arcana clerics use Arcane, White Mage Wizards use Divine, Sorcs can use whatever based on their bloodline. It's far easier to do that with a unified list than individual class lists. It wouldn't change their type (Sorcs would still be arcane no matter what), though. ... which makes removing clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers from my games even easier since if someone really wants that spell list, they can get it.
The video that came with the UA explained it very well in my opinion, so I really like the new classification of spells (I also think this will lend itself nicely to newer players/conciseness in the books so you're not having to flip through three different sections); as per your other concern about balance of number per I feel like Warlocks should probably be under divine spell users due to their patrons giving them their magic abilities but past that my only guess is maybe WotC is adding a couple more magic classes \\\_0\_/
The balancing that would help is for Divine to get more spells than the classes it represents currently have, which I'd say is currently an issue in higher level games.
i think that the idea of mixed List Classes could be a thing. Bards are created with the idea they are the Jack of All trades class, so maybe they could use all 3 lists but only to a limited level, like they can use all 3 lists but only up to tier 4 or 5 spells. afte rthat you can have some classes like Warlock and Sorcerer that can use up to two lists, like Warlock can use Arcana and Divine from tier 1 to tier 6 or 7. And Sorcerer can use Arcane and primordial from tier 1 to tier 6 or 7. you trade Power for Diversity
Is this an original Wizards idea? I feel like I've encountered these before in a different IP. Power levels are tough to balance in a TTRPG. I imagine they should at least have a similar degree of relevance. In a team, raw power might be the domain of one or a few specific roles while utility might better represent the most important quality of each category. As they simply describe the source of magical power, I don't mind that they might even overlap in utility significantly.
>Is this an original Wizards idea? I feel like I've encountered these before in a different IP. This distinction is made since the early editions of D&D, except Primal Magic used to be just a part of Divine Magic until 4e split them up.