D&D 5E UA Spell Versatility: A deeper dive

[MarkB]

That's because this feature is a spell casting feature. When I say a person can argue intent it leaves room for what's intended. When someone is arguing that "this spellcasting feature" isn't referring to this feature I have to disagree.

I also find it more plausible that WotC's intent was a small benefit for versatility and not the ability to rewrite one's entire spell list during downtime.

I pointed out the wording. My recommendation is play it how you want and give back feedback on the survey expressing concern over the wording if you feel my interpretation is not correct.

It specifies "this Spellcasting feature" because multiclassed characters have access to multiple Spellcasting features, and each version of the UA enhancement only applies to that class's Spellcasting feature, not those gained from other classes.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Firstly, I would just like to point out that:

Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters appear to have been completely forgotten.

Also, High Elves should be included if you are allowing cantrip changing.

The general feeling in our group is we don't like this idea. No one has ever had a problem with sorcerer, warlock or bard spell selection, and therefore we consider the rules as is "not broke". Even if someone feels they have made a poor spell choice waiting to level up to fix it doesn't seem like a long time. I guess in a game with very slow levelling it might become an issue. I guess it might be useful for level 20 characters to have some way to change spells, but I have never played D&D at level 20 (outside CRPGs). Under those circumstances I would prefer changing spells to be a downtime activity, taking a couple of weeks and some gold, to "long rest".

 

[Coroc]

I can't see any case in which is this "too much" of a boost for Sorcerers. They're a weaker class than other spellcasters, by and large. They're vastly weaker than Wizards. This would help them - it won't fix them, and indeed the other stuff for them is mostly just mucking around charmingly than boosting their power, but it's the right direction.

With Bards, I think you can't make a reasonable case that it's "too much" except with level 7/8/9 spells, because they know sufficiently few of those, and they're sufficiently dramatic that I could see limiting them to changing out spells of level 6 or below, and perhaps being allowed to change out a 7/8/9 spell with a month's notice or something.

I feel like your analysis doesn't really look at how Clerics are already rather more powerful and flexible than any of these guys, whilst wearing good armour + shields, having decent weapons, and in many cases having extremely good non-spell abilities.

Sorcerers are not weaker than wizards, they are just different and they have some abilities (metamagic conversion nof spell points)a wizard never gets close to. Also their physical prowess (dragon sorcerer) is better than the wizards. If you allow favored soul sorcerers then you even get healing abilities for sorcerers plus your favourite arcane spells.

To balance all those abilities out what would you restrict or limit for sorcerers so that they are not better than wizards in all aspects except versatility?

 

[Yaarel]

To increase clarity, Spell Versatility should say:

Spell Versatility
1st-level bard feature (enhances Spellcasting)
Whenever you finish a long rest, you can replace one spell you learned from [the bard] Spellcasting feature with another spell from the bard spell list. The new spell must be the same level as the spell you replace.



Heh, using pronouns like ‘this’ without a clear antecedent is a style failure that English teachers warn us about.

 

[Li Shenron]

I find the OP very painful to read. Thousands of words to explain something I already know anyway i.e. how the core classes work.

I don't see any reason why Spell Versatility should be added to 5e. It doesn't have any benefit. It makes all characters of those classes a lot more similar to each other, which is not good. It won't matter than much anymore which spells to choose when designing a character of that class, so why bother. Players will create those characters with less care because they can fix them later.

In addition, core characters will get the shaft, so DMs will be asked to enable Spell Versatility to all characters so they can get a free boost. In AL organized play it will suck if you're already using another book for character material, because with the PHB+1 book rule everyone who picks whatever new book has Spell Versatility will get a boost for free, but if you wanted an Archetype or feat or else from a different book, no free boost for you.

So in order to avoid the previous scenario, if Spell Versatility receives good feedback then WotC will put it into a new PHB instead, meaning 5.5 and the usual fracture between gamers.

I don't know if WotC does it on purpose because they already need a revision or new edition financially, but if they care for 5e then this kind of "global fixes" are seriously bad design ideas. They are very significant changes to some basic assumptions of the game. Of course they can easily find lots of players who will shout "yes, free boost!" and use it as a "proof" that it's a good idea instead.

 

[Krachek]

That is giving incredible short shrift to the WotC team who has done great work and on something that is playtest material.

Playtest material is always "over designed" so that they can reign it in as necessary based on player feedback. If they under designed it, then when they got that feedback, they'd have to up a feature in power and re-release it in playtest to see where they were. More work than is necessary.

They have done great job.
they are at the junction point of all feedback about DnD,
designing rules update like they did need some thinking and structure but I also ask
some artistic feelings about the game.
some math but a lot of taste, intuition and a will to produce a joyful product.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't see any reason why Spell Versatility should be added to 5e. It doesn't have any benefit. It makes all characters of those classes a lot more similar to each other, which is not good. It won't matter than much anymore which spells to choose when designing a character of that class, so why bother. Players will create those characters with less care because they can fix them later.

Heh... you say this as though most players don't already default to the exact same 8 spells across each character class.

If spellcasters all seem to be the same, its because those players have decided on what spells are "optimal" for their particular game and can't help but build a load-out that follows that. But that's on them. They can't then complain that all characters look the same if they are following along.

 

[Li Shenron]

Heh... you say this as though most players don't already default to the exact same 8 spells across each character class.

If spellcasters all seem to be the same, its because those players have decided on what spells are "optimal" for their particular game and can't help but build a load-out that follows that. But that's on them. They can't then complain that all characters look the same if they are following along.

Doesn't happen to my players, but it doesn't matter.

The problem is not even necessarily designing a game where all spellcasters know all their spells. The problem is changing the established rules of the game. Especially because there is nothing wrong to fix here.

 

[MarkB]

To increase clarity, Spell Versatility should say:

Spell Versatility
1st-level bard feature (enhances Spellcasting)
Whenever you finish a long rest, you can replace one spell you learned from [the bard] Spellcasting feature with another spell from the bard spell list. The new spell must be the same level as the spell you replace.



Heh, using pronouns like ‘this’ without a clear antecedent is a style failure that English teachers warn us about.

Bear in mind that these entries aren't meant to be read in isolation - they're intended to be inserted into the existing PHB text. The wording is a lot less ambiguous when the paragraph is simply one more sub-heading under the Spellcasting class feature.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Only if by "this feature" the text refers to a different feature that's not "this feature".

Spell versatility is a 1st-level feature. It's reaching to make assumptions that "this" refers to anything else.

The other thing I would point out is that the spell selected has to match the level replaced. As a 1st level feature that's going to lock it into cantrips or 1st-level spells as well.

Hopefully by now you understand your reading isn't RAW. It is cool if you want to run it this way and it would make it less powerful. But even with your reading it wouldn't limit it to cantrips or 1st-level spells, it would limit it to spells of a level when you first use it. If you waited until 5th level, you could and the first time you used this was with a 3rd level spell, then you would be locked into 3rd level spells for the swap.

Now, if you are still reading it not RAW, I would like to point out if you are reading "this Spellcasting feature" as the Spell Versatility feature, it says "you can replace one spell you learned from this Spellcasting feature." But Spell Versatility doesn't allow you to "learn" a spell, so you'd have nothing to replace.

So, what is your thinking now?