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

[Ashrym]

When they say the spell "is a bard spell" (fro exemple) they really just means that it interacts with class features that call out 'bard spells' (or Cleric Spells or what have you). It also usually means it uses the same rules at your other spells in regard to casting stats and preparation rules.

How do they want it to interact with spell versatility would be my question. Either those spells work with it just like any other bard spells, or they are restricted and spell versatility doesn't work with all the bard spells known even though they aren't any different from other bard spells known.

I can see the argument to push "the" instead of "your" bard spell list but I would have a hard time enforcing that level of technicality on it.

 

[Undrave]

How do they want it to interact with spell versatility would be my question. Either those spells work with it just like any other bard spells, or they are restricted and spell versatility doesn't work with all the bard spells known even though they aren't any different from other bard spells known.

I can see the argument to push "the" instead of "your" bard spell list but I would have a hard time enforcing that level of technicality on it.

'Magical Secret' is a different feature than 'Spellcasting' so it doesn't work at all.

 

[Ashrym]

'Magical Secret' is a different feature than 'Spellcasting' so it doesn't work at all.

Hmm. I see where you are going with that, and I'm not convinced that's actually the intent. That gets back to questioning it in the feedback. You are correct and I was applying something to all spells known when it's all spells known from a different feature. I missed the RAW on that one.

That means bards would need to track two spells known lists in that case, which is a bit counter-intuitive to the magical secrets spells being rolled into the same spells known on the spells known table.

It also means I was possibly wrong twice this week already and it's only Monday, lol.

 

[Undrave]

Hmm. I see where you are going with that, and I'm not convinced that's actually the intent. That gets back to questioning it in the feedback. You are correct and I was applying something to all spells known when it's all spells known from a different feature. I missed the RAW on that one.

That means bards would need to track two spells known lists in that case, which is a bit counter-intuitive to the magical secrets spells being rolled into the same spells known on the spells known table.

It also means I was possibly wrong twice this week already and it's only Monday, lol.

Bard only get two spells from Magical Secret at a time so I don't think it's that bad to just put a little asterisk next to them on your list.

 

[Ashrym]

When they say the spell "is a bard spell" (fro exemple) they really just means that it interacts with class features that call out 'bard spells' (or Cleric Spells or what have you). It also usually means it uses the same rules at your other spells in regard to casting stats and preparation rules.

Now I have to add asterisks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's a travesty and I won't stand for it.

 

[Bacon Bits]

That's not a high level of complexity compared to rolling/leveling/playing a caster in the first place. Casters are very complex in 5e - heck, outside of 4e (and even then, wizard was arguably the most complex class), they always were - it's not a meaningful bump in complexity compared to the baseline.

No, but it is a generally meaningless amount of information, and unlike essentially everything else, if it's lost it can't be meaningfully regenerated. Now, in addition to a list of spells in your spellbook, you have to track when you learned them just in case you might want to swap them out.

No, it's not difficult. That doesn't mean it's a good design. No, Wizards aren't simple to play (relatively speaking). That doesn't mean even higher complexity is a good design.

It's significant complexity that doesn't need to exist. A less complex mechanic is far more favorable, even if it's somewhat more abusable.

This is the same problem we had in 1e/2e/3e with level drain. You either wrote down how many HP you gained at each level, or you had to roll what you lost and then roll again when you regained a level. No, it's not difficult, but it's a tedious design. It's a poor design for a mechanic -- particularly in a system that values simplicity. It's exactly why Con modifier changes are retroactive. Yes, we can take notes that our Con went from 15 to 16 at level 8/6/4, but it's a lot easier to just add in those extra HP. Needing to preserve the longitudinal history of your character is never a good design. It's particularly irritating when creating a character at above 1st level.

 

[Bacon Bits]

'Magical Secret' is a different feature than 'Spellcasting' so it doesn't work at all.

That's a debatable interpretation, but ultimately it doesn't really matter because even a liberal interpretation doesn't add much flexibility. As I mentioned in post #27:

Magical Secrets says:

1. Choose two spells from any classes.
2. Those spells are now Bard spells for you. (This is necessary because it's what determines which ability to use for saves and spell attacks.)
3. Those spells are now known spells for you.

At best, Bard Spell Versatility only lets you mess with step 3.

Even if we say that the Bard can chose to exchange spells learned through Magical Secrets, the new spell must come from the Bard spell list. Even if the spell is no longer a spell known, spells added to the Magical Secrets spell list would remain on your Bard spell list.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No, it's not difficult. That doesn't mean it's a good design. No, Wizards aren't simple to play (relatively speaking). That doesn't mean even higher complexity is a good design. ... It's a poor design for a mechanic -- particularly in a system that values simplicity.

I think part of my point is that the system is not consistently designed as if it valued simplicity. There are clearly other things it values a good deal more.

This is the same problem we had in 1e/2e/3e with level drain. You either wrote down how many HP you gained at each level, or you had to roll what you lost and then roll again when you regained a level.

Heh, law of averages be damned, that could theoretically give you some crazy results. "I have not hit points" "oh, you dropped?" "No my maximum hit points are 0, I rolled 20 on the 2d10 from that level drain, I only had 18" "At 4th level, that's nuts" "Well after the last three level drains were restored I rolled crap...each time." Y'know, or vice-versa.

I always noted my HD rolls. I often wondered why there wasn't a space for it on the sheet.

 

[cbwjm]

Crawford has confirmed that if you swap out a spell gained with magical secrets, it can only be swapped to one that is part of the bard spell list. If you pick up fireball with magical secrets, it counts as a bard spell for you, meaning you get to use your charisma to set your spell DC but the spell is not added to the bard spell list. Swap it out and it's gone for good.

 

[NotAYakk]

Crawford has confirmed that if you swap out a spell gained with magical secrets, it can only be swapped to one that is part of the bard spell list. If you pick up fireball with magical secrets, it counts as a bard spell for you, meaning you get to use your charisma to set your spell DC but the spell is not added to the bard spell list. Swap it out and it's gone for good.

Really? That isn't consistent with what he said about level-up retraining:

A spell learned via Magical Secrets counts as a bard spell, so it can be replaced upon gaining a level later. #DnD wyndll on Twitter
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 24, 2015

@JeremyECrawford @wyndll can it be replaced with a new magical secrets spell or must ot be from bard spell list?
— Ryan Hagan (@SalmonSquire) October 24, 2015

If a bard replaces a bard spell upon leveling up, the new spell must also be a bard spell. #DnD Ryan Hagan on Twitter

He said it counts as a bard spell. So you can swap it for another bard spell. So that is consistent.

He didn't say that it is gone for good when talking about level-up retraining. In fact, if it "counts as a bard spell" for you, and you can swap any bard spell for any other bard spell, that means you can swap back.

It is on your list, just not one you know. Later, you can grab it again, from your bard spell list.

---

I cannot find the "new" Crawford quote. Source?