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

[tetrasodium]

But what if the wizard has the spell?

That is irrelevant and was answered, you may want to read back before repeating that same question again.

What if there is no Wizard in the party?

Then under these rules it wouldn't matter because the spell is still on the sorcerer class list

What if the Cleric or Druid has the Spell?

Yes, there are times that these rules have the sorcerer stepping on the toes of a prepared divine caster like drud or cleric. Sorcerer shares fewer spells with the druid/cleric than wizard & is mostly getting ignored because of that.

What if a non-casting class comes up with the solution?

Then the sorcerer still has the spell & can step on the toes of a fourth+ class under these rules

I am not saying there is no issue, but when you step back and look at the context needed for this to be a problem for the wizard specifically... it is a lot of conditions.

It's not a lot of conditions, it's a context free set of examples that allow discussion without needing to get bogged down in the utterly irrelevant monday morning quarterbacking "what if" and "why was/wasn't" questions that you seem to be clinging to despite their irreverence

 

[Tony Vargas]

What if a non-casting class comes up with the solution?

...Ok, now we're just being silly...

 

[MarkB]

Yes, there are times that these rules have the sorcerer stepping on the toes of a prepared divine caster like drud or cleric. Sorcerer shares fewer spells with the druid/cleric than wizard & is mostly getting ignored because of that.

No, it's getting ignored because the cleric and druid can already do exactly this same 'trick', with as many spells as they like, right out of the Player's Handbook.

So why is it stepping on the wizard's toes when the sorcerer does it, but not when the cleric or druid does it?

 

[Chaosmancer]

That is irrelevant and was answered, you may want to read back before repeating that same question again.


Then under these rules it wouldn't matter because the spell is still on the sorcerer class list


Yes, there are times that these rules have the sorcerer stepping on the toes of a prepared divine caster like drud or cleric. Sorcerer shares fewer spells with the druid/cleric than wizard & is mostly getting ignored because of that.

Then the sorcerer still has the spell & can step on the toes of a fourth+ class under these rules


It's not a lot of conditions, it's a context free set of examples that allow discussion without needing to get bogged down in the utterly irrelevant monday morning quarterbacking "what if" and "why was/wasn't" questions that you seem to be clinging to despite their irreverence

Okay, I think you completely missed the point of the rhetoric.

I wasn't looking for specific answers to those questions, they were helping me illustrate the point in the paragraph you skipped.

For this ability to step on the toes of the wizard, you need a very specific set of circumstances, any other set of circumstances, and the issue is moot.

And I want to draw your attention to this part in particular.

What if there is no Wizard in the party?

Then under these rules it wouldn't matter because the spell is still on the sorcerer class list

I wonder if you have considered how this situation has changed with these rules. I played in a party where my Sorcerer was the only Arcane Caster (We had a fighter, barbarian, thief and no-show cleric filling the rest of the party).

IF you are in a situation where a specific spell is the only solution under the old rules, with a Sorcerer only group then you have two options. Find the NPC solution the DM will provide, or level up and swap spells. Which lasts until the next level up.

Under these rules, you now have a third choice, swap spells over night.

That can be very big for those parties, where the Sorcerer comes up with an idea or a fun RP thing they can do, and they can actually switch spells and pull it off instead of just writing it off as impossible and moving on.

 

[Ashrym]

What if a non-casting class comes up with the solution?

...Ok, now we're just being silly...

They are still too busy rolling on the floor laughing at the spell casters because it takes them a full day to figure out how to open stuck doors.

 

[tetrasodium]

No, it's getting ignored because the cleric and druid can already do exactly this same 'trick', with as many spells as they like, right out of the Player's Handbook.

So why is it stepping on the wizard's toes when the sorcerer does it, but not when the cleric or druid does it?

While true, given the conversation

Okay, I think you completely missed the point of the rhetoric.

I wasn't looking for specific answers to those questions, they were helping me illustrate the point in the paragraph you skipped.

For this ability to step on the toes of the wizard, you need a very specific set of circumstances, any other set of circumstances, and the issue is moot.

And I want to draw your attention to this part in particular.



I wonder if you have considered how this situation has changed with these rules. I played in a party where my Sorcerer was the only Arcane Caster (We had a fighter, barbarian, thief and no-show cleric filling the rest of the party).

IF you are in a situation where a specific spell is the only solution under the old rules, with a Sorcerer only group then you have two options. Find the NPC solution the DM will provide, or level up and swap spells. Which lasts until the next level up.

Under these rules, you now have a third choice, swap spells over night.

That can be very big for those parties, where the Sorcerer comes up with an idea or a fun RP thing they can do, and they can actually switch spells and pull it off instead of just writing it off as impossible and moving on.

No, the cleric and druid being prepared divine casters is not the same because they have far less overlap in role or spell list than the wizard and sorcerer. you are being absurd

 

[Chaosmancer]

While true, given the conversation

No, the cleric and druid being prepared divine casters is not the same because they have far less overlap in role or spell list than the wizard and sorcerer. you are being absurd

That is not my argument. So... I'm not being absurd?

I'll repost the paragraph, maybe you can see what I'm actually trying to say.

...requires a very specific series of qualifiers to exist as a problem. A class needs this feature, the wizard needs to be in the party, the wizard needs to not have the solution, the wizard needs to want to have the solution, the wizard needs to know that they could head to somewhere and buy or gain the solution, they need to be able to wait the 24 hours for the other class to utilize this feature.

This up here ^

If the party doesn't have a wizard, this feature does not overshadow them.

If the wizard has the spell already, this feature does not overshadow them

If the wizard has no idea where to obtain the spell in question, this feature does not overshadow them.

If the party can't wait 24 hours for the other class (bard or sorcerer or ranger) to use this feature, this feature does not overshadow them.

Yes, additionally, if the cleric or druid could access the required spell, this feature would not overshadow the wizard.

It is true that Sword of Spirit's example highlights a potential problem, but for it to be an actual problem at the table, you need a sorcerer with this feature, a wizard, a challenge that requires a specific spell, that spell to not currently be in the wizard's spellbook but could be if they traveled a few days, that challenge can wait that period of time, the sorcerer instead using this feature because it is a spell they share on their list, and then the wizard getting upset that the sorcerer saved them time and money by doing for free what they were going to do.

If one facet of that scenario is not true, this feature is not a problem for the wizard. That is what I am trying to say.

 

[MarkB]

While true, given the conversation

No, the cleric and druid being prepared divine casters is not the same because they have far less overlap in role or spell list than the wizard and sorcerer. you are being absurd

And yet, in the very post I was replying to, you considered it not at all absurd to worry that the sorcerer was stepping on the cleric and druid's toes, despite that same disparity in spell lists. So I guess it's only absurd when you're not saying it.

 

[tetrasodium]

And yet, in the very post I was replying to, you considered it not at all absurd to worry that the sorcerer was stepping on the cleric and druid's toes, despite that same disparity in spell lists. So I guess it's only absurd when you're not saying it.

Not at all... Chaos's entire line of what if, why does, & why doesn't it. If chaos wants to argue that spell versatility is stepping on the toes of cleric & druid, he's welcome to make that claim, have it dismissed as absurd, & shouldn't be surprised when it gets pointed out that such a position weakens his other arguments downplaying the problems caused between sorcerer & wizard with this UA. That should not be surprising.

 

[5ekyu]

And yet, in the very post I was replying to, you considered it not at all absurd to worry that the sorcerer was stepping on the cleric and druid's toes, despite that same disparity in spell lists. So I guess it's only absurd when you're not saying it.

Also, to be clear, to mebits less about specific spells copied but ability to provide solutions in areas.

I am myself far less concerned with some set- piece about a single specific uncommon spell key-puzzle scene a GM can setup (Because they could set this up for any case) than I am with how much support a type of challenge can be dealt with. Allowing the sorc to dial in one spell pales in no small way to a cleric or druid dialing up several spells to deal with a need today and another setv tomorrow.

I font really care if a sudden one off "did you pick " creation"" puzzle thsn a druid looking at "tomorrow we svout" and finding a variety of beast for scouts and Intel, Pass without Trace, divinations etc.

This puzzle-key focus is to me very much a forest hidden by the trees kind of myopia.

Crawford again today commented that to them this one spell swap would not be z problem as far as its impact on the usual prrp classes including wizard.

I tend to agree.