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

[FrogReaver]

I'll argue past you again... Nobody is arguing against spell versatility

I am

 

[FrogReaver]

Sorcerers have always been a "crappy wizard" or magewright who ALSO has something else, but sorcerers should be reveling in that something else rather that trying to copy the wizard... if they are going to be copying the wizard as effectively as spell versatility lets them copy and still keep their something else, the wizard class needs to have something meaningful they can call their own that still lets them say "sorcerers are crappy wizards with something extra & shouldn't be confused with what wizards are"

So ban spell versatility. It is only a UA afterall which means it's not something you really need to ban to begin with... There's been tons of UA classes and rules that I've never used and never will. It's a rule I will be changing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

. I can see how spellcasting has gotten easier and easier over the decades, but I'm not sure why that impacts the thematics of the sorcerer.

Well, spontaneous casting was the Sorcerer's thing, now it's everybody's. But the real issue is the 'limitation' of known spells, it means spell choice can shape the character and define it more meaningfully - the easier it is to swap those around, the less meaningful.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, spontaneous casting was the Sorcerer's thing, now it's everybody's. But the real issue is the 'limitation' of known spells, it means spell choice can shape the character and define it more meaningfully - the easier it is to swap those around, the less meaningful.

It also harder to fill up your spells known with only thematic spells if your sorcerer has to large a list

 

[Tony Vargas]

It also harder to fill up your spells known with only thematic spells if your sorcerer has to large a list

I guess the key thing is the inflection point between making chargen/level-up decisions to concept, and needing to make in-play decisions that are disadvantageous to you & your party in order to stay in-concept.

The 3e sorcerer was very much on the right side of that line. 5e, a bit less so, this UA moves further to the wrong side.

 

[Ashrym]

There is no discussion to be had on why cantrip versatility should not be long rest that does not also apply itself to spell versatility because both sorcerer & wizard class players play in the slower leveling games crawford mentions it was intended for. Why do I need to keep pointing this out to you?

Then do that in your games if you want.

You don't have to point anything out. It's clear you want to have "stuff" because sorcerer, bards, warlocks get something wizards can't do. It's just the logic behind it is faulty and you keep making arguments responding to posters who haven't said what you are commenting back. It's like you aren't actually responding to points made and then replying back to someone else at times.

It's irrelevant that wizards are in the same game as sorcerers with slower leveling games because those wizards were never impacted by swapping spells more slowly than was intended for wizards. They cannot be impacted by something that never applied to them, nor can they have a correction for that issue that never applied to them. You can't fix something that didn't exist.

We started a group for lost mines under the new rules. The group includes a wizard, ranger, sorcerer, bard, and paladin. The sorcerer was nervous about playing in a group that already had a wizard but wanted to try see what happens. His other choice was a warlock but then he said, "no one seems to be giving a rat's (expletive) about the warlocks" so he went for it.

After that we'll go with something in a higher tier.

We're only 1 session in so far, so obviously not an indicator by any means, but as completely expected no one bothered to swap a spell on any class in the one long rest we've had. People are never going to find issues arguing about some perceived slights against their classes. Play and see what happens. Have fun. Do it with house rules on versatile cantrip. I bet playing is more fun that talking about playing.

 

[tetrasodium]

[/QUOTE]

Then do that in your games if you want.

You don't have to point anything out. It's clear you want to have "stuff" because sorcerer, bards, warlocks get something wizards can't do. It's just the logic behind it is faulty and you keep making arguments responding to posters who haven't said what you are commenting back. It's like you aren't actually responding to points made and then replying back to someone else at times.

It's irrelevant that wizards are in the same game as sorcerers with slower leveling games because those wizards were never impacted by swapping spells more slowly than was intended for wizards. They cannot be impacted by something that never applied to them, nor can they have a correction for that issue that never applied to them. You can't fix something that didn't exist.

We started a group for lost mines under the new rules. The group includes a wizard, ranger, sorcerer, bard, and paladin. The sorcerer was nervous about playing in a group that already had a wizard but wanted to try see what happens. His other choice was a warlock but then he said, "no one seems to be giving a rat's (expletive) about the warlocks" so he went for it.

After that we'll go with something in a higher tier.

We're only 1 session in so far, so obviously not an indicator by any means, but as completely expected no one bothered to swap a spell on any class in the one long rest we've had. People are never going to find issues arguing about some perceived slights against their classes. Play and see what happens. Have fun. Do it with house rules on versatile cantrip. I bet playing is more fun that talking about playing.

It sounds like you aren't aware of the fact that Crawford talked at length about how slower leveling games were a driving factor in this UA & think that his reasons behind creating this UA is irrelevant to the abilities in this UA ... maybe quoting him again will help you understand why slower leveling games are relevant to the discussion.

Spoiler

I wanted us to provide an official answer to the desire in many groups, which we ave observed over the last five years to be able to have a bit more flexibility with their character.. for when they make a choice.. not be trapped by that choice. Because we have provided in the player's handbook various ways to say if your a sorcerer when you level up swap out a spell.. In this we provide you the ability to swap out a spell at the end of the long rest. The reason for that is that we actually have no control as game designers over how long a level lasts... and in some groups, it has become clear as we've observed different patterns on play over the last five years. Having to wait till the next level to swap out a spell that you don't like in one group that might just be a session or two from now... Another group, if another group likes to just sorta stay the same level for a long time, that could be six to twelve months... which was not a part of our original design. So in a way, us providing this versatility is signaling to people the game can handle a sorcerer for instance swapping out one spell at the end of the short rest err sorry a long rest... Because also ultimately we want people to be happy with their characters, to me there is no sort of merit in the design to make people sorta eat their vegetables with their character, it's a game. Now some may ask why you don't just let people change everything all the time. Now the reason that the rules don't it's really two fold. One is a narrative reason, we want there to be at least some stable identity to a person's character... but also B we don't want this potential slowdown of reconsidering everything in your character all the time. Now there are a few characters like the wizard for instance where actually you have deep consideration daily of their spells & all of their spells is a core part of their identity... but with wizards we address that by it's a spellbook so the spellbook doesn't have every single spell in existence, it just sortof a curated list & then your choosing from that curated list

Hope that helps.

 

[Ashrym]

It sounds like you aren't aware of the fact that Crawford talked at length about how slower leveling games were a driving factor in this UA & think that his reasons behind creating this UA is irrelevant to the abilities in this UA ... maybe quoting him again will help you understand why slower leveling games are relevant to the discussion.



Hope that helps.
[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what you are posting that isn't already clear. It's same video I've already watched and Crawford states "wizards still have their identity because the wizard's versatility is still unmatched." "One spell versus an entire list is a very different play experience because you are also going to see stability." The game can handle a sorcerer swapping out one spell on a long rest, etc.

He literally says the opposite of "these mechanics are stepping on wizards' toes". Having curated list of spells in a spell book is the wizard's identity per the video. These are the same points I gave you.

He also points out these are optional several times.

 

[tetrasodium]

It sounds like you aren't aware of the fact that Crawford talked at length about how slower leveling games were a driving factor in this UA & think that his reasons behind creating this UA is irrelevant to the abilities in this UA ... maybe quoting him again will help you understand why slower leveling games are relevant to the discussion.



Hope that helps.

I'm not sure what you are posting that isn't already clear. It's same video I've already watched and Crawford states "wizards still have their identity because the wizard's versatility is still unmatched." "One spell versus an entire list is a very different play experience because you are also going to see stability." The game can handle a sorcerer swapping out one spell on a long rest, etc.

He literally says the opposite of "these mechanics are stepping on wizards' toes". Having curated list of spells in a spell book is the wizard's identity per the video. These are the same points I gave you.

He also points out these are optional several times.
[/QUOTE]
Yes having a curated list of spells is a big part of the wizard class's identity. Spell versatility gives sorcerer too much of that without wizard gaining some kind of replacement identity. This UA does not include that replacement I it's unclear if the eventual need is acknowledged or accepted

 

[Sword of Spirit]

UA articles are proposed changes to the game put out for playtest purposes. They are generally not yet balanced. They aren't just toys for us. If they are rated as popular, they get published in official products. The reason why those who don't like the way something is done in a UA should care about it, is that now is the time to provided feedback so that when they do put out the product with the finished version we are happy to buy it.

I almost never use UA materials in my games, because they unpolished and unbalanced. I usually allow in actual published content, and I'd prefer that content be of as high quality and as useful to as many people as possible, which is why I'm tearing into this material and trying to get everyone thinking about it, so we can figure out stuff about it they may not have thought of (the purpose of a playtest).

I don't agree with Mr. Crawford's apparent view of the wizard. I see daily flexibility as merely one component of the wizard's identity. My Premise B flexibility is another vital component.

I think I probably was misreading something he said, but it almost sounded like he was saying that the specific spells a wizard knows are part of his identity--which I think is exactly backwards. The ability to not be limited to specific spells is a part of wizard identity, whereas knowing certain specific spells is part of the sorcerer's identity. This is where I'm seeing an identity confusion.

However, that is not the full story. Because while the Sorcerer can (under these rules) potentially know any 1 of these spells after a long rest, they can only access two spells at a time.
...
And this is why I am less concerned about this. Yes, it sounds really impressive to say that an 20th level sorcerer will be able to pick from any of 159 spells, every day. But, the wizard has already taken the best 30% of 267 spells to have access to, and they can swap and choose 25 of them at a time.

The sheer scale of Wizards is nearly an order of magnitude over sorcerers. Being able to change 1 spell every night isn't really going to change that I don't think.

It sounds like you don't accept my Premise B (which is actually my assumption--that anyone who disagrees with my concerns does so because they have a different concept of wizard identity that doesn't include Premise B). The sort of flexibility that you explained is an important part of wizard identity. If there were a proposed change that took that ability away from them, even if they gave them something like Spell Versatility (which I don't think wizards should have either) in exchange, I wouldn't like it. These are two halves of the wizard's identity to me. I have daily preparation flexibility, and I'm the most likely to be able to find that one spell we need.

I'm an equal opportunity identity guardian. See my sorcerer threads for how I think they are underprivileged compared to the wizard in flexibility. Spell Versatility is a wrong way to handle it, because it takes away a vital part (Premise B) of the wizard's identity.