The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Even though you say you're disagreeing with me, you seem to be accepting the point that there is a tension between what sorcerers are meant to be and how they actually work. That is is a level-up thing rather than an encounter thing doesn't seem (to me) to undermine the point.
That fully undermines the point. Level up isn't the game. It's a minigame where you as the player stop playing your character and decide what benefits they are going to get.
I don't see how there can be a fix within the mechanical framework and conceits of 5e.
That seems to be saying that it's broken in the current game and can't be fixed because it's broken in the current game. Seems like a rather circular argument.
I'll give you one solution (though I don't know if you will accept it works in the mechanical framework and conceits of 5e - which is so ambiguous a term that it really could apply to anything someone wanted to change in the game). But here's an easy solution:
Sorcerer subclasses should have defined the majority of their spells based on theme. They then should have gotten just a few additional spells known on top of those pre selections. Theme get's reinforced with some room for customization. No more needing to be careful about spell selection as the subclass would cover the sorcerers basic mechanical needs and thematic identity.
I don't see how that can be characterised as a "minor restriction". In most campaigns I think the difference between changing whole load-out overnight and changing one spell overnight would not be minor.
If, in your game, it would be only a minor restriction - eg because you're playing something like Tomb of Horrors in the classic mode - then the easy solution seems to be not to use the optional variant.
This doesn't make sense, for the reasons @Ashrym has described.
Spell versatility is a solution to a problem with the real-world pacing of an intended class feature (ie being able to correct/adjust for choices that don't work out). Cantrip versatility is not a solution to any existing problem. It's adding a new option.
The suggestion that it's only right seems missplaced to me. This isn't an issue about morality or esteem. It's about design. One is a design correction. The other is a design addition.
I don't see how that can be characterised as a "minor restriction". In most campaigns I think the difference between changing whole load-out overnight and changing one spell overnight would not be minor.
If, in your game, it would be only a minor restriction - eg because you're playing something like Tomb of Horrors in the classic mode - then the easy solution seems to be not to use the optional variant.
This doesn't make sense, for the reasons @Ashrym has described.
Spell versatility is a solution to a problem with the real-world pacing of an intended class feature (ie being able to correct/adjust for choices that don't work out). Cantrip versatility is not a solution to any existing problem. It's adding a new option.
The suggestion that it's only right seems missplaced to me. This isn't an issue about morality or esteem. It's about design. One is a design correction. The other is a design addition.
Thank you for attempting to make an argument that was not self defeating. The tangent of what things people have suggested that could be given to wizards got asked earlier & I included references to this suggestion and this one that built on it. the first one is so trivial that it literally admits "since even if you fail every day for a week you'll never be higher than Level 1 Exhaustion". That is the very definition of triviality. The second one has a bit more teeth since the level of exhaustion is guaranteed & they are limited to spells equal to or below their proficiency bonus. However the triviality comes from the fact that it would only be used when taking an extra rest or two & getting the cleric/druid/bard/artificer to cast greater restoration in order to clear it & move on unhindered. You could say that it's not trivial because whatif that is never an option in a campaign, but the whatif goes both ways & never ends... whatif there's not enough gold to scribe many spells... whatif like many of wotc's own published adventures there are few scrolls & no spellbooks till very late in the campaign or if there are spellbooks mid campaign & those spellbooks are filled with the cr6mm347 mage has prepared even though most if not all of those will be either already learned & in spellbook from leveling or irrelivant due to build design choices made long before the party killing cr6 casters is going to be just a "hard" or even mere "deadly" encounter as opposed to beyond deadly. The only whatif The only whatif we have is the very slow leveling one crawford raised, so you really shouln't be raising more like whatif there are no long rests available
The rest of your post gets to another problem Lets look at what crawford said the design goals of it were originally for
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
Lets start with your "Spell versatility is a solution to a problem with the real-world pacing ... Cantrip versatility is not a solution to any existing problem. It's adding a new option. " claim because it's so badly rooted in a misunderstanding of a few things both in the classes and this UA. If you look at phb101 (sorcerer), you will see this section
Additionally, when you gain a level in this class, you can choose one of the sorcerer spells you know
and replace it with another spell from the sorcerer spell list, which also must be of a level for which you
have spell slots.
Cantrips are neither a spell that uses spell slots nor covered by that sorcerer ability... yet the UA explicitly makes clear that cantrips are covered by spell versatility with the sidebar in the bard section. This is "a new option" for both classes, please don't suggest otherwise.
With that cleared up, it allows things to progress to your argument about pacing. The Sorcerer starts with 4 cantrips then learns another one at levels 4 & 10. The wizard starts wizard starts with 3 cantrip & learns another one at 4 & 10. Since the proposed ability to swap cantrips is an entirely new ability for both classes, the design justifications gets clearly & obviously gets into two of the points Crawford made. The no merit in making people eat their vegetables line of logic he goes into clearly justifies why both classes gain the new ability to swap cantrips, the fact that one class uses that new ability with a completely different ability than the other (spell/cantrip versatility) is completely irrelevant to the fact that the new ability to swap cantrips is objectively better for one class than the other. if "six to twelve months" is too long for one class to use this entirely new ability it never had before, then it is also too long for the other class to use this entirely new ability it never had before. The reason for that has nothing to do with "morality" as you confused that logic to be it.... it is simply about "design correction" as you put it.
Arguments that this "is just UA & can be ignored" that some people have made are irrelevant & can be ignored because Crawford also made clear that he'd like to eventually get some form of this into an eventual official printed book. It's generally best to give feedback before something is printed rather than waiting until after the feature is printed in an official source.
I don't really like spell versatility as presented, but I agree with Crawford's reasoning behind why it was created & don't think there are any easy guaranteed solutions to the toe stomping problems it creates.
I'm going to use scrying as an example. My sorcerer should have wanted it, thematically. It's typical of spell casters. I had trouble fitting it in as a player. That's because of spells known restrictions and competition for the spell. I'm stuck with a choice of character perspective and player perspective based on sorcerer mechanics.
I ended up building around the mechanics and then playing the character to match. I can rationalize any decision that character made and play that character to the selections made, but those are still outside my choices as a player following game mechanics. A character cannot have mastery of game mechanics because those don't actually exist until applied in game play somehow, which is done after the fact.
Spell versatility means sorcerers can use scrying in the downtime now without penalizing active selections. I don't know if that was intended, but I trust the comment that game system can handle it. It actually resolves a disconnection in the sorcerer flavor that the limited list was causing, IMO.
Swapping spells for a sorcerer as they level just seemed meta to me and made no sense. There powers come from their bloodline and shouldn’t be swapped out later. It’s like profoessor X deciding To swap out his telepathy when he levels up for heat vision. It doesn’t feel right. It’s just a meta rule for people that decide they made the wrong choice earlier or for a spell that is no longer useful at higher levels.
Swapping spells for a sorcerer as they level just seemed meta to me and made no sense. There powers come from their bloodline and shouldn’t be swapped out later. It’s like profoessor X deciding To swap out his telepathy when he levels up for heat vision. It doesn’t feel right. It’s just a meta rule for people that decide they made the wrong choice earlier or for a spell that is no longer useful at higher levels.
How is that different from a other classes that can swap abilities as they level. It's a pretty conmon mechanic so it doesn't make sense to single one class out.
How is that different from a other classes that can swap abilities as they level. It's a pretty conmon mechanic so it doesn't make sense to single one class out.
How is that different from a other classes that can swap abilities as they level. It's a pretty conmon mechanic so it doesn't make sense to single one class out.
I just think it’s a bad meta mechanic in alot of cases for the reason i outlined. Maybe Wolverine should trade in his regeneration for super speed and stop getting kidnapped all the time.
You cant make everyone perfectly happy, and in the case of balance and identity, that's even more important. Sorcerers and Wizards need differences if they are to remain separate classes, and fixes that erode or eliminate those key differences, affecting not just balance, but identity, should be viewed caution. Wizards have to search, buy, scrounge to add to that precious spellbook--an object whose loss is devastating. No other class can be crippled overnight more by a sudden house fire, or loss of a simple, vulnerable item than a Wizard. A sorcerer can't be deprived of access to changing his spells under the proposed rule. A wizards flexibility is limited to what he has found. The Sorceror now is bound by what he can dream up overnight.
A less drastic fix is needed. Maybe less than long rest, maybe a week to change. O only allowing one change out per spell level. Or levels of exhaustion that increase the higher level spell you change out. But the Sorceror of Flame, who has spent his founding years of his career flinging flames far and wide shouldn't return after a two week magical spa retreat as the Master of Ice and Snow because he just learned they are going to be adventuring an area with flame resistant/cold vulnerable opponents--while the allegedly more flexible Wizard is desperately trying to research or find one or two spells in the same two weeks.
One of the reasons I prefer the spellshard approach. It eliminates "your book got wet" & a bunch of other absurd across the table comments I've seen players & gm's direct at wizards... "Really? my spellshard set in adamantine on an adamantine necklace got burned by that fireball under my clothes & armor?"
across the table comments I've seen players & gm's direct at wizards... "Really? my spellshard set in adamantine on an adamantine necklace got burned by that fireball under my clothes & armor?"
