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

[Maxperson]

I've spoken many times about how all of these problems are an issue because of how they influence newer & less experienced gms, I thought that was clear and no longer a matter of debate. There's no need for the sort of belittling, goodnight

I haven't seen any of "these problems" you've mentioned be anything other than your personal opinion about where something is "lacking." Just because you have an issue with something, for example, the lack of neutral rules for getting a hold of a living wizard's spellboook, doesn't make it an issue that needs to be resolved by WotC. Depending on the situation, I can DM any number of ways that a player could get access to one. As a player I can come up with a number of plans to gain access. I don't need added rules for those thing. The current rules are sufficient.

 

[Maxperson]

No. 5e is quite clear; no multiple 9th level spells period.

5e is also clear about it being what the DM says, rulings over rules, and options and variants. There's no such thing as "No multiple 9th level spells period." It's "No multiple 9th level spells unless the DM changes things," which is exactly what's being suggested here.

 

[tetrasodium]

I haven't seen any of "these problems" you've mentioned be anything other than your personal opinion about where something is "lacking." Just because you have an issue with something, for example, the lack of neutral rules for getting a hold of a living wizard's spellboook, doesn't make it an issue that needs to be resolved by WotC. Depending on the situation, I can DM any number of ways that a player could get access to one. As a player I can come up with a number of plans to gain access. I don't need added rules for those thing. The current rules are sufficient.

The problem is how all of those things combined influence new & inexperienced GMs in negative ways. Without Spell versatility those negative influences can be handled on a table by table basis when they become noticed.... With spell versatility however those problems go from something to talk to the gm about into a serious problem that might not be noticed until the damage is long done. As to your just because one person sees a problem doesn't mean there is one... witness many global warming debates... just because it snows at one table or is cold one day in fernia doesn't mean there is no problem.

 

[Maxperson]

The problem is how all of those things combined influence new & inexperienced GMs in negative ways.

Do you have hard evidence of this affecting new DMs like that? It doesn't seem hard to me to have a new DM make a decision about stealth and sneaking into a live wizard's house and stealing his spellbook. There are a number of different ways that already exist in the rules to get a hold of such a spellbook, and once you do the rules on scribing spells already exist in 5e, so you're done.

I don't see new DMs having an issue with this.

Without Spell versatility those negative influences can be handled on a table by table basis when they become noticed.... With spell versatility however those problems go from something to talk to the gm about into a serious problem that might not be noticed until the damage is long done.

There is no damage. There is no negative influence. All spell versatility does is give some more options as an optional rule. If you like it, use it. If you don't, don't. It's not something that needs to be added to the base game, though.

As to your just because one person sees a problem doesn't mean there is one... witness many global warming debates... just because it snows at one table or is cold one day in fernia doesn't mean there is no problem.

False Equivalences are false dude.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

5e is also clear about it being what the DM says, rulings over rules, and options and variants. There's no such thing as "No multiple 9th level spells period." It's "No multiple 9th level spells unless the DM changes things," which is exactly what's being suggested here.

Or no multiple 9th level spells unless the DM gives you the appropriate epic boon.

 

[tetrasodium]

Do you have hard evidence of this affecting new DMs like that? It doesn't seem hard to me to have a new DM make a decision about stealth and sneaking into a live wizard's house and stealing his spellbook. There are a number of different ways that already exist in the rules to get a hold of such a spellbook, and once you do the rules on scribing spells already exist in 5e, so you're done.

I don't see new DMs having an issue with this.



There is no damage. There is no negative influence. All spell versatility does is give some more options as an optional rule. If you like it, use it. If you don't, don't. It's not something that needs to be added to the base game, though.


False Equivalences are false dude.

You only need to look at this very thread for a trivial example of "evidence" where people suggested a particular spellbook was worth two wildly different amounts, move the decimal type differences depending on if they use the cost to scribe or cost of scrolls for estimating value. One will lead to a flood of gold and drought of spellbooks & that easy to reach spellbook you mention is probably located behind asmodious' throne, the other could lead to more spellbooks but desert of gold unless there are large injections of gold from elsewhere that raises the entire party's wealth.

I'm sure even you can see how bad habits developed by different choices made in such a simple attempt at fixing the fact that there is no proper way of estimating spellbook value can lead to additional complications...

 

[Tony Vargas]

I appreciate the ideas, just going to keep chewing on it for now. I feel like there has to be something that will feel like a "perfect solution" and if I run out of time before then... I'll just pick a less pretty but balanced option.

You could throw a surcharge on higher level spells, or require a short rest (or even a genuinely short rest, like a few minutes) between castings of spells higher than half the highest you can cast, rounded up.

So, for the arch-sorcerer able to cast 9th level spells, he can cast all the 1st-5th level spells he likes in the course of an encounter while his spell points last, but only one 6+ until he takes a short rest, or, less restrictive, until the next encounter? It's a softer limit, kinda the inverse of the Warlock (short-rest recharge of up to 5th level spells, higher level are dailies).

 

[Maxperson]

You only need to look at this very thread for a trivial example of "evidence" where people suggested a particular spellbook was worth two wildly different amounts, move the decimal type differences depending on if they use the cost to scribe or cost of scrolls for estimating value.

I agree with you that what's trivial about this thread, and every other thread on this site, is its worth as evidence of anything at all. We don't have a large enough sample size for this thread to be anything other than trivial as evidence.

One will lead to a flood of gold and drought of spellbooks & that easy to reach spellbook you mention is probably located behind asmodious' throne, the other could lead to more spellbooks but desert of gold unless there are large injections of gold from elsewhere that raises the entire party's wealth.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. What you describe is a boon to the game, not a hindrance. Different DMs having different styles with different values is good for the game. The more variety there is, the more likely it is that a given person can find a game that fits them.

I'm sure even you can see how bad habits developed by different choices made in such a simple attempt at fixing the fact that there is no proper way of estimating spellbook value can lead to additional complications...

Sorry, but I don't see good habits as bad habits.

 

[Ashrym]

With spell versatility however those problems go from something to talk to the gm about into a serious problem that might not be noticed until the damage is long done.

How?

 

[NotAYakk]

How?

You are going along, minding your own business, and BAM

30-50 feral hogs.