D&D 5E New class options in Tasha

[Flamestrike]

The goal of a sorcerer is to be "stuck" with his choice

I cant find that 'goal' anywhere in the PHB, and in fact the PHB already expressly allows Sorcerers to not be stuck with any choices and to swap spells known on levelling up.

I see zero problem with the new rule.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

That's my solution as well.

I'd rather let a player re-do a level up decision (feat, class feature, or spell) than have the player be unhappy with that choice.

I've softened my stance on retraining a lot over the years, to the point I explain early to new players that I'm OK with it, and not to worry too much when making choices. I'll let players 're-train' whole archetypes if they desire.

It speeds up character creation and levelling up, letting players take what seems fun and fits the character. If it turns out it wasnt as fun as they thought, it's no big deal to change it out.

Yeah. I've also let a player switch subclasses because the player wasn't happy with his selection. (No one wants players to be unhappy due to uninformed/partially informed choices). Nevertheless, I'd rather buyer's regret situations be something handled on an individual basis rather than with a general rule.

 

[ChaosOS]

The value in the level-up swaps is there's a large number of DMs who try to play strictly by RAW, so if a player doesn't like their character that's it. Providing official rules for those retrainings at level up is a moderate & fair approach that gives people less comfortable with telling their own stories some scaffolding.

As for the "change on long rest", Crawford in an earlier interview talked about how while doing market research they found there were groups who leveled up at a much slower pace than intended - spending weeks and weeks per level even on the earliest levels. In these cases, known casters didn't have the option to switch spells as often as they were intended to, leaving them in a similar lurch with buyer's remorse. Personally, I'm fine with the feature for everyone except bards as a way to fix the spells known issue.

 

[Helldritch]

I cant find that 'goal' anywhere in the PHB, and in fact the PHB already expressly allows Sorcerers to not be stuck with any choices and to swap spells known on levelling up.

I see zero problem with the new rule.

If you know your history of D&D, the sorcerer is supposed to have a limited selection of spells and is able to cast them more often than the wizard, whom, might know more spells but must prepare them in order to cast them.

The sorcerer always have its limited amount of spells at the ready, while the wizard can only prepare a limited amount of spell. This is the fundamental difference between the two.

So the point of a sorcerer is to be "stuck" with its spell selection. That at level up a sorcerer can change his spell allotement is acceptable, but overnight? That's a wizard's job and strong point. This means that on rest the sorcerer becomes way more powerful than the wizard because the sorcerer can now have access to his full spell list while the wizard isn't. The wizard class must still find its spells be it by leveling, buying and copying from other wizard's spell books or scrolls.

This idea of the sorcerer class changing its spell allotement on a long rest is what we call in French a false good idea. This new rule simply makes the wizard obselete. Might as well remove the class altogether as since the sorcerer no longer have its weakness, no need to make a wizard. Versatility is now on the sorcerer's side too.

 

[Hohige]

The Divine Soul Sorcerer has all spells from Cleric and Sorcerer list.
All spells from cleric and sorcerer are avaiable now for free.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I will only specify that although @Helldritch is absolutely correct, it must be considered that Spell Versatility allows only one spell to be exchanged per long rest. So, if the Sorcerer knows 8 spells, it would require 8 long rests to swap them all out for other spells. Depending on the nature of your campaign, this might or might not be an issue.

But as @Helldritch mentions, despite only swapping one spell per long rest, the Sorcerer has access to all his spells while Wizards have to spend a lot of money and time and searching to gain more and more of theirs.

Overall, I don't mind the concept of swapping a known spell via downtime, maybe one workweek per spell level? But overnight? No, too powerful.

 

[ChaosOS]

Almost feels like the "long rest" works better with gritty realism, where just resting for several long rests is significantly more costly.

 

[TwoSix]

If you know your history of D&D, the sorcerer is supposed to have a limited selection of spells and is able to cast them more often than the wizard, whom, might know more spells but must prepare them in order to cast them.

The sorcerer always have its limited amount of spells at the ready, while the wizard can only prepare a limited amount of spell. This is the fundamental difference between the two.

So the point of a sorcerer is to be "stuck" with its spell selection. That at level up a sorcerer can change his spell allotement is acceptable, but overnight? That's a wizard's job and strong point. This means that on rest the sorcerer becomes way more powerful than the wizard because the sorcerer can now have access to his full spell list while the wizard isn't. The wizard class must still find its spells be it by leveling, buying and copying from other wizard's spell books or scrolls.

This idea of the sorcerer class changing its spell allotement on a long rest is what we call in French a false good idea. This new rule simply makes the wizard obselete. Might as well remove the class altogether as since the sorcerer no longer have its weakness, no need to make a wizard. Versatility is now on the sorcerer's side too.

Three points.

1) Being able to change your entire list of spells prepared is still a stronger option than being able to change a single spell.
2) The wizard spell list is still much stronger than the sorcerer spell list. Factoring in PHB and XGtE, it's 296 spells to 188. And a lot of those spells are good.
3) The amount of spells in a spellbook is only limited by access, money, and time. All things that are under the purview of the DM. Like most things in 5e, the balance of sorcerer versus wizard is going to be strictly dependent on the DM's playstyle.

 

[Hohige]

Three points.

1) Being able to change your entire list of spells prepared is still a stronger option than being able to change a single spell.
2) The wizard spell list is still much stronger than the sorcerer spell list. Factoring in PHB and XGtE, it's 296 spells to 188. And a lot of those spells are good.
3) The amount of spells in a spellbook is only limited by access, money, and time. All things that are under the purview of the DM. Like most things in 5e, the balance of sorcerer versus wizard is going to be strictly dependent on the DM's playstyle.

2) Yes, I agreed that wizard spell list is stronger than sorcerer list, but not cleric list + sorcerer list. Right?

 

[TwoSix]

Almost feels like the "long rest" works better with gritty realism, where just resting for several long rests is significantly more costly.

Yea, it's very, very campaign dependent, and I do think it would work better with gritty long rests. Of course, I think 5e runs better in general with gritty long rests.

For example, I just ran a campaign that went over 5 levels in just 2 weeks of game time, the party often only had 2-3 long rests before they gained another level. In my other campaign, the party just had 6 weeks of downtime and so would have had 40+ long rests.