D&D 5E New class options in Tasha

[DND_Reborn]

Running on the assumption that the usual adventure only takes 1 or 2 long rests, of course.

I agree that is probably a key point. Our "adventures" take several days to weeks in game time, so figure a minimum of 5 long rests (rarely) and up to 20+ before the "adventure" is over.

While I am not thrilled with the concept of Spell Versatility, I take greater issue with the speed of it (one spell per long rest). Doing it during downtime, or increasing it to one long rest per spell level, or even limiting it to a number of times equal to your spellcasting ability modifier (regain all uses when you level) could work IMO and would be more balanced.

And yes, I never concern myself with balance during an adventuring day. There is so much variability in an adventuring day, some classes will shine on some days, others on others.

My issue with just giving wizards more spells (especially if they do have to pay for them) is that it is DM fiat, as where if Spell Versatility was a rule it carries a bit more weight. Of course a DM is free to ignore it, but if such a feature made its way into 6E, it would rankle some players more IMO.

 

[Helldritch]

Sorry, but could you specific which rule???

The rule upon which you can change a spell known on a long rest... I could've been clearer... my bad.

Fair. I would say one major difference here is that you and Helldritch seem more concerned about the impact on overall campaign balance (which could be impacted), whereas WotC and several other posters in this thread (including myself) are more focused on "adventuring day" or "per adventure" balance, which is much less likely to be impacted. Running on the assumption that the usual adventure only takes 1 or 2 long rests, of course.

I have no problems with players swapping out PCs between adventures, so the fact that the sorcerer can change himself from blasting focused to divination/enchantment focused doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Likewise, I would have no problem with the wizard scrounging up 5-10 new spells during downtime.

And for me, it is a whole world of difference. I mainly play campaign where one adventure can take a few weeks. I use a variant of resting where a short rest is 10 minutes, a long rest is 8h but no HP are recovered. This means that with that rule, it only takes a sorcerer a few rest to change his whole spell known (depending on level) and with proper divinations, the sorcerer will be able to fully adapt to the next adventure.

I also use what I call "intermede" adventures. These are short adventures modeled on job postings but for very short assignment well that are shown well in advanced.

Examples of what you could see at 1st level: Groups (yes with an S) of goblins are terrorizing surrounding farmland. Seeking adventurer to patrol the area for 10 days. 20 gold paid for patroling the area plus 5 gold per slain goblins. Asserted slain goblins will be agreed upon the good faith and word of honnor of any paladin or cleric swearing an oath on his/her god (swearing an oath on your god is a big thing in my campaign, never done lightly). In the absence of a paladin or cleric, a zone of truth will be used at the adventurer's cost. Finders keepers of all treasures to hired adventurers. Any stolen goods by the goblins will be bought back at 50% value rate (instead of a 10 to 15% that is the usual).

A red dragon adult has been sighted flying over southern Vesve forest. Hardy group of adventurers are sought to find and slay the beast. Finders keepers of all treasures to hired adventurers. 5,000 gold reward will be given upon the good faith and word of honnor of any paladin or cleric swearing an oath on his/her god. In the absence of a paladin or cleric, a zone of truth will be used at the adventurer's cost.

These intermedes are usually about 5 to 10 at all times and can change from down time to down time. One or two can be done in about one 4 hours sessions.

It is one of the reasons that I hate the new rule, as a sorcerer will always be able to fully adapt for the tasks at hand without any troubles whatsoever.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The rule upon which you can change a spell known on a long rest... I could've been clearer... my bad.

No problems. I just wasn't certain if you were talking about Spell Versatility as presented by WotC or one of the alternatives I had suggested in that post. Thanks for clearing it up.

It is one of the reasons that I hate the new rule, as a sorcerer will always be able to fully adapt for the tasks at hand without any troubles whatsoever.

Absolutely. Even if they don't completely need to change out, they will be much better prepared if they can swap out a spell per long rest beforehand. Now, of course given time, resources, and DM fiat (a bit anyway), Wizards could research and learn new spells to also prepare for it, but there are no assurances of that. With sorcerers, et al, it is now assured for them.

 

[TwoSix]

It is one of the reasons that I hate the new rule, as a sorcerer will always be able to fully adapt for the tasks at hand without any troubles whatsoever.

I would agree that if you're running a mission-based sandbox, this rule does make known spell casters much stronger than they were before.

But I think most games aren't run in that style, which is why you're not seeing a mass outcry over the rule change.

 

[akr71]

You can just award additional cantrips equal to your spellcasting ability score modifier. Which is what we do. When your modifier goes up, you get a new cantrip. So, we don't really need this either. shrug

This is a great house rule! Consider it stolen.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This is a great house rule! Consider it stolen.

Steal away LOL!

You might also like that we give Paladin and Ranger cantrips equal to Clerics and Druids, respectively.

This way, they at least have cantrips at level 1. I mean, Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters get cantrips, but Paladins and Rangers don't? Seems silly to me. Of course, the UA allows some cantrips in exchange of their fighting style or something, but IMO that is a ridiculous trade-off. shrug

 

[DND_Reborn]

But I think most games aren't run in that style, which is why you're not seeing a mass outcry over the rule change.

You're probably right. I spoke to one of our table last night for about 90 minutes about how the typical adventuring experience in 5E differs from what games were like 25-35 years ago when I played AD&D. The concept of one-offs, etc. is not my style at all. I am used to playing the same PC for 6 months to 5 years in real life. 5E is too much like a video game experience to me in some ways (nothing wrong with that), but then I might as well play a video game.

 

[TwoSix]

Steal away LOL!

You might also like that we give Paladin and Ranger cantrips equal to Clerics and Druids, respectively.

This way, they at least have cantrips at level 1. I mean, Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters get cantrips, but Paladins and Rangers don't? Seems silly to me. Of course, the UA allows some cantrips in exchange of their fighting style or something, but IMO that is a ridiculous trade-off. shrug

I definitely think your old-school gaming roots are showing in that you seem more concerned about long-term campaign balance between classes ("Are sorcerers and bards now better than wizards as versatile casters?") than you're concerned about the balance between intra-PC build options.

Not saying it's bad, but the big picture focus is an interesting contrast to a lot of our current balance debates.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

5E is already a very easy game as designed. Oh, you picked a spell you thought was great and it turned out you were wrong??? The HORROR!!! Well, it is one spell, look through the list and when you level choose a better one... But you might be wrong again.

I think, if your players feel that the game is too easy, maybe you should just make it a bit harder. I can't see a difference in difficulty between different editions, because it boils down to: what does your DM send against you and how often.

Has it changed to a bit mor story based and reduced sudden death effects? Yes. But having spells that just say roll over 5 or you are dead does not make the game hard at all, but just luck based or random.

If you say: but back then you could have cast this and that spell to increase your odds and that to make you immune... which still does not make the game harder, but again random.
The same is true in the other direction: if players only use save or die you have two options: Either spoil their fun by negating it with carefully chosen enemies and spells or ignore it and make their life easy.

If you think that is good, you are deep in player vs dm territory, an unfair game because of power difference in which the DM usually lets their players win while hiding the secret to make the players feel rewarded.
I know about the power difference and am happy to pose different levels of threats. In 5e the difference is, that there are more decision points to actually retreat because there are a lot less gotchas. Same goes for the enemies, because they don't get killed by a single spell either.

 

[MoonSong]

I've played a Sorcerer in a party with a Wizard and I'm not seeing the problem here. We each had strengths and weaknesses and we each contributed to the party and we both successfully completed the adventure.

Access to the optional features in Tasha's would've given me a few more options, but I was already picking the spells that matched my theme and fit what the party needed from me.

I guess I'm just so tired of this Wizard vs Sorcerer as if they're eternally dueling. They're both good classes that are fun to play that offer different options to a party.

The thing is, we sorcerer players can't get anything nice without it being scrutinized to death by wizard players.

Cantrip Versatility. Druids, Clerics, and Wizards will be able to swap one Cantrip they learn with another cantrip from their class list whenever they gain a level.

Let's not forget this.
This boost Druids, Clerics, and Wizards if the DM has a long themed adventure where a damage type is resisted or immune for a long period of time an can be predicted. Like assults against vampires or treks into Hell/Abyss.

Sorcerers nerfed again.

Sorcerers can already do this, once per level they can retrain one spell they know, which includes cantripsl

My point was simply you stated (due to Arcane Recovery--which does require a short rest) that a Wizard was worth 1.5 Sorcerers. And whether you are using Twin Spell or swapping SP for spell slots, that claim is blatantly false.

And your use of metamagic so much is precisely why the classes were balanced before this trade. A sorcerer has limited spells, but through metamagic and do a lot with them--the wizard knows more spells, but their use is pretty standard.

FWIW, the one sorcerer in our main game rarely uses his SP for metamagic--he usually uses it for more spell slots. Obviously this will vary from player to player.

Ok, I guess there's a lot of things under the sun. It doesn't mean it is the most typical or even common situation.

But neither of them have metamagic, which when used properly and when needed can be incredibly effective IME. Channel Divinity is okay and Wild Shape can be great (for Moon Druids), but otherwise... meh At this point you're also comparing arcane vs divine casters-- I am more concerned about arcane vs arcane.

At this point I wouldn't call sorcerers truly arcane, their magic isn't based on knowing secrets about the universe -like wizards, bards and warlocks- sorcerers are just magic without adjectives.

A sorcerer's versatility is NOT supposed to be in the spells they know, neither is this supposed to be a power of Bards or Warlocks IMO. A sorcerer's versatility is in their metamagic--which now you also have metamagic versatility, which at least I can understand and is appropriate to what they are supposed to do well.

Yes, and it turned out it wasn't enough in practice.

Agreed. I see no reason why this feature should not apply to all classes with Cantrips (including subclasses).

Sorcerers can already do this in core.

Agreed. And I stated as much earlier. With this change, Wizards are now the only caster who is limited by the spells they have learned, and yet they are supposed to be the most versatile casters????

Was this stated by the designers or official material at any point? or is it wishful thinking by the community?

More over, many are saying ho but it's just one spell on long rest. And yet, it is multiple spell over multiple long rest! The sorcerer class was balanced by the fact that a sorcerer had to be careful with spell known selection. Not anymore.

It wasn't correctly balanced though. Sorcerers are underpowered as they currently are. Making the class more forgiving is a good thing.

And for me, it is a whole world of difference. I mainly play campaign where one adventure can take a few weeks. I use a variant of resting where a short rest is 10 minutes, a long rest is 8h but no HP are recovered. This means that with that rule, it only takes a sorcerer a few rest to change his whole spell known (depending on level) and with proper divinations, the sorcerer will be able to fully adapt to the next adventure.

Because of course Clairvoyance is the gold standard in divination.

It is one of the reasons that I hate the new rule, as a sorcerer will always be able to fully adapt for the tasks at hand without any troubles whatsoever.

As opposed to being able to ever function on a very limited set of circumstances? Long rest are still not free and at will you know. I'm not a fan of this new feature, but I'll take what I can take. I mean, it isn't as if it magically allows sorcerers to summon shadow ponies, create demiplanes or even have magical pets. Sorcerers are still severely limited by spells known and sorcery points. Loosening out one of their other restrictions is a bit fair. I don't think sorcerers will become overpowered overnight because of this small change. And of they become overpowered, would it really be a bad thing? They have never been overpowered in any edition ever, yet we are at this point were people keep throwing "sorcerers will be overpowered" as some sort of boogieman we all must fear, as if there was an edition where they were so broken that every book was burned, every reference in the web was purposely taken down and everybody agreed to never speak of it again and pretend it never happened. I've yet to see a truly overpowered sorcerer, the closest we were to it was at the start of the edition when we were using elemental affinity wrong(as proven by the errata that clearly told us we were playing it wrong), and even then, it was ok, sorcerer was more or less ok with elemental affinity being played wrong. In all honesty, I'm tired of this boogieman, let us sorcerer players get nice things for a change.