D&D 5E New class options in Tasha

[Minigiant]

1) You faiped to read the posts so I'll say it once again. Rituals can be obtained with a simple feat: "ritual caster". This line of thought of yours is useless.

2) As I said in earlier thread, I was not seeing many sorcerers until I applied two fixes of my own. Sorcery points bonus for charisma and one more known spell for charisma bonus with the bonus equal to one spell of the corresponding level. This has done wonders without balance issues.

3) As for the simulations. We used four scenari. Attack on lich lair. Assault on the efreet strong hold, The warlord and Githyanky for the ride. All are high level adventures that can be done in an evening about three or four hours of game time.

The players know these scenari well and know that they are test material for rule and balance checking. We have premade characters of appropiate levels with basic magic items and the expected spell list/known for a character of that level (13, 15 17 and 20) With the wizard, the difficulty is acceptable. With the sorcerer, the difficulty goes down the drain. Given the expected prep time, it means that the sorcerer will not only be able to change any "useless" spell for the task at hand, but will also be absolutely certain to get the best spell his list allow. This is not the case of the wizard as if the spell is not in his spellbook, too bad.

After the tests, the players looked at me and asked if I would really implement this rule. I said no. The sorcerer player told me it was a good thing as it was making him way to powerful.

This boost the warlock too but to a smaller degree.

You assume that we make these test blindly without careful thinking. We have been playing together for 37 years in some cases and well above 30 for the others. We are not novices in playtesting.

Question, which spells were switched?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Spell book White-out: During a long rest, a wizard may erase one spell from their spell book and replace it with another spell from the wizard spell list

LOL, yeah, see that doesn't really work for me because it doesn't make sense thematically (again, maybe just not to me...?). If you learn something, you don't forget it suddenly because you learn something else. Sure, if you "don't use it you lose it" is very true, but that isn't what this sort of mechanic shows.

I'll start a new thread and link it back here when it is ready. I don't want any discussion to get bogged down by other discussions.

D&D 5E - Making Prepared-Spell Casters Into Known-Spell Casters (+)

All the discussion/debate about Spell Versatility brought me back to an idea I had about a year ago: What if all casters only had known spells? First, I know a lot of people like the prepared spell mechanic. If you are one of those people, please help in this discussion but the goal is not to...

www.enworld.org

 

[Minigiant]

You know this whole argument could be avoided if...

WOTC was willing to errata the classes they designed poorly.

Hell a feat tax that let Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Rangers add ~5 spells to their spells known would be better.

Are rangers even getting new spells? We get swarmkeeper but no Man-Beast Taijutsu Fang Passing Fang. CMON. D&D has the lamest weebs.

 

[DND_Reborn]

WOTC was willing to errata the classes they designed poorly.

Agree 100%. I was really hoping the new book would have a revised Ranger and Monk, along with common buffs to Sorcerers and Warlocks which I see a lot in use.

 

[Undrave]

I beg to disagree, a sorcerer with Ritual caster/Magic initiate also can do it. Empower Spell and Dragon sorcerer can enhance it pretty well.

And a Wizard can have Subtle Spell with the Metamagic feat that was in that recent UA...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You know this whole argument could be avoided if...

WOTC was willing to errata the classes they designed poorly.

Absolutely!

 

[Minigiant]

Agree 100%. I was really hoping the new book would have a revised Ranger and Monk, along with common buffs to Sorcerers and Warlocks which I see a lot in use.

Absolutely!

Ironically the "We don't want to invalidate the PHB" stance is making the PHB more and more worthless.

If 5e ever gets a spell compendium, you might not suggest buying the PHB.

 

[Helldritch]

Absolutely!

Could not agree more.

 

[EscherEnigma]

Which would not exist without that rule.

Nope.

Spotlight issues are not caused by rules, they are caused by players and GMs. Trying to point to the rules to justify a spotlight issue is the sign of a bad player/GM.

Whengiven the choice of playing two classes that do the same thing. You will invariably pick the best one for the job.

If we accept your premise as true for a moment, this would mean that prior to this variant rule you would invariably pick the "best one for the job" --meaning wizard-- and never see sorcerers, no?

But we do see sorcerers and wizards. So either your premise (sorcerers and wizards 'do the same thing') is wrong, or your conclusion (people "will invariably pick the best one for the job") is wrong.

Suffice to say, I am unpersuaded by your fears, and feel that wizard and sorcerers, regardless of spell versatility, are sufficiently differentiated to appeal to different concepts.

 

[Helldritch]

Nope.

Spotlight issues are not caused by rules, they are caused by players and GMs. Trying to point to the rules to justify a spotlight issue is the sign of a bad player/GM.


If we accept your premise as true for a moment, this would mean that prior to this variant rule you would invariably pick the "best one for the job" --meaning wizard-- and never see sorcerers, no?

But we do see sorcerers and wizards. So either your premise (sorcerers and wizards 'do the same thing') is wrong, or your conclusion (people "will invariably pick the best one for the job") is wrong.

Suffice to say, I am unpersuaded by your fears, and feel that wizard and sorcerers, regardless of spell versatility, are sufficiently differentiated to appeal to different concepts.

Before I applied the little correction to the sorcerers, rangers and warlocks, I was seeing almost none of them with my group of power gamers and if there was one it was only to play the under dog.

A bad rule can effectively make a class literally unplayed. Just as a bad concept can make a class or subclass unplayed. How many people actually play a monk of the four elements as is? Almost no body and for good reasons.

Again, you will see people play the under dog once in a while. But it will stay at the once in a while.

I think that you want this rule so hard for your sorcerer that you willingly blind yourself to the fact that this rule is directly attacking the wizard niche at no cost for your sorcerer.

I bet that if a rule would give wizardry point to a wizard that duplicate the sorcerer's metamagic, I would see scream that this is unfair to the sorcerer. That the sorcerer shtick is exactly metamagic and that the wizard has no need of it.

Well, spell versatility is the wizard's shtick and the sorcerer is winning big time at the wizard's expense for no cost at all.