Sorcerers Apprentice
Hero
Perhaps this is precisely why Spell Versatility didn't make it. WotC realized it was a crappy quality rule and that including it in Tasha would result in a lot of people adopting it without proper scrutiny.
-
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!
D&D 5E Spell Versatility is GONE. Rejoice!
- Thread starter Gladius Legis
- Start date
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
Well, as posters seem to enjoy telling me, "You can always make it a house-rule."
So, for people who like and want Spell Versatility, go ahead and add it to your game.
And yes, FWIW, I do celebrate when a team I don't like loses--even if I don't care about the team that won.
So, for people who like and want Spell Versatility, go ahead and add it to your game.
And yes, FWIW, I do celebrate when a team I don't like loses--even if I don't care about the team that won.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Maybe, but given the all of the other swap this for that things that WotC uses/used, I doubt that was the reason.
As a Dungeon Master, you are charged with scrutinizing every single thing that happens during a game. That's the job of the DM-- use rules, apply rules, change rules, and improvise around rules as necessary to make the game run for your players.
To suggest that doing that with 3rd party material is somehow more difficult or time consuming (especially since evaluating 3rd party material happens away from the table during your downtime) I think is rather silly.
But hey... if "official" is what floats your boat, then great! You got lots of it. But you also just have to accept that you ain't gonna get every "official" thing you want.
Lucas Blackstone
Explorer
I am glad it was removed. It makes it less likely that a feature I disliked will become more commonplace and creep into games I could be in.
Undrave
Legend
The real problem with Spell Versatility wasn't that it was too strong (I mean, Clerics and Druids already do it), no... it's that it pissed off the Wizard players.
It pissed off the Wizard players because WOTC did a bad job of defining the Wizard since the days they were the all encompassing Magic User class. All they have to their name is their mild 'Big Brain Academic' flavor and the specific mechanic of the spell book. The spell book and its style of versatility has basically become the Wizard's entire identity basically. And their precious schools of magic are really haphazard, with some classification being in-universe and others feeling more meta (hello, Abjuration school!).
Also, if there's one thing WoTC learned from 4e it's: don't piss off the Wizard players
It pissed off the Wizard players because WOTC did a bad job of defining the Wizard since the days they were the all encompassing Magic User class. All they have to their name is their mild 'Big Brain Academic' flavor and the specific mechanic of the spell book. The spell book and its style of versatility has basically become the Wizard's entire identity basically. And their precious schools of magic are really haphazard, with some classification being in-universe and others feeling more meta (hello, Abjuration school!).
Also, if there's one thing WoTC learned from 4e it's: don't piss off the Wizard players
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Experienced internet veteran that you are, I find it hard to believe that you wouldn’t be familiar with people using “it amazes me that X” to express visceral disapproval for X, rather than literal amazement.
Bacon Bits
Hero
I'd be curious to test the game where every class that gets spellcasting uses cleric-like spell preparation. My suspicion is that the developers balanced the game this way, since you kind of need to assume perfect foreknowledge to really test peak spellcasting power. I wonder how much it really affects the game. My suspicion is "actually not that much" in spite of all the objections.
My suspicion is that the method of spell selection and preparation is 100% a flavor choice. Simply put, the game needs to be tested around perfect spell selection, because the players will learn to select spells with much greater skill than you ever will. Indeed, if I were playtesting the game I would probably play at least once where all spells on the class list were considered prepared, and then you tracked what you actually cast. I don't see any other way to determine whether or not the number of spells that you can prepare actually matters. My suspicion is that the primary game benefit of limited spell preparation is actually that it keeps the game from stalling. By giving players less choice in combat, they can arrive at a decision more quickly. "Which of these 200 spells do I prepare," followed by, "which of these 20 prepared spells do I cast," is going to take less time during combat. If a spellcaster has to decide in combat, "which of these 200 spells do I cast," that's going to take forever. However, once you peg that number to prepare each day down, I have to think that it can't possibly matter that deeply if it's cleric-like or sorcerer-like. Not once the skill of the player and the style of the campaign are beyond a given point. Diminishing returns of new spells has to kick in at some point. The only reason it doesn't appear to is new spell levels.
The only issue I might expect to see would be with Bard's Magical Secrets. If I found a problem in that case, I'd probably just limit changing that spell to downtime or level up. Rather, I'd alter the ability to say that all it does is add a spell to your spell list.
My suspicion is that the method of spell selection and preparation is 100% a flavor choice. Simply put, the game needs to be tested around perfect spell selection, because the players will learn to select spells with much greater skill than you ever will. Indeed, if I were playtesting the game I would probably play at least once where all spells on the class list were considered prepared, and then you tracked what you actually cast. I don't see any other way to determine whether or not the number of spells that you can prepare actually matters. My suspicion is that the primary game benefit of limited spell preparation is actually that it keeps the game from stalling. By giving players less choice in combat, they can arrive at a decision more quickly. "Which of these 200 spells do I prepare," followed by, "which of these 20 prepared spells do I cast," is going to take less time during combat. If a spellcaster has to decide in combat, "which of these 200 spells do I cast," that's going to take forever. However, once you peg that number to prepare each day down, I have to think that it can't possibly matter that deeply if it's cleric-like or sorcerer-like. Not once the skill of the player and the style of the campaign are beyond a given point. Diminishing returns of new spells has to kick in at some point. The only reason it doesn't appear to is new spell levels.
The only issue I might expect to see would be with Bard's Magical Secrets. If I found a problem in that case, I'd probably just limit changing that spell to downtime or level up. Rather, I'd alter the ability to say that all it does is add a spell to your spell list.
Yeah, my favorite team is the Vikings, and anyone playing the Cowboys.Well, as posters seem to enjoy telling me, "You can always make it a house-rule."
So, for people who like and want Spell Versatility, go ahead and add it to your game.
And yes, FWIW, I do celebrate when a team I don't like loses--even if I don't care about the team that won.
By the way, we didn't like Spell Versatility because we (my players and I) feel that sorcery is innate, and the spells you "selected" are what you are capable of, say fire spells for a fire sorcerer. So chaging them on the fly seemed unnatural and not in line with the story of the sorcerer.
However, being reasonable gamers, we have let people swap out dud spells, or even have additional spells known that were "very tenuously" connected to the theme, over the years. Meta reasons.
Changing on a long rest seemed a bridge to far.
Bu we do not deny that other folks might like that style.
However, being reasonable gamers, we have let people swap out dud spells, or even have additional spells known that were "very tenuously" connected to the theme, over the years. Meta reasons.
Changing on a long rest seemed a bridge to far.
Bu we do not deny that other folks might like that style.
Similar Threads
