D&D 5E Spell Versatility is GONE. Rejoice!

[Crimson Longinus]

Not everyone views class erosion as bad. If you do, avoid rules that erode sorcerers. Your views don't add objectivity, though.

Eroding class identity is lethal to a class based game. And for once the game designers seem to agree with me.

And quite frankly, if a rule like this breaks(or even comes close) the Sorcerer's class identity, the Sorcerer is a failed class.

I mean sure, sorcerer absolutely is a failed class.

 

[Maxperson]

Then adopt it as a houserule. Published material should have some standards.

Why should it have YOUR subjective standards?

 

[Maxperson]

Eroding class identity is lethal to a class based game. And for once the game designers seem to agree with me.

No it isn't lethal. It's bothersome to some at worst, and even then only if it's not explicitly an OPTIONAL rule.

I mean sure, sorcerer absolutely is a failed class.

Not to me it isn't. And if it is to you, why do you care if someone steps on something dead?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Eroding class identity is lethal to a class based game. And for once the game designers seem to agree with me.

Not to the balance of said class, though. Also, it is your definition of sorcerer identity that is being eroded, not mine. The definition of it is subjective. If you see the sorcerer as being completely, totally restricted to the spells they choose and never being allowed to change them except for one when they level up, yes this erodes your definition of a sorcerer. However, that is not my definition of sorcerer. Therefore, whether or not this is a good or bad rule is entirely subjective. It is objectively bad for your table and your definition of the sorcerer, but it isn't for me. That is the literal definition of subjective.

I mean sure, sorcerer absolutely is a failed class.

They suck in both mechanics and identity, but this does not destroy either part of them.

 

[cbwjm]

Adventure League. Some things that go without saying for most tables need to be written down in black and white for AL.

There are a few of the optional abilities, or additional sentences on certain feats to allow swapping, that I feel were added in specifically for AL. Things like the ones that allow you to swap something whenever you gain a level that grants an ASI. I kind of feel like those could have been left out and just included in the AL rules.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I never said use your invisibility to chug a healing potion. You made that assumption. I said you could use it to use a magic item or potion, nothing specific was named. The potion could be a potion of resistance or a potion of flying. The magic item could be a Cube of Force or a Bag of Tricks which does not imitate any spells and therefore does not end invisibility.

Sure, some of those make more sense. But, why do you need bonus action invisibilty and action flight? Bonus action invisibility and action resistance?

Cube of Force seems like it doesn't really need invisibility.

It just all... seems so circumstantial.

Situations aren't niche. Situations are situations. Abilities are niche based on the number of probable situations that they are applicable. However, the ability to subtle Phantasmal Force can be applicable in every social interaction in the game, which are common enough not to be niche at all.

I've tried to justify Phantasmal Force a few times. 1 minute of an illusion is not a lot, and again, a DM should require a check. Phantasmal Force is not as powerful as you seem to want it to be.

The rogue should have had it cast beforehand. Or find some way to deafen their target.

Deafening them is a terrible plan. And mage hand only lasts a minute, so if you are following a mark... you can't use it. There would be a lot of ways that this would fail utterly, if there wasn't some assumption that you could cast a spell in a crowded marketplace without everyone in the place noticing you.

Its unreasonable to list every combination of metamagic and spells. I'm giving you an idea based on a single example. Besides, the single example is more likely in a real campaign than any weird mix of metamagics like extended Blink or quicken disguise self.

But again, that doesn't disprove the point I was making.

I put forth that all metamagic is just niche cases, giving me more niche cases doesn't change that. When would it every be useful to cast a quickened Disguise Self? Especially if you believe that casting is so loud that people would notice.

The caster needs to be reasonable. The target won't fall for something so convenient and obviously beneficial to the only caster in the room. Even if they think its real, they'll wonder if the caster had manipulated what he heard or something. Its not an "I win" button, but his saving throw failure should have an effect on him. Plus, Phantasmal Force is a 2nd-level spell, not a 1st.

Sure, it should have some effect, but if you are trying to pretend that his wife just came in, and he's holding a conversation with himself, and no one is going to question it, then you've kind of gone too far.

There is a very limited set of things you can plausible have him react to, and even then, I'd have you make a check for actually pulling it off.

If you were to foolishly convert all your spell slots to sorcery points, you'd get 109 sorcery points at level 20. However, you probably don't want to do that. Regardless, there's so many spell slots to convert and with sorcerous recovery to bring them back, you shouldn't have any problem casting metamagics left, right, back-to-back.

Why are spell slots so cheap in these discussions? Does no one value actually having spell slots in these discussions?

People always act like converting spell slots to points is a painless endeavor with zero cost to the sorcerer.

Subtle Modify Memory, Subtle Geas. It can also be used for subtle spells you didn't bother picking up on your own class list like subtle dominate monster, subtle glibness, or subtle Mass Suggestion.

Right, only for copying a spell. Should have guessed.

Yep, just ask yourself "Do I need another fireball?" If you answer yes, you need it. If you answer no or are unsure, don't create more fireballs. Its that simple.

You present the question incorrectly.

"Is getting another fireball now worth spending the resources I might need later, or am I better off with not casting fireball and saving these spells for unknown challenges?"

That is a far more complex question.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arguing about the specific example just proves my point; the example itself is immaterial. Illusion magic puts the DM in a position of having to shoot down what a player feels IS a clever idea much too often, and having to shoot down player ideas too much generally leads to a bad play experience.

I'll agree, but there are a lot of times when the players are reaching too far as well. I will also agree that playing an illusionist is hard, because you need to strike that balance.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But certainly whether balance is good or bad thing is just a matter of opinion? Furthermore, this rule certainly would obliterate the balance between wizard and sorcerer in campaigns with a lot of downtime. This is something that might not be instantly apparent to inexperienced GMs, and thus it is a bad optional rule. It can easily lead to unintended consequences.

I'm trying to stay out of this argument to a degree, but this is flatly wrong. Because if this were true it means that the game does not assume optimal spell choice. It means that the game assumes that the character has dead weight on their spell list. Because having the right spell for the job is not overpowered. The game is not balanced around not having the right spell for the job.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm trying to stay out of this argument to a degree, but this is flatly wrong. Because if this were true it means that the game does not assume optimal spell choice. It means that the game assumes that the character has dead weight on their spell list. Because having the right spell for the job is not overpowered. The game is not balanced around not having the right spell for the job.

Well, that is a weird thing to say. Why then you think some classes have access to far wider selection of the spells than others? You don't think this is part of balancing considerations or that doesn't not affect balance at all? I really don't see how this could be the case.

 

[Lanefan]

Officially is very important to a lot of people.

A mentality I really have a hard time understanding*, in the context of RPGs with their long and proud tradition of rules-as-guidelines and DMs-as-kitbashers.

* - outside of then-RPGA, now-AL play where a degree of cross-table consistency is expected.

 

[Lanefan]

It doesn't erode anything if it's an optional rule that you aren't being forced to use.

Ah, but the potential is very much present that it does or can erode some things:

• goodwill between player(s) and DM(s), when players want or expect an option to be used or not used and the DM sees it differently
• as others have suggested, trust in the designers: if it seems or appears that they're just throwing things against the wall to see what sticks it becomes a bit harder to take them all that seriously
• the play within one's own game itself, if either of the above two issues rears its head.

That said, I don't in general mind optional rules at all; but maybe that's because I'm a kitbasher and thus in my mind everything's optional anyway.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

goodwill between player(s) and DM(s), when players want or expect an option to be used or not used and the DM sees it differently

The DMs in charge of their table. If the players don't like that they're not using an optional rule, that's their problem and they can find a different table.

as others have suggested, trust in the designers: if it seems or appears that they're just throwing things against the wall to see what sticks it becomes a bit harder to take them all that seriously

So, the existence of Unearthed Arcana erodes trust in the designers? That's literally what they do in UA, throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks and will make it into a book.

the play within one's own game itself, if either of the above two issues rears its head

Isn't this a bit redundant? You already said the first two "issues"