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

[Maxperson]

But that argument can be made for every conceivable optional rule. 'If you don't like it, don't use it.' But the book cannot contain every conceivable optional rule.

Sure, but only at the point where space and/or company work limitations come into play, neither of which apply here. The work was already done and the book was small for the price charged. They could have fit this rule in very easily.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And no one wants every conceivable optional rule in a book, but we do want ones that people did want in the book, balanced ones that were offered by WotC.

Different people want different rules. They can't include everything someone wants in the book. And not everything from playtest will get printed, if it did there was no point playtesting it. And 'you don't need to use it' is not excuse for printing bad rules. Now you don't have to agree that it is a bad rule, but that is the conclusion the designers came to, just like they came to the concussion that customising origins was a good optional rule even though I disagree with them on that.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Different people want different rules. They can't include everything someone wants in the book. And not everything from playtest will get printed, if it did there was no point playtesting it. And 'you don't need to use it' is not excuse for printing bad rules. Now you don't have to agree that it is a bad rule, but that is the concussion the designers came to, just like they came to the concussion that customising origins was a good optional rule even though I disagree with them on that.

For the last freaking time, you do not determine what is a good or bad rule. For me it was a good rule. It is entirely subjective, stop acting like it isn't.

And I never said they can or should include everything someone wants in the book, but this was something they offered, something that looked like it was going to be in the book up until about a month ago, and something that would benefit my table to be official while causing no issues for you if it was published.

 

[Maxperson]

And 'you don't need to use it' is not excuse for printing bad rules.

You quite literally cannot prove that it was a bad rule. It's entirely a subjective thing. You can point at reasons why you personally feel that it's bad, but those aren't objective measures.

Now you don't have to agree that it is a bad rule, but that is the concussion the designers came to, just like they came to the concussion that customising origins was a good optional rule even though I disagree with them on that.

Do you have proof that they thought it was a bad rule? Not making it into the book is not proof. There could very easily be another reason or reasons.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

For the freaking last time, you do not determine what is a good or bad rule. For me it was a good rule. It is entirely subjective, stop acting like it isn't.

Yes, for purposes of this book the designers at WotC decide what is 'good' or 'bad'. It was thumbs down for this one.

And I never said they can or should include everything someone wants in the book, but this was something they offered, something that looked like it was going to be in the book up until about a month ago, and something that would benefit my table to be official while causing no issues for you if it was published.

Do you understand what playtest means? Will you have a fit every time something from playtest will not get printed or is changed?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Do you have proof that they thought it was a bad rule? Not making it into the book is not proof. There could very easily be another reason or reasons.

Yes, perhaps the designer's dog ate the rule.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Yes, for purposes of this book the designers at WotC decide what is 'good' or 'bad'. It was thumbs down for this one.

So, you're speaking for WotC and saying that anything they haven't published in an official rule book is a "bad" one. That seems like leaping to conclusions. Mike Mearls and the other designers have a ton of homebrew subclasses and content that haven't been published in an official book, but that doesn't mean that WotC thinks they're bad rules or content.

Do you understand what playtest means? Will you have a fit every time something from playtest will not get printed or is changed?

They pulled it from the book well after they had the feedback from the CFV UA survey. They most likely pulled it because of people like you whining about it "stepping on the toes of the wizard", when a lot of people wanted it to be official.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, perhaps the designer's dog ate the rule.

Or maybe there's a book we don't know about coming out and they thought it would be better to put there. Or maybe there are other similar rules they are working on and want to release them together. Or...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, you're speaking for WotC and saying that anything they haven't published in an official rule book is a "bad" one. That seems like leaping to conclusions. Mike Mearls and the other designers have a ton of homebrew subclasses and content that haven't been published in an official book, but that doesn't mean that WotC thinks they're bad rules or content.

If they don't put something in the book then it is because they considered it to be a bad idea to publish it. Also published content tends to have more strident standards than house rules, as it will be used for countless different groups with different attitudes and playstyles. I have plenty of houserules I don't feel would be solid enough to be published, but will work for my personal purposes in an environment I can curate.

They pulled it from the book well after they had the feedback from the CFV UA survey. They most likely pulled it because of people like you whining about it "stepping on the toes of the wizard", when a lot of people wanted it to be official.

Then they must have considered that criticism to be valid.

 

[Maxperson]

If they don't put something in the book then it is because they considered it to be a bad idea to publish it.

This is false. As I provided above, there are other reasons that the rule being bad to not put it in a particular book.

You need to back up your claim with proof. So far they are just unsubstantiated claims which when added to 2 cents, gives you 2 cents.