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

[MoonSong]

It;s possible, I suppose, that someone in design became aware of (or was made aware of) the potential for some horribly-broken combination at the last minute; too late to rework things to close the loophole and so their only choice was to pull it.

Some explanation from the design team would be useful here; as I suspect if it was something like I suggest above, people would be generally cool with it.

And somehow the head designer didn't get the memo?

 

[Chaosmancer]

A proof? You want a proof? I got the best one of all. TCoE itself. The rule was removed. Case closed.

Congrats, you knocked down a strawman.

Have a quote from a designer saying "There is a silent majority of 14 year olds who won't understand that this rule will unravel their games, since it was such a bad rule we refuse to print it in an official sourcebook. It is dead because it was a bad rule."?

Something like that? Or do you want to just hold up a book and say "Look, see, see it isn't there, I was right I was right."?


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

You're claiming they added a feat to correct an issue that according to you cannot exist. Imagine a caster class than can only cast fire spells and another that can cast any spells. Of course the latter is better, because it is more versatile, just like a character with a free elemental adept feat is better than one without it.

My car has a gauge that tells me its top speed is 140 mph. I've never pushed that, I speed but I tend to be under a hundred.

Was my car built to handle 140 mph? Yes. It was designed to handle those speeds, even if it will never be driven at those speeds. It also has a sun roof. That sun roof should never be opened if I am driving that fast. It can, but it wasn't added to the car as part of that design.


Is a Bard with any possible spell better than one that can only do fire damage? Sure, it is. Was the bard class designed if the assumption that al they would have is fire spells? No. It was it designed with the assumption that all they would have is charm spells? No. Was it designed with the assumption that they would only have healing spells? No.

It was designed to be a spellcaster, and they assumed that you would have an ideal spell list. That was where the balance was at. Then they went back and said "well, are there any obvious themes we missed that players are going to pick?

That is my point. Practically, there is a limit on what spells you can have available. But when designing a class that has millions of possible spell list permutations, they had to pick a baseline to balance around. They balanced around assuming that whatever spell you have will function as a key part of the objectives you have in the game.

They did not assume that you will have spells that are worthless in your spell list.

Practically, you will, but that is not how the class was balanced.

Some of them will have more spells in their spellbooks. Those ones will be better.

Even if those additional spells aren't useful in the situation?

Bad rule in it's current form, i.e. the current rule is bad. That is what I said, there was no contradiction.

So now incomplete rules are bad rules.

This are such strange conversations.

 

[Asisreo]

No, it doesn't.

A fighter critting on every single attack they make is an anomally of math. We know exactly how likely it is, and it is purely a an artifact of the dice. But do you know what the fighter is balanced around?

Assuming they hit.

No fighter is balanced assuming that they will miss most of their attacks. The game is balanced so that if the fighter hits on every single attack, the game is not broken.

And so it is with spells. The game is built with the assumption that you have the correct spells for the situation. However, there is consideration given after the fact that that situation is unlikely.Hence things like Elemental Adept being added in an acknowledgement that, yes, you might have the wrong elemental type to deal with this monster.


Having the perfect spell selection is not broken. It can't be, because the design can't assume what your spell selection is.

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




And so we get more specific and more contorted. {X1}



Yes with a whole host of limitations.

1) It can't be subtled, because you need to speak to the target to give the suggestion
2) It has to be a reasonable suggestion, and cannot be a suggestion to self harm
3) If you or your allies harm the creature, the spell ends

Phantasmal Force would have none of these restrictions. You could have the God you are impersonating show up and demand the King flagellate himself in front of the court to atone for his sins. It could demand that the Paladin in your party do it.

So, Phantasmal Force and Suggestion are clearly not supposed to do the same things.



I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion on one aspect of this spell in particular.

Who writes the script the illusion follows? Is the target of the spell deciding what the illusion says and does? Or is it the sorcerer who decides?

And if it is the sorcerer deciding what is said, how is it any different to speak through an illusory image of a god than it is to speak while wearing the mask of a nobleman? If a thief uses his disguise kit to appear like a nobleman, and he goes to do something under that guise, does he automatically succeed in deceiving or persuading the people he is targeting, no roll, because he is using the knowledge on his target against them and hoping they bite?

No. And Phantasmal Force being used in the manner you are presenting is just an elaborate puppet show the sorcerer is putting on. And that does not mean they get to skip straight to success.





Then why is it invisible? Why is it specifically invisible and able to be used for pickpocketing if you are never meant to use it for pickpocketing?

Because the Trickster is supposed to cast it, get in position and succeed in the check all in under a minute? I'm not saying they can't do it, but if you cast it behind the inn.... won't someone hear you? I mean, if you cast it in the marketplace you said they would hear you, why not while you are behind an inn.

The ability seems pretty clear to me, it isn't some parlor trick to amuse your friends around the table, it is meant to be cast on the job, while working. It is meant to be cast while you are sneaking through a house while the occupants are sleeping. And that means it needs to be at least slightly unnoticeable itself.



Sounds like wasting points on poor spells. But sure, there might be a time when I want to burn 9 points to twin a 9th level spell.

But I'm not convinced that I'm going to be so eager to drop all my 3rd level spell possibilities to do so. And really, it is a simple reasoning. I've never seen a Wizard or cleric who is eager to waste mid-level spell slots. If they aren't, if they have value for those characters, then why should I just assume those slots are no better than trash for the sorcerer.

And yes, that is how you are treating them, with your phrasing and the phrasing I always see on this issue, it is presented as though a sorcerer who doesn't consume most of their 2nd, 3rd and 4th level slots to create 5th level slots is simply wasting their time and doesn't understand how to play the class. And it doesn't make sense, because sure, 5th level slots are nice, but I can still do a lot with a low level slot, and I never really want to have to upcast lower level spells. That, by the way, is why the 1st level spells are never on the list. Because Shield and Absorb elements.



Or maybe it was a second level spell you cast earlier. Or maybe you get that fireball, but now lack the 1st level spell slot to cast a charm person that would have been clutch.

You can make hypothetical "if maybe things were desperate and you would lose for want of a nail" scenarios, but the game is too complicated to predict that accurately.

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




Intending to convey that the rule being houseruled in would not give it the reach of an official rule, therefore significantly reducing his opportunities to utilize it? After all, most DMs are going to give you the side-eye for coming to them with "I want to play this class, but with this houserule" and immediately look to see "how is this broken" before any other considerations.




Awful lot of "glad the game designers saw how objectively terrible this rule was" in the early parts of this thread though. Makes it a little difficult to approach this with recognition both sides might have a point.

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




Provide a quote from the designers stating that they felt this was a bad rule that would hurt the game. Then you get to claim you know what they thought.

Because, at a bare minimum effort of conceiving of a reason, I am reminded of the people who started saying that the Spirits Bard, Undead Warlock, Ascendant Dragon Monk, and Drakewarden are never going to see print because they weren't in Tasha's.

The truth is, those subclasses are meant for a different book. So, maybe this rule is meant for a different book. That gives us an equally plausible (but much more supported) claim as to why this rule was not included.

But, you are convinced that you are objectively correct and speak for people that have not spoken. Too bad me and (throws dart at a map) everyone in Michigan agree that you are wrong.

Don't worry, the fact that all those people aren't messaging you is proof enough that I can speak for them and tell you their objective opinion.

Our discussion has obviously moved beyond whether or not sorcerers can be considered weak. It became apparent probably 3 replies back and certainly when Mage Hand Legerdemain was discussed–a completely different class.

Not everyone finds the sorcerer fun or easy to play. If you find discomfort playing the class because of the few spells known, you are well within your rights to play a different class.

However, some people enjoy the class and see it as a strong, invaluable class to have in your party. I'm interested where some people find the authority to call some people's favorite classes weak based on their own subjective opinion.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Even if those additional spells aren't useful in the situation?

Class balancing cannot be done based on any one single situation. One character gets to choose four skills another gets only two. The former is obviously better overall, even though in any one specific situation the character with two skill could have a skill that is needed and the one with four wouldn't. The same with spells. A character that has answers to wider variety of problems is a better character all else being equal. It is super baffling that you think this is somehow controversial.

So now incomplete rules are bad rules.

This are such strange conversations.

Yes. I literally do not understand what you're even talking about.

 

[MoonSong]

Not everyone finds the sorcerer fun or easy to play. If you find discomfort playing the class because of the few spells known, you are well within your rights to play a different class.

However, some people enjoy the class and see it as a strong, invaluable class to have in your party. I'm interested where some people find the authority to call some people's favorite classes weak based on their own subjective opinion.

I'm sorry, but this just... I just can't... there are no words to describe how I feel right now.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Not everyone finds the sorcerer fun or easy to play. If you find discomfort playing the class because of the few spells known, you are well within your rights to play a different class.

However, some people enjoy the class and see it as a strong, invaluable class to have in your party. I'm interested where some people find the authority to call some people's favorite classes weak based on their own subjective opinion.

It's not weak, it's just not good at casting the spells it wants to cast that day, unlike Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Artificers, and Wizards.

People complaining about this lack of versatility does not warrant you telling them to play a different class.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's not weak, it's just not good at casting the spells it wants to cast that day, unlike Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Artificers, and Wizards.

People complaining about this lack of versatility does not warrant you telling them to play a different class.

Nor does complaining about a perceived lack of versatility entitle them to more versatility.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think that a good way to improve sorcerer's versatility would be to give them a few sorcerous origin specific bonus spells that don't count against their known spells (like the new origins do), as well as give them more metamagics. I feel this would better fit the themes of the sorcerer and wouldn't infringe on wizards territory the same way spell versatility did.

 

[FrogReaver]

But. . . it wasn't disruptive. It would not disrupt your table if the DM didn't use it, and wouldn't disrupt it if the table using it liked it.

It can. As has been pointed out - such a rule being official optional can put pressure on the social cohesion of a particular table.

 

[FrogReaver]

The only thing that that proves is that the rule was removed from TCoE.

Why exactly do you think a rule that was advertised as being in TCoE as early as the start of this month was suddenly removed from it?