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

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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

It's not perceived. A level 20 sorcerer will literally be incapable of changing a single sorcerer spell for the rest of the campaign. Other sorcerers have to wait to level up to change a single spell. Having less spells and less opportunity for changing spells means that they are objectively less versatile than a wizard.

If enough people complain about something, maybe the correct thing to do is to assume that their concerns are correct, not that they're just whining, like you seem to be suggesting they are.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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

It wouldn't. If you don't use the rule, it wouldn't disrupt your table.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

That was dealt with by a different point I've previously made - that reducing the opportunities to utilize a bad rule is a good thing.

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.

Why refer to something as objective which is obviously subjective and has been pointed out multiple times now as being subjective?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.

I give them sorcerous origin spells, but that doesn't do enough. They're still too limited by having to wait to change a spell on a long rest, as this versatility is completely dependent on the campaign and how long it takes to level up.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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?

There is no way to know unless the game designers say why.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's not perceived. A level 20 sorcerer will literally be incapable of changing a single sorcerer spell for the rest of the campaign. Other sorcerers have to wait to level up to change a single spell. Having less spells and less opportunity for changing spells means that they are objectively less versatile than a wizard.

Let's assume for a moment that Sorcerer's are less versatile than Wizards. I say it's intentional that they are. So it's not something that needs fixed, but instead something that needs embraced.

However, I don't actually buy the argument that Sorcerer's are less versatile - at significantly so. You see metamagic can apply to every spell. Every spell/metamagic combination adds versatility to the Sorcerer that the Wizard can never replicate.

If enough people complain about something, maybe the correct thing to do is to assume that their concerns are correct, not that they're just whining, like you seem to be suggesting they are.

Apply that to yourself. Please assume all our concerns about spell versatility are correct and not just whining or morally reprehensible or whatever else you might want to call it.

 

[FrogReaver]

There is no way to know unless the game designers say why.

Can't even know then as people can always lie. The best we can do is speculate based on the available facts in evidence. Facts in evidence.

1. It was advertised material for TCoE as little as 3 weeks from release.
2. It never made it into the final version of TCoE.

Any outcome is certainly possible. Perhaps their alien overlords made them do it. However, certain outcomes are much more probable. What do you think is the most probable reason?

 

[MoonSong]

Can't even know then as people can always lie. The best we can do is speculate based on the available facts in evidence. Facts in evidence.

1. It was advertised material for TCoE as little as 3 weeks from release.
2. It never made it into the final version of TCoE.

Any outcome is certainly possible. Perhaps their alien overlords made them do it. However, certain outcomes are much more probable. What do you think is the most probable reason?

People brigading on Tweeter?

 

[FrogReaver]

People brigading on Tweeter?

You win a cookie!

 

[Maxperson]

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.

It's controversial, because once again it's only your opinion here and not any kind of fact. You say 4 skills are better than 2, but 2 often used skills will be better than 4 that are not used very often. Unless a 2 uncommonly used skills are your favorites, and then those 2 will be better than 4 you don't like. The same with spells and the other sorcerer abilities. Someone who really likes metamagic will value the Sorcerer more highly than a wizard, making the Sorcerer the better class.

You don't get to pick what everyone else values. The method you use to decide which is best doesn't apply to anyone else. They get to decide how they value classes for themselves.