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

[FrogReaver]

It does if it involves them stopping the rule's inclusion due to being a bad rule. You'd have to be pretty dumb to go through months of design and examination, more months of playtesting and feedback, and then start marketing it without realizing it was a bad rule.

Not if the marketing was what initiated the level of bad feedback that led to the rules removal.

 

[Maxperson]

Not if the marketing was what initiated the level of bad feedback that led to the rules removal.

So all the playtesters who provided feedback were the stupid ones and nobody told them that the rule was bad. Aaaaaaand they were still too dumb as game designers to pick up on it during the creation process.

 

[Helldritch]

Or it is a case of :"Hey, we received complain that such and such can never change their spell because of campaign. May be something like spell versatility would help..." and they started testing the rule in that context. And only in that context. After all, it why we have the UA. We can help them try them in "other" context than the ones they tried it on. So, in the context above, the rule worked as intended for any number of reasons: players' self restraint, DM fiat, whatever. So concentrated were they on their testing that worked out, that they simply did not consider how the rule would abused under a more normal setting and they used it as advertising for their new book. They were so focused on a one problem solving that they simply did not consider that there were other possibilities.

Then, came the warnings and outcries of those that saw what the rule could do. I bet that the designers went and made exactly what we did. Test it with abusing it mind. And when they realised, with comparison and "niche protection" in mind. They simply did what was logical. They removed it.

So all the playtesters who provided feedback were the stupid ones and nobody told them that the rule was bad. Aaaaaaand they were still too dumb as game designers to pick up on it during the creation process.

I do not believe so. See the above.

 

[Maxperson]

Or it is a case of :"Hey, we received complain that such and such can never change their spell because of campaign. May be something like spell versatility would help..." and they started testing the rule in that context. And only in that context. After all, it why we have the UA. We can help them try them in "other" context than the ones they tried it on. So, in the context above, the rule worked as intended for any number of reasons: players' self restraint, DM fiat, whatever. So concentrated were they on their testing that worked out, that they simply did not consider how the rule would abused under a more normal setting and they used it as advertising for their new book. They were so focused on a one problem solving that they simply did not consider that there were other possibilities.

Then, came the warnings and outcries of those that saw what the rule could do. I bet that the designers went and made exactly what we did. Test it with abusing it mind. And when they realised, with comparison and "niche protection" in mind. They simply did what was logical. They removed it.


I do not believe so. See the above.

It's incredibly obvious what that rule does. I can't believe that the designers and every playtester failed to see the obvious.

This isn't an inherently bad rule. It's just a rule that is good or bad based solely on the opinions of those who might use it.

 

[Helldritch]

It's incredibly obvious what that rule does. I can't believe that the designers and every playtester failed to see the obvious.

This isn't an inherently bad rule. It's just a rule that is good or bad based solely on the opinions of those who might use it.

Nope. That rule simply eradicate the need for a wizard. It obliterates a whole class.
The intent of the rule is a good one. The extent to which it was going was very bad.
And don't forget, it is easy to fail to see the elephant in the room. It happens to the best mind on earth and to the stupidest alike. No one is foolproof. I am sure that they had good intentions, they were patting themselves on the shoulders and saying good job! But when "abusers of rules" showed them. They just stepped back and finally saw. You just don't remove a rule for a couple of nayh sayers. You remove something because it is either broken or too easily abused that the intent no longer matters.

Again, I have said that the intent of the rule is not bad. I have a similar rule that works out fine because it can't be abused because of how my tables work. It is related on how we use downtime (a minimum of one week). And the change is once per downtime, no matter the length. If the downtime is a week. Good. If it is a decade, tough luck. We RP it as a Flash of insight for the incomming tribulations or whatever is good reason for the moment. But if downtime was just like anyother... that rule would not be at my table.

If WotC really wants to help sorcerers, let them admit that they made a mistake in the PHB. Let them add a rule where sorcerers can add their charisma bonuses in sorcery points. Let them add one more spell per levels to sorcerer's spell known. And let them reitroduce more meta magic, the thing that sorcerer should and always has been about. I know I did.

 

[Maxperson]

Nope. That rule simply eradicate the need for a wizard. It obliterates a whole class.

No. It doesn't. The wizard is far more than just "More spell variety than Sorcerer." At worst is steps on the Wizard's toes a little bit. That's it.

And don't forget, it is easy to fail to see the elephant in the room. It happens to the best mind on earth and to the stupidest alike. No one is foolproof. I am sure that they had good intentions, they were patting themselves on the shoulders and saying good job!

One person? Sure. Hundreds? Nope. There were multiple designers and many playtersters, as well as everyone who say the UA. All before the marketing.

I'm more likely to win the Powerball tonight than it is for all of those people to fail to see the rule for what it was, only to have a bunch of different people complain after marketing began.

Again, I have said that the intent of the rule is not bad. I have a similar rule that works out fine because it can't be abused because of how my tables work. It is related on how we use downtime (a minimum of one week). And the change is once per downtime, no matter the length. If the downtime is a week. Good. If it is a decade, tough luck. We RP it as a Flash of insight for the incomming tribulations or whatever is good reason for the moment. But if downtime was just like anyother... that rule would not be at my table.

See, that kind of metagame rule would bug the crap out of me. I'd rather see a set 1x week or 1x month. Something that makes sense from an in game perspective.

If WotC really wants to help sorcerers, let them admit that they made a mistake in the PHB. Let them add a rule where sorcerers can add their charisma bonuses in sorcery points. Let them add one more spell per levels to sorcerer's spell known. And let them reitroduce more meta magic, the thing that sorcerer should and always has been about. I know I did.

Those are good ideas, too.

 

[MoonSong]

If WotC really wants to help sorcerers, let them admit that they made a mistake in the PHB. Let them add a rule where sorcerers can add their charisma bonuses in sorcery points. Let them add one more spell per levels to sorcerer's spell known. And let them reitroduce more meta magic, the thing that sorcerer should and always has been about. I know I did.

If it were to happen, it would have happened by now. That is the perfect solution, not the solution we can actually have. The ship sailed the moment they published SCAG without the bonus spells. No way they are going to admit fault or going back on what is already published. I've lost all faith on them even acknowledging there is a problem with sorcerers.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

A creature is immune to fire? No problem with the versatility rule, a small nap, and fire ball is replaced by lightning bolt or whatever.

And the wizard is able to switch all of their spells, rather than just fireball. The wizard is still more versatile.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That rule simply eradicate the need for a wizard. It obliterates a whole class.

No, it didn't. The claim is simply absurd.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Fair enough

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 interested where some people find the authority to claim that there is no improvements needed to another person's favorite class, which they feel is weak, based on their own subjective opinion.

There are many people who feel sorcerers need a boost, and have been asking WoTC for that boost. Only to be confronted time and time again by people coming it to tell them that they are wrong, the class isn't weak, they are just not playing it well enough.

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

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

Because logic chains.

A -> B -> C

If a rule that is incomplete is now labeled a bad rule, and bad rules should never be published, then the system being worked on that is incomplete should never be published.

But that isn't how we view them. If someone said "I've started work on this class, but I've only got 5 levels of it so far" it is not a legitimate response to say "Well, levels 6 through 20 don't exist, so this is a bad class"

Being incomplete =/= "bad" it simply means incomplete.

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.

But there is an aspect you are missing here.

Skills are yes/no. Everyone can do them. My barbarian can use persuasion, my cleric can steal with sleight of hand, my wizard can roll athletics. The number of proficiencies just tells me who is more likely to have a higher mod.

On the other hand, there are other balancing factors for spells, like the number of spells per day.

Every single first level spell caster (except warlock) gets two fist level spell slots. In fact, if you examine the chart for Clerics, Druids, Bards, Wizards and Sorcerers you will find that their spell progression and the number of spell slots they get is identical across all the classes.

All five classes get 3rd level spells at 5th level, and they get two 3rd level spell slots.


That is the balance point. Wizards have 397,106,410,874,542,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible spell combinations (ignoring cantrips and only counting the PHB), compared to the Bard only having 3,595,067,609,875,170,000,000. But both of them have an identical number of spell slots to utilize.

The designers didn't test every combination. What they did was decide that 3rd level spells should have X impact on the situation, then tried to balance it so all 3rd level spells were about equal, then limited the number of 3rd level spells that could be cast per day.

Yes, wizards have more options as to what that 3rd level slot might be, but the major balancing point is that they can only have so many of those spells, not how many options they have to place in those slots.

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.

You know, that would be a good idea. In fact they did that for Tasha's. Want to know the response?

"This is too powerful, sorcerers don't need more options, making them more versatile casters steps on the toes of the wizard. Sorcerers don't need more spells, they just need more metamagic options"

Funny how that works out. Always seems to be that the sorcerer is stepping on the wizard.

Edit: In fact, literally said in this thread last page.

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

Yep. The Sorcerer is the simple casting class. The same way that the Champion is the simple Fighter. Not everyone wants a ton of options when they play the game.

I'd say this is false, because the sheer constraint of the sorcerer makes it far less friendly to even small missteps in spell choice. You really need to have a high degree of system mastery to even attempt playing a sorcerer most of the time.


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

Empirical evidence can be as good as physical evidence, especially when the results are the same. I don't need to see a lepton and a quark to know they exist. The same apply to the removal of that rule.

Funny, I seem to remember an ancient greek philosopher proposing the idea that the atom was the smallest thing in existence. And he had good reasoning too. Wonder why we now accept that there are even smaller things if you don't need evidence to prove something.

They were advertising that rule as part of TCoE and it was supposed to be a real big deal. Turns out that someone saw the potential for disruptiveness this rule had and WotC decided to remove it without explanations. If that rule did not have that disruptive potential it would have seen print. Popularity has nothing in the decision to print or not. The only reason to remove something so close to release that was almost a flagship of the book, is simply because it was disruptive, unbalanced or whatever negative qualifier you want to apply to it.

Again, keep in mind that WotC does not really care for old and experience gamers like me or Max, or you. They care about the silent majority that lacks the experience to apply or not a rule and to see the implications this rule will have in the long run. They decided to ignore their base with 4ed and they got burned hard. (But I really liked 4ed...)

For everything bolded and underlined, do you have proof?

Also, you have the complete wrong idea about me, which proves you just throwing around assumptions isn't doing you any good.

A creature is immune to fire? No problem with the versatility rule, a small nap, and fire ball is replaced by lightning bolt or whatever.

And we are back on this. The caster not only knew the creatures immunity, but was able to take 24 hours to counter it.

I often find out about a monster's existence when we enter combat with it, so I'm really impressed how good the crystal ball of every single sorcerer player seems to be, since they can always predict with 100% accuracy the things they need for the next day.