D&D 5E New class options in Tasha

TwoSix · Sep 23, 2020

Hohige said:
2) Yes, I agreed that wizard spell list is stronger than sorcerer list, but not cleric list + sorcerer list. Right?

I...don't know? I wasn't quoting you.

Edit: Personally, if it's really a point of contention in a game, I'd just let wizard put any spell in the game in their spellbook, assuming they find a scroll (or some other source) for it. It gives wizards a cool niche.

Umbran · Sep 23, 2020

UngeheuerLich said:
Hmmhm. Maybe the sorcerer could have been done differently. Yes, the warlock structure would also fit the sorcerer. But I see them as different concepts thematically.

Yes, well, the Champion, the Gunslinger, and the Eldritch Knight are thematically different, but all work off the Fighter class as their core. We don't need to use class as the main method of differentiating theme.

Gladius Legis · Sep 23, 2020

The Ranger should've been changed to a prepared caster, and with that done, Spell Versatility should never have made it into print. My two coppers.

Helldritch · Sep 23, 2020

TwoSix said:
Three points.

1) Being able to change your entire list of spells prepared is still a stronger option than being able to change a single spell.
2) The wizard spell list is still much stronger than the sorcerer spell list. Factoring in PHB and XGtE, it's 296 spells to 188. And a lot of those spells are good.
3) The amount of spells in a spellbook is only limited by access, money, and time. All things that are under the purview of the DM. Like most things in 5e, the balance of sorcerer versus wizard is going to be strictly dependent on the DM's playstyle.

Point 1: Agreed, partially. Know any mage that has his entire spell list from the begining? No? I thought so. With enough long rest, the sorcerer now has a full access.

Point 2: Ho... Versatility is supposed to be on the side of the wizard. But still, full cleric's list with the right subclass? At no cost but a simple long rest?

Point 3: Yes and no. At the base core, the wizard to have access to the full spell list will need both a lot of money and time. Two things that in any game save Monty Haul you'll never see. Never, ever.

TwoSix said:
I...don't know? I wasn't quoting you.

Edit: Personally, if it's really a point of contention in a game, I'd just let wizard put any spell in the game in their spellbook, assuming they find a scroll (or some other source) for it. It gives wizards a cool niche.

Very generous of your part, but this changes nothing. The wizard still has to find the spell and not the sorcerer or warlock. They only have to sleep it through...

There is a reason why the arcane spell list is either limited (sorcerer and warlock) or hard to obtain (wizard). Having everything available at a moment's notice is in the long run, quite unbalancing. If I don't want a wizard to have wizard eye, it is easy. The wizard either don't find or must sacrifice one of his "spell choice" on leveling up. There is a cost. The same for the sorcerer, warlock, eldritch knight and arcane trickster. With this rule, there is no cost but a simple rest. All the spells in the world for the cost of a sweet dream. A caster's dream come true!

Note: I am the one who complains that I don't see enough sorcerer and warlocks in my games because people really like the wizard's versatility. At the same time, this rule will make wizards almost non-existent in the long run. This is simply too good, way too good.

TwoSix · Sep 23, 2020

Helldritch said:
There is a reason why the arcane spell list is either limited (sorcerer and warlock) or hard to obtain (wizard). Having everything available at a moment's notice is in the long run, quite unbalancing. If I don't want a wizard to have wizard eye, it is easy. The wizard either don't find or must sacrifice one of his "spell choice" on leveling up. There is a cost. The same for the sorcerer, warlock, eldritch knight and arcane trickster. With this rule, there is no cost but a simple rest. All the spells in the world for the cost of a sweet dream. A caster's dream come true!

Note: I am the one who complains that I don't see enough sorcerer and warlocks in my games because people really like the wizard's versatility. At the same time, this rule will make wizards almost non-existent in the long run. This is simply too good, way too good.

<shrug> I guess to me it feels like more of a hypothetical concern than a real in-game problem. If it makes sorcerer and warlock a stronger, more common choice than wizard, I don't really see that as a problem. I'm sure wizards will bounce back just fine in 6E.

MikalC · Sep 23, 2020

Good. I like these a lot more than the racial “versatility”.

this one actually allows variety among PCs, vs paying lip service.

Chaosmancer · Sep 23, 2020

Helldritch said:
Point 1: Agreed, partially. Know any mage that has his entire spell list from the begining? No? I thought so. With enough long rest, the sorcerer now has a full access.

Depends what you mean by "mage" since that isn't a DnD class.

If you mean spellcaster, then yes, 4 of them (five with my homebrew). Cleric, Paladin, Druid, Artificer (Ranger)

If you mean "wizard" then no.

Helldritch said:
Point 2: Ho... Versatility is supposed to be on the side of the wizard. But still, full cleric's list with the right subclass? At no cost but a simple long rest?

I love how it can't be the sorcerer spell list that is overpowered for the normal sorcerer. We have to go to the Divine Soul Subclass and add in the entire Cleric Spell List to get overpowered.

I think that speaks loudly about Sorcerers, myself.

Helldritch said:
Point 3: Yes and no. At the base core, the wizard to have access to the full spell list will need both a lot of money and time. Two things that in any game save Monty Haul you'll never see. Never, ever.

But, you could work to alter the balance, if you find it unbalanced. You know what would be required to do it. That was the point, not whether or not you would actually start making it rain gold and scrolls.

Charlaquin · Sep 23, 2020

Am I the only one who feels like Spell Versatility would have virtually no effect on my games? My players almost never swap out their prepared spells, even Clerics and Druids who can choose from any spell on their list. Once in a blue moon, a Cleric might swap out a spell for a day, if they expect to need something particularly niche that they wouldn’t otherwise prepare. But for the most part, my players pick their go-to spells and stick with them. This rule might allow a sorcerer or a bard who wanted to try Ice Knife or something to get rid of it without having to wait for level-up, and it might allow them to grab a spell one day that they didn’t anticipate needing to use all the time, but that’s about it. NBD, really.

Helldritch · Sep 23, 2020

Chaosmancer said:
Depends what you mean by "mage" since that isn't a DnD class.

If you mean spellcaster, then yes, 4 of them (five with my homebrew). Cleric, Paladin, Druid, Artificer (Ranger)

If you mean "wizard" then no.

I think you already knew that I was refering to wizards. And no, a cleric, paladin, druid and artificer (and much even less rangers) are not mages in any editions of D&D. Better luck next time.

Chaosmancer said:
I love how it can't be the sorcerer spell list that is overpowered for the normal sorcerer. We have to go to the Divine Soul Subclass and add in the entire Cleric Spell List to get overpowered.

I think that speaks loudly about Sorcerers, myself.

The normal spell list is already strong. But have two full spell list at the cost of a single long rest??????? If you find this is balanced...

Chaosmancer said:
But, you could work to alter the balance, if you find it unbalanced. You know what would be required to do it. That was the point, not whether or not you would actually start making it rain gold and scrolls.

Why would I want to work to balance what was already balanced?????????????????? It is that rule that is unbalancing things. Not the other way around. It is obvious that this rule was not and I mean really not thougth through, for all the implications it would bring. Leveling was too slow in some games so they thought it would be a good idea for those games. But guess what? For regular games, it is quite unbalancing. And even for these games where leveling is really slow, this is again, unbalancing as it allows for quite an abuse.

Charlaquin said:
Am I the only one who feels like Spell Versatility would have virtually no effect on my games? My players almost never swap out their prepared spells, even Clerics and Druids who can choose from any spell on their list. Once in a blue moon, a Cleric might swap out a spell for a day, if they expect to need something particularly niche that they wouldn’t otherwise prepare. But for the most part, my players pick their go-to spells and stick with them. This rule might allow a sorcerer or a bard who wanted to try Ice Knife or something to get rid of it without having to wait for level-up, and it might allow them to grab a spell one day that they didn’t anticipate needing to use all the time, but that’s about it. NBD, really.

You are probably not the only one. But think about it. You'll see things our way. A lot of the cleric and druid spells are niche by definition and intent. Not so with the arcane list. Having the whole spell list, and in some cases two (a subclass) or even all spell lists (lore bards) is incredibly powerful! At level up, it forces the player to think carefully about his/her choice. At a simple long rest (especially the non gritty variant), it is simply overpowered. If you ever saw a powergamer or min/maxer, you'd understand.