D&D (2024) Changing Three Metamagic during Long Rest Should Stay.

[Soulknife_Infiltrator]

Changing Metamagic during Long Rest with three options available, which I think the best change to Sorcerer in 2024, has been reverted back to 2014 edition with only TWO options available, and players can only change it when they level.

I really just don't get why. No players ever complained that feature. All my friends and players around me liked it a LOT. It gave more freedom in playstyle to Sorcerer which also fits the theme. But somehow they still reverted back to 2014, why?

Changing Metamagic freely has been exactly the one change that makes Sorcerer differ from Wizard IMO.

You have your spell-book with LOTS of spells for you to write and to cast, but I have every way to cast my certain power by my certain will. That's something distinctive and "Sorcerer", I believe. Metamagic is the core fantasy of Sorcery. To me, Metamagic was never meant to be "you can't change your inherent nature". Its theme should be more like "I cast it as the way I like." It's the core-fantasy of Sorcery.

Sure the new 'Sorcery Rage' is quite, good? But locking Metamagics into 2 still makes me feel like I'm playing a worse Wizard with few buffs, since the problem of Sorcerer is it almost stuck with everything. The known-spells, the fewest spells-prepared, poorer spell lists. The customization part of Sorcerer is so limited as a full-caster while it isn't a Warriror or an Expert that also deals good consistent damage or skills. Twisting the magic by my willl makes me feel like I am the Sorcerer but not some kind of Angry Wizard The Fewer One.

Balancing-wise, if the Wizards changing half of their spell-lists is fine, then Sorcerers changing three Metamagics won't be a problem either. Me, my friends, and all the players I know who had playtested it, all loved it so much. I've also seen no one complaining about the balacing of changing Metamagics during UA5 anywhere, since all it does is just shifting the time of changing from 'when you level' to 'when you take a LR'.

It's just a small but great change that allowing players to have more options to experience and have more fun, especially in those short-campaigns or campaigns that doesn't level up. But now it just reverted back to the "Wizard with one or two buffs". You have the most distintive, unstable power burst by flavor, but gaining the most dull mechanics by rule.

I really want it back.

 

[Horwath]

WotC are backing down on any good change they have made and sacrificing it all on the altar of compatibility with 2014 edition.
List of changes will be so long that you will be able to pencil it in to your 2014 PHB in 5mins or less.

They need to bite the bullet and say, 2024 will be significant upgrade, here is the UA to keep some 2014 stuff updated with 2024.

 

[Krachek]

Sorcerer should have a feature in line with memorize spell that allow to choose an extra meta magic for the rest of the day.

 

[Li Shenron]

I really just don't get why. No players ever complained that feature. All my friends and players around me liked it a LOT. It gave more freedom in playstyle to Sorcerer which also fits the theme. But somehow they still reverted back to 2014, why?

I can only explain my preference.

Changing characters abilities during a long rest potentially (a) breaks suspension of disbelief, (b) devalues strategic character design, (c) dilutes diversity and (d) complicates DM's adventures design.

(a) breaks suspension of disbelief

One day Bob the Fighter is a master of swords and of two-weapon fighting style, but finds a cool magic axe in the evening so he sleeps over it, and next morning he's a master of axes and great weapon fighting. He also forgot how to be effective at swords and two-weapon fighting for today. Do not underestimate how breaking suspension of disbelief can totally ruin the fun of a lot of people.

(b) devalues strategic character design

Why should I bother much about what choices do I make at level-up, if I can fix them on a long rest?

(c) dilutes characters diversity

John has taken care of carefully and beautifully design his Sorcerer character around the concept of moving stuff (telekinesis, teleportation, summoning). Mark didn't bother and just picked spells and random, but then sees John's character being admire by others, so he decides to swap known spells and become a copy-cat of John's sorcerer. The more abilities you are allowed to swap freely, the less character diversity.

(d) complicates DM's adventures design

The DM knows that the party covers a number of roles and have a general set of skills and capabilities and lacks in others, and chooses to fill adventures with challenges that give plenty of spotlight to use those capabilities but occasionally also have them stumble upon something that they don't have easy way out, to see if the players find creative or more narrative solutions. But then, if the characters can just swap their capabilities and take on different roles on different days, there is less value in good adventure design.

If you think all of these are FUN, that's ok, but you must understand that to a lot of people these make for a very 'gonzo' style of roleplaying that is NOT FUN on the long term. Gonzo-fun to a lot of people is good for a couple of evenings per year, but not for long-term campaigns. When long-rest-swapping becomes a common game mechanic, the whole edition can become non-suitable for many people campaigns. That's the problem I have had with 5e since Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. It is just NOT FUN for me beyond an occasional beer-and-pretzel evening, and the actual problem is that this is now becoming the default for everyone. If there was an optional rule in the DMG about making anything swappable on a long rest to create a more easy-going playstyle, it would be very different because it would not be imposed as a default.

This is not a balancing problem or a matter of lack of options. If it was a problem of balance, there are other ways. Even if Sorcerers had ALL metamagic options as a boost, it would be better than long-rest swap at least with regards to issues (a) and (b).

I know that D&D already had one big long-term-swap mechanic since its start, which is spells preparation. To be honest, I am not even a huge fan of that either (and certainly I NEVER liked that divine spellcasters traditionally have access to their whole class spells list), but at least it is clear that this was born as a mitigating mechanic rather than a benefit: they allowed spellcasters to have a growing range of magic capabilities, but to keep it from being too good they put a limit on how many spells they could choose on a given day. It was not motivated by letting players change their mind of what their character is every other day. And it has a somewhat reasonable in-game explanation that swapping weapon mastery or fighting style really doesn't.

Fighting styles and metamagic would not really break the game if a character had all of them at once, since for example you can't stack them (well, most of them at least, some fighting styles could stack), so if someone really thought that Fighters and Sorcerers needed a boost, I'd rather just grant all of them all the time instead of this farce of sleeping over.

 

[Charlaquin]

I can only explain my preference.

Changing characters abilities during a long rest potentially (a) breaks suspension of disbelief, (b) devalues strategic character design, (c) dilutes diversity and (d) complicates DM's adventures design.

(a) breaks suspension of disbelief

One day Bob the Fighter is a master of swords and of two-weapon fighting style, but finds a cool magic axe in the evening so he sleeps over it, and next morning he's a master of axes and great weapon fighting. He also forgot how to be effective at swords and two-weapon fighting for today. Do not underestimate how breaking suspension of disbelief can totally ruin the fun of a lot of people.

(b) devalues strategic character design

Why should I bother much about what choices do I make at level-up, if I can fix them on a long rest?

(c) dilutes characters diversity

John has taken care of carefully and beautifully design his Sorcerer character around the concept of moving stuff (telekinesis, teleportation, summoning). Mark didn't bother and just picked spells and random, but then sees John's character being admire by others, so he decides to swap known spells and become a copy-cat of John's sorcerer. The more abilities you are allowed to swap freely, the less character diversity.

(d) complicates DM's adventures design

The DM knows that the party covers a number of roles and have a general set of skills and capabilities and lacks in others, and chooses to fill adventures with challenges that give plenty of spotlight to use those capabilities but occasionally also have them stumble upon something that they don't have easy way out, to see if the players find creative or more narrative solutions. But then, if the characters can just swap their capabilities and take on different roles on different days, there is less value in good adventure design.

If you think all of these are FUN, that's ok, but you must understand that to a lot of people these make for a very 'gonzo' style of roleplaying that is NOT FUN on the long term. Gonzo-fun to a lot of people is good for a couple of evenings per year, but not for long-term campaigns. When long-rest-swapping becomes a common game mechanic, the whole edition can become non-suitable for many people campaigns. That's the problem I have had with 5e since Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. It is just NOT FUN for me beyond an occasional beer-and-pretzel evening, and the actual problem is that this is now becoming the default for everyone. If there was an optional rule in the DMG about making anything swappable on a long rest to create a more easy-going playstyle, it would be very different because it would not be imposed as a default.

This is not a balancing problem or a matter of lack of options. If it was a problem of balance, there are other ways. Even if Sorcerers had ALL metamagic options as a boost, it would be better than long-rest swap at least with regards to issues (a) and (b).

I know that D&D already had one big long-term-swap mechanic since its start, which is spells preparation. To be honest, I am not even a huge fan of that either (and certainly I NEVER liked that divine spellcasters traditionally have access to their whole class spells list), but at least it is clear that this was born as a mitigating mechanic rather than a benefit: they allowed spellcasters to have a growing range of magic capabilities, but to keep it from being too good they put a limit on how many spells they could choose on a given day. It was not motivated by letting players change their mind of what their character is every other day. And it has a somewhat reasonable in-game explanation that swapping weapon mastery or fighting style really doesn't.

Fighting styles and metamagic would not really break the game if a character had all of them at once, since for example you can't stack them (well, most of them at least, some fighting styles could stack), so if someone really thought that Fighters and Sorcerers needed a boost, I'd rather just grant all of them all the time instead of this farce of sleeping over.

B is exactly the reason people want those kinds of long-rest-swap features. They don’t want to have to think strategically about how to build their character, they just want to pick whatever seems cool and not worry that they might accidentally screw themselves over by doing so. C is arguably just a more negative framing of B. A and D are, for the folks who want these features, considered acceptable sacrifices for the sake of gaining B.

 

[Horwath]

I can only explain my preference.

Changing characters abilities during a long rest potentially (a) breaks suspension of disbelief, (b) devalues strategic character design, (c) dilutes diversity and (d) complicates DM's adventures design.

(a) breaks suspension of disbelief

One day Bob the Fighter is a master of swords and of two-weapon fighting style, but finds a cool magic axe in the evening so he sleeps over it, and next morning he's a master of axes and great weapon fighting. He also forgot how to be effective at swords and two-weapon fighting for today. Do not underestimate how breaking suspension of disbelief can totally ruin the fun of a lot of people.

(b) devalues strategic character design

Why should I bother much about what choices do I make at level-up, if I can fix them on a long rest?

(c) dilutes characters diversity

John has taken care of carefully and beautifully design his Sorcerer character around the concept of moving stuff (telekinesis, teleportation, summoning). Mark didn't bother and just picked spells and random, but then sees John's character being admire by others, so he decides to swap known spells and become a copy-cat of John's sorcerer. The more abilities you are allowed to swap freely, the less character diversity.

(d) complicates DM's adventures design

The DM knows that the party covers a number of roles and have a general set of skills and capabilities and lacks in others, and chooses to fill adventures with challenges that give plenty of spotlight to use those capabilities but occasionally also have them stumble upon something that they don't have easy way out, to see if the players find creative or more narrative solutions. But then, if the characters can just swap their capabilities and take on different roles on different days, there is less value in good adventure design.

If you think all of these are FUN, that's ok, but you must understand that to a lot of people these make for a very 'gonzo' style of roleplaying that is NOT FUN on the long term. Gonzo-fun to a lot of people is good for a couple of evenings per year, but not for long-term campaigns. When long-rest-swapping becomes a common game mechanic, the whole edition can become non-suitable for many people campaigns. That's the problem I have had with 5e since Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. It is just NOT FUN for me beyond an occasional beer-and-pretzel evening, and the actual problem is that this is now becoming the default for everyone. If there was an optional rule in the DMG about making anything swappable on a long rest to create a more easy-going playstyle, it would be very different because it would not be imposed as a default.

This is not a balancing problem or a matter of lack of options. If it was a problem of balance, there are other ways. Even if Sorcerers had ALL metamagic options as a boost, it would be better than long-rest swap at least with regards to issues (a) and (b).

I know that D&D already had one big long-term-swap mechanic since its start, which is spells preparation. To be honest, I am not even a huge fan of that either (and certainly I NEVER liked that divine spellcasters traditionally have access to their whole class spells list), but at least it is clear that this was born as a mitigating mechanic rather than a benefit: they allowed spellcasters to have a growing range of magic capabilities, but to keep it from being too good they put a limit on how many spells they could choose on a given day. It was not motivated by letting players change their mind of what their character is every other day. And it has a somewhat reasonable in-game explanation that swapping weapon mastery or fighting style really doesn't.

Fighting styles and metamagic would not really break the game if a character had all of them at once, since for example you can't stack them (well, most of them at least, some fighting styles could stack), so if someone really thought that Fighters and Sorcerers needed a boost, I'd rather just grant all of them all the time instead of this farce of sleeping over.

I consider all this as weapon/gear load out.

Now, some thing should remain unswapable.
Feats, subclasses and yes, fighting styles.
But, everything else could be a fair game for long rest switch.

Sometimes you get intel and you can prepare for adventure, sometimes you stumble into it and you have to muddle through it, sometimes you stumble but have time/resource/location to fall back are re-prepare for next day.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I just do what I want... which is have Sorcerer players select two that they are proficient in and can use at normal cost, but can use metamagics they aren't proficient in by spending an extra sorcery point over their normal cost.

If WotC changes rules that I don't particularly care for, I just change them back. I don't need WotC to write their rules for only my preferences.

 

[Li Shenron]

B is exactly the reason people want those kinds of long-rest-swap features. They don’t want to have to think strategically about how to build their character, they just want to pick whatever seems cool and not worry that they might accidentally screw themselves over by doing so.

Yeah and that's why I won't make the switch to 5.5e just like I did not adopt Tasha's book. It's not the way I like to approach the game.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I can only explain my preference.

Changing characters abilities during a long rest potentially (a) breaks suspension of disbelief, (b) devalues strategic character design, (c) dilutes diversity and (d) complicates DM's adventures design.

(a) breaks suspension of disbelief

One day Bob the Fighter is a master of swords and of two-weapon fighting style, but finds a cool magic axe in the evening so he sleeps over it, and next morning he's a master of axes and great weapon fighting. He also forgot how to be effective at swords and two-weapon fighting for today. Do not underestimate how breaking suspension of disbelief can totally ruin the fun of a lot of people.

(b) devalues strategic character design

Why should I bother much about what choices do I make at level-up, if I can fix them on a long rest?

(c) dilutes characters diversity

John has taken care of carefully and beautifully design his Sorcerer character around the concept of moving stuff (telekinesis, teleportation, summoning). Mark didn't bother and just picked spells and random, but then sees John's character being admire by others, so he decides to swap known spells and become a copy-cat of John's sorcerer. The more abilities you are allowed to swap freely, the less character diversity.

(d) complicates DM's adventures design

The DM knows that the party covers a number of roles and have a general set of skills and capabilities and lacks in others, and chooses to fill adventures with challenges that give plenty of spotlight to use those capabilities but occasionally also have them stumble upon something that they don't have easy way out, to see if the players find creative or more narrative solutions. But then, if the characters can just swap their capabilities and take on different roles on different days, there is less value in good adventure design.

If you think all of these are FUN, that's ok, but you must understand that to a lot of people these make for a very 'gonzo' style of roleplaying that is NOT FUN on the long term. Gonzo-fun to a lot of people is good for a couple of evenings per year, but not for long-term campaigns. When long-rest-swapping becomes a common game mechanic, the whole edition can become non-suitable for many people campaigns. That's the problem I have had with 5e since Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. It is just NOT FUN for me beyond an occasional beer-and-pretzel evening, and the actual problem is that this is now becoming the default for everyone. If there was an optional rule in the DMG about making anything swappable on a long rest to create a more easy-going playstyle, it would be very different because it would not be imposed as a default.

This is not a balancing problem or a matter of lack of options. If it was a problem of balance, there are other ways. Even if Sorcerers had ALL metamagic options as a boost, it would be better than long-rest swap at least with regards to issues (a) and (b).

I know that D&D already had one big long-term-swap mechanic since its start, which is spells preparation. To be honest, I am not even a huge fan of that either (and certainly I NEVER liked that divine spellcasters traditionally have access to their whole class spells list), but at least it is clear that this was born as a mitigating mechanic rather than a benefit: they allowed spellcasters to have a growing range of magic capabilities, but to keep it from being too good they put a limit on how many spells they could choose on a given day. It was not motivated by letting players change their mind of what their character is every other day. And it has a somewhat reasonable in-game explanation that swapping weapon mastery or fighting style really doesn't.

Fighting styles and metamagic would not really break the game if a character had all of them at once, since for example you can't stack them (well, most of them at least, some fighting styles could stack), so if someone really thought that Fighters and Sorcerers needed a boost, I'd rather just grant all of them all the time instead of this farce of sleeping over.

The problem is that we as human players have a limited amount of time to play our little fantasy games. We can't all play lots of campaigns. The game serves the Players' enjoyment. It should never be a trap.

D&D is a huge game with lots of rules, options, and moving parts, and it's not obvious what the good options are. We make lots decisions in ignorance, and when it comes to character progression decisions that we learn later don't spark joy for any reason (abilities don't work the way we thought, or the flavor is not supported by effectiveness), we need/deserve to "re-spec" the character so that we are playing the version of the character that is in our minds.

Let's say a new player makes a dragonborn Wild Magic sorcerer because that sounds super cool, and chooses a bunch of poison spells like poison spray and ray of sickness. Then it turns out that poison resistance is common in the campaign, and their Wild Surges are rare and often worthless or dangerous to their allies, what do you as the DM do if the player is unhappy and wants to respec? Are you going to tell them "No, you made your choices, now live with them. You should have thought about that before locking those choices in. The in-game story of the campaign is more important for my verisimilitude than it is for your enjoyment."

How about another player in that group that in the beginning wants to play a knife-throwing fighter, but it turns out to suuuuck? Are they not allowed to change their focus? Who is the person being made happy? You? Or the person it affects?

BG3 understands this and allows respeccing. The TTRPG should support some limited respeccing as well. Handwave a bit of story if we have to. It's a fantasy world. You can even say that say that the special PC heroes are so important to the current universal story that while they dream at night, they can explore the Divine Unconcious of the Astral Sea and their knowledge can shift, and when they wake up the world settles into a new reality. It really doesn't matter how you justify it. Just let the player play what they want.

If it is left only up to the DM who believes they can force me to play something unfun, even if it is by my own ignorant choices, I'm leaving.

 

[Li Shenron]

The problem is that we as human players have a limited amount of time to play our little fantasy games. We can't all play lots of campaigns. The game serves the Players' enjoyment. It should never be a trap.

D&D is a huge game with lots of rules, options, and moving parts, and it's not obvious what the good options are. We make lots decisions in ignorance, and when it comes to character progression decisions that we learn later don't spark joy for any reason (abilities don't work the way we thought, or the flavor is not supported by effectiveness), we need/deserve to "re-spec" the character so that we are playing the version of the character that is in our minds.

Let's say a new player makes a dragonborn Wild Magic sorcerer because that sounds super cool, and chooses a bunch of poison spells like poison spray and ray of sickness. Then it turns out that poison resistance is common in the campaign, and their Wild Surges are rare and often worthless or dangerous to their allies, what do you as the DM do if the player is unhappy and wants to respec? Are you going to tell them "No, you made your choices, now live with them. You should have thought about that before locking those choices in. The in-game story of the campaign is more important for my verisimilitude than it is for your enjoyment."

How about another player in that group that in the beginning wants to play a knife-throwing fighter, but it turns out to suuuuck? Are they not allowed to change their focus? Who is the person being made happy? You? Or the person it affects?

BG3 understands this and allows respeccing. The TTRPG should support some limited respeccing as well. Handwave a bit of story if we have to. It's a fantasy world. You can even say that say that the special PC heroes are so important to the current universal story that while they dream at night, they can explore the Divine Unconcious of the Astral Sea and their knowledge can shift, and when they wake up the world settles into a new reality. It really doesn't matter how you justify it. Just let the player play what they want.

If it is left only up to the DM who believes they can force me to play something unfun, even if it is by my own ignorant choices, I'm leaving.

I'd say the problem is rather about the social contract while playing the game, and about the perception people have even before the play.

You explained what you enjoy. I enjoy something different: I like RPGs when they make me think AND choose, including at character build and level-up. And yes that also means that I like when I have to pay the cost of those choices (example: I like the idea that if I design a Fighter specialized with swords, I might find a fanstastic magic axe and then I have to choose between using all my bonuses with a non-magic sword VS using the magic axe without bonuses; similarly, I'd rather play a Ranger that is much better in one environment than another, so I'll have a difference experience in the two cases). I do not get joy from a rule that removes the value of choices with a switch. At that point, I'd rather have a Ranger that is always good everywhere, than a farce where the Ranger could switch their favourite terrain on a night's sleep, and I'll be looking at other areas of the game to find meaningful choices. Let's agree to disagree what is fun for us. The question might be: could we still play at the same table?

So back to the problem, for me it is the fact that WotC is generally following a trend (started with Tasha) of making the game more and more casual and care-free compared to what I want to play. It might be surprising, because nowadays I mostly play with casual gamers, not hardcore D&D fans. And casual gamers never ask for this sort of facilitations, it seems to me that it is always hardcore fans on internet forums who seem to want the game easier and easier. IMXP newbies and casuals are a lot more intrigued by the game when it is taken seriously, challenging, and why not even a bit complicated (after all, these were the things that brought me into D&D a long time ago).

I said it is mainly about social contract and perceptions. From you words, I get that you are very scared of ending up with a DM that "forces you to play something unfun". But my perception is the opposite, that if you were playing with me, it would be you forcing me (the DM) to run a game that is unfun to run, by keep changing your PC to adapt to new challenges and then significantly decrease their importance or variety. OTOH, as a DM I know I have always allowed a player to "respec" their PC if they were unhappy. Not having respec rules allowed me to deal directly with the player, so everyone at the table can see that the player's concern is genuine, and can agree on the change (and I am not limited by the rules on what we can change, after all the player could also "scrap" the PC completely and make another). Having respec rules creates limitations as well as opportunities. If you have a good social contract between players and DM, you don't need these, and they actually get in the way, because now even a good DM might be tempted to believe that there is a reason of balance behind such rules, and may not want to exceed those limitations. But retraining rules are one thing, and long-rest ability switchare another thing, obviously a lot more worrying for me, because they can happen all the time, every single long rest... this is not anymore about a safeguard against mismatching between PCs and the campaign.

I know what many players like you might be thinking: if I have to discuss with the DM then it's a "Mother may I" situation. I think this is the crux of such social contract. Way too many players are afraid of just discussing and resolving things together with other people, and they hide behind the "Mother may I", so they demand the game to be more like "yes I can because the game entitles me to". Well the bad news is that the more you rely on the game to be like that, the more your social contract at the table will sour, so you're more likely to end up with a DM who then sees you the player as an adversary, and might just house rule "no you can't". Then you (or the DM) leave the table and go back playing BG3 alone. In fact, it is not surprising at all that the general demand to RPG that they "play by themselves" always comes from people who are more interested in videogames, where there is zero social contract, and/or from people who only imagine playing the game or talk about it, but don't really have a group of people to play with around a table.