log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E New class options in Tasha

6ENow!

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
Was there an error in my recap of your argument?
I already did several times--which apparently you failed to recognize or understand--so "You don't get it."

Oh, and... ;) :p :D

I'd point out that these rules were first tested out last November, and according to WotC, had one of the most overwhelmingly positive survey results.
Well, of course, because the people who like such things will poll positively, the people who recognize garbage when they see it won't bother.

Listen, I see no further point in this discussion, and I am certain you don't either, so you won't have to worry about any more snide emoticons now. Have a nice day. :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

EscherEnigma

Explorer
Before I applied the little correction to the sorcerers, rangers and warlocks, I was seeing almost none of them with my group of power gamers and if there was one it was only to play the under dog.
Yes, we know your group is full of power-gamers, and that this distorts your thinking.

I think that you want this rule so hard for your sorcerer that you willingly blind yourself to the fact that this rule is directly attacking the wizard niche at no cost for your sorcerer.
I'm currently in two games. In one, I play a ranger, and have for three or four years now (this game also includes two sorcerers who joined the campaign last year). In the other, I'm the GM.

But please, tell me more about myself. I'm sure it will be enlightening.

I bet that if a rule would give wizardry point to a wizard that duplicate the sorcerer's metamagic, I would see scream that this is unfair to the sorcerer. That the sorcerer shtick is exactly metamagic and that the wizard has no need of it.
Off the top of my head, there have been two different UA wizard sub-classes that allowed wizards to swap out the damage type of their spells, and there was that feat-focused UA one that allowed any caster to get access to metamagic. I'm pretty sure at least one of those sub-classes, and that feat, are going to be in Tashas. So sure, you may see screams... and those would be just as hyperbolic and over-the-top as yours.

Lol, my players already told me they would use the feature ad nauseam when the book gets out. And if I don't buy it, they'll buy it to me as a gift and out veto me into using it.
The more you talk about your players, the more convinced I am that your problems are, fundamentally, with your players, not with any rules, variant or otherwise.
 

Easily cancelled by a Dispel Magic. :eek:

Any DM who allows this spell to ram-rod the adventure is a poor excuse for a DM... :rolleyes:
I hear this argument often, but unless you make your own custom-made NPCs, there aren't a lot of creatures in the monstrous manual that can cast dispel magic. A DM shouldn't have to spam 5th-level+ spellcaster NPCs to be anything else than a "poor excuse of a DM".

I understand that DM need to tailor their games in accordance to the PCs and their abilities or lack thereof, but I find the "just cast dispel magic on them!" method to be just a band-aid over a deeper underlying issue. Not all DMs (and players) will have a problem with this, but I believe I can objectively say that it can be an issue in many games.
 

Yes, we know your group is full of power-gamers, and that this distorts your thinking.


I'm currently in two games. In one, I play a ranger, and have for three or four years now (this game also includes two sorcerers who joined the campaign last year). In the other, I'm the GM.

But please, tell me more about myself. I'm sure it will be enlightening.


Off the top of my head, there have been two different UA wizard sub-classes that allowed wizards to swap out the damage type of their spells, and there was that feat-focused UA one that allowed any caster to get access to metamagic. I'm pretty sure at least one of those sub-classes, and that feat, are going to be in Tashas. So sure, you may see screams... and those would be just as hyperbolic and over-the-top as yours.


The more you talk about your players, the more convinced I am that your problems are, fundamentally, with your players, not with any rules, variant or otherwise.
LOL!
Even three groups that are not playing with, and are under 17 years old have seen the potential because they asked me (at our friday night magic, yes I do play a bit too with my old cards...) if they were wrong in their assertions! My second group is not made of power gamers and we discussed it and yet, they too find the rule too over the top.

Yep, I really think that you are dismissive of others and that you blind yourself to the obvious. Do not attack the poster, attack the premises...ho you don't because you can't. That's why.
 

I hear this argument often, but unless you make your own custom-made NPCs, there aren't a lot of creatures in the monstrous manual that can cast dispel magic. A DM shouldn't have to spam 5th-level+ spellcaster NPCs to be anything else than a "poor excuse of a DM".

I understand that DM need to tailor their games in accordance to the PCs and their abilities or lack thereof, but I find the "just cast dispel magic on them!" method to be just a band-aid over a deeper underlying issue. Not all DMs (and players) will have a problem with this, but I believe I can objectively say that it can be an issue in many games.
Ever heard of diversity of opponents?
Ever heard of spell swapping? It's not only for the players you know?
Dispel magic will be used if spell such as Tiny Hut are used to often. Because if the players can get info on their foes, so can their foes. They are not static. If the players keep using the same tactics it will be a known fact. Easy to justify and to implement. This would not be adversarial DM, but using foes cleverly.
 

Vael

Hero
I already did several times--which apparently you failed to recognize or understand--so "You don't get it."

"It's SO obvious ... you don't get it ... " Oooh, now stamp your feet and stick your fingers in your ears and hum real loud. :)

Well, of course, because the people who like such things will poll positively, the people who recognize garbage when they see it won't bother.

... Do you need a primer on surveys and customer response? Have you been on the Internet? Negative feedback is always easier to find and more prevalent. What a ridiculous statement.
 

I hear this argument often, but unless you make your own custom-made NPCs, there aren't a lot of creatures in the monstrous manual that can cast dispel magic. A DM shouldn't have to spam 5th-level+ spellcaster NPCs to be anything else than a "poor excuse of a DM".

I understand that DM need to tailor their games in accordance to the PCs and their abilities or lack thereof, but I find the "just cast dispel magic on them!" method to be just a band-aid over a deeper underlying issue. Not all DMs (and players) will have a problem with this, but I believe I can objectively say that it can be an issue in many games.
Leomund's Invincible Bunker is definitely on my ban list. It is an absurdly powerful spell for its level and a total plot killer. Sure, I could populate the world with monsters capable of dispelling it, but that would be weird and it is just easier to not allow the bloody thing in the first place. It is a boring spell.
 



I think these quotes say enough.
Quote the whole post man. Not just a part of it to feel good and entitled.
Before I applied the little correction to the sorcerers, rangers and warlocks, I was seeing almost none of them with my group of power gamers and if there was one it was only to play the under dog.

A bad rule can effectively make a class literally unplayed. Just as a bad concept can make a class or subclass unplayed. How many people actually play a monk of the four elements as is? Almost no body and for good reasons.

Again, you will see people play the under dog once in a while. But it will stay at the once in a while.


I think that you want this rule so hard for your sorcerer that you willingly blind yourself to the fact that this rule is directly attacking the wizard niche at no cost for your sorcerer.

I bet that if a rule would give wizardry point to a wizard that duplicate the sorcerer's metamagic, I would see scream that this is unfair to the sorcerer. That the sorcerer shtick is exactly metamagic and that the wizard has no need of it.

Well, spell versatility is the wizard's shtick and the sorcerer is winning big time at the wizard's expense for no cost at all.
Quoting my self here.
That was one line on one post. Not a whole post like you did. Good day.
 

Familliar? Why would I want to see through its eyes? Go scout you little rat...

Never heard about team work?

Never heard about team work?

Houuuuu never heard about wish?

Well, by your response I suppose I am should make sure we are clear on the current argument.

Sorcerers are making Wizard's obsolete. All you need is two spellcasters, one of them level 17 using the most powerful 9th level spell in the game, this is to copy the abilities of the wizard to scout ahead and gather all the information. Then the Sorcerer can tailor their spell list to exactly what is needed, making the wizard obsolete.

This is your argument now. This rule makes it so the Sorcerer makes the wizard obsolete, as long as a warlock or Bard can take all the things a wizard can do, and do them to gather the information the sorcerer needs. Also, this cannot happen before level 17, when we use the ability to rewrite reality to copy a single wizard spell.

I guess I am still left wondering why I should see this rule as breaking the game and making wizard's obsolete....



But they will still know about non dead inhabitants. They will still know about the lay out. They'll get you enough info to go on.


Phhh.. limited wish, lore bard secrets... so many options you don't seem to know or simply ignore to get the last word....

You obviously never played high level.

I am not sure what you are trying to say.

Your response about the non-dead inhabitants seems to be meant to respond to the Contact other Plane... and ignores the fact that, yet again, you could be lied to. Or it is responding to something else. it certainly makes no sense as a response to the statement you quoted which was "Man, for how obsolete they are, they sure seem necessary to all of your planning to make them obsolete."

The second part, well, Limited Wish will be a thing, so I guess that the Warlock could use that once it comes out. Bardic Secrets can of course get Arcane Eye...

Edit: Seems you meant Wish from the beginning.

Of course, the argument hasn't been about Warlocks and Bards, has it? The argument has been that the Sorcerer has now made the Wizard obsolete. And when we challenged the information gathering capabilities, we now find that the Bard or the Warlock has to take over the role that the Wizard was providing for this to be true.

Which makes your attempt at discrediting me by asking if I even high level bro, kind of hilarious, because you've fully scuttled your own argument. This change in the rule does not make the Wizard Obsolete, because the Sorcerer still needs all the information that the wizard (or another class using the abilities they have always had) will provide them, to take advantage of that rule.




Scouting isn't killing. Scrying the scout is also important to bring him/her (in both of my groups for now) back. A 20th level rogue is around +17 on the sneak. With elven boots, were talking about +22. But a fight alone is not a good thing.

Also, planning man, planning.

Planning would include things like the scout dropping poison in the food supply, stealing all their weapons, cutting the straps on their armor... you know, things that would make them way less of a threat when the party comes rolling in?

I mean, if you have a Rogue able to reliably and safely scout the entire enemy complex, with no risk to them being found out, then you don't need a sorcerer to prepare certain spells, you have won. You can rip them apart from the inside, with no risks to the party.

I mean, yeah, "scouting isn't killing" but if you have free reign of the enemy base, you can pretty much ruin their lives in a handful of days.

Vitaly key area will probably be already covered against intrusion. Yes the poison thing might work with evil PCs, which I never allow. The more you do in a scouting mission, the more your chances to screw something and reveal that you are about to assault.

Sorry, what does it matter if they know you are coming? They send out scouting parties to find the party? Great, now they are fighting you on land you prepared. They hole up and prepare? I thought the rogue was going about with a +22 and no ability to roll less than a 10 on the die, for a 32 Stealth. Doesn't really matter if they are on higher alert.

Also, you don't need to be evil to use tactics. Sure, I guess you can veto the use of poison, but you don't veto fire do you? Burning the castle is going to ruin their day. Burn their food and supplies, cut their bowstrings. "Key Areas" is a poor statement, because some of the places you can do the most damage don't involve areas generally thought of as important. After all, the barracks are a high traffic area generally, but during lunch or dinner, less so. And you can do a lot of damage there with some oil and a torch.

But, this is sort of a tangent. This is all about Rogues soloing a castle. Less about Sorcerers.



Of course he was. Before the new rule that is. Now the Sorcerer and the bard are good enough to do it better and faster. That's what our little test revealed. I think you need to read the thread again because you're forgetting key elements here. Unless you're doing this on purpose?

rubs eyes
rereads

Okay. This new rule allows two classes to cover a job that was previously handled by one class, and it is the two classes version that is overpowered?

That is what the test revealed. And, yes, I am purposefully pointing out that a rule that lets two classes combined handle the work that used to be done by a single class is not overpowered. I am purposefully pointing out that claiming that this rule change made the Wizard obsolete because the sorcerer can do it all, is a complete fabrication, because when we dug into it, we immediately started needing a bard or a warlock to do the things the wizard would be doing, but the sorcerer still cannot.

Are you purposefully claiming that allowing the wizard to be so powerful, that even by combining the resources of two other caster classes you can't replicate what they were doing, is balanced? Why? What world does that make things balanced in?



Of course! And wish is pretty standard choice don't you think? Again, high level play means that there are many solutions. The wizard might not have the spell but the sorcerer will and so will the warlock and the bard if needed now.

Funny that you keep bringing up Wish. Because, you realize that this is also a problem for your argument, right?

Because if the problem is that a Sorcerer or Warlock or Bard at high levels might have any spell they may need... so does the wizard. Because Wish can copy any spell in the game.

Remember, it is not even an impediment for the Sorcerer to rest for 24 hours to switch out a spell, so the Wizard can simply cast Wish, then rest for 24 hours to get back the spell slot.

In fact, the Wizard could use a Simulacrum to cast Wish, getting a spell book with more spells in it, or more scrolls. Then, the Simulacrum might lose the ability to cast Wish, but the Wizard doesn't. Of they could do something similiar with Clone.

Funny how neither of those spells are on the other spell lists, meaning the other casters don't have direct access to this exploit, but must find a way to work around it with casting even more wishes.


Make sarcasm all you want, a whole spell list (and maybe two) is way better than 44 spells known. The entire list is just a nap away.

It must be way better, that's why you still needed one of two other classes to make those 44 spells go away. I mean, the Sorcerer had access to two full spell lists, and to complete your routine scouting job, they still needed either a Warlock with the proper Invocations, or a Bard to steal that specific wizard spell.

I think this does truly highlight the power difference at play here. I just don't think you are right which way that lies.


I already gave you zounds of ways. There are more ways to do the things I have shown you. The two casters combo was previously done with the wizard but could be done with a bard or a sorcerer from the beginning (albeit at slower pace before the new rule). But a rogue could do it too. A friendly mouse could be the focus of a scry spell while an other caster would simply concentrate on an improved invisibilty (or on the rogue for that matter). The ways to get information are numerous. But the adapatability was not always there. Now with the new rule, only the wizard will lack the necessary spells to help in an adventure because all the others have access to all their spell list.

Edit: for some reason I wrote limited wish when I intended to write wish...
PS: Scry is also a clerical spell.
PPS: The goal was not to show that it was easy to get information. It was to show that with this info, the sorcerer will change his spells in a pinch before going to do the actual mission/adventure. The wizard, if he took all these wonderful spells, will not have other spell to change from unless he was lucky enough to find scrolls. The spells that the wizard will have taken will be permanent fixture unlike the sorcerer's spell which can be changed for better and more adapted ones for the task at hand.

PS response: Okay, so a Divine Soul sorcerer only can use some scrying themselves.

The wizard needed two spells it looked like. Scry and Arcane Eye. Sorcerers can't even get the second, but let us say they could, oh, and invisibility and Find Familiar. So, four spells.

4/44 is 9% of their spells.

4/15 is 27% of their spells, and if we are switching them out, took three days to get. And, again, the Sorcerer can't even copy all of that, so they need either a feat or another spell caster, and they have to be a Divine Soul, any other type of Sorcerer isn't capable of getting Scrying.


This is the point you are trying to make, to prove that the Sorcerer is far superior to the wizard with this rule? That, if someone provides them with all the magical assistance to plan everything, then in a week they could change their spells to perfectly counter your entire castle.

A week, where the Rogue could do untold damage to the place, if we are assuming the Rogue scouts instead of needing the second caster to gather all this information?

Color me unimpressed with how powerful and gamebreaking this is. If I have a week's unlimited access to the enemy fort, and I still need magic to solve the problem, then I am clearly not using my resources effectively.



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




To my ears, that sounds like BAD ADVENTURE DESIGN. No other way to do a challenge? You cannot succeed if you don't have a specific spell? But that's exactly what Spell Versatility encourages. Why should I bother as a DM to come up with an interesting challenge, if the PCs can just sleep it over and get the perfect spell in the morning? Why should I bother as a player to think about how to solve that challenge, if I can just wait until tomorrow?

Sure the DM can than force the adventure pacing so that sleeping over is not possible. That's a solution just as bad as the problem created by Spell Versatility. The whole issue is mostly about travel, exploration , communication, knowledge, most of which can be paced faster, but if you are forced to fast-paced them in order to avoid the PCs taking advantage of Spell Versatility... then why the hell having Spell Versatility in the game at all?


Why should the DM bother with it now? Why should I bother with coming up with an interesting challenge, I can just make it a big heavy thing for the Barbarian to push. I can just make it a lock for the Rogue to pick. Heck, why even make challenges at all?


You are begging the question a lot here, Li. If you already don't need specific spells to solve problems, then there is no reason to change and make the game set up so that you do. If your overland travel is so inconsequential that you can just, speed it up, then why didn't you speed it up to begin with.

"Taking advantage" of Spell Versatility is not as easy as people seem to think. Or maybe, the ability for the party to know exactly what is coming for them is too easy. Because without that, this ability is not that powerful.

I know this is a mid to low level example, and those are taboo for some reason, but let us say that your party is traveling through the mountains trying to pierce through into an unknown land beyond. What spells do you prepare for that land? What trials will you be facing? What sort of monsters and combats await you?

You don't know. And in the face of the unknown, the ability to have "any" spell is as much a hindrance as it is a boon.
 

6ENow!

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
Leomund's Invincible Bunker is definitely on my ban list. It is an absurdly powerful spell for its level and a total plot killer. Sure, I could populate the world with monsters capable of dispelling it, but that would be weird and it is just easier to not allow the bloody thing in the first place. It is a boring spell.
We just ruled it back to the AD&D version (more or less). It works as written in the PHB, except the item about keeping other creatures out. Otherwise, it is basically a super-Wall of Force in many ways. When you see crap design like this, is it any wonder WotC is allowing Spell Versatility? :D
 



Okay. This new rule allows two classes to cover a job that was previously handled by one class, and it is the two classes version that is overpowered?
Nope. Not the whole point of my post. You take the info gathering of a whole group down with only two. The wizard was great at this, but not vital as I have shown. But to be able to do it almost by himself, he has to sacrifice quite a few spells. Where the others don't sacrifice anything.

The scrying can be done by anyone. If pushes come to shove, yes wish (if high level enough) can be used but it is not necessary. The point is not info gathering in itself, but the sacrifices needed by the wizard to do it where the sorcerer, warlock and bard don't.

No cost, no sacrifices just pure versatility. Do you understand?
A wizard has to sacrifice many other spells to be able to do this job "almost" alone. He loses a lot in versatility as there is no guarantee that he will find other spells to compensate. Even then, the wizard needed: either an other wizard, bard, sorcerer, arcane trickster to provide invisibility or a cleric to provide scrying if he would be the one providing the invisibility spell. The wizard could never do it entirely alone. This was a team effort. Now the team does not need the wizard to be able to do it. It is simple and easy to understand.
 

Mistwell

Legend
I don't think young DMs will have the player's with the system mastery to abuse this.

And old DMs should know better to not have so many simple obstacles or telegraph key info so far.

I assure you the 15 year old with nothing but time on his hands during the quarantine is mastering the rules with rapidity. They often grew up on magic: the gathering, complex German board games, and video games which reward rapidly gaining system mastery. And they don't have hangups from prior versions of the game coloring their perception on what you can or should be doing with the rules.
 

Nope. Not the whole point of my post. You take the info gathering of a whole group down with only two. The wizard was great at this, but not vital as I have shown. But to be able to do it almost by himself, he has to sacrifice quite a few spells. Where the others don't sacrifice anything.

The scrying can be done by anyone. If pushes come to shove, yes wish (if high level enough) can be used but it is not necessary. The point is not info gathering in itself, but the sacrifices needed by the wizard to do it where the sorcerer, warlock and bard don't.

No cost, no sacrifices just pure versatility. Do you understand?
A wizard has to sacrifice many other spells to be able to do this job "almost" alone. He loses a lot in versatility as there is no guarantee that he will find other spells to compensate. Even then, the wizard needed: either an other wizard, bard, sorcerer, arcane trickster to provide invisibility or a cleric to provide scrying if he would be the one providing the invisibility spell. The wizard could never do it entirely alone. This was a team effort. Now the team does not need the wizard to be able to do it. It is simple and easy to understand.

Well, congrats on ignoring 90% of my post. Makes me really appreciate the time and effort I put into it.

You are wrong.

Well, I guess I should put in a bit more effort than that, since I respect people too much to just dismiss them without explaining why.

Point 1) The Sorcerer cannot do anything for this unless they are a specific Sub-class with access to two spell lists, or they use the Wish spell

Point 2) The party never needed the wizard in the first place then, because the Warlock could do all of these things. Or the Bard. Or the Cleric. Before these rules.

Point 3) You keep talking about sacrifice like the wizard has spent all these years dragging Sisyphus's Boulder up the mountain. How could they ever survive with only 44 spells. Ignoring that before this change Sorcerers had 15, Bards had 22, Warlocks had 15.

So, the most the other arcane classes had was half of the wizards. And the Wizard is making a huge sacrifice in taking game defining spells that are altering the very nature of how you approach anything. Their ability to alter the flow of information being so complete, that you needed to keep adding other classes to the list to full cover what they could do.

Wonder what you called the Bard or Warlock doing that before? A Mega-Sacrifice? A Triple-Sacrfice?


Oh, but now they don't need to sacrifice right? They can just have magic. Still limited in the exact same number of spells, and they need 24 hours heads up and the ability to change these spells, one spell at a time, and really the sorcerer seems to be completely unimportant to this discussion, since it doesn't offer anything... oh wait, the blasting spells like fireball, lightning bolt, all those damage spells the Bard and Warlock don't have access to. So, maybe the Bard, possibly with Magical secrets and this rule change, could try and out perform the wizard.

Sorcerer certainly can't. Warlock has no chance (since this allows them to alter pact magic, not their mystic arcanum, so they can only swap spells of 5th or lower)

And Wizards will always have access to more spells. Yes, 44 spells isn't a full spell list, but they will have over 25 spells "prepared" on any given day, compared to the Lore Bard maxing out at 24.

Oh wait, the Lore bard will clearly just take Ritual Caster Feat Wizard. I mean, they are ritual casters, but this allows them to get more spells and spend a lot of time and gold to beat the Wizard with zero feats, and using bog standard rules, with no boons or subclasses.

What a travesty of justice that Specific Sub-classes with specific feats and lots of time and money, and optional rules can actually out do a class RAW with none of those things.
 

Vael

Hero
I'm reminded of that scene at the beginning of Star Trek Generations, where the Captain of the Enterprise-B keeps saying that all the missing components for the ship will arrive on Tuesday.

"When will the Sorcerer be ready?"
"Tuesday"
 


Well, congrats on ignoring 90% of my post. Makes me really appreciate the time and effort I put into it.
Gonna do it again.
Yep, the wizard made big sacrifices simply because he made them. These choices were real sacrifices. Beside its versatility, no wizard subclasses (save one) has anything remotely half as powerful as what the sorcerers, bards and warlocks had to compensate for their then "limited spell list". Portent might have been the only feature remotely strong yet, usable only twice a day for most the Diviner's career.

Now, your friends the warlock, bard and sorcerer get better than the wizard's versatility at absolutely no cost.

You keep looking only one aspect and yet, the whole thread brought so many things showing that now, the wizard sacrificing quite a few of his known spells is now useless. 44 unchangeable known spells vs 185 for the sorcerer. Yep, this is clearly a well balanced rule.

That's true of every class in the game.
Yes, but now who needs wizards now? Versatility is now in the hands of others at no costs and what they lacked in versatility was compensated with strong class options. Now they get an even better versatility AND their original compensations. What a deal! (save for the wizards...)
 

Presents for Goblins

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top