D&D 5E New class options in Tasha

[Azzy]

It's not about being too good, it is the classes having some coherent identity mechanically and thematically.

Apparently, it is to some people on this thread, as it's their fall-back argument.

This change makes sorcerers mechanically more similar to wizards, which makes them existing as as separate class even less justified.

Not really. This change is only of the frequency in which a sorcerer can do something that it already could.

It means after a nap sorcerer can has access to any spell they could theoretically have. This makes them significantly better magic-based problem solver than the wizard, whose thing this used to be. To me this seems like a colossal shift. Going from having access to handful of spells to, what, over a hundred? I have super hard time understanding how people can't see what a massive change that is.

Hyperbole isn't doing your argument any favors. 1) Calling a long rest a nap is just tired. 2) Clerics, druids, and paladins already have access to "any spell they could theoretically have" after a long rest (and can switch out all of their spells rather than just one). 3) Wizards still have more spells prepared than spells known and have a wider array of spells (especially utility spells) on their spell list than the sorcerer. 5) (because 4 is on strike) people aren't seeing "what a massive change that is" because the argument that it is massive is based on presenting the most artifical, hyperbotastic, "sky is falling" theoretical extreme that ignores how real people actually play D&D that it's hard to take seriously.

 

[Helldritch]

That's a spotlight problem, not a rules problem.

Which would not exist without that rule. With that rule you will see less and less wizard at your table. It is not a matter of IF but WHEN.

When given the choice of playing two classes that do the same thing. You will invariably pick the best one for the job. And versatility wise, the sorcerer is now the absolute best and he has sorcery to boot.

 

[Azzy]

I swear. No, really, I swear. A lot, even. Man, do I swear a lot. But I'm getting sidetracked there.

The only way that anyone has been able to argue that this is overpowered or infringing on the wizard's toes is to cop to the most extreme theoretical example possible that is reliant on some monumentally trollish or inept (or both) player switching out one spell everyday either for the sake of swapping out spells or just meticulously trying out every spell in game just to see what it does because they can. Seriously, if an argument is dependent upon the shenanigans of "that player" as an example and then having "that player" performing their "that player-ness" to an illogical extreme beyond what even the most loathsome "that player" is known to do, then perhaps your argument doesn't hold water. Nobody plays like that. Even with prepared spellcasters, my experience in 5e is that spell-swapping is fairly rare—people tend to find the spells they like and keep them prepared, only swapping out on occasion.

Seriously, I'm not trying to belittle or condescend anyone, but it's really gotten silly here.

 

[Aldarc]

Easy fix: switch the downtime required to switch spells from one per day to one per week.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

high level smigh level.


No, the problem is DMs who make obstacles that are designed to be conquered by single spells WHILE having adventures with no stakes.

If your puzzle can be solved by the sorcerer walking up to an obstacle, realizing that he need a specific spell to overcome it, leaving, resting, swapping spells and returning with the spell in hand...

Your puzzle sucks.

what if they didn't have a sorcerer?

Thinking that this is about 'solving' some individual puzzles certainly speaks about playstyle difference.

 

[Helldritch]

Thinking that this is about 'solving' some individual puzzles certainly speaks about playstyle difference.

And a lack of long term vision. In a few years, some of them will go like: "Hey, how come we don't see people playing wizards anymore?"
Players' answer: "We don't want to gimp ourselves man. Wizards are a joke."

 

[Chaosmancer]

What we have here is a problem of perception. This rule is very impactful when standard rest and high level are combined. It gives a lot of versatility to any classes but the wizards that are left far behind in the dust making their own versatility useless. What is 44 spell known vs a full spell list? Nothing.

If you take into account the fact that around level 12 you have a feat to burn, the sorcerer will take ritual caster wizard and now have access to all wizards rituals fully achieving complete appropriation of what was the strong points going for the wizards.

What are 15 spells to 40 then? Because if we count every ritual spell as being prepared, the wizard could have 40 of those 44 spells ready to use now. Not tomorrow. Now.

And again, with nearly 40 unique spells for wizards, even if we take out the fifteen or so rituals, that stills leaves them with nearly 25 spells that are completely unique to them. And sorcerers have.... Chaos Bolt. Literally their only unique spell to date.

Not seeing how you are obsolete, Mr. Wizard. Maybe you won't always be the only one with the solution, but that isn't the same thing.

But contrary to a few poeple here, I always go for abusing new rules, classes and subclasses before making a judgement and I try it out in actual simulations and scenari we have already played previously to see if it is game changing, a balancing issue or complete garbage as it is the case in this this thread. That rule is much more disruptive than it appears in the first place. One thing is sure, that rule will not make it at my table.

I'm curious. If you went for abusing this rule before judging it, how did you do that?

Did you put it into a real campaign and wait six months to see what happened? Or did you make a series of situations where the rule might be useful, and check out the impact?

Because, again. the only time this rule has an impact on Wizards is during a very small slice of the potential adventure. You need a very specific set of circumstances that I just don't see coming up all that often. But, if you are building scenarios specifically to test it, you are going to magnify the results.

 

[Minigiant]

Thinking that this is about 'solving' some individual puzzles certainly speaks about playstyle difference.

I can't see what else it could be about.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Easy fix: switch the downtime required to switch spells from one per day to one per week.

Yep. I've suggest that or similar fixes a couple times... to little response.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I can't see what else it could be about.

Obviously! Try playing more sandbox style with creative players.