log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E New class options in Tasha

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Really? Powergamers are bogeyman for you? Gotcha DMs are bogeyman too?
I should clarify that the sort of power gamers and gotcha DMs that people on D&D forums tend to wring their hands about are boogeymen. Actual people who like to play optimized characters, or run the world and NPCs in a way that is hostile to the PCs? They’re generally fine people, and fun to play with so long as your expectations are not mismatched.

And powergamers are more devious than you think. They will subtely (more or less depending on the DM) do their stuff without you noticing before it is too late.
Too late for what? To keep them from playing powerful characters?

The goal is not to thwart them, that is a last chance response. It is to not to tempt them do it first.
Tomao, tomahto. My point is, I don’t think the game should be designed around power gamers. Power gamers gonna power game, the only thing that designing around them really accomplishes is making the game more restrictive for non-power gamers.

And for the record, I am a power gamer, I don't mind power gamer because I can manage them. But I spend so much time coaching young DMs about their "out of control" games that whenever I see a potential abuse of the rules, I think of those that do not have the experience that I have and that will fall into the "trap".
There are some assumptions here that I think would need to be unpacked for this discussion to be productive, but I’m not sure if it’d be all that worthwhile to get into here.

As for not playing with power gamers. Why would I restrain myself from playing with some of my best friends? It is better to reach an understanding and a mutual agreement that to stop seeing them at the gaming table.
Sorry, that was a little flippant of me. A more nuanced take would be that if someone’s power gaming is harming your gameplay experience, it is best to resolve that by out of game means, up to potentially deciding not to play together, if your preferences prove incompatible. My broader point was simply that what problems can arise from power gaming (or rather, having a mix of power gamers and non power gamers at the table) are better solved with real-world social skills than with game design.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I really don't understand how people can't see how spell versatility is huge deal and completely changes the mechanic identity of the sorcerers. Perhaps this doesn't matter in games where you just always use the same combat spells to blast enemies, but outside that this is a huge deal. In a spell-based problem solving a change from having very limited selection of spells being able to access any spell you could have theoretically chosen just by having a long rest is pretty damn colossal shift. And this sort of versatility definitely was wizard's thing, but now sorcerers do it better. From class identity perspective this is super confused.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Most of the "variant class features" don't bother me, but the spell versatility one... I'm conflicted.

On one hand, it basically turns "spells known" casters into "spells prepared" casters, but with a slower process for changing their selection and different "spells prepared" mechanics (all existing spells-prepared casters follow the same progression, based on stat and level, all existing spells-known casters have unique progressions in their class tables).

And, well, that rankles a little.

On the other hand, what I've seen is that, outside of special situations, spell-casters (known or prepared) rarely change their spell selection, and when they do, it's not the spells they use all the time they change out, but the spells that weren't as useful as they expected them to be.

And between the scenario of "the sorcerer has spells they never use" and "the sorcerer uses more of their spells", I think the second option is obviously superior. Players should be using more of their features, and this helps that.

So it rankles a little, but next time I GM, I'll almost certainly be using it.
I agree with this take. Eroding the distinction between prepared casters and known casters feels wrong. One desires for different types of casters to have different identities and gameplay feels. But when you step back and think about the actual play experience, prepared casters already mostly function the same as known casters, and all this seems likely to change is to let players who are dissatisfied with one or two of their spell picks swap for something they will like more without having to wait several sessions till they can level up.

EDIT: It’s also super easy to just ignore if you don’t like it. Honestly, this feels mostly like a fix for Adventures League where you can’t just work something out with your DM if you’re unhappy with one of your spell picks.
 

It’s also super easy to just ignore if you don’t like it. Honestly, this feels mostly like a fix for Adventures League where you can’t just work something out with your DM if you’re unhappy with one of your spell picks.

I think I just said this in another thread, but it's worth repeating. Some groups fully embrace an ethos of "The rules are more like guidelines" and will freely make small exceptions for a better play experience. Other groups are more LN types where the rules are the rules and they hesitate to just start coloring outside the lines. Having optional variant rules gives the latter sorts of group the permission they need to start tweaking things and the guidance on how to do so in a relatively balanced way. This can be invaluable for them, even if the more free form types question if it's really necessary.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Sorry if I was unclear, but they gain a lot to make up for it.

Bards - Inspiration, Jack of All Trades, Expertise
Rangers - Favored Enemies, Fighting Style, Extra Attack
Sorcerers - Metamagic
Warlocks - Eldritch Invocations

Honestly, to me Rangers getting known spells are sort of the "odd man out" of the group. I suppose the idea is Rangers pick up there spells without much structure (as opposed to Paladins which I can imagine some structure might be there?).

But, otherwise, Metamagic and Eldritch Invocations are the big things that make up for the lack of versatility of known spells, but YMMV. 🤷‍♂️
Fair enough. I disagree, but it is what it is.
 


Azzy

Newtype
First... Did this really take anyone by surprise? Since the first moment that Tasha's was officially announced, they've stated that the class options were going to be in there (and that the UA playtest that they were from was the best recieved UA to date). If anyone was taken unaware by this, then they failed a DC 1 Wisdom (Perception) check.

Secondly... THIS IS AWESOME! It looks like were going to have some refinements and additions to what was in the UA.

Also, I really have to roll my eyes at the argument that Sorcerers being able to trade out one spell on a long rest is somehow being overpowered. That's just silly.
 
Last edited:

Undrave

Hero
In a spell-based problem solving a change from having very limited selection of spells being able to access any spell you could have theoretically chosen just by having a long rest is pretty damn colossal shift.

Spell-based 'problem solving' is the most boring thing about DnD...

Pretty sure all the official campaign are balanced on the idea that every spell is potentially available, wether as a known spell or as a spell scroll or wand you could just buy. If a campaign were to hinge on PCs not having access to one specific spell, then it's badly designed.
 



dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
That's just silly.
Do you realize it could cost a wizard over 50,000 gp to be able to have access to every spell in their spell list?

Every other class now has access to their complete spell list --- daily!

Other prepared casters (Clerics, Druids, Paladins) choose from their entire list when selecting prepared spells.
Known-spell casters (Bard, Ranger, Sorcerer, Warlock) were able to choose from their entire list as well, even if they didn't know as many spells. (They have other class features that make up for this--in theory, anyway, YMMV).

How about this WotC: allow Wizards to choose from their entire spell list as well when selecting prepared spells.

Then you can have real Spell Versatility for everyone. ;)
 

Krachek

Adventurer
Do you realize it could cost a wizard over 50,000 gp to be able to have access to every spell in their spell list?

Every other class now has access to their complete spell list --- daily!

Other prepared casters (Clerics, Druids, Paladins) choose from their entire list when selecting prepared spells.
Known-spell casters (Bard, Ranger, Sorcerer, Warlock) were able to choose from their entire list as well, even if they didn't know as many spells. (They have other class features that make up for this--in theory, anyway, YMMV).

How about this WotC: allow Wizards to choose from their entire spell list as well when selecting prepared spells.

Then you can have real Spell Versatility for everyone. ;)
Having a single additional spell per new level would be quite enough!
But spell versatility is a cool attribute. Changing one spell a day won’t change drastically an adventure, and character won’t whim, only players.
 


Mistwell

Legend
If you know your history of D&D, the sorcerer is supposed to have a limited selection of spells and is able to cast them more often than the wizard, whom, might know more spells but must prepare them in order to cast them.

The sorcerer always have its limited amount of spells at the ready, while the wizard can only prepare a limited amount of spell. This is the fundamental difference between the two.

So the point of a sorcerer is to be "stuck" with its spell selection. That at level up a sorcerer can change his spell allotement is acceptable, but overnight? That's a wizard's job and strong point. This means that on rest the sorcerer becomes way more powerful than the wizard because the sorcerer can now have access to his full spell list while the wizard isn't. The wizard class must still find its spells be it by leveling, buying and copying from other wizard's spell books or scrolls.

This idea of the sorcerer class changing its spell allotement on a long rest is what we call in French a false good idea. This new rule simply makes the wizard obselete. Might as well remove the class altogether as since the sorcerer no longer have its weakness, no need to make a wizard. Versatility is now on the sorcerer's side too.

I agree. This is an absurdly sneaky nerf to Wizards for no good reason. Before, all those scrolls they found and carefully copied into their spell books (at great cost of time and gold) had a point - you could change your spells each night to use them. Now, they cannot even keep up with the sorcerer, while spending their scroll and gold treasure and weeks of time. Because apparently sorcerers were born with all spells changeable on a night's rest, all of a sudden? That completely changes the nature of these two classes.
 

Do you realize it could cost a wizard over 50,000 gp to be able to have access to every spell in their spell list?

Every other class now has access to their complete spell list --- daily!

Other prepared casters (Clerics, Druids, Paladins) choose from their entire list when selecting prepared spells.
Known-spell casters (Bard, Ranger, Sorcerer, Warlock) were able to choose from their entire list as well, even if they didn't know as many spells. (They have other class features that make up for this--in theory, anyway, YMMV).

How about this WotC: allow Wizards to choose from their entire spell list as well when selecting prepared spells.

Then you can have real Spell Versatility for everyone. ;)
Seems unlikely. WotC doesn't seem to want to provide new options for wizards. They have significantly fewer new subclasses than others, and few if any good feat choices. I'm sure we got the ones in Wildemount because they came from Mercer rather than anyone at WotC wanting to provide new options for wizards.
 

Mistwell

Legend
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.

It's really mostly a wizard thing. Their spell list is more tailored to that sort of thing.
 

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
eems unlikely. WotC doesn't seem to want to provide new options for wizards.
LOL sorry if it didn't come off right, but I was being sarcastic. :)

I think Spell Versatility as written is a horrible concept. If they made it into a downtime activity--maybe--with a workweek per spell level of the spell you wanted to swap out. But once per long rest--way too much. Not happening here. ;)
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
LOL sorry if it didn't come off right, but I was being sarcastic. :)

I think Spell Versatility as written is a horrible concept. If they made it into a downtime activity--maybe--with a workweek per spell level of the spell you wanted to swap out. But once per long rest--way too much. Not happening here. ;)

That could work... good houserule in fact.
 

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
That could work... good houserule in fact.
Thank you. That was my initial thought when I saw this was coming out.

The idea behind it was because some groups take longer to level, so the chance to swap out a poorly selected known spell takes too long, making the class less appealing. Well, for such groups it seems likely (I could easily be wrong) that they might have more access to downtime. My suggestion might help mitigate some of the issues those groups face without giving too much immediate versatility to known-spell casters for groups which play at a faster pace.

But, as others have pointed out, IME I see so little change in prepared spells, it would almost just be better to make all casters known spells. For wizards, I would rather see a check to learn a spell, but once you learn it, you know it and can cast it whenever you need (and have slots available, of course).

Maybe a spellcasting check with a DC of 8 + the spell level? You could do it for Clerics, Druids, Paladins, and Wizards. Once you learn a spell, it is known to you. It seems simple but maybe is too much. I'm just spit-balling here. :)
 

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
2) Yes, I agreed that wizard spell list is stronger than sorcerer list, but not cleric list + sorcerer list. Right?
I can't remember the numbers, but at one point I'd made the math. Sorcerers and Clerics already share a 20% of their spells, and some of the spells clerics have that sorcerers don't are also on the wizard list. The rest tend to be thematic divine spells like healing, raising the dead and growing back lost limbs. If I remember well, the wizard list is still bigger than sorcerer+cleric and has a lot of wizard-only spells that only bards get to poach.
 

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top