Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Al'Kelhar" data-source="post: 7847535" data-attributes="member: 7884">I'll second the comments of those suggesting Spell Versatility is a poor design decision.&nbsp; It boosts the spellcasting versatility of classes that have no need of additional versatility (they have adequate class features outside of spellcasting) and undermines the key design role of the wizard - which is to be the absolute best generalist spellcaster in the game.&nbsp; (Although, since everyone has been hating on wizards since the ridiculousness of 3.5E, the fact they're being power-creeped and role-creeped by every other spellcasting class at every opportunity no longer surprises me). Along with expanded spell lists, Spell Versatility is just bad.&nbsp; I suspect it's only been published to allow AL PCs who make a bad spell choice to swap it out &quot;legitimately&quot;.&nbsp; Otherwise, when any caster with limited spell choice makes a bad spell choice in a home campaign, tell me that the DM doesn't just let them change the spell anyway?OTOH, Cantrip Versatility (allowing swapping out cantrips on gaining a level) for every spellcasting class is a no-brainer, and is something I've had as a house-rule IMC for years.Do paladins really need spirit guardians, perhaps the most OP 3rd level cleric spell in the game?Do all rogues really need to be expert snipers? Cunning Action is a very strong feature already - it really doesn't need to be &quot;enhanced&quot;.&nbsp; Cunning Action: Aim makes every rogue the best marksman in the game.&nbsp; What it enables rogues to do is to utilise their sneak attack without risk to themselves or anyone else. (Did someone forget to tell WoTC that ranged combat is far lower risk than melee combat, so anything that makes ranged combat more effective is inherently unbalancing? Just like the GWM feat is far less of a problem than Sharpshooter.)More generally, while there's a lot of worthwhile stuff here in the replacement class features, to the extent that the class features are enhancements, they are in less charitable terms &quot;power creeps&quot;, and should be judged as such. If that's to correct an underpowered class feature, cool.&nbsp; If not, what is its function, if not to keep the uncritical masses happy (like we're all teenagers playing a computer game)?A solid C- grade.Cheers, Al'Kelhar</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Al'Kelhar, post: 7847535, member: 7884"] I'll second the comments of those suggesting Spell Versatility is a poor design decision. It boosts the spellcasting versatility of classes that have no need of additional versatility (they have adequate class features outside of spellcasting) and undermines the key design role of the wizard - which is to be the absolute best generalist spellcaster in the game. (Although, since everyone has been hating on wizards since the ridiculousness of 3.5E, the fact they're being power-creeped and role-creeped by every other spellcasting class at every opportunity no longer surprises me). Along with expanded spell lists, Spell Versatility is just bad. I suspect it's only been published to allow AL PCs who make a bad spell choice to swap it out "legitimately". Otherwise, when any caster with limited spell choice makes a bad spell choice in a home campaign, tell me that the DM doesn't just let them change the spell anyway? OTOH, Cantrip Versatility (allowing swapping out cantrips [I]on gaining a level[/I]) for every spellcasting class is a no-brainer, and is something I've had as a house-rule IMC for years. Do paladins really need [I]spirit guardians[/I], perhaps the most OP 3rd level cleric spell in the game? Do [I]all [/I]rogues really need to be expert snipers? Cunning Action is a very strong feature already - it really doesn't need to be "enhanced". Cunning Action: Aim makes every rogue the best marksman in the game. What it enables rogues to do is to utilise their sneak attack [I]without risk to themselves or anyone else[/I]. (Did someone forget to tell WoTC that ranged combat is far lower risk than melee combat, so anything that makes ranged combat more effective is inherently unbalancing? Just like the GWM feat is far less of a problem than Sharpshooter.) More generally, while there's a lot of worthwhile stuff here in the [I]replacement[/I] class features, to the extent that the class features are [I]enhancements[/I], they are in less charitable terms "power creeps", and should be judged as such. If that's to correct an underpowered class feature, cool. If not, what is its function, if not to keep the uncritical masses happy (like we're all teenagers playing a computer game)? A solid C- grade. Cheers, Al'Kelhar [/QUOTE]

Verification