D&D 5E Spell Versatility is GONE. Rejoice!

[ph0rk]

t's literally 1 spell per long rest. One. The idea that it's remotely comparable to the versatility to prepared casters is laughably absurd.

It was one spell per LR, and another spell after that, and another spell after that - whenever there's extended downtime a sorcerer could have shown up with an entirely different spell list, in those situations giving them greater flexibility than wizards, which is just backwards. Particularly when prepared vs known is basically the only meaningful crunch difference (as folks so often tend to argue that as-is metamagic is generally weak for monoclassed sorcerers).

IME, the no-schooling fluff is very much not why anyone who loves the sorcerer loves the sorcerer.

I have seen multiple internet fights where that was the core issue. I've also had various conversations that boiled down to the argument that sorcerers ought to be the best at magic, due to the fluff.

Wizards are strong, arguably the strongest class - despite the fact they rely on the weakest stat in the game. Buffing classes to match wizards doesn't fix things (especially not cha caster classes), it makes interclass balance generally worse - and sorcerers are not weak (even pre TCoE), either in terms of raw power or versatility. Weaker than Wizards? Sure (a bit). Weaker than Fighters? Heck no.

Now, if it had been accompanied with rules that let wizards (and ATs and EKs) swap spells known in a similar way I wouldn't have a problem with it, but if Wizards are the "versatile" caster, another class with a very similar list shouldn't out-versatile them in certain situations as this rule would have allowed sorcerers to do.

 

[Mistwell]

The lack of officiality. It's only official if it makes it into a book. If you can't see that there's a huge difference between official and unofficial, I'm not sure what else there is to say.

I can't see it, when it comes to such a highly optional DM-approval type rule, no. So you better explain it. Because you thinking it's "profound" is looking like massive hyperbole.

I am betting you cannot explain it. Because, there is very little meaningful difference for a rule like that. In the past people made an AL argument, but as that doesn't apply here, the arguments from the past are looking darn thin and not close to "profound."

 

[Mistwell]

That's not true. Officiality means a great deal to a great many people. I'm far more leery of 3rd party material and material that failed to be good enough to make it into official products than I am of things that did make it.

This isn't third party material. It's material from WOTC, which they published in UA. It was INTENDED BY WOTC TO BE PLAYED. Other than some minor tweaks to improve the language used in it, it was intended for publication if people liked it. So is there something about the wording you thought didn't work?
Show me evidence it "means a great deal to a great many people" for this kind of rule, rather than generalizations. The kind of rule which 1) was published by WOTC in a UA, and 2) is highly optional DM-approval-only to begin with. Then add in the fact their survey showed it was NOT POPULAR.

So far you seem to think there is a "profound" difference because you stated it that way and emphasize what you think in a variety of ways, without having made any argument to support your claim much less any kind of evidence to back up "great many people" and "means a great deal." This all looks like you engaging in puffery to me.

Why? It's perfectly reasonable to not want to have to worry about disrupting the game with crappy quality stuff,

Oh good, I am so glad you've come to see it our way and agree this is crappy quality stuff. I knew you'd come around, because it was obviously a crappy rule.

Why do you think it did not meet the popularity threshold to be published, despite almost everything else this round meeting that threshold?

 

[Shardstone]

I find it amusing how Defcon acts like if you don't play his way, then you're playing the game wrong and he's basically better than you.

That aside, if Tasha's did ANY of the following things, spell versatality would not be needed:

• Give the PHB and Xanathar's archetypes an expanded spell list and the ability to swap those spells out to different schools, ala Aberrant/Clockwork.
• Expand both the sorcerer's base spell list (they did, should have went further) AND how many spells a sorcerer can know.
• Give sorcerers a bunch of unique spells.

Any of these things addresses what is the "core" issue for the sorcerer as I see it - its magical options are limited, and metamagic doesn't do enough to make it feel like it isn't limited.

For reference, I played a Sorcerer into a two-year long Chult campaign. I used the Spell Point variant in the DMG. And while it was fun, the lack of spells I had to choose from for casting was sorely felt. I am a story oriented player and game designer, so much like Defcon, I trust my opinion to be accurate. The Sorcerer, for me, and for people I run and play games with, is not that fun because of the knife stuck through its spells known and the limited choice of spells.

Wonder how much anecdotal evidence this thread needs before people start saying anecdotal isn't worth anything.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It was one spell per LR, and another spell after that, and another spell after that - whenever there's extended downtime a sorcerer could have shown up with an entirely different spell list, in those situations giving them greater flexibility than wizards, which is just backwards. Particularly when prepared vs known is basically the only meaningful crunch difference (as folks so often tend to argue that as-is metamagic is generally weak for monoclassed sorcerers).




I have seen multiple internet fights where that was the core issue. I've also had various conversations that boiled down to the argument that sorcerers ought to be the best at magic, due to the fluff.

Wizards are strong, arguably the strongest class - despite the fact they rely on the weakest stat in the game. Buffing classes to match wizards doesn't fix things (especially not cha caster classes), it makes interclass balance generally worse - and sorcerers are not weak (even pre TCoE), either in terms of raw power or versatility. Weaker than Wizards? Sure (a bit). Weaker than Fighters? Heck no.

Now, if it had been accompanied with rules that let wizards (and ATs and EKs) swap spells known in a similar way I wouldn't have a problem with it, but if Wizards are the "versatile" caster, another class with a very similar list shouldn't out-versatile them in certain situations as this rule would have allowed sorcerers to do.

Oh no how terrible, they could change their spell list over the course of weeks of downtime!

Seriously? So what?

That absolutely does not even threaten the versatility position of the Wizard.

 

[MoonSong]

Then there is the other side with people who want all these rules added into the game so that they HAVE the options available to make the game exactly what they want. Despite the fact that other than being stuck in just playing AL... every person and table out there can add, subtract, and amend every single rule in the game to their satisfaction. And none of that stuff has to be IN any book... you just use a bit of wherewithall to make a balanced concept and rule and then show your DM why it's worthwhile. But apparently those people play with tyrannical Dungeon Masters who will only play with "official" material because... I guess they don't trust their own skills to recognize game balance?

Tell me, how many times have you as a player -or one of your players- have created a houserule or homebrewed something? Also, notice that given the current circumstances, we are in a sellers market. Any GM starting a game will have plenty of players to choose from. The more something is meant to be official, the more likely it will be already included when a game starts instead of having to be asked every time. Simply as that, as long as we aren't in a shoppers market, official matters.

Focus on the story and the characters first... the board game second. If you do that... all these headaches about balancing this rule or excluding that rule all float away.

Under this rationale, we don't need rules to begin with. Even more, I don't need other players or a DM and I can just write the stories I want for myself.

It pissed off the Wizard players because WOTC did a bad job of defining the Wizard since the days they were the all encompassing Magic User class. All they have to their name is their mild 'Big Brain Academic' flavor and the specific mechanic of the spell book. The spell book and its style of versatility has basically become the Wizard's entire identity basically. And their precious schools of magic are really haphazard, with some classification being in-universe and others feeling more meta (hello, Abjuration school!).

It wasn't WotC, the wizard has never been that all encompassing Magic User class. It only pretended and intended to be. All WotC did was acknowledge that it never truly was and finally gave us classes to cover the rest of the ground that wizards didn't cover.

By the way, we didn't like Spell Versatility because we (my players and I) feel that sorcery is innate, and the spells you "selected" are what you are capable of, say fire spells for a fire sorcerer. So chaging them on the fly seemed unnatural and not in line with the story of the sorcerer.

However, being reasonable gamers, we have let people swap out dud spells, or even have additional spells known that were "very tenuously" connected to the theme, over the years. Meta reasons.

Changing on a long rest seemed a bridge to far.

Bu we do not deny that other folks might like that style.

I also hated it, but I'm in a position where I will take anything I can get.

Now, if it had been accompanied with rules that let wizards (and ATs and EKs) swap spells known in a similar way I wouldn't have a problem with it, but if Wizards are the "versatile" caster, another class with a very similar list shouldn't out-versatile them in certain situations as this rule would have allowed sorcerers to do.

Do you have any evidence that wizards are intended to be the most versatile caster? Anything in an official material, a column or tweet by one of the designers? Because I've never seen spelled out outside the boards. I think the idea is just wishful thinking if not outright fabrication.

For reference, I played a Sorcerer into a two-year long Chult campaign. I used the Spell Point variant in the DMG. And while it was fun, the lack of spells I had to choose from for casting was sorely felt. I am a story oriented player and game designer, so much like Defcon, I trust my opinion to be accurate. The Sorcerer, for me, and for people I run and play games with, is not that fun because of the knife stuck through its spells known and the limited choice of spells.

I love the class, and I love the feel of it. But it is incredibly frustrating to play because there is never room to be creative with the spells. It was frustrating back in 3e, and we had basically twice the spells known back then. One reason I basically always play vhuman divine soul with magic initiate even if I don't want to play a healer. At least that way I have some breathing room and a good selection of spells to choose from.

 

[MoonSong]

Oh no how terrible, they could change their spell list over the course of weeks of downtime!

Seriously? So what?

That absolutely does not even threaten the versatility position of the Wizard.

And again, I question the very notion that they are even intended to be "the most versatile" to begin with.

 

[ph0rk]

Do you have any evidence that wizards are intended to be the most versatile caster? Anything in an official material, a column or tweet by one of the designers? Because I've never seen spelled out outside the boards. I think the idea is just wishful thinking if not outright fabrication.

What is the point of separate classes (wizard, sorcerer) if not that? And have you played previous editions? How would you describe prepared list casting if not versatility? Do you think they went to publishing with one arcane caster (wizards) holding the ability to eventually learn every spell on their list merely by accident?

I’m not the one that jammed too many classes in the same narrow design space.

That absolutely does not even threaten the versatility position of the Wizard.

A problem that would have been neatly avoided if there was a rule for wizards to swap out spells known in the variant rules UA. Not every campaign has scrolls easily available for wizards to add to their spell book.

And, as stated above - what about EKs and ATs?

As presented, spell versatility was highly flawed.

 

[Undrave]

Do you have any evidence that wizards are intended to be the most versatile caster? Anything in an official material, a column or tweet by one of the designers? Because I've never seen spelled out outside the boards. I think the idea is just wishful thinking if not outright fabrication.

It's just bragging by the Wizard players who got really used to be 'the Batman' who always has a solution for everything in their utility belt. they want to solve everything by using 'the right spell' to show off how much of a master of the spell list they are. 'Me obviate all challenge, me Bestest player! Me big brain!'.

 

[ph0rk]

It's just bragging by the Wizard players who got really used to be 'the Batman' who always has a solution for everything in their utility belt. they want to solve everything by using 'the right spell' to show off how much of a master of the spell list they are. 'Me obviate all challenge, me Bestest player! Me big brain!'.

Ok, that’s helpful.

In the old days wizards could prep for anything if they had a day to prep.

If wizards are spontaneous casters and sorcerers are still spontaneous full casters - what, exactly, is the design difference between them other than fluff? As the number of spells known by sorcerers increases, is that design difference still in place, particularly when availability of scrolls and spell books as loot is not guaranteed?

What changes would you suggest that retain some form of distinctive differences between the classes? While also recalling that there are many other classes in the game? And that we are talking about two of the most powerful classes in the game, to boot.