log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Warlords shouldn't get Raise Dead. And their ability "summon relative" is just a reskinned "Raise Dead". This WILL NOT STAND.

I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with a martial character just, you know, yelling other characters back to life.

That's probably an un-controversial position. Discuss!
 

log in or register to remove this ad




MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
Bards, sorcerers and warlocks can change a cantrip at levels in which they get an ASI. Each of those classes can instead change something specific at those levels: skill expertise for bards, metamagic feature for sorcerers and pact boon or a spell from mystic arcanum for warlocks.
But they could already do that? (swapping a cantrip. I mean at least under cantrips are spells ruling) Thank you.

Well, there goes another nice thing -that already was a second pick-. Seriously, wizard players, please let us get nice things.
 

Sir Brennen

Adventurer
....I'll totally let you start that one.

 

OB1

Jedi Master
Didn't really matter to me one way or the other, will be keeping my house rules.

Known Spell Casters - When you level up, you can change a number of your previous known spells equal to your proficiency modifier.

Wizards - You can change your list of prepared spells at any time when you finish a long rest. Preparing a new list of wizard spells requires time spent studying your spellbook and memorizing the incantations and gestures you must make to cast the spell: at least 10 minutes per spell level for each spell on your list.
 

akr71

Adventurer
Really? One rule you didn't like was what was going to stop you from buying it?

Okay then.
Yes. I primarily DM and if its in my books, then my players think its fair game. Then I have to house rule 'this, but not that' which gets messy and people asking for exceptions. There are third party materials out there to spend my $ on which I'd likely get more use out of.

From previews. leaks and reviews, there were a few more items that I thought were poorly designed and would not want at my table. I may just buy the spells, feats and a handful of classes on D&D Beyond
 

Undrave

Hero
Meh. It mostly seemed to exist to give DMs who are overly bound to RAW and/or running AL permission to allow players to swap out spell choices they regretted, and was clearly marked as optional so DMs who didn’t need that permission could leave it out. I don’t really see that anything is gained by its exclusion. Nothing is lost by it at my table, but something may be lost at tables where the DM is afraid to deviate from RAW.
I recommended they include a sidebar explaining WHY the rule was there (it exists to help players, it's not part of the fiction) instead. But I think a general tip to DMs "Hey, if your players aren't happy with their choice, you can let them re-spec every once in a while" would have been a decent replacement and wouldn't be seen as a 'rule'.
Back to writing the backstory for my +2 Int +2 Cha mountain dwarf psionic warlord, then.

I haven't worked on it in a while (but will soon) but my home-brewed Warlord class has a Psionic themed subclass called the Ardent Soul! The Warlord V4 - The Homebrewery
 


6ENow!

The Game Is Over
DING-DONG the rule is dead!
It's been removed! Not in the book!
DING-DONG the horrible rule is gone!

:D

Yeah, Spell Versatility was never going to see the light of day at our tables. We all thought it was pretty bad. :p
 



NotAYakk

Legend
i h a t e anybody ever, i unnecessary.
I know what it feels like when people keep on clipping people's quotes to make them say things they didn't. Really annoying!

I mean, technically they said those letters in that order, so it isn't false, just misleading.

Oh, and don't be too hard on yourself; I'm sure someone needs you.

(I dunno, is this taking the "warlord argument" joke too far? Poll at 11.)
 

Asisreo

Archdevil's Advocate
I always thought spell versatility was too much as written.

I'd be okay with a nerfed version, but seeing how people saw Favored Foe, maybe its best it doesn't exist at all.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
DING-DONG the rule is dead!
It's been removed! Not in the book!
DING-DONG the horrible rule is gone!


:D

Yeah, Spell Versatility was never going to see the light of day at our tables. We all thought it was pretty bad. :p
I really don’t understand this thing where folks are celebrating the loss of a thing that other folks really wanted.

Like I’ve never in my life had this impulse. What is it?
 

ph0rk

Friendship is Magic, and Magic is Heresy.
And yet they gave most casters some form of cantrip versatility... except for Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters.

Sigh.
 

Gadget

Adventurer
Spell Versatility, as presented, really came off to me as just lazy design that homogenized classes quite a bit. I mean, a sidebar explaining to new DM's that if players of non-prepared spell casting classes were really disappointed with their spell choice between levels, just let them swap out a spell choice, would have sufficed. It was like saying, "Well, we can't make this work, so we'll just make everybody like the wizard!" Now, one can argue that this is kind of what 5e did with the Sorcerer and spontaneous casting, but at least that was an edition change that presumably gave each class its own identity.

However, I'm not sure if it was design aesthetics or balance polishing that caused the removal or survey results reflecting poorly on the feature that did it in. I suspect the later.
 
Last edited:

I really don’t understand this thing where folks are celebrating the loss of a thing that other folks really wanted.

Like I’ve never in my life had this impulse. What is it?
So you have never celebrated when your favorite sports team won a match, even though the fans of the opposing side really wanted their team to win?
 


Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top