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

[FrogReaver]

What is it that I'm advocating for, from your point of view?

That anything which can be framed as “taking someone’s fun away” is inherently bad.

 

[FrogReaver]

Giving +Proficiency to number of sorcery points would help.

I've also supported a more limited version of Spell Versatility, such as having it be something you have to invest in before you can do it. E.g.:
"Starting at 4th level, each time you take a long rest when you have at least one sorcery point remaining, you can bank one point into a Versatility Pool, up to a maximum of your Sorcerer level. You may spend points from this pool when you finish a long rest to change one of your spells known equal to twice the level of the new spell or the old spell, whichever is greater. All points in your Versatility Pool are lost when you gain a new level." Much more limited than just once a day, and changing powerful spells is a serious effort that requires a large investment--something you can't simply DO on a regular basis, and in fact you're very unlikely to ever change more than one or two 7th level spells ever, as that would require two weeks of long rests.

Alternatively, I would have liked to keep SV the way it was, but offer the ability for Wizards to build up (semi-)passive spell research that would let them permanently learn a new spell after JUST spending downtime (no gold, just downtime), in a specifically "your random personal research has finally resulted in a breakthrough, pick the spell you want" kind of way. Thus, the Wizard really DOES fulfill the fantasy of actually spending lots of time on personal research which...uh...is kind of not present in the Wizard we have now. The current Wizard just copies spells from other people or spontaneously generates spells with no time actually spent studying. Wizards would get a small, nice thing that is super flavorful and class-fantasy furthering, while Sorcerers would suck less.

As it is, we have Sorcerers who are more (as others have said) like mutants stuck with potentially crap powers, and Wizards that are a lot more like virtuoso composers suddenly belting out inspired pieces (new spells on level up) rather than meticulous researchers slowly building a body of work.

I find sorcerers to be incredibly powerful through the most played levels. Doubly so in lower encounter days.

I’m not opposed to a few more sorcery points, but they don’t need them IMO.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

That anything which can be framed as “taking someone’s fun away” is inherently bad.

That's a misinterpretation of what I said. It's fine to take away someone's fun if the thing that is causing them fun is at the expense another person, but this feature was not. This was optional rule that did not take away the fun/enjoyment from anyone else if they didn't want to use that rule. No one was being forced to use this rule, unless they play in Adventure's League or play at a table where the DM uses the rule, and they don't like it. If you play in Adventure's League, you don't really have any right to complain. If you play at a table where your DM is using the rule and you don't like it, either ask them to stop or find a new table. Otherwise, this is a variant rule that would have caused no consequences besides more enjoyment for certain players.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's a misinterpretation of what I said/meant. It's fine to take away someone's fun if the thing that is causing them fun is at the expense another person, but this feature was not.

its inclusion would have taken away the fun for a number of people here. Thus the happiness that it wasn’t included.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

its inclusion would have taken away the fun for a number of people here. Thus the happiness that it wasn’t included.

But, it wouldn't have. If you thought/think it would take away the fun, that's the nocebo effect. It wouldn't have any effect on your game unless you wanted it to.

 

[Maxperson]

its inclusion would have taken away the fun for a number of people here. Thus the happiness that it wasn’t included.

I call BS on this. If their fun is dependent on people at another table not having access to an official optional rule, then they don't deserve fun.

The rule could be ignored by them just like I'm ignoring the custom race rules.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But, it wouldn't have. If you thought/think it would take away the fun, that's the nocebo effect. It wouldn't have any effect on your game unless you wanted it to.

Cluttering books with terrible rules with a caveat that 'they are optional' is not a good design paradigm.

 

[FrogReaver]

But, it wouldn't have. If you thought/think it would take away the fun, that's the nocebo effect. It wouldn't have any effect on your game unless you wanted it to.

who are you to tell others what they can find fun or not fun?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Cluttering books with terrible rules with a caveat that 'they are optional' is not a good design paradigm.

Whether or not it was terrible is entirely subjective and has no bearing in this argument. They were optional, had no effect on your campaign if you didn't want it to, and if you did like it and want it it was good for your game and enhanced your fun.

 

[jayoungr]

You know that only a couple of these are actually in the sorcerer list?

Magical secrets feat?