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

[Maxperson]

Publishing bad rules erodes my confidence that the designers know what the naughty word they're doing. The customising origins mess has certainly done that, as optional as it may be.

This rule is literally only bad for those who dislike it. There is no objectivity to be had here.

 

[BacchusNL]

I can see where the resistance against Spell Versatility, esspecialy for a sorceror, comes from. It does definatly step on he toes of the Wizard both mechaniclly and lorewise. But both of those factors get pretty overblown by many people, I think.

As far as in-game explanations go I don't think it's a far stretch to say that a Bard can dig into some old texts or rehearse some new songs which would translate into a different spell. A Sorceror's magic has, traditionally speaking, always been definited by the fact that it's inherent but the class is nothing if not mutable. If a sorceror spends a night bending the weave to his will (or his body to the weave), perhaps preventing the regaining of hit die that night, to change one spell into another then I can go "yeah, I can see how that could work". It's not like tech in our own world doesn't evolve.

It also doesn't take away from the fact that the Wizard's actual power, compared to a sorc, comes from the unique spells they get (esspecialy from level 5 upwards) like Bigby's Hand, Wall of Force, Contingency, Force Cage, Simulacrum, Clone ect. Every single one of those is pretty much a class feature by themselfs, not some situational tool or blasting spell #7.

I played with a Divine Soul Sorc when the Class Variant UA came out in a Storm Kings Thunder Campaign and tried it out. There were a couple of situations where it stood out to me:

-One was when we found a corpse near the end of the day. We set up camp and I learned Speak With Dead (one of those fun utility spells that no sorc ever has room for) for the next day. We learned some extra info on the hill giant's, buried the man and gained some reknown with the Order of the Gauntlet. It was a fun interaction.

-The next was when we heard about a wizard who set up shop in some sewers, was kidnapping people and needed dealing with. Going in I switched in Counterspel for the fight, a spell choice I had conciously skipped when levelling up because it's so situational (esspecialy in a Giants-campaign), and that was the first time I felt like I gained an actual edge because of the rule change. Joke was on me when it turned out to be an Aboleth and counterspel did absolutly nothing against it's psionics. I can still see situations where this would cause discusions at a table though.

-The last was when we were going after one of the Giant Lords and we ended up with the Fire Giants Lair. Kind of rough when your shtick is being a Tiefling fire sorc who picked up Flames of Phelegos instead of Elemental adept: Fire...So I was kinda happy that I could switch out my Scorching Rays/ Fireball ect to more appropriate spells and actually play my character during a very large climactic part of the campaign.

Overall I think it added to the gameplay although it could probably could use some tuning (perhaps the hit die-idea, perhaps something else) instead of just flat Spell Versatility and even then it likely isn't for everyone.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This rule is literally only bad for those who dislike it.

Certainly that would be true for any rule?

There is no objectivity to be had here.

It erodes sorcerer's already weak class identity. Sorcerers need a buff, but that buff should not be achieved via making them even more similar to wizards. In a class based game maintaining the class identity is important. But we already had along thread about this matter earlier.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Certainly that would be true for any rule?

No, only for rules that don't imbalance the game. This rule created no imbalance, merely allowed for slightly more versatility for a few classes. A "power word killing greatsword" would be an objectively bad rule, as it would obliterate the balance of the game, while this rule is subject to opinion, as it doesn't destroy game balance.

It erodes sorcerer's already weak class identity. Sorcerers need a buff, but that buff should not be achieved via making them even more similar to wizards. In a class based game maintaining the class identity is important.

Since when is it the sorcerer's identity to force them to be locked in a spell cage until they can level up? I never read in the PHB's flavor text of the sorcerer that they are incapable of changing spells. Sorcerers do need a more defined class identity, but this doesn't destroy that, and class identity is not a part of game balance.

 

[cbwjm]

I didn't like the rule myself, but I was just planning on not using it. To be honest, I was surprised that it wasn't included in the book. There were a couple reasons I didn't like it:

• I'm not sure if this is something the developers mentioned or if it was just a theory posited on ENworld but it was made to allow players to correct spell selections. In my games, if you have a spell and it really isn't working for you, ask to change it, I'll say yes because I don't see any reason not to.
• It further erodes the difference between sorcerer or wizard. While it's true that the wizard has a larger spell list, it largely overlaps with the sorcerer and partially steals away the wizard's identity, people who love sorcerers felt the same way when the lore master was a UA option and were against it stealing the sorcerer's identity. Mind you, I'm also of the opinion that the sorcerer, wizard, and warlock could have been a single class with options when creating it, but that's another conversation.

Still, even though I didn't like the rule, I wasn't against it being in the rulebook because, like I said, I wasn't planning on using it.

 

[BacchusNL]

not sure if this is something the developers mentioned or if it was just a theory posited on ENworld but it was made to allow players to correct spell selections. In my games, if you have a spell and it really isn't working for you, ask to change it, I'll say yes because I don't see any reason not to.

Adventure League. Some things that go without saying for most tables need to be written down in black and white for AL.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, only for rules that don't imbalance the game. This rule created no imbalance, merely allowed for slightly more versatility for a few classes. A "power word killing greatsword" would be an objectively bad rule, as it would obliterate the balance of the game, while this rule is subject to opinion, as it doesn't destroy game balance.

But certainly whether balance is good or bad thing is just a matter of opinion? Furthermore, this rule certainly would obliterate the balance between wizard and sorcerer in campaigns with a lot of downtime. This is something that might not be instantly apparent to inexperienced GMs, and thus it is a bad optional rule. It can easily lead to unintended consequences.

Since when is it the sorcerer's identity to force them to be locked in a spell cage until they can level up? I never read in the PHB's flavor text of the sorcerer that they are incapable of changing spells. Sorcerers do need a more defined class identity, but this doesn't destroy that, and class identity is not a part of game balance.

Being swiss army knife caster with big a toolbox is the wizard's thing. Metamagic and gaining unique features related to their arcane ancestry is the sorcerer's thing. Sorcerer buffs should focus on strengthening what is unique in the class, not stealing the niches of other classes.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

Is there really a careful balance between wizards and sorcerers to be obliterated? Wizards already get class features that function like sorcery points (Arcane Recovery) and Metamagic (Sculpt Spell, Overchannel, Split Enchantment, Alter Memories, the new Tasha's feature that swaps elemental damage types).

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

But certainly whether balance is good or bad thing is just a matter of opinion? Furthermore, this rule certainly would obliterate the balance between wizard and sorcerer in campaigns with a lot of downtime. This is something that might not be instantly apparent to inexperienced GMs, and thus it is a bad optional rule. It can easily lead to unintended consequences.

Anyone I know that is arguing in good faith would say that balance is a good thing for a TTRPG. Now you're just being ridiculous. It would not obliterate it, because game balance is not dependent on one class being restricted to not changing spells ever.

Being swiss army knife caster with big a toolbox is the wizard's thing. Metamagic and gaining unique features related to their arcane ancestry is the sorcerer's thing. Sorcerer buffs should focus on strengthening what is unique in the class, not stealing the niches of other classes.

If the wizard was a swiss army knife before tasha's, they just gained another tool, and sorcerers would in no way have been able to compete in versatility with the wizard if this rule was printed. Sorcerers are butter knives when it comes to versatility, allowing them to be a kitchen knife doesn't step on the toes of the wizard.

BTW, the "niche" of switching spells on a long rest is also filled by Artificers, Clerics, Druids, and Paladins. Wizards don't own the "niche", and it wouldn't be too crowded to allow sorcerers to switch one spell on a long rest. One. Uno. Ein. Not all their spells, like a Wizard, Druid, Paladin, Artificer, or Cleric, just one single spell whenever they sleep. Comparing this to a wizard's prepared casting is like saying allowing a wizard to use a dagger invalidates the fighter or makes it less unique.

 

[Maxperson]

Certainly that would be true for any rule?



It erodes sorcerer's already weak class identity. Sorcerers need a buff, but that buff should not be achieved via making them even more similar to wizards. In a class based game maintaining the class identity is important. But we already had along thread about this matter earlier.

Not everyone views class erosion as bad. If you do, avoid rules that erode sorcerers. Your views don't add objectivity, though.

And quite frankly, if a rule like this breaks(or even comes close) the Sorcerer's class identity, the Sorcerer is a failed class.