-
NOW LIVE! -- One-Page Adventures for D&D 5th Edition on Kickstarter! A booklet of colourful one-page adventures for D&D 5th Edition ranging from levels 1-9 and designed for a single session of play.
D&D 5E Spell Versatility is GONE. Rejoice!
- Thread starter Gladius Legis
- Start date
cbwjm
Hero
Not true, the sorcerer fans are always out in force whenever the wizard gets anything nice. In this case, the wizard fans were out in force because the sorcerer got something nice.
I never cared about the whole “it makes the Wizard worse by comparison” thing. The game is unbalanced, always will be. It isn’t a competitive game, so I don’t care.
I’m glad Spell Versatility got cut because it was thematically stupid and totally unnecessary.
I‘m fine with clerics having access to their whole spell list because it represents them praying to to their deities for divine aid. It makes sense for that aid to take different forms, and for gods to send different help on different days. A bard going to bed to learn a spell he’ll need the next day, and the other hand, is dumb. It’s gamey. It’s thematically stupid. I have to make up a whole new concept of where bard/sorcerer/ranger spells come from for this to even make sense in terms of story.
And the whole rule is unnecessary if a DM is a good friend and lets his friends swap out spells they aren’t having fun with sometimes. I’ve been DMing for 25 years. Every time a player asked if they could swap out something they weren’t enjoying, I said sure. If your rule is there because some people are jerks, maybe instead ditch the rule and don’t play with jerks.
I’m glad Spell Versatility got cut because it was thematically stupid and totally unnecessary.
I‘m fine with clerics having access to their whole spell list because it represents them praying to to their deities for divine aid. It makes sense for that aid to take different forms, and for gods to send different help on different days. A bard going to bed to learn a spell he’ll need the next day, and the other hand, is dumb. It’s gamey. It’s thematically stupid. I have to make up a whole new concept of where bard/sorcerer/ranger spells come from for this to even make sense in terms of story.
And the whole rule is unnecessary if a DM is a good friend and lets his friends swap out spells they aren’t having fun with sometimes. I’ve been DMing for 25 years. Every time a player asked if they could swap out something they weren’t enjoying, I said sure. If your rule is there because some people are jerks, maybe instead ditch the rule and don’t play with jerks.
ph0rk
Friendship is Magic, and Magic is Heresy.
And they're all pretty mad that wizards got their version of Cantrip Versatility (Cantrip Formulas). Like, dudes, other than a tweaked spell list that's the only optional feature for the entire base class in the book!
If there truly was enough design space to support Wizards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks, players/fans of the other two wouldn't care much when the third gets something. In 3e, for example, if you liked the flexibility of sorcerer you couldn't care much about cool things that were wizard specific. The idea of dealing with Vancian per-slot preparation was awful enough that you just didn't even think of it. Unfortunately, in 5e that space is a lot more cramped.
Zardnaar
Legend
The class keeps flunking its resurrection % rolls.
Can't be raised once you flunk it. Perma dead.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I mean, who is upset, though?
Disagreeing with a design decision isn’t the same as being upset about it.
ph0rk
Friendship is Magic, and Magic is Heresy.
Oh, I see people mad about it here and there - there are threads I've seen where people make the claim that it isn't fair that a wizard can go to sleep and wake up with whatever spell the sorcerer used to win the day. Like, person - that's the class feature. It's what Wizards do.
It's bizarre because their love for the sorcerer class basically has nothing at all to do with the class mechanics and is entirely based on the no-schoolin' class fluff. Fluff for classes is as thin as cheesecloth in 5e though, so it's bizarre.
EzekielRaiden
Hero
Er...I mean, I wouldn't consider myself a Caster Supremacy League member, seeing as how I have consistently fought for reducing the power of spellcasting, developing non-spellcasting versions of classes like Paladin and Ranger, creating "simple" casters to parallel "simple" martials (and "complex" martials, like Warlords), giving Fighters more nice things especially outside of combat, etc. I find that this is less Caster Supremacy League infighting and more Wizard Supremacy League not being the entirety of people who like playing spellcasters. (Sorcerer is one of my favorite classes, alongside Warlord, Paladin, and Bard. I have a thing for Charisma classes, for various reasons.)
By far my favorite edition of D&D is 4e, if that helps? It's hard to be truly caster-supremacist and like 4e.
Oh there have absolutely been people mad about it on all sides: pro-Wizard/anti-Wizard, pro-Sorcerer/anti-Sorcerer, pro-SV/anti-SV, all of them have had people getting their jimmies thoroughly rustled. I just find it terribly sad that people respond to a completely optional rules variant failing to appear officially in the game with "Ding dong the witch is dead!" and "REJOICE!" That is not "our team won the sportsball game," that is not satisfaction that good design won out, it is revelling in the fact that the other side lost. It is "and GOOD RIDDANCE to BAD RUBBISH."
Mistwell
Legend
It's been explained before, in conversations you took place in. If you're amazed, is it because you forgot all the great reasons discussed back then, or just discount the opinions of so many people?
If all you needed was a reminder, most of those threads were about how WOTC was not publishing as much content as they had in prior years intentionally. Most of the same arguments, and they were legit and good arguments, apply to this topic.
EzekielRaiden
Hero
As I just said: there is a difference between something like "relief I don't have to deal with a thing I dislike" or even "happiness that what I consider good design prevailed," and "Ding dong the witch is dead."
Mistwell
Legend
On the Internet?
No, there isn't.
And you've been around here for...forever. I find it hard to believe you were "amazed" that on an Internet message board people who feel "I am happy that what I considered good design prevailed and now I feel relief I don't have to deal with this thing I dislike" is being expressed as "Ding dong the witch is dead."
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
It doesn't, though. It would have been completely optional just like everything else in that book. Who cares if something in Joe's game in Kansas steps on the toes of classes in his game if his players are happy. My game would have remained free of that rule.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
It was only terrible if you opted to use it and at the same time you opted to use it, you didn't like it or want to use it. How often is that going to happen? For the people who liked it, it was a good rule.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
This wasn't a win/lose situation. False Equivalences are false.
Oh I know that. Just seems to be the way in people's eyes.It doesn't, though. It would have been completely optional just like everything else in that book. Who cares if something in Joe's game in Kansas steps on the toes of classes in his game if his players are happy. My game would have remained free of that rule.
Bacon Bits
Hero
There's always damage on a miss.
The book is a very good book that has been highly play tested. It is well written and well-designed. The art isn't really my cup of tea, but I don't expect every book to meet my aesthetic tastes. I would think that any D&D 5th edition player would regard this as an exciting book to have and use. I have been enjoying since it arrived in the post yesterday.
Sword of Spirit
Hero
I mean, some people may just be jerks like that, but I don’t think that’s the general thing for most of these controversial D&D rules (at least on this forum).
Instead, I believe many people see the inclusion of certain rules as undesirable because it will have a negative effect on our personal D&D experiences. An official published rule, even if optional (like multiclassing and feats), influences the general perception of the game, especially amongst new players who are less likely to pick and choose what parts to use. Tie in that AL generally uses official rules, and you get an additional entry vector. The fact is, even if you are playing in an established group that chooses not to use the rule, there will almost certainly be some sort of pressure or tension caused by it at some point, unless you wall your group off from the the D&D info-sphere and never take in new players. And in addition to the social elements of expectations, there are also design considerations. Current official rules influence what official rules are going to happen in 5e in the future. For instance, by putting the specific “Aberrant“ back into the psionic themed sorcerer it presumably (I don’t have the book yet) is more clear that it isn’t “the 5e psion”, leaving design space open for one. Or take the play test psi die. Some people loved them, but many people had concerns. They changed them into something that works for most people. And the conflict is resolved. Spell Versatility could negate future design choices that might alter the sorcerer in a way that might be more generally pleasing. It is clear (at least to me) that something is needed to improve a sorcerer’s flexibility, but it is also clear that Spell Versatility was contentious. By choosing not to make it official, they have room to come up with a better solution that is more generally desired. And that is something to rejoice about.
I definitely understand the desire to get cool new things, I just think it’s usually doable in a way that doesn’t impact on the fun of others with a bit of patience and restraint.