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

[Maxperson]

Keep waiting that another book then!

Another book will come.

 

[Maxperson]

Hey, @Crimson Longinus, @Chaosmancer , @AcererakTriple6 , @Maxperson,,@Helldritch, @Asisreo

I think we've reached the point were we are only arguing in circles. We have no objective evidence to take the reason why this rule was taken out of the book at the last minute. We only know a couple of facts and the rest is all pure speculation. Nothing sort of Crawford himself coming and explaining how and why they removed it will prove anybody right. Perhaps it is time to let this dead horse to rest?

I thought it was a dead Sorcerer class.

 

[Umbran]

(those poor taste disabled peoples)

Mod Node:

I dunno what made you think insulting folks was okay. It isn't. Don't do it. I hope that's clear.

 

[MoonSong]

I thought it was a dead Sorcerer class.

They don't get shadow ponies. It is more or less the same.

 

[FrogReaver]

Since you keep making this claim, I'm sure you can come up with some objective proof to back it up. I'd like to see it.

It's not an objective statement. And being subjectively bad doesn't make it not be bad.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not an objective statement. And being subjectively bad doesn't make it not be bad.

True, but it does only make it bad for those who view it as bad and not for those who don't.

 

[Helldritch]

So, you have no evidence. "It isn't in the book so it must have been bad"

Zariel's Sword wasn't put in this book. Must have been a bad item. Ring of Winter wasn't put in here, must have been a bad item as well.

Shifters and Changelings weren't reprinted. Must have terribly designed races. Same with the Loxodon and the minotaur.

After all, we have spells and options from other books, even specifically from Eberron and Ravnica in this book, but those options weren't inlcuded so they must have been bad.

Wow.... not being reprint does not mean bad. It has been printed. Bad, very bad assumption from your part.

A new rule was supposed to be the flagship of the book and it got gutted. With all the "fanfare" and "firework" they put to say that it was a good rule, they removed it. Thwy were even promoting their new book with the assumption that rhis rule would be in it. There is only one conclusion. The rule was bad. Reaching any other conclusion is just plainly refusing the truth.

Now, as I have said in many posts, the rule had some merits. It was the scope with which it was doing it that made it bad. Had it been once a month, a week or every seven long rest or whatever... but it was not how it was written. It was every single day. That is what made the rule so bad and unbalanced enough to warrant its removal from the book. Is it the only rule that I do not like in that book? Nope. There are a few of them. But I am honnest enough with mybself to admit that though I do not like them thematically and they are relatively not balanced enough to my tastes, that these rules are not game changing and can reach somekind of balance. It was not the case with spell versatility as it was written.

Will they find a way to make it better? I sure hope so. Maybe they should ask the community what was their take/approach to help the sorcerer spell wise. I am certain that many here have good ideas that would satify game balance, niche and class flavors.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I am still rejoicing that Spell Versatility is gone.

And I am happy those who like Spell Versatility in their games (those poor taste disabled peoples) can still choose to use it in their games based on the UA they have for that purpose.

But I rejoice it's not in the book. I like not having bad awful rotten rules in my book, even if they are labeled as optional. I'd prefer the optional rules also be good rules.

Gross.

It was making the wizard obselete. At 1st level the wizard has what, 6 spells? Compare that to 20... or 40 if divine soul sorcer.

The sorcerer doesn’t have anything like 20+ spells. They have their spells known. They fact that set can be 1 different tomorrow is irrelevant.

 

[jayoungr]

A new rule was supposed to be the flagship of the book and it got gutted.

I thought the "flagship" rule, if there was one, was the new origin customization system.

 

[Maxperson]

Wow.... not being reprint does not mean bad. It has been printed. Bad, very bad assumption from your part.

So is assuming that if it's in print, it's good.