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

[Maxperson]

You can still use it just fine. You have the text. It was never going to be AL anyway. So, you're good, right?

There's a rather profound difference between an official option and a house rule. That rule would never see the light of day in my game, but I'm not going to be selfish and petty about someone else having their fun.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yay! We stopped Rangers and Sorcerers from being able to do a super limited version of what Wizards and Paladins can do! Huzzah!

Great. Just great. Is this seriously something that normally happens when something like this happens? Do people start celebrating when an optional rule that no one is being forced to use is dropped from the book due to the community screaming about it? I thought the D&D community was better than this. Have some empathy, people.

I have not once had this reaction to anything being dropped out of a book that I disliked, especially if it was an optional rule that some people did like a lot. I'm more upset about this reaction than the fact that it was dropped, tbh.

Yeah it always sours my perception of a community when this reaction occurs.

Rangers need to be able to select their spells from the whole list anyway. So many of them are situational. And swapping during a long rest is a damn poor way to take advantage of situational spells anyway. You have to know the situation in advance or be completely without time pressure.

I'd actually let Rangers swap spells as they wish anytime they have access to supplies and time and safety to forage and gather supplies, and I'd let them change 1 spell known every long or short rest.

Or, just switch them to prepared spells and add some bonus spells to the few subclasses that don't have them.

You can still use it just fine. You have the text. It was never going to be AL anyway. So, you're good, right?

You don't see any contradiction with this post of yours and your defense of the rationale of people rubbing their "victory" in other people's faces?

I mean, had it made it into the book, it wouldn't have been AL legal (probably, some Tasha's options are, so we don't technically know) anyway, and you could not use it just fine.

 

[ccs]

It amazes me the glee people express in seeing stuff others had really wanted "die" or "fail."

Yeah, it's like they completely don't get it. This is D&D, if your group decides somethings "in"? Then it's in. Doesn't matter what WoTC says on the subject.

 

[Mistwell]

There's a rather profound difference between an official option and a house rule. That rule would never see the light of day in my game, but I'm not going to be selfish and petty about someone else having their fun.

What is this "profound" difference between an optional rule requiring strict DM approval published by WOTC in a book, and that same optional rule published by WOTC in a PDF document as it was, such that people will be denied their fun?

I think you've confused the word "profound" with it's antonym.

 

[Maxperson]

What is this "profound" difference between an optional rule requiring strict DM approval published by WOTC in a book, and that same optional rule published by WOTC in a PDF document as it was, such that people will be denied their fun?

The lack of officiality. It's only official if it makes it into a book. If you can't see that there's a huge difference between official and unofficial, I'm not sure what else there is to say.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The lack of officiality. It's only official if it makes it into a book. If you can't see that there's a huge difference between official and unofficial, I'm not sure what else there is to say.

Officiality means nothing. Unless you ONLY play D&D in Adventurer's League... and if that's the case, you know going in that you aren't get everything you want character-wise (starting with PHB+1 and going from there) so you should be well used to tempering your needs and desires for game mechanics.

But if you play in home games? "Official" books are meaningless. You can play with whatever material you want.

 

[DEFCON 1]

See, this is what I love in situations like this. That there are two sides both demanding things because of two completely ridiculous things.

On the one side are the people who need the rules to be a certain way that they like... because to not have them means their players are going to request to use those rules, and the DM will have to-- heaven forbid!-- tell their players 'no'. And I can't tell you how many times I've seen those people use that excuse like it's legitimate. Because the DM don't have the balls to tell their players they can't use options the DM doesn't want to use... their only option is to make cries to WotC not to include those rules in the books so that they will never be put in the position of HAVING to say 'no'.

Then there is the other side with people who want all these rules added into the game so that they HAVE the options available to make the game exactly what they want. Despite the fact that other than being stuck in just playing AL... every person and table out there can add, subtract, and amend every single rule in the game to their satisfaction. And none of that stuff has to be IN any book... you just use a bit of wherewithall to make a balanced concept and rule and then show your DM why it's worthwhile. But apparently those people play with tyrannical Dungeon Masters who will only play with "official" material because... I guess they don't trust their own skills to recognize game balance?

And this is why I'm very happy being me. Because I do trust myself to recognize game balance, I do trust myself to be able to challenge players regardless of what abilities they have play with, and I do have players who know that the story always trumps the game mechanics and thus it's unnecessary to put so much ridiculous stock in the combat rules to begin with. Because despite the fact that D&D has been built to put 75% of all their rules towards combat... we have all learned over these past 40 years that focusing D&D like it's a board game is rarely if ever satisfactory. There are many more better, more balanced, and more tactically involved and challenging board games out there dealing with skirmishing combat. So if that's all you really want in a game... D&D is always going to fail you.

Focus on the story and the characters first... the board game second. If you do that... all these headaches about balancing this rule or excluding that rule all float away.

 

[Maxperson]

Officiality means nothing. Unless you ONLY play D&D in Adventurer's League... and if that's the case, you know going in that you aren't get everything you want character-wise (starting with PHB+1 and going from there) so you should be well used to tempering your needs and desires for game mechanics.

That's not true. Officiality means a great deal to a great many people. I'm far more leery of 3rd party material and material that failed to be good enough to make it into official products than I am of things that did make it.

 

[TwoSix]

That's not true. Officiality means a great deal to a great many people. I'm far more leery of 3rd party material and material that failed to be good enough to make it into official products than I am of things that did make it.

Yes, but I think @DEFCON 1 's perfectly reasonable argument is that it shouldn't matter so much, and if it does, maybe the individual's priorities could use some investigation.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, but I think @DEFCON 1 's perfectly reasonable argument is that it shouldn't matter so much, and if it does, maybe the individual's priorities could use some investigation.

Why? It's perfectly reasonable to not want to have to worry about disrupting the game with crappy quality stuff, and a LOT 3rd party and unofficial UA stuff falls into that category. Not that all official content is fantastic, but a there's a lot less worry and having to scrutinize things to make sure.

I think the priorities of someone who is selfish and petty enough to be glad that an option that he doesn't have to use didn't make it into the book need far more investigation than someone who prefers official over unofficial.