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

[Mistwell]

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

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]

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.

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]

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."

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]

Apparently, people get offended if something steps upon the toes of other classes or some stupid crap like that.

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]

People are happy that the game designers at WotC display some competence and have realised what a terrible rule it was. But if you want terrible houserules nothing is stopping you from applying them.

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]

So you have never celebrated when your favorite sports team won a match, even though the fans of the opposing side really wanted their team to win?

This wasn't a win/lose situation. False Equivalences are false.

 

[Weiley31]

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.

Oh I know that. Just seems to be the way in people's eyes.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I don't like it. Now what are we going to argue about?

There's always damage on a miss.

 

[Hatmatter]

This is good news and I may rethink my decision to not buy the book.

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]

I really don’t understand this thing where folks are celebrating the loss of a thing that other folks really wanted.

Like I’ve never in my life had this impulse. What is it?

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.