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

[Lanefan]

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.

Heh - seems you trust the official designers far more than I do.

WotC can make mistakes - gawds know they have in the past - just like any other design team can. Which means, everything still has to be vetted and tweaked and kitbashed to get the game you truly want - meaning nothing has really changed from the days of 0e-1e.

 

[Lanefan]

Any of these things addresses what is the "core" issue for the sorcerer as I see it - its magical options are limited, and metamagic doesn't do enough to make it feel like it isn't limited.

I always thought that was supposed to be the whole point of Sorcerers - they're narrow-focus one-trick ponies but in return they get to do that one trick really really well.

Give 'em more tricks and they'll soon become Wizards with extras.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Which would have been a good way to solve the problem; but it didn't happen.



So you'll only discuss classes with people who feel the same way about them that you do, even after playing them at various level tiers? I don't think you made the point you thought you just did.

If you don’t like the class, I’m not that interested. People who do like the class also have criticisms of it, I’d rather hear them.

 

[Lanefan]

Who are you again? Moosesomething?

MooseSong - that'd be the Canadian version...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Which would have been a good way to solve the problem; but it didn't happen.

Also, it isn’t a problem that bears any relation to the sorcerer issue, on any level.

It is wholly irrelevant to Spell Versatility.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Umm, have you paid even a modicum of attention to me in the past decade? My last intense exchange in these boards was about not liking 4d6 drop lowest because it produced too high stats. I've constantly argued for the right to not have the most optimally created build. I've more than established that I hate blasting. I'm constantly saying that I couldn't optimize to save my life. I recently boasted about having played a paladin that was completely harmless and useless in a fight in 4e. Yet the moment I say one or two triggers you default to call me an optimizer munchkin that cares only about squeezing every decimal point possible out of DPR. You defaulted to that reaction the moment I brought up the importance of official material, and we have interacted casually for over a decade! Tell me then, what hope can I have with a random stranger in RPOl or Roll20 or a local pickup game once that is a thing again? (Sadly my friend group is scattered across two countries and three states)

(Seriously, am I really that forgettable? Should I go back to using pink letters then?)

I see. So you're allowed to go full on hyperbole where if I say 'story trumps mechanics' then obviously your only logical response to is to suggest we should throw out the rules altogether... but yet heaven forbid I suggest that people get so in the weeds about DPR that they miss the forest through the trees when it comes to playing this game. Gotcha.

Unfortunately, I had this crazy idea that when I was talking in my third paragraph and saying 'we' this and 'we' that... that when I switched over to say 'you' that it would be evident from context that I was using the pleural 'you', as in the generalized reader of this post 'you'. "You people out there who nitpick DPR" and the like. Apparently you didn't get that, and thought I was addressing you personally. Well, you'll be happy to know that I wasn't.

I know you don't care about DPR, Moonsong. I know well and good that your primary focus here on EN World is to somehow, someway get some powers-that-be to finally create a sorcerer with the wizards spell list because you have this intense desire to play almost nothing but spellcasters that has breadth and depth of spells, while at the same time doesn't have to read a book.

 

[ph0rk]

Also, it isn’t a problem that bears any relation to the sorcerer issue, on any level.

It is wholly irrelevant to Spell Versatility.

The problem here being that spell versatility wasn't designed to do something across the board, so, yes, it is relevant.

SV, as written in the UA, made sorcerers have even more spell access than wizards in certain scenarios, particularly the late game (when wizards are strongest).

Buffing all or most casters to be as strong as wizards doesn't fix the intra-class balance problem in 5e; it just leaves martials further in the lurch. A nerf to wizards is the better choice.

Sorcerers are not weak nor are they limited in utility options... relative to other classes. Relative to wizards, yes, but if we go buffing every class that feels weak next to a wizard in their current state we'll never be done.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The problem here being that spell versatility wasn't designed to do something across the board, so, yes, it is relevant.

SV, as written in the UA, made sorcerers have even more spell access than wizards in certain scenarios, particularly the late game (when wizards are strongest).

Buffing all or most casters to be as strong as wizards doesn't fix the intra-class balance problem in 5e; it just leaves martials further in the lurch. A nerf to wizards is the better choice.

Sorcerers are not weak nor are they limited in utility options... relative to other classes. Relative to wizards, yes, but if we go buffing every class that feels weak next to a wizard in their current state we'll never be done.

No.

Sorcerers weren’t even the only class that would have gotten the feature, had people not flailed about it, and Sorcerers lack versatility compared to nearly every other caster class, and compared to literally every other full caster.

And giving them slightly more versatility doesn’t broaden any class balance gap. You aren’t even correct about non-casters being left behind. 5e is not 3e.

 

[Shardstone]

I always thought that was supposed to be the whole point of Sorcerers - they're narrow-focus one-trick ponies but in return they get to do that one trick really really well.

Give 'em more tricks and they'll soon become Wizards with extras.

They don't really do that one trick really well though. They get a couple of tricks that they can sometimes do, but their optiosn for what they can do that trick on are limited, and the tricks don't really serve as tricks, just combat enhancements (with the exception of subtle spell).

If the wizards have a larger amount of tricks + a larger amount of spells, sorcerer really doesn't feel that good. So the sorcerer either needs more tricks, more spells for their current amount of tricks, or more elaborate and interesting tricks instead of the combat-oriented ones.

 

[MoonSong]

MooseSong - that'd be the Canadian version...

That sounds like a good prompt. "Hey I see you've met my Canadian clone yet. Aren't we lovely together?"