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

[MoonSong]

Yes a lot were saying it was not that much in respect to their own campaigns but WotC finally saw that the rule was way over its original intent and over compensating for what was happening in some campaigns where leveling was so slow that the sorcerers never had the chance to swap a spell at a new level because they were not leveling as intended.

I have a more cynical reading of the situation. They removed this at the eleventh hour, they had made marketing based on having spell versatility in the book. The last time they mentioned it anywhere was like a month ago. Why decide something like this so suddenly? Maybe they noticed wizard players complaining how this made wizards useless somehow? I can't see this as anything but WotC giving in to an angry mob.

 

[Mistwell]

Calling something a fallacy is not, itself, a good argument. If you can't explain why it leads to a faulty conclusion or is open to critique, then you have failed to prove your point. Lists of fallacies are not meant to be weaponized I win buttons. They lead you to an argument you can make which is more likely to be persuasive under those circumstances, but you need to make the argument and not just claim "Fallacy X".

 

[Helldritch]

I have a more cynical reading of the situation. They removed this at the eleventh hour, they had made marketing based on having spell versatility in the book. The last time they mentioned it anywhere was like a month ago. Why decide something like this so suddenly? Maybe they noticed wizard players complaining how this made wizards useless somehow? I can't see this as anything but WotC giving in to an angry mob.

Just like they gave in with the ancestry rule?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, that is a weird thing to say. Why then you think some classes have access to far wider selection of the spells than others? You don't think this is part of balancing considerations or that doesn't not affect balance at all? I really don't see how this could be the case.

Thematics is 95% of that, not balance.

And, it has nothing to do with my point. Let us take a Bard. The Bard has a spell list. Is that Bard a balanced class if they are going into the Caves of Mourning with Hypnotic Pattern, Speak with Plants, See Invisibility, Hold Person, Heat Metal, Faerie Fire, Tasha's Hideous Laughter, and Healing Word?

What if I told you there are no invisible creatures in the Caves?
What if I told you that there is a Boss that wears Full Plate?
What if I told you that the main enemies were Drow and they have resistance to charm effects?
What if I told you that there is an ancient tree in the center of the cave that can tell the players about a secret back way into the boss's chamber?

Has the balance of the Bard shifted back and forth?

What if I had a bard who instead of Hypnotic Pattern, See Invisibility, and Tasha's the bard had Thunderwave, Invisibility, and Stinking Cloud? Has the Bard become unbalanced because it now lacks dead weight spells for the Caves?



The game is balanced on the assumption that the Bard's spell list is the best spell list it can possibly be. Because players could pick any spells they might want, and they might, by pure chance, have the perfect spell list for the adventure they are on, and that can't be overpowered beyond what the game can handle. To balance it any other way would be to assume that a percentage of your spells are useless, and that in any given adventure you are not operating at 100%. Which is not an assumption that makes sense to make.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since 3e, when the class came into the game. Having just a very few spells that they can cast both spontaneously and often is what made Socrerers different from Wizards and other caster types.

All attempts since to increase their spell versatility without reducing the other benefits come across to me as just trying to get around the penalty that balances those benefits; and that dog don't hunt.

But the dog that does hunt is allowing wizards, clerics, druids, and all the others to cast spontaneously and just as often as Sorcerers? Because that is what 5e did.

So everyone else got the benefits of sorcerers, but sorcerers are required to keep the penalties for the benefit they sued to have?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its the fact that you can do these multiple things from the instance the fight starts. Invisibility is a great defensive buff and having it stay as long as possible while getting good actions out of it is another example of pushing your spells further.

If you are doing it at the start... why not just have the wizard cast it as an action before they open the door, and do the exact same thing. Or the sorcerer does that without using any metamagic.

I mean, if a DM does determine that the investigation check is necessary, they still need to succeed on it. If they don't, they're still convinced it was real.

A minute of illusion is enough for a brief interaction, usually.

Sure, a brief one, not enough to really make a case for changing anything. And I was refering to my earlier statement. You want to alter how the King is treating you by subtle casting a spell to make him think he is having a divine revelation? You need a charisma check (likely at advantage, but depends on a lot of factors) because you don't get to change someone's actions that dramatically without a check.

I'm sorry, but you can't even force someone to do something with Geas, which is far higher level. I'm not letting Phantasmal force be more powerful than a spell three levels higher than it.

Arcane Trickster Mage Hand wasn't anything meant to be the star 3rd-level feature. The spellcasting is the important subclass feature. Invisible Hand is just a nice bonus, so its not always useful all the time, but its useful at least sometimes, and its a nice bonus.

So, now your defense is that one of their most iconic tricks was just a ribbon feature and not important. I mean.. they literally are forced to take mage hand, and two of their four features other than spellcasting utilize it. But, most not be important.

Oh, also, they have an ability that specifically only works if they cast a spell while hidden from a creature, meaning that that is something they are expected to do as well.

If you houserule a spell such that you need to make an ability check even though they already failed the initial save, you're being unjustly unfair to the spellcaster that expended a spell slot, sorcery points, and still had a percent chance to have the spell do nothing.

But if it does fail, you can always just go "huh, weird. Maybe it was something you ate," when they question things. They don't have any proof anyone casted a spell so the target going crazy is just as likely. And not all sorcerers are wearing their cosplay robe and wizard's hat in-character so they could easily just look as mundane as anyone else. In fact, having Disguise Self to look like an appropriate nonmagical character and cast the spell could be perfect forms of manipulation or sabotage.

You want to have an illusion of a hawk come in and attack them? Fine. You want to have a shadowy figure lurking in the corner so they send guards on a goose chase or move the meeting somewhere more private? Fine.

You want to make them think they recieved a divine message to manipulate them into doing something or giving you something that you want? That is going to require a check. Phantasmal Force allows you to place the illusion in their head, you want to persuade or decieve them with that illusion, that requires more than just casting the spell.

I did say it was foolish if you did this. But I also want to say that 2-4th level spell slots are pretty plentiful at a combined 12 of them just sitting in your spell slot table. Even if you spare one of each just in case, you've made an additional 18 sorcery points, which should be more than enough with quite alot of spell slots left over.

Of course, this isn't something you must do at the start of the day. It could just be at the middle of the adventure, filling up your points as you need.

Sure, but you are basically saying that those slots aren't worth having. You just essentially cast 6 spells (two second, two third and two fourth) and you are treating it like you are being frugal.

I don't get it. I legitimately don't. I have never looked at my 3rd and 4th level spell slots and gone, "Man, these are just cluttering up space on my character sheet"

And, just to point out, if you want to get those spell slots back? You need to spend 28 sorcery points. So, hope you were really confident in needing those points more than those slots, because it is literally impossible to get them back, since it costs ten more points than you gained.

Its the same question, just worded differently. I use need in an almost literal sense. Is the game going to be seriously negatively impacted if another fireball isn't thrown? Could a TPK be on your hands if more fireballs need to happen? If yes, you should use it because you'll never get to use those reserved spell slots if you die before that time. If no, you should wait and see more.

Of course, "fireball" can be replaced with any spell of your highest restricted level from levels 3-9. It isn't about fireball in particular, its about the spell slot and whether you have it and need it or not.

I've rarely been in a scenario where "I need this spell right now, or we all die" is a thing. And the few times I did (when playing a sorcerer in fact) I had those spells.... because I still had my spell slots. If I've cast two fireballs and we are still in a situation where I need yet another fireball or we are all dead, then I did something horribly wrong with my first two castings, because we shouldn't still be in that dire of straits after I've unleashed my biggest guns at the problem. And if we are? Maybe someone else has a plan will cover it, because obviously Fireball isn't working.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calling something a fallacy is not, itself, a good argument. If you can't explain why it leads to a faulty conclusion or is open to critique, then you have failed to prove your point. Lists of fallacies are not meant to be weaponized I win buttons. They lead you to an argument you can make which is more likely to be persuasive under those circumstances, but you need to make the argument and not just claim "Fallacy X".

Because Reducto ab absurdum does lead to faulty conclusions, it is just inflated hyperbole.

"I think maybe we should remove this traffic light, it doesn't seem to be preventing traffic accidents"
"Well, let's just remove all traffic lights and stop signs in the entire country, since none of them prevent accidents"


Obviously the second point does not follow from the first. Just because this one situation exists, does not mean it can be logically taken to apply to every single scenario.


"This rule wasn't bad, you are just saying it is because you don't like it. And not liking a rule doesn't mean it is bad" cannot logically be countered with "Then there is no such thing as a bad rule" The rule of needing to stab yourself with a rusty nail every time you take damage in the game has no bearing on the discussion at all, and is so absurd that it is just a red herring, meant to distract from the point and cause us to waste energy knocking down an absurd claim, rather than addressing the actual meat of the conversation.

 

[Mistwell]

Because Reducto ab absurdum does lead to faulty conclusions, it is just inflated hyperbole.

"I think maybe we should remove this traffic light, it doesn't seem to be preventing traffic accidents"
"Well, let's just remove all traffic lights and stop signs in the entire country, since none of them prevent accidents"


Obviously the second point does not follow from the first. Just because this one situation exists, does not mean it can be logically taken to apply to every single scenario.


"This rule wasn't bad, you are just saying it is because you don't like it. And not liking a rule doesn't mean it is bad" cannot logically be countered with "Then there is no such thing as a bad rule" The rule of needing to stab yourself with a rusty nail every time you take damage in the game has no bearing on the discussion at all, and is so absurd that it is just a red herring, meant to distract from the point and cause us to waste energy knocking down an absurd claim, rather than addressing the actual meat of the conversation.

Right. See, THAT is a persuasive argument

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

However, small is relative, is getting one or two spells known too much to ask? Some leeway to have room to make mistakes and perhaps have some fun? The class is very hard to use as it is.

The sorcerer has an unfortunate story of being experimental almost every time. With every edition putting a lot of excessive restraints on it to prevent it from being overpowered. These restraints always end up being too much and only a few of them get eventually removed, but later developments only prove that they weren't even needed. The end result is that it is unnecessarily gimped every time.

Honestly, being prevented from having any boost to playability without wizard players somehow ruining it helps nothing to this situation and is getting old. (Seriously this is not the first time sorcerer players can't get something nice because wizard players can't see us get anything without throwing a tantrum. Just having the class at all was a huge accomplishment because if it were up to them there wouldn't be sorcerer or a warlock, we'd just have the wizard class pretending to be the be it all end all of spellcasters.)

You're preaching to the choir. I do not disagree with anything said here. That's why I've been arguing against the people who are saying that allowing a Sorcerer to replace one spell on a long rest is in no way, shape, or form stepping on the toes of the wizard or unbalancing the game.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Calling something a fallacy is not, itself, a good argument. If you can't explain why it leads to a faulty conclusion or is open to critique, then you have failed to prove your point. Lists of fallacies are not meant to be weaponized I win buttons. They lead you to an argument you can make which is more likely to be persuasive under those circumstances, but you need to make the argument and not just claim "Fallacy X".

So, I have to explain why stealing is bad, too, in order for that to be a valid statement? Pointing out fallacies is intended to show the flaws in another person's argument. If someone's argument hinges on a logical fallacy, then unless they revise their argument, they are incorrect and are in the wrong. Reducto ad absurdum is a fallacy.

Edit: It seems like @Chaosmancer has already shown why Reducto ad absurdum is detrimental and how it isn't valid to support an argument. Thank you. That is what I was trying to say, but not as eloquently or intelligently as they said it.

 

[Mistwell]

So, I have to explain why stealing is bad, too, in order for that to be a valid statement? Pointing out fallacies is intended to show the flaws in another person's argument. If someone's argument hinges on a logical fallacy, then unless they revise their argument, they are incorrect and are in the wrong. Reducto ad absurdum is a fallacy.

Edit: It seems like @Chaosmancer has already shown why Reducto ad absurdum is detrimental. Thank you.

Yes, he showed how you have to actually make the argument. And no, people are not automatically incorrect just because you throw the label of a logical fallacy at them. Yes, you do in fact need to do the work of making a persuasive argument using that fallacy to persuade people you are right. Nobody is ever persuaded by just lazily tossing a logical fallacy label out and sitting back as if you just accomplished something meaningful. Do the work, if your intent is to persuade people you are right. That's what logical fallacy guides are about - they point you to arguments you can make about certain other types of arguments. They don't accomplish the persuasion for you however.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's a fallacy:

6.8a

Er...I don't know why that website would use a well-established logical argument name in order to label something that is simply the straw man fallacy (or possibly the slippery-slope fallacy). Reductio ad absurdum, as a term in logic, has never referred to a fallacy in any other text I have ever seen, not even in my 400-level logic courses. Merriam-Webster and the Collins dictionary both expressly state that it is a valid form of argument; the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which is written by accredited experts in the field, not user contributions like Wikipedia) explicitly states that it has been used in mathematics and logic since antiquity. It is, for example, a common way to prove that there is no smallest rational number (that is, a number of the form "A/B," where A and B are both integers), because any candidate you might pick can have its denominator B doubled, generating a strictly smaller rational number, meaning we can derive the negation of the original assumption from the assumption itself.

Now, the burden on someone making a reductio argument is that they must show (a) the absurd conclusion does in fact necessarily follow, and (b) that the absurd conclusion is relevant to the claims being made. But failing either of those doesn't make the reductio ITSELF a fallacy; failing the former is simply the slippery-slope fallacy (the assertion that a chain of consequences is necessary when it is not), and failing the latter is the straw-man fallacy (pretending that the actual claim is a different, absurd claim instead). Reductio ad absurdum itself is, and always has been, a perfectly valid logical form--as another example, Euclid used it to prove that there is no finite list containing all prime numbers. (Phrased as such because, at the time, they did not think of integers as we do, and were not comfortable with a concept like "infinity"; in practice, it means the set of prime numbers is infinite, but the reductio as used only denies the claim that any delimited list of primes is complete.)

Calling something a fallacy is not, itself, a good argument. If you can't explain why it leads to a faulty conclusion or is open to critique, then you have failed to prove your point. Lists of fallacies are not meant to be weaponized I win buttons. They lead you to an argument you can make which is more likely to be persuasive under those circumstances, but you need to make the argument and not just claim "Fallacy X".

You are correct that the "fallacy fallacy" is a problem, but not correct in that noting a fallacy in someone's argument is a good reason to say they have the burden to update their argument. That is, it is an informal fallacy to assert, "Because the argument against my position was fallacious, my position is thus correct." This is not guaranteed; someone can easily use fallacious arguments in defense of true things, in fact it's quite common. However, the more restrained claim, "Your position remains undefended, because the defense provided was fallacious," is perfectly valid and is, in fact, the correct response to a fallacy: noting it and, all else being equal, permitting correction thereof, if correction can be made.

In context? It absolutely was a straw-man argument. No reason was given why "fighter one-hit kills all opponents" should be seen as the same kind of thing as "Sorcerer changes 1 spell known with a long rest." We are simply supposed to accept that the two are exactly as flawed, which is not okay--and the aggressively extreme example does come across as bad-faith argumentation.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Er...I don't know why that website would use a well-established logical argument name in order to label something that is simply the straw man fallacy (or possibly the slippery-slope fallacy). Reductio ad absurdum, as a term in logic, has never referred to a fallacy in any other text I have ever seen, not even in my 400-level logic courses. Merriam-Webster and the Collins dictionary both expressly state that it is a valid form of argument; the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which is written by accredited experts in the field, not user contributions like Wikipedia) explicitly states that it has been used in mathematics and logic since antiquity. It is, for example, a common way to prove that there is no smallest rational number (that is, a number of the form "A/B," where A and B are both integers), because any candidate you might pick can have its denominator B doubled, generating a strictly smaller rational number, meaning we can derive the negation of the original assumption from the assumption itself.

Now, the burden on someone making a reductio argument is that they must show (a) the absurd conclusion does in fact necessarily follow, and (b) that the absurd conclusion is relevant to the claims being made. But failing either of those doesn't make the reductio ITSELF a fallacy; failing the former is simply the slippery-slope fallacy (the assertion that a chain of consequences is necessary when it is not), and failing the latter is the straw-man fallacy (pretending that the actual claim is a different, absurd claim instead). Reductio ad absurdum itself is, and always has been, a perfectly valid logical form--as another example, Euclid used it to prove that there is no finite list containing all prime numbers. (Phrased as such because, at the time, they did not think of integers as we do, and were not comfortable with a concept like "infinity"; in practice, it means the set of prime numbers is infinite, but the reductio as used only denies the claim that any delimited list of primes is complete.)

I stand corrected, then.