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

[EzekielRaiden]

Sure. I fully agree that official rules are better received. But a rule being better received is only a good thing if it's a good rule to begin with. It's a bad thing for a bad rule to be more accepted, no?

Well yes...but again, that's what the whole discussion is about. Is it a bad rule? Saying "we don't want to have official options that are bad rules" is rather irrelevant when the core question is about whether the rule is good or bad. It's a bit like saying "well you don't want to make false statements while arguing" when the question itself is "is this statement true or false?" Once the core question is settled, the point is trivia; either it is a reasonably good rule, and thus being an official option is fine, or it is not a reasonably good rule, and being an official option is not fine--the two will always resolve in the same direction regardless.

 

[Lanefan]

But. . . it doesn't. Does the fact that the Paladin or Druid can prepare spells make their classes step on the toes of the Wizard?

Not as much, in that their spell possibilities are farther removed from those of the Wizard than are Sorcerer spells. (unless Sorcerers are doing divine casting these days...)

 

[Chaosmancer]

No, their spell selection is nowhere near that of the wizard. Arcane vs Divine is not even on the same level. But Arcane vs Arcane and both spell list are quite close to each other. With a single feat (ritual caster), and Spell Versatility, the sorcerer with its sorcery point out do the wizard rendering it obsolete. This has been proven by better debater and theorycrafter than I am such as DnD4VR. Go check the thread about spell versatility that happened a few months ago. It is enlightening.

The same debate happened in four french forum and in a few other forums (Giant something...) and the same warnings came over and over again. We tested this rule with my groups and the 13 of us came to the conclusion that with the standard rule, that single rule was putting the wizards down the drain. In one forum, it was even proposed that the sword dancer be made a sorcerer to keep it relevant with the new rule since wizard would simply be out of commission. To add even more, a group of 13 year old came to the same conclusion as we did and came to the store (outside the store actually, not to break confinement) and asked me if I had came to the same conclusions.

You have to remember that the rule was proposed because that at some tables, leveling is extremely slow. So slow that where you might rise in 3 levels in one adventure, these tables were reversed, 3 to 5 adventures for one level. In these cases, the rule made a lot of sense. But still, limiting it to one spell/downtime as we did would have been much more interesting. And even then, the downtime we have is not the same as yours. A highly situational rule that had the potential to disrupt many games if not carefully weighted against all houserules a table might have. All that to satisfy fringe games... That rule had no place in an official book.

I shouldn't and yet, wow.

Firstly, many spells that are niche usefulness (such as Water Breathing. Locate Object, Locate Person or Remove Curse) are on both the divine and arcane spell lists. So, there is relevance in asking if a Druid or Cleric being able to prepare Water Breathing 24 hours after it becomes clear you need it also invalidates the wizard.

Secondly. I have been part of a few of those spell versatility arguments as well, and while you present them as your side having an overwhelming majority, you seem to forget some of the gaping holes in your position. Such as the fact that many of those scenarios expected the sorcerer to suddenly have near perfect knowledge of the coming challenges to prepare for them. And that that knowledge came from scrying and scouting, one of which required a wizard to pull off and the other placing the rogue in a very risky situation.


So, no. There has been no proof that the sorcerer getting this ability would delegate the wizard to the trash bin. There never has been.

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

That is an example of a strawman as the 2nd statement does not follow from the first. What I did with reducto ad absurdum doesn't have that issue.

Unless someone is bolstering their argument with the fallacious statement that it's always better for X when it's not actually always better for X. Reducto ad absurdum does a great job pointing issue out. Though nowadays that kind of thing tends to incorrectly get labeled as a strawman.

Please show me how anything I or anyone else said leads to your statement here? If not then isn't this actually just an example of a strawman fallacy?

I agree with @EzekielRaiden , your reading of Acerak's point was harsher than was required. But, fine I'll concede that if @AcererakTriple6 truly meant that every single possible rule is better as an official variant rule rather than a house rule, that your rebuttal was a correct response.

However, since that was clearly not the intent of their argument, I think it is fair to say that spoke loosely and informally, and that you responded to that instead of to the intent of their post.

Edit: And I agree with the rest of Ezekiel's points too. The discussion has been whether or not it was a bad rule, with the impetus being that people were celebrating it not being included. People put forth that they were celebrating it because it was a bad rule, and that it wasn't included because it was a bad rule, but this discussion on this rule has never definitively been proven if it is good or bad.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

And by pure chance a fighter could crit on every hit, so certainly the game is balanced on the assumption that they do? Nonsense. More flexible your spell selection is, the better chance you have to have optimal spells for each situation and this absolutely must be part of the balancing considerations.

 

[Asisreo]

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.

You could either be surprised or started at round 2 and not immediately at round 1.

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.

But you can force someone to do something with Suggestion.

Geas' purpose is to force them to do something for an extended period of time, like a long-term curse. Suggestion's purpose is to force the target to complete a task for you out of their will. Phantasmal Force's purpose is to assault their mind with visions in order to change their behavior.

I don't think it requires any sort of check, not at the sorcerer's end. The sorcerer isn't talking or using any sort of their personality. They're using the knowledge on their target against them and hoping they bite. I mean, something so obvious as "I am your god. Uh, give that random guy your kingdom, thanks," isn't going to work on anyone short of idiots. A sorcerer has to be more knowledgeable and cunning, and this amount of work from the player's side should be rewarded.

Maybe the target makes an insight check or a religion check to notice if anything is off or they can make their investigation check, but the sorcerer isn't really using his own personality to convince anyone. He's appealing to the authority of someone else.

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.

Its just a parlor trick compared to the ability to have 5 other spells they can cast, 2 of which are at-will and 3 more from a very diverse spell list. I mean, Eldritch Knight gets Weapon Bond but nobody really goes "Wow, Eldritch Knight is so strong. I get to have my weapon on me as a bonus action!" There's creative uses, no doubt, but you won't be breaking any games with it.

Magical Ambush doesn't even relate to Mage Hand Legerdemain since it talks about forcing a save. You can be hidden when you cast a spell, but once you do, you've made a noise and per the rules of hiding, you are no longer hidden.

Its useful for picking locks when traps are possible or doing so behind cover or casting it outside a tavern then walking in. Its not all that useful to cast when engaged in a conversation with.

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.

Out of the 22 spell slots you have at level 20, you expect to cast all of them at a distribution equal to the allotted table every adventuring day?

Even if that's possible, spell power goes up by alot the higher your spell slots are (not just damage), so 3 2nd-level spells might not be as combat-ending as a single 5th-levels spell slot. If the sorcerer wants to twin PWK because he's a lunatic, they've essentially turn 3 3rd-level spells into a whole other 9th-level spell slot. This is the most expensive metamagic option. Cheaper metamagics are possible, but you get an idea what you can do.

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.

The scenario could happen once every 100 sessions and it would be once too many since that means a 99 session campaign ended because of a TPK. You get closer to these scenarios over the course of a full adventuring day when during the last battle, the cleric is down, the fighter is not within range, the druid is out of wildshapes and the sorcerer has used up all their best spell slots.

Just one extra push could be all you need, so that last fireball may come in clutch. Or maybe its a 3rd counterspell or a 3rd dispel magic.

 

[Maxperson]

Also sounds pretty selfish to want them to print the optional rule just because you like it. Just home brew it if you like it.

How is it selfish to want others to have a rule that I will never use, simply because they will enjoy it? It's not as if room was an issue. It's a small book and could have fit it very easily.

I agree official is important. All the more reason to be careful about what gets made official.

Careful of what? It's not a bad rule if you like it, and lots of people like it.

 

[Asisreo]

How is it selfish to want others to have a rule that I will never use, simply because they will enjoy it? It's not as if room was an issue. It's a small book and could have fit it very easily.

Careful of what? It's not a bad rule if you like it, and lots of people like it.

I'm actually in favor of some form of spell versatility as an optional rule, although maybe not as it was presented in the UA.

The issue seems to be about keeping it optional for the DM. Most things are optional, but there is a pressure to the DM to allow optional things, especially if the player believes the optional rule was meant to be a buff in disguise.

I think it depends on presentation. If they put it in Tasha's book, it would be seen as just as optional as the additional feats and metamagic, which are probably going to not be banned in most campaigns. In fact, feats and multiclassing are optional yet there seems to be a pressure for DM's to allow them in a forum type of space.

Optional rules in the DMG aren't treated as a requirement. Even popular ones like Gritty Realism aren't made as assumptions in forums. And other optional rules like Hero Points, spell points, Plot Points, and Flanking are almost never assumed. Heck, even rules that are not optional but circumstantial like chases, madness, and diseases are rarely used.

I think it has to do with putting these options in books that players are expected to read. Rather than putting this variant in a Xanathar-like book where everyone would implement everything in their build, maybe putting it in a setting book or the Xanathar's equivalent to the PHB (no player options) would have it feel like its truly optional.

The problem is definitely getting such a book to sell well, though.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm actually in favor of some form of spell versatility as an optional rule, although maybe not as it was presented in the UA.

The issue seems to be about keeping it optional for the DM. Most things are optional, but there is a pressure to the DM to allow optional things, especially if the player believes the optional rule was meant to be a buff in disguise.

I think it depends on presentation. If they put it in Tasha's book, it would be seen as just as optional as the additional feats and metamagic, which are probably going to not be banned in most campaigns. In fact, feats and multiclassing are optional yet there seems to be a pressure for DM's to allow them in a forum type of space.

Optional rules in the DMG aren't treated as a requirement. Even popular ones like Gritty Realism aren't made as assumptions in forums. And other optional rules like Hero Points, spell points, Plot Points, and Flanking are almost never assumed. Heck, even rules that are not optional but circumstantial like chases, madness, and diseases are rarely used.

I think it has to do with putting these options in books that players are expected to read. Rather than putting this variant in a Xanathar-like book where everyone would implement everything in their build, maybe putting it in a setting book or the Xanathar's equivalent to the PHB (no player options) would have it feel like its truly optional.

The problem is definitely getting such a book to sell well, though.

Maybe it's because I've been playing since 1983, but I've never had an issue with saying no. Heck, I banned some spells when we played 3e and those weren't labeled optional and were in the literal PHB.

I view a DM's inability to say no to a player as a personal issue that shouldn't affect what rules go into any particular book.

That said, I try to say yes whenever it won't negatively impact the game. I wouldn't have used this particular optional rule had it made it into Tasha's, but under certain circumstances I will use the optional racial rules.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well yes...but again, that's what the whole discussion is about. Is it a bad rule? Saying "we don't want to have official options that are bad rules" is rather irrelevant when the core question is about whether the rule is good or bad. It's a bit like saying "well you don't want to make false statements while arguing" when the question itself is "is this statement true or false?" Once the core question is settled, the point is trivia; either it is a reasonably good rule, and thus being an official option is fine, or it is not a reasonably good rule, and being an official option is not fine--the two will always resolve in the same direction regardless.

To me, I thought it was obvious that once we get to the point in the discussion where we are arguing whether a rule is good or bad (or good enough or bad enough) that we we are having a subjective discussion - which is a bit different than discussing an objectively true or false statement as your analogy above eluded to. The thing with this discussion is that all the arguments for whether it's a good rule or bad rule were already laid out.

1a. It's a good rule because Sorcerer's are too inflexible and this fixes that.
2a. It's a good rule because it allows players in adventures league to change out spells without relying on DM fiat.

1b. It's a bad rule because it allows the sorcerer to step on the wizard's toes.
2b. It's a bad rule because it can be abused in many circumstances to allow the sorcerer to swap out spells more effectively than a wizard.

*If I've missed any please feel free to add them. It was not intentional.

It seems apparent that these arguments are not convincing to those on the other side of the issue. So I don't think anything will be gained by rehashing the "is it good or is it bad" discussion.

What I would like to add to the discussion is the idea that there is a time an place for an appeal to popularity despite it being a fallacy in formal logic because formal logic and the fallacies surrounding it only apply to objective statements, as a subjective statement is one that cannot be objectively proven to be true or untrue. Because of that, appealing to popularity is actually a powerful argument in favor of a subjective statement.

 

[FrogReaver]

How is it selfish to want others to have a rule that I will never use, simply because they will enjoy it? It's not as if room was an issue. It's a small book and could have fit it very easily.

Careful of what? It's not a bad rule if you like it, and lots of people like it.

Selfish isn't the right word in your circumstance. If you liked the rule it would aptly apply.

Most importantly - no one is stopping anyone from their enjoyment of using that rule if they like it. They can still use it via homebrew. Why exactly must the rule be official before someone can enjoy it?