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

[Crimson Longinus]

Or maybe there's a book we don't know about coming out and they thought it would be better to put there. Or maybe there are other similar rules they are working on and want to release them together. Or...

OK. Better luck with that upcoming imaginary book then.

 

[MoonSong]

If they don't put something in the book then it is because they considered it to be a bad idea to publish it. Also published content tends to have more strident standards than house rules, as it will be used for countless different groups with different attitudes and playstyles. I have plenty of houserules I don't feel would be solid enough to be published, but will work for my personal purposes in an environment I can curate.

It was good enough to be featured in the official marketing materials all the way during the preorder period.

 

[Maxperson]

OK. Better luck with that upcoming imaginary book then.

I don't have to prove the book exists. I only have to show that your unsubstantiated claim is bupkis, which that reason does. So long as there are other POSSIBLE reasons that could explain why the rule didn't make it into the book, it's your responsibility to back up your absolute claim, with you know, actual proof.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Then they must have considered that criticism to be valid.

So, when they publish a ruleset that lets players change their racial ability score bonuses, that's "caving to SJWs and woke culture", but when they remove spell versatility, that is them "considering its criticism to be valid"? Okay. Got it. That totally makes sense.

@Maxperson already refuted your other statement.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, when they publish a ruleset that lets players change their racial ability score bonuses, that's "caving to SJWs and woke culture",

This certainly is not something I would ever say. Customising origins rules have several issues and it is unfortunate they didn't do playtest and feedback with those like they did with spell versatility, as that probably would have helped to improve the rules before they ended up in print.

but when they remove spell versatility, that is them "considering its criticism to be valid"? Okay. Got it. That totally makes sense.

The designers consider the rules for many different angles, and based on that they decide what to publish and what to not. Sometimes we may disagree with their decisions. That's just how it is.

As for possible upcoming book featuring spell versatility, it is theoretically possible but unlikely. They already had it in UA and it was close to being printed but they decided against it. If they had deemed it fine as it is, it would have been in the book. Now what is more likely is that they might consider some other ways to improves sorcerer's in the future, now that they scrapped this one, but those other ways will require more time and testing and thus could not be in this book.

 

[Lanefan]

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?

Hell, if I could find a way to enforce this I might actually get to see some spells get cast that otherwise never see the light of day!

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

No, it doesn't.

A fighter critting on every single attack they make is an anomally of math. We know exactly how likely it is, and it is purely a an artifact of the dice. But do you know what the fighter is balanced around?

Assuming they hit.

No fighter is balanced assuming that they will miss most of their attacks. The game is balanced so that if the fighter hits on every single attack, the game is not broken.

And so it is with spells. The game is built with the assumption that you have the correct spells for the situation. However, there is consideration given after the fact that that situation is unlikely.Hence things like Elemental Adept being added in an acknowledgement that, yes, you might have the wrong elemental type to deal with this monster.


Having the perfect spell selection is not broken. It can't be, because the design can't assume what your spell selection is.

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

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

And so we get more specific and more contorted. {X1}

But you can force someone to do something with Suggestion.

Yes with a whole host of limitations.

1) It can't be subtled, because you need to speak to the target to give the suggestion
2) It has to be a reasonable suggestion, and cannot be a suggestion to self harm
3) If you or your allies harm the creature, the spell ends

Phantasmal Force would have none of these restrictions. You could have the God you are impersonating show up and demand the King flagellate himself in front of the court to atone for his sins. It could demand that the Paladin in your party do it.

So, Phantasmal Force and Suggestion are clearly not supposed to do the same things.

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.

I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion on one aspect of this spell in particular.

Who writes the script the illusion follows? Is the target of the spell deciding what the illusion says and does? Or is it the sorcerer who decides?

And if it is the sorcerer deciding what is said, how is it any different to speak through an illusory image of a god than it is to speak while wearing the mask of a nobleman? If a thief uses his disguise kit to appear like a nobleman, and he goes to do something under that guise, does he automatically succeed in deceiving or persuading the people he is targeting, no roll, because he is using the knowledge on his target against them and hoping they bite?

No. And Phantasmal Force being used in the manner you are presenting is just an elaborate puppet show the sorcerer is putting on. And that does not mean they get to skip straight to success.

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.

Then why is it invisible? Why is it specifically invisible and able to be used for pickpocketing if you are never meant to use it for pickpocketing?

Because the Trickster is supposed to cast it, get in position and succeed in the check all in under a minute? I'm not saying they can't do it, but if you cast it behind the inn.... won't someone hear you? I mean, if you cast it in the marketplace you said they would hear you, why not while you are behind an inn.

The ability seems pretty clear to me, it isn't some parlor trick to amuse your friends around the table, it is meant to be cast on the job, while working. It is meant to be cast while you are sneaking through a house while the occupants are sleeping. And that means it needs to be at least slightly unnoticeable itself.

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.

Sounds like wasting points on poor spells. But sure, there might be a time when I want to burn 9 points to twin a 9th level spell.

But I'm not convinced that I'm going to be so eager to drop all my 3rd level spell possibilities to do so. And really, it is a simple reasoning. I've never seen a Wizard or cleric who is eager to waste mid-level spell slots. If they aren't, if they have value for those characters, then why should I just assume those slots are no better than trash for the sorcerer.

And yes, that is how you are treating them, with your phrasing and the phrasing I always see on this issue, it is presented as though a sorcerer who doesn't consume most of their 2nd, 3rd and 4th level slots to create 5th level slots is simply wasting their time and doesn't understand how to play the class. And it doesn't make sense, because sure, 5th level slots are nice, but I can still do a lot with a low level slot, and I never really want to have to upcast lower level spells. That, by the way, is why the 1st level spells are never on the list. Because Shield and Absorb elements.

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.

Or maybe it was a second level spell you cast earlier. Or maybe you get that fireball, but now lack the 1st level spell slot to cast a charm person that would have been clutch.

You can make hypothetical "if maybe things were desperate and you would lose for want of a nail" scenarios, but the game is too complicated to predict that accurately.

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

I would agree except that the intent of that post was clearly to bolster the case that it would have been good to include the rule simply because it would make the rule official.

What other intent could the statement have meant to convey? That some rules are better as official than optional? How would that have helped his case?

Intending to convey that the rule being houseruled in would not give it the reach of an official rule, therefore significantly reducing his opportunities to utilize it? After all, most DMs are going to give you the side-eye for coming to them with "I want to play this class, but with this houserule" and immediately look to see "how is this broken" before any other considerations.

Nor will it ever be proven. A rule being good or bad isn't objective, but rather subjective.

Awful lot of "glad the game designers saw how objectively terrible this rule was" in the early parts of this thread though. Makes it a little difficult to approach this with recognition both sides might have a point.

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

And not everything from playtest will get printed, if it did there was no point playtesting it. And 'you don't need to use it' is not excuse for printing bad rules. Now you don't have to agree that it is a bad rule, but that is the concussion the designers came to, just like they came to the concussion that customising origins was a good optional rule even though I disagree with them on that.

Provide a quote from the designers stating that they felt this was a bad rule that would hurt the game. Then you get to claim you know what they thought.

Because, at a bare minimum effort of conceiving of a reason, I am reminded of the people who started saying that the Spirits Bard, Undead Warlock, Ascendant Dragon Monk, and Drakewarden are never going to see print because they weren't in Tasha's.

The truth is, those subclasses are meant for a different book. So, maybe this rule is meant for a different book. That gives us an equally plausible (but much more supported) claim as to why this rule was not included.

But, you are convinced that you are objectively correct and speak for people that have not spoken. Too bad me and (throws dart at a map) everyone in Michigan agree that you are wrong.

Don't worry, the fact that all those people aren't messaging you is proof enough that I can speak for them and tell you their objective opinion.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, it doesn't.

A fighter critting on every single attack they make is an anomally of math. We know exactly how likely it is, and it is purely a an artifact of the dice. But do you know what the fighter is balanced around?

Assuming they hit.

No fighter is balanced assuming that they will miss most of their attacks. The game is balanced so that if the fighter hits on every single attack, the game is not broken.

And so it is with spells. The game is built with the assumption that you have the correct spells for the situation. However, there is consideration given after the fact that that situation is unlikely.Hence things like Elemental Adept being added in an acknowledgement that, yes, you might have the wrong elemental type to deal with this monster.


Having the perfect spell selection is not broken. It can't be, because the design can't assume what your spell selection is.

Having a higher selection of spells makes it more likely that you have an optimal spell for any given situation. This is all the designer's need to know. And you contradict yourself there nicely. Having things like elemental adept that cost a precious ASI proves that such flexibility is assigned a value. Similar flexibility can be gained via a wide arsenal of spells. The logical conclusion of your line of reasoning is that a class that would have only one predetermined spell for each spell level would be no weaker than one that could freely choose to cast any spell in the game. You must see how totally bonkers that is?

Provide a quote from the designers stating that they felt this was a bad rule that would hurt the game. Then you get to claim you know what they thought.

Because, at a bare minimum effort of conceiving of a reason, I am reminded of the people who started saying that the Spirits Bard, Undead Warlock, Ascendant Dragon Monk, and Drakewarden are never going to see print because they weren't in Tasha's.

The truth is, those subclasses are meant for a different book. So, maybe this rule is meant for a different book. That gives us an equally plausible (but much more supported) claim as to why this rule was not included.

But, you are convinced that you are objectively correct and speak for people that have not spoken. Too bad me and (throws dart at a map) everyone in Michigan agree that you are wrong.

Don't worry, the fact that all those people aren't messaging you is proof enough that I can speak for them and tell you their objective opinion.

Some of the more recent UAs have not yet gone trough their full review process. But the other class options form the UA featuring the spell versatility appeared in this book. Now sure, one can come up with some unlikely conspiracy theory why this one feature would be moved elsewhere, but Occam's Razor clearly points to the direction of the designers simply deeming the feature unsuitable for publication, at least in its current form.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.

There is is absolutely no world in which allowing a sorcerer to change one spell on a long rest is equivalent to changing all of your spells on a long rest. 1 of your spells changing is not the same as all of your spells changing.

Also, you want to complain about rules in Tasha's stepping on the toes of the other classes through feats? WotC disagrees with that, proven by the "multiclass feats" published in TCoE (Metamagic Adept, in this case).

 

[Maxperson]

Occam's Razor clearly points to the direction of the designers simply deeming the feature unsuitable for publication, at least in its current form.

The only thing Occam's Razor points to is them not wanting to publish it in this book. All else is assumption on your part. There is nothing that says that it was suitable or unsuitable for publication in its current form.

Why it so important to you to trash a rule that is good or bad depending entirely on subjective opinion? Why are you trying so hard to force it to be bad for everyone else?