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

[Crimson Longinus]

It would depend on what modifies those spells, such as class abilities. Which puts us squarely back into Camp Subjective again. All else can never be equal when discussing two different classes, so that's not a worthwhile avenue to go down. If you want all other factors to be equal, then they are both the same class with all the same spells, so neither is more powerful.

This was not about comparing two different classes. Chaosmancer claimed that increasing the amount of spells a class has doesn't increase the power of the class which is blatantly wrong.

 

[Helldritch]

Congrats, you knocked down a strawman.

Have a quote from a designer saying "There is a silent majority of 14 year olds who won't understand that this rule will unravel their games, since it was such a bad rule we refuse to print it in an official sourcebook. It is dead because it was a bad rule."?

Empirical evidence can be as good as physical evidence, especially when the results are the same. I don't need to see a lepton and a quark to know they exist. The same apply to the removal of that rule.

They were advertising that rule as part of TCoE and it was supposed to be a real big deal. Turns out that someone saw the potential for disruptiveness this rule had and WotC decided to remove it without explanations. If that rule did not have that disruptive potential it would have seen print. Popularity has nothing in the decision to print or not. The only reason to remove something so close to release that was almost a flagship of the book, is simply because it was disruptive, unbalanced or whatever negative qualifier you want to apply to it.

Again, keep in mind that WotC does not really care for old and experience gamers like me or Max, or you. They care about the silent majority that lacks the experience to apply or not a rule and to see the implications this rule will have in the long run. They decided to ignore their base with 4ed and they got burned hard. (But I really liked 4ed...)

 

[Maxperson]

This was not about comparing two different classes. Chaosmancer claimed that increasing the amount of spells a class has doesn't increase the power of the class which is blatantly wrong.

Versatility doesn't equate to power, though. You can have 20000 3rd level spells to my 6, but we're each casting 4 and done. Utility is great, but that doesn't automatically equate to more power.

 

[Helldritch]

Versatility doesn't equate to power, though. You can have 20000 3rd level spells to my 6, but we're each casting 4 and done. Utility is great, but that doesn't automatically equate to more power.

But it often does.
A creature is immune to fire? No problem with the versatility rule, a small nap, and fire ball is replaced by lightning bolt or whatever. The wizard is not garantied this as spell known are not a sure thing. And spell versatility is supposed to be the wizard's advantage over sorcerers. When everything in your spell list is only a nap away, this is quite powerful.

Wizard's versatility is counter balanced by the possible spells in his spellbook. The sorcerer is supposed to be limited by spell known but with the rule it is no longer the case. That is why it was removed.

The guy that knows 6000 spells is way more versatile and hard to catch unprepared than the guy that knows only 6. It is quite obvious. The power of the sorcerer resides on how he can manipulate arcane spells. Not on how many he knows.

 

[Monayuris]

Eh... not a fan. Think spell allocation should stay as is.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I have stepped away from the thread for a bit, so this may be a little outdated now.

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.

If it is not possible to discuss good and bad design, playtesting is completely worthless as a tool for anything but advertisement. Since I think both of us agree that playtesting is useful for something more than just advertisement, it is possible to discuss design quality--it just requires certain givens, first.

There is more to this conversation than the four points you offered, and more to be said than simply stating those things and being done with it. Finding common ground and addressing distinct but not-incompatible concerns is where the vast majority of fruitful discussion happens. (For example, your points 1a and 1b? Not actually contradictory. It is completely possible that a solution exists which still addresses 1a while avoiding 1b.)

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.

It's not a matter of rehashing--that, again, implies that there is nothing new to be said, nothing which could change, and that's simply false. It's a matter of exploring variations, finding what people's hard lines are, seeing what is compatible.

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.

Isn't there some excluded middle here? Context dependency matters. As I've said elsewhere on these boards, it is true that there is no such thing as an objective universal in game design: game design requires too much freedom for me to even speculate as to what form a real "universal truth of game design." However, this does not mean that there cannot be objective conditional truths in game design. For example, once you have chosen to make a specifically cooperative game, that (objectively) cuts off certain avenues of game design that simply do not fit with that goal. Likewise, if you have chosen to make a game that is purely deterministic, it behooves you to avoid mechanics that are probabilistic, and possibly mechanics that are choice-driven. (E.g. chess is a competitive deterministic game which actively pursues the maximum symmetry available, while StarCraft II is a competitive deterministic game with optional cooperative elements which actively pursues high asymmetry.)

We have our given requirements: fans of the Sorcerer want some effort to address the extreme and often frustrating limitations of the class; Wizard fans want to know that their class fantasy matters. Hence my earlier suggestion, for example, to throw Wizards the option of actual spell research, so that they too gain a little versatility (permanent, notably)--something that would specifically EMPOWER the Wizard's class fantasy, in a way that the currently-existing rules pretty much objectively fail to do. (Nothing about the Wizard class actually reflects research; Wizards in practice are a mix of "virtuoso novelist belting out a new work every now and then" and "medieval scribe copying the works of the great masters.")

Whether a rule fits these requirements determines whether it is a good rule or a bad one. It is "subjective," in the sense that we have taste-based requirements (Sorcerer fans want to overcome annoying boundaries, Wizard fans don't want to feel marginalized). But it is "objective" in the sense that with those requirements already given, we can draw conclusions and attempt to refine a solution that does, in fact, meet the requirements. And that's where a useful discussion can actually happen. Hence, focusing on these rather abstract notions or things that will always land in exactly the same way as the good/bad discussion is kinda pointless, distracting from the productive discussion we could be having.

Now, obviously, if there are people involved in the discussion who cannot accept anything but a hard yes or a hard no, then the discussion IS pointless in its entirety--including the "well we don't want bad rules in official text" parts. Just as democracy is predicated on the notion that it is possible for any given candidate to lose, productive discussion is predicated on the notion that it is possible for any given side to change its stance on relevant issues.

Edit:

The guy that knows 6000 spells is way more versatile and hard to catch unprepared tjan the guy that knows only 6. It is quite obvious. The power of the sorcerer resides on how he an manipulate arcane spells. Not on how many he knows.

Okay, but the problem is, metamagic doesn't actually manipulate magic very much. It can get you two targets (Twinned) a few times, or let you cast minor magic at the same time as basic magic (Quickened), or let you cast imperceptibly (Subtle), or let you do a little more damage (Empowered), etc....but it doesn't actually change what the spells themselves do.

How can we truly say that the Sorcerer's power lies in "manipulating" her arcane spells, when all she can really do is slightly tweak their expression? The single greatest deviation a Sorcerer can make is changing damage type, and that's new to Tasha's. They can't even change the type of save a spell requires or (with the very high-limitation exception of Twinned) the number of targets it hits. Hell, Wizards are in some ways better at manipulating how spells actually WORK than Sorcerers are: Evocation lets you shape spells, Illusion can make your spells actually real for a little while, Divination recycles spell energy, Conjuration adds temporary hit points to your summons, etc. Sure, these are all relatively fixed bonuses and they go by subclass, but it's pretty clear that Wizards having significant ability to manipulate the nature of their spells is commonplace. Why is it cool for the Wizard to step on the Sorcerer's toes, but not okay for the Sorcerer to step on the Wizard's toes? Why does the Wizard get so much protection of its niche?

 

[Helldritch]

How can we truly say that the Sorcerer's power lies in "manipulating" her arcane spells, when all she can really do is slightly tweak their expression? The single greatest deviation a Sorcerer can make is changing damage type, and that's new to Tasha's. They can't even change the type of save a spell requires or (with the very high-limitation exception of Twinned) the number of targets it hits. Hell, Wizards are in some ways better at manipulating how spells actually WORK than Sorcerers are: Evocation lets you shape spells, Illusion can make your spells actually real for a little while, Divination recycles spell energy, Conjuration adds temporary hit points to your summons, etc. Sure, these are all relatively fixed bonuses and they go by subclass, but it's pretty clear that Wizards having significant ability to manipulate the nature of their spells is commonplace. Why is it cool for the Wizard to step on the Sorcerer's toes, but not okay for the Sorcerer to step on the Wizard's toes? Why does the Wizard get so much protection of its niche?

The power to manipulate any spell is there. A wizard subclass is limited to its school (when they have a school specialization that is). Not so with the sorcerer. The sorcerer can manipulate any spells. As such, the wizard is not stepping on the sorcerer's toes. Far from that.

But take this into account
Did a few metamagic were left out of the PHB? Of course! And that is a shame. I did not need Tasha to allow damage type manipulation for the sorcerer (limited to draconic but hey...). The fact that they put it back in the sorcerer's hands is telling enough of their mistakes. Just as the sorcerer feat were added. These should've been in the PHB from the begining. They are just giving us what should have been given 5-6 years ago. This, plus the spell versatility rule would have been even more of a killer for the wizard.

 

[Maxperson]

But it often does.
A creature is immune to fire? No problem with the versatility rule, a small nap, and fire ball is replaced by lightning bolt or whatever. The wizard is not garantied this as spell known are not a sure thing. And spell versatility is supposed to be the wizard's advantage over sorcerers. When everything in your spell list is only a nap away, this is quite powerful.

Most Sorcerers that I've seen have multiple energy types among their damage spells such that they are never unable to hurt creatures effectively.

The Wizard's versatility comes into play with utility spells that the Sorcerer can't afford. That allows the Wizard to more easily get around a larger variety of circumstances, but doesn't equate to power. It equates to versatility which is a different beast.

Wizard's versatility is counter balanced by the possible spells in his spellbook. The sorcerer is supposed to be limited by spell known but with the rule it is no longer the case. That is why it was removed.

Again with assuming why the spell wasn't put into the book. There are several possible reasons other than "Ability bad!" for it not to have made it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Again with assuming why the spell wasn't put into the book. There are several possible reasons other than "Ability bad!" for it not to have made it.

But there is only one probable reason for why it was going to be included and then got dropped at the last minute.

 

[FrogReaver]

I have stepped away from the thread for a bit, so this may be a little outdated now.


If it is not possible to discuss good and bad design, playtesting is completely worthless as a tool for anything but advertisement. Since I think both of us agree that playtesting is useful for something more than just advertisement, it is possible to discuss design quality--it just requires certain givens, first.

There is more to this conversation than the four points you offered, and more to be said than simply stating those things and being done with it. Finding common ground and addressing distinct but not-incompatible concerns is where the vast majority of fruitful discussion happens. (For example, your points 1a and 1b? Not actually contradictory. It is completely possible that a solution exists which still addresses 1a while avoiding 1b.)


It's not a matter of rehashing--that, again, implies that there is nothing new to be said, nothing which could change, and that's simply false. It's a matter of exploring variations, finding what people's hard lines are, seeing what is compatible.


Isn't there some excluded middle here? Context dependency matters. As I've said elsewhere on these boards, it is true that there is no such thing as an objective universal in game design: game design requires too much freedom for me to even speculate as to what form a real "universal truth of game design." However, this does not mean that there cannot be objective conditional truths in game design. For example, once you have chosen to make a specifically cooperative game, that (objectively) cuts off certain avenues of game design that simply do not fit with that goal. Likewise, if you have chosen to make a game that is purely deterministic, it behooves you to avoid mechanics that are probabilistic, and possibly mechanics that are choice-driven. (E.g. chess is a competitive deterministic game which actively pursues the maximum symmetry available, while StarCraft II is a competitive deterministic game with optional cooperative elements which actively pursues high asymmetry.)

We have our given requirements: fans of the Sorcerer want some effort to address the extreme and often frustrating limitations of the class; Wizard fans want to know that their class fantasy matters. Hence my earlier suggestion, for example, to throw Wizards the option of actual spell research, so that they too gain a little versatility (permanent, notably)--something that would specifically EMPOWER the Wizard's class fantasy, in a way that the currently-existing rules pretty much objectively fail to do. (Nothing about the Wizard class actually reflects research; Wizards in practice are a mix of "virtuoso novelist belting out a new work every now and then" and "medieval scribe copying the works of the great masters.")

Whether a rule fits these requirements determines whether it is a good rule or a bad one. It is "subjective," in the sense that we have taste-based requirements (Sorcerer fans want to overcome annoying boundaries, Wizard fans don't want to feel marginalized). But it is "objective" in the sense that with those requirements already given, we can draw conclusions and attempt to refine a solution that does, in fact, meet the requirements. And that's where a useful discussion can actually happen. Hence, focusing on these rather abstract notions or things that will always land in exactly the same way as the good/bad discussion is kinda pointless, distracting from the productive discussion we could be having.

Now, obviously, if there are people involved in the discussion who cannot accept anything but a hard yes or a hard no, then the discussion IS pointless in its entirety--including the "well we don't want bad rules in official text" parts. Just as democracy is predicated on the notion that it is possible for any given candidate to lose, productive discussion is predicated on the notion that it is possible for any given side to change its stance on relevant issues.

Edit:

Okay, but the problem is, metamagic doesn't actually manipulate magic very much. It can get you two targets (Twinned) a few times, or let you cast minor magic at the same time as basic magic (Quickened), or let you cast imperceptibly (Subtle), or let you do a little more damage (Empowered), etc....but it doesn't actually change what the spells themselves do.

How can we truly say that the Sorcerer's power lies in "manipulating" her arcane spells, when all she can really do is slightly tweak their expression? The single greatest deviation a Sorcerer can make is changing damage type, and that's new to Tasha's. They can't even change the type of save a spell requires or (with the very high-limitation exception of Twinned) the number of targets it hits. Hell, Wizards are in some ways better at manipulating how spells actually WORK than Sorcerers are: Evocation lets you shape spells, Illusion can make your spells actually real for a little while, Divination recycles spell energy, Conjuration adds temporary hit points to your summons, etc. Sure, these are all relatively fixed bonuses and they go by subclass, but it's pretty clear that Wizards having significant ability to manipulate the nature of their spells is commonplace. Why is it cool for the Wizard to step on the Sorcerer's toes, but not okay for the Sorcerer to step on the Wizard's toes? Why does the Wizard get so much protection of its niche?

So some productive discussion. If you want to improve the sorcerer experience. Expand metamagic on the sorcerer. Give more metamagic options, more metamagics known and perhaps a free use of each metamagic.