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

[SkidAce]

Now we're talking.

Personally, I think the feature that Aberrant Mind/Clockwork Soul has is perfect. You get new spells, and can replace those spells with certain schools of magic. Now THAT'S thematic.

Make Wild Soul Transformation and Conjuration for its replacements.

Make Draconic Evocation and Abjuration.

Make Shadow Necromancy and Illusion.

Make Storm Soul Evocation and Conjuration.

EASY.

That not being a variant feature for Sorcerers is just a real shame.

Funny anecdote;

The first 5E (about a month after rules published) sorcerer our group played was a divine* sorcerer with heritage from Corelleon.

We glanced at the rules and said "one or two extra spells known per spell level, must be divine, lets see how that works."

Worked fine.




* I have mentioned this elsewhere, we call sorcerers "adepts". Sorcerers in my campaign since 1E have been fiendish conjurationist of dubious/evil nature. Yes, this causes headaches when new people join up.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not weighing in on either side, however this made me think. This is probably a big part of everyone's disagreements.

"Our" sorcerers are almost always strongly themed. (Not optimum, we know).

Max's are not.

So naturally different views would be had on how helpful various changes (new damage changing meta, spell versatility, etc) are to the class and the game.


Just my thoughts...

I've actually seen more themes Wizards than Sorcerers, since Wizards learn spells and Sorcerers come to their spells intuitively. Wizards have more choice and number of spells to learn, so from an in game stand point, they can theme their spells fairly easily. Sorcerers have spells come to them intuitively, so have less conscious choice in game. The ability to swap out spells seems to me to be a player decision more than a PC decision and in game would represent a shift in the Sorcerer's intuitive grasp of magic.

I personally have played very few Sorcerers, but I've seen a fair number from my players. They typically choose a few attack spells and vary the energy types, and then a few of more universally useful utility spells, like Fly, Teleport and Knock.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's simply not true. I already provided two others.

Possible does not equal probable.

 

[Maxperson]

Possible does not equal probable.

It's equally probable from this side of things for 1) bad rule, 2) lack of space due to arbitrary limits and 3) waiting for next more appropriate book to be true.

Unless you work for WoTC and know the truth, you have no basis to properly judge which of those is more probable.

 

[MoonSong]

I believe that the sorcerer spell selection sucks. I just really, really don't believe that spell versatility was a good fix to that, as it makes them more similar to wizards and they already are too similar. I would give all sorcerers sorcerous origin specific bonus spells that do not count against their known spells. This would reinforce the themes of the sorcerous origins, and increase the total known spells to boost versatility. Now one can debate exactly how many these bonus spells they should get, but I think the basic premise is solid.

Progress. In fact this is my favored approach. However, it's been years and that has failed to materialize, and for the longest time designers have refused to acknowledge this gap on any way or form. In my eyes SV was the last chance to have something, anything to help. Not my first choice, and not something I would really ask for on my own, but I was watching this from a "beggars can't be choosers" perspective.

This was the last chance to have this addressed at all. I have lost all hope the designers will ever address this again. Or at least not in the foreseable future. And should they address it again, wizard players complaining will shut it down, yet again.

Edit, it doesn't help that this whole fiasco only proved that one more thing I thought sorcerers could do was in fact not something they could do. I thought that the retraining each level extended to cantrips. Turns out that with Tasha's we get the confirmation that not, it wasn't something sorcerers could do. Even worse, now that they let us do it, it is severely curtailed to once every four levels instead of once per level.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's equally probable from this side of things for 1) bad rule, 2) lack of space due to arbitrary limits and 3) waiting for next more appropriate book to be true.

Unless you work for WoTC and know the truth, you have no basis to properly judge which of those is more probable.

That sequence of events ignores the fact that it was being used in marketing for this book. It's simply not probable that they were using a rule in marketing for Tasha's and then decided to put that rule in another book. Possible yes, but not probable.

 

[Maxperson]

That sequence of events ignores the fact that it was being used in marketing for this book. It's simply not probable that they were using a rule in marketing for Tasha's and then decided to put that rule in another book. Possible yes, but not probable.

It's more probable for it to be the case than after months and months of playtesting, examination and then marketing, the suddenly realized that it was a bad rule. Or at the very least equally probable.

Your assumption that it was due to being a bad rule also includes the assumption that all of the designers were too stupid to realize until just before printing that it was bad. They'd have to be dumb to go through all of that testing, examination and marketing and not come to that conclusion well before the rule's removal.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's more probable for it to be the case than after months and months of playtesting, examination and then marketing, the suddenly realized that it was a bad rule. Or at the very least equally probable.

Your assumption that it was due to being a bad rule also includes the assumption that all of the designers were too stupid to realize until just before printing that it was bad. They'd have to be dumb to go through all of that testing, examination and marketing and not come to that conclusion well before the rule's removal.

My position doesn't require stupidity on the designers part.

 

[Asisreo]

I actually think Spell Versatility will be added in 6e. The pacing of D&D has seemed to deviate quite far from the expected one. They'll probably add more options with more frequent switching next edition.

 

[Maxperson]

My position doesn't require stupidity on the designers part.

It does if it involves them stopping the rule's inclusion due to being a bad rule. You'd have to be pretty dumb to go through months of design and examination, more months of playtesting and feedback, and then start marketing it without realizing it was a bad rule.