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

[FrogReaver]

If it were to happen, it would have happened by now. That is the perfect solution, not the solution we can actually have. The ship sailed the moment they published SCAG without the bonus spells. No way they are going to admit fault or going back on what is already published. I've lost all faith on them even acknowledging there is a problem with sorcerers.

I don't like bonus spells based on sorcerer subclass because there are already too many subclasses that don't have them. Would have been a good initial design though.

Fixing the problem after material is published requires a bit more finesse.

 

[Helldritch]

No. It doesn't. The wizard is far more than just "More spell variety than Sorcerer." At worst is steps on the Wizard's toes a little bit. That's it.

It was making the wizard obselete. At 1st level the wizard has what, 6 spells? Compare that to 20... or 40 if divine soul sorcer.

One person? Sure. Hundreds? Nope. There were multiple designers and many playtersters, as well as everyone who say the UA. All before the marketing.

Yep. It happens very often. Especially when you try to correct one mistake/situation. You focus so much on one aspect that you ignore the others. That is why an "outside the box" approach works. Sometimes, not trying to solve a problem allows you to see what hundred if not thousands will not see.

I'm more likely to win the Powerball tonight than it is for all of those people to fail to see the rule for what it was, only to have a bunch of different people complain after marketing began.

I wish you luck with the Powerball.

See, that kind of metagame rule would bug the crap out of me. I'd rather see a set 1x week or 1x month. Something that makes sense from an in game perspective.

Never said my rule would work at every table. It works at mine. But anything is almost better than a single night sleep. A week, a month a year, It does not matter. What matter is that it will take longer than 15 days to change a full spell list.

Those are good ideas, too.

Thank, you. It took me a long time to test and implement them. We worked hard to get more sorcerers. So far, we've worked in small increment to be sure that nothing added would be OP and would not intrude on niche or whatever.

 

[cbwjm]

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.

I think at that point they'll just condense the wizard, sorcerer, and maybe warlock into a single class and use options at level one to customise the character.

 

[Helldritch]

For everything bolded and underlined, do you have proof?

The book itself.
Good rule =======> get in the book.
Bad rule ========> Not in the book.
Flagship rule =====> Not in the book. So =====> bad rule.
If you don't want understand that... The only fact are the above.

And good or bad is not based on preferences of this or that person. It is based on game balance. Some of the rules of TCoE are not to my liking but I must admit that they are not disruptive. Distasteful, yes. But not disruptive at any table. But very very distasteful to me.

so, you have the complete wrong idea about me, which proves you just throwing around assumptions isn't doing you any good.

Do not assume what I think of you from what I think of your arguements. This is not related to the discussion.

 

[Helldritch]

I think at that point they'll just condense the wizard, sorcerer, and maybe warlock into a single class and use options at level one to customise the character.

I surely hope not. Sorcerer are mechanically different from wizards and I want them this way. But I would like the mistakes of 5ed sorcerer to be remembered and corrected.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because logic chains.

A -> B -> C

If a rule that is incomplete is now labeled a bad rule, and bad rules should never be published, then the system being worked on that is incomplete should never be published.

But that isn't how we view them. If someone said "I've started work on this class, but I've only got 5 levels of it so far" it is not a legitimate response to say "Well, levels 6 through 20 don't exist, so this is a bad class"

Being incomplete =/= "bad" it simply means incomplete.

It is one rule. The rule as presented in UA was bad, and as such should not be published. It is in theory possible that in future they could come up with something a bit similar, but more restrained. If they do, we can evaluate it then.

But there is an aspect you are missing here.

Skills are yes/no. Everyone can do them. My barbarian can use persuasion, my cleric can steal with sleight of hand, my wizard can roll athletics. The number of proficiencies just tells me who is more likely to have a higher mod.

On the other hand, there are other balancing factors for spells, like the number of spells per day.

Every single first level spell caster (except warlock) gets two fist level spell slots. In fact, if you examine the chart for Clerics, Druids, Bards, Wizards and Sorcerers you will find that their spell progression and the number of spell slots they get is identical across all the classes.

All five classes get 3rd level spells at 5th level, and they get two 3rd level spell slots.


That is the balance point. Wizards have 397,106,410,874,542,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible spell combinations (ignoring cantrips and only counting the PHB), compared to the Bard only having 3,595,067,609,875,170,000,000. But both of them have an identical number of spell slots to utilize.

The designers didn't test every combination. What they did was decide that 3rd level spells should have X impact on the situation, then tried to balance it so all 3rd level spells were about equal, then limited the number of 3rd level spells that could be cast per day.

Yes, wizards have more options as to what that 3rd level slot might be, but the major balancing point is that they can only have so many of those spells, not how many options they have to place in those slots.

This is obviously wrong. Wizards are more powerful casters than bards due their better spell selection and ability to swap spells and this is balanced by bards getting shitton of more stuff than wizards on top of their spellcasting. Furthermore lore bard gains access to more spells as their sixth level feature. Other colleges get something else at this level, such as the extra attack of the valour bard. Access to extra spells is obviously considered a beneficial feature that uses up part of the subclass 'budget'. Land druids have a similar deal. I literally cannot believe that I need to explain this to you.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think at that point they'll just condense the wizard, sorcerer, and maybe warlock into a single class and use options at level one to customise the character.

Let's hope so!

 

[MoonSong]

I think at that point they'll just condense the wizard, sorcerer, and maybe warlock into a single class and use options at level one to customise the character.

Which is code for "I wish sorcerers and warlocks went away..."

 

[Asisreo]

I'm interested where some people find the authority to claim that there is no improvements needed to another person's favorite class, which they feel is weak, based on their own subjective opinion.

There are many people who feel sorcerers need a boost, and have been asking WoTC for that boost. Only to be confronted time and time again by people coming it to tell them that they are wrong, the class isn't weak, they are just not playing it well enough.

Neither of us have the authority to say any option is strong or weak. The people who actually have that authority are the people in WoTC that have been trained and paid to determine this.

"Many" is a bold claim and is subjective in itself. 10% of all players may seem like many to you, but may not seem like many at all to others.

If WoTC listened to any Tom, Dick, and Harry that said an option was bad, Rangers could instakill at level 1, Fireball would be a cantrip, and Fighters would have at-will Wish.

I think at that point they'll just condense the wizard, sorcerer, and maybe warlock into a single class and use options at level one to customise the character.

Hopefully not, otherwise their headquarters will exceed the Dead Sea's salt concentration.

 

[Maxperson]

I'd say this is false, because the sheer constraint of the sorcerer makes it far less friendly to even small missteps in spell choice. You really need to have a high degree of system mastery to even attempt playing a sorcerer most of the time.

I'm talking about primarily about the decisions to be made. The Sorcerer involves far fewer decisions when it comes to spellcasting than other classes, except the Warlock who I barely consider to be a casting class, and a lot of people don't want to think a whole lot when they play.

I also think that 5e is more forgiving of bad choices due to the ease of play, combined with the ability to change spells when you level. When you get to swap out any mistake you make as soon as you level again, the amount of system mastery needed isn't that great.