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

[Maxperson]

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.

It wasn't even close to making the Wizard obsolete. Again, the Wizard is far more than just the ability to change spells daily, and still has more spell variety on hand than any Sorcerer with this ability. All it does is step on the Wizard's toes a bit.

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.

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

I wish you luck with the Powerball.

Thanks!

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.

I know. I was just making conversation, not telling you your rule is bad. Your rule is as good or bad as the one we are discussing, as in it's a purely subjective rule that is good for those who like it and bad for those that don't.

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.

You're welcome!

 

[Maxperson]

It is one rule. The rule as presented in UA was bad, and as such should not be published.

Since you keep making this claim, I'm sure you can come up with some objective proof to back it up. I'd like to see it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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 no evidence. "It isn't in the book so it must have been bad"

Zariel's Sword wasn't put in this book. Must have been a bad item. Ring of Winter wasn't put in here, must have been a bad item as well.

Shifters and Changelings weren't reprinted. Must have terribly designed races. Same with the Loxodon and the minotaur.

After all, we have spells and options from other books, even specifically from Eberron and Ravnica in this book, but those options weren't inlcuded so they must have been bad rules.

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

Actually, I was referring to one of the things you said about me in your post. Your assumptions seem to be buried so deep that you might not even realize it, but I found it quite amusing.

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

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.

So, no proof, just your personal opinion on the rule. Nothing else.

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.

And so when the wizard got more spells in Xanathar's and Tasha's the bard got things to compensate for the wizards increased power?

And, the Lore Bard didn't get other features, like cutting words, which might act as part of their power budget? It is only about the wizard having a bigger spell list?


I don't know why I'm bothering to ask, you are never going to change your position on this. I've provided all the evidence I feel like putting into this.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, no proof, just your personal opinion on the rule. Nothing else.

Yes, it is my personal opinion that it is bad rule. And the designers seem to have agreed with me as they nixed it.

And so when the wizard got more spells in Xanathar's and Tasha's the bard got things to compensate for the wizards increased power?

Yes, they got more spells too, keeping the proportional amount of spells they have roughly the same than it was before.

And, the Lore Bard didn't get other features, like cutting words, which might act as part of their power budget? It is only about the wizard having a bigger spell list?

They obviously get other features. Cutting word is their third level feature, similar to valour bard combat inspiration. These things are already balanced against each other, just like additional magical secrets is balanced against the extra attack of the valour bard.

I don't know why I'm bothering to ask, you are never going to change your position on this.

Well obviously not. Even on the internet scale your claim is pretty impressively ludicrous. You're literally arguing that it wouldn't affect the power of a class whether they had access to ten spells or every spell in the game. Perhaps you should contemplate which us us is really the one who is stubbornly refusing to admit that they might be wrong?

I've provided all the evidence I feel like putting into this.

Excellent.

 

[MoonSong]

Hey, @Crimson Longinus, @Chaosmancer , @AcererakTriple6 , @Maxperson,,@Helldritch, @Asisreo

I think we've reached the point were we are only arguing in circles. We have no objective evidence to take the reason why this rule was taken out of the book at the last minute. We only know a couple of facts and the rest is all pure speculation. Nothing sort of Crawford himself coming and explaining how and why they removed it will prove anybody right. Perhaps it is time to let this dead horse to rest?

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, it is my personal opinion that it is bad rule. And the designers seem to have agreed with me as they nixed it.

That's where you keep going astray. There's nothing that says that it was nixed due to being a bad rule. This is purely your assumption based on nothing substantial. It's just as likely that it was nixed due to arbitrary space limitations or to be put into another book.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's where you keep going astray. There's nothing that says that it was nixed due to being a bad rule. This is purely your assumption based on nothing substantial. It's just as likely that it was nixed due to arbitrary space limitations or to be put into another book.

Keep waiting that another book then!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Hey, @Crimson Longinus, @Chaosmancer , @AcererakTriple6 , @Maxperson,,@Helldritch, @Asisreo

I think we've reached the point were we are only arguing in circles. We have no objective evidence to take the reason why this rule was taken out of the book at the last minute. We only know a couple of facts and the rest is all pure speculation. Nothing sort of Crawford himself coming and explaining how and why they removed it will prove anybody right. Perhaps it is time to let this dead horse to rest?

You are right. I have expressed what I believe to be far the likeliest reason for the rule not appearing, but ultimately it of course is still conjecture.

As for the state of sorcerers, I truly hope that this fix not happening will mean that they get some better fix in the future. The newer sorcerer subclasses seem to be far better designed, and it would only be fair to at least bump the old ones to the same level.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

As for the state of sorcerers, I truly hope that this fix not happening will mean that they get some better fix in the future. The newer sorcerer subclasses seem to be far better designed, and it would only be fair to at least bump the old ones to the same level.

Yeah, they need help. All subclasses need added spell lists, similar to the ones that the current ones have access to.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

those poor taste disabled peoples

Not only is this offending people who disagree with you, but it is also ableist. Please remove that.