Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Asisreo" data-source="post: 8132043" data-attributes="member: 7019027">I'm actually in favor of some form of spell versatility as an optional rule, although maybe not as it was presented in the UA. The issue seems to be about keeping it optional for the DM. Most things are optional, but there is a pressure to the DM to allow optional things, especially if the player believes the optional rule was meant to be a buff in disguise. I think it depends on presentation. If they put it in Tasha's book, it would be seen as just as optional as the additional feats and metamagic, which are probably going to not be banned in most campaigns. In fact, feats and multiclassing are optional yet there seems to be a pressure for DM's to allow them in a forum type of space. Optional rules in the DMG aren't treated as a requirement. Even popular ones like Gritty Realism aren't made as assumptions in forums. And other optional rules like Hero Points, spell points, Plot Points, and Flanking are almost never assumed. Heck, even rules that are not optional but circumstantial like chases, madness, and diseases are rarely used. I think it has to do with putting these options in books that players are expected to read. Rather than putting this variant in a Xanathar-like book where everyone would implement everything in their build, maybe putting it in a setting book or the Xanathar's equivalent to the PHB (no player options) would have it feel like its truly optional. The problem is definitely getting such a book to sell well, though.</blockquote>

Verification