5E UA Spell Versatility: A deeper dive

Sword of Spirit

Adventurer
My examples were intended to be evocative, not representative. The point was, "does this situation feel off to you?" For some people, the answer is "no".

Since I think there might still be something useful I can add, I'll try a brief (for me) different approach that might "click" better for some.

Premise A: The way the campaign world functions is important--not just what works within a party or for your game. Various capabilities should be evaluated based on how they would affect the setting at large, not just how they affect your PCs or your friends sitting around the table or VTT.
If you do not share this premise because, for instance, the only people in the world who would have a feature like Spell Versatility are PCs, or because you focus only on the dynamics of the party, my argument might not have any relevance to you.
The next premise is even more directly relevant, but I put this one first because it has broad playstyle implications.(1)
Premise B: An important part of a wizard's identity is that in the specific situation when a party needs specific arcane spell (or spell function) X, the wizard is the person who is by far best equipped to access or acquire that spell.
If this specific functionality doesn't strike you as an essential and important part of the wizard, then my argument probably won't be very persuasive, because it relies on this premise. (I'd encourage personal evaluation of whether or not you share this premise and why.)
Premise C: Long rests are substantially easier to obtain between leveling than are specific additional spells for your spellbook.
I think it would be a rather unusual game where this were not true, regardless of how long it takes to level in your game.

Data Point 1: After a long rest, a wizard can access any spell from a list(3) the size of which = Level x 2 +4. (2)
Data Point 2: After a long rest, a sorcerer(4) can access any spell from a list the size of which = The sorcerer class spell list. It is worth noting that every new sorcerer spell published adds to the size of this list.

Observation A: The sorcerer class spell list is substantially larger than the wizard's spellbook, so the sorcerer can access any spell from a substantially larger list.
Here's a comparison table with a few representative levels. Cantrips are left out.

Sorcerer Spells Available versus Wizard Spells Available
Character LevelSorcererWizard (Minimum)Wizard (Generous)
1 25 6 6
3 59 10 14
5 87 14 22
10 120 24 42
15 153 34 62
20 159 44 82

As can be seen, with the minimum spellbook, the sorcerer has access to anywhere from approximately 3 1/2x to 6x as many spells. With a more generous spellbook those numbers are just under 2x to approximately 4x. (The lower multiples apply only after 17th level, when the sorcerer gains no new access to spells but the wizard continues to gain access to more.)

Observation B: The observation above invalidates the wizard's identity as defined in Premise B, because the sorcerer actually replaces the wizard's role as being the one by far best equipped to access or acquire a particular spell.

If you agree with the premises, I think you should see how everything else follows. Even if you differ on the premises, you should be able to see why this really is a big problem if those premises are accepted.

What I'm wanting is for WotC to come up with a flexibility increase for spontaneous casters that doesn't invalidate Premise B.


(1) It's worth noting, for those interested, that it can be relatively easy to create rules broad enough to encompass these sorts of different playstyles, by making the rules meet the most demanding requirements. Rarely will a rule that works for the most demanding requirements fail to work for the less demanding requirements, and rarely are the requirements mutually exclusive. In other words, design a feature for those who care most about it, and it will likely work for everyone. Design a feature for those who are more casual about it, and will likely not work for those who care most.
(2) Hopefully you get more (and you will if I'm your DM), but you aren't guaranteed more. If you want to include fairly generous additional spells, make it Level x 4 +2.
(3) Their spellbook.
(4) With the proposed Spell Versatility feature.


A few thoughts I felt like responding to.

I've discussed sorcerers with @Sword of Spirit in other threads and want to be careful not to put words in anyone's mouth, so correct me if I'm wrong on this: Sword of Spirit sees a need for improvement to the restrictive nature of the sorcerer's spells known. Sword of Spirit does not like this particular implementation.
Yes, that is accurate.

Wizard Spell Rigging: At the end of s long rest, the wizard can pick one spell from their class list of a level they have slots for and prepare it. It counts as normal against the number of prepared. That spell remains " prepared" until their next long rest. Rigged spells cannot be added to the spell book.

Now, the wizard adds that " one spell pick daily" and with their bigger spell list even.

If we do that are we good to go?

Personally, I think it's not a bad idea, since unlike clerics and druids, the availability of spellbooks extras is campaign specific. Also, I think its relatively small potatoes compared to swapping around lots at once.
Yes, that would in fact preserve the wizard's identity and eliminate that particular problem. In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking of anything less than that sort of thing that would actually preserve the wizard's identity with spontaneous casters getting Spell Versatility.

However, I think it is too good. Giving wizards the ability to access any spell on their list makes spell choices trivial for anything that can wait until tomorrow. And that's actually a big problem with Spell Versatility too, but the one that bothers me more is the wizard identity issue, which is why I've focused the most on it.
 

tetrasodium

Explorer
Seems like it has a bearing on the how classes relate. In 3e Sorcerers got more slots than wizards and cast spontaneously, while wizards prepped. Wizards were Tier 1, Sorcerers Tier 2. Come 5e, wizards get to cast spontaneous and prep and get at-will cantrips.

It's the wizard-appreciation edition.

That's not a comparison, that's a tautology.

I'm not convinced that's a good sign. If there's a spell that players never take as a known spell, it's probably because there are other, imbalanced spells crowding it out. Letting them take a marginal/weak/situational spell while minimizing the drawback of not knowing a must-have spell isn't beefing up the lesser spell, it's just giving the caster greater versatility - a straight power-up. Balancing spells better would see all spells chosen as known spells at least some of the time, with character concept & campaign direction being the main forces behind those choices.
You seem to have focused entirely on what the wizard gained and forgotten a few even more important changes from 3.5... That or you realized that they weaken your argument & deliberately left them out, Sorcerer gains a number of things, charisma is a more useful stat. wizard bonus feats are gone, wizards lost their bonus feats, wizards lost the ability to craft magic items, wizards lost the ability to scribe scolls, wizards lost metamagic that sorcerers gained, ASF was removed from the game, so on & so forth...
 
You seem to have focused entirely on what the wizard gained and forgotten a few even more important changes
They're really not that important. Crafting is gone across the board, sure, the relationship between players & magic items in 5e returns to what it was back in the day, you can argue that hits wizards a little harder since they got a few "small" bonus feats they could put to crafting, but, really, the loss of make/buy hurt non-casters more than casters. That's a change in the game, overall. BA meant that buff-layering had to go, so everyone copes with Concentration. Likewise. Metamagic as such is given to the Sorcerer, but up-casting is, itself, a form of metamagic, and, relative to 3e everyone essentially gets Empower Spell for free. There's an MC build that exploits specific metamagic, too, but there's always some exploit somewhere.

wizard bonus feats are gone, wizards lost their bonus feats, wizards lost the ability to craft magic items, wizards lost the ability to scribe scolls, wizards lost metamagic that sorcerers gained...
I think it's amusing that you listed the loss of bonus feats - used for crafting & metamagic - 5 times, when, it's barely even one thing.


Giving wizards the ability to access any spell on their list makes spell choices trivial for anything that can wait until tomorrow. And that's actually a big problem with Spell Versatility too, but the one that bothers me more is the wizard identity issue, which is why I've focused the most on it.
Why is this being painted as a thorny wizard/sorcerer issue, when Clerics & Druids (and Paladin) already prep from their complete lists? (Yeah, that's rhetorical.)

It's because the wizard's spellbook is just an intermediary between his spell list and his prepped list. The wizard does have access to his full spell list - and it's the most expansive, varied, and impactful of spell lists - at level-up and through scribing. The sub-set he has in his book represents the best spells from that list in a way smaller known spell lists can't approach. Thus the wizard's book compares favorably to the Cleric or Druids whole list, and puts known-spell casters to shame.

That's not to say Spell Versatility is a good idea, just that using it as an excuse to further power-up the wizard is the wrong reaction to a bad idea.
 
Last edited:

5ekyu

Adventurer
To me the "access one spell" is trivial and not a key feature of the wizard.

To me, every argument about how few spells the eizard will have to choose from runs counter to the emphasis that this "any 9ne dpell" is key and vital. If they only have access to an inadequate number of spells to meet the "any ine spell" sufficiently, then *how is it a key part of their identity?"

Does the wizard at spellbook of level x 2 +4 have enough spells to meet sufficiently often the " need one spell" so that we can count it as a part of their identity or not?

If that answer is "no" then it's not their identity.

If that answer is " yes" they still meet that as part of their identity and have easier time at it due to not being limited to same level than the spell versatility.

They also retain the imx much bigger feature of multi-swaps daily which still gives them a massive versstility edge over these buts in cases where it's not this cherry-construct "just need one
Spell".
 

tetrasodium

Explorer
Why is this being painted as a thorny wizard/sorcerer issue, when Clerics & Druids (and Paladin) already prep from their complete lists? (Yeah, that's rhetorical.)
I'd wager because of a few reasons
  • cleric & druid are getting the same on level cantrip versatility as wizards & already pick from class lists as divine casters
  • There isn't as much overlap between arcane & divine caster spell lists as between wizard/sorcerer. They also tend to have far less overlap of their party roles as wizard/sorcerer.
  • When people said words to the extent of "I don't mind sorcerer getting this, but it feels like it will be hurting wizard identity because so much of everything they can do is able to be effectively duplicated by so many others already, wizards should get some kind of meaty flavorful bone & cantrip versatility should also be on long rest instead of on level" people disingenuously tried to make bad faith arguments about wizard features in isolation in attempts to argue that wizards were too good to even discuss those concerns... In short... the answer to your question is because people came out saying "suck it gitgud" in response to concerns about how this would effect the wizard class identity & tried to leverage that to defend against arguments on spell versatility being too good that nobody was making.
 

Ashrym

Hero
As can be seen, with the minimum spellbook, the sorcerer has access to anywhere from approximately 3 1/2x to 6x as many spells. With a more generous spellbook those numbers are just under 2x to approximately 4x. (The lower multiples apply only after 17th level, when the sorcerer gains no new access to spells but the wizard continues to gain access to more.)
So a 20th level wizard is going to spend 6 months in a single dungeon swapping out spells because every one of those is going to have a specific need? ;)

I kid, of course. That was just hyperbole.

Having access to a spell doesn't mean having access to a better spell, a needed spell, a spell that isn't already available in the party, or an alternative solution. It's the context that goes with those numbers that falls short.

I'm not seeing substance to that particular issue. "I don't like the feel" is a stronger argument, imo.
 

NotAYakk

Adventurer
Anyhow, we can address the concerns.

Spell Versatility - Spontaneous
During a long rest, a Sorcerer/Bard/Warlock can replace a known spell up to level 5 with one of the same level from their list. They can do this for a total number of levels of spell equal to their proficiency bonus (this resets every time the character gains a level), and the effort required gives them a level of exhaustion for every level of the spell swapped.

Spell Research - Wizard
During a long rest, a Wizard can attempt to research a new spell up to level 5. They can do this for a total number of levels of spells equal to their proficiency bonus during a given level; excess spell levels carry over for exactly 1 level, after which they expire. If the wizard has access to a research lab or labratory, the wizard can do this by expending 100 gp per level of the spell learned in arcane supplies. Alternatively, the wizard can simply take a number of levels of exhaustion equal to the level of the spell being swapped.

Needs better wording.
 

Chaosmancer

Adventurer
My examples were intended to be evocative, not representative. The point was, "does this situation feel off to you?" For some people, the answer is "no".

Since I think there might still be something useful I can add, I'll try a brief (for me) different approach that might "click" better for some.

Premise A: The way the campaign world functions is important--not just what works within a party or for your game. Various capabilities should be evaluated based on how they would affect the setting at large, not just how they affect your PCs or your friends sitting around the table or VTT.
If you do not share this premise because, for instance, the only people in the world who would have a feature like Spell Versatility are PCs, or because you focus only on the dynamics of the party, my argument might not have any relevance to you.
The next premise is even more directly relevant, but I put this one first because it has broad playstyle implications.(1)
Premise B: An important part of a wizard's identity is that in the specific situation when a party needs specific arcane spell (or spell function) X, the wizard is the person who is by far best equipped to access or acquire that spell.
If this specific functionality doesn't strike you as an essential and important part of the wizard, then my argument probably won't be very persuasive, because it relies on this premise. (I'd encourage personal evaluation of whether or not you share this premise and why.)
Premise C: Long rests are substantially easier to obtain between leveling than are specific additional spells for your spellbook.
I think it would be a rather unusual game where this were not true, regardless of how long it takes to level in your game.

Data Point 1: After a long rest, a wizard can access any spell from a list(3) the size of which = Level x 2 +4. (2)
Data Point 2: After a long rest, a sorcerer(4) can access any spell from a list the size of which = The sorcerer class spell list. It is worth noting that every new sorcerer spell published adds to the size of this list.

Observation A: The sorcerer class spell list is substantially larger than the wizard's spellbook, so the sorcerer can access any spell from a substantially larger list.
Here's a comparison table with a few representative levels. Cantrips are left out.

Sorcerer Spells Available versus Wizard Spells Available
Character LevelSorcererWizard (Minimum)Wizard (Generous)
1 25 6 6
3 59 10 14
5 87 14 22
10 120 24 42
15 153 34 62
20 159 44 82
As can be seen, with the minimum spellbook, the sorcerer has access to anywhere from approximately 3 1/2x to 6x as many spells. With a more generous spellbook those numbers are just under 2x to approximately 4x. (The lower multiples apply only after 17th level, when the sorcerer gains no new access to spells but the wizard continues to gain access to more.)



Observation B: The observation above invalidates the wizard's identity as defined in Premise B, because the sorcerer actually replaces the wizard's role as being the one by far best equipped to access or acquire a particular spell.

If you agree with the premises, I think you should see how everything else follows. Even if you differ on the premises, you should be able to see why this really is a big problem if those premises are accepted.

What I'm wanting is for WotC to come up with a flexibility increase for spontaneous casters that doesn't invalidate Premise B.


(1) It's worth noting, for those interested, that it can be relatively easy to create rules broad enough to encompass these sorts of different playstyles, by making the rules meet the most demanding requirements. Rarely will a rule that works for the most demanding requirements fail to work for the less demanding requirements, and rarely are the requirements mutually exclusive. In other words, design a feature for those who care most about it, and it will likely work for everyone. Design a feature for those who are more casual about it, and will likely not work for those who care most.
(2) Hopefully you get more (and you will if I'm your DM), but you aren't guaranteed more. If you want to include fairly generous additional spells, make it Level x 4 +2.
(3) Their spellbook.
(4) With the proposed Spell Versatility feature.


A few thoughts I felt like responding to.



Yes, that is accurate.



Yes, that would in fact preserve the wizard's identity and eliminate that particular problem. In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking of anything less than that sort of thing that would actually preserve the wizard's identity with spontaneous casters getting Spell Versatility.

However, I think it is too good. Giving wizards the ability to access any spell on their list makes spell choices trivial for anything that can wait until tomorrow. And that's actually a big problem with Spell Versatility too, but the one that bothers me more is the wizard identity issue, which is why I've focused the most on it.
Where you lost me in this is the chart, and I think it highlights a major part of this for me.

So, let us start basic. Level 1.

You have the sorcerer listed with 25 spells, and the wizard with 6. This makes some sense, there are about 25 sorcerer spells and the wizard starts out the game with 6 level 1 spells.

However, that is not the full story. Because while the Sorcerer can (under these rules) potentially know any 1 of these spells after a long rest, they can only access two spells at a time. They start the game knowing two spells, and so when adventuring, despite what they might do on a long rest, they have two spells. The wizard potentially has access to 5 spells during the adventuring day (level + Int mod and I usually see people get up to +4 Int in character creation)

So, from 25 spells the Sorcerer picked 2, and has the chance to change out any 1 of those spells for a different one over a long rest.

From 36 spells, the wizard picked 6, has access to between 4 and 5 of those per day, and can potentially gain even more.

The sorcerer may be able to swap with their entire list, but they only have access to 8% of their list at any given moment. Wizards start with access to 17% of their list from the get go, and they only increase.

So, when you end your list with the Sorcerer having "access" to 159 spells, they can only have 15 of those slotted in, and they swap them out one at a time, and only from small pools from the level. So, during any particular encounter, they have 9% of their list prepared.

Wizards, from 267 spells on your generous end have 82 spells in their spellbook, 31% of the entire list and they can choose any 25 of those, not counting rituals, or their spell mastery abilities that give them spells for free.

(Edit: I would use the lower side for the Wizard, but since I'm being as generous as possible with the Sorcerer, I don't see why I shouldn't be as generous as possible with the wizard)

And this is why I am less concerned about this. Yes, it sounds really impressive to say that an 20th level sorcerer will be able to pick from any of 159 spells, every day. But, the wizard has already taken the best 30% of 267 spells to have access to, and they can swap and choose 25 of them at a time.

The sheer scale of Wizards is nearly an order of magnitude over sorcerers. Being able to change 1 spell every night isn't really going to change that I don't think.
 
Why is this being painted as a thorny wizard/sorcerer issue, when Clerics & Druids (and Paladin) already prep from their complete lists? (Yeah, that's rhetorical.)
I'm not worried abou wizard identity, but I am worried about sorcerer identity. My idea of sorcerers is they are the X-men of fantasyland. Their spells are really superpowers. Make sorcerers function like wizards and I see no justification for the inclusion of the class at all. I would probably just rule: "sorcerer class does not exist in this setting".

As for bards, I don't care about them so much, they could swap their spells in 1st and 2nd edition. I do think the 5e bard is already overpowered and doesn't need any more help. I might be tempted to change their spell progression to 2/3 if they are going to be swapping spells.
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
I'm not worried abou wizard identity, but I am worried about sorcerer identity. My idea of sorcerers is they are the X-men of fantasyland. Their spells are really superpowers. Make sorcerers function like wizards and I see no justification for the inclusion of the class at all. I would probably just rule: "sorcerer class does not exist in this setting".

As for bards, I don't care about them so much, they could swap their spells in 1st and 2nd edition. I do think the 5e bard is already overpowered and doesn't need any more help. I might be tempted to change their spell progression to 2/3 if they are going to be swapping spells.
Uhhh.., ok, so, superheroes draggin out some new twist for a one-off puzzle solution is as super-trope as you can get, especially if it follows an initial try and fail.

All that's missing is then forgetting about it in future issues like shuttle craft in a transporter botch trek episode.

Maybe those unhappy with SV would like a lock-out. You can only use SV on any given spell once ever, or once between levels. Turn it into a "burning bridges" option for their games.

To me, sorcerer vs wizard (known vs prep) identity was cut away when the preppers got unassigned slots. You went from slots and spells being mix-and-match on the fly for one set of casters while another had more spells to pick but assigned them to slots at start of day. Did not see wizards lining up to complain when their casting went mostly spontaneous about losing their identity.
 
To me, sorcerer vs wizard (known vs prep) identity was cut away when the preppers got unassigned slots.
I don't disagree with that. Sorcerers where never very different from wizards - the "small number of unchangeable spells" is the only unique feature they have left. So delete sorcerers would achieve the same result whilst also removing an unnecessary class from the rules.
 

Undrave

Adventurer
If a Wizard's identity rests entirely on the shoulders of a SINGULAR sacred cow mechanic instead of in its theming then... it's not much of an identity, is it?
 

tetrasodium

Explorer
I don't disagree with that. Sorcerers where never very different from wizards - the "small number of unchangeable spells" is the only unique feature they have left. So delete sorcerers would achieve the same result whilst also removing an unnecessary class from the rules.
:LOL::ROFLMAO:
Sorcerers have always been a "crappy wizard" or magewright who ALSO has something else, but sorcerers should be reveling in that something else rather that trying to copy the wizard... if they are going to be copying the wizard as effectively as spell versatility lets them copy and still keep their something else, the wizard class needs to have something meaningful they can call their own that still lets them say "sorcerers are crappy wizards with something extra & shouldn't be confused with what wizards are"
 
If a Wizard's identity rests entirely on the shoulders of a SINGULAR sacred cow mechanic instead of in its theming then... it's not much of an identity, is it?
It's specifically the wizard/sorcerer identity, which was never very distinct in the first place.

Sorcerers where added in 3rd edition, specifically to address the issue of some players not liking to have to prepare spells (Vancian Casting).

When they where first added in 3rd edition sorcerers differed from wizards in the following ways:

1) They didn't have to prepare spells
2) They only knew a limited number of spells at each level
3) Their spell progression was very slightly slower
4) They could cast more spells per day
5) They used charisma as a casting stat

5e got rid of difference 1), 3), 4), and added "6) only sorcerers can use metamagic". Removing 2) would leave only 5) and 6). I don't think that's a big enough difference to justify a full class.
 

tetrasodium

Explorer
If a Wizard's identity rests entirely on the shoulders of a SINGULAR sacred cow mechanic instead of in its theming then... it's not much of an identity, is it?
not exactly... Look back at the development of the various threads on this topic. Theystarted out with what amounts to "this is a thing, I don't begrudge sorcerers getting it... but it does step on the wizard class toes a bit & I think wizards should get something to call their own" > "omg wizrds are too strong gitgud learn2code, wizards can suck it" > "uhh that's rediculous because so much of what the wizard has of their own can be duplicated ()literally or effectively by other classes, here's some examples of stuff they used to do in past editions before wizard & sorcerer got stuff in 5e" > "no suck it long suck it hard".

It's less of a "sacred cow mechanic" than acceptance of the fact that one side is largely arguing in bad faith trying to point at class features in isolation for balance of class A vrs that very myopic & cherry picked view of isolated feature from classB while ignoring & dismissing arguments that class A has a number of class features to call their own because of that cherry picked feature. Since one side of the discussion is unwilling to even consider discussing what something that wizards should get, the discussion falls back to why wizards should get something.
 

Undrave

Adventurer
not exactly... Look back at the development of the various threads on this topic. Theystarted out with what amounts to "this is a thing, I don't begrudge sorcerers getting it... but it does step on the wizard class toes a bit & I think wizards should get something to call their own" > "omg wizrds are too strong gitgud learn2code, wizards can suck it" > "uhh that's rediculous because so much of what the wizard has of their own can be duplicated ()literally or effectively by other classes, here's some examples of stuff they used to do in past editions before wizard & sorcerer got stuff in 5e" > "no suck it long suck it hard".

It's less of a "sacred cow mechanic" than acceptance of the fact that one side is largely arguing in bad faith trying to point at class features in isolation for balance of class A vrs that very myopic & cherry picked view of isolated feature from classB while ignoring & dismissing arguments that class A has a number of class features to call their own because of that cherry picked feature. Since one side of the discussion is unwilling to even consider discussing what something that wizards should get, the discussion falls back to why wizards should get something.
What SHOULD they get then? And what should they have in the first place to better separate them from Sorcerers?
 

Salthorae

Imperial Mountain Dew Taster
5e got rid of difference 1), 3), 4), and added "6) only sorcerers can use metamagic". Removing 2) would leave only 5) and 6). I don't think that's a big enough difference to justify a full class
I would say that they only 1/2 got rid of 1). Wizards still have to prepare spells, it just doesn't mean as much once they're prepared.

I think 6) is a big deal personally. Would you give metamagic back to all casters again in some mechanic or just lose that concept entirely if SV were the order of the day? I think nuking sorcerer, if SV were to become the order of the day, would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater to a degree.

I think the Sorcerer fulfills a good niche with the "limited scope/inborn talent" vs. "no limits but time & money/worked hard to obtain" areas of magic.

I don't think wizards need anything changed. I also don't think sorcerers need to be more like wizards anymore than they already are.
 
I think 6) is a big deal personally. Would you give metamagic back to all casters again in some mechanic
My first choice would be to leave sorcerers as they are now, but if we are forced to drop fixed spells then I would give metamagic back to all casters, yes.

I think the Sorcerer fulfills a good niche with the "limited scope/inborn talent"vs. "no limits but time & money/worked hard to obtain" areas of magic.
Given that it's a distinction of fluff rather than crunch I think the niche could easily be filled with a wizard subclass.

I don't think wizards need anything changed. I also don't think sorcerers need to be more like wizards anymore than they already are.
I agree on both counts.
 

tetrasodium

Explorer
What SHOULD they get then? And what should they have in the first place to better separate them from Sorcerers?
That's complicated & as sword of spirit said in the OP of this very thread, there are a lot of things that make it tricky to answer; however there have been numerous "maybe something like..." & "I think that,.." suggestions that the people making the suggestions might help.... Unfortunately all of them resulted in the sort of acrimonious bad faith discussions I noted a couple posts ago. Some of those suggestions were things like more ritual spells & greater ritual spells. Bizarrely even suggestions like "cantrip versatility should be OnRest like spell versatility for the same reasons crawford gave for why spell versatility was being added to allow OnRest spell swap for sorcerers" also got shouted down with the kind of absurd ~"gitgud learn2code wizards are too strong" nerfherding so prevalent in this debate. Someone else has been bringing up the idea of letting wizards effectively buy a scroll & scribe it temporarily during a long rest for twice the cost of scribing it as some kind of carrot for putting a not very meaningful exhaustion mechanic on spell versatility; but aside from pointing out why the earlier versions were a meaningless restriction that amounted to "you shouldn't do this if you somehow have 4 points of exhaustion" the more recent versions don't really understand the wizard & are trying to balance an ephemeral somewhat trivial "I should wait to use this till I'm feeling lucky or can take a couple rests back to back" against a real and tangible "I can light this pile of money on fire to temporarily prepare a spell I may or may not be able to spend more money to scribe to my spellbook when I'm already a massive money black hole of the party". It's unsurprising that the inability to discuss these things without people coming out with specious argument based on cherry picked data, willful blindness of rebuttals presented, & so on did not create an environment where people were interested in going back to square one & starting the whole cycle over.
 

Ashrym

Hero
Removing 2) would leave only 5) and 6). I don't think that's a big enough difference to justify a full class.
Except 2 is not being removed. Changing a single spell for another single spell of the same level is not the same thing as changing any number of prepped spells out for an equal number of prepped spells regardless of level.

As much as people keep stating those are equal they are not and there hasn't been an argument to support the statement demonstrating that equality.

If anything, the standard mechanic for spell versatility would define the relationship between the wizard and the spell book more because that's unique compared to an ability all other arcane casters share and that's where wizards have their own thing.

My first choice would be to leave sorcerers as they are now, but if we are forced to drop fixed spells then I would give metamagic back to all casters, yes.
Because the ability to swap out one spell is equal to meta-magic? That's a pretty big leap in eye for an eye philosophy.
 
Last edited:

Advertisement

Top