D&D 5E UA Spell Versatility: A deeper dive

[Paul Farquhar]

But they're not on the Bard list, so if you swap them out, you can't swap them back in.

I believe the intent would be that you can always know up to 2/4 spells that are not from the bard spell list. However, there is no form of words that would facilitate this interpretation as an "add on" rule. So tables that favour a legalistic interpretation of rules are stuffed.

 

[5ekyu]

That's the only questionable part. It depends on if a person considers the bard list customized by taking secrets or not. I'm not getting into that because I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. Just DM call.

Fwiw... I recall sage questiins about what counts as "on the class list" and as i recall the answer was if it was listed as class spells - not did it get added bysome specisl fearure.

So, reated as bard spell for your character was not the same thing as "on the bard spell list".

 

[Maxperson]

* massively complicated, and requires vastly increased record keeping;

Tracking one spell is not "massively complicated" and does not require "vastly increased record keeping." Overreact much?

* pointless;

I've explained the point several times. If you haven't picked it up, despite being stated clearly, you should go back and re-read my posts.

* also does not fit the text.

And it does fit the text.

I am absolutely certain you are wrong.

A lot of people become certain that their opinions are "absolutely correct."

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Tracking one spell is not "massively complicated" and does not require "vastly increased record keeping." Overreact much?

You would need to know when you learned the spell, for every spell in your spellbook. Seems like a lot of record keeping to me.

I've explained the point several times. If you haven't picked it up, despite being stated clearly, you should go back and re-read my posts.

Your point seems to be to apply a massive nerf an optional rule you don't like, because for some reason you can't get your head round the idea of "optional".

And it does fit the text.

Not any better than the sane interpretation.

A lot of people become certain that their opinions are "absolutely correct."

And often a lot of people are right.

 

[Maxperson]

You would need to know when you learned the spell, for every spell in your spellbook. Seems like a lot of record keeping to me.

No you wouldn't.

Your point seems to be to apply a massive nerf an optional rule you don't like, because for some reason you can't get your head round the idea of "optional".

It's not a nerf of anything. It's how I interpret that rule, so there's no nerf going on at all.

Not any better than the sane interpretation.

If you can't reply to me without engaging in personal attacks, then don't reply to me.

And often a lot of people are right.

Beyond this being an Appeal to Popularity, I've been proven right by WotC before when taking a stance here that goes against the popular opinion.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No you wouldn't.

How are you supposed to know if the spell qualifies to be swapped out or not if you don't know when you learned it?

it's not a nerf of anything. It's how I interpret that rule, so there's no nerf going on at all.

There is no rule. There is currently just a suggestion.

If you can't reply to me without engaging in personal attacks, then don't reply to me.

How is suggesting that something is sane an attack?
How is suggesting something about other peoples' interpretation personal?

See, other people can engage in silly legalise.

Beyond this being an Appeal to Popularity, I've been proven right by WotC before when taking a stance here that goes against the popular opinion.

Beyond being legalistic jargon, how does an Appeal to Popularity differ from an Appeal to History?

Aren't most western governments based upon an Appeal to Popularity? And the governments then formulate the laws.

 

[Tony Vargas]

How are you supposed to know if the spell qualifies to be swapped out or not if you don't know when you learned it?

That's not a high level of complexity compared to rolling/leveling/playing a caster in the first place. Casters are very complex in 5e - heck, outside of 4e (and even then, wizard was arguably the most complex class), they always were - it's not a meaningful bump in complexity compared to the baseline.

Beyond being legalistic jargon, how does an Appeal to Popularity differ from an Appeal to History?

It's not legalistic jargon or, if it is (IDK, I'm not a lawyer, if it doesn't come up on Perry Mason or Law & Order, HWIK), not just that, it's just a label applied to a logical fallacy. So, no different, since they are both informal fallacies.

Aren't most western governments based upon an Appeal to Popularity? And the governments then formulate the laws.

Democracy is, indeed, the worst possible form of government. Except for all the others. But all understanding that ad populum is a fallacy means in the context of democracy is that it is not infallible. Clearly, that's the case.

 

[Undrave]

The problem is the divide in play styles. Some tables are near platonic sandboxes with lots of downtime and ample chances for character driven quests. Some tables are on a countdown to save the world with no downtime and no time for sidequests. And many tables are in-between. Spell versatility should have an slider meant to account for this in order to fulfill its original purpose -so sorcerers and other casters aren't stuck with unused spells for long periods of time- make it take downtime to change one spell or one long rest. Otherwise we end up with something too powerful for campaigns with lots of downtime and impossible to use in campaigns with no downtime.

How is it that powerful to switch spell load out??

For me it's not whether it will happen, it's more that it can happen. If the ability is there, then there will be spellcasters in the world, even they they aren't PCs, who are swapping spells like this.

Don't use Spell Versatility for NPCs. It's a rule specifically designed so that "players don't hate their character"

Using PC rules on NPC is overcomplicating things.

Plus, NPCs can have whatever spells you want them to have so it doesn't matter.

 

[Ashrym]

Fwiw... I recall sage questiins about what counts as "on the class list" and as i recall the answer was if it was listed as class spells - not did it get added bysome specisl fearure.

So, reated as bard spell for your character was not the same thing as "on the bard spell list".

The sage advice question is in the compendium. It follows the wording but until now the only reason to consider secrets that way would be a bard who traded secrets out and then changed his or her mind and wanted to trade it back after leveling up again, which is just a hypothetical that I've never seen. Backtracking trading up isn't really a thing.

The gray area is in the magical secrets making the spell a bard spell for that character. I could interpret that as adding it to the bard list for that character, or I could interpret the bard list as strictly "the" bard list as listed and I don't think I would actually be wrong either way as a DM.

One way is counter-intuitive to spell versatility in a big way that impacts a very large portion of the bard spells known by not being able to apply it to one of the major draws to the bard class or losing one of the major draws to the bard class. The other supports magical secrets taken by the bard by treating them exactly like any other bard spell, which is typical of secrets. Which is better to tell the player?

It's another area that WotC should address after feedback regardless. To prevent arguments if nothing else.

 

[Undrave]

The sage advice question is in the compendium. It follows the wording but until now the only reason to consider secrets that way would be a bard who traded secrets out and then changed his or her mind and wanted to trade it back after leveling up again, which is just a hypothetical that I've never seen. Backtracking trading up isn't really a thing.

The gray area is in the magical secrets making the spell a bard spell for that character. I could interpret that as adding it to the bard list for that character, or I could interpret the bard list as strictly "the" bard list as listed and I don't think I would actually be wrong either way as a DM.

One way is counter-intuitive to spell versatility in a big way that impacts a very large portion of the bard spells known by not being able to apply it to one of the major draws to the bard class or losing one of the major draws to the bard class. The other supports magical secrets taken by the bard by treating them exactly like any other bard spell, which is typical of secrets. Which is better to tell the player?

It's another area that WotC should address after feedback regardless. To prevent arguments if nothing else.

When they say the spell "is a bard spell" (fro exemple) they really just means that it interacts with class features that call out 'bard spells' (or Cleric Spells or what have you). It also usually means it uses the same rules at your other spells in regard to casting stats and preparation rules.