5E UA Spell Versatility: A deeper dive

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I've spoken many times about how all of these problems are an issue because of how they influence newer & less experienced gms, I thought that was clear and no longer a matter of debate. There's no need for the sort of belittling, goodnight
I haven't seen any of "these problems" you've mentioned be anything other than your personal opinion about where something is "lacking." Just because you have an issue with something, for example, the lack of neutral rules for getting a hold of a living wizard's spellboook, doesn't make it an issue that needs to be resolved by WotC. Depending on the situation, I can DM any number of ways that a player could get access to one. As a player I can come up with a number of plans to gain access. I don't need added rules for those thing. The current rules are sufficient.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
No. 5e is quite clear; no multiple 9th level spells period.
5e is also clear about it being what the DM says, rulings over rules, and options and variants. There's no such thing as "No multiple 9th level spells period." It's "No multiple 9th level spells unless the DM changes things," which is exactly what's being suggested here. ;)
 

tetrasodium

Explorer
I haven't seen any of "these problems" you've mentioned be anything other than your personal opinion about where something is "lacking." Just because you have an issue with something, for example, the lack of neutral rules for getting a hold of a living wizard's spellboook, doesn't make it an issue that needs to be resolved by WotC. Depending on the situation, I can DM any number of ways that a player could get access to one. As a player I can come up with a number of plans to gain access. I don't need added rules for those thing. The current rules are sufficient.
The problem is how all of those things combined influence new & inexperienced GMs in negative ways. Without Spell versatility those negative influences can be handled on a table by table basis when they become noticed.... With spell versatility however those problems go from something to talk to the gm about into a serious problem that might not be noticed until the damage is long done. As to your just because one person sees a problem doesn't mean there is one... witness many global warming debates... just because it snows at one table or is cold one day in fernia doesn't mean there is no problem.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
The problem is how all of those things combined influence new & inexperienced GMs in negative ways.
Do you have hard evidence of this affecting new DMs like that? It doesn't seem hard to me to have a new DM make a decision about stealth and sneaking into a live wizard's house and stealing his spellbook. There are a number of different ways that already exist in the rules to get a hold of such a spellbook, and once you do the rules on scribing spells already exist in 5e, so you're done.

I don't see new DMs having an issue with this.

Without Spell versatility those negative influences can be handled on a table by table basis when they become noticed.... With spell versatility however those problems go from something to talk to the gm about into a serious problem that might not be noticed until the damage is long done.
There is no damage. There is no negative influence. All spell versatility does is give some more options as an optional rule. If you like it, use it. If you don't, don't. It's not something that needs to be added to the base game, though.

As to your just because one person sees a problem doesn't mean there is one... witness many global warming debates... just because it snows at one table or is cold one day in fernia doesn't mean there is no problem.
False Equivalences are false dude.
 
5e is also clear about it being what the DM says, rulings over rules, and options and variants. There's no such thing as "No multiple 9th level spells period." It's "No multiple 9th level spells unless the DM changes things," which is exactly what's being suggested here. ;)
Or no multiple 9th level spells unless the DM gives you the appropriate epic boon.
 

tetrasodium

Explorer
Do you have hard evidence of this affecting new DMs like that? It doesn't seem hard to me to have a new DM make a decision about stealth and sneaking into a live wizard's house and stealing his spellbook. There are a number of different ways that already exist in the rules to get a hold of such a spellbook, and once you do the rules on scribing spells already exist in 5e, so you're done.

I don't see new DMs having an issue with this.



There is no damage. There is no negative influence. All spell versatility does is give some more options as an optional rule. If you like it, use it. If you don't, don't. It's not something that needs to be added to the base game, though.


False Equivalences are false dude.
You only need to look at this very thread for a trivial example of "evidence" where people suggested a particular spellbook was worth two wildly different amounts, move the decimal type differences depending on if they use the cost to scribe or cost of scrolls for estimating value. One will lead to a flood of gold and drought of spellbooks & that easy to reach spellbook you mention is probably located behind asmodious' throne, the other could lead to more spellbooks but desert of gold unless there are large injections of gold from elsewhere that raises the entire party's wealth.

I'm sure even you can see how bad habits developed by different choices made in such a simple attempt at fixing the fact that there is no proper way of estimating spellbook value can lead to additional complications...
 
I appreciate the ideas, just going to keep chewing on it for now. I feel like there has to be something that will feel like a "perfect solution" and if I run out of time before then... I'll just pick a less pretty but balanced option.
You could throw a surcharge on higher level spells, or require a short rest (or even a genuinely short rest, like a few minutes) between castings of spells higher than half the highest you can cast, rounded up.

So, for the arch-sorcerer able to cast 9th level spells, he can cast all the 1st-5th level spells he likes in the course of an encounter while his spell points last, but only one 6+ until he takes a short rest, or, less restrictive, until the next encounter? It's a softer limit, kinda the inverse of the Warlock (short-rest recharge of up to 5th level spells, higher level are dailies).
 
Last edited:

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
You only need to look at this very thread for a trivial example of "evidence" where people suggested a particular spellbook was worth two wildly different amounts, move the decimal type differences depending on if they use the cost to scribe or cost of scrolls for estimating value.
I agree with you that what's trivial about this thread, and every other thread on this site, is its worth as evidence of anything at all. We don't have a large enough sample size for this thread to be anything other than trivial as evidence.

One will lead to a flood of gold and drought of spellbooks & that easy to reach spellbook you mention is probably located behind asmodious' throne, the other could lead to more spellbooks but desert of gold unless there are large injections of gold from elsewhere that raises the entire party's wealth.
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. What you describe is a boon to the game, not a hindrance. Different DMs having different styles with different values is good for the game. The more variety there is, the more likely it is that a given person can find a game that fits them.

I'm sure even you can see how bad habits developed by different choices made in such a simple attempt at fixing the fact that there is no proper way of estimating spellbook value can lead to additional complications...
Sorry, but I don't see good habits as bad habits.
 
Last edited:

tetrasodium

Explorer
I thought I explained that with the examples of how using one value over the other in that post will affect the game.

It also means that either wotc has an unpublished estimation of how much a spellbook should be worth/how rare it should be... or their own HC/dmsguild content and everyone making stuff for dmsguild is winging it based on subjecting assumptions. If someone decided for their game that spellbooks should be on the more expensive end & perhaps uses the scroll costs for guidance then plays/runs a published adventure that assumed the lower end, they could very easily destroy any semblance of economy before they realized it with "30-50 feral hogs" of gold... If the inverse were the case but the group & author was using the estimated gold value ranges based on rarity for what other magic items should cost, the group & the wizard will not have anywhere near the amount of gold the author expected.
 
I'm sure even you can see how bad habits developed by different choices made in such a simple attempt at fixing the fact that there is no proper way of estimating spellbook value can lead to additional complications...
I still think that wizards could do with a global thermonuclear nerf*, but you are building a case that they should be banned outright, instead**.










* the nuclear winter in the Forgotten Realms would just be a bonus
** which would at least let me re-start my escalating metaphor gag at 'ban-hammer.'
 

Ashrym

Hero
So far the only spell swap in the test group was dissonant whispers for heroism, and that was because the paladin was the only consistent melee. That's even with the bard, sorcerer, and wizard having all taken sleep.

That leaves the rate at less than once per level at low levels.
 

Chaosmancer

Adventurer
You could throw a surcharge on higher level spells, or require a short rest (or even a genuinely short rest, like a few minutes) between castings of spells higher than half the highest you can cast, rounded up.

So, for the arch-sorcerer able to cast 9th level spells, he can cast all the 1st-5th level spells he likes in the course of an encounter while his spell points last, but only one 6+ until he takes a short rest, or, less restrictive, until the next encounter? It's a softer limit, kinda the inverse of the Warlock (short-rest recharge of up to 5th level spells, higher level are dailies).
Oh, that I like. I might be able to run with something like that.


I thought I explained that with the examples of how using one value over the other in that post will affect the game.

It also means that either wotc has an unpublished estimation of how much a spellbook should be worth/how rare it should be... or their own HC/dmsguild content and everyone making stuff for dmsguild is winging it based on subjecting assumptions. If someone decided for their game that spellbooks should be on the more expensive end & perhaps uses the scroll costs for guidance then plays/runs a published adventure that assumed the lower end, they could very easily destroy any semblance of economy before they realized it with "30-50 feral hogs" of gold... If the inverse were the case but the group & author was using the estimated gold value ranges based on rarity for what other magic items should cost, the group & the wizard will not have anywhere near the amount of gold the author expected.
I would like to swing in and point something out. You mention it is a major issue because the two values reached were "a decimal point moving" difference.

I would like to post the Magic Item values from the DMG (I am removing the 1 gold difference maker for ease of typing). Specific attention to the last few parts

Uncommon -> 100 - 500
Rare -> 500 - 5,000
Very Rare -> 5,000 - 50,000
Legendary -> More than 50,000

Excepting Uncommon, each one of those values is at least a single decimal point difference. If I wanted to buy or sell an Amulet of Health, it could be anywhere between 500 gold or 5,000 gold per the rules. Which is a staggeringly huge range... and it is even bigger if you want to work with something like a Belt of Stone Giant Strength.

In fact, to give an idea of the absurdity here, you can double the cost of a rare or very rare item, at the low end, and it will still be priced in the low end for it's value.

So, an item having a huge range of value... has precedence within the game, based on the magic item pricing chart.

Edit: Also, Legendaries can literally be any price and fit within the chart. I could charge my players 5,000,000,000 and still be exactly within the confines laid out.
 

Sword of Spirit

Adventurer
I do not necessarily disagree with your premise B. I do disagree though that Spell Versatility is taking away a "vital part" of premise B.

If the party leaves their home village at level 1, the sorcerer has 2 spells they know. The wizard has potentially 6. That is three times the number.

When the party encounters the challenge, between having 2 spells and having 6 spells, who is more likely to have the specific spell they need, right then.

The wizard, because they have more spells available in that moment.

A Wizard with an Int of +4 will consistently have more spells prepared than the Sorcerer knows. And, they do not need to prepare any ritual spells, having them available anyways through their spellbook.

Yes, on a long rest the Sorcerer can swap any single spell from their entire list. But, as I showed, they cap out at having 9% of their list available to them in the moment. Even just counting prepared and ritual spells, wizards have double the amount of spells ready to go than the sorcerer, and looking at the numbers they could have as much as 30% of their entire spell list available within the day. A spell list almost double the size of the sorcerers.

So, the sorcerer is only taking a "vital part" of the wizards ability to be the most prepared if within that massive number of spells known, the wizard does not have the same spell. And of course, this is entirely ignoring the impact of magic items on the two.

I disagree that we have somehow crippled the wizard's position. They have lost nothing of their advantage, the only time when the Sorcerer can take this role away from them is when they were not going to be able to solve the problem anyways.
Okay, I see what you're saying here. And I agree with the value of that particular element of the wizard's versatility. What I'm saying is that there is another important element, which is the ability to gain access to a particular spell you don't currently have access to the next day.

Or to go beyond that, let me briefly point out the three levels of spell access:

1) Immediate Spell Access: This is almost purely based on the number of spells you can have currently prepared. Spell Versatility does basically nothing to increase the sorcerer's flexibility compared to wizard in this area, as you rightly point out.

2) Tomorrow Spell Access: Standard 5e gives the wizard flexibility in this based on their personal spellbook. Sorcerer gets nothing here. Spell Versatility changes this dynamic drastically by giving the sorcerer their entire spell list (substantially bigger than a wizard's personal spellbook) to choose from.

3) Extended Time Spell Access: Standard 5e gives wizards the same flexibility in this as in Tomorrow Spell Access, with the additional highly campaign dependent ability (which I believe DMs should make reasonably available as a part of wizard identity, but can not be assumed in 5e) to also add new spells to their spellbook. Sorcerers have nothing here. Spell Versatility skyrockets the sorcerer's ability here, allowing them to acquire and cast any spell on the sorcerer list, as well as completely rewrite their personal spells known.

It is completely true that the wizard has a bigger and pretty much objectively better class spell list than the sorcerer. I do not think that invalidates the concerns, since the wizard's limited access to that spell list is of bigger importance when comparing them.

Spell Versatility does not challenge the identity of the wizard regarding 1.

Spell Versatility makes the sorcerer better at 3 than the wizard. This is an identity challenge.

Whether Spell Versatility makes the sorcerer better at 2 than the wizard, depends on assumptions.

The assumptions that some seem to be making is that of combat challenges or general spell usage. They are about taking a spell you feel is more likely to be more useful in general to the next day's adventure. In this case, Spell Versatility doesn't significantly change the relative flexibility of the wizard versus sorcerer.

However, where I'm going with Tomorrow Spell Access is more about benefiting from a specific spell (often outside of combat). If that is never a consideration in your campaign, then this may not matter. But if this is ever a consideration in a campaign (and it definitely is in mine) this is a huge thing, because it is a vital part of a wizard's identity that is being taken away.

Highlighted Point: When nobody has the spell prepared/known and we need it, all eyes should turn towards the wizard. They should always be the one best able to meet the need for Tomorrow Spell Access and Extended Time Spell Access. That is a huge part of what being a wizard is about. With Spell Versatility, all eyes turn towards the sorcerer, because they are better able to meet either of those needs, and the wizard only retains that ability with regards to Immediate Spell Access.

In saying that, I'm making a claim that even something that may rarely ever come up can have an important effect on class identity. If anyone can pick up and use a holy avenger to the same effect as a paladin, that is a challenge to class identity. It doesn't matter if you've never had a holy avenger in your game.

I understand you may be looking at this as an overall picture of class flexibility. I am too, but I'm also going beyond that into certain particulars.

I'm making a claim that one isolated yet conceptually significant thing that may not change the overall balance of classes can challenge class identity.

I know these are strong claims that I'm making, and I am making them. Spell Versatility, as described challenges the established class identity of the wizard as it has been established in every edition of the game, and as it has been distinguished from sorcerers in every edition of the game that has included them.

I think it is likely that some players just don't care that much about preserving class identity, which is why this isn't a big deal to them.

I think Mr. Crawford is completely failing to address Tomorrow Spell Access and Extended Time Spell Access in the manner in which I have explained them.

Let's stop getting sidetracked by sorcerers and bards, then. No one is talking about warlocks and rangers getting the same ability with spell versatility.
A couple things here.

Everything you are saying about rangers is true, but it misses a few points of relevance, which is why people aren't criticizing it as heavily.

The first is that rangers are weaker than paladins in a way they should be (based on tradition) essentially equal. A ranger's spellcasting is inferior to a paladin's, and they get no other benefit to make up for that. The paladin is just a stronger class. Rangers could be given complete access to their class list as prepared casters--identically to paladins--and it would neither overpower them nor challenge class identity. In fact, it would preserve class identity better than the standard rules do! Rangers already should function that way. So inasmuch as the ranger buffs just make them function more like that, they are good for class identity. I'm not sure I'm happy about how they did it (free casting rather than extra spells prepared--though if they don't become prepared casters, they could actually use some extra oomph of free spell casting to make up for the imbalance with paladins) and that's something I'll bring up in the survey.

The second is the traditional divide between divine and arcane casters, whereas divine casters traditionally have access to their entire class spell list, and arcane casters don't. This makes divine casters very flexible, and useful to the party overall. However, arcane spells generally include things that seem more impactful and less party support on a more regular basis. They have spells that are both more immediately flashy, as well as spells that grant the ability to directly address problems that divine spells generally don't, or to address them in different ways. Illusions, general utility, general use boom-boom. Divine spell lists are highly themed. (In 3e, this actually got quite a bit distorted so that their spell lists stretched quite a bit beyond their traditional core competencies, but wizards had a much easier time accessing just about any spells they wanted to scribe into their spellbooks, and the assumption was that you were allowed to do that (a DM would have to be really heavy-handed or doing something pretty unique to not let you do that).)

Bards, while arcane casters, sort of fall somewhere in between. That's why, even though I'll give feedback against Spell Versatility on the bard (does the 5e bard need any boosts?) I don't feel like it's a major challenge to the identity of wizards or other classes.

I don't like warlocks getting Spell Versatility either. However, their spell list is a lot smaller than sorcerers, which makes this feature "less" objectionable on them. (They also can't apply it to spells above 5th level.)

Sorcerer identity is the closest to the wizard, and therefore it is the best comparison. Also, the size of their class spell list is the second biggest in the game and almost entirely taken from the wizard spell list. They are the class for which Spell Versatility most strongly challenges the class identity of the wizard.
 

Chaosmancer

Adventurer
Okay, I see what you're saying here. And I agree with the value of that particular element of the wizard's versatility. What I'm saying is that there is another important element, which is the ability to gain access to a particular spell you don't currently have access to the next day.

Or to go beyond that, let me briefly point out the three levels of spell access:

1) Immediate Spell Access: This is almost purely based on the number of spells you can have currently prepared. Spell Versatility does basically nothing to increase the sorcerer's flexibility compared to wizard in this area, as you rightly point out.

2) Tomorrow Spell Access: Standard 5e gives the wizard flexibility in this based on their personal spellbook. Sorcerer gets nothing here. Spell Versatility changes this dynamic drastically by giving the sorcerer their entire spell list (substantially bigger than a wizard's personal spellbook) to choose from.

3) Extended Time Spell Access: Standard 5e gives wizards the same flexibility in this as in Tomorrow Spell Access, with the additional highly campaign dependent ability (which I believe DMs should make reasonably available as a part of wizard identity, but can not be assumed in 5e) to also add new spells to their spellbook. Sorcerers have nothing here. Spell Versatility skyrockets the sorcerer's ability here, allowing them to acquire and cast any spell on the sorcerer list, as well as completely rewrite their personal spells known.

It is completely true that the wizard has a bigger and pretty much objectively better class spell list than the sorcerer. I do not think that invalidates the concerns, since the wizard's limited access to that spell list is of bigger importance when comparing them.

Spell Versatility does not challenge the identity of the wizard regarding 1.

Spell Versatility makes the sorcerer better at 3 than the wizard. This is an identity challenge.

Whether Spell Versatility makes the sorcerer better at 2 than the wizard, depends on assumptions.

The assumptions that some seem to be making is that of combat challenges or general spell usage. They are about taking a spell you feel is more likely to be more useful in general to the next day's adventure. In this case, Spell Versatility doesn't significantly change the relative flexibility of the wizard versus sorcerer.

However, where I'm going with Tomorrow Spell Access is more about benefiting from a specific spell (often outside of combat). If that is never a consideration in your campaign, then this may not matter. But if this is ever a consideration in a campaign (and it definitely is in mine) this is a huge thing, because it is a vital part of a wizard's identity that is being taken away.

Highlighted Point: When nobody has the spell prepared/known and we need it, all eyes should turn towards the wizard. They should always be the one best able to meet the need for Tomorrow Spell Access and Extended Time Spell Access. That is a huge part of what being a wizard is about. With Spell Versatility, all eyes turn towards the sorcerer, because they are better able to meet either of those needs, and the wizard only retains that ability with regards to Immediate Spell Access.

In saying that, I'm making a claim that even something that may rarely ever come up can have an important effect on class identity. If anyone can pick up and use a holy avenger to the same effect as a paladin, that is a challenge to class identity. It doesn't matter if you've never had a holy avenger in your game.

I understand you may be looking at this as an overall picture of class flexibility. I am too, but I'm also going beyond that into certain particulars.

I'm making a claim that one isolated yet conceptually significant thing that may not change the overall balance of classes can challenge class identity.

I know these are strong claims that I'm making, and I am making them. Spell Versatility, as described challenges the established class identity of the wizard as it has been established in every edition of the game, and as it has been distinguished from sorcerers in every edition of the game that has included them.

I think it is likely that some players just don't care that much about preserving class identity, which is why this isn't a big deal to them.

I think Mr. Crawford is completely failing to address Tomorrow Spell Access and Extended Time Spell Access in the manner in which I have explained them.



A couple things here.

Everything you are saying about rangers is true, but it misses a few points of relevance, which is why people aren't criticizing it as heavily.

The first is that rangers are weaker than paladins in a way they should be (based on tradition) essentially equal. A ranger's spellcasting is inferior to a paladin's, and they get no other benefit to make up for that. The paladin is just a stronger class. Rangers could be given complete access to their class list as prepared casters--identically to paladins--and it would neither overpower them nor challenge class identity. In fact, it would preserve class identity better than the standard rules do! Rangers already should function that way. So inasmuch as the ranger buffs just make them function more like that, they are good for class identity. I'm not sure I'm happy about how they did it (free casting rather than extra spells prepared--though if they don't become prepared casters, they could actually use some extra oomph of free spell casting to make up for the imbalance with paladins) and that's something I'll bring up in the survey.

The second is the traditional divide between divine and arcane casters, whereas divine casters traditionally have access to their entire class spell list, and arcane casters don't. This makes divine casters very flexible, and useful to the party overall. However, arcane spells generally include things that seem more impactful and less party support on a more regular basis. They have spells that are both more immediately flashy, as well as spells that grant the ability to directly address problems that divine spells generally don't, or to address them in different ways. Illusions, general utility, general use boom-boom. Divine spell lists are highly themed. (In 3e, this actually got quite a bit distorted so that their spell lists stretched quite a bit beyond their traditional core competencies, but wizards had a much easier time accessing just about any spells they wanted to scribe into their spellbooks, and the assumption was that you were allowed to do that (a DM would have to be really heavy-handed or doing something pretty unique to not let you do that).)

Bards, while arcane casters, sort of fall somewhere in between. That's why, even though I'll give feedback against Spell Versatility on the bard (does the 5e bard need any boosts?) I don't feel like it's a major challenge to the identity of wizards or other classes.

I don't like warlocks getting Spell Versatility either. However, their spell list is a lot smaller than sorcerers, which makes this feature "less" objectionable on them. (They also can't apply it to spells above 5th level.)

Sorcerer identity is the closest to the wizard, and therefore it is the best comparison. Also, the size of their class spell list is the second biggest in the game and almost entirely taken from the wizard spell list. They are the class for which Spell Versatility most strongly challenges the class identity of the wizard.
I understand where most of your concerns come from. There are a few parts I just can't get behind.

One of the big ones is the claim in Three: "allowing them to acquire and cast any spell on the sorcerer list, as well as completely rewrite their personal spells known"

I just find this doesn't match up with the reality on the ground. And I think an analogy (despite the issues with analogies) will help make this clearer.

Let us say you run an ice cream store, but you only have the counter space to sell two flavors of ice cream. What do you sell? Likely Chocolate and Vanilla, the two most popular flavors that everyone expects an ice cream store to have. You have a supplier who can get you any flavor, but if you order a new flavor from them, you will get the same flavor for months. So, while the Pistachio festival might be a great time to sell Pistachio ice cream, knowing that you would still be selling it come Christmas time, you just don't bother switching. After all, you know you can sell chocolate and Vanilla any time of the year, but if you have Pistachio out of season, it is just dead product.

Now you get a new supplier, they can get you any flavor, but they can switch flavors on a dime and send you something different every day if you ask them to.

This is great, you can sell Pistachio during the festival, maybe try a few days of Olive Hazelnut ice cream just to have something different.

But, 9/10, what will you likely have behind the counter? Either Vanilla or Chocolate. Because those are the most popular flavors. They are the staples that every ice cream shop should have. You might end up swapping them away for a little bit, but they are always going to come back.


This is how I see sorcerer spells. They only get a very small number of spells known, so they always pick the best spells they can. Every sorcerer I've ever made has had Chromatic Orb, because it is solid damage until level 11, and it can cover any damage type, so it is a workhorse spell. Always useful to be able to use.

With Spell Versatility I could see myself swapping Chromatic Orb for say, Silent Image, another solid spell, but one that I didn't think I could use in every situation. But this specific day I've got a plan for it. And tomorrow? Tomorrow I'm very likely to swap back into Chromatic Orb, because it was my main damage spell and I still need that option.

The entire assertion that Sorcerers could change "their entire spell list over a week" presupposes that there is a better spell list that the Sorcerer didn't pick the first time around. But that isn't how sorcerers operate, they can't operate that way, because if they have a specialized list, they start suffering during the course of an adventure.

And man, I would be very leery of swapping during an adventure. Unless there is long travel time between your moments of action, the sorcerer will be done swapping into the perfect spell list by the time they are leaving to do something that list may not be suited for.

All that being said, I understand your highlighted point. There is the potential that with this rule, when it comes time to solve a problem with a spell, all eyes might turn to the sorcerer. But I don't see how that is an identity problem for the sorcerer. They are about being magic. They live and breath magic that sings in the deepest parts of them. It is so innate to them that they require minimal effort to tap into that well of power. Nothing about that story tells me they should be locked in place, unable to alter the raw magic of their soul into something else.

And, the only issue for the wizard, is that if a problem needs a solution later they may not be the only one with that solution. But, does that change a wizard's gameplay decisions? Does the wizard look at their list and say "well, a sorcerer might be able to grab this, so I won't need it?"

I don't think it does. Many of the most common "we need a spell to solve this" scenarios are covered by the divine spell list as well. I would say there are very few uniquely Arcane spells that are designed specifically to overcome a challenge that can be delayed anywhere from 24 hours to a week. And that has not harmed them yet.
 

NotAYakk

Adventurer
Does the wizard look at their list and say "well, a sorcerer might be able to grab this, so I won't need it?"
As an example, teleportation circle.

A sorcerer is unlikely to pick it as a their first always spell of that level in a game with more combat than travel. The wizard in the party would normally pick it up.

But now, the wizard might pick 2 other spells, and rely in the sorcerer being able to swap it in overnight whenever they need to travel.

There are lots of spells that having the ability is super powerful, even if having it right now is mildly useful. How many are on the sorcerer spell list is a fair bit or work that might be worth doing.
 

Chaosmancer

Adventurer
As an example, teleportation circle.

A sorcerer is unlikely to pick it as a their first always spell of that level in a game with more combat than travel. The wizard in the party would normally pick it up.

But now, the wizard might pick 2 other spells, and rely in the sorcerer being able to swap it in overnight whenever they need to travel.

There are lots of spells that having the ability is super powerful, even if having it right now is mildly useful. How many are on the sorcerer spell list is a fair bit or work that might be worth doing.
That's a good one.

I'm working on a different DnD project, so I can't go through and categorize that list, but I would be curious to see it.
 

NotAYakk

Adventurer
So here is a bunch of spells I could see someone wanting to "swap into" for the Sorcerer.

The categories I got where:
a) NINJA - you know you have to be sneaky tomorrow, and you usually aren't.
b) UTILITY - there is some operation that would be nearly impossible without this spell.
c) ENEMY - you are gonna fight a vampire! Pull out the sun. Or invisible foes, or plants, or similar.

Chill Touch
Prestidigitation
Message
Detect Magic
Comprehend Languages
Silent Image
Alter Self
Darkvision
Enhance Ability
See Invisibility
Spider Climb
Clairvoyance
Counterspell
Daylight
Dispel Magic
Fly
Major Image
Protection from Energy
Tongues
Water Breathing
Water Walk
Banishment
Polymorph
Blight
Creation
Teleportation Circle
Seeming
Sunbeam
True Seeing
Move Earth
Plane Shift
Teleport
Etherealness
Sunburst
Dominate Monster
Gate
Wish
I did this in one pass, so probably some questionable ones or ones I've missed.
 

Advertisement

Top