5E UA Spell Versatility: A deeper dive

Nope. I'm arguing it's not nearly common or as significant for sorcerers as people claim. As demonstrated by the reasons I gave to back up that statement.
I'm not sure how 'common' figures into it. And I must have missed the claims.

I mean, the point of picking a class with unprecedented versatility is to be able to adapt when needed, not to need to do so with a specific frequency.

You've equated a single spell at a single level using the sorcerer spell list to multiple spells regardless of levels using the wizard spell list.
I have not. My objection to Spell Versatility is not that it actually closes the gap between Tier 2 and 1 at all dramatically, but, rather that it is erodes the uniqueness of the sorcerer class and it's suitability for build to concept.

The wizard was long since a lost cause, that way, even had it not been given the perks of spontaneous on top of prepped casting, and at-will cantrips, and free rituals.

These things are not equal just because they can both be categorized as spell swapping.
No question, but they are less differentiated because they're both spell swapping.

For the same reason people aren't complaining about rangers using spell versatility, which is the exact same ability sorcerers are using.
TBF, they may not care about the ranger, or just feel sorry for it.

Accepting the spell versatility is a concern because of how it works is accepting that the argument regarding how it works applies to all classes.
Agreed. IMHO, the issue of re-jiggering a build that turns out to be off by a bad choice or two should be addressed with a universal retraining mechanic, instead of class-by-class. And, that mechanic should be kept out of actual play, it should be a chargen/level-up, at most, between-sessions, out-of-character, option.

Sorcerers cannot just swap out large numbers of spells even if we accept the sorcerer has prior knowledge and a better spell worth swapping.I
He can:
Sure, the sorcerer could change his or her entire spell list during downtime. That's only relevant to downtime activities, which is a minor consideration and still situational based on whatever those downtime activities might be.
Well, and the rest of the campaign after that stretch of downtime, because you're essentially playing a completely different sorcerer, at that point.

That hurts the sorcerer as a go-to build-to-concept class choice. (Not that it's as good for that purpose in 5e as it was in 3e, anyway.)

Swapping spells because the campaign changed is removing the penalties inflicted in having the campaign change. Removing a penalty that did not exist before and exists now is not a buff.
Removing a restriction is a buff. Casters have so few restrictions left in 5e, it's can't be an insignificant one, at this point.


The argument is not that sorcerers cannot swap a spell in. They can. The argument is in how often that will actually be relevant to the point it's a minor detail.
Then there's no need to let it intrude on play, the extant mechanism is more than adequate.

spell swapping for sorcerers was always intended and there was a concern that it was not happening as often as intended.
Which is also kinda a weird statement. Why would it be intended to happen at a given frequency, and how is at level-up not a fairly predictable frequency?

Are more people using slower leveling via reduced exp or milestones or something?

Or there are spells that can be outgrown or situational so the intent of being able to change them is valid. Spell versatility doesn't make anything worse. It makes things better.
Again, at level-up is fine - ideal, even - for spell you outgrow, since growth, in that sense, happens at level-up.

Why should it intrude in play?

You are making a lot of statements but not actually backing them up. The premise cannot be that there is always a better spell to take just because the ability to swap spells exists.
You just made the point that spells are situational. For any spell (not strictly inferior to another), there could be a situation where it's ideal.



No it doesn't because sorcerers already have the ability and were expected to swap spells. It just wasn't happening after years of observation did not show that expectation was being met.
I'm not sure I see why that's even an issue.

"Y'all aren't swapping spells as much as we thought, so here's some rules that let you choose not to swap them every day instead of choosing not to swap them only when you level up"

Really?

The premise that sorcerers already have selected their preferred spells so there needs to be a good reason to swap any of them hasn't changed.
How good a reason depends on how readily it can be swapped back if it wasn't such a good reason, afterall, too, I guess.

I think the whole thematic sorcerer is a separate issue that isn't really impacted by spell versatility regardless. My point was that not all sorcerers are the same just because the player selected the spells he or she thinks work the best for that build.
Did you ever try to do a thematic wizard, back in the day, before we had sorcerers?
The known-spell design is solid for a build-to-concept, precisely because there isn't the option of compromising that concept in play out of simple pragmatism, or even "the party really needs this spell..." The original sorcerer, introducing spontaneous casting and with more slots than the wizard was even better, because it not only let you choose and stick to a concept-supporting list of known spells, it let you display them relatively more often.

5e sorcerers lack that last bit, a little, and there are more known-spell classes now, and everyone's now spontaneous. So they'd already lost a bit of suitability, that way. An in-play retraining mechanic just further erodes that.
 
Last edited:

Chaosmancer

Adventurer
I have not. My objection to Spell Versatility is not that it actually closes the gap between Tier 2 and 1 at all dramatically, but, rather that it is erodes the uniqueness of the sorcerer class and it's suitability for build to concept.
I'm still not sure I understand this point. What uniqueness is lost by changing a single spell?

Are we talking "everyone will always prepare the same spells for the same situations now instead of just dealing with the hand they had?" or are we talking "Sorcerers become too much like wizards if they can reliably have the answer to a problem?"

Which is also kinda a weird statement. Why would it be intended to happen at a given frequency, and how is at level-up not a fairly predictable frequency?

Are more people using slower leveling via reduced exp or milestones or something?
Yes, by a lot.

In fact, the one time I had a DM try and play with the XP tables, we quickly abandoned it in favor of milestones, simply because it was far easier to keep track that way (he tried giving xp for social encounters, and we quickly realized that some of us in the play by post game were far more active and engaged than others, which was going to lead to a level disparity very quickly).

And, I am very certain there are a lot of tables that use reduced XP to prevent leveling up quickly.

Even in my own games, where I try to be fairly regular about level ups and fairly quick since I tend to run for college semesters, it can be between 2 and 6 sessions for a level up, which means it could be every other week or every other month. Which is a decent expansion and I know I level up faster than a lot of people.
 
I'm still not sure I understand this point. What uniqueness is lost by changing a single spell?
Per level, outside the context of an adventure? Little, it could even refine a concept.

Daily, in play, as a tool to overcome challenges, via versatility?
You're turning into wizard lite - you're distinct in the sense of not as good rather than in the sense if different (and not as good).

Are we talking "everyone will always prepare the same spells for the same situations now instead of just dealing with the hand they had?"
There's too much of that already, I suppose, but solutions might be found in balancing spells better.
or are we talking "Sorcerers become too much like wizards if they can reliably have the answer to a problem?"
more that they become less like Sorcerers, because they are incentivised to break concept.

Yes, by a lot.
Interesting.
 

Chaosmancer

Adventurer
Per level, outside the context of an adventure? Little, it could even refine a concept.

Daily, in play, as a tool to overcome challenges, via versatility?
You're turning into wizard lite - you're distinct in the sense of not as good rather than in the sense if different (and not as good).


more that they become less like Sorcerers, because they are incentivised to break concept.
Okay, I find myself confused here.

What about changing their spells is breaking the concept of "Sorcerer"?

Part of what you are saying sounds like "A fire sorcerer breaks concept by speccing in acid spells for the Fire Plane adventure" and part of what you are saying sounds like "Sorcerers being able to have the right spell for the job just makes them crappy wizards" but you are saying them both as though those are the same thing.

In fact, there was a moment where I was confused if you somehow thought that there were spells on the Sorcerer spell list that broke the concept of being a sorcerer, which would make no sense, but how else would them "being incentivized to break concept" make sense in the terms of them being able to swap one sorcerer spell for a different sorcerer spell?
 

Kinematics

Explorer
Okay, I find myself confused here.

What about changing their spells is breaking the concept of "Sorcerer"?
OK, I feel that Tony is almost entirely wrong in his arguments over the last few pages, but in this case, I believe he's suggesting that it's breaking the concept of "a sorcerer", not the concept of "the sorcerer class". And in that respect, I agree with him.

For example, a fire dragon sorcerer has an expected theme (which is almost entirely ignored by optimizers, but ignoring that...). A fire sorcerer going to the plane of fire is gonna suck. If he could swap some fire-based spells over to ice spells (eg: Fire Bolt to Frostbite, Fireball to Slow, Hold Monster to Cone of Cold, etc), then he's basically just ditching his theme whenever it's inconvenient, which harms character concept and identity.

This isn't violating the wizard's scope, but it is violating the spirit of the Sorcerous Origin. Of course, the game doesn't make it easy to adhere to the Sorcerous Origin's theme anyway (except for maybe Divine Soul), which means you'll probably have already violated it just to get a functional character. At that point swapping spells out using Spell Versatility doesn't mean much, as the game itself doesn't uphold the spirit of the law, either.
 
What about changing their spells is breaking the concept of "Sorcerer"?
The concept of the individual sorcerer, which, as with any known-spell caster who doesn't get to completely change out his choices, is heavily defined by those spell choices.

(Aside: The concept of Sorcerer, in the RL or English-language-dictionary-definition sense is completely un-supported by the class of the same name in D&D.)

Part of what you are saying sounds like "A fire sorcerer breaks concept by speccing in acid spells for the Fire Plane adventure" and part of what you are saying sounds like "Sorcerers being able to have the right spell for the job just makes them crappy wizards" but you are saying them both as though those are the same thing.
Yes. The first part is the utility of the class for build-to-concept being eroded, the second is the differentiation of the class being eroded.

In fact, there was a moment where I was confused if you somehow thought that there were spells on the Sorcerer spell list that broke the concept of being a sorcerer, which would make no sense, but how else would them "being incentivized to break concept" make sense in the terms of them being able to swap one sorcerer spell for a different sorcerer spell?
Heck, the Sorcerer class could hypothetically choose from all spells, if one could devise a workable theme-based limit on the spells any given individual sorcerer could choose.
 

Kinematics

Explorer
Heck, the Sorcerer class could hypothetically choose from all spells, if one could devise a workable theme-based limit on the spells any given individual sorcerer could choose.
Currently working on that, actually. Gonna take a while to go through a couple hundred spells for 9 class themes (5 dragon elements and 4 other origins), and I expect the first draft to be pretty rough.
 

NotAYakk

Adventurer
Heck, the Sorcerer class could hypothetically choose from all spells, if one could devise a workable theme-based limit on the spells any given individual sorcerer could choose.
I've thought about giving Sorcerers spells in bundles.

So the Teleportation "bundle" would have Misty Step, Dimension Door, Teleportation Circle and Teleport.

While these are all thematically tied, the interesting thing is that by default a sorcerer is less likely to pick all of these, because they overlap in utility.

Giving a sorcerer fewer "bundles" but more total "spells known" would thus be a reasonable tradeoff. Less types of spells, but more spells.

A zero-effort first pass:
CHARM Charm Person1
CHARM Confusion4
CHARM Dominate Beast4
CHARM Dominate Monster8
CHARM Dominate Person5
CHARM Hold Monster5
CHARM Hold Person2
CHARM Mass Suggestion6
CHARM Sleep1
CHARM Suggestion2
CURSE Blindness/Deafness2
CURSE Circle of Death6
CURSE Dispel Magic3
CURSE Eyebite6
CURSE Finger of Death6
CURSE Insect Plague5
CURSE Power Word Kill5
CURSE Power Word Stun5
CURSE Slow3
ENHANCE Enhance Ability2
ENHANCE Haste3
FIRE Burning Hands1
FIRE Delayed Blast Fireball7
FIRE Fire Storm7
FIRE Fireball3
FIRE Incendiary Cloud3
FIRE Meteor Swarm3
FIRE Scorching Ray2
FIRE Wall of Fire4
FLIGHT Feather Fall1
FLIGHT Fly3
FLIGHT Levitate2
FORCE Animate Objects5
FORCE Earthquake5
FORCE Knock2
FORCE Magic Missile1
FORCE Move Earth6
FORCE Reverse Gravity6
FORCE Shatter2
FORCE Telekinesis5
HYPNOTIC Color Spray1
HYPNOTIC Hypnotic Pattern3
HYPNOTIC Prismatic Spray3
HYPNOTIC Time Stop3
ILLUSION Blur2
ILLUSION Disguise Self1
ILLUSION Major Image3
ILLUSION Mirror Image2
ILLUSION Seeming5
ILLUSION Silent Image1
LANGUAGE Comprehend Languages1
LANGUAGE Tongues3
MOVEMENT Expeditious Retreat1
MOVEMENT Jump1
MOVEMENT Spider Climb2
NECRO False Life1
POLYMORPH Alter Self2
POLYMORPH Enlarge/Reduce2
POLYMORPH Polymorph4
PROTECTION Counterspell3
PROTECTION Globe of Invulnerability6
PROTECTION Protection from Energy3
PROTECTION Shield1
PROTECTION Stoneskin4
SHADOW Blight4
SHADOW Darkness2
SHADOW Disintegrate6
SHADOW Fear3
SHADOW Greater Invisibility4
SHADOW Invisibility2
STORM Chain Lightning6
STORM Fog Cloud1
STORM Gaseous Form3
STORM Gust of Wind2
STORM Lightning Bolt3
STORM Sleet Storm3
STORM Thunderwave1
SUMMONING Banishment4
SUMMONING Cloudkill5
SUMMONING Creation5
SUMMONING Gate9
SUMMONING Mage Armor1
SUMMONING Plane Shift1
SUMMONING Stinking Cloud3
SUMMONING Wall of Stone5
SUMMONING Web2
SUNLIGHT Daylight3
SUNLIGHT Sunbeam6
SUNLIGHT Sunburst6
TELEPORT Blink3
TELEPORT Dimension Door4
TELEPORT Etherealness4
TELEPORT Misty Step2
TELEPORT Teleport2
TELEPORT Teleportation Circle5
VISION Clairvoyance3
VISION Darkvision2
VISION Detect Magic1
VISION Detect Thoughts2
VISION See Invisibility2
VISION True Seeing6
VISION Wish6
WATER Cone of Cold5
WATER Ice Storm4
WATER Water Breathing3
WATER Water Walk3
Very unbalanced, just first word that came to mind for each one.
 
Last edited:

Chaosmancer

Adventurer
The concept of the individual sorcerer, which, as with any known-spell caster who doesn't get to completely change out his choices, is heavily defined by those spell choices.
Okay, that makes far more sense.

I'm not worried about that aspect of it, because that is up to the player.

I might not want my fire sorcerer breaking theme, but I can justify illusions easily through the concept of desert mirages, so that doesn't break theme for me.

The individual decides how much they want to stick by the theme they chose, and if they chose to break it, I would rather let them do so.
 
Okay, that makes far more sense.
I might not want my fire sorcerer breaking theme, but I can justify illusions easily through the concept of desert mirages, so that doesn't break theme for me.
The individual decides how much they want to stick by the theme they chose, and if they chose to break it, I would rather let them do so.
Mostly agree. And, swapping spells at level up works for that.
It's swapping spells in play - as in upon a long rest, in this variant - that has issues, because it looks more like an in-character decision. You might even have other PCs weighing in on it.
Whereas chargen and level-up is more meta.

So not that it isn't an individual decision, but whether it's an out of character decision made about the character (ie, my character, is going to be dragon-blooded, and therefore the spells he can know will fall within a certain theme) vs the in-character, nominally by the character ("as a dragon-blooded sorcerer, I choose to use only spells that fit with my heritage...
well, OK, maybe just this once, because my friends really need it...").

Where that becomes a class-design problem (and, really, it's just a sub-set of the problems with using classes, in the first place), is that, in the latter case, the player is imposing a meaningful restriction that, were it imposed by the class would presumably be 'balanced' by something else.
 
Last edited:

Ashrym

Hero
Trying to work the theme is one of the biggest issues with the sorcerer. Keeping on theme is actually another reason not to swap spells though. I don't think the theme was meant to be as significant as players want it and that was a disconnect between WotC and the players.

But I don't have there data either so that's speculation. ;)
 

Sword of Spirit

Adventurer
Apologies for not responding to all of the points. (I tend to get bored/burnt-out on threads once they get into the dozens of pages.) I do think this thread has succeeded in getting a strong discussion going on the topic, so it's probably about coming to its conclusion.

I do want to address just a few points though.

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.
Again, I don't disagree with most of your points or practical examples. I do, however, have a different take on what you're addressing in this paragraph.

For me, wizards are the ones best able to procure any spell. Sorcerers need to be inherently limited in that. Do I feel they need to be limited in the ability to change what spells they know? Not entirely. Do I feel they necessarily need to be prevented from changing a spell known every day? Not entirely.

But they need to be limited in both of those someway that goes beyond the limitations that would remain with Spell Versatility.

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.
It's not that the wizard might not be the only one with that solution--it's that they might not be to have that solution at all (they need to find that spell somewhere). By contrast, the sorcerer with Spell Versatility is guaranteed to be able to have the solution, and to have it tomorrow. That is huge for that particular issue.

I think there are quite a few non-divine spells that can solve problems that can be delayed until tomorrow.

Spell preparation is not a wizard thing. It's one of a choice of two broad mechanics wizards happen to use.
Wizard spell preparation is more limited than other prepared casters. Do you feel they would be balanced if they had access to every spell on their spell list rather than being limited to a subset of them in their spellbook? If that were the case, I'm not sure I'd have an issue with sorcerers having Spell Versatility, but I'd have to think about it more. It would solve the identity issue, because wizards would still be superior in the Tomorrow Spell Access and Extended Spell Access categories. I might still have some issues with Spell Versatility for sorcerer class identity, but they wouldn't be related to relative class identity compared to wizards.

Those spells on the sorcerer list are there because they are meant to be options for the sorcerer to use. There is currently no practical use in having placed those spells on that spell list because the limited spells known prevents sorcerers from using spells meant for sorcerers to use. Sorcerers are meant to be an alternative choice to wizards and in doing so there is some overlap, including the expectation that a sorcerer might teleport the party, open a planar gateway, or scry on enemies.
...
See above. The limited spells know makes those spells that sorcerers have and are meant to be used by sorcerers available instead of a superfluous addition to a list that pragmatically cannot be taken.
I'm sympathetic to this argument.

You want to resolve that by adding to the spells known list. I think giving sorcerers more spells known impacts the wizard identity more than a sorcerer doing arcane things during downtime because adding to spells known impacts your point 1 above. Point 1 is the game play standard.
...
All eyes should turn to the character filling the same role of the wizard in the arcane caster the party has. All eyes are never going to turn to the sorcerer unless we make forced assumptions that a single spell is required and only the sorcerer list has it and the wizard wouldn't have added it to the spell book already.
But as I mentioned, I'm as much concerned about what it says about the world as how it affects PC party gameplay. Wizards are the people you might visit because they can come up with the solution to any arcane spell access problem if you give them a day or a week. A sorcerer you'd only visit if you think their particular area of emphasis is relevant. With Spell Versatility, you'd go visit the sorcerer unless you knew the spell you needed wasn't on the sorcerer spell list, because the sorcerer is guaranteed to be able to have the spell tomorrow, while the wizard isn't.

In other words I find Point 1--Immediate Spell Access--to be the least important for class identity of the three. I wouldn't find it a challenge to wizard class identity to limit the number of spells they could prepare per day to the same number as the sorcerer's spells known (assuming no Spell Versatility). I wouldn't favor that sort of wizard nerf, but if there were some sort of gain that went along with it, I might consider it.

Or those players have a different opinion on what is creating the class identity for both classes that simply does not match your own.

Accusing player of not caring simply because they have a different opinion is incorrect and insulting, and does not directly respond to any points made. Your posts are usually much better than that. :(
I'm sorry if it came off that way. I wasn't trying to be insulting. There are some D&D things that I don't care about myself. I was actually attempting to acknowledge assumptions under which my claims wouldn't be relevant.

The UA changes are addressing one of the important levels of spell access that you did not list. Swapping spells out on leveling up. That was a concern and the expectation was that classes that use the spells known mechanic were to be swapping out spells more frequently than some campaigns were allowing.

5e's entire spells known mechanic has always assumed that these classes would be swapping out spells that were less useful to the campaign as it progressed. This always included access to the entire spell list.
...
This isn't about buffing classes. Spell versatility was about addressing a concern regarding the frequency of the current implementation. The current implementation is the ability to swap a single spell regardless of level, and that level exchange is still only something available on leveling up.
Yes, and I disagree that Mr. Crawford's solution to the stated problem is a good option. First--I'm not entirely sure he's correctly identifying the problem. He gave us his conclusions about what the problem is, and a suggestion that would address those conclusions. If he incorrectly identified the problem, then his solution might not fit. Second--He doesn't appear to recognize the significance of Tomorrow Spell Access or Extended Spell Access with regards to differences in sorcerer and wizard identity. That being the case, his solutions are unlikely to be informed by them, and we have vast disagreements about the value of said solutions ;-)

Here's an idea of how to make us of Spell Versatility without challenging those elements I ascribe to wizard spell identity. It's messy, I'm not sure I like it, and I'd have to fine tune it, but as a minimum change to highlight my position, here goes:

At level 1 a sorcerer selects six 1st-level spells on the sorcerer list that he does not know. These spell cease to be sorcerer spells for him, and cannot be learned through any feature of the sorcerer class. When he gains access to spell levels 2 through 5, he likewise selects spells of that level that he does not know on the sorcerer spell list (four for levels 2 through 5, and two for levels 6 through 9) which also cease to be sorcerer spells for him and cannot be learned through any feature of the sorcerer class.
 
Last edited:

Chaosmancer

Adventurer
Again, I don't disagree with most of your points or practical examples. I do, however, have a different take on what you're addressing in this paragraph.

For me, wizards are the ones best able to procure any spell. Sorcerers need to be inherently limited in that. Do I feel they need to be limited in the ability to change what spells they know? Not entirely. Do I feel they necessarily need to be prevented from changing a spell known every day? Not entirely.

But they need to be limited in both of those someway that goes beyond the limitations that would remain with Spell Versatility.
But as I mentioned, I'm as much concerned about what it says about the world as how it affects PC party gameplay. Wizards are the people you might visit because they can come up with the solution to any arcane spell access problem if you give them a day or a week. A sorcerer you'd only visit if you think their particular area of emphasis is relevant. With Spell Versatility, you'd go visit the sorcerer unless you knew the spell you needed wasn't on the sorcerer spell list, because the sorcerer is guaranteed to be able to have the spell tomorrow, while the wizard isn't.

In other words I find Point 1--Immediate Spell Access--to be the least important for class identity of the three. I wouldn't find it a challenge to wizard class identity to limit the number of spells they could prepare per day to the same number as the sorcerer's spells known (assuming no Spell Versatility). I wouldn't favor that sort of wizard nerf, but if there were some sort of gain that went along with it, I might consider it.
I think the biggest difference between our points of view is the idea that Sorcerers need to be inherently limited. I just can't wrap my head around why they should be.

Thematically limited, I can see. A Sorcerer born of the power of storms should have magic that reflects that. But, the DnD spell system is not terribly well suited to showcasing that difference. A Sorcerer casting Lightning Bolt and a Wizard casting Lightning Bolt look the exact same at the table. And a Sorcerer whose blood sings with the power of storms looks awfully similar to the sorcerer whose blood boils with the strength of ancient dragons of storm and sky when you start looking at spell and metamagic selections.

But, neither of those concepts makes me think "they should be limited in their ability to learn magic"


And I think, the biggest sign of our disconnect actually comes from the second thing I quoted. I have never heard of a party, seen a party, or considered a party to visit a sorcerer for help.

Your comment of a party only visiting a Sorcerer whose specialty fits the need is the first time I have ever heard of a party seeking out a sorcerer for magical assistance. And thinking about it, I can safely say it is because I have never (and still cannot) think of anything a Sorcerer could provide to the party that a Wizard NPC could not.

Especially since, as an NPC resource, I as the DM have already decided if they have what the party needs or not. And since I've decided, then they have it. So, the idea that they would not seek out the Wizard because the wizard might not have what they need is strange to me, because I've already decided whether or not the person they are seeking out has what they need regardless of the class of that person.



Here's an idea of how to make us of Spell Versatility without challenging those elements I ascribe to wizard spell identity. It's messy, I'm not sure I like it, and I'd have to fine tune it, but as a minimum change to highlight my position, here goes:

At level 1 a sorcerer selects six 1st-level spells on the sorcerer list that he does not know. These spell cease to be sorcerer spells for him, and cannot be learned through any feature of the sorcerer class. When he gains access to spell levels 2 through 5, he likewise selects spells of that level that he does not know on the sorcerer spell list (four for levels 2 through 5, and two for levels 6 through 9) which also cease to be sorcerer spells for him and cannot be learned through any feature of the sorcerer class.
IF this would make you happier, to go in and erase spells from the Sorcerer list just to arbitrarily self-limit them. Go ahead. I actually don't think it would break anything, because I already know what spells I would cut out 95% of the time for most levels.

1st: Charm Person, Chaos Bolt, Jump, Expeditious Retreat, False Life, Witch Bolt

2nd: Cloud of Daggers, Knock, Dust Devil, Pyrotechnics

3rd: Catnap, Flame Arrows, Daylight, Gaseous Form

4th: Charm Monster, Stoneskin, Dominate Beast, Sickening Radiance,


The pattern being, the spells least likely to be useful, the ones I would not take as a sorcerer anyways, because they are either too weak or too situational to be useful. And so, you would likely see no changes in your sorcerers from putting forth this rule change, because they would just be cutting the spells they would never have considered switching in for anyways.
 

Sword of Spirit

Adventurer
The pattern being, the spells least likely to be useful, the ones I would not take as a sorcerer anyways, because they are either too weak or too situational to be useful. And so, you would likely see no changes in your sorcerers from putting forth this rule change, because they would just be cutting the spells they would never have considered switching in for anyways.
And that's fine. The point is to limit them from having access to an entire class spell list tomorrow, because I think that particular ability is a conceptual challenge to wizards.
 

Ashrym

Hero
And that's fine. The point is to limit them from having access to an entire class spell list tomorrow, because I think that particular ability is a conceptual challenge to wizards.
Except clerics, druids, paladins, and now artificers have access to their entire class spell list tomorrow. That's not a wizard concept. Spell preparation is just a broad category of spell casting style.

The unique part is the spell book concept and that hasn't changed.

If these optional rules make it into a published form then I imagine people will house-rule what they want. I don't agree with the premise that wizards somehow solely own swapping spells. It's too broad among too many classes to make that claim.

Limiting something that won't be used much seem pointless as well. What difference does it make if a sorcerer removes spells from the sorcerer list he or she would never take anyway?

A sorcerer you'd only visit if you think their particular area of emphasis is relevant.
What is that particular area of emphasis? Sorcerers are a wizard alternative. Seeking their help instead of a wizard also makes sense. It's still not like spell versatility lets them swap out a lot of spells at the request of someone who shows up at their doorstep. It does give the "come back tomorrow" opportunity if it's a single spell needed, similar to the wizard in that case.

I still think that reinforces the sorcerer identity as an arcane spellcaster instead of removing the wizard identity because they have similar identities in that regard.
 

Sword of Spirit

Adventurer
What is that particular area of emphasis? Sorcerers are a wizard alternative. Seeking their help instead of a wizard also makes sense. It's still not like spell versatility lets them swap out a lot of spells at the request of someone who shows up at their doorstep. It does give the "come back tomorrow" opportunity if it's a single spell needed, similar to the wizard in that case.

I still think that reinforces the sorcerer identity as an arcane spellcaster instead of removing the wizard identity because they have similar identities in that regard.
"Come back tomorrow" only works if that wizard has that spell in their personal spellbook. Spell Versatility makes it work for any sorcerer of the appropriate level because they all have all the sorcerer spells potentially available to them tomorrow. Visiting one sorcerer is therefore the same as visiting any other sorcerer and there is no gamble. Visiting a wizard on the other hand might not be useful.
 

Ashrym

Hero
"Come back tomorrow" only works if that wizard has that spell in their personal spellbook. Spell Versatility makes it work for any sorcerer of the appropriate level because they all have all the sorcerer spells potentially available to them tomorrow. Visiting one sorcerer is therefore the same as visiting any other sorcerer and there is no gamble. Visiting a wizard on the other hand might not be useful.
Spells worth having are going to be in that spell book. This is especially true of high level spells where the lists are shorter. There are only so many spells people are seeking out, and some of them are simply never available to the sorcerer because they don't exist at all on the sorcerer list.

Which level of spell are you looking at where the entire spell list is relevant in such a scenario?
 

Sword of Spirit

Adventurer
I disagree that the spellbook will have all the spells worth having, because every utility spell is worth having for the time when you need it, but you might not have had the opportunity and funds to pick up all of them preemptively.

That being said, sorcerers do suffer from a lack of utility spells, so this problem isn't as extreme as it would be if they actually had access to the full wizard spell list. It only gets worse if more spells get added to the sorcerer class list however. Here are the most obvious examples that stand out to me of spells on both spell lists that might not be something the wizard has in his book, but might be something characters would visit an arcanist to get access to.

9th-level:
-Gate
-Wish*

7th-level:
-Etherealness
-Plane Shift
-Teleport

5th-level:
-Creation
-Teleportation Circle

*I assume anyone who can take wish, does take wish, but I'm apparently wrong in that. Same goes for certain other spells that seem like everyone would take them.

I realize that list isn't huge but that's assuming we are talking about going to the arcanist to have them cast a spell for the party on premises. If we are allowing the creation of scrolls, then it suddenly opens up a lot. In fact, with scrolls, sorcerers could theoretically create a scroll of every spell on their spell list, and then always have access to every spell on the sorcerer list Immediately rather than tomorrow. A wizard could only do that with spells in his own spellbook.
 

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen... Be nice plz n_n
@Sword of Spirit, if you might. Is your point that part of wizard identity is to have a spell while the sorcerer can't, and that a sorcerer having a spell the party needs while the wizard doesn't somehow undermines that? Because, if that's the case, that ship has already sailed. A divine soul can already heal, raise the dead and inflict antimagic on the world, things that wizards can't do, not even with a day's heads up, not even with enough downtime to hunt for spells.

Of course I might be misunderstanding your point, so I apologize in advance for it.
 

Advertisement

Top