I'm not sure how 'common' figures into it. And I must have missed the claims.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 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.
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.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.
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.
No question, but they are less differentiated because they're both spell swapping.These things are not equal just because they can both be categorized as spell swapping.
TBF, they may not care about the ranger, or just feel sorry for it.For the same reason people aren't complaining about rangers using spell versatility, which is the exact same ability sorcerers are using.
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.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.
He can: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
Well, and the rest of the campaign after that stretch of downtime, because you're essentially playing a completely different sorcerer, at that point.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.
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.)
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.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.
Then there's no need to let it intrude on play, the extant mechanism is more than adequate.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.
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?spell swapping for sorcerers was always intended and there was a concern that it was not happening as often as intended.
Are more people using slower leveling via reduced exp or milestones or something?
Again, at level-up is fine - ideal, even - for spell you outgrow, since growth, in that sense, happens at level-up.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.
Why should it intrude in play?
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.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.
I'm not sure I see why that's even an issue.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.
"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"
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.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.
Did you ever try to do a thematic wizard, back in the day, before we had sorcerers?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.
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.