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

[Ashrym]

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.

Except spell versatility was stated to address the issue where spells known casters weren't able to change spells as often as originally intended after years of observation. That's what it does and spells were always meant to be changed with these classes.

Cantrip versatility isn't meant to balance out some buff people think spells known casters just got. It was to allow for respeccing without needing DM fiat. That's what it does.

Everything else is white noise arguing regardless how it's justified. Those are simple goals with simple solutions.

 

[tetrasodium]

Except spell versatility was stated to address the issue where spells known casters weren't able to change spells as often as originally intended after years of observation. That's what it does and spells were always meant to be changed with these classes.

Cantrip versatility isn't meant to balance out some buff people think spells known casters just got. It was to allow for respeccing without needing DM fiat. That's what it does.

Everything else is white noise arguing regardless how it's justified. Those are simple goals with simple solutions.

I'll argue past you again... Nobody is arguing against spell versatility & many (including myself & I believe sword of saint) have said more than once that they are fine with the reasons crawford gave for spell versatility.

Yes, cantrip versatility was intruduced not as a buff but for all the reasons crawford gave for why spell versatility is added on long rest when sorc already had on level. That didn't stop the sorcerer defenders from dismissing that logic & saying wizard was too good when people suggested that cantrip versatility should be the same on rest as spell versatility for the same reasons given to spell versatility


You demonstrate my cherry picked bad faith arguing point on multiple levels with this ridiculous post of yours, congratulations.

 

[Ashrym]

Nobody is arguing against spell versatility & many (including myself & I believe sword of saint) have said more than once that they are fine with the reasons crawford gave for spell versatility.

Okay, so you are fine with why the options were proposed. When I repeat the goals and solutions to help keep the conversation on track confirming you understand those are the goals and proposed options to meet them is good to keep us on the same page.

Yes, cantrip versatility was intruduced not as a buff but for all the reasons crawford gave for why spell versatility is added on long rest when sorc already had on level. That didn't stop the sorcerer defenders from dismissing that logic & saying wizard was too good when people suggested that cantrip versatility should be the same on rest as spell versatility for the same reasons given to spell versatility

This is where I see the disconnect. "The sorcerer defenders" creates an "us versus them pick a side" argument that distracts from the points I made regarding goals and options to meet those goals. When you say you understand that cantrip versatility was given on leveling up because it addresses the respeccing concern and you say you understand spell versatility was given on long rest to because it addresses spell swapping rate concerns then I would ask you what concern does changing cantrip versatility to a long rest swap address?

There's no connection between "does not have a cantrip respeccing mechanic" and "spells are not getting swapped as often as intended". Spell versatility addresses an intended use of those classes and how they use spells so that they are WAI. There's no bridge from that point to apply the same logic to cantrips for wizards, who are already working as intended.

Cantrip versatility on a long rest is addressing something that was not intended and without an underlying need that needs addressed.

 

[tetrasodium]

Okay, so you are fine with why the options were proposed. When I repeat the goals and solutions to help keep the conversation on track confirming you understand those are the goals and proposed options to meet them is good to keep us on the same page.



This is where I see the disconnect. "The sorcerer defenders" creates an "us versus them pick a side" argument that distracts from the points I made regarding goals and options to meet those goals. When you say you understand that cantrip versatility was given on leveling up because it addresses the respeccing concern and you say you understand spell versatility was given on long rest to because it addresses spell swapping rate concerns then I would ask you what concern does changing cantrip versatility to a long rest swap address?

There's no connection between "does not have a cantrip respeccing mechanic" and "spells are not getting swapped as often as intended". Spell versatility addresses an intended use of those classes and how they use spells so that they are WAI. There's no bridge from that point to apply the same logic to cantrips for wizards, who are already working as intended.

Cantrip versatility on a long rest is addressing something that was not intended and without an underlying need that needs addressed.

Your post seems to be worded in ways that imply you did not realize that I had made those points repeatedly through the various discussions (including this one) with you and others. Your post also backs up the claim that one side of the debate is talking past the other. The fact that I can to say that without exaggeration is why calling people defending against a Nerf request not being made needed to be called "sorcerer defenders".

Edit as to your point about cantrip versatility being a new thing for wizards.. So is spell versatility on long rests for sorcerers. You embrace the reasons Crawford gave for why spell versatility is a thing when it comes to sorcerers and simultaneously reject them entirely when it comes to wizards as if the wizard class somehow does not play in the kinds of games Crawford points at yet sorcerers do... There is no evidence to support the idea that wizards don't play in those games and I don't think anyone has even attempted to claim it.... Unfortunately that's not the first time I've had to point out that flawed logic.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Except spell versatility was stated to address the issue where spells known casters weren't able to change spells as often as originally intended after years of observation. That's what it does and spells were always meant to be changed with these classes.

The difference between long rest and at level up, though, is not only pretty profound (arguably from meta-game to in-play, for one thing), it's also not consistent from campaign to campaign. So while it might help a slow-leveling campaign achieve closer to the intended level of flexibility, it could go completely overboard in a campaign with lots of downtime.

Also, the piecemeal addressing of 're-speccing,' of allowing players to change choices they made that they later regret, class-by class strikes me as unnecessarily complicated.

Why not just allow 'retraining' of one prior level-up choice each time you level? It's simple, it applies to everyone, so it's fair, and it's not just pouring more gasoline on the fire.
Slow-leveling campaigns could allow the same with a number of downtime days of retraining that fits their pacing.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'll argue past you again... Nobody is arguing against spell versatility & many (including myself & I believe sword of saint) have said more than once that they are fine with the reasons crawford gave for spell versatility.

Yes, cantrip versatility was intruduced not as a buff but for all the reasons crawford gave for why spell versatility is added on long rest when sorc already had on level. That didn't stop the sorcerer defenders from dismissing that logic & saying wizard was too good when people suggested that cantrip versatility should be the same on rest as spell versatility for the same reasons given to spell versatility


You demonstrate my cherry picked bad faith arguing point on multiple levels with this ridiculous post of yours, congratulations.

Wait, what?

A lot of people do seem to be arguing that Sorcerers should not get spell versatility, because it destroys the wizards role in the party (as I understand the argument) or because it ruins the thematic purity of the sorcerer.

And I have not seen anyone say that wizard's should not get cantrip versatility. In fact, I barely registered when people mentioned wanting to switch cantrips on a long rest. Was that something that got a lot of flak?

I have to admit Tetrasodium, you confuse me greatly. You never seem to be arguing what you are arguing and no one seems to mean what they say when you respond to them. I'm honestly confused here.
Is all that you want for Wizards to get Cantrip Versatility on a Long Rest?

 

[tetrasodium]

Wait, what?

A lot of people do seem to be arguing that Sorcerers should not get spell versatility, because it destroys the wizards role in the party (as I understand the argument) or because it ruins the thematic purity of the sorcerer.

And I have not seen anyone say that wizard's should not get cantrip versatility. In fact, I barely registered when people mentioned wanting to switch cantrips on a long rest. Was that something that got a lot of flak?

I have to admit Tetrasodium, you confuse me greatly. You never seem to be arguing what you are arguing and no one seems to mean what they say when you respond to them. I'm honestly confused here.
Is all that you want for Wizards to get Cantrip Versatility on a Long Rest?

It does step on the toes of the wizard's role in the party, but people are not unsympathetic to the reasons crawford gave for making spell versatility on rest... Which is why those people noting it so often continue on to say that wizards should get something that allows them to once again have a niche of their own that's not "a really expensive sorcerer". I listed a few examples that myself and others have made in this thread and others barely one page ago here where when you & others started the cycle of suddenly joining late to the discussion you'd been taking part in for a couple days now all over again.

Cantrip versatility should be on long rest not on level for the exact same reasons crawford gave for why spell versatility is on long rest instead of the on level sorcerer already has. There is no discussion here that does not involve poor logic & bad faith until someone can present evidence that wizards do not ever play in the kinds pf games crawford talked about. There is no discussion to be had on why cantrip versatility should not be long rest that does not also apply itself to spell versatility because both sorcerer & wizard class players play in the slower leveling games crawford mentions it was intended for. Why do I need to keep pointing this out to you?

Since it would be absurd to claim wizards never play in those games, you instead turn to "will that make wizards happy" topic shift. What is concerning is not that wizards aren't getting something nice enough or that the sorcerer spell versatility is too good, it's the fact that spell versatility is so good that it steps on the toes of wizard class role in a party & massively undercuts the very expensive/time consuming/hard to build spellbook's value... because it does that, wizards should gain something that allows them to once again have a clear niche & role within a party that the class can point to & say that it's where the wizard really shines. As to examples of things that could be added to allow them to shine

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.

I'm sure there's been others but none come to mind.If done right, heck... maybe even short rest spell versatility for those poor "crappy wizard" with something else is the right spot for spell versatility.

I "confuse" you because you put effort into not understanding,
with

 

[Tony Vargas]

A lot of people do seem to be arguing that Sorcerers should not get spell versatility, because it destroys the wizards role in the party (as I understand the argument) or because it ruins the thematic purity of the sorcerer.

The latter's valid, IMHO.

It's also just bizarre to continue to make casting easier & more versatile. Each ed I wonder how they're going to pull it off, and each ed, they do. After 4e, with at-will attack spells and OAs only for range/area spell or not, and close-AE spells getting no OAs at all, and implements, and everything else, with about the only meaningful restriction on some spells being an action to maintain them, I thought, there's no way they could soft-ball the restrictions on casting any further.

Not only was I wrong ('s'OK, I'm used to it), as 5e happily removed OAs, let you cast spells even while concentrating on another, and gave everyone not only at-wills but spontaneous casting, but, now, they have to go and let you take back your known spell choices on a daily basis?

How is 6e supposed to coddle the pointy-hat set any more than this?
….IDK, but I'm sure it'll find a way.




( I know, I know: "in the snow, up-hill, both ways!")

 

[Chaosmancer]

It does step on the toes of the wizard's role in the party, but people are not unsympathetic to the reasons crawford gave for making spell versatility on rest... Which is why those people noting it so often continue on to say that wizards should get something that allows them to once again have a niche of their own that's not "a really expensive sorcerer". I listed a few examples that myself and others have made in this thread and others barely one page ago here where when you & others started the cycle of suddenly joining late to the discussion you'd been taking part in for a couple days now all over again.

Cantrip versatility should be on long rest not on level for the exact same reasons crawford gave for why spell versatility is on long rest instead of the on level sorcerer already has. There is no discussion here that does not involve poor logic & bad faith until someone can present evidence that wizards do not ever play in the kinds pf games crawford talked about. There is no discussion to be had on why cantrip versatility should not be long rest that does not also apply itself to spell versatility because both sorcerer & wizard class players play in the slower leveling games crawford mentions it was intended for. Why do I need to keep pointing this out to you?

Since it would be absurd to claim wizards never play in those games, you instead turn to "will that make wizards happy" topic shift. What is concerning is not that wizards aren't getting something nice enough or that the sorcerer spell versatility is too good, it's the fact that spell versatility is so good that it steps on the toes of wizard class role in a party & massively undercuts the very expensive/time consuming/hard to build spellbook's value... because it does that, wizards should gain something that allows them to once again have a clear niche & role within a party that the class can point to & say that it's where the wizard really shines. As to examples of things that could be added to allow them to shine

I'm sure there's been others but none come to mind.If done right, heck... maybe even short rest spell versatility for those poor "crappy wizard" with something else is the right spot for spell versatility.

I "confuse" you because you put effort into not understanding,
with

No, you confuse me because you constantly seem to be arguing something I'm not saying.

If you want Wizard's to have Cantrip Versatility on a Long rest, go ahead. I've got zero issues with it. Cantrips are usually a lot more obvious in which ones are staples. I can think of a few times they'd like to switch, and if they wanted to I have no issue with it. Might get someone to finally use Blade Ward, since it never comes up.

I wouldn't do short rest changes for wizards, but I would have no issue with more and interesting ritual spells being added to the game.

So... again, I'm confused. You seem to be railing against how I am putting no effort into understanding you, but I have been defending the fact that the Sorcerer should get an ability, not saying that wizard's should get nothing and be happy about it.

I'm very curious how you could confuse my position for being something that it is not, which you have done multiple times on this thread.

The latter's valid, IMHO.

It's also just bizarre to continue to make casting easier & more versatile. Each ed I wonder how they're going to pull it off, and each ed, they do. After 4e, with at-will attack spells and OAs only for range/area spell or not, and close-AE spells getting no OAs at all, and implements, and everything else, with about the only meaningful restriction on some spells being an action to maintain them, I thought, there's no way they could soft-ball the restrictions on casting any further.

Not only was I wrong ('s'OK, I'm used to it), as 5e happily removed OAs, let you cast spells even while concentrating on another, and gave everyone not only at-wills but spontaneous casting, but, now, they have to go and let you take back your known spell choices on a daily basis?

How is 6e supposed to coddle the pointy-hat set any more than this?
….IDK, but I'm sure it'll find a way.


( I know, I know: "in the snow, up-hill, both ways!")

That seems to be two different things.

I can see how spellcasting has gotten easier and easier over the decades, but I'm not sure why that impacts the thematics of the sorcerer.

I get how people see "magic in the blood" and can take changing that magic to mean changing the blood and getting confused, but to me it is more... well, magic in the soul, raw and unformed, so being able to reshape that magic into something new on a daily basis makes more sense to me than them being locked in place with their casting.

But, this is all taste and opinion, and you can't argue taste.

 

[Umbran]

You demonstrate my cherry picked bad faith arguing point on multiple levels with this ridiculous post of yours, congratulations.

I "confuse" you because you put effort into not understanding

Mod Note:
@tetrasodium

We're going to need you to cut back several notches on the aggression and insults.

I don't know what's up with you. Please go vent your frustrations elsewhere before posting, or do whatever you need to do to treat folks here with respect, because more of this will and you'll find yourself out of the discussion.

If you have any questions about this, please take them to private message with any of the moderating staff.
Thanks.