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

[Paul Farquhar]

Except 2 is not being removed. Changing a single spell for another single spell of the same level is not the same thing as changing any number of prepped spells out for an equal number of prepped spells regardless of level.

It's usually as easy to rest for a fortnight as rest for a night, so no, this lets sorcerers easily change ALL their spells between adventures, same as wizards.

Because the ability to swap out one spell is equal to meta-magic? That's a pretty big leap in eye for an eye philosophy.

That completely misrepresents what I said. I am assuming that the now-pointless sorcerer class has been deleted from the game. Only then would I allow other casters to acquire metamagic, perhaps with a feat as in 3rd edition.

 

[William Pennington]

been an interesting debate. Came looking for thoughts, as one of my Sorceror PC's is excitedly asking for this, which made my suspicious before I even read it. It does seem to step in Wizards identity. In a short term sense, if adventuring is constant, and often changing, and of shorter duration one spell a day change is useful, but not a full scale optimization. In ohter circumstances, where the players have significant preparation time, the basic adventure is longer with a constant similar set of obstacles or foes, or can enter and exit at will (which is more common at mid and higher levels), the Sorcerer becomes much better at preparing and specializing for a chosen task than they have in the past, and perhaps moreso than the wizard.

I understand the complaints of sorcerer players, but its part of the package they get in exchange for their exclusive metamagic and numerous other abilities. This solution sadly erodes from the Wizards identity, and elevates a Sorcerer above them in what was supposed to be a strength in certain situation. I think its back to the drawing board--or maybe just telling Sorcerer players that they have to accept limitations in exchange for their advantages. They cant have their cake--and the Wizards cake, and eat both of them.

Probably going to have to say no to the whole kit and caboodle, just to soothe the offended Sorceror PC.

 

[Chaosmancer]

UA articles are proposed changes to the game put out for playtest purposes. They are generally not yet balanced. They aren't just toys for us. If they are rated as popular, they get published in official products. The reason why those who don't like the way something is done in a UA should care about it, is that now is the time to provided feedback so that when they do put out the product with the finished version we are happy to buy it.

I almost never use UA materials in my games, because they unpolished and unbalanced. I usually allow in actual published content, and I'd prefer that content be of as high quality and as useful to as many people as possible, which is why I'm tearing into this material and trying to get everyone thinking about it, so we can figure out stuff about it they may not have thought of (the purpose of a playtest).

I don't agree with Mr. Crawford's apparent view of the wizard. I see daily flexibility as merely one component of the wizard's identity. My Premise B flexibility is another vital component.

I think I probably was misreading something he said, but it almost sounded like he was saying that the specific spells a wizard knows are part of his identity--which I think is exactly backwards. The ability to not be limited to specific spells is a part of wizard identity, whereas knowing certain specific spells is part of the sorcerer's identity. This is where I'm seeing an identity confusion.



It sounds like you don't accept my Premise B (which is actually my assumption--that anyone who disagrees with my concerns does so because they have a different concept of wizard identity that doesn't include Premise B). The sort of flexibility that you explained is an important part of wizard identity. If there were a proposed change that took that ability away from them, even if they gave them something like Spell Versatility (which I don't think wizards should have either) in exchange, I wouldn't like it. These are two halves of the wizard's identity to me. I have daily preparation flexibility, and I'm the most likely to be able to find that one spell we need.

I'm an equal opportunity identity guardian. See my sorcerer threads for how I think they are underprivileged compared to the wizard in flexibility. Spell Versatility is a wrong way to handle it, because it takes away a vital part (Premise B) of the wizard's identity.

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.

 

[Chaosmancer]

been an interesting debate. Came looking for thoughts, as one of my Sorceror PC's is excitedly asking for this, which made my suspicious before I even read it. It does seem to step in Wizards identity. In a short term sense, if adventuring is constant, and often changing, and of shorter duration one spell a day change is useful, but not a full scale optimization. In ohter circumstances, where the players have significant preparation time, the basic adventure is longer with a constant similar set of obstacles or foes, or can enter and exit at will (which is more common at mid and higher levels), the Sorcerer becomes much better at preparing and specializing for a chosen task than they have in the past, and perhaps moreso than the wizard.

I understand the complaints of sorcerer players, but its part of the package they get in exchange for their exclusive metamagic and numerous other abilities. This solution sadly erodes from the Wizards identity, and elevates a Sorcerer above them in what was supposed to be a strength in certain situation. I think its back to the drawing board--or maybe just telling Sorcerer players that they have to accept limitations in exchange for their advantages. They cant have their cake--and the Wizards cake, and eat both of them.

Probably going to have to say no to the whole kit and caboodle, just to soothe the offended Sorceror PC.

Two things.

1) What limitations do you think would be appropriate?

2) I would check why your player was excited about this change before saying no to the entire article. If they were looking forward to dropping some underperforming spells, or to try out some less optimal things just for fun, it might not be as bad as eating the wizard's cake.

 

[NotAYakk]

Two things.

1) What limitations do you think would be appropriate?

2) I would check why your player was excited about this change before saying no to the entire article. If they were looking forward to dropping some underperforming spells, or to try out some less optimal things just for fun, it might not be as bad as eating the wizard's cake.

Yes, the problem isn't "I have some spells I think suck", it is "I want to reconfigure my spell load one way, then back again, regularly and reliably" that most of the critics are addressing.

The additional sorcerer spells? Sure. Font of magic options? Yay. Metamagic options? Go for it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, the problem isn't "I have some spells I think suck", it is "I want to reconfigure my spell load one way, then back again, regularly and reliably" that most of the critics are addressing.

The additional sorcerer spells? Sure. Font of magic options? Yay. Metamagic options? Go for it.

But I think this ability was more designed to address the first, not the second.

 

[FrogReaver]

But I think this ability was more designed to address the first, not the second.

It feels like they already had that.

 

[Ashrym]

Yes, the problem isn't "I have some spells I think suck", it is "I want to reconfigure my spell load one way, then back again, regularly and reliably" that most of the critics are addressing.

The additional sorcerer spells? Sure. Font of magic options? Yay. Metamagic options? Go for it.

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.

Rangers can swap spells on a long rest using spell versatility. Rangers know more spells at any given time than sorcerers because they have 11 from the chart and 8 for free from the UA changes compared to a sorcerer's 15. Rangers are adding free castings per day that work out better than arcane recovery. Rangers have access to any spell known on the ranger spell list as well; this includes access to "problem spells" like awaken. Rangers are taking away from vital druid spell preparation identity and wizard identity by swapping spells.

All the arguments against spell versatility apply to rangers, but given rangers will know more spells at any give time and can cast more spells in a day then the ranger should be more of a concern than the bard or sorcerer.

This looks a lot more like class bias than an examination of the actual mechanics to me.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Rangers can swap spells on a long rest using spell versatility. Rangers know more spells at any given time than sorcerers because they have 11 from the chart and 8 for free from the UA changes compared to a sorcerer's 15. Rangers are adding free castings per day that work out better than arcane recovery. Rangers have access to any spell known on the ranger spell list as well; this includes access to "problem spells" like awaken. Rangers are taking away from vital druid spell preparation identity and wizard identity by swapping spells.

All the arguments against spell versatility apply to rangers, but given rangers will know more spells at any give time and can cast more spells in a day then the ranger should be more of a concern than the bard or sorcerer.

This looks a lot more like class bias than an examination of the actual mechanics to me.

This wins most absurd comment of the day

 

[Ashrym]

This wins most absurd comment of the day

And yet everything in it is completely true. Except actually being better spellcasters maybe.

Excellent job countering the points, btw. I though we progressed to the point we responded with logic instead of attacking styles of comments.


The arguments apply. They are the same arguments. The only difference is the word "ranger" can be equally used with the word "sorcerer". The differences go beyond those mechanics, which is also true of sorcerers and wizards.