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

[DND_Reborn]

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.

I think the only reason sorcerers and bards are getting the brunt of this is due to the fact so many of their arcane spell lists overlap wizards. Warlocks, frankly, IMO, need something more to make them more distinct.

Rangers aren't likely to fill the utility role via spell versatility, but sorcerers and bards easily can (however limited by your frequency of long rests).

This wins most absurd comment of the day

Yeah, I don't agree with that at all! It was a very valid comment.

 

[Ashrym]

I think the only reason sorcerers and bards are getting the brunt of this is due to the fact so many of their arcane spell lists overlap wizards. Warlocks, frankly, IMO, need something more to make them more distinct.

Rangers aren't likely to fill the utility role via spell versatility, but sorcerers and bards easily can (however limited by your frequency of long rests).

Rangers are less likely to fill it because of the spells on the spell list. That's part of the point I was implying. Wizards have a lot of spells available that are not available to sorcerers or bards. The actual spell list is huge for a wizard on top of massively better spell swapping on a rest.

The only real abuse possible for spell versatility is downtime activities. That just let's sorcerers meet the tropes better. Adventure swaps are simply minor given these classes already have the spells they are most likely to use in the first place so no reason to swap them out other than the rare situation of needing a spell that might be on the class list and the luxury of time without other options that would work instead.

It's a mountain out of a molehill concern.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

yup

taking 9th as a good waypoint
Sorc class knows 10
rangers knows 6 + 5 from PA (one free use each) + hunters mare (free uses equals wismod so lets guess 3)
thats 10 vs 12
thats 13 castings for sorc vs 14+ for ranger

sure sorc has level 5 vs level 3 going for it but... obviously the ranger has things too.

both have subclasses that can give castings and spells.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It's a mountain out of a molehill concern.

For the most part I agree.

While during downtime a sorcerer or whoever could swap out their known spells entirely, once the adventure is "underway" I don't see it as much of an issue. Similarly, during the same downtime, a wizard can potentially hunt down and add more spells to his book.

 

[tetrasodium]

For the most part I agree.

While during downtime a sorcerer or whoever could swap out their known spells entirely, once the adventure is "underway" I don't see it as much of an issue. Similarly, during the same downtime, a wizard can potentially hunt down and add more spells to his book.

You realize that even if the wizard finds spells, they might not be a useful spell, they very likely will have a notable cost if they were meaningful spells in the first place, scribing them has an additional gold cost and 1-2hr/spell level.

We are talkin about something that crawford has said he would like to eventually refine/publish in an official form rather than a UA... so by what official or UA method other than their GM & hope are you suggesting that a wizard would use to "hunt down and add more spells to his book." while the sorcerer is resting? From the tone & wording this method of "hunt down and add more spells to his book." sounds pretty trivial, I'm surprised I've never had a wizard player say "can I use this UA" or "is this really as good as it looks on xxx page #?" xge lists a 2nd level spell as 3 downtime days & 250gp on top of needing to have the spell prepared making it sound rather inapplicable to either that situation or the trivial level of effort you seem to imply.

 

[Ashrym]

You realize that even if the wizard finds spells, they might not be a useful spell, they very likely will have a notable cost if they were meaningful spells in the first place, scribing them has an additional gold cost and 1-2hr/spell level.

That's why everyone takes "the best" spells first and limits the use of spell swapping for everyone in general.

We are talkin about something that crawford has said he would like to eventually refine/publish in an official form rather than a UA... so by what official or UA method other than their GM & hope are you suggesting that a wizard would use to "hunt down and add more spells to his book." while the sorcerer is resting? From the tone & wording this method of "hunt down and add more spells to his book." sounds pretty trivial, I'm surprised I've never had a wizard player say "can I use this UA" or "is this really as good as it looks on xxx page #?" xge lists a 2nd level spell as 3 downtime days & 250gp on top of needing to have the spell prepared making it sound rather inapplicable to either that situation or the trivial level of effort you seem to imply.

Do you have XGtE? The DMG mentions magic items but XGtE expands on hunting down and purchasing magic items.

Multiple campaign books include it too.

It's game dependent but then again so is inclusion of these optional rules such as spell versatility.

 

[tetrasodium]

That's why everyone takes "the best" spells first and limits the use of spell swapping for everyone in general.



Do you have XGtE? The DMG mentions magic items but XGtE expands on hunting down and purchasing magic items.

Multiple campaign books include it too.

It's game dependent but then again so is inclusion of these optional rules such as spell versatility.

Yes I do, but the options you elude to are neither cheap, quick, trivial, or guaranteed to a degree that would justify the seeming ease & triviality implied in the post I quoted

The fact that we are talking about a UA crawford would like to make official makes rhetorical "game dependent" solutions a bit silly & I did ask if there was a UA that was being referred to...

 

[DND_Reborn]

You realize that even if the wizard finds spells, they might not be a useful spell, they very likely will have a notable cost if they were meaningful spells in the first place, scribing them has an additional gold cost and 1-2hr/spell level.

We are talkin about something that crawford has said he would like to eventually refine/publish in an official form rather than a UA... so by what official or UA method other than their GM & hope are you suggesting that a wizard would use to "hunt down and add more spells to his book." while the sorcerer is resting? From the tone & wording this method of "hunt down and add more spells to his book." sounds pretty trivial, I'm surprised I've never had a wizard player say "can I use this UA" or "is this really as good as it looks on xxx page #?" xge lists a 2nd level spell as 3 downtime days & 250gp on top of needing to have the spell prepared making it sound rather inapplicable to either that situation or the trivial level of effort you seem to imply.

Well, one sole ability of wizards that is lacking in 5E is the option to research spells, so they don't have to find them. And, since there is no limit to the number of spells a wizard can have in his book and thus learn, there is no such thing as a useless spell. Will it be worth the money to scribe it? That is up to the player, of course. Since it is also downtime, I would not be concerned with the time required to scribe a spell, and IME most games have enough gp that I would not be overly concered with the cost, either. Of course, your experience may differ.

If spell versatility makes it into an official book, it is always still optional, just like everything in 5E. And finally as I said, once the downtime is over and the adventure is underway, I can't see much chances for extended long rests to permit multiple spell swapping. Even so, I think most of the time we are talking about a handful of spells at most, since most players choose spells that they think (and often find) are most useful from the start. In our games, characters rarely even swap out spells at level advances other than to trade-up to a higher level spell.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Not the same arguments because there’s a number of differences in the sorcerer and ranger classes and their overall relationships with the rest of the system.

 

[tetrasodium]

Well, one sole ability of wizards that is lacking in 5E is the option to research spells, so they don't have to find them. And, since there is no limit to the number of spells a wizard can have in his book and thus learn, there is no such thing as a useless spell. Will it be worth the money to scribe it? That is up to the player, of course. Since it is also downtime, I would not be concerned with the time required to scribe a spell, and IME most games have enough gp that I would not be overly concered with the cost, either. Of course, your experience may differ.

If spell versatility makes it into an official book, it is always still optional, just like everything in 5E. And finally as I said, once the downtime is over and the adventure is underway, I can't see much chances for extended long rests to permit multiple spell swapping. Even so, I think most of the time we are talking about a handful of spells at most, since most players choose spells that they think (and often find) are most useful from the start. In our games, characters rarely even swap out spells at level advances other than to trade-up to a higher level spell.

Indeed that research is sorely lacking from the wizard class & even moreso that it didn't even get mentioned in ths UA or the downtime UA that eventually made it into xge (unless my memory is off & it just got cut). There is a useless spell though, every single spell on the wizard spell list can be useless if they already have it scribed. Knock & arcane lock might be super niche spells unlikely to see much time in a prepped list, but a wizard who has knock arcane lock & fireball who finds a spellbook with knock arcane lock & fireball is pretty much finding the equivalent of "yay... another mundane longsword".

Because wizards have a good chance of wanting to scribe any spell that might be useful they only have better & better odds of having more & more useless pages in spellbooks they find. That issue is not helped by WotC's adventure design where spellbooks are rarely found by anything other than cr6 creatures & up. When those spellbooks are noted as being carried by a baddie the contents are depressingly often going to be "all of the spells listed as prepared on the cr6 mage/cr12 archmage statblock" There are a few incredible exceptions from killing things like storm giants in stk or one of the ringleaders at the end(?) of PoTA, but getting a spellbook that looks like a wizard uses it at the end of a campaign is problematic in the extreme for character building.

Yes, there are game dependent options like hoping a gm knows the system well enough & is comfortable enough as a gm to change up the treasure awards or make their own adventures... but that goes back to the problem of hoping for gm involvement against a feature crawford would eventually like to publish in an official source that the less comfortable/experienced gm is IME likely to allow as an official thing published by wotc.