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

[Yaarel]

Bear in mind that these entries aren't meant to be read in isolation - they're intended to be inserted into the existing PHB text. The wording is a lot less ambiguous when the paragraph is simply one more sub-heading under the Spellcasting class feature.

I suspect this is true, that this UA will become some kind of expansion of the Players Handbook itself. Somehow. But I dont know this is true.

 

[Krachek]

(I also agree with Krachek's post. As a person, I'm sympathetic to the suggestion that it's selling WoTC's design team short, but as a pragmatist, having a deep understanding of organisational psychology and having attended thousands or tens of thousands of meetings over many, long, decades of professional life, he's basically captured how most decisions are made. Both decisions about a game of make-believe where people pretend to kill orcs and take their stuff, and decisions about how to spend many, many millions of taxpayers dollars. Sad, but that's reality).

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

I was somewhere very sarcastic with my post, but in fact I’m a huge fan of the dev team of 5th.
i was trying to point out that we surely overestimated and misunderstand the real work of game design,
Chart, value point of abilities and spells are tools for wargames and other pvp game.

DnD is now very far away from its wargame origin.
the trend now is story telling, a showtime between friends, and for reading those trends wotc do very good job.

people now don’t want to be in a system of ”live with the consequence of your past choices” or “consequence of failure“ as a thread we have seen lately.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Doesn't happen to my players, but it doesn't matter.

The problem is not even necessarily designing a game where all spellcasters know all their spells. The problem is changing the established rules of the game. Especially because there is nothing wrong to fix here.

You sound like those people that get their knickers in a twist whenever a game receives a QoL patch. Is "git gud" in your standard vocabulary? Do you enjoy mocking hapless noobs as their play experiences runs into dead ends?

 

[Li Shenron]

You sound like those people that get their knickers in a twist whenever a game receives a QoL patch. Is "git gud" in your standard vocabulary? Do you enjoy mocking hapless noobs as their play experiences runs into dead ends?

I have no idea what you mean.

I am one of "those people" who play a RPG or TTG as-is, deeply and fully, without complaining much about it not being what it is (save for minor specific bits), adding material but not "patches", ignoring revisions and half editions.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I was thinking of feedbacking the idea that sorcerers can change one metamagic instead of a spell once a day. It seems like that would add versatility (days when you are trying to sneak around, subtle magic might be better to have then elemental magic) but still keep the spontaneous feel of the class.

For warlocks, I would go with something like you get one more spell known, but it has to be one of the pact spells, and once a day you can change that out for another pact spell of a level you can cast.

 

[ad_hoc]

Only if by "this feature" the text refers to a different feature that's not "this feature".

Spell versatility is a 1st-level feature. It's reaching to make assumptions that "this" refers to anything else.

The other thing I would point out is that the spell selected has to match the level replaced. As a 1st level feature that's going to lock it into cantrips or 1st-level spells as well.






Quote Reply

Report Edit

Again, if your interpretation were true then the ability would not do anything.

If 'replace one spell learned from this spellcasting feature'

Well...the character has not learned any spells from the 'spell versatility' feature so there are no spells to replace.

I get that you have claimed this so you want to keep arguing it, but you are just wrong. It doesn't matter how many times you say "RAW". This isn't about intent, this is about what is actually written.

Your interpretation makes no sense.

 

[Salthorae]

Just to clear this up for some people.

DND Beyond just dropped this which is worth the watch. URL is time stamped to about 7m into it, where Crawford is talking about Spell Versatility of the Sorcerer.

DND Beyond Talks with Jeremy Crawford

 

[RSIxidor]

Perhaps instead of spell versatility, it should just be one versatile spell known.

You would have your regular spells known, which are static except through leveled retraining. Then, separately from this, an extra "known spell" that can be changed daily. This would prevent the "change the entire repertoire" issue that some have with the UA-proposed feature. It could be changed to a different level slot as you gain more levels but is always just the one variable known spell. Number of known spells could be modified a bit but since it floats at any level, not sure how much to modify it, if at all.

I also really like the suggestion in the other thread to keep it spell level 5/6 or lower, as a more simple solution, alongside allowing daily preparers to prepare their cantrips daily the same way they prepare spells of 1st level or higher.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My colours were nailed to the mast on this topic from the get-go. I honestly think Spell Versatility is bad design. It is to address a perceived problem with the inflexibility inherent in the "spells known" classes.

Well, it's not just a perceived problem, it is a very real difference in versatility, and thus effectiveness - in 3.5, it delineated the difference between Tier 1 and Tier 2 casters. It still does, in 5e, it's just that the gap is wider, because...

It is a fundamental change to the way in which those classes "know" spells. It is, quite simply, making "spells known" classes into "spells prepared" classes. It breaks down the distinction between the two different mechanics.

TBF, 5e already broke down that distinction.

Probably un-needed hiistory lesson: 3.0 introduced 'spontaneous casting,' with the sorcerer. The 3.x spontaneous casters had fixed known spells but flexibility in how they cast them with slots, from round to round (and, not for nothing, moar slots, more hps, and - probably for nothing, a few more weapons and a few less skill points), while the prepped casters used the more traditional Vancian memorization mechanic, able to change their spells every day, but needing to decide not only which spells they could cast each day, but how many times they'd be able to cast each of them. So the Tier 2 spontaneous casters had 'tactical flexibility' and the extra slots to 'spam' a spell turned out to be particularly good at them moment, while the Tier 1s had 'strategic flexibility' to bring the best spell for the job to any situation (they could forsee). ​

5e has both removed the extra slots from spontaneous casters, and given their crown-jewel, spontaneous casting mechanic, to prepped casters, so now they're 'known spell' casters, their casting strictly inferior to the unprecedented-even-in-3.x versatility of the neo-Vancian set.

And that is, apparently, a fire that needs more gasoline.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Firstly, I would just like to point out that:

Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters appear to have been completely forgotten.

Also, High Elves should be included if you are allowing cantrip changing.

Again, these are just optional rules. The PDF is not Moses come down from Sinai with the tablets containing The Word of God. You're supposed to pick and chose and modify things as you see fit.

Only if by "this feature" the text refers to a different feature that's not "this feature".

Spell versatility is a 1st-level feature. It's reaching to make assumptions that "this" refers to anything else.

Honestly, I can't take this argument seriously. This screenshot contains a rule tip that says -- in big bold letters -- "Cantrips Are Spells [...] When a feature applies to spells, that feature applies to cantrips[.]" Like, I'm sorry, but the only reason to put that rule tip there is because they're intending Bard, Sorcerer and Warlock Spell Versatility to include cantrip versatility. If they intended otherwise, they would have included a rule tip that clarifies that cantrips aren't learned from the same feature as other spells.

Edit: Besides, as it was pointed out in another thread, Cantrips are not a separate feature from Spellcasting. They're listed as one of the subheadings of Spellcasting. Cantrips you gain are spells you gained through the Spellcasting feature.