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

[5ekyu]

Really? You find wizards day by day are switching most of the spells they have prepared?

Usually you find a good set of spells, and you tweak it.

What more, the wizard (without spending resources on getting more spells) doesn't have enough spells to completely change their spell load that often. They run out of alternatives!

Having access to a large list of spells is more important than how fast you can mass reconfigure. There are piles of spells that are useful in narrow circumstances; "I'll get rid of all of my fire spells and swap in ice ones" is sometimes useful, but if you where a fire spellcaster then you probably have items and feats and stuff that make your fire spells better anyhow.

I mean, do you really change almost all of your spells that often? In actual play?

Really? Really??? Really????

Are your characters encountering "need one key spell puzzles or we are screwed" every day? That us the standard you are asking us to judge on now, right? Does this happen every day? Really? So it applies both ways, really?

No. That's not anything like a standard to be used for comparison.

The wizard (and cleric and druids) i see in play frequently have several "packages" they rely on... a travel set, a dungeon set, a city set, a sneaky set, a scout/intel set etc where somewhere around half the prep spells change up. Then when they have more info on specifics they tweak those or if it's really unusual they make more specific custom changes.


See, they dont do this "change most every day" craziness they change when the need changes and change as many as they need. For most actual changes in challenges and need that usually means swapping around to gain several - three or four or more plus altering some of the remaining to cover gaps created there. This tends to happen because its rarely a " need one spell or else" kind of puzzle but a change in challenge yo emphasize certain pillars over others and that is rarely " one spell does it."

But I think this is where we start to see the difference in our positions. What I see in play are the preppers like cleric, wizard, druid more swapping to deal with differdnt roles...not to choose different flavors of dishes out hp in combat. It's about "travel day - some recon, some escape, some movement, some quick sudden combat" but not as much long sustain fight or brawling packages. It's about switching around so that more of your spells prepped augment the efforts of the day.

They dont tend to go for a slew of different hits for combat as much as they want to have several that work together to help different "roles" or "challenges." Their city intrigue set looks a lot different than their slugger package does.

That is profoundly different and much much much more potent than "swap one spell at same level".

I myself tend to agree that this leads to versatile ranking I see is druid, cleric then wizard as 1, 2, then 3 (druids get 1 due to wild shape also being incredibly multi-purpose adaptive) But even with the one swap same level versatility being discussed - the UA sorc, warlock are distant also rans - imo somewhere after paladins. Bard is somewhere around pally due to how versatile the other features are.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Why are we even worried about spells? Wasn't it claimed in another thread that skills, backgrounds and roleplaying were all that is needed for a character to engage with and help the party solve non-combat problems?

If non-combat spell capability is unnecessary, then one class having the potential to get more of it than another is pretty irrelevant.

No... The wizard doesn't "learn" it & it's disingenuous to suggest they do... The wizard A: choose the spell as one of their 2 free spells or B: Through methods entirely outside their control & often influence find a scroll or spellbook with that spell on/in it and spend gold and burn time "scribing" that spell to their spellbook.... C: spend gold and burn time "scribing" that spell to their spellbook then finallythe wizard can D:"prepare" it during a long rest... the sorcerer could skip A or B, and C then skip straight to D because they get to pick a spell from their entire class list to swap during any long rest.

Since accuracy is evidently important to avoid disingenuousness, FTFY

 

[tetrasodium]

Why are we even worried about spells? Wasn't it claimed in another thread that skills, backgrounds and roleplaying were all that is needed for a character to engage with and help the party solve non-combat problems?

If non-combat spell capability is unnecessary, then one class having the potential to get more of it than another is pretty irrelevant.

Since accuracy is evidently important to avoid disingenuousness, FTFY

If non-combat spell capability is unnecessary, then the class gaining the potential to get more of it is pointess ans unneeded.. but nobody is saying that despite people trying to defend against it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If non-combat spell capability is unnecessary, then the class gaining the potential to get more of it is pointess ans unneeded.. but nobody is saying that despite people trying to defend against it.

I think Cap'n Kobold is speaking more towards discussions of how Fighters and Barbarians tend to lack in the ability to solve non-combat problems compared to spellcasters.

A position that is normally refuted by the evidence that "skills, backgrounds and roleplaying " are more than enough to solve those problems. No magic is needed.

Which, when you see that position enough, seeing this discussion about how Wizards are being severely undercut and rendered useless because one spell a day might be gained by a different class... It is oddly amusing, in a hair tearing out way I imagine.

 

[NotAYakk]

Why are we even worried about spells? Wasn't it claimed in another thread that skills, backgrounds and roleplaying were all that is needed for a character to engage with and help the party solve non-combat problems?

I'm sorry you are hurt from a discussion in another thread, but can you be clearer about why you brought it up here? I'm puzzled.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm sorry you are hurt from a discussion in another thread, but can you be clearer about why you brought it up here? I'm puzzled.

It's dreadfully relevant, really.
A wizard in 5e has a level of versatility in his* neo-Vancian spellcasting that exceeds even that which she** enjoyed 3.x, when it*** was rated Tier 1 and undeniably broken beyond all bounds of reason or propriety.

If that weren't a problem, there'd be no issue with other full-casters falling short of that standard, nor any reason to get defensive when that gap was slightly closed. Instead, it's immediately controversial. Proof that the Wizard, specifically, and 5e casting in general, needs to have a 40 ton nerf-anvil dropped on his**** head from orbit, at a substantial fraction of c.












* standard English indefinite usage
** 3.x convention that any wizard not otherwise specified is Mialee
*** the class, not any personified hypothetical default or non-specific example thereof.
**** Elminster, in this instance, as it'd have the side benefit of getting rid of the Forgotten Realms.

 

[Salthorae]

Ok. I've been away from this thread for a few days ruminating on what is off-putting about Spell Versatility to me.

I think, at the end of the day, for me, it has more to do with limitations than anything else.

In narrative fiction, most/many magic systems are defined more by their limitations than anything else. At least the ones that I enjoy, where the author doesn't just magic away the problem in some previously unknown or unexpected way. Superman is defined more by Kryptonite, his lack of magic defense, and the helplessness of his friends/loved ones than all of the things he can do, because he can pretty much do everything else at demi-godlike levels.

Sorcerer's limitation on spells known and inflexibility of changing those between levels is a defining feature of the class to me. It helps shape the character more than anything else, what spells their inborn magic develops or that they shape their inborn magic into with practice and effort.

Spell Versatility pulls that rug firmly out from under that limitation of the class for me. While many players very well may not use the feature to its full potential (complete spell load swap over X days), the fact that the potential exists is what puts this feature firmly into my "not for my games" list because of what I note above. It removes the limitations on the class to a large degree which removes the interesting fiction of being a sorcerer. For me.

 

[NotAYakk]

It's dreadfully relevant, really.
A wizard in 5e has a level of versatility in his* neo-Vancian spellcasting that exceeds even that which she** enjoyed 3.x, when it*** was rated Tier 1 and undeniably broken beyond all bounds of reason or propriety.

No, 5e spells are not as broken as 3e spells. More ability to make weaker choices does not beat out lesser ability to make stronger choices.

A level 4 5e wizard can make 1 character invisible. A level 4 3e wizard can make 3 people invisible. Every spell slot gives the 3e wizard another possible target; every spell level gives the 5e wizard another target.

Almost every non-damage out of combat spell in 5e has had its power rolled back significantly, and piles of spells where not ported to 5e.

If that weren't a problem, there'd be no issue with other full-casters falling short of that standard, nor any reason to get defensive when that gap was slightly closed. Instead, it's immediately controversial. Proof that the Wizard, specifically, and 5e casting in general, needs to have a 40 ton nerf-anvil dropped on his**** head from orbit, at a substantial fraction of c.

Huh? No, that doesn't follow. Even if Wizards wheren't "broken beyond all bounds of reason or propriety", one could object to "closing the gap" (or in my mind, leapfrogging)

 

[Chaosmancer]

Ok. I've been away from this thread for a few days ruminating on what is off-putting about Spell Versatility to me.

I think, at the end of the day, for me, it has more to do with limitations than anything else.

In narrative fiction, most/many magic systems are defined more by their limitations than anything else. At least the ones that I enjoy, where the author doesn't just magic away the problem in some previously unknown or unexpected way. Superman is defined more by Kryptonite, his lack of magic defense, and the helplessness of his friends/loved ones than all of the things he can do, because he can pretty much do everything else at demi-godlike levels.

Sorcerer's limitation on spells known and inflexibility of changing those between levels is a defining feature of the class to me. It helps shape the character more than anything else, what spells their inborn magic develops or that they shape their inborn magic into with practice and effort.

Spell Versatility pulls that rug firmly out from under that limitation of the class for me. While many players very well may not use the feature to its full potential (complete spell load swap over X days), the fact that the potential exists is what puts this feature firmly into my "not for my games" list because of what I note above. It removes the limitations on the class to a large degree which removes the interesting fiction of being a sorcerer. For me.

Fair enough for your own home games.

For me, that issue doesn't exist because... well, DnD magic is a mess. Narratively, I have no coherent system to grasp. What even are spell slots, narratively, why can't you break them into smaller pieces, combine them together into larger pieces. If Bardic, Sorcerer, and Wizard magic is all "Arcane" why do they not have the exact same spell list? What makes Druidic primal magic different from Divine magic, or are all druids secretly clerics?

I understand it as a game system, but as a narrative, it makes no sense. So, removing limits from it in this way does not strike the same kind of narrative dissonance that I would expeirence if they did it to a system like Patrick Rothfuss's sympathetic magic or Brandon Sandersons Feruchemy. Since there is no narrative for me to grasp in the first place, you can't disrupt it. For me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No, 5e spells are not as broken as 3e spells.

Not as broken, what a ringing endorsement. Seriously, though, the range of things spells can accomplish is still quite varied.

one could object to "closing the gap" (or in my mind, leapfrogging)

One could, but the only reasonable objection would that the gap should be closed in the other direction. For instance, by taking spontaneous casting away from the Tier 1 prepped casters.