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

[NotAYakk]

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

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.

So... I'm not seeing anything contributing to this discussion, just a general complaint about casters being too good already? Am I missing something?

There are plenty of threads talking about that. How does it tie into the UA spell versatility feature?

 

[Tony Vargas]

So... I'm not seeing anything contributing to this discussion, just a general complaint about casters being too good already? There are plenty of threads talking about that. How does it tie into the UA spell versatility feature?

It makes already-too-versatile casters more versatile. The complaint about it is that, in response to making already-too-versatile-casters more versatile, the already-most-versatile caster should also be made yet more versatile.

Like I said up-thread, y'guys are like "this fire needs more gasoline!"

Better solution would be a general retraining rule that applies to all classes, applying at level-up and/or using downtime. something more restrictive than the AL low-level re-build rule, but less permissive than on a long rest.
Combined with taking the current neo-Vancian casters back down to mere traditional Vancian.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

While I don't begrudge sorcerers getting the ability to change spells more often & have always said "ummm... which spells?... sure" when asked by spells known class players, you raise good points and it's telling how many of the people arguing that it's fine are/were also either arguing that wizards are too good or arguing against the suggestion that wizards be given something to call their own if this were implemented.... the fact that a big chunk of that crowd also suggested that making cantrip versatility into something that can be done on a rest instead of on a level was too good while dismissing the reasons crawford said about slow leveling games for spell versatility doesn't help their position either.

I'm sure someone will come along & argue some individual isolated class feature that wizards get in isolation while pretending that sorcerers don't have any class features to dispute this now though

 

[cbwjm]

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.

I'm with you on this, I won't be using the spell versatility option in my games.

 

[Salthorae]

Do yi

I'm with you on this, I won't be using the spell versatility option in my games.

Just curious, but do you plan to use the cantrip versatility to level up option?

 

[cbwjm]

Do yi

Just curious, but do you plan to use the cantrip versatility to level up option?

Changing cantrips on level up for any spell casting class I think is an okay option and I have considered allowing prepared spellcasters to change cantrips after a long rest anyway but it isn't something that I've implemented yet.

 

[OB1]

Couple of more variations I thought of for Versatile Spell

1. When you change a spell using this feature, at the end of your long rest, make a DC (15 + Level of the new Spell) Constitution Saving throw. On a failure, you gain 1 level of exhaustion.
Reasoning - This makes it easy enough to change out during downtime since even if you fail every day for a week you'll never be higher than Level 1 Exhaustion, but provides a risk/reward for doing so when doing so while adventuring.

2. You gain one Versatile Spell Known for each Spell Level you can cast in this class, each of which replaces one of your total Known Spells. At the end of a long rest, you can change any one Versatile Spell for another of the same level.
Reasoning - Keeps the flavor of having some abilities that are inherent to your character, while providing for a bit of versatility.

 

[tetrasodium]

Couple of more variations I thought of for Versatile Spell

1. When you change a spell using this feature, at the end of your long rest, make a DC (15 + Level of the new Spell) Constitution Saving throw. On a failure, you gain 1 level of exhaustion.
Reasoning - This makes it easy enough to change out during downtime since even if you fail every day for a week you'll never be higher than Level 1 Exhaustion, but provides a risk/reward for doing so when doing so while adventuring.

2. You gain one Versatile Spell Known for each Spell Level you can cast in this class, each of which replaces one of your total Known Spells. At the end of a long rest, you can change any one Versatile Spell for another of the same level.
Reasoning - Keeps the flavor of having some abilities that are inherent to your character, while providing for a bit of versatility.

By your own admission, the variation has no meaningful effect.... It's like only being to change one spell when prepped casters are usually only changing one or two spells on the rare times they do it.

Do yi


Just curious, but do you plan to use the cantrip versatility to level up option?

My current games were started using the coleville method for stats & in both of them I somehow managed to not get a single sorcerer or warlock PC. Even when I was running AL tables for semirandom players, I don't think that I've ever seen that in a 5e game I was GM'ing. Thankfully I don't need to decide on spell versatility or give yet another scorlock the ability to swap 2 spells/long rest as long as they limit themselves to one sorcerer spell & one warlock spell from their entire class spell lists. The ability sets off my "something's off but I can't tell what" gm sense. I do have a wizard, cleric, pally, fighter, & rogue at those two tables though & explicitly allowed everything from the UA but cantrip versatility is on long rest not on level. I have hopes that some not quite identified most of skepticism will be cleared by an updated version of spell versatility or preferably that some shiny wizard bone added later will allow me to not care.

 

[Ashrym]

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?

To be fair, I do resolve a lot of problems using skills, backgrounds, and roleplaying. Why bother wasting a spell slot I actually need at some point?

On bards that's because it's fun and they are good and it. On sorcerers it's more of the reality that I have to do things that way. On wizards and warlocks not using magic for everything is actually convenient more than using slots or invocations quite regularly.

What I find funny is both are useful, often for different things, and people keep trying to "prove the plight of the poor (insert class here)" as often as they can.

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.

I just assumed the Cap'n has sense of humor. Most of us do.

Literally, however, the argument about magic is common. Everyone has an opinion on it and it gets a little overboard to extremes sometimes. The implication that magic is not useful because of skills, backgrounds, and roleplay is just as silly (imo) as the implication that magic invalidates those same options (imo).

I don't think magic is needed but magic is definitely useful, to be clear on my opinion if that matters to anyone.

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.

This is where there's a bit of a disconnect. The comparison between 3e and 5e magic has no bearing on the effectiveness of magic in 5e. Sometimes I wish people could simply forget past editions because edition bias kicks in. In the case of 3e people look at the differences and similarities to justify weaker or stronger when the reality is 3e mechanics mean nothing here.

5e mechanics need to be compared to 5e mechanics. That's why knock, one of my favorite spells to bash, is so situational I cannot justify taking it on a bard and wouldn't prep it on a wizard unless I specifically know there's going to be a need for it. It's an example where skills are almost always the way to go over magic. That's because I'm comparing a 5e spell to 5e ability check guidelines.

Compare knock to rope trick. It's possible to barricade a door and keep a watch for a short rest, but rope trick is clearly the more reliable option.

On topic, there are a lot of spells that known spells caster NEVER take that might actually see use on that class with spell versatility. Knock is an example of such a spell. I cannot help but think using them was part of the design plan in placing them on those lists in the first place.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is where there's a bit of a disconnect. The comparison between 3e and 5e magic has no bearing on the effectiveness of magic in 5e.

Seems like it has a bearing on the how classes relate. In 3e Sorcerers got more slots than wizards and cast spontaneously, while wizards prepped. Wizards were Tier 1, Sorcerers Tier 2. Come 5e, wizards get to cast spontaneous and prep and get at-will cantrips.

It's the wizard-appreciation edition.

5e mechanics need to be compared to 5e mechanics.

That's not a comparison, that's a tautology.

On topic, there are a lot of spells that known spells caster NEVER take that might actually see use on that class with spell versatility.

I'm not convinced that's a good sign. If there's a spell that players never take as a known spell, it's probably because there are other, imbalanced spells crowding it out. Letting them take a marginal/weak/situational spell while minimizing the drawback of not knowing a must-have spell isn't beefing up the lesser spell, it's just giving the caster greater versatility - a straight power-up. Balancing spells better would see all spells chosen as known spells at least some of the time, with character concept & campaign direction being the main forces behind those choices.