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

[Paul Farquhar]

To me, sorcerer vs wizard (known vs prep) identity was cut away when the preppers got unassigned slots.

I don't disagree with that. Sorcerers where never very different from wizards - the "small number of unchangeable spells" is the only unique feature they have left. So delete sorcerers would achieve the same result whilst also removing an unnecessary class from the rules.

 

[Undrave]

If a Wizard's identity rests entirely on the shoulders of a SINGULAR sacred cow mechanic instead of in its theming then... it's not much of an identity, is it?

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't disagree with that. Sorcerers where never very different from wizards - the "small number of unchangeable spells" is the only unique feature they have left. So delete sorcerers would achieve the same result whilst also removing an unnecessary class from the rules.

Sorcerers have always been a "crappy wizard" or magewright who ALSO has something else, but sorcerers should be reveling in that something else rather that trying to copy the wizard... if they are going to be copying the wizard as effectively as spell versatility lets them copy and still keep their something else, the wizard class needs to have something meaningful they can call their own that still lets them say "sorcerers are crappy wizards with something extra & shouldn't be confused with what wizards are"

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If a Wizard's identity rests entirely on the shoulders of a SINGULAR sacred cow mechanic instead of in its theming then... it's not much of an identity, is it?

It's specifically the wizard/sorcerer identity, which was never very distinct in the first place.

Sorcerers where added in 3rd edition, specifically to address the issue of some players not liking to have to prepare spells (Vancian Casting).

When they where first added in 3rd edition sorcerers differed from wizards in the following ways:

1) They didn't have to prepare spells
2) They only knew a limited number of spells at each level
3) Their spell progression was very slightly slower
4) They could cast more spells per day
5) They used charisma as a casting stat

5e got rid of difference 1), 3), 4), and added "6) only sorcerers can use metamagic". Removing 2) would leave only 5) and 6). I don't think that's a big enough difference to justify a full class.

 

[tetrasodium]

If a Wizard's identity rests entirely on the shoulders of a SINGULAR sacred cow mechanic instead of in its theming then... it's not much of an identity, is it?

not exactly... Look back at the development of the various threads on this topic. Theystarted out with what amounts to "this is a thing, I don't begrudge sorcerers getting it... but it does step on the wizard class toes a bit & I think wizards should get something to call their own" > "omg wizrds are too strong gitgud learn2code, wizards can suck it" > "uhh that's rediculous because so much of what the wizard has of their own can be duplicated ()literally or effectively by other classes, here's some examples of stuff they used to do in past editions before wizard & sorcerer got stuff in 5e" > "no suck it long suck it hard".

It's less of a "sacred cow mechanic" than acceptance of the fact that one side is largely arguing in bad faith trying to point at class features in isolation for balance of class A vrs that very myopic & cherry picked view of isolated feature from classB while ignoring & dismissing arguments that class A has a number of class features to call their own because of that cherry picked feature. Since one side of the discussion is unwilling to even consider discussing what something that wizards should get, the discussion falls back to why wizards should get something.

 

[Undrave]

not exactly... Look back at the development of the various threads on this topic. Theystarted out with what amounts to "this is a thing, I don't begrudge sorcerers getting it... but it does step on the wizard class toes a bit & I think wizards should get something to call their own" > "omg wizrds are too strong gitgud learn2code, wizards can suck it" > "uhh that's rediculous because so much of what the wizard has of their own can be duplicated ()literally or effectively by other classes, here's some examples of stuff they used to do in past editions before wizard & sorcerer got stuff in 5e" > "no suck it long suck it hard".

It's less of a "sacred cow mechanic" than acceptance of the fact that one side is largely arguing in bad faith trying to point at class features in isolation for balance of class A vrs that very myopic & cherry picked view of isolated feature from classB while ignoring & dismissing arguments that class A has a number of class features to call their own because of that cherry picked feature. Since one side of the discussion is unwilling to even consider discussing what something that wizards should get, the discussion falls back to why wizards should get something.

What SHOULD they get then? And what should they have in the first place to better separate them from Sorcerers?

 

[Salthorae]

5e got rid of difference 1), 3), 4), and added "6) only sorcerers can use metamagic". Removing 2) would leave only 5) and 6). I don't think that's a big enough difference to justify a full class

I would say that they only 1/2 got rid of 1). Wizards still have to prepare spells, it just doesn't mean as much once they're prepared.

I think 6) is a big deal personally. Would you give metamagic back to all casters again in some mechanic or just lose that concept entirely if SV were the order of the day? I think nuking sorcerer, if SV were to become the order of the day, would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater to a degree.

I think the Sorcerer fulfills a good niche with the "limited scope/inborn talent" vs. "no limits but time & money/worked hard to obtain" areas of magic.

I don't think wizards need anything changed. I also don't think sorcerers need to be more like wizards anymore than they already are.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think 6) is a big deal personally. Would you give metamagic back to all casters again in some mechanic

My first choice would be to leave sorcerers as they are now, but if we are forced to drop fixed spells then I would give metamagic back to all casters, yes.

I think the Sorcerer fulfills a good niche with the "limited scope/inborn talent"vs. "no limits but time & money/worked hard to obtain" areas of magic.

Given that it's a distinction of fluff rather than crunch I think the niche could easily be filled with a wizard subclass.

I don't think wizards need anything changed. I also don't think sorcerers need to be more like wizards anymore than they already are.

I agree on both counts.

 

[tetrasodium]

What SHOULD they get then? And what should they have in the first place to better separate them from Sorcerers?

That's complicated & as sword of spirit said in the OP of this very thread, there are a lot of things that make it tricky to answer; however there have been numerous "maybe something like..." & "I think that,.." suggestions that the people making the suggestions might help.... Unfortunately all of them resulted in the sort of acrimonious bad faith discussions I noted a couple posts ago. Some of those suggestions were things like more ritual spells & greater ritual spells. Bizarrely even suggestions like "cantrip versatility should be OnRest like spell versatility for the same reasons crawford gave for why spell versatility was being added to allow OnRest spell swap for sorcerers" also got shouted down with the kind of absurd ~"gitgud learn2code wizards are too strong" nerfherding so prevalent in this debate. Someone else has been bringing up the idea of letting wizards effectively buy a scroll & scribe it temporarily during a long rest for twice the cost of scribing it as some kind of carrot for putting a not very meaningful exhaustion mechanic on spell versatility; but aside from pointing out why the earlier versions were a meaningless restriction that amounted to "you shouldn't do this if you somehow have 4 points of exhaustion" the more recent versions don't really understand the wizard & are trying to balance an ephemeral somewhat trivial "I should wait to use this till I'm feeling lucky or can take a couple rests back to back" against a real and tangible "I can light this pile of money on fire to temporarily prepare a spell I may or may not be able to spend more money to scribe to my spellbook when I'm already a massive money black hole of the party". It's unsurprising that the inability to discuss these things without people coming out with specious argument based on cherry picked data, willful blindness of rebuttals presented, & so on did not create an environment where people were interested in going back to square one & starting the whole cycle over.

 

[Ashrym]

Removing 2) would leave only 5) and 6). I don't think that's a big enough difference to justify a full class.

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.

As much as people keep stating those are equal they are not and there hasn't been an argument to support the statement demonstrating that equality.

If anything, the standard mechanic for spell versatility would define the relationship between the wizard and the spell book more because that's unique compared to an ability all other arcane casters share and that's where wizards have their own thing.

My first choice would be to leave sorcerers as they are now, but if we are forced to drop fixed spells then I would give metamagic back to all casters, yes.

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.