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

[Tony Vargas]

(not changing spells as often as was originally intended).

Seems like changing spells every day would have to be more often than originally intended.

 

[Ashrym]

Seems like changing spells every day would have to be more often than originally intended.

Only if these classes were actually changing spells every day, which isn't happening. Giving a class the ability to do something they'll rarely do has little meaning just because they can do it more often.

That gets back to picking "the best spells" in the first place. If you already have what you think are the best spells then why would you change them at all? No one picks spells they expect to want to swap out.

 

[tetrasodium]

I find knock super niche and arcane lock useful for quickly locking and barring doors.



The only reason to end my existential crisis in playing a sorcerer in the first place.



The rules are intentionally vague because it was one of those trigger topics in the game and left to DM's. "Buying a magic item" gives pricing based on rarity to follow. Crafting gives a more concrete number and quick reference point if you want it because the crafting rules cost half the standard purchase price.

There was never a point where I was unwilling to point to specifics on it. I simply didn't see the need if you have the resources available.

unfortunately, spell versatility is decidedly not vague at all & people are rebuffing concerns with suggestions that wizards just use those tools to get just as good or better results in the same time.

Here is a first draft for Spell Research (based on the Scribe Scrolls in XGtE):

View attachment 115857

Of course, numbers can be tweaked to the needs of the table.

Probably a good model, or at least a start of one.



@Ashrym you are making faulty assumptions. You even noted earlier that crawford said "Having curated list of spells in a spell book is the wizard's identity", He said in the same video that he would love to flesh this UA out & one day get it to a the point of being published. Spell versatility has no limitation beyond "how often/many long rests can I take to pick from my entire spell list" & that's barely meaningful given the size of the sorcerer spell list. If we were talking about an intentionally vague spell versatility hat left the results/success/etc up to the whims of a gm to the same degree as the magic items section in the dmg you'd have a point..... but spell versatility is too much crystal clear certainty with too much stepping on toes for that to even be laughably fleshed out if your drunk with double vision & squinting.

 

[Ashrym]

unfortunately, spell versatility is decidedly not vague at all & people are rebuffing concerns with suggestions that wizards just use those tools to get just as good or better results in the same time.

This is double-speak. I pointed out why spell versatility isn't vague so I would expect some reasoning as to why you think it's important that spell versatility should be vague. Repeating that it's not vague doesn't demonstrate validation to your opinion.

To what concerns are you referring and how are they valid given the points I gave regarding spell versatility?

@Ashrym you are making faulty assumptions....

I didn't make any assumptions other than players select spells they want in the first place so don't have a reason to swap them out until the DM gives them one.

Crawford was discussing past-tense view point because this UA started years ago. Spell versatility being included at all is subject to the "whims" of the DM so "whims" against magic items isn't a valid argument. Magic items was only a suggestion because you were concerned about the number of spells in the spell book, but the number of spells in the spell book doesn't change the relationship to that spell book as a key part of the wizard identity.

Being limited to changing spells with the long rest as a restriction is meaningless without the incentive to change spells in the first place. I have the option of buying and eating horses too but given no reason to do so I don't. Having an option doesn't equate to using an option.

 

[tetrasodium]

This is double-speak. I pointed out why spell versatility isn't vague so I would expect some reasoning as to why you think it's important that spell versatility should be vague. Repeating that it's not vague doesn't demonstrate validation to your opinion.

To what concerns are you referring and how are they valid given the points I gave regarding spell versatility?



I didn't make any assumptions other than players select spells they want in the first place so don't have a reason to swap them out until the DM gives them one.

Crawford was discussing past-tense view point because this UA started years ago. Spell versatility being included at all is subject to the "whims" of the DM so "whims" against magic items isn't a valid argument. Magic items was only a suggestion because you were concerned about the number of spells in the spell book, but the number of spells in the spell book doesn't change the relationship to that spell book as a key part of the wizard identity.

Being limited to changing spells with the long rest as a restriction is meaningless without the incentive to change spells in the first place. I have the option of buying and eating horses too but given no reason to do so I don't. Having an option doesn't equate to using an option.

No, it's not doublespeak at all. when you got caught up in having to actually look for the rules that could be used for a wizard to find spell scrolls/books druing downtime you had to accept that they didn't meet the role that was suggested they be used for & admitted that they are "intentionally vague". When I pointed out the problems in giving sorcerers an entirely new ability that so firmly trods upon the wizard's toes without providing the wizard with any new room to be certain their toes were safe, you became dismissive as if you thought that state of toe trodding was not only acceptable but good for the game. I'm sorry you lost track of the conversation so completely that you thought it was double speak

 

[Ashrym]

No, it's not doublespeak at all. when you got caught up in having to actually look for the rules that could be used for a wizard to find spell scrolls/books druing downtime you had to accept that they didn't meet the role that was suggested they be used for & admitted that they are "intentionally vague". When I pointed out the problems in giving sorcerers an entirely new ability that so firmly trods upon the wizard's toes without providing the wizard with any new room to be certain their toes were safe, you became dismissive as if you thought that state of toe trodding was not only acceptable but good for the game. I'm sorry you lost track of the conversation so completely that you thought it was double speak

Still double-speak. The reasons for vague magic items were given. I gave 3 reference points to use in your games (general magic purchasing, costs based on item creation rules, the AL guidelines). This was to help you because you are concerned about the resource. Helping you with some of the options available has nothing to do with any concerns for or against spell versatility.

The only person hung up on the cost and / or the availability of additional spells for a spell book in this thread so far has been you. You've been clinging to it and repeating it as a rebuttal to the discussion on spell versatility while making posts like the one above that don't give any information regarding "issues" with spell versatility.

What do you think is actually going to happen in play? A group with a wizard and a sorcerer go into town, sleep for the night, the sorcerer changes out 1 spell maybe and the wizard changes to his or her "in town" list? Or the group doesn't have both and it's not possible for one to overshadow the other? Replacing "sorcerer" with bard doesn't change anything because the bard is just going to take different spells from the wizard.

I'm not dismissing the "stepping on toes" argument. I'm disagreeing with it. And giving reasons why. The reasons why, to be clear, are:

1. There is no incentive to regularly change spells for spells known classes. How often something can be done has nothing to do with how often something will be done.
2. The wizard's connection to the spell book is reinforces in his identity because it's still the key to his spell selection as different from other arcane spell casters.
3. Other aspects of the wizard's identity are completely untouched. These include class features and traditions.
4. Spell versatility is completely underwhelming as a long rest mechanic in comparison to spell preparation. There's no comparison between swapping a single spell for a single spell with the same level compared swapping any number of spells among any number of levels available.
5. This is a move to correct a concern to meet the intended spell swapping of these classes. A class cannot step on any toes in doing what it was originally intended to do.
6. This started in the concept stage years ago according to interview with Crawford that you also reposted. That demonstrates a lot of though and feed back has gone into it before getting to this point.
7. Crawford stated several times in several ways how this did not negatively impact the wizard identity as he sees it. As a designer and player this should be a consideration at the very least.
8. What happens in downtime play is a minor consideration. Downtime is mostly not playing by definition and simply things that happen as time goes by. Once play begins it's become a detail in history. What's important is what happens in actual gameplay.

The problem isn't that I have been ignoring what's been said. It's that what I've said in response seems to have been ignored.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It feels like they already had that.

Through the swap on a level up?

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.

You know, mentioning how much money it costs wizards all the time reminded me of something.

There is a fun part of the Player's Handbook I bet many player's do not take advantage of, pg 159, Spellcasting Services. Wizards can sell spells at a rate of 10 to 50 gp for a 1st or 2nd level spell. And, I know what you are thinking, "but sorcerers could do that too and they don't have spell costs". However, Sorcerers do not get Ritual Casting. Which means, at 10 minutes a spell, with no cost, over let us say a month of downtime, a 3rd level wizard could potentially make 1,800 gold... assuming they get 6 customers a day for a total of a single hour of work a day.

Just saying, money and time are rarely the costs that people seem to think they are, if a player is determined.

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.

You know what I do when I find "yet another longsword?" I sell it.

I wonder how much an Archmage's spellbook sells for on the open market.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I wonder how much an Archmage's spellbook sells for on the open market.

Following the guidelines for a PC's spellbook, with 8 1st, and 2 of each from 2nd to 9th, you would get the following:

If you use the rules in XGtE for scribing scrolls, about 700,000 gp.
If you use the rules in XGtE for selling scrolls, about 330,000 gp.

Those are about the minimums. If you had more spells, of course the value would increase.

 

[5ekyu]

A comment on Wizards I will be adding yo the survey will be the need to add to their savant ability.

"Due to the reduced cost for their "school spells" ascribing, if you choose one of your two spells gained per level in your school, you can add another free of that same school. Example: when a conjurer gets to third level, if they choose misty step as one of their automatic spells, they can choose another conjuration spell free and one spell from any school."

As it is now, you are getting less out of your savant ability everytime you choose a school spell in your two-free.

 

[FrogReaver]

There are differences in those classes. Those differences don't invalidate the points given. Those differences do highlight the fact that just because spell versatility can give access to any spell on the list it doesn't make one class into another.

The differences in those classes are greater than the differences in the sorcerer and wizard classes. Consider that a comparison of Druid's to Rangers would yield a large number of differences.

Allowing a Sorcerer to retrain spells as proposed essentially turns the sorcerer into an arcane prepared caster with more spells known than wizard. That's a design decision I will never agree with.

There's no difference in claiming the party can rest 24 hours so the ranger can swap in locate objects or water breathing when the wizard might not have the relevant spell in his or her spell book. The only significant difference is that sorcerers and wizards share more spells than rangers and wizards. Given that the argument was the ability to swap spells steps on toes and wizards and not the spells themselves it's still an ability given to rangers under the same rules.

The differences between a wizard and sorcerer are mostly about spell origin - sorcerers power is innate and wizards is through study and intellect. Wizards aren't competing in any way with rangers for relevance in the full arcane caster domain - but they are competing their with sorcerers.

A ranger can swap the entire spell list in downtime too but a sorcerer or bard can never have access to the full range of over 3 dozen exclusive wizard spells. If the mechanic is the issue for sorcerers because it's too similar to spell prep swapping the principle applies to rangers. If the difference in the spell list applies to rangers then the same principle applies to sorcerers because wizard list is far more comprehensive.

As explained above - it's a terrible analogy that doesn't stand up to the least bit of scrutiny.