What I'm saying is that there is another important element, which is the ability to gain access to a particular spell you don't currently have access to the next day.
Sorcerers aren't going to be changing spells daily. That's part of the inherent flaw in the arguments against spell versatility. They'll only be changing a particular spell maybe if an incentive to do so comes up. This is still arguing the exception instead of the expectation.
I'm not seeing what you are expressing in the games we're testing this in.
Or to go beyond that, let me briefly point out the three levels of spell access:
1) Immediate Spell Access: This is almost purely based on the number of spells you can have currently prepared. Spell Versatility does basically nothing to increase the sorcerer's flexibility compared to wizard in this area, as you rightly point out.
2) Tomorrow Spell Access: Standard 5e gives the wizard flexibility in this based on their personal spellbook. Sorcerer gets nothing here. Spell Versatility changes this dynamic drastically by giving the sorcerer their entire spell list (substantially bigger than a wizard's personal spellbook) to choose from.
3) Extended Time Spell Access: Standard 5e gives wizards the same flexibility in this as in Tomorrow Spell Access, with the additional highly campaign dependent ability (which I believe DMs should make reasonably available as a part of wizard identity, but can not be assumed in 5e) to also add new spells to their spellbook. Sorcerers have nothing here. Spell Versatility skyrockets the sorcerer's ability here, allowing them to acquire and cast any spell on the sorcerer list, as well as completely rewrite their personal spells known.
It is completely true that the wizard has a bigger and pretty much objectively better class spell list than the sorcerer. I do not think that invalidates the concerns, since the wizard's limited access to that spell list is of bigger importance when comparing them.
The UA changes are addressing one of the important levels of spell access that you did not list. Swapping spells out on leveling up. That was a concern and the expectation was that classes that use the spells known mechanic were to be swapping out spells more frequently than some campaigns were allowing.
5e's entire spells known mechanic has always assumed that these classes would be swapping out spells that were less useful to the campaign as it progressed. This always included access to the entire spell list.
I think the actual spell lists themselves give a lot more identity to the classes than how those spells are accessed. Such as the wizard's bigger and better list with many exclusive spells.
Spell Versatility makes the sorcerer better at 3 than the wizard. This is an identity challenge.
Whether Spell Versatility makes the sorcerer better at 2 than the wizard, depends on assumptions.
Item 1 is clearly intact and I think that one is the most defining of the 3 points. Listing 3 points does not give them equal value in the identity of these classes.
For item 2 to be advantageous to the sorcerer requires strong assumptions such as specific need not already covered, specific spells to the situation, ample time to make uses of the single spell swap, not needing the spells swap, and the advantage being limited to only a single spell. It's less of an assumption that it's more advantageous to simply swap out to the dungeon list, town list, or wilderness list in that same rest for any spell prep class.
Item 3 is misleading. If a person picks any point in time they are still limited by item 1 above and the actual spells on the sorcerer (or any other spells known caster) list. The ability is the same regardless of which class uses spells known so it's either a true statement for all spells known classes or it's not a true statement for sorcerers because it's not specifically the ability to swap spells that's creating the concern here. Rangers who share wizard spells that might come in handy and not be in the wizard spell book is the example I was using.
Spell preparation is not a wizard thing. It's one of a choice of two broad mechanics wizards happen to use.
Those spells on the sorcerer list are there because they are meant to be options for the sorcerer to use. There is currently no practical use in having placed those spells on that spell list because the limited spells known prevents sorcerers from using spells meant for sorcerers to use. Sorcerers are meant to be an alternative choice to wizards and in doing so there is some overlap, including the expectation that a sorcerer might teleport the party, open a planar gateway, or scry on enemies.
That 3rd point isn't infringing on the wizard identity. It's enabling the sorcerer to do things sorcerers were meant to do and improving the sorcerer identity.
However, where I'm going with Tomorrow Spell Access is more about benefiting from a specific spell (often outside of combat). If that is never a consideration in your campaign, then this may not matter. But if this is ever a consideration in a campaign (and it definitely is in mine) this is a huge thing, because it is a vital part of a wizard's identity that is being taken away.
See above. The limited spells know makes those spells that sorcerers have and are meant to be used by sorcerers available instead of a superfluous addition to a list that pragmatically cannot be taken.
You want to resolve that by adding to the spells known list. I think giving sorcerers more spells known impacts the wizard identity more than a sorcerer doing arcane things during downtime because adding to spells known impacts your point 1 above. Point 1 is the game play standard.
Changing out the entire list (which is pointless) during downtime still has zero impact on your first point in gameplay. Adding spells like your previous suggestion has more impact relative to wizards than spell versatility does.
Highlighted Point: When nobody has the spell prepared/known and we need it, all eyes should turn towards the wizard. They should always be the one best able to meet the need for Tomorrow Spell Access and Extended Time Spell Access. That is a huge part of what being a wizard is about. With Spell Versatility, all eyes turn towards the sorcerer, because they are better able to meet either of those needs, and the wizard only retains that ability with regards to Immediate Spell Access.
All eyes should turn to the character filling the same role of the wizard in the arcane caster the party has. All eyes are never going to turn to the sorcerer unless we make forced assumptions that a single spell is required and only the sorcerer list has it and the wizard wouldn't have added it to the spell book already.
Those assumptions are too strong, making the highlighted point hyperbole.
I think it is likely that some players just don't care that much about preserving class identity, which is why this isn't a big deal to them.
Or those players have a different opinion on what is creating the class identity for both classes that simply does not match your own.
Accusing player of not caring simply because they have a different opinion is incorrect and insulting, and does not directly respond to any points made. Your posts are usually much better than that.
Everything you are saying about rangers is true, but it misses a few points of relevance, which is why people aren't criticizing it as heavily.
The points are true and I used them because the specific objection was that spell versatility stepped on wizard's toes.
The real concern seems to be that people are concerned sorcerers will become the arcane caster of choice over wizards because of spell versatility, which is actually a different statement than what was being argued.
The first is that rangers are weaker than paladins in a way they should be (based on tradition) essentially equal. A ranger's spellcasting is inferior to a paladin's, and they get no other benefit to make up for that. The paladin is just a stronger class. Rangers could be given complete access to their class list as prepared casters--identically to paladins--and it would neither overpower them nor challenge class identity. In fact, it would preserve class identity better than the standard rules do! Rangers already should function that way. So inasmuch as the ranger buffs just make them function more like that, they are good for class identity. I'm not sure I'm happy about how they did it (free casting rather than extra spells prepared--though if they don't become prepared casters, they could actually use some extra oomph of free spell casting to make up for the imbalance with paladins) and that's something I'll bring up in the survey.
I highlighted the point I was making with the sorcerer spell list and spell versatility during downtime activities.
Like I said, sorcerers have spells they are meant to use and never take. Even if those only become relevant during downtime activity they have become relevant and enhance the sorcerer's identity as an arcane caster.
The fact that ranger spell casting is considered weaker than paladin spell casting actually mirrors a common complaint on these forums regarding sorcerers and wizards so I fail to see how that justification would not also apply if we're going there.
Side note: rangers were given skill benefits compared to paladins, much like bards were given skill benefits compared to clerics. The skill benefits just didn't pan out well enough for a lot of people.
The second is the traditional divide between divine and arcane casters, whereas divine casters traditionally have access to their entire class spell list, and arcane casters don't. This makes divine casters very flexible, and useful to the party overall. However, arcane spells generally include things that seem more impactful and less party support on a more regular basis. They have spells that are both more immediately flashy, as well as spells that grant the ability to directly address problems that divine spells generally don't, or to address them in different ways. Illusions, general utility, general use boom-boom. Divine spell lists are highly themed. (In 3e, this actually got quite a bit distorted so that their spell lists stretched quite a bit beyond their traditional core competencies, but wizards had a much easier time accessing just about any spells they wanted to scribe into their spellbooks, and the assumption was that you were allowed to do that (a DM would have to be really heavy-handed or doing something pretty unique to not let you do that).)
Which really means the premise that "spell versatility steps on wizard's toes" really only applies when you decide it applies. So far you are applying it sorcerers and not rangers, and then rationalizing why you are making that distinction even though you already acknowledged it's the same argument.
That's why I asserted the argument is not actually about the mechanic. This is an argument about sorcerers vs wizards because the same mechanic only seems to be an issue (for some people) regarding that class.
Bards, while arcane casters, sort of fall somewhere in between. That's why, even though I'll give feedback against Spell Versatility on the bard (does the 5e bard need any boosts?) I don't feel like it's a major challenge to the identity of wizards or other classes.
The 5e bard needs the option to change spells more frequently than some tables were allowing. Doing something closer to what's intended isn't actually a boost. It's a course correction. It's the same course correction being given to sorcerers, warlocks, and rangers.
Bards are to clerics what rangers are to paladins. Less armor, similar role, some spells are better in areas closer to druids or wizards, skill benefits. The actual term "arcane" is largely nothing more than a flavor term in 5e mechanics. That gets back to applying the same standards to the arguments between various classes.
This isn't about buffing classes. Spell versatility was about addressing a concern regarding the frequency of the current implementation. The current implementation is the ability to swap a single spell regardless of level, and that level exchange is still only something available on leveling up.
I don't like warlocks getting Spell Versatility either. However, their spell list is a lot smaller than sorcerers, which makes this feature "less" objectionable on them. (They also can't apply it to spells above 5th level.)
Swapping out higher level spells is limited to high levels when it becomes even less likely that a solution is required in the sorcerer spell list and no other that has not already become available, the sorcerer list becomes small in comparison to lower level spell levels, and wish just covers everything anyway if we're getting to that level.
It's far easier for a wizard to unprep a 1st level spell to cover a need out of every spell in the book than it is a sorcerer to swap out a single spell of the same level. Assuming only one spell is relevant per the sorcerer scenario. At 13th or 15th or 17th levels the wizard is vastly superior at restructuring the spells available to the situation if the need arises.
It's not like sorcerer can swap a low level spell for a high level spell, or more. A sorcerer gives up a high level spell for a high level spell.
Sorcerer identity is the closest to the wizard, and therefore it is the best comparison. Also, the size of their class spell list is the second biggest in the game and almost entirely taken from the wizard spell list. They are the class for which Spell Versatility most strongly challenges the class identity of the wizard.
Yes, because they are meant to do a lot of the same things. The issue I have is that the sorcerer is meant to do things wizards do and cannot because they cannot afford to learn those spells. Increasing spells known for a sorcerer infringes on the wizard advantage of having more spells at any given time during actual game play while spell versatility allowing the use of spells meant to be used by sorcerers during downtime does not.
Sorcerers are supposed to be an alternative class to playing a wizard. That means certain things that sorcerers never do because of the restrictive spells known that are suitable to the class. Now typically expected spells become better available with spell versatility.
No one is going to suddenly decide sorcerers are the better way to go because they can use more of their spell list and do something one would expect a sorcerer to do. Rituals, traditions, and spell preparation are still going to draw players to wizards.
As an example, teleportation circle.
A sorcerer is unlikely to pick it as a their first always spell of that level in a game with more combat than travel. The wizard in the party would normally pick it up.
But now, the wizard might pick 2 other spells, and rely in the sorcerer being able to swap it in overnight whenever they need to travel.
And?
First, why do we have a wizard and a sorcerer in the party as a standard against which to make such a comparison? Players tend to select one or the other and parties having both would be another example of the exception being portrayed as the standard.
More importantly, there's no point in putting teleportation circle on the sorcerer spell list at all if sorcerers are never going to take it because of spells known. These spells are added to the spell list for sorcerers because they are are expected to be taken and used but the mechanics prevents it from happening.
Spell versatility addresses that particular concern without simply adding more spells to the sorcerer's spells known and dipping into the wizard's more prepped vs known advantage.
There are lots of spells that having the ability is super powerful, even if having it right now is mildly useful. How many are on the sorcerer spell list is a fair bit or work that might be worth doing.
No there aren't. There are some cherry picked spells that make the ability more useful than simply swapping out a spell that turned out to be a dud for the campaign or outgrown due to leveling. The vast majority of spells are completely irrelevant.
