Please don't read this in a snarkey tone. It's not being written as such.
IDK, you seemed to be arguing that swapping out is not a meaningful ability, in either case.
Nope. I'm arguing it's not nearly common or as significant for sorcerers as people claim. As demonstrated by the reasons I gave to back up that statement.
You've equated a single spell at a single level using the sorcerer spell list to multiple spells regardless of levels using the wizard spell list. These things are not equal just because they can both be categorized as spell swapping.
It's true that the wizard will be using the spell book but that reinforces his connection to his spell book in the wizard identity, and wizards add a lot of useful spells to that book not available to sorcerers.
I don't see why the second bit would matter to either form of swapping being useful - indeed, extremely so - in itself.
For the same reason people aren't complaining about rangers using spell versatility, which is the exact same ability sorcerers are using. The actual spells are not the same spells.
Tony, accepting the spell versatility is a concern because of how it works is accepting that the argument regarding how it works applies to all classes. People in this thread have stated it is an issue for sorcerers but not rangers, regardless. You seem to be arguing from the premise that there will be a better choice for the situation because the ability to swap seems to somehow automatically creates that better choice.
Are you applying the same logic to rangers, or are you applying a double standard because rangers use a different list, then applying another double standard by ignoring that sorcerers also have a different list? Wizards have the majority of sorcerer spells but the reverse is not true. Sorcerers do not have all those situationally useful wizard spells to make the same use of changing a spell.
The Sorcerer couldn't do that. Now, given enough downtime, it can, and can swap out one spell starting the first day that the campaign environment shifts like that...
But, hey, at least you acknowledged the spell-swapping has value. I thought denying that very odd.
That's moving the goal posts. Sorcerers cannot just swap out large numbers of spells even if we accept the sorcerer has prior knowledge and a better spell worth swapping.
Sure, the sorcerer could change his or her entire spell list during downtime. That's only relevant to downtime activities, which is a minor consideration and still situational based on whatever those downtime activities might be.
There's a huge wrench in that scenario where downtime activity stops because the DM is moving on to the adventure and the sorcerer is stuck with those spells selected for downtime activities. I don't believe in the one week work day any more than I've experienced the 5MWD.
The best case scenario is there might actually be more than one spell that the sorcerer thinks would be better and the sorcerer has knowledge and the sorcerer has the luxury of time. Then play starts and the sorcerer isn't actually any different than if he or she had started play with those spells and the time to swap back is going to take just as much time after the situational benefit is over.
That situational benefit even has to be consistent throughout the day. Adding undead to 2 encounters isn't going to make me swap sleep out if I expect to use it the other 4 encounters.
As for the campaign shifting: Swapping spells because the campaign changed is removing the penalties inflicted in having the campaign change. Removing a penalty that did not exist before and exists now is not a buff. Things like that are the reason sorcerers are given the ability to change spells. It's to remove spells that are no longer useful. Spell versatility addresses the concern that sorcerers could not do that often enough at some tables. WAI.
Those are considerations - along with character concept - that spell versatility will tend to errode.
How? Changing spells doesn't change which bloodline or meta-magic options the sorcerer took. If you are going to make a claim like that please support it.
Yet, thats the logical conclusion of denying the value of swapping out known/prepped spells.
No, that was an obvious example to refute the comment that all sorcerers are the same.
YOU: There will be better spells.
ME: There needs to be a reason to change those spells.
YOU: The reason exists because of the ability to change spells. There will be better spells.
ME: Changing spells isn't that big of a deal because the player already selected what he or she thought was the best spells for the character. There needs to be a reason to change those spells.
YOU: Then all sorcerers and wizards are the same.
ME: No. The spells are also selected based on things like bloodline and meta-magic, or traditions.
YOU: All the best choices are the same because they are the best choices.
ME: No. Here are some examples that are obviously different. Bloodlines and meta-magic are considerations. Here are some examples of spells that are really different flavors to meet the same purpose and the player preference is the consideration.
YOU: You are denying the benefit of swapping out spells even though what you actually wrote included examples of when swapping might happen and you clarified that it's how often this will occur that's in question.
That's my impression of how this conversation is going so far. You seem to be arguing from the presumption that there will be a better spell available just because the ability to swap spells exists. That's not true. It's putting the cart before the horse.
- The ability to swap spells is only relevant after something else predicates the need or desire to swap spells. That mean the sorcerer needs to know about it. This can be true but it's not going to be true often enough to consider swapping spells a standard expectation.
- There needs to be time to actually swap spells. Swapping a spell after taking a long rest is not challenging. The party taking a long rest after travel before entering the dungeon or storming the keep is pretty standard. I'm not arguing that ability to swap a spell exists. This point is arguing against multiple spells. If one spell is making a difference then two or three would be making more of a difference based on the arguments you've been giving. It's pretty much a response to "but lots of downtime" when the downtime to swap out the entire list before entering exceeding one rest is not something that we can consider normal. It's normal for a wizard, clearly demonstrating these are not the same ability.
- There actually has to be a better spell in the spell list. Just because there are over 30 second level sorcerer spells doesn't mean there are over 30 relevant options to swap. GG. The spells are selected to perform a function and spells are often just different flavors of the same basic function. When a character can swap a spell in that character also has to swap a spell out, and sorcerers don't carry spells they can casually swap out because of the limited spells known. This tends to be the case when a spell on the list becomes marginalized and not because there actually is a better spell to take.
The argument is not that sorcerers cannot swap a spell in. They can. The argument is in how often that will actually be relevant to the point it's a minor detail. Crawford expected objections like this in that video when he was addressing the wizard identity and capability of the system to handle the feature.
WoTC: After five years of observation we've found that spells known are not getting swapped as often as originally intended. Here is an optional rule to allow more frequent spell swapping for spells known. We started with the concept of alternate features a couple of years ago and we finally have some material to playtest that we hope to include in a future release. We don't believe spell versatility steps on wizards because the wizard identity is defined by his spell book. We also believe the system can handle sorcerers swapping spells on a long rest.
Detractors: But now sorcerers can swap spells on a long rest.
Me: Well yeah, WotC identified a concern and this is the resolution. Sorcerers were meant to swap spells more often than WotC was seeing at some tables.
Detractors: Well we feel the opposite of what Crawford said even though we don't have the data he does and haven't had as much time to go over the features. Here is some speculation based on constructed scenarios that prove we're right.
Me: Maybe that can happen. Here are some reasons I don't think it will happen regularly based on my own play experience so I don't believe it's significant enough to matter in the bigger picture.
You: You're just denying the value of spell swapping.
No, I'm denying that spell swapping happens daily just because spells can be swapped daily. I'm pointing out that spell swapping for sorcerers was always intended and there was a concern that it was not happening as often as intended. I'm pointing out to you that WotC realized what they were doing when they listed this feature and stated that it would do what they intended in a system that could handle this feature.
I'm also saying that there are a lot of spells on the sorcerer list that have little to no value. The ability to swap them in or out at least once in a while gives value that does not currently exist. That's not a bad thing.
Obviously, because the system is broken - or, there'd be more viable alternatives. The more a specific spell worms it's way into everyone's list, the poorer the overall design of spells and spell-casting.
Spell Versatility makes that symptom worse.
Or there are spells that can be outgrown or situational so the intent of being able to change them is valid. Spell versatility doesn't make anything worse. It makes things better. That example I'm getting back to is the huge list of spells not worth taking without it having some possible value.
If a single spell is "broken" then the ability to swap it out isn't going to make it any more "broken" and the ability to swap it in doesn't exist because it was already taken.
You are making a lot of statements but not actually backing them up. The premise cannot be that there is always a better spell to take just because the ability to swap spells exists.
But, your defense of it seems to be that it, and indeed, the existing swap on level up mechanic, and the even more versatile prep of neo-Vancian classes, is already radically under-utilized.
Go back and read how often people say they don't bother swapping spells on a wizard anyway. It's in this thread and many others. There's no point in swapping spells on a wizard until the spells scribed in the book exceeds the number of standard spells a wizard might prep. They scribe rituals that they don't need to prep, spells they like that suit the archetype, and then add situational spells after that.
At that point they also swap spells after the situation presents itself, and not just because we can assume there is a situation just because they can swap spells. In the wizard's case, they are less likely to need to swap spells because they don't need to prep rituals and have more spells prepped than known spells casters anyway.
Almost any spell a sorcerer knows (other than divine soul) can be prepped by the wizard and/or covered in rituals and the extra spells prepped can be used to cover more weak saving throws or utility. Spell versatility doesn't change that, and it has far more to do with the ritual caster mechanic and number of readily available spells than anything.
Oh, it absolutely is a buff, and it further erodes the Sorcerers already tenuous uniqueness.
But, no, the "poor wizards" thing is laughable.
No it doesn't because sorcerers already have the ability and were expected to swap spells. It just wasn't happening after years of observation did not show that expectation was being met. I disagree that swapping a normally useful spell that becomes less useful has done anything but maintain that level of usefulness instead of creating situations where the sorcerer has become penalized in their spell selection.
The situational benefit isn't significant enough to call it a buff.
And, to an extent, I think you picked two of the worst sorcerers to demonstrate that idea, because they are the two most unique sorcerers in the game.
Fire Dragons have the easiest time following their concept, as has often been pointed out.
Divine Souls quite often pull from the cleric list, giving them a ton of powerful options that normal sorcerers do not have access to.
But, as someone who played a Storm Sorcerer, even using the UA version with an extra spell list it was incredibly hard to stay on theme. I ended up convincing my DM to let me take spells from other class lists just to fill it out, altering them to be storm themed.
Spells define spellcasters more than their non-spell abilities, so a lot of people end up just taking the same spells regardless of subclass.
Those are very different sorcerers but I think the point was demonstrated in that the bloodline does affect the spells chosen. I've done storm sorcerer too and I do take some of the same spells as dragon blooded but I also take different spells too because of that bloodline.
You're probably right and I might have used two more similar options to avoid extremes.
I'm going to state again that I also match spells to meta-magic and these are not always the same either. Staying on theme is almost impossible on a sorcerer, I agree. That doesn't preclude personal preferences and create the same spell lists.
I think the whole thematic sorcerer is a separate issue that isn't really impacted by spell versatility regardless. My point was that not all sorcerers are the same just because the player selected the spells he or she thinks work the best for that build. The premise that sorcerers already have selected their preferred spells so there needs to be a good reason to swap any of them hasn't changed.
