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

[Tony Vargas]

Okay, that makes far more sense.
I might not want my fire sorcerer breaking theme, but I can justify illusions easily through the concept of desert mirages, so that doesn't break theme for me.
The individual decides how much they want to stick by the theme they chose, and if they chose to break it, I would rather let them do so.

Mostly agree. And, swapping spells at level up works for that.
It's swapping spells in play - as in upon a long rest, in this variant - that has issues, because it looks more like an in-character decision. You might even have other PCs weighing in on it.
Whereas chargen and level-up is more meta.

So not that it isn't an individual decision, but whether it's an out of character decision made about the character (ie, my character, is going to be dragon-blooded, and therefore the spells he can know will fall within a certain theme) vs the in-character, nominally by the character ("as a dragon-blooded sorcerer, I choose to use only spells that fit with my heritage...
well, OK, maybe just this once, because my friends really need it...").

Where that becomes a class-design problem (and, really, it's just a sub-set of the problems with using classes, in the first place), is that, in the latter case, the player is imposing a meaningful restriction that, were it imposed by the class would presumably be 'balanced' by something else.

 

[Ashrym]

Trying to work the theme is one of the biggest issues with the sorcerer. Keeping on theme is actually another reason not to swap spells though. I don't think the theme was meant to be as significant as players want it and that was a disconnect between WotC and the players.

But I don't have there data either so that's speculation.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Apologies for not responding to all of the points. (I tend to get bored/burnt-out on threads once they get into the dozens of pages.) I do think this thread has succeeded in getting a strong discussion going on the topic, so it's probably about coming to its conclusion.

I do want to address just a few points though.

All that being said, I understand your highlighted point. There is the potential that with this rule, when it comes time to solve a problem with a spell, all eyes might turn to the sorcerer. But I don't see how that is an identity problem for the sorcerer. They are about being magic. They live and breath magic that sings in the deepest parts of them. It is so innate to them that they require minimal effort to tap into that well of power. Nothing about that story tells me they should be locked in place, unable to alter the raw magic of their soul into something else.

Again, I don't disagree with most of your points or practical examples. I do, however, have a different take on what you're addressing in this paragraph.

For me, wizards are the ones best able to procure any spell. Sorcerers need to be inherently limited in that. Do I feel they need to be limited in the ability to change what spells they know? Not entirely. Do I feel they necessarily need to be prevented from changing a spell known every day? Not entirely.

But they need to be limited in both of those someway that goes beyond the limitations that would remain with Spell Versatility.

And, the only issue for the wizard, is that if a problem needs a solution later they may not be the only one with that solution. But, does that change a wizard's gameplay decisions? Does the wizard look at their list and say "well, a sorcerer might be able to grab this, so I won't need it?"

I don't think it does. Many of the most common "we need a spell to solve this" scenarios are covered by the divine spell list as well. I would say there are very few uniquely Arcane spells that are designed specifically to overcome a challenge that can be delayed anywhere from 24 hours to a week. And that has not harmed them yet.

It's not that the wizard might not be the only one with that solution--it's that they might not be to have that solution at all (they need to find that spell somewhere). By contrast, the sorcerer with Spell Versatility is guaranteed to be able to have the solution, and to have it tomorrow. That is huge for that particular issue.

I think there are quite a few non-divine spells that can solve problems that can be delayed until tomorrow.

Spell preparation is not a wizard thing. It's one of a choice of two broad mechanics wizards happen to use.

Wizard spell preparation is more limited than other prepared casters. Do you feel they would be balanced if they had access to every spell on their spell list rather than being limited to a subset of them in their spellbook? If that were the case, I'm not sure I'd have an issue with sorcerers having Spell Versatility, but I'd have to think about it more. It would solve the identity issue, because wizards would still be superior in the Tomorrow Spell Access and Extended Spell Access categories. I might still have some issues with Spell Versatility for sorcerer class identity, but they wouldn't be related to relative class identity compared to wizards.

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.
...
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.

I'm sympathetic to this argument.

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.
...
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.

But as I mentioned, I'm as much concerned about what it says about the world as how it affects PC party gameplay. Wizards are the people you might visit because they can come up with the solution to any arcane spell access problem if you give them a day or a week. A sorcerer you'd only visit if you think their particular area of emphasis is relevant. With Spell Versatility, you'd go visit the sorcerer unless you knew the spell you needed wasn't on the sorcerer spell list, because the sorcerer is guaranteed to be able to have the spell tomorrow, while the wizard isn't.

In other words I find Point 1--Immediate Spell Access--to be the least important for class identity of the three. I wouldn't find it a challenge to wizard class identity to limit the number of spells they could prepare per day to the same number as the sorcerer's spells known (assuming no Spell Versatility). I wouldn't favor that sort of wizard nerf, but if there were some sort of gain that went along with it, I might consider it.

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.

I'm sorry if it came off that way. I wasn't trying to be insulting. There are some D&D things that I don't care about myself. I was actually attempting to acknowledge assumptions under which my claims wouldn't be relevant.

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.
...
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.

Yes, and I disagree that Mr. Crawford's solution to the stated problem is a good option. First--I'm not entirely sure he's correctly identifying the problem. He gave us his conclusions about what the problem is, and a suggestion that would address those conclusions. If he incorrectly identified the problem, then his solution might not fit. Second--He doesn't appear to recognize the significance of Tomorrow Spell Access or Extended Spell Access with regards to differences in sorcerer and wizard identity. That being the case, his solutions are unlikely to be informed by them, and we have vast disagreements about the value of said solutions ;-)

Here's an idea of how to make us of Spell Versatility without challenging those elements I ascribe to wizard spell identity. It's messy, I'm not sure I like it, and I'd have to fine tune it, but as a minimum change to highlight my position, here goes:

At level 1 a sorcerer selects six 1st-level spells on the sorcerer list that he does not know. These spell cease to be sorcerer spells for him, and cannot be learned through any feature of the sorcerer class. When he gains access to spell levels 2 through 5, he likewise selects spells of that level that he does not know on the sorcerer spell list (four for levels 2 through 5, and two for levels 6 through 9) which also cease to be sorcerer spells for him and cannot be learned through any feature of the sorcerer class.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Again, I don't disagree with most of your points or practical examples. I do, however, have a different take on what you're addressing in this paragraph.

For me, wizards are the ones best able to procure any spell. Sorcerers need to be inherently limited in that. Do I feel they need to be limited in the ability to change what spells they know? Not entirely. Do I feel they necessarily need to be prevented from changing a spell known every day? Not entirely.

But they need to be limited in both of those someway that goes beyond the limitations that would remain with Spell Versatility.

But as I mentioned, I'm as much concerned about what it says about the world as how it affects PC party gameplay. Wizards are the people you might visit because they can come up with the solution to any arcane spell access problem if you give them a day or a week. A sorcerer you'd only visit if you think their particular area of emphasis is relevant. With Spell Versatility, you'd go visit the sorcerer unless you knew the spell you needed wasn't on the sorcerer spell list, because the sorcerer is guaranteed to be able to have the spell tomorrow, while the wizard isn't.

In other words I find Point 1--Immediate Spell Access--to be the least important for class identity of the three. I wouldn't find it a challenge to wizard class identity to limit the number of spells they could prepare per day to the same number as the sorcerer's spells known (assuming no Spell Versatility). I wouldn't favor that sort of wizard nerf, but if there were some sort of gain that went along with it, I might consider it.

I think the biggest difference between our points of view is the idea that Sorcerers need to be inherently limited. I just can't wrap my head around why they should be.

Thematically limited, I can see. A Sorcerer born of the power of storms should have magic that reflects that. But, the DnD spell system is not terribly well suited to showcasing that difference. A Sorcerer casting Lightning Bolt and a Wizard casting Lightning Bolt look the exact same at the table. And a Sorcerer whose blood sings with the power of storms looks awfully similar to the sorcerer whose blood boils with the strength of ancient dragons of storm and sky when you start looking at spell and metamagic selections.

But, neither of those concepts makes me think "they should be limited in their ability to learn magic"


And I think, the biggest sign of our disconnect actually comes from the second thing I quoted. I have never heard of a party, seen a party, or considered a party to visit a sorcerer for help.

Your comment of a party only visiting a Sorcerer whose specialty fits the need is the first time I have ever heard of a party seeking out a sorcerer for magical assistance. And thinking about it, I can safely say it is because I have never (and still cannot) think of anything a Sorcerer could provide to the party that a Wizard NPC could not.

Especially since, as an NPC resource, I as the DM have already decided if they have what the party needs or not. And since I've decided, then they have it. So, the idea that they would not seek out the Wizard because the wizard might not have what they need is strange to me, because I've already decided whether or not the person they are seeking out has what they need regardless of the class of that person.

Here's an idea of how to make us of Spell Versatility without challenging those elements I ascribe to wizard spell identity. It's messy, I'm not sure I like it, and I'd have to fine tune it, but as a minimum change to highlight my position, here goes:

At level 1 a sorcerer selects six 1st-level spells on the sorcerer list that he does not know. These spell cease to be sorcerer spells for him, and cannot be learned through any feature of the sorcerer class. When he gains access to spell levels 2 through 5, he likewise selects spells of that level that he does not know on the sorcerer spell list (four for levels 2 through 5, and two for levels 6 through 9) which also cease to be sorcerer spells for him and cannot be learned through any feature of the sorcerer class.

IF this would make you happier, to go in and erase spells from the Sorcerer list just to arbitrarily self-limit them. Go ahead. I actually don't think it would break anything, because I already know what spells I would cut out 95% of the time for most levels.

1st: Charm Person, Chaos Bolt, Jump, Expeditious Retreat, False Life, Witch Bolt

2nd: Cloud of Daggers, Knock, Dust Devil, Pyrotechnics

3rd: Catnap, Flame Arrows, Daylight, Gaseous Form

4th: Charm Monster, Stoneskin, Dominate Beast, Sickening Radiance,


The pattern being, the spells least likely to be useful, the ones I would not take as a sorcerer anyways, because they are either too weak or too situational to be useful. And so, you would likely see no changes in your sorcerers from putting forth this rule change, because they would just be cutting the spells they would never have considered switching in for anyways.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

The pattern being, the spells least likely to be useful, the ones I would not take as a sorcerer anyways, because they are either too weak or too situational to be useful. And so, you would likely see no changes in your sorcerers from putting forth this rule change, because they would just be cutting the spells they would never have considered switching in for anyways.

And that's fine. The point is to limit them from having access to an entire class spell list tomorrow, because I think that particular ability is a conceptual challenge to wizards.

 

[Ashrym]

And that's fine. The point is to limit them from having access to an entire class spell list tomorrow, because I think that particular ability is a conceptual challenge to wizards.

Except clerics, druids, paladins, and now artificers have access to their entire class spell list tomorrow. That's not a wizard concept. Spell preparation is just a broad category of spell casting style.

The unique part is the spell book concept and that hasn't changed.

If these optional rules make it into a published form then I imagine people will house-rule what they want. I don't agree with the premise that wizards somehow solely own swapping spells. It's too broad among too many classes to make that claim.

Limiting something that won't be used much seem pointless as well. What difference does it make if a sorcerer removes spells from the sorcerer list he or she would never take anyway?

A sorcerer you'd only visit if you think their particular area of emphasis is relevant.

What is that particular area of emphasis? Sorcerers are a wizard alternative. Seeking their help instead of a wizard also makes sense. It's still not like spell versatility lets them swap out a lot of spells at the request of someone who shows up at their doorstep. It does give the "come back tomorrow" opportunity if it's a single spell needed, similar to the wizard in that case.

I still think that reinforces the sorcerer identity as an arcane spellcaster instead of removing the wizard identity because they have similar identities in that regard.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

What is that particular area of emphasis? Sorcerers are a wizard alternative. Seeking their help instead of a wizard also makes sense. It's still not like spell versatility lets them swap out a lot of spells at the request of someone who shows up at their doorstep. It does give the "come back tomorrow" opportunity if it's a single spell needed, similar to the wizard in that case.

I still think that reinforces the sorcerer identity as an arcane spellcaster instead of removing the wizard identity because they have similar identities in that regard.

"Come back tomorrow" only works if that wizard has that spell in their personal spellbook. Spell Versatility makes it work for any sorcerer of the appropriate level because they all have all the sorcerer spells potentially available to them tomorrow. Visiting one sorcerer is therefore the same as visiting any other sorcerer and there is no gamble. Visiting a wizard on the other hand might not be useful.

 

[Ashrym]

"Come back tomorrow" only works if that wizard has that spell in their personal spellbook. Spell Versatility makes it work for any sorcerer of the appropriate level because they all have all the sorcerer spells potentially available to them tomorrow. Visiting one sorcerer is therefore the same as visiting any other sorcerer and there is no gamble. Visiting a wizard on the other hand might not be useful.

Spells worth having are going to be in that spell book. This is especially true of high level spells where the lists are shorter. There are only so many spells people are seeking out, and some of them are simply never available to the sorcerer because they don't exist at all on the sorcerer list.

Which level of spell are you looking at where the entire spell list is relevant in such a scenario?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I disagree that the spellbook will have all the spells worth having, because every utility spell is worth having for the time when you need it, but you might not have had the opportunity and funds to pick up all of them preemptively.

That being said, sorcerers do suffer from a lack of utility spells, so this problem isn't as extreme as it would be if they actually had access to the full wizard spell list. It only gets worse if more spells get added to the sorcerer class list however. Here are the most obvious examples that stand out to me of spells on both spell lists that might not be something the wizard has in his book, but might be something characters would visit an arcanist to get access to.

9th-level:
-Gate
-Wish*

7th-level:
-Etherealness
-Plane Shift
-Teleport

5th-level:
-Creation
-Teleportation Circle

*I assume anyone who can take wish, does take wish, but I'm apparently wrong in that. Same goes for certain other spells that seem like everyone would take them.

I realize that list isn't huge but that's assuming we are talking about going to the arcanist to have them cast a spell for the party on premises. If we are allowing the creation of scrolls, then it suddenly opens up a lot. In fact, with scrolls, sorcerers could theoretically create a scroll of every spell on their spell list, and then always have access to every spell on the sorcerer list Immediately rather than tomorrow. A wizard could only do that with spells in his own spellbook.

 

[MoonSong]

@Sword of Spirit, if you might. Is your point that part of wizard identity is to have a spell while the sorcerer can't, and that a sorcerer having a spell the party needs while the wizard doesn't somehow undermines that? Because, if that's the case, that ship has already sailed. A divine soul can already heal, raise the dead and inflict antimagic on the world, things that wizards can't do, not even with a day's heads up, not even with enough downtime to hunt for spells.

Of course I might be misunderstanding your point, so I apologize in advance for it.