Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Al'Kelhar" data-source="post: 7852575" data-attributes="member: 7884">I keep thinking the discussion seems to miss the fundamental issues with Spell Versatility.First, it is a solution looking for a problem.&nbsp; The alleged problem is that &quot;spells known&quot; casters get gipped by making &quot;wrong&quot; or &quot;bad&quot; spell selection choices and are stuck with that choice until they gain a level.&nbsp; As Jeremy Crawford suggests, it's purpose is to give &quot;spells known&quot; casters a bit of flexibility in games where levelling up is slow.This might be a problem in organised play - I don't know.&nbsp; If it's a problem in home games, then that's a problem for the table, not a problem with the rules.&nbsp; IME, since 3E started the &quot;spells known&quot; concept with the sorcerer, no home game I have played in has forced a &quot;spell known&quot; caster to stick by the player's &quot;wrong&quot; or &quot;bad&quot; spell choice. Once the table identifies the selected spell as suboptimal, for whatever reason (mechanical, thematic, stuck too long with the same spell, whatever), the DM simply says, &quot;yeah, change it&quot;.&nbsp; Maybe with some resource cost (time, money etc.); maybe not. In any case, alleged &quot;problem&quot; solved.If you play in a home game with a DM that says &quot;suck it up princess&quot; for a whole level - well, does WoTC really need to come in on top of that and force the DM to let you change spells?&nbsp; Is that kind of DM really going to have a change of heart just because WoTC publishes this &quot;optional&quot; class feature?Second, it is a ridiculously unsettling solution to that non-existent problem.&nbsp; As I said before, it makes every &quot;spells known&quot; caster into a &quot;spells prepared&quot; caster, with greater flexibility and at lower resource cost than a wizard.&nbsp; (Sure, clerics, druids and paladins have access to their whole spell lists all the time, but the point has been well made that, generally speaking, the divine caster spell lists are not really comparable to the arcane caster spell lists).It is not a question of wizards vs. sorcerers (or bards, or warlocks).&nbsp; Wizard will remain a strong class even with Spell Versatility gifted to every &quot;spells known&quot; class. But the feature in its current form breaks the &quot;spell known&quot; mechanic in a fundamental way, and in doing so, destroys the balance between &quot;spells known&quot; and &quot;spells prepared&quot; classes.&quot;Spells known&quot; classes are, of course, inherently more limited than &quot;spells prepared&quot; classes in their spellcasting - that's a given.&nbsp; What's also a given that, in &quot;compensation&quot;, &quot;spells known&quot; classes get class features that are &quot;better&quot; (in some abstract sense) than the class features of &quot;spells prepared&quot; classes.&nbsp; (And seriously, does anyone argue that bard is somehow an under-strength class?&nbsp; I might be able to be convinced that sorcerer might need some love.)So, if the intention of Spell Versatility is address DM bastardry by letting those poor players of &quot;spells known&quot; classes have &quot;official permission&quot; to change their spells, it's a square peg in a round hole (rules solution to a gaming group's interpersonal issues).If the intention of Spell Versatility is to address some perceived imbalance between &quot;spells known&quot; and &quot;spells prepared&quot; casters, that imbalance is a feature of the distinction between the two different concepts, for which again Spell Versatility is a square peg in a round hole.&nbsp; It would be better to address imbalance through other means, i.e. giving &quot;spells known&quot; casters other bennies that don't undermine the distinction.Cheers, Al'kelhar</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Al'Kelhar, post: 7852575, member: 7884"] I keep thinking the discussion seems to miss the fundamental issues with Spell Versatility. First, it is a solution looking for a problem. The alleged problem is that "spells known" casters get gipped by making "wrong" or "bad" spell selection choices and are stuck with that choice until they gain a level. As Jeremy Crawford suggests, it's purpose is to give "spells known" casters a bit of flexibility [I]in games where levelling up is slow[/I]. This might be a problem in organised play - I don't know. If it's a problem in home games, then that's a problem for the table, not a problem with the rules. IME, since 3E started the "spells known" concept with the sorcerer, no home game I have played in has forced a "spell known" caster to stick by the player's "wrong" or "bad" spell choice. Once the table identifies the selected spell as suboptimal, for whatever reason (mechanical, thematic, stuck too long with the same spell, whatever), the DM simply says, "yeah, change it". Maybe with some resource cost (time, money etc.); maybe not. In any case, alleged "problem" solved. If you play in a home game with a DM that says "suck it up princess" for a whole level - well, does WoTC really need to come in on top of that and force the DM to let you change spells? Is that kind of DM really going to have a change of heart just because WoTC publishes this "optional" class feature? Second, it is a ridiculously unsettling solution to that non-existent problem. As I said before, it makes every "spells known" caster into a "spells prepared" caster, with greater flexibility and at lower resource cost than a wizard. (Sure, clerics, druids and paladins have access to their whole spell lists all the time, but the point has been well made that, generally speaking, the divine caster spell lists are not really comparable to the arcane caster spell lists). It is not a question of wizards vs. sorcerers (or bards, or warlocks). Wizard will remain a strong class even with Spell Versatility gifted to every "spells known" class. But the feature in its current form breaks the "spell known" mechanic in a fundamental way, and in doing so, destroys the balance between "spells known" and "spells prepared" classes. "Spells known" classes are, of course, inherently more limited than "spells prepared" classes in their spellcasting - that's a given. What's also a given that, in "compensation", "spells known" classes get class features that are "better" (in some abstract sense) than the class features of "spells prepared" classes. (And seriously, does anyone argue that bard is somehow an under-strength class? I might be able to be convinced that sorcerer might need some love.) So, if the intention of Spell Versatility is address DM bastardry by letting those poor players of "spells known" classes have "official permission" to change their spells, it's a square peg in a round hole (rules solution to a gaming group's interpersonal issues). If the intention of Spell Versatility is to address some perceived imbalance between "spells known" and "spells prepared" casters, that imbalance is a [I]feature[/I] of the distinction between the two different concepts, for which again Spell Versatility is a square peg in a round hole. It would be better to address imbalance through other means, i.e. giving "spells known" casters other bennies that don't undermine the distinction. Cheers, Al'kelhar [/QUOTE]

Verification