Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 7853882" data-attributes="member: 6677017">My examples were intended to be evocative, not representative. The point was, &quot;does this situation feel off to you?&quot; For some people, the answer is &quot;no&quot;.Since I think there might still be something useful I can add, I'll try a brief (for me) different approach that might &quot;click&quot; better for some.Premise A: The way the campaign world functions is important--not just what works within a party or for your game. Various capabilities should be evaluated based on how they would affect the setting at large, not just how they affect your PCs or your friends sitting around the table or VTT.&nbsp; If you do not share this premise because, for instance, the only people in the world who would have a feature like Spell Versatility are PCs, or because you focus only on the dynamics of the party, my argument might not have any relevance to you. &nbsp; The next premise is even more directly relevant, but I put this one first because it has broad playstyle implications.(1)Premise B: An important part of a wizard's identity is that in the specific situation when a party needs specific arcane spell (or spell function) X, the wizard is the person who is by far best equipped to access or acquire that spell.&nbsp; If this specific functionality doesn't strike you as an essential and important part of the wizard, then my argument probably won't be very persuasive, because it relies on this premise. (I'd encourage personal evaluation of whether or not you share this premise and why.)Premise C: Long rests are substantially easier to obtain between leveling than are specific additional spells for your spellbook.&nbsp; I think it would be a rather unusual game where this were not true, regardless of how long it takes to level in your game.Data Point 1: After a long rest, a wizard can access any spell from a list(3) the size of which = Level x 2 +4. (2) Data Point 2: After a long rest, a sorcerer(4) can access any spell from a list the size of which = The sorcerer class spell list. It is worth noting that every new sorcerer spell published adds to the size of this list.Observation A: The sorcerer class spell list is substantially larger than the wizard's spellbook, so the sorcerer can access any spell from a substantially larger list.&nbsp; Here's a comparison table with a few representative levels. Cantrips are left out.Sorcerer Spells Available versus Wizard Spells Available<table style='width: 100%'><tr><th>Character Level</th><th>Sorcerer</th><th>Wizard (Minimum)</th><th>Wizard (Generous)</th></tr><tr><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 25</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 6</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 6</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 3</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 59</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 10</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 14</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 5</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 87</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 14</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 22</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 10</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 120</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 24</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 42</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 15</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 153</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 34</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 62</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 20</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 159</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 44</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 82</td></tr></table>As can be seen, with the minimum spellbook, the sorcerer has access to anywhere from approximately 3 1/2x to 6x as many spells. With a more generous spellbook those numbers are just under 2x to approximately 4x. (The lower multiples apply only after 17th level, when the sorcerer gains no new access to spells but the wizard continues to gain access to more.)Observation B: The observation above invalidates the wizard's identity as defined in Premise B, because the sorcerer actually replaces the wizard's role as being the one by far best equipped to access or acquire a particular spell.If you agree with the premises, I think you should see how everything else follows. Even if you differ on the premises, you should be able to see why this really is a big problem if those premises are accepted.What I'm wanting is for WotC to come up with a flexibility increase for spontaneous casters that doesn't invalidate Premise B.(1) It's worth noting, for those interested, that it can be relatively easy to create rules broad enough to encompass these sorts of different playstyles, by making the rules meet the most demanding requirements. Rarely will a rule that works for the most demanding requirements fail to work for the less demanding requirements, and rarely are the requirements mutually exclusive. In other words, design a feature for those who care most about it, and it will likely work for everyone. Design a feature for those who are more casual about it, and will likely not work for those who care most. (2) Hopefully you get more (and you will if I'm your DM), but you aren't guaranteed more. If you want to include fairly generous additional spells, make it Level x 4 +2.(3) Their spellbook.(4) With the proposed Spell Versatility feature.A few thoughts I felt like responding to.Yes, that is accurate.Yes, that would in fact preserve the wizard's identity and eliminate that particular problem. In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking of anything less than that sort of thing that would actually preserve the wizard's identity with spontaneous casters getting Spell Versatility.However, I think it is too good. Giving wizards&nbsp; the ability to access any spell on their list makes spell choices trivial for anything that can wait until tomorrow. And that's actually a big problem with Spell Versatility too, but the one that bothers me more is the wizard identity issue, which is why I've focused the most on it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sword of Spirit, post: 7853882, member: 6677017"] My examples were intended to be evocative, not representative. The point was, "does this situation feel off to you?" For some people, the answer is "no". Since I think there might still be something useful I can add, I'll try a brief (for me) different approach that might "click" better for some. [U]Premise A:[/U] The way the campaign world functions is important--not just what works within a party or for your game. Various capabilities should be evaluated based on how they would affect the setting at large, not just how they affect your PCs or your friends sitting around the table or VTT. If you do not share this premise because, for instance, the only people in the world who would have a feature like Spell Versatility are PCs, or because you focus only on the dynamics of the party, my argument might not have any relevance to you. The next premise is even more directly relevant, but I put this one first because it has broad playstyle implications.(1) [U]Premise B:[/U] An [I]important[/I] part of a wizard's identity is that in the specific situation when a party needs specific arcane spell (or spell function) X, the wizard is the person who is [I]by far[/I] best equipped to access or acquire that spell. If this specific functionality doesn't strike you as an essential and important part of the wizard, then my argument probably won't be very persuasive, because it relies on this premise. (I'd encourage personal evaluation of whether or not you share this premise and why.) [U]Premise C:[/U] Long rests are [I]substantially[/I] easier to obtain between leveling than are specific additional spells for your spellbook. I think it would be a rather unusual game where this were not true, regardless of how long it takes to level in your game. [U]Data Point 1:[/U] After a long rest, a wizard can access any spell from a list(3) the size of which = Level x 2 +4. (2) [U]Data Point 2:[/U] After a long rest, a sorcerer(4) can access any spell from a list the size of which = The sorcerer class spell list. It is worth noting that every new sorcerer spell published adds to the size of this list. [U]Observation A:[/U] The sorcerer class spell list is substantially larger than the wizard's spellbook, so the sorcerer can access any spell from a substantially larger list. Here's a comparison table with a few representative levels. Cantrips are left out. [B][U]Sorcerer Spells Available versus Wizard Spells Available[/U][/B] [TABLE] [TR] [TH]Character Level[/TH] [TH]Sorcerer[/TH] [TH]Wizard (Minimum)[/TH] [TH]Wizard (Generous)[/TH] [/TR] [TR] [TD] 1[/TD] [TD] 25[/TD] [TD] 6[/TD] [TD] 6[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD] 3[/TD] [TD] 59[/TD] [TD] 10[/TD] [TD] 14[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD] 5[/TD] [TD] 87[/TD] [TD] 14[/TD] [TD] 22[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD] 10[/TD] [TD] 120[/TD] [TD] 24[/TD] [TD] 42[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD] 15[/TD] [TD] 153[/TD] [TD] 34[/TD] [TD] 62[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD] 20[/TD] [TD] 159[/TD] [TD] 44[/TD] [TD] 82[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] As can be seen, with the minimum spellbook, the sorcerer has access to anywhere from approximately 3 1/2x to 6x as many spells. With a more generous spellbook those numbers are just under 2x to approximately 4x. (The lower multiples apply only after 17th level, when the sorcerer gains no new access to spells but the wizard continues to gain access to more.) [U]Observation B:[/U] The observation above invalidates the wizard's identity as defined in Premise B, because the sorcerer actually replaces the wizard's role as being the one by far best equipped to access or acquire a particular spell. If you agree with the premises, I think you should see how everything else follows. Even if you differ on the premises, you should be able to see why this [I]really is[/I] a big problem if those premises are accepted. What I'm wanting is for WotC to come up with a flexibility increase for spontaneous casters that doesn't invalidate Premise B. (1) It's worth noting, for those interested, that it can be relatively easy to create rules broad enough to encompass these sorts of different playstyles, by making the rules meet the most demanding requirements. Rarely will a rule that works for the most demanding requirements fail to work for the less demanding requirements, and rarely are the requirements mutually exclusive. In other words, design a feature for those who care most about it, and it will likely work for everyone. Design a feature for those who are more casual about it, and will likely not work for those who care most. (2) Hopefully you get more (and you will if I'm your DM), but you aren't guaranteed more. If you want to include fairly generous additional spells, make it Level x 4 +2. (3) Their spellbook. (4) With the proposed Spell Versatility feature. A few thoughts I felt like responding to. Yes, that is accurate. Yes, that would in fact preserve the wizard's identity and eliminate that particular problem. In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking of anything [I]less[/I] than that sort of thing that would actually preserve the wizard's identity with spontaneous casters getting Spell Versatility. However, I think it is [I]too[/I] good. Giving wizards the ability to access any spell on their list makes spell choices trivial for anything that can wait until tomorrow. And that's actually a big problem with Spell Versatility too, but the one that bothers me more is the wizard identity issue, which is why I've focused the most on it. [/QUOTE]

Verification