Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7853890" data-attributes="member: 996">They're really not that important.&nbsp; Crafting is gone across the board, sure, the relationship between players &amp; magic items in 5e returns to what it was back in the day, you can argue that hits wizards a little harder since they got a few &quot;small&quot; bonus feats they could put to crafting, but, really, the loss of make/buy hurt non-casters more than casters.&nbsp; That's a change in the game, overall.&nbsp; BA meant that buff-layering had to go, so everyone copes with Concentration.&nbsp; Likewise.&nbsp; Metamagic as such is given to the Sorcerer, but up-casting is, itself, a form of metamagic, and, relative to 3e everyone essentially gets Empower Spell for free.&nbsp; There's an MC build that exploits specific metamagic, too, but there's always some exploit somewhere.I think it's amusing that you listed the loss of bonus feats - used for crafting &amp; metamagic - 5 times, when, it's barely even one thing.&nbsp; Why is this being painted as a thorny wizard/sorcerer issue, when Clerics &amp; Druids (and Paladin) already prep from their complete lists?&nbsp;&nbsp; (Yeah, that's rhetorical.)It's because the wizard's spellbook is just an intermediary between his spell list and his prepped list.&nbsp; The wizard does have access to his full spell list - and it's the most expansive, varied, and impactful of spell lists - at level-up and through scribing.&nbsp; The sub-set he has in his book represents the best spells from that list in a way smaller known spell lists can't approach.&nbsp; Thus the wizard's book compares favorably to the Cleric or Druids whole list, and puts known-spell casters to shame.That's not to say Spell Versatility is a good idea, just that using it as an excuse to further power-up the wizard is the wrong reaction to a bad idea.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7853890, member: 996"] They're really not [I]that[/I] important. Crafting is gone across the board, sure, the relationship between players & magic items in 5e returns to what it was back in the day, you can argue that hits wizards a [I]little[/I] harder since they got a few "small" bonus feats they could put to crafting, but, really, the loss of make/buy hurt non-casters more than casters. That's a change in the game, overall. BA meant that buff-layering had to go, so everyone copes with Concentration. Likewise. Metamagic as such is given to the Sorcerer, but up-casting is, itself, a form of metamagic, and, relative to 3e everyone essentially gets Empower Spell for free. There's an MC build that exploits specific metamagic, too, but there's always some exploit somewhere. I think it's amusing that you listed the loss of bonus feats - used for crafting & metamagic - 5 times, when, it's barely even one thing. Why is this being painted as a thorny wizard/sorcerer issue, when Clerics & Druids (and Paladin) already prep from their complete lists? (Yeah, that's rhetorical.) It's because the wizard's spellbook is just an intermediary between his spell list and his prepped list. The wizard [I]does[/I] have access to his full spell list - and it's the most expansive, varied, and impactful of spell lists - at level-up and through scribing. The sub-set he has in his book represents the best spells from that list in a way smaller known spell lists can't approach. Thus the wizard's book compares favorably to the Cleric or Druids whole list, and puts known-spell casters to shame. That's not to say Spell Versatility is a good idea, just that using it as an excuse to further power-up the wizard is the wrong reaction to a bad idea. [/QUOTE]

Verification