Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 7854430" data-attributes="member: 93670">It does step on the toes of the wizard's role in the party,&nbsp; but people are not unsympathetic to the reasons crawford gave for making spell versatility on rest... Which is why those people noting it so often continue&nbsp; on to say that wizards should get something that allows them to once again have a niche of their own that's not &quot;a really expensive sorcerer&quot;.&nbsp; I listed a few examples that myself and others&nbsp; have made in this thread and others barely one page ago <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/ua-spell-versatility-a-deeper-dive.668407/post-7854223" target="_blank">here</a> where&nbsp; when you &amp; others started the cycle of suddenly joining late to the discussion you'd been taking part in for a couple days now all over again.Cantrip versatility should be on long rest not on level for the exact same reasons crawford gave for why spell versatility is on long rest instead of the on level sorcerer already has.&nbsp; There is no discussion here that does not involve poor logic &amp; bad faith until someone can present evidence that wizards do not ever play in the kinds pf games crawford talked about.&nbsp; There is no discussion to be had on&nbsp; why cantrip versatility should not be long rest that does not also apply itself to spell versatility because both sorcerer &amp; wizard class players play in the slower leveling games crawford mentions it was intended for. Why do I need to keep pointing this out to you?Since it would be absurd to claim wizards never play in those games, you instead turn to &quot;will that make wizards happy&quot; topic shift.&nbsp; What is concerning&nbsp; is not that wizards aren't getting something nice enough or that the sorcerer spell versatility is too good, it's the fact that spell versatility is so good that it steps on the toes of wizard class role in a party&nbsp; &amp; massively undercuts the very expensive/time consuming/hard to build spellbook's value... because it does that, wizards should gain something that allows them to once again have a clear niche &amp; role within a party that the class can point to &amp; say that it's where the wizard really shines.&nbsp; As to examples of things that could be added to allow them to shine I'm sure there's been others but none come to mind.If done right, heck... maybe even short rest spell versatility for those poor <a href="http://keith-baker.com/tag/sorcerers/" target="_blank">&quot;crappy wizard&quot;</a> with something else is the right spot for spell versatility.I &quot;confuse&quot; you because you put effort into not understanding,with</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 7854430, member: 93670"] It [I]does[/I] step on the toes of the wizard's role in the party, but people are not unsympathetic to the reasons crawford gave for making spell versatility on rest... Which is why those people noting it so often continue on to say that wizards should get something that allows them to once again have a niche of their own that's not "a really expensive sorcerer". I listed a few examples that myself and others have made in this thread and others barely one page ago [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/ua-spell-versatility-a-deeper-dive.668407/post-7854223']here[/URL] where when you & others started the cycle of suddenly joining late to the discussion you'd been taking part in for a couple days now all over again. Cantrip versatility should be on long rest not on level for the exact same reasons crawford gave for why spell versatility is on long rest instead of the on level sorcerer already has. There is no discussion here that does not involve poor logic & bad faith until someone can present evidence that wizards do not ever play in the kinds pf games crawford talked about. There is no discussion to be had on why cantrip versatility should not be long rest that does not also apply itself to spell versatility because both sorcerer & wizard class players play in the slower leveling games crawford mentions it was intended for. Why do I need to keep pointing this out to you? Since it would be absurd to claim wizards never play in those games, you instead turn to "will that make wizards happy" topic shift. What is concerning is not that wizards aren't getting something nice enough or that the sorcerer spell versatility is too good, it's the fact that spell versatility is so good that it steps on the toes of wizard class role in a party & massively undercuts the very expensive/time consuming/hard to build spellbook's value... [I]because i[/I]t does that, wizards should gain something that allows them to once again have a clear niche & role within a party that the class can point to & say that it's where the wizard really shines. As to examples of things that could be added to allow them to shine I'm sure there's been others but none come to mind.If done right, heck... maybe even short rest spell versatility for those poor [URL='http://keith-baker.com/tag/sorcerers/']"crappy wizard"[/URL] with something else is the right spot for spell versatility. I "confuse" you because you put effort into not understanding, with [/QUOTE]

Verification