Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
UA Spell Versatility: A deeper dive
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 7855458" data-attributes="member: 6750235"><p>First of all, that response has nothing to do with what you quoted again.</p><p></p><p>Second, they don't need the same long rest. The wizard needs one long rest to swap any number of relevant spells. The sorcerer needs days to do the same.</p><p></p><p>Third, what subjective variation are you talking about? It doesn't matter what table a player plays at. That player selects the best spells in his or her opinion. The starting point is always the same, and what the sorcerer needs is always the same (some damage, some defense, and some utility). That's some abstract idea that you claim exist and have yet to demonstrate it's existence.</p><p></p><p>If I make a sorcerer and take <em>light, mage hand, shocking grasp, firebolt; shield, </em>and <em>sleep</em> the only reason to change any of that is because <em>sleep</em> or <em>firebolt</em> becomes less useful than an alternative situationally created. In the case of <em>sleep</em> I would never plan on keeping it anyway because it gets outgrown.</p><p></p><p>Why do you think I would change these spells at all after selecting them? I chose them because those are what I wanted to use. What you are trying to argue is that I'm going to make a conscious choice to stop using the spells I want to use because of some abstract subjective "thing" despite the fact that those are the spells I want to use. That doesn't make any sense.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You haven't responded to a single point I made disputing this statement with evidence to demonstrate the validity of this statement. I listed 8 concise reasons why I disagree earlier.</p><p></p><p>There are no missing rules to create this situation. Look the sorcerer list, and tell me why I would deliberately choose to stop using a spell I wanted over one of the other ones and explain why I would not have taken that spell in the first place if that's what I really wanted. Using spell versatility is the exception, not the expectation.</p><p></p><p>Then explain how my less spells known as a sorcerer has stomped on wizard toes when wizards are not changing spells out much either. A wizard is a wizard because the wizard uses INT as an ability score (which translates as lore vs social skills), has a lot of spells readily available, uses rituals, and specializes in a specific school of magic. Explain how that's no longer true just because a sorcerer might change a single spell once in a while.</p><p></p><p>Explain it with actual logic and game play, not some theoretical variance of unknown quality that might exist between tables that just so happens to validate what you are saying.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not a point in your favor. It's false equivalence because spell versatility is not the wild sorcerer subclass. DM fiat works both ways. Issues with a feature and how a DM handles them is a discussion between the player and DM.</p><p></p><p>Spell preparation is not a wizard thing. It's a broad category of spell casting under which clerics, druids, paladins, and wizards all fall. Spell versatility is just an optional part of a broad category of spell casting that includes bards, rangers, sorcerers, and warlocks. No class own the broad category.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>"Here is a list of spell scrolls and potions along with their prices" is not hard to use or problematic if that's how the table wants to play. That's page 174 of XGtE. It's clear and concise because it's what you seemed to want.</p><p></p><p>Item creation rules are generic but also clear.</p><p></p><p>The method of hunting down magic item by spending time and money to interact with NPCs is based on roleplay in a roleplaying game. That's not problematic at all and the guidelines are clear.</p><p></p><p>The rules for scribing spells are also clear. So is the cost for scribing them. So is the price for paying for spell casting services that a PC wizard. Crafting and selling is not hard to apply. Neither are the same tables used for purchasing items. This isn't duct tape holding together random rules. That's applying a label to an issue that never existed because a person chooses not to accept solutions given as opposed any issues with those solutions.</p><p></p><p>A person simply needs to choose a suggested method that suits his or her game and use it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ashrym, post: 7855458, member: 6750235"] First of all, that response has nothing to do with what you quoted again. Second, they don't need the same long rest. The wizard needs one long rest to swap any number of relevant spells. The sorcerer needs days to do the same. Third, what subjective variation are you talking about? It doesn't matter what table a player plays at. That player selects the best spells in his or her opinion. The starting point is always the same, and what the sorcerer needs is always the same (some damage, some defense, and some utility). That's some abstract idea that you claim exist and have yet to demonstrate it's existence. If I make a sorcerer and take [I]light, mage hand, shocking grasp, firebolt; shield, [/I]and [I]sleep[/I] the only reason to change any of that is because [I]sleep[/I] or [I]firebolt[/I] becomes less useful than an alternative situationally created. In the case of [I]sleep[/I] I would never plan on keeping it anyway because it gets outgrown. Why do you think I would change these spells at all after selecting them? I chose them because those are what I wanted to use. What you are trying to argue is that I'm going to make a conscious choice to stop using the spells I want to use because of some abstract subjective "thing" despite the fact that those are the spells I want to use. That doesn't make any sense. You haven't responded to a single point I made disputing this statement with evidence to demonstrate the validity of this statement. I listed 8 concise reasons why I disagree earlier. There are no missing rules to create this situation. Look the sorcerer list, and tell me why I would deliberately choose to stop using a spell I wanted over one of the other ones and explain why I would not have taken that spell in the first place if that's what I really wanted. Using spell versatility is the exception, not the expectation. Then explain how my less spells known as a sorcerer has stomped on wizard toes when wizards are not changing spells out much either. A wizard is a wizard because the wizard uses INT as an ability score (which translates as lore vs social skills), has a lot of spells readily available, uses rituals, and specializes in a specific school of magic. Explain how that's no longer true just because a sorcerer might change a single spell once in a while. Explain it with actual logic and game play, not some theoretical variance of unknown quality that might exist between tables that just so happens to validate what you are saying. Not a point in your favor. It's false equivalence because spell versatility is not the wild sorcerer subclass. DM fiat works both ways. Issues with a feature and how a DM handles them is a discussion between the player and DM. Spell preparation is not a wizard thing. It's a broad category of spell casting under which clerics, druids, paladins, and wizards all fall. Spell versatility is just an optional part of a broad category of spell casting that includes bards, rangers, sorcerers, and warlocks. No class own the broad category. "Here is a list of spell scrolls and potions along with their prices" is not hard to use or problematic if that's how the table wants to play. That's page 174 of XGtE. It's clear and concise because it's what you seemed to want. Item creation rules are generic but also clear. The method of hunting down magic item by spending time and money to interact with NPCs is based on roleplay in a roleplaying game. That's not problematic at all and the guidelines are clear. The rules for scribing spells are also clear. So is the cost for scribing them. So is the price for paying for spell casting services that a PC wizard. Crafting and selling is not hard to apply. Neither are the same tables used for purchasing items. This isn't duct tape holding together random rules. That's applying a label to an issue that never existed because a person chooses not to accept solutions given as opposed any issues with those solutions. A person simply needs to choose a suggested method that suits his or her game and use it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
UA Spell Versatility: A deeper dive
Top