Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 7857423" data-attributes="member: 6750235">Sorcerers aren't going to be changing spells daily.  That's part of the inherent flaw in the arguments against spell versatility.  They'll only be changing a particular spell maybe if an incentive to do so comes up.  This is still arguing the exception instead of the expectation.I'm not seeing what you are expressing in the games we're testing this in.The UA changes are addressing one of the important levels of spell access that you did not list.  Swapping spells out on leveling up.  That was a concern and the expectation was that classes that use the spells known mechanic were to be swapping out spells more frequently than some campaigns were allowing.5e's entire spells known mechanic has always assumed that these classes would be swapping out spells that were less useful to the campaign as it progressed.  This always included access to the entire spell list.I think the actual spell lists themselves give a lot more identity to the classes than how those spells are accessed.  Such as the wizard's bigger and better list with many exclusive spells.Item 1 is clearly intact and I think that one is the most defining of the 3 points.  Listing 3 points does not give them equal value in the identity of these classes.For item 2 to be advantageous to the sorcerer requires strong assumptions such as specific need not already covered, specific spells to the situation, ample time to make uses of the single spell swap, not needing the spells swap, and the advantage being limited to only a single spell.  It's less of an assumption that it's more advantageous to simply swap out to the dungeon list, town list, or wilderness list in that same rest for any spell prep class.Item 3 is misleading.  If a person picks any point in time they are still limited by item 1 above and the actual spells on the sorcerer (or any other spells known caster) list.  The ability is the same regardless of which class uses spells known so it's either a true statement for all spells known classes or it's not a true statement for sorcerers because it's not specifically the ability to swap spells that's creating the concern here.  Rangers who share wizard spells that might come in handy and not be in the wizard spell book is the example I was using.Spell preparation is not a wizard thing.  It's one of a choice of two broad mechanics wizards happen to use.Those spells on the sorcerer list are there because they are meant to be options for the sorcerer to use.  There is currently no practical use in having placed those spells on that spell list because the limited spells known prevents sorcerers from using spells meant for sorcerers to use.  Sorcerers are meant to be an alternative choice to wizards and in doing so there is some overlap, including the expectation that a sorcerer might teleport the party, open a planar gateway, or scry on enemies.That 3rd point isn't infringing on the wizard identity.  It's enabling the sorcerer to do things sorcerers were meant to do and improving the sorcerer identity.See above.  The limited spells know makes those spells that sorcerers have and are meant to be used by sorcerers available instead of a superfluous addition to a list that pragmatically cannot be taken.You want to resolve that by adding to the spells known list.  I think giving sorcerers more spells known impacts the wizard identity more than a sorcerer doing arcane things during downtime because adding to spells known impacts your point 1 above.  Point 1 is the game play standard.Changing out the entire list (which is pointless) during downtime still has zero impact on your first point in gameplay.  Adding spells like your previous suggestion has more impact relative to wizards than spell versatility does.All eyes should turn to the character filling the same role of the wizard in the arcane caster the party has.  All eyes are never going to turn to the sorcerer unless we make forced assumptions that a single spell is required and only the sorcerer list has it and the wizard wouldn't have added it to the spell book already.Those assumptions are too strong, making the highlighted point hyperbole.Or those players have a different opinion on what is creating the class identity for both classes that simply does not match your own.Accusing player of not caring simply because they have a different opinion is incorrect and insulting, and does not directly respond to any points made.  Your posts are usually much better than that.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />The points are true and I used them because the specific objection was that spell versatility stepped on wizard's toes. The real concern seems to be that people are concerned sorcerers will become the arcane caster of choice over wizards because of spell versatility, which is actually a different statement than what was being argued.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I highlighted the point I was making with the sorcerer spell list and spell versatility during downtime activities.Like I said, sorcerers have spells they are meant to use and never take.  Even if those only become relevant during downtime activity they have become relevant and enhance the sorcerer's identity as an arcane caster.The fact that ranger spell casting is considered weaker than paladin spell casting actually mirrors a common complaint on these forums regarding sorcerers and wizards so I fail to see how that justification would not also apply if we're going there.Side note: rangers were given skill benefits compared to paladins, much like bards were given skill benefits compared to clerics.  The skill benefits just didn't pan out well enough for a lot of people.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Which really means the premise that "spell versatility steps on wizard's toes" really only applies when you decide it applies.  So far you are applying it sorcerers and not rangers, and then rationalizing why you are making that distinction even though you already acknowledged it's the same argument.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />That's why I asserted the argument is not actually about the mechanic.  This is an argument about sorcerers vs wizards because the same mechanic only seems to be an issue (for some people) regarding that class.The 5e bard needs the option to change spells more frequently than some tables were allowing.  Doing something closer to what's intended isn't actually a boost.  It's a course correction.  It's the same course correction being given to sorcerers, warlocks, and rangers.Bards are to clerics what rangers are to paladins.  Less armor, similar role, some spells are better in areas closer to druids or wizards, skill benefits.  The actual term "arcane" is largely nothing more than a flavor term in 5e mechanics.  That gets back to applying the same standards to the arguments between various classes.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />This isn't about buffing classes.  Spell versatility was about addressing a concern regarding the frequency of the current implementation.  The current implementation is the ability to swap a single spell regardless of level, and that level exchange is still only something available on leveling up.Swapping out higher level spells is limited to high levels when it becomes even less likely that a solution is required in the sorcerer spell list and no other that has not already become available, the sorcerer list becomes small in comparison to lower level spell levels, and wish just covers everything anyway if we're getting to that level.It's far easier for a wizard to unprep a 1st level spell to cover a need out of every spell in the book than it is a sorcerer to swap out a single spell of the same level.  Assuming only one spell is relevant per the sorcerer scenario.  At 13th or 15th or 17th levels the wizard is vastly superior at restructuring the spells available to the situation if the need arises.It's not like sorcerer can swap a low level spell for a high level spell, or more.  A sorcerer gives up a high level spell for a high level spell.Yes, because they are meant to do a lot of the same things.  The issue I have is that the sorcerer is meant to do things wizards do and cannot because they cannot afford to learn those spells.  Increasing spells known for a sorcerer infringes on the wizard advantage of having more spells at any given time during actual game play while spell versatility allowing the use of spells meant to be used by sorcerers during downtime does not.Sorcerers are supposed to be an alternative class to playing a wizard.  That means certain things that sorcerers never do because of the restrictive spells known that are suitable to the class.  Now typically expected spells become better available with spell versatility.No one is going to suddenly decide sorcerers are the better way to go because they can use more of their spell list and do something one would expect a sorcerer to do.  Rituals, traditions, and spell preparation are still going to draw players to wizards.And?First, why do we have a wizard and a sorcerer in the party as a standard against which to make such a comparison?  Players tend to select one or the other and parties having both would be another example of the exception being portrayed as the standard.More importantly, there's no point in putting teleportation circle on the sorcerer spell list at all if sorcerers are never going to take it because of spells known.  These spells are added to the spell list for sorcerers because they are are expected to be taken and used but the mechanics prevents it from happening.Spell versatility addresses that particular concern without simply adding more spells to the sorcerer's spells known and dipping into the wizard's more prepped vs known advantage.No there aren't.  There are some cherry picked spells that make the ability more useful than simply swapping out a spell that turned out to be a dud for the campaign or outgrown due to leveling.  The vast majority of spells are completely irrelevant.</blockquote>

Verification