Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 7860997" data-attributes="member: 6677017">Apologies for not responding to all of the points. (I tend to get bored/burnt-out on threads once they get into the dozens of pages.) I do think this thread has succeeded in getting a strong discussion going on the topic, so it's probably about coming to its conclusion.I do want to address just a few points though.Again, I don't disagree with most of your points or practical examples. I do, however, have a different take on what you're addressing in this paragraph.For me, wizards are the ones best able to procure any spell. Sorcerers need to be inherently limited in that. Do I feel they need to be limited in the ability to change what spells they know? Not entirely. Do I feel they necessarily need to be prevented from changing a spell known every day? Not entirely.But they need to be limited in both of those someway that goes beyond the limitations that would remain with Spell Versatility.It's not that the wizard might not be the only one with that solution--it's that they might not be to have that solution at all (they need to find that spell somewhere). By contrast, the sorcerer with Spell Versatility is guaranteed to be able to have the solution, and to have it tomorrow. That is huge for that particular issue.I think there are quite a few non-divine spells that can solve problems that can be delayed until tomorrow.Wizard spell preparation is more limited than other prepared casters. Do you feel they would be balanced if they had access to every spell on their spell list rather than being limited to a subset of them in their spellbook? If that were the case, I'm not sure I'd have an issue with sorcerers having Spell Versatility, but I'd have to think about it more. It would solve the identity issue, because wizards would still be superior in the Tomorrow Spell Access and Extended Spell Access categories. I might still have some issues with Spell Versatility for sorcerer class identity, but they wouldn't be related to relative class identity compared to wizards.I'm sympathetic to this argument.But as I mentioned, I'm as much concerned about what it says about the world as how it affects PC party gameplay. Wizards are the people you might visit because they can come up with the solution to any arcane spell access problem if you give them a day or a week. A sorcerer you'd only visit if you think their particular area of emphasis is relevant. With Spell Versatility, you'd go visit the sorcerer unless you knew the spell you needed wasn't on the sorcerer spell list, because the sorcerer is guaranteed to be able to have the spell tomorrow, while the wizard isn't.In other words I find Point 1--Immediate Spell Access--to be the least important for class identity of the three. I wouldn't find it a challenge to wizard class identity to limit the number of spells they could prepare per day to the same number as the sorcerer's spells known (assuming no Spell Versatility). I wouldn't favor that sort of wizard nerf, but if there were some sort of gain that went along with it, I might consider it.I'm sorry if it came off that way. I wasn't trying to be insulting. There are some D&D things that I don't care about myself. I was actually attempting to acknowledge assumptions under which my claims wouldn't be relevant.Yes, and I disagree that Mr. Crawford's solution to the stated problem is a good option. First--I'm not entirely sure he's correctly identifying the problem. He gave us his conclusions about what the problem is, and a suggestion that would address those conclusions. If he incorrectly identified the problem, then his solution might not fit. Second--He doesn't appear to recognize the significance of Tomorrow Spell Access or Extended Spell Access with regards to differences in sorcerer and wizard identity. That being the case, his solutions are unlikely to be informed by them, and we have vast disagreements about the value of said solutions ;-)Here's an idea of how to make us of Spell Versatility without challenging those elements I ascribe to wizard spell identity. It's messy, I'm not sure I like it, and I'd have to fine tune it, but as a minimum change to highlight my position, here goes:At level 1 a sorcerer selects six 1st-level spells on the sorcerer list that he does not know. These spell cease to be sorcerer spells for him, and cannot be learned through any feature of the sorcerer class. When he gains access to spell levels 2 through 5, he likewise selects spells of that level that he does not know on the sorcerer spell list (four for levels 2 through 5, and two for levels 6 through 9) which also cease to be sorcerer spells for him and cannot be learned through any feature of the sorcerer class.</blockquote>

Verification