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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 7854562" data-attributes="member: 93670">Thank you for making an agrument that is nor self defeating.  Needing to make a save ofThank you for attempting to make an argument that was not self defeating.  The tangent of what things people have suggested  that could be given to wizards  got asked earlier & I included references to  <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/ua-spell-versatility-a-deeper-dive.668407/post-7853784" target="_blank">this</a> suggestion and <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/ua-spell-versatility-a-deeper-dive.668407/post-7853917" target="_blank">this</a> one that built on it.  the first one is so trivial that it literally admits "since even if you fail every day for a week you'll never be higher than Level 1 Exhaustion".  That is the very definition of triviality.  The second one has a bit more teeth since the level of exhaustion is guaranteed & they are limited to spells equal to or below their proficiency bonus.  However the triviality comes from the fact that it would only be used when taking an extra rest or two & getting the cleric/druid/bard/artificer to cast greater restoration in order to clear it & move on unhindered.  You could say that it's not trivial because whatif that is never an option in a campaign, but the whatif goes both ways & never ends... whatif there's not enough gold to scribe many spells... whatif like many of wotc's own published adventures there are few scrolls & no spellbooks till very late in the campaign  or if there are spellbooks mid campaign & those spellbooks are filled with the cr6mm347 mage has prepared even though most if not all of those will be either already learned & in spellbook from leveling or irrelivant due to build design choices made long before the party killing cr6 casters is going to be just a "hard" or even  mere "deadly" encounter as opposed to beyond deadly.   The only whatif The only whatif we have is the very slow leveling one crawford raised, so you really shouln't be raising more like whatif there are no long rests availableThe rest of your post gets to another problem  Lets look at what crawford said the design goals of it  were originally for[MEDIA=youtube]v7A6-yOZC_s:384[/MEDIA][spoiler]I wanted us to provide an official answer to the desire in many groups, which we ave observed over the last five years to be able to have a bit more flexibility with their character.. for when they make a choice.. not be trapped by that choice.  Because we have provided in the player's handbook various ways to say if your a sorcerer when you level up swap out a spell..  In this we provide you the ability to swap out a spell at the end of the long rest.  The reason for that is that we actually have no control as game designers over how long a level lasts... and in some groups, it has become clear as we've observed different patterns on play over the last five years.  Having to wait till the next level to swap out a spell that you don't like in one group that might just be a session or two from now... Another group, if another group likes to just sorta stay the same level for a long time, that could be six to twelve months... which was not a part of our original design. So in a way, us providing this versatility is signaling to people the game can handle a sorcerer for instance swapping out one spell at the end of the short rest err sorry a long rest... Because also ultimately we want people to be happy with their characters, to me there is no sort of merit in the design to make people sorta eat their vegetables with their character, it's a game. Now some may ask why you don't just let people change everything all the time. Now the reason that the rules don't it's really two fold. One is a narrative reason, we want there to be at least some stable identity to a person's character... but also B we don't want this potential slowdown of reconsidering everything in your character all the time. Now there are a few characters like the wizard for instance where actually you have deep consideration daily of their spells & all of their spells is a core part of their identity... but with wizards we address that by it's a spellbook so the spellbook doesn't have every single spell in existence, it just sortof a curated list & then your choosing from that curated list[/spoiler]Lets start with your "Spell versatility is a solution to a problem with the real-world pacing  ... Cantrip versatility is not a solution to any existing problem. It's adding a new option. " claim because it's so badly rooted in a misunderstanding of a few things both in the classes and this UA.  If you look at phb101 (sorcerer), you will see this section[spoiler]Additionally, when you gain a level in this class, you can choose one of the sorcerer spells you know and replace it with another spell from the sorcerer spell list, which also must be of a level for which you have spell slots.[/spoiler]Cantrips are neither a spell that uses spell slots nor covered by that sorcerer ability... yet the UA explicitly makes clear that cantrips are covered by spell versatility with the sidebar in the bard section. This is "a new option" for both classes, please don't suggest otherwise.    With that cleared up, it allows things to progress to your argument about pacing.  The Sorcerer starts with 4 cantrips then learns another one at levels 4 & 10.  The wizard starts wizard starts with 3 cantrip & learns another one at 4 & 10.   Since the proposed ability to swap cantrips is an entirely new ability for both classes, the design justifications gets clearly & obviously gets into two of the points Crawford made.  The no merit in making people eat their vegetables line of logic he goes into clearly justifies why both classes gain the new ability to swap cantrips, the fact that one class uses that new ability with a completely different ability than the other  (spell/cantrip versatility) is completely irrelevant to the fact that the new ability to swap cantrips is objectively better for one class than the other. if "six to twelve months" is too long for one class to use this entirely new ability it never had before, then it is also too long for the other class to use this entirely new ability it never had before.  The reason for that has nothing to do with "morality" as you confused that logic to be it.... it is simply about "design correction" as you put it.Arguments that this "is just UA & can be ignored" that some people have made are irrelevant & can be ignored because Crawford also made clear that he'd like to eventually get some form of this into an eventual official printed book.  It's generally best to give feedback before something is printed rather than waiting until after the feature is printed in an official source.I don't really like spell versatility as presented, but I agree with Crawford's reasoning behind why it was created & don't think there are any easy guaranteed solutions to the toe stomping problems it creates.</blockquote>

Verification