Spell Versatility and Class Identity

[Rowan Wolf]

I have notice here and to a lesser extent on both DND Beyond and EnWorld forums a sentiment that giving the spontaneous casters (spells known) the limited ability to switch out a single spell per long rest as somehow makes the preparation casters worse, specifically the wizard.

I think that it would be good to recall that before 5e preparation casters were full vancian caster and needed to prepare each use of a spell into a spell slot. Spontaneous casters worked basically as they do now. So if anything the basic development of current system weakened spells known casters while not really giving anything in return design-wise.

Though some of this sentiment could just be tribalism as everyone has a class/archetype/fantasy that they prefer and this could lead to biases. Though I do wonder will negative feedback based on said tribalism crush spell versatility as a concept.

So fellow members of the playground what do you think on this?

[Theaitetos]

I'll quote myself (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?602008-What-additional-spells-would-you-add-to-the-sorcerer-list&p=24248228#post24248228):



I think the new 5E magic system broke a core sorcerer feature: Back in previous editions, you didn't have to prepare specific spell slots and had lots of versatility during the day, as you could cast any known spell with any spell slot you still had. But now that everyone has the ability to cast any prepared spell with any spell slot, sorcerers lost a vital part of their identity. Or rather, the game mechanics no longer support their identity.

Wizards were the smart people, who prepared for the day and had to carefully analyze their situation to make plans. The sorcerers were the ones going with their gut feelings, relying on being savvy and quickly adapting to a situation. This made smart wizards really powerful, while a badly prepared wizard was little more than a sitting duck. It also worked well for the shrewd sorcerer, but not so much for the un-creative sorcerer.

Yet in 5E, there's no more careful analyzing anymore, as a wizard can now cast any of his many prepared spell as often as necessary and as upcast as necessary. A retarded wizard can still cast almost as many spells as the genius wizard with any spell slot.

I don't mind that wizards can do rituals while sorcs can't. I don't mind that wizards have a much larger spell selection. But I do mind that sorcs lost a core feature and got one – metamagic – that doesn't really fit thematically.

Metamagic is cool and awesome, but it's something that sounds much more like wizardry than sorcery. To adjust a spell by carefully changing the intricate weaving that goes into a spell is something I can imagine wizards studying at magic school – wasn't the Arcane Scholar of Candlekeep the pre-eminent metamagic wizard?

I'd much rather see something that supports the emotional aspect of spellcasting for the sorcerer, where they overreact, let their passions get the better of themselves, or where they put more on the line than spell slots to fuel their magic. Further example:



DIE! DIE! DIE!
Level: Special
Casting time: Reaction
Range: Self
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous

Immediately after you cast a spell by expending a spell slot in your turn, you can use your reaction to repeat the exact same spell with the same target again. This repetition is an exact copy that includes all modifications to the original spell like bonus damage from features metamagic options without any additional costs.

This spell requires expending a spell slot of the same level that the original spell was cast at. Your hit point maximum is decreased by 1d4 per spell slot level until you finish a long rest.




Behold its Glory!
Level: 1
Casting time: Bonus Action
Range: Self
Components: S
Duration: 1 minute

You intensely stare into the elemental havoc of your magic.

When you cast a spell, that requires a spell attack roll, you automatically land a critical hit.
When you cast a spell, that requires a saving throw to avoid or lessen its effects, these saving throws are made at disadvantage, and magic or features to completely avoid effects on a successful saving throw have no effect.

You can prematurely dismiss this spell as a bonus action.

When this spell ends you gain 1 level of exhaustion per round that you were affected by this spell. If the spell lasts 6 or more rounds, you fall to 0 hitpoints instead of instant death, but you immediately fail a death saving throw for any round beyond 6. You turn blind until you are no longer exhausted and finished a subsequen.


Anything that gives the sorcerers some additional magic power in return for a detrimental effect like losing hit points, a level of exhaustion, conditions like stunned or poisoned, lowered ability scores, expense of a hit die, loss of concentration, … a little bit like Deku from My Hero Academia getting wounded or Natsu from Fairy Tail ending up badly burned.

The magic of a sorcerer shouldn't feel like an academic discipline, but an exhilarating sport. A wizard should be able to envy a sorcerer's power but still scold him for the irresponsible use.

[Anymage]

You're right on two counts. That sorcerers lost a lot of conceptual ground in the transition to 5e, and that spell swapping in some form is essential to make sorcerers and other fixed list casters not overly punitive. The concept absolutely has some legs.

The bits that seem too strong to me are twofold. There's no cost other than a night's rest, and that the sorcerer can pick any spell that would prove handy for recent circumstances without necessarily having to go out of their way for it. (The latter is also a waiting problem for clerics. As more spells are published, free access to the entire spell list is going to contain more and more perfect answers.) That said, some form of time and money cost - I'm thinking one day and 50 gold per spell level as an off the cuff figure - should allow list casters to adapt without letting them pick perfect solutions if they can get a good night's sleep.

Sorcs could still use something else to buff themselves up. I'm drawing a bit of a blank what that something should be, though.

[firelistener]

Personally, I really like how spell slots are disassociated from spells prepared in 5e. It adds such a great deal of flexibility for all casters and encourages strategic thinking about what level spell slot to use. I don't agree that this system weakens "spells known" casters. I think transitioning the thinking time for casters away from long rests and into the middle of a battle is more fun for everyone at the table because the fighter doesn't have to sit around bored while the wizard plays with his spellbook and the cleric prays.

I strongly agree with the other posts about sorcerers being the most hurt by this new system. If I were to give the 1-swapped-spell-per-long-rest trait to anyone, it would be them.

For Bards, I would probably would limit it to specific archetypes as a feature, like the Lore Bard.

I don't really think it would be bad to let Rangers swap out a spell very much at all. In my experience, Ranger players tend not to take advantage of swapping spells known on level-up, so this feature might add a little more fun for them and encourage spell usage.

I definitely think it would be a bad move to give this ability to warlocks. Warlocks are already incredibly customizable, get their slots back on short rests, and have their Eldritch Invocations providing some serious boosts to their casting abilities. Their spells are designed to be very limited in use to make up for how much other cool stuff they have. Warlocks are, in my opinion, in no way needing another boost like this to keep up with other classes. There's a reason almost every min-max powergaming build includes some warlock levels, and it's not only because of hexblade's features.

And finally, Wizards. Honestly, I think it would be a little unfitting for them. A Wizard is all about collecting scrolls and adding to their book's collection. The thought of ditching a spell for another really doesn't sound like it fits the class very well, thematically or mechanically. This reasoning also the idea that it would be better as a Sorcerer ability, in my mind.

[Spriteless]

Hearing Crawford describe it, it was meant to get rid of spells one never uses. A balm for buyer's remorse given to players whose characters don't level often, either because they don't meet often or they don't like to be high level. Personally, when I run, I would consider letting spells known casters change out whenever there is a week of downtime. But then, I give out a level between every adventure anyways.

(Trading an unused skill on downtime makes sense to me, though.)

Lemme look up the whole PDF now.

Oh, Clerics can turn divinity into spellslots. I guess salad bar casters can also steal spells known casters' schtick. (noone actually says salad bar casters i made that up)

Narrativly I could go either way with who metamagic belongs to. Clearly if wizards wrote the formula they should be able to change it better than someone who has like, a reflex that happens to be the somatic component of thunderbolt.

However, it seems wizards only know the formula, and must create a fragile mental construct to channel the energy. Wizards are doing choreography while sorcerers are freestyle. If one holds to this narrative, one can argue that wizards be allowed research new spells, which might well use the metamagic of old as a guideline. Lightning-ball and Chained-Thunder and Necrot-Sphere come to mind as spells that would be cool.

The only metamagic for wizards RAW is a mix of the old heighten and empower feats, represented by expending a higher spell slot, which everyone gets, for free. 5e did this to many feats. Well I guess them casters won't be using rideby attack.

Can't say that I feel terribly tribal to either as it's been so long since I got to play a PC instead of the world.

[ZZTRaider]

Don't forget that in 3.5/PF, for prepared casters to use metamagic, they had to explicitly prepare the slot that way. You want to cast a quickened fireball now? I hope you prepared a quickened fireball in one of your 7th level slots.

Wizard magic is a lot like baking. Every little detail is extremely important. Too much or too little of an ingredient? Your texture and taste are going to be off. Tried to cook at a higher temperature for a shorter amount of time? That's going to throw things off, too. Need to substitute an ingredient due to food allergies? Well, there are options for that, but some substitutes work better than others depending on what you're making, you may need to alter aspects of the recipe to account for it, and you probably don't want to be making that change in the moment without having thought about it first. Yes, wizards know how the weave works and have the smarts to alter their tried and true formulas, but this takes time, effort, and careful thought. If they tried to do it in the midst of battle, having the spell simply fizzle is probably one of the better outcomes they could hope for.

Sorcerer magic is more like regular cooking. You don't always need a recipe to go off of. You can make a meal just by seeing what you have in the refrigerator and pantry, picking things that you intuitively know go well together, then adjust to taste. Realize you need something a bit spicier? Add more peppers until you're happy with it. Too watery? Let it keep cooking at a low heat until you cook off some more of the liquid. You can do this on the fly, adjusting as you go. That's the sorcerer's metamagic. They can't explain how the weave works, but they have an intuitive understanding of how to manipulate it, and can pull and twist it in the moment to adjust the spell they're casting to be more like what they need in that moment.

In the context of 5e, I think metamagic being a sorcerer-specific thing makes plenty of sense and works well on paper. I think the biggest issue is that they don't get enough metamagic selections and don't have enough spell points to really use them as much as I'd like them to. Especially since you're also considering using your sorcery points for additional spell slots; more total spell slots was another thing in 3.5/PF that made sorcerers different from wizards, and they've mostly lost that.

[Theaitetos]

The bits that seem too strong to me are twofold. There's no cost other than a night's rest, and that the sorcerer can pick any spell that would prove handy for recent circumstances without necessarily having to go out of their way for it.

I'd say to have the sorcerer simply pay an amount of sorcery points equal to the level of the spell swapped, paid in any combination before and/or after long rest, e.g.: to change Fireball to Lightningbolt (3rd-level spell), the sorcerer can pay his 2 remaining sorcery points before the long rest and directly after the long rest pays the missing 1 sorcery point. That is very easy and adds a cost to swapping spells: either you save sorcery points over the day to swap the spell or you start the next day with fewer sorcery points.

[diplomancer]

My solution is to give spell versatility also to wizards. They can change one out of spelbook spell on a long rest without getting it into their spellbook.

[MrStabby]

I think the move to spontanious casting was a bad one. I think that versatility should come at a steeper price than it currently does and the cost of sacrificing a spell slot to pull off a bit of a niche spell seems an appropriate cost.

That said, I don't have a lot of sympathy with wizards complaining about this. Firstly their ability to swap spells was never a unique class feature - clerics and druids do the same. Secondly wizards still do it better - more spells known on any day and the ability to swap more. Thirdly the unique and powerful part of wizard casting is still their awesome spell list.

Generally I think the designers should watch to make sure that classes don't bleed in to each other too much - I think this is the kind of thing to be cautious about, but in this instance its ok.



I strongly agree with the other posts about sorcerers being the most hurt by this new system. If I were to give the 1-swapped-spell-per-long-rest trait to anyone, it would be them.

For Bards, I would probably would limit it to specific archetypes as a feature, like the Lore Bard.

I don't really think it would be bad to let Rangers swap out a spell very much at all. In my experience, Ranger players tend not to take advantage of swapping spells known on level-up, so this feature might add a little more fun for them and encourage spell usage.

I definitely think it would be a bad move to give this ability to warlocks. Warlocks are already incredibly customizable, get their slots back on short rests, and have their Eldritch Invocations providing some serious boosts to their casting abilities. Their spells are designed to be very limited in use to make up for how much other cool stuff they have. Warlocks are, in my opinion, in no way needing another boost like this to keep up with other classes. There's a reason almost every min-max powergaming build includes some warlock levels, and it's not only because of hexblade's features.


Alternatively you could point out that warlock is so limited that a large number of those people that play warlocks never want to take more than two or three levels in the class. If you want to powergame you stop taking warlock levels and take something else.

[Callak_Remier]

The Spontaneous casters needed a buff I certainly won't deny the system was too restrictive.
But after this change the wizard is definitely going to be lagging behind the other casters.

Since the cost of preparedness for a wizard will likely be several days, to the spontaneous casters 1 nights rest.

[Veldrenor]

But after this change the wizard is definitely going to be lagging behind the other casters.

Since the cost of preparedness for a wizard will likely be several days, to the spontaneous casters 1 nights rest.

Except that's not exactly true. A caster with Spell Versatility can only change 1 spell per day. After a long rest, a lvl 20 Lore Bard has 23 spells they had yesterday, and 1 new flex spell. Wizards can change all of their spells per day. After a long rest, a lvl 20 Wizard (assuming the wizard only has their level-up spells and none copied from scrolls/spellbooks) has 6 spells they had yesterday, 19 new flex spells, AND all the ritual spells they chose not to prepare. People seem to forget that a Wizard's spellbook is 2-3 times larger than a spontaneous caster's repertoire. And if the party has found any scrolls as loot, then that gap in capability is even larger. If the party finds itself in need of some situational spell, there's a good chance the wizard already knows it even if it's not prepared. In such a case, the existence of Spell Versatility doesn't undermine the Wizard: the Wizard has the spell, they can use a long rest to swap for it same as the spontaneous casters, they're just as versatile. The only thing Spell Versatility does in such a situation is that it takes the pressure off the Wizard: the Wizard doesn't have to give up one of their spells for the situational spell, one of their spontaneous caster allies can do it instead and help shoulder the load. If the Wizard knows the spell already, Spell Versatility promotes teamwork and party cohesion.

But let's assume that the party needs a spell, the Wizard doesn't know it, and either it's not on the Cleric/Druid list or the party doesn't have a Cleric/Druid. It doesn't take the Wizard more time to prepare than it does the spontaneous casters, it just costs more: the spontaneous caster sleeps on it, while the Wizard buys a scroll of the needed spell and spends the rest of the day copying it down. Once they've done that, though, the wizard is more versatile with the new spell than the spontaneous caster is. The wizard can swap the situational spell back in whenever the party needs it. The spontaneous caster can swap it in whenever the party needs it, as long as it's the only such spell that the party needs.

But let's impose more restrictions. Let's assume that the party needs a spell, the Wizard doesn't know it, it's not on the Cleric/Druid list or the party doesn't have a Cleric/Druid, AND the party can't get to a town/shop to pick up a scroll of the needed spell. In that situation, yeah, you're right, the Wizard lags behind the spontaneous casters. My question would be, is that a bad thing? Is it bad that spontaneous casters have this corner case where they best the Wizard, the generally stronger and more versatile caster? Is it bad that spontaneous casters have this little moment where they can stand in the spotlight and a Wizard can't? Personally, I like it when everyone in the party gets a chance to shine.

Of course, all of the above is assuming that the situational spell that the party needs is on the Wizard's spell list AND the spontaneous casters' spell lists. That's not a guarantee: Wizards have a far more extensive spell list than any of the spontaneous casters, so even with Spell Versatility there's a chance that the spontaneous casters won't be able to fix the problem.

[TheUser]

Ahahahahahaha-
*weeze*
Hahahaha

Wizards complaining about class power disparity?

Firstly, none of these classes can swap their entire spell list at once nor do they have even remotely similiar sized spell lists, especially in higher levels. Wizard versatility is far from threatened.

Their unparalleled access to top notch ritual spells also comes to mind.

There's something to be said for spell quality. Wall of Force being a prime example; The no save, get ****ed, cut an encounter in two spell.

This is a quality of life buff that's been a long time coming for non-prepared casters, wizards can suck it up.

[Segev]

All this “wizards should stop whining” business is missing the point that wizards now are unique in their inability to have that one spell they need but didn’t pick up back in town / last level-up. The sorcerer is more versatile, given sufficient preparation time, than the wizard.

Regardless of whether this is balanced or not, think about that: the sorcerer now is better able to arbitrarily customize his spells known, given sufficient prep time, than is the wizard.

This is a thematic problem before it is a balance problem.

Do sorcerers need something like this? Absolutely. Is it making the wizard actively worse at the Big Schtick than the sorcerer? Arguably.

“The whole list is at my fingertips, if you just give me time” has never been a bard or sorcerer thing. It is now more their thing than it is the wizard’s.

The trouble is that the trivial solutions to the problem introduced - giving wizards some form of all-list access in some fashion - quashes the very important hunt for more spells to put in their spellbooks. Again, important thematically.

A wizard whose sole excitement over learning a new spell is having one more interchangeable “spell known” slot, or freeing up a class-granted “anyspell” slot for a different spell, or anything similar is not the experience that “learn a new spell” should be. Hunting specific spells, and getting rare or different spells as rewards, is supposed to be a part of the wizard experience.

Does this mean sorcerers and bards and warlocks shouldn’t have spell versatility? Not necessarily. It just means giving that out by itself isn’t a complete solution. Something needs to be done either with Spell Versatility, or with wizards, to keep the themes intact.

[MrStabby]

Regardless of whether this is balanced or not, think about that: the sorcerer now is better able to arbitrarily customize his spells known, given sufficient prep time, than is the wizard.


This is not quite true. Or really true at all. Sorcerers,with time,can customise their spells amongst about 160 spells. Wizards get to customise their spells amongst 270 spells. The depth of choice a wizard has is much deeper than that of the sorcerer. A wizard's ability to respond, given sufficient time to source the spells, is much greater than the sorcerer's. The sorcerer's change is not absolutely new either, with sufficient time a sorcerer could swap out spells before anyway - levels are not that many adventuring days apart if you follow the XP suggested budgets in the DMG (although that might change table by table).

All that is needed to ensure that this isn't such an issue is to allow wizards to write spells into their spellbook at a time other than leveling up.

[Hytheter]

All that is needed to ensure that this isn't such an issue is to allow wizards to write spells into their spellbook at a time other than leveling up.

What if there was an explicit and easy way to create new spells with downtime? Like, you spend a few days to a week, maybe longer? doing research and experiments to learn the formula for a new spell and pay an amount of money as if copying it from another book and then add it to your spellbook. Slower and costly compared to the sorcerer's versatility, but it's actually expanding your list and makes you more versatile in the long run.

It also makes finding new spells less GM dependant, which is kind of like how versatility makes replacing unliked spells less GM dependant.

Plus it honestly just sounds really fun and wizardy.

[MrStabby]

What if there was an explicit and easy way to create new spells with downtime? Like, you spend a few days to a week, maybe longer? doing research and experiments to learn the formula for a new spell and pay an amount of money as if copying it from another book and then add it to your spellbook. Slower and costly compared to the sorcerer's versatility, but it's actually expanding your list and makes you more versatile in the long run.

It also makes finding new spells less GM dependant, which is kind of like how versatility makes replacing unliked spells less GM dependant.

Plus it honestly just sounds really fun and wizardy.

I think this is a fine addition and I use it in my games - but for anyone not just the wizard.

Part of the rewards of adventuring is knowledge - lore and rumours and legend which can help a caster develop their own spells and it makes for a great incentive to adventure and means that not all treasure is shiny stuff. But no, not just for wizards. Other classes deserve fun stuff as well.

[ezekielraiden]

I'm very, very much in the "this issue is WAY overblown" camp (I mean, people act as though Sorcerers now have access to their entire list on a moment's notice, when it takes over a week for even a moderate-level Sorcerer to change all their spells, let alone a very high-level Sorc). However, to address the two concerns people have, that Wizards might get shortchanged (which I consider a positive, as Wizards have long been too strong) and that "spells known" classes get too much out of this, take the following further tweaks:
1. Add to Wizards (and only Wizards) "Ongoing Research." Count each day of full downtime, and one half of each day in which the character does something active and adventuresome (e.g. a day during which they spend one or more hit dice, or a day in which they take damage from any source). This is their Research Pool. At any time, the Wizard may spend points from this pool, representing casual research and intuitive breakthroughs, to learn any one spell on their spell list. This costs a number of pool points equal to twice the level of the spell (cantrips are treated as 1st level spells for this purpose). The wizard must wait a number of days between such bursts of insight equal to half the spell level rounded down (minimum 1), as they refocus their efforts on new topics and avenues. Having access to special equipment, experts on a specific topic, or relevant text on a specific spell may provide extra Research Pool points, at the DM's discretion, normally no more than 2 bonus points per day spent mostly on research.

2. All classes with the Spell Versatility feature add that this feature can only be used once, then they must wait a number of days equal to half the spell level +1, rounded up (treat cantrips as 1st level spells for this purpose).

There. Now it takes, in theory, more than (5+5+4+4+3+3) = 24 days, just to change out ONE spell known of each level from 9th to 4th. And while the Wizard's spells known don't necessarily grow very fast, even if they adventure to near-exhaustion constantly, they're still gaining 1 spell level known every 4 days, meaning they legitimately *grow* in power; a month of downtime only lets the Sorcerer swap out six 9th-level spells (or an equivalent number of lower-level spells), while it allows a Wizard to *permanently gain* that many 9th-level spells (if they happen to have 6*18-30=78 Research Pool points available...which isn't implausible, that's just over 5 months even at 100% adventuring time, no prior downtime; it's about 4 months if you assume just 30% downtime. If earning those 2 bonus points each day of the month of new downtime, it's only 6*18-90 = 18, which is 36 days of prior adventuring time, hardly difficult to muster. Allowing for one less 9th level spell would literally mean that this Wizard could in theory get away with only *four adventuring days* ahead of time, and that only to ensure perfect efficiency within the 30-day window.)

It's a bit rough and ready. I'm sure it could be improved with playtesting. But this keeps the patch to the otherwise-punitive limit on spells known, while recognizing that Wizards might feel shortchanged when downtime rules potentially allow spells-known casters the freedom to nearly rebuild themselves. In practice, I really really don't think Wizards are going to feel all that shortchanged, because despite the paranoia about "changing out all your spells" and "having no THEME!", most spells-known casters are going to keep a core of reliable spells and only change out a small handful (as they still have a sharp limit on the number they can know on any single day), which...brings them up to being where the Wizard was to begin with.

[Anymage]

Stepping back a second here:

Clerics already have a problem built into their design. They have access to all the spells on their list. As more books with more spells get published, the likelihood goes up that some spell will be the perfect solution to whatever ails you. Being able to have that for just waking up in the morning can be a problem.

Wizards are all about being able to have the perfect tool for whatever problem, but that comes with real opportunity costs. You have to hunt down a copy of whatever spell, and then pay to scribe it. Level up spells are there as a hedge against DM stinginess, but if you're counting on level up spells for the bulk of your library then you're also going to punished for going into niche utility spells.

I want to double underline that I'm cool with sorcerers getting more spells known, and that they should absolutely have a mechanic outside of leveling up in order to fix regrettable choices. What I don't want is for sorcerers to also get the cleric's ability to rest a night while their player digs through a spellbook app to find a perfect solution. Only to go back to their default loadout the next day with no cost.

My quick n' dirty solution would be that for the sorcerer to swap spells, they need a copy of the spell they want to learn and would have to spend the same amount of time and money that a wizard would to scribe a spell into their spellbook. After that they can chose one spell to lose in order to fit the new one in. (Notably, if they later want to swap back, it takes the same amount of time, money, and access to a copy of that spell too.) Sorcerers could then pick up the utility spells that the party absolutely needs if they wind up being the primary caster, as well as having the ability to correct mistakes relatively cheaply. What they don't get is the ability for players to memorize the spell list, or just download an app, and then freely pick up perfect solutions any time they can get a good night's rest.

(Semi-relatedly, sorcerers do have two other problems that can be fixed in one move. They have too few spells known, and their tight spells known limits means that they're heavily encouraged to pick broadly applicable spells instead of tightly themed ones. Origins should absolutely have bonus spells like domains or oaths. It's not a perfect fix, but there's no reason it shouldn't be there.)

[Segev]

Even just making the Versatile Spellcaster have to spend the money a wizard does when adding a new spell OR requiring them to have a scroll (which they consume) to swap an old spell for the one in the scroll would be enough.

I prefer the latter, but scrolls are way, way too expensive in 5e for that to be practical.

The former prevents the sorcerer/bard from just swapping around with the freedom of a cleric (if more slowly) because it’s too expensive, and the wizard gets the benefit of always adding more spells for the same price while the versatile spellcaster is losing one for another and spending money.

The latter is better, thematically; the versatile spellcaster isn’t divining the new spell from the ether.

[ezekielraiden]

For those who have a problem with spell versatility, what specifically bothers you? The four main complaints I have seen are that it...

1. ...does nothing for Wizards, meaning spells-known classes are now more versatile, especially with downtime. Wizards in fact become one of the few classes that cannot "change" their spells.
2. ...makes Bards and/or Sorcerers and/or Warlocks much too powerful, as they can access anything, or can have it interact with other features to create dangerous combinations.
3. ...is merely a power boost, nothing more. That's bad.
4. ...damages the "theme" of classes, by allowing them free access to whatever they like, with enough prep time.

I'll be honest: I don't get #4, and I just plain disagree with #3. That is, I agree it is a power boost...and I think it's one these classes need. It seems pretty obvious to me that Wizards are doing just fine as-is, especially since 5e's overall design effectively gave them a power boost (by making all classes "spontaneous casters" a la 3e).

So...since I feel pretty strongly that Sorcerers and Bards need the ability to adjust their spells, but others feel pretty strongly that that either "ruins the theme" (which I'd love...not an ELI5, more like an ELI12? 15? I don't want to be talked down to, but I really really don't get it despite seeing numerous people say this) or weakens the Wizard by niche erosion. Either way, a problem. Hence my proposal above: add a mechanism to limit how easily Spell Versatility can exploit downtime, and give the Wizard a small but meaningful and permanent boost.

In other words: I feel like what I described (slowing down Spell Versatility and compensating Wizards with some extra free spells) simply asserts that point 3 is wrong, and addresses points 1 and 2 (particularly the former) as much as possible. As noted, since I don't know what point 4 means, I can't respond to it, but I'm hoping an explanation can help so that that, too, can at least be considered.

Edit:

My quick n' dirty solution would be that for the sorcerer to swap spells, they need a copy of the spell they want to learn and would have to spend the same amount of time and money that a wizard would to scribe a spell into their spellbook.
The problem with this is that it's effectively worthless. Unlike a Wizard, who pays "once" for their spells and gets them permanently, you're asking Sorcerers etc. to pay twice: not only do they need a copy (which is either expensive thing, or DM-dependent, as you noted) and paying the same gold and time cost a Wizard does, but they also pay by giving up a spell they already knew. When coupled with the niche-ness of the spells in question (since, as you rightly said, Sorcerers etc. are massively incentivized to take only those spells most broadly applicable), you're talking about a feature that costs a ton, for niche benefit, that you're very likely going to have to pay a second time in order to get back to the generically-good spells again later.

Like, is it really worth spending an entire day, perhaps even two, doing nothing but spending 50x spell level in gp, in order to lose a spell you already know? A spell that is almost certainly more broadly-applicable? I can only see that happening in very rare situations where the new spell would be so unequivocally amazing that it's worth dropping a day or two and a hefty coinpurse to get it...and since you had to invest that day, it cannot be that pressing of a concern, which further weakens the reason to pick it up.

Plus, as I'm sure you can tell, this doesn't really alleviate the "punish people for picking spells poorly" problem. Sweet, you can now fix your bad spell picks! ...by blowing 50 gold, and 2 hours, per spell level. If you have a scroll. Yeah no I think I'll keep my niche ****ty spell and save that money for, I dunno, literally anything else. Healing potions, for goodness' sake.


I want to double underline that I'm cool with sorcerers getting more spells known, and that they should absolutely have a mechanic outside of leveling up in order to fix regrettable choices. What I don't want is for sorcerers to also get the cleric's ability to rest a night while their player digs through a spellbook app to find a perfect solution. Only to go back to their default loadout the next day with no cost.
See, I have a huge problem with this characterization. Over the course of two days you can change exactly two spells, as the feature is written. People keep acting like it's a total loadout change in just 24 hours, and that is literally, completely untrue. Even a first-level Sorcerer--who only knows two spells--takes at least 48 hours for a full change-up with the feature as written. A 10th level Sorcerer requires 11 days; by the time they have 9th level spells, it takes an entire month to do as you have described, eliminating all the spells they know and then bringing them all back again. And it is this kind of argument that is a big part of why I think the problems are overblown; it comes across as hand-wringing and alarmist, rather than a careful consideration of the real effects.

To be clear, just as you say below--I'm sensitive to the concern that Wizards are now the new "fixed" casters, and that that doesn't seem to comport with their history and reputation (though I am also sensitive to the "the history and reputation of Wizards has historically favored them far too much"). I don't want Wizard fans to feel like they're getting shafted, because, believe me, I know how much that sucks. My issue is that people talking about nerfing Spell Versatility almost always make this precise argument, despite it being both massively exaggerated and incorrect; and if we're trying to fix an exaggeration, rather than the actual issue, I'm pretty sure it's going to end with Wizards being the best again, and spells-known casters getting crapped on. Because, y'know, that's kind of how things worked in both 3e and 5e-thus-far.


(Semi-relatedly, sorcerers do have two other problems that can be fixed in one move. They have too few spells known, and their tight spells known limits means that they're heavily encouraged to pick broadly applicable spells instead of tightly themed ones. Origins should absolutely have bonus spells like domains or oaths. It's not a perfect fix, but there's no reason it shouldn't be there.)
This, at least, I completely agree on. WotC seems to have realized that it was a mistake not to give the Sorcerer bloodlines bonus spells known--see the playtest Storm stuff--but they don't know how to fix it without updating the PHB, which they are extremely reluctant to do. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that while these features can be passed off as merely "variants," I don't think they believe they can pass off bonus spells known the same way. Spell Versatility is already a "what reason would I ever have not to use this feature?" kind of thing; actual out-and-out free spells known would be far and away beyond that.

[KillingTime]

I think the spell versatility mechanic would be fine if they'd left it for sorcerers alone.
Bards certainly didn't need it, and Warlocks get plenty of other toys too.

[Segev]

I think the spell versatility mechanic would be fine if they'd left it for sorcerers alone.
Bards certainly didn't need it, and Warlocks get plenty of other toys too.

I disagree. I don't actually have a huge problem with Bards and Warlocks having it. Nor with Sorcerers. I have a problem with them having it in the same game where Wizards were supposed to be the arcane caster who can customize his readied spell list for the mission, but now is the WORST choice of arcane caster to do so.

And making it only sorcerers who have that doesn't fix that problem. Sorcerers shouldn't be the best class to hire when you have time to tailor your spell list for the mission.

[Anymage]

Having put a bit more thought into this, there are three situations where a sorcerer would want to swap out a spell. Either they find out that the spell they picked was trash (either situationally like Water Breathing in a desert campaign or generally like Witch Bolt anywhere), they can reasonably expect a certain spell to be more or less likely due to the upcoming adventure (swapping Cone of Cold out for Fireball if you're going on an arctic adventure), or if a specific spell would solve a medium-term problem that just came up (Tongues when it turns out that the villagers you just met don't speak any languages your party does.) The first one should be a completely uncontroversial swap. The second follows the spirit of the "one swap per level" rule, even if there's no guarantee that a level up will perfectly align with the adventure's beginning or end. The third is pretty much what defined Tier 1 in 3.5.

(I'm aware that the cleric can still just ask their god for Tongues in the last case. I called that out as a specific problem in my other posts here. It's okay when the wizard had to hunt down that specific niche spell and spend gold to transcribe it finds a use for the niche tool, less so when someone can have any solution on their spell list available in the morning with negligible opportunity cost.)

The first and second cases will generally happen during downtime, so there's no reason not to apply an upfront time cost before you can make a Spell Versatility switch. This allows you to make long term plans, but not adjust to have the perfect short term solution. One day of downtime per spell level is my off the cuff figure, but I'm less invested in the specifics than to the general idea that it should be long enough to be a de facto downtime activity instead of a mid-adventure one.

Some token monetary cost should exist so that the occasional change doesn't feel too harsh, but trying to swap out everything during downtime does sting. List casters should feel like they're experts with a limited subset of spells, and having an entirely different list adventure to adventure undermines that feel. Again, I'm using 50 gp/level because that seems to be the default for learning a new spell. The specific figure again matters less than the general idea that it'll be a minor cost if used sparingly but should discourage overuse.

[Dork_Forge]

I disagree. I don't actually have a huge problem with Bards and Warlocks having it. Nor with Sorcerers. I have a problem with them having it in the same game where Wizards were supposed to be the arcane caster who can customize his readied spell list for the mission, but now is the WORST choice of arcane caster to do so.

And making it only sorcerers who have that doesn't fix that problem. Sorcerers shouldn't be the best class to hire when you have time to tailor your spell list for the mission.

I don't really think that Spell Versatility amounts to Wizards being the worst arcane casters for this, at all. They start with 6 spells (vs the 2 of the Warlock and Sorcerer and the 4 of the Bard) and gain an additional spell per level over those classes. Their PREPARED spells is bigger than the entire spells known of the other classes as well as being able to Ritual cast spells they leave off their lists. Throw in that they're the only class able to expand their spells known between levels and have a much bigger spell list than the others and I'm not seeing the case for them being the worst at gearing up for a mission.

SV is intened to make sure players aren't stuck with spells they regret choosing, the limited nature of their spells known and the one spell per long rest limit means that they aren't going to be swapping out their entire list to suit a situation like the Cleric, Paladin or Druid and to a large extent the Wizard.

[Anymage]

SV is intened to make sure players aren't stuck with spells they regret choosing, the limited nature of their spells known and the one spell per long rest limit means that they aren't going to be swapping out their entire list to suit a situation like the Cleric, Paladin or Druid and to a large extent the Wizard.

This is the part that I push back at. Wizards and clerics rarely do a complete spell list overhaul. Their main power comes from the fact if they need one specific spell and the situation isn't right-this-minute urgent, they can pick it up the next morning. (In theory for wizards, guaranteed for clerics and druids.)

The playtest version of SV means that if a single bard spell will circumvent a major adventure complication, the bard will have it tomorrow. He doesn't need to swap out the rest of his spell list, he just needs that one magic bullet. That's exactly what gets my hackles up.

[E’Tallitnics]

My feedback for the survey was that “Known Spells” classes can swap out a spell after a long rest with one they’ve known before, not from their entire spell list.

In that manner the class slowly builds up a “library” of spells to choose from (if they choose to do so), it helps keep the flavor of a focused spell class, and doesn’t trounce so hard on a Wizard.

[ezekielraiden]

This is the part that I push back at. Wizards and clerics rarely do a complete spell list overhaul. Their main power comes from the fact if they need one specific spell and the situation isn't right-this-minute urgent, they can pick it up the next morning. (In theory for wizards, guaranteed for clerics and druids.)

The playtest version of SV means that if a single bard spell will circumvent a major adventure complication, the bard will have it tomorrow. He doesn't need to swap out the rest of his spell list, he just needs that one magic bullet. That's exactly what gets my hackles up.

And how is this different from Clerics and Druids? If Bards and Sorcerers having this ability is a threat to the Wizard, why aren't the Cleric and Druid a threat to the Wizard? Clerics and Druids can do super Spell Versatility every day. If two spells are useful, they're twice as much of a problem as a Sorcerer or Bard would be.

I can see some very small room for argument in that if you go all-out for spells, e.g. a Lore Bard, you can just barely keep up with a Wizard's number of spells prepared via the extra two Magical Secrets you get, assuming said Wizard starts at 16 Int and goes all the way to 20 (a not-unreasonable assumption). Technically, Lore Bards fall behind now and then but Magical Secrets, by giving two spells at once, tends to push the Lore Bard back over (so they do an "ahead/break even/fall behind/pull ahead/etc." kind of dance). Of course, those Magical Secrets spells are not provided by the Bard's Spellcasting feature, so Spell Versatility as-written doesn't apply to them, but there is still some room to argue that *specifically* the Bard, indeed specifically *Lore* Bard, *might* be a little too strong.

I'd still argue that there's a bigger fault in the reasoning here: you're using "an amazing spell for the next day" completely in a vacuum. What spells are THAT amazing that being able to swap to one with 24 hours notice is that big a deal? And why is it that Clerics, Druids, and (to a lesser extent) Paladins being able to do this was not a problem, yet Bards doing it IS a problem?

This doesn't even touch on the fact that Wizards have anywhere between 25% and 50% more spells prepared each day than a Sorcerer knows. There's a significantly higher chance that the Wizard just already has this mystery spell prepared as it is. There's an even higher chance that out of the 2*level+4 spells the Wizard naturally learns, this never-specified super-useful-yet-niche spell is already in there. I mean, for goodness' sake, at the absolute most, a Sorcerer knows 46% of the spells a Wizard knows, and that's only if that Wizard never once gets more spells to scribe into their book! (This occurs at level 11, right when the Sorcerer's linear growth is about to end, naturally.)


My feedback for the survey was that “Known Spells” classes can swap out a spell after a long rest with one they’ve known before, not from their entire spell list.

In that manner the class slowly builds up a “library” of spells to choose from (if they choose to do so), it helps keep the flavor of a focused spell class, and doesn’t trounce so hard on a Wizard.

So, uh, what does the feature do for them before they swap out a spell at level-up? Because this really doesn't change that much. It is, technically, an improvement. But now spells-known-caster players still have to wait a full level before they can fix a poor spell pick, meaning the feature fails to do the specific thing the designers have openly told us it's for.

[Anymage]

And how is this different from Clerics and Druids? If Bards and Sorcerers having this ability is a threat to the Wizard, why aren't the Cleric and Druid a threat to the Wizard? Clerics and Druids can do super Spell Versatility every day.


(The latter is also a waiting problem for clerics. As more spells are published, free access to the entire spell list is going to contain more and more perfect answers.)


Clerics already have a problem built into their design. They have access to all the spells on their list. As more books with more spells get published, the likelihood goes up that some spell will be the perfect solution to whatever ails you. Being able to have that for just waking up in the morning can be a problem.


(I'm aware that the cleric can still just ask their god for Tongues in the last case. I called that out as a specific problem in my other posts here. It's okay when the wizard had to hunt down that specific niche spell and spend gold to transcribe it finds a use for the niche tool, less so when someone can have any solution on their spell list available in the morning with negligible opportunity cost.)

Pointless characters because I already covered this point.

[Segev]

I don't really think that Spell Versatility amounts to Wizards being the worst arcane casters for this, at all. They start with 6 spells (vs the 2 of the Warlock and Sorcerer and the 4 of the Bard) and gain an additional spell per level over those classes. Their PREPARED spells is bigger than the entire spells known of the other classes as well as being able to Ritual cast spells they leave off their lists. Throw in that they're the only class able to expand their spells known between levels and have a much bigger spell list than the others and I'm not seeing the case for them being the worst at gearing up for a mission.

SV is intened to make sure players aren't stuck with spells they regret choosing, the limited nature of their spells known and the one spell per long rest limit means that they aren't going to be swapping out their entire list to suit a situation like the Cleric, Paladin or Druid and to a large extent the Wizard.If the wizard doesn't already have the spells needed in his spellbook, he has, at a minimum, to spend money scribing the right ones in. More likely, he has to hunt for another wizard who knows the spells and beg, borrow, or steal to get the privilege of copying from it...still paying the scribing cost.

The sorcerer (or bard or warlock) can just swap one spell per day until they have the perfect list. Yes, they know fewer than the wizard prepares, but if they can get the wombo-combo or niche rarity spells that the wizard didn't think to pick up with his 2 freebies per level, and the wizard can't without essentially asking the DM for permission AND spending money, the better-prepared ones are still the Bard, Sorcerer, or Warlock.

"I need this niche arcane spell; I should hunt down a wizard, since he might at least know another wizard who keeps it in his curiosities spellbook."
"No, dude, I'm a sorcerer; I'll know that spell tomorrow!"

If I wrote out the above exchange before this UA was written, people would look at me like I was insane.


And how is this different from Clerics and Druids? If Bards and Sorcerers having this ability is a threat to the Wizard, why aren't the Cleric and Druid a threat to the Wizard? Clerics and Druids can do super Spell Versatility every day. If two spells are useful, they're twice as much of a problem as a Sorcerer or Bard would be.It's an issue with them, but divine spellcasters generally have sufficiently different lists that you're likely to need the wizard, bard, sorcerer, or warlock still for some spells.


The Spell Versatility is meant to patch bad choices. And it's GOOD for that. It's also meant, in a pinch, to help patch a list that is entirely dis-optimized for an adventure. It's good for that, too.

It is not meant to make the wizard the only guy who CANNOT arbitrarily pick any spell on his class list to have available tomorrow.

I'm not arguing that Spell Versatility is a bad thing. I'm not suggesting nothing like it happen. I think it's a good idea.

I'm saying that it introduces a thematic problem between roles specific arcane classes are meant to fill, and that a solution needs to be found to restore the roles. I just don't know what that solution is.

[Dork_Forge]

If the wizard doesn't already have the spells needed in his spellbook, he has, at a minimum, to spend money scribing the right ones in. More likely, he has to hunt for another wizard who knows the spells and beg, borrow, or steal to get the privilege of copying from it...still paying the scribing cost.

The sorcerer (or bard or warlock) can just swap one spell per day until they have the perfect list. Yes, they know fewer than the wizard prepares, but if they can get the wombo-combo or niche rarity spells that the wizard didn't think to pick up with his 2 freebies per level, and the wizard can't without essentially asking the DM for permission AND spending money, the better-prepared ones are still the Bard, Sorcerer, or Warlock.

"I need this niche arcane spell; I should hunt down a wizard, since he might at least know another wizard who keeps it in his curiosities spellbook."
"No, dude, I'm a sorcerer; I'll know that spell tomorrow!"

If I wrote out the above exchange before this UA was written, people would look at me like I was insane.

It's an issue with them, but divine spellcasters generally have sufficiently different lists that you're likely to need the wizard, bard, sorcerer, or warlock still for some spells.


The Spell Versatility is meant to patch bad choices. And it's GOOD for that. It's also meant, in a pinch, to help patch a list that is entirely dis-optimized for an adventure. It's good for that, too.

It is not meant to make the wizard the only guy who CANNOT arbitrarily pick any spell on his class list to have available tomorrow.

I'm not arguing that Spell Versatility is a bad thing. I'm not suggesting nothing like it happen. I think it's a good idea.

I'm saying that it introduces a thematic problem between roles specific arcane classes are meant to fill, and that a solution needs to be found to restore the roles. I just don't know what that solution is.

This is largely mitigated by the sheer number of spells known by a Wizard and that they can leave rituals off their prepared list altogether but still be able to ritually cast them (unlike a Bard), the fact that a Wizard CAN go and scribe something in is not a negative here. Once they scribe a spell (which can come from loot, bought, a defeated/NPC Wizard, another Wizard in the party or the now Versatile Bard/Warlock/Sorcerer can scribe a scroll for the Wizard to copy then swap the spell out later. Since scribed spells are then always known by the Wizard and their prepared list is so large anyway I'm not really seeing this taking away.

Another thing that concerns me about all this debate is how often does this actually come up? How often do you need ONE specific spell, that is actually on your class list and you know about needing it 24 hours in advance and it isn't a spell you already keep prepared? If people feel this encroaches on Wizard territoty (I don't, though I'm of the opinion the Wizard is a bloated overpowered class anyway) then just give them their own version of this. When you take a short rest you can swap one of your prepared spells for another in your already huge book.

[Willie the Duck]

Hearing Crawford describe it, it was meant to get rid of spells one never uses. A balm for buyer's remorse given to players whose characters don't level often, either because they don't meet often or they don't like to be high level. Personally, when I run, I would consider letting spells known casters change out whenever there is a week of downtime.

This is certainly where I think the setup is most needed. A Player that just got (ex.) 3rd level spells and finds out that the two they picked simply will not work as planned (perhaps they picked Hypnotic Pattern and Stinking Cloud as their bard spells only to find out that their party keeps charging the enemies before they have a chance to get them off or the like) may literally not wait until they level up and change them out (either they die because they are facing new challenges without usable 3rd level spells, or they just abandon the character). For that reason I like the idea of some avenue of changing this. Not sure if the proposed method would be the one I chose.



And how is this different from Clerics and Druids?

Honestly, the early-in-D&D's-lifespan decision to make Clerics pick their spells from the entire Cleric list was an interesting one with a lot of downstream consequences. If I were making a game from the ground up, I might make either everyone behave that way, or no one (perhaps everyone has spellbook analogues and everyone has to discover spells via adventuring to expand their versatility).

[Segev]

Another thing that concerns me about all this debate is how often does this actually come up? How often do you need ONE specific spell, that is actually on your class list and you know about needing it 24 hours in advance and it isn't a spell you already keep prepared? If people feel this encroaches on Wizard territoty (I don't, though I'm of the opinion the Wizard is a bloated overpowered class anyway) then just give them their own version of this. When you take a short rest you can swap one of your prepared spells for another in your already huge book.

I'm not sure why this concerns you, though it is a good point. It might not be an issue.

That said... playing wizards, I have often run into situations where I wished I had a spell I do not. Looking at a cleric, I could usually console myself that he usually couldn't get the spell I was pining for, either; it wasn't a cleric spell. While, yes, bards and sorcerers have different lists from wizards in 5e, the likelihood that the spell I lack as a wizard but want is definitely not on the sorcerer list is pretty small.

There should never, under any circumstances, be a situation where a wizard player says, "I wish I'd played a Sorcerer, because then I could get the spell I want tomorrow."

I mean, heck: should dipping Sorcerer or Bard for 1 level in order to open up an "extra spell book" full of 1st level spells be a temptation? I think not; it's a perverse incentive.

[Dork_Forge]

I'm not sure why this concerns you, though it is a good point. It might not be an issue.

That said... playing wizards, I have often run into situations where I wished I had a spell I do not. Looking at a cleric, I could usually console myself that he usually couldn't get the spell I was pining for, either; it wasn't a cleric spell. While, yes, bards and sorcerers have different lists from wizards in 5e, the likelihood that the spell I lack as a wizard but want is definitely not on the sorcerer list is pretty small.

There should never, under any circumstances, be a situation where a wizard player says, "I wish I'd played a Sorcerer, because then I could get the spell I want tomorrow."

I mean, heck: should dipping Sorcerer or Bard for 1 level in order to open up an "extra spell book" full of 1st level spells be a temptation? I think not; it's a perverse incentive.

It concerns me because this is UA, and if feedback prevents a feature from making it to print or modifies it then I'd rather it be based on an actual problem not a perceived one.

My issue when that situation comes up is this, when you come across a situation where you wanted x spell and didn't have it, did you have 24 hours notice you'd want it? And if not, would that same spell be as relevant 24 hours later when you can prepare it?

Multiclassing to get more 1st level spells known has always been a viable thing, being able to swap one per long rest stops this from being particularly abuseable and to be honest if someone were inclined to dip into another class (hurting their spell progression, requiring an unrelated stat of 13 and tying those versatile spells to a non primary casting stat) then is that really a problem? Bear in mind that multiclassing is also a variant rule, whilst it's common and balance is and should be kept in mind, it is a variant that shouldn't be de facto assumed for the system.

[Theaitetos]

I'm sorry, but the op Wizards are still a class that should play intelligent. What kind of wizard does not regularly check shops & libraries & temples for scrolls of wizard spells? My wizard has always bought wizard spell scrolls in every new place, especially scrolls of higher level spells that could be added to her spellbook once she leveled up to the appropriate level; and on a level-up she only had to choose from among those spells that she didn't acquire a scroll of.

Besides, spell scrolls can also be sold (at a profit) or traded (for other scrolls you desire) or used (instead of a spell slot). This means that any scroll, that isn't transcribed into your spellbook is not a loss, but a win: either it's so important that you use it right now, or you can make some fine gold with it by selling it to other people.

:vaarsuvius: would look down on any wizard who fails to properly prepare.

[Sception]

Given that divine casters can already change out their entire spells known selection not just from those within a spellbook they have to keep on their person but rather from their entire class spell list - lists that are in general far more versatile than that of the sorcerer - I don't find it to be a game play problem.

And sorcerers can already swap out spells when they level. Swapping out spells a bit faster than that while still being dramatically slower than wizard, let alone clerics and druids, doesn't feel like the sorcerer is stepping on anyone's conceptual toes. If anything, it's the wizard, cleric, and druid that are too similar in this regard.

I would like there to be more distinction between how casting classes access their spells, but whether or not the character can retrain spells on a nap is not going to make the difference there. I'm looking for more along the lines of variant systems - spell points, UA style psionic disciplines, short rest magic a la the warlock's pact magic, non-spell-based magical effects like the warlock's invocations, etc. Give me more artificers with, yeah, sure, spells, but spells they cast in interesting ways alongside non-spell magical abilities that really carry the bulk of the class's magical features. I haven't seen anybody look at the artificer and say "this steps too much on the paladin's toes because they both handle spell preparation the same way".

So, yeah, in general I'm fine with versatility and hope they keep it.

Most of the other changes from that UA... eh, not so much.

A lot of boosts to classes that didn't need boosts, non-boosts to classes that needed boosts, and everything concentrated in the earliest levels when most classes work most well already when if anything it's the wide expanses of levels 10 to 20 that need attention, particularly for the non-full-casters who don't have the steady infusion of new spells and spell slots and spell levels. Give me more reasons for paladin and fighter and rogue and monk and ranger and warlock and barbarian to stay in their classes in the later levels. Most of these changes do the opposite by leaving the wide gaps in their late game growth while making dipping even more tempting with more and more powerful goodies squeezed into the earliest levels of several classes that already seem more tempting as 3 level dips than 20 level characters.

[Anymage]

My issue when that situation comes up is this, when you come across a situation where you wanted x spell and didn't have it, did you have 24 hours notice you'd want it? And if not, would that same spell be as relevant 24 hours later when you can prepare it?

This is the crux of the matter. I've often had characters who could take a night to process while the core problems behind the adventure remained intact. To take two classic plots that can be ruined by a single spell; a murder victim will remain just as dead if you wait a day to prepare Resurrection, and a faraway spot will remain just as far off if you wait a day to prep Teleport. Having to pore over the wizard's spellbook to see what plots are immediately trivialized by spells is annoying, having to do the same with the cleric's whole list even more so. Having to treat the sorcerer's and bard's lists like the cleric's is just extra obnoxiousness.


I'm sorry, but the op Wizards are still a class that should play intelligent. What kind of wizard does not regularly check shops & libraries & temples for scrolls of wizard spells? My wizard has always bought wizard spell scrolls in every new place, especially scrolls of higher level spells that could be added to her spellbook once she leveled up to the appropriate level; and on a level-up she only had to choose from among those spells that she didn't acquire a scroll of.

...

:vaarsuvius: would look down on any wizard who fails to properly prepare.

That's the class fantasy of the wizard, yes. Always having just the right tool in her back pocket. Spell access and costs (both to buy the scrolls and then to scribe them) makes this an aspirational goal more often than a realized one.

Any time someone can freely pick off a long list of options, that creates extra hassle for whoever's running the game in all the plot points that will be immediately solved. The problem with omnimancers is known, and it's one of the reasons that so few games that aren't D&D have them.

Leaving wizards as the only characters who aren't omnimancers is thematically odd, but that's a minor point to me. The bigger point is that sorcerers, bards, and warlocks just took a huge step towards becoming omninancers. That's not a good thing.

[Dork_Forge]

This is the crux of the matter. I've often had characters who could take a night to process while the core problems behind the adventure remained intact. To take two classic plots that can be ruined by a single spell; a murder victim will remain just as dead if you wait a day to prepare Resurrection, and a faraway spot will remain just as far off if you wait a day to prep Teleport. Having to pore over the wizard's spellbook to see what plots are immediately trivialized by spells is annoying, having to do the same with the cleric's whole list even more so. Having to treat the sorcerer's and bard's lists like the cleric's is just extra obnoxiousness.


Both of your examples are 7th level spells and based on problems that shouldn't really be that much of an obstacle to 13th level+ characters. Most examples I can think of myself are much more in the moment, like oh this would have been a nice time to have access to feather fall etc. It just keeps feeling like more of a perceived problem than an actual one or a case of the Wizard maybe having their toes stepped on.

The consideration of entire lists for a DM I still don't see as an issue, it's still tied to long rests and as the DM you decide when those happen.

[MrStabby]

Yes is somewhat steps on the wizards toes, but the wizard class is so loaded with features and benefits that they have feet everywhere.

I think there is a danger on focussing on what changed rather than what is. Is the wizard still a powerful class capable of doing really cool things that other classes can't? Yes. It is.

Compare this with something like the pact of the tome Warlock able to inscribe any ritual. This trampled all over the wizards thing of being the best at rituals but no one seems to mind as it got added sufficiently early.

If sorcerers had had this ability from the outset, would there be a campaign for it to be removed? Is it that the rule actually makes the game worse or is it that it changes the balance? Is it the new state people don't like or the direction of change?

[ezekielraiden]

Okay. Something I have been trying to change about myself is properly laying out grounds by which I will admit an argument I disagree with is valid, and this is about as low-stakes as it gets for that. As a quick attempt...

The WIzard has, as others have noted, several features in its favor. Rituals are a big one. Arcane Recovery is another (only Land Druids can do the same, AFAICT). So Wizards *now* are the "I cast more magic" class. This is a new edition, so I do not think arguments based on what classes *were* in prior editions are persuasive (after all, *everyone* got the Bard/Sorcerer spontaneous casting mechanic, so we're already in "not strictly adhering to prior methods" camp).

Therefore, as a test of my argument (that the concerns over spell versatility are in excess of any real problems), I consider this a reasonable request:
Name two spells, of 5th level or lower, and the special situation that could arise reasonably often that would make those spells so vitally important that their presence or absence would radically change how, or even whether, the party could address that situation, yet waiting for the next day would not so influence things. I ask for two spells as a demonstration that it is not just a fluke. Further, I would prefer at least some defense for why this spell is not one generically useful enough to keep around, and I recommend *not* choosing a ritual spell, as those will be especially attractive to Wizards in the first place (though since they still count as spells learned, I can see one working if you argue very rigorously).

If someone can provide this--two spells, and for each a reasonably respectable but not common situation where that spell would make a huge difference but an 8-24 hour wait would not--then I will concede that spell versatility, as written, creates enough of a problem that it truly *should* be changed (e.g. in the way I suggested).

[Theaitetos]

This is the crux of the matter. I've often had characters who could take a night to process while the core problems behind the adventure remained intact. To take two classic plots that can be ruined by a single spell; a murder victim will remain just as dead if you wait a day to prepare Resurrection, and a faraway spot will remain just as far off if you wait a day to prep Teleport.

None of these situations is trivialized. Resurrection is an expensive spell to cast, and a murder victim often doesn't even know who killed him: If he says "I was poisoned", you're not better off than a successful investigation check by a high INT wizard "He's dead, Jim." "He was poisoned, Jim."

And teleporting to an unknown place? If someone was abducted, you might not even know where the kidnappers went. Besides, anyone who poses a challenge to spellcasters with 7th-level spellslots, probably has some abjuration skills at hand.

p.s.: A wizard with teleport (level 13+) should have at least one mage guild or academy or arcane library to which he can turn to for spells for his level. He can just cast Sending "Hello, Librarian Not-an-Orang-Utan. I need the Banana-Boom spell. Please teleport it to Shady Tavern in Mank-Pormork. Add cost to my tab. Regards, Stonder Pibbons."


Having to pore over the wizard's spellbook to see what plots are immediately trivialized by spells is annoying, having to do the same with the cleric's whole list even more so. Having to treat the sorcerer's and bard's lists like the cleric's is just extra obnoxiousness.

Is there even a single such significant spell on the sorcerer's spell list, that is not on the wizard spell list as well?

[Segev]

It concerns me because this is UA, and if feedback prevents a feature from making it to print or modifies it then I'd rather it be based on an actual problem not a perceived one.It probably shouldn't be made "canon" without some sort of rethinking. Even if that rethinking just means changing the Wizard so that it isn't written as if it were the best class to use for changing around your spell selection.

Multiclassing to get more 1st level spells known has always been a viable thing, being able to swap one per long rest stops this from being particularly abuseable and to be honest if someone were inclined to dip into another class (hurting their spell progression, requiring an unrelated stat of 13 and tying those versatile spells to a non primary casting stat) then is that really a problem? Bear in mind that multiclassing is also a variant rule, whilst it's common and balance is and should be kept in mind, it is a variant that shouldn't be de facto assumed for the system.Okay, then, would you object to Wizards having a "Spell Versatility" slot that is a single spell that they know without their spellbook, and it can be any one wizard spell they have slots to cast, swappable with a long rest?

I would, but for thematic reasons rather than game-balance ones. It would solve the problem raised by giving Spell Versatility to everyone but the Wizard; I just don't like it because it makes no sense with the wizard's paradigm.


I'm sorry, but the op Wizards are still a class that should play intelligent. What kind of wizard does not regularly check shops & libraries & temples for scrolls of wizard spells? My wizard has always bought wizard spell scrolls in every new place, especially scrolls of higher level spells that could be added to her spellbook once she leveled up to the appropriate level; and on a level-up she only had to choose from among those spells that she didn't acquire a scroll of.

Besides, spell scrolls can also be sold (at a profit) or traded (for other scrolls you desire) or used (instead of a spell slot). This means that any scroll, that isn't transcribed into your spellbook is not a loss, but a win: either it's so important that you use it right now, or you can make some fine gold with it by selling it to other people.

:vaarsuvius: would look down on any wizard who fails to properly prepare.This...doesn't really address my point at all. Or, rather, for it to adequately do so, you'd have to be suggesting that wizards thus effectively have every wizard spell in their spellbooks, and prepare more or less like clerics and druids. In which case, yeah, problem resolved! But that's...really not the case.


Okay. Something I have been trying to change about myself is properly laying out grounds by which I will admit an argument I disagree with is valid, and this is about as low-stakes as it gets for that. As a quick attempt...

The WIzard has, as others have noted, several features in its favor. Rituals are a big one. Arcane Recovery is another (only Land Druids can do the same, AFAICT). So Wizards *now* are the "I cast more magic" class. This is a new edition, so I do not think arguments based on what classes *were* in prior editions are persuasive (after all, *everyone* got the Bard/Sorcerer spontaneous casting mechanic, so we're already in "not strictly adhering to prior methods" camp).First off, I applaud your efforts to give a "here's what would convince me" position.

Secondly, while that's true, up until this UA, wizards WERE presented in the same light as earlier editions as the go-to arcanists for preparing spells tailored to the quest's needs. Bards and Sorcerers were tacitly, if not explicitly, presented as the ones who build to a theme and make do with what they have, and stretch what they have further than Wizards can.

Wizards really aren't "cast lots of spells guys." Not more than other classes. Warlocks don't spam, but cast more reliably (refreshing entirely with short rests), and sorcerers' sorcery points actually give them significantly more spell slots than wizards have, if that's how they choose to play. Wizards have one low-level trick for getting a little more casting oomph, one short rest per long rest. Otherwise, they have as many spell slots as Bards.


Therefore, as a test of my argument (that the concerns over spell versatility are in excess of any real problems), I consider this a reasonable request:
Name two spells, of 5th level or lower, and the special situation that could arise reasonably often that would make those spells so vitally important that their presence or absence would radically change how, or even whether, the party could address that situation, yet waiting for the next day would not so influence things. I ask for two spells as a demonstration that it is not just a fluke. Further, I would prefer at least some defense for why this spell is not one generically useful enough to keep around, and I recommend *not* choosing a ritual spell, as those will be especially attractive to Wizards in the first place (though since they still count as spells learned, I can see one working if you argue very rigorously).

If someone can provide this--two spells, and for each a reasonably respectable but not common situation where that spell would make a huge difference but an 8-24 hour wait would not--then I will concede that spell versatility, as written, creates enough of a problem that it truly *should* be changed (e.g. in the way I suggested).

I don't have anything of that sort off the top of my head, but let me pose a counter-point: I'm not really saying the party can't advance without this perfect spell. I'm saying that the ability to make your spell list more perfect with whatever spells you want from the whole class list with just a few days' prep is superior to the Wizard's ability to customize his spell list with niche spells that will be unusually useful if he happens to already have them in his spellbook.



Ignoring balance in favor of analogy, here, my issue is the same as I'd have if, say, it were determined that monks and rogues were just too fragile and that there was a QoL problem in that they spend too much time at 0 hp. So both were given Agile Dodge as a new class feature at level 1. A number of times equal to their Dexterity Modifier, they can declare a damage source failed to actually deal any damage to them. Their uses of this refresh on a short rest.

All of a sudden, even stronger than the Barbarian or the Fighter, the Monk and Rogue are the go-to tanks, because they have a number of hits they can just negate whenever they want. Again, ignoring balance, I have issue with this because while it solves the (assumed for this hypothetical to be real) problem that monks and rogues are just too fragile to be fun to play, it also has the consequence of swinging it too far the other way and making them better at something that is supposed to be another class's (or classes') schtick than said class(es).



Also: Planar binding. 5th level, but can be upcast for long-duration. On the one hand, it's nice that sorcerers can get it. Very thematic. Nice that they can do it without consuming a very limited spell known. On the other, though, basically every sorcerer has it, now, while not every wizard will. Wizards have to use up resources to get it; every sorcerer essentially has it for free, because they just need a day's downtime to swap a spell out for it, cast it, then swap back in a more useful spell.

[Veldrenor]

Also: Planar binding. 5th level, but can be upcast for long-duration. On the one hand, it's nice that sorcerers can get it. Very thematic. Nice that they can do it without consuming a very limited spell known. On the other, though, basically every sorcerer has it, now, while not every wizard will. Wizards have to use up resources to get it; every sorcerer essentially has it for free, because they just need a day's downtime to swap a spell out for it, cast it, then swap back in a more useful spell.

Except sorcerer's can't get it, it's not on their current spell list or the proposed post-UA spell list. If you meant warlock with the new UA, fair enough, but my question then would be: how are you keeping the Celestial/Fiend/Fey/Elemental busy for 24 hours so your warlock can swap in Planar Binding? If it's one your party has conjured then this sounds like a deliberate tactic by the party instead of a spell of convenience, in which case I'd ask why the Wizard doesn't know Planar Binding already?

[Chaosmancer]

It might be the exhaustion talking (I should have been in bed an hour ago) but seeing the argument put forth (again) that "well, clerics have different spells that aren't as useful" has made me determined to see just how much overlap there is.

Going only from the PHB, just because it is closer, spells shared by Clerics, Druids, and Wizards that are utility spells (not including subclasses, but they should be included, for example, Knowledge cleric gets Identify).

I'm trying to look specifically for spells that "solve that problem"

* Detect Magic
* Augury (just added via UA to wizard, yeah, I'm cheating)
* Continual Flame
* Enhance Ability (added via UA to wizard)
* Gentle Repose
* Locate Object
* Darkvision
* Enlarge/Reduce (added via UA to Druid)
* Clairvoyance
* Dispel Magic
* Feign Death
* Glyph of Warding
* Magic Circle
* Protection from Energy
* Sending
*Speak with Dead (via UA to Wizard)
* Tongues
* Water Breathing
* Control Water
* Divination (via UA to Wizard)
* Locate Creature
*Stone Shape
* Hallucinatory Terrain
* Polymorph
* Geas
* Legend Lore
* Planar Binding
* Scrying
* True Seeing
* Move Earth
* Etherealness
* Plane Shift
* Symbol
* Antimagic Field
* Control Weather
* Astral Projection
* Gate
* Mirage Arcane
* Reverse Gravity
* Antipathy/Sympathy
* Foresight


Unique to Cleric and Druid


* Create or Destroy Water
* Detect Evil and Good
* Detect Poison and Disease
* Goodberry
* Purify Food and Drink
* Calm Emotions
* Find Traps
* Protection from Poison
* Silence
* Zone of Truth
*Speak with Animals
* Animal Messenger
* Beast Sense
* Locate Animals or Plants
* Pass Without Trace
* Create Food and Water
* Meld Into Stone
*Water Walk
*Speak with Plants
* Commune
* Commmune With Nature
* Hallow
* Find the Path
* Forbiddance
* Heroes Feast
* Planar Ally
* Word of Recall
* Awaken
* Transport Via Plants
* Wind Walk
* Earthquake
*

Unique to Wizard

* Alarm
* Comprehend Language
* Find Familiar
* Identify
* Illusory Script
* Tenser's Floating Disk
* Unseen Servant
* Alter Self
* Arcane Lock
* Detect Thoughts
* Knock
* Magic Mouth
* Nystul's MAgic Aura
* Rope Trick
* See Invisibility
* Spider Climb (but I will point out Wildshape as well)
* Suggestion
*Arcane Eye
* Fabricate
* Leomunds Secret Chest
* Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum
* Contact other Plane
* Bigby's Hand
* Creation
* Dream
*Modify Memory
* Passwall
* Rary's Telepathic Bond
* Telekinesis
* Teleportation Circle
*Teleportation
* Arcane Gate
* Contingency
* Drawjmi's Instant Summons
* Guards and Wards
* MAgic Jar
* MAss Suggesstion
* Programmed Illusion
* Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion
* Project Image
* Sequester
* Simulacrum
* Clone
* Demiplane
* Mind Blank
* Telepathy
* Imprisonment
* Time Stop
*Wish



I might have missed some, it is late, but let us combine into some numbers.

Wizards, Clerics and Druids share 41 utility spells. Clerics and Druids have 31 unique. Wizards have 49 uniques.

Interesting, most cleric and druid uniques come from low level spells, while wizards get lots of unique high level spells.

Finally, what do Sorcerers take that is unique to wizards?

* Comprehend Language
* Alter Self
* Detect Thoughts
* Knock
* See Invisibility
* Spider Climb
* Suggestion
* Creation
* Telekinesis
* Teleportation Circle
*Teleportation
* Arcane Gate
* Mass Suggestion
* Demiplane (Added via UA)
* Time Stop
*Wish

A mere 16 spells.

So, Clerics and Druids share 41 spells with wizards that are utility. Some of those are on the Sorcerer too, but definitely not all. And this massive takeover of the Sorcerer stealing all of the wizard's unique utility spells... are these sixteen spells right here. This is the massive overlap that Clerics and Druids are definetly not a part of, that will ruin the Wizard's role as "the guy that has the spell we need)

16 spells.

[diplomancer]

snip

Sorcerer was not tbe only one who got spell versatility. The Bard also got it, and it's more powerful for him, since, even though their list is smaller than the sorcerer (after Xanathar), it's more versatile, combining typical "arcane" and "divine" spells. Raise dead just got a big bump for Bards, for instance.

[Chaosmancer]

Sorcerer was not tbe only one who got spell versatility. The Bard also got it, and it's more powerful for him, since, even though their list is smaller than the sorcerer (after Xanathar), it's more versatile, combining typical "arcane" and "divine" spells. Raise dead just got a big bump for Bards, for instance.

And yet, if you read most of this thread, it is mostly about how the sorcerer now overshadows the wizard because their spells overlap too much. And the counter argument that it hasn't been an issue with the wizard and the cleric or druid has been met with claims that the cleric and druid list are "less powerful" or "less focused on the same things the wizard is" so it isn't a problem.


So, I set out to disprove that argument. No one has been complaining about Bards getting it, or if they did it was in an off-hand manner, so I didn't focus on that.

[diplomancer]

And yet, if you read most of this thread, it is mostly about how the sorcerer now overshadows the wizard because their spells overlap too much. And the counter argument that it hasn't been an issue with the wizard and the cleric or druid has been met with claims that the cleric and druid list are "less powerful" or "less focused on the same things the wizard is" so it isn't a problem.


So, I set out to disprove that argument. No one has been complaining about Bards getting it, or if they did it was in an off-hand manner, so I didn't focus on that.

I'd say it's more about the weakening of the wizard class identity as the "I can have a spell for that tomorrow" class. The sorcerer was used as an example, but the problem is there for all casters who got SV. Spell Versatility is a real bump for Bards, and it can be argued that now they are the "I'll have a spell for that tomorrow" class.

Somewhat related to this: I wonder if SV allows a Bard to swap out a Magical Secret for another Bard spell and then get it back later (since it "becomes a Bard spell for you")

[MrStabby]

I'd say it's more about the weakening of the wizard class identity as the "I can have a spell for that tomorrow" class. The sorcerer was used as an example, but the problem is there for all casters who got SV. Spell Versatility is a real bump for Bards, and it can be argued that now they are the "I'll have a spell for that tomorrow" class.

Somewhat related to this: I wonder if SV allows a Bard to swap out a Magical Secret for another Bard spell and then get it back later (since it "becomes a Bard spell for you")


I think the problem is that they were never the "I can have a spell for that tomorrow" class. It was not a defining feature for them; they are one of four classes that cast spells this way.

If there is an issue here then it should also be an issue with respect to druids, clerics and paladins having their "unique" spell casting method crowded upon.

Giving a sorcerer one spell that they can pick each day seems to be improving the game rather than making it worse.

[Chaos Jackal]

I won't comment on class identity issues. Those are entirely subjective.

But from a balance point, there's no issue. A wizard, just by virtue of levelling, has nearly twice as many spells known as a sorcerer, so even if you have the most wizard-hating DM in the world you'll still have them beat at that. And with a half-decent DM you'll completely overwhelm a sorcerer in regards of spells known and have, conservatively, at least twice the spells of a bard.

They also have between three and ten more spells available for casting every day, not counting rituals and Arcane Recovery, and draw these from a list that is 50% larger than that of a spontaneous caster.

Given the above, suggesting that a wizard will lose out on versatility because of Spell Versatility is ludicrous. How often will that one particular spell that the wizard never even bothered to know come up? What are the odds? What spell is it gonna be? Remove Curse or See Invisibility? It's nearly standard "just in case" scribing. A scrying spell? You nearly never memorize this, but it's common to pick one up, because you never know. Comprehend Languages? It's a ritual, making it extra attractive to wizards. Maybe Alter/Disguise Self? You could've not picked one of those I guess... but disguise kits exist, and honestly, being able to pose as someone else is something that will come up at least once, so just roll with it. And if it's a more socially-inclined campaign, well, if you haven't picked one of these up, that's on you, not Spell Versatility.

If, once a week, a situation comes up where a spell I never learnt as a wizard is needed, the last thing I'll feel is jealous of the guy I typically overshadow in nearly every instance of the game in the average day. I'll even feel glad that the one time my preparation has fallen short, someone can pick up my slack, instead of constantly worrying about having everything covered and being paranoid about the weirdest corner cases of spells.

It'll probably not even be once a week. In my personal experience, there's never been a case, in any edition, where I needed a spell I hadn't scribed. Not prepared? Yes. Not known at all? No.

A wizard who has made smart choices in spells known and whose DM is anything other than a complete and utter disgrace will not even sweat at the existence of Spell Versatility.

[Chaosmancer]

I'd say it's more about the weakening of the wizard class identity as the "I can have a spell for that tomorrow" class.

How were Clerics and Druids not the "I can have a spell for that tomorrow class"?

They have 80 spells from this utility list, any of which they can have prepared "tomorrow"

Sure, the wizard has 90, but nearly half of those spells are on both lists.

(Edit: looks like I missed Nondetection and Phantom Steed, so wizards get +2)


If wizards were able to keep their identity as the "I can have that spell tomorrow" class in a party with a Cleric and Druid, then spell versatility will change nothing.




The sorcerer was used as an example, but the problem is there for all casters who got SV. Spell Versatility is a real bump for Bards, and it can be argued that now they are the "I'll have a spell for that tomorrow" class.

Sure, why not, let's do the list for bards.

Here are all the spells that Bard's get that Druids and or Clerics don't get, that can apply to a utility situation.

* Comprehend Languages
* Identify
* Illusory Script
* Unseen Servant
* Detect Thoughts
* Enthrall (first unique)
* Knock
* Magic Mouth
* See Invisibility
* Leomund's Tiny Hut
* Nondetection (which it looks like I missed for the wizard last time)
* Compulsion (second unique)
* Dream
* Modify Memory
* Teleportation Circle
* Guards and Wards
* Mass suggestion
* Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion
* Teleport
* Glibness (3rd unique)
* Mind Blank


So, you are right in Bard's getting more than Sorcerers. They take 17 of the wizard's spells. They have only three unique spells for this sort of thing though, that is not covered by the Wizard, Druid, or Cleric.

So... wizards still have a bunch of unique spells. Druids and Clerics still have had a large percentage of these utility spells since the beginning. So, again, I don't think these 17 spells are going to be ruining the Wizard's role if the 41 spells shared with Clerics and Druids didn't do it from the beginning.



Somewhat related to this: I wonder if SV allows a Bard to swap out a Magical Secret for another Bard spell and then get it back later (since it "becomes a Bard spell for you")

I'd say yes, otherwise they lose a class feature by swapping it. No reason not to allow it.

[Segev]

Clerics and druids ARE "I can have that spell tomorrow" classes. It just isn't as big a part of their identity, because "I'm a divine caster" generally outweighs it as a distinction, and "known list" vs. "prepared daily" is almost not a factor on the divine side: all full divine casters are "prepared" casters.

It is a specific point that sets wizards apart from Bards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks. Now, not only are Wizards not set apart from those other arcane classes by this point, but those other classes are suddenly better than Wizards at it. If Wizards, like Clerics and Druids, could prepare anything from their list, this wouldn't be an issue. Wizards still would be best at this discriminator, because they can swap their whole list each day rather than one spell at a time. It's the unusual combination of the Wizards' limiter compared to Clerics and Druids and the lack of any limit on the variety that SV classes get that makes this problem arise.

I find it really annoying that people are so terrified that SV won't be exactly as it is in the UA article if there isn't universal praise for it as 100% perfect that we're having to argue that this IS an issue, rather than discussing how to solve it. If you like SV as-is, and no change to it could possibly be acceptable, then help by coming up with ways to preserve the important theme of excitement in hunting down and discovering new spells for the wizard and the importance of his spellbook while enabling him to still keep the "I'm the guy you come to when you want the perfectly-tailored spell list for this adventure" situation.

[MrStabby]

Clerics and druids ARE "I can have that spell tomorrow" classes. It just isn't as big a part of their identity, because "I'm a divine caster" generally outweighs it as a distinction, and "known list" vs. "prepared daily" is almost not a factor on the divine side: all full divine casters are "prepared" casters.

It is a specific point that sets wizards apart from Bards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks. Now, not only are Wizards not set apart from those other arcane classes by this point, but those other classes are suddenly better than Wizards at it. If Wizards, like Clerics and Druids, could prepare anything from their list, this wouldn't be an issue. Wizards still would be best at this discriminator, because they can swap their whole list each day rather than one spell at a time. It's the unusual combination of the Wizards' limiter compared to Clerics and Druids and the lack of any limit on the variety that SV classes get that makes this problem arise.

I find it really annoying that people are so terrified that SV won't be exactly as it is in the UA article if there isn't universal praise for it as 100% perfect that we're having to argue that this IS an issue, rather than discussing how to solve it. If you like SV as-is, and no change to it could possibly be acceptable, then help by coming up with ways to preserve the important theme of excitement in hunting down and discovering new spells for the wizard and the importance of his spellbook while enabling him to still keep the "I'm the guy you come to when you want the perfectly-tailored spell list for this adventure" situation.

There is no longer any distinction between divine and arcane magic in 5th edition. We just have people that cast spells. Even if there were, then I would say that bard was divine (due to healing and resurrection magic), sorcerer might be (divine soul might be divine - clue is in the name, anything from a bloodline seems to depend), warlock might be divine (if you see fiends an celestials as divine rather than mortal).

Any change will "enabling him to still keep the "I'm the guy you come to when you want the perfectly-tailored spell list for this adventure" situation" - this wont change the Wizard AT ALL. They will not become worse at it, all that will happen is an under appreciated class might also Get Nice Things.

[Anymage]

Okay. Something I have been trying to change about myself is properly laying out grounds by which I will admit an argument I disagree with is valid, and this is about as low-stakes as it gets for that. As a quick attempt...

The WIzard has, as others have noted, several features in its favor. Rituals are a big one. Arcane Recovery is another (only Land Druids can do the same, AFAICT). So Wizards *now* are the "I cast more magic" class. This is a new edition, so I do not think arguments based on what classes *were* in prior editions are persuasive (after all, *everyone* got the Bard/Sorcerer spontaneous casting mechanic, so we're already in "not strictly adhering to prior methods" camp).

Therefore, as a test of my argument (that the concerns over spell versatility are in excess of any real problems), I consider this a reasonable request:
Name two spells, of 5th level or lower, and the special situation that could arise reasonably often that would make those spells so vitally important that their presence or absence would radically change how, or even whether, the party could address that situation, yet waiting for the next day would not so influence things. I ask for two spells as a demonstration that it is not just a fluke. Further, I would prefer at least some defense for why this spell is not one generically useful enough to keep around, and I recommend *not* choosing a ritual spell, as those will be especially attractive to Wizards in the first place (though since they still count as spells learned, I can see one working if you argue very rigorously).

If someone can provide this--two spells, and for each a reasonably respectable but not common situation where that spell would make a huge difference but an 8-24 hour wait would not--then I will concede that spell versatility, as written, creates enough of a problem that it truly *should* be changed (e.g. in the way I suggested).

Tongues is a clear case where few people would make a priority of going out and getting it, but when a language barrier comes up it's handy to clear up. You're also unlikely to immediately die because you can't speak to some people, but being able to communicate with them can become hugely helpful.

Sending shows up all the time in the strip as useful for tactical communication. Being able to have it the day after you've completed an objective, or on a day when you expect to coordinate with allies, is very handy. Generic adventurer loadout? Not so much.

(I'm aware that both of these are also on the cleric list. Do I need to repeat again how the cleric having free access to his entire list is a design problem?)


I won't comment on class identity issues. Those are entirely subjective.

But from a balance point, there's no issue. A wizard, just by virtue of levelling, has nearly twice as many spells known as a sorcerer, so even if you have the most wizard-hating DM in the world you'll still have them beat at that. And with a half-decent DM you'll completely overwhelm a sorcerer in regards of spells known and have, conservatively, at least twice the spells of a bard.

If you're comparing spells known vs. the wizard's reserve in his spellbook, you're comparing apples and oranges.

Wizard daily spell prep vs. bard spells known is pretty close. Sorcerers fall behind hard, but that's an issue with the sorcerer and doesn't need to be "fixed" by a sledgehammer of an OP feature.

Letting the bard or the sorcerer pick any spell from their available list while the wizard is limited to what's in his spellbook does give a huge advantage in day-to-day versatility to the list casters. Which worries me not because they'll outshine the wizard, but because of how easily they'll be able to have just the right tool to fix whatever medium-term goal.


How were Clerics and Druids not the "I can have a spell for that tomorrow class"...

Do I need to keep a running tally of how many times I said that clerics and druids are in fact a waiting problem? Making more people more like them is not an improvement.

Y'know what, though? I think I've come to a balance solution that would make you happy. Since clericlike access to a full list is apparently not a problem, let wizards dispense with their spellbooks and take their daily prep from any wizard spells available for their level. You can even remove spellbook part of the wizard's ritual feature, since he won't have a separate pool of spells "known" beyond his daily prep. Sorcerers, bards, and warlocks then get SV exactly as published in the UA.

Then try running a game with mid or high level casters, and tell me how it goes for you.

[Chaosmancer]

Clerics and druids ARE "I can have that spell tomorrow" classes. It just isn't as big a part of their identity, because "I'm a divine caster" generally outweighs it as a distinction, and "known list" vs. "prepared daily" is almost not a factor on the divine side: all full divine casters are "prepared" casters.

It is a specific point that sets wizards apart from Bards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks. Now, not only are Wizards not set apart from those other arcane classes by this point, but those other classes are suddenly better than Wizards at it. If Wizards, like Clerics and Druids, could prepare anything from their list, this wouldn't be an issue. Wizards still would be best at this discriminator, because they can swap their whole list each day rather than one spell at a time. It's the unusual combination of the Wizards' limiter compared to Clerics and Druids and the lack of any limit on the variety that SV classes get that makes this problem arise.

I find it really annoying that people are so terrified that SV won't be exactly as it is in the UA article if there isn't universal praise for it as 100% perfect that we're having to argue that this IS an issue, rather than discussing how to solve it. If you like SV as-is, and no change to it could possibly be acceptable, then help by coming up with ways to preserve the important theme of excitement in hunting down and discovering new spells for the wizard and the importance of his spellbook while enabling him to still keep the "I'm the guy you come to when you want the perfectly-tailored spell list for this adventure" situation.

I'm not terrified of anything. My entire point is that there seems to be little evidence this is an issue.

If the wizard didn't lose the excitement of hunting down and discovering his spellbook when the knowledge cleric with identify and detect magic swapped in these "perfect tailored spell lists" how is the sorcerer challenging it?

Because Divine magic is more important than having the right spell? What are you even saying with that? The wizard didn't feel threatened by those 41 overlapping spells that could be transferred at any time because they came from a god? But if they came from arcane magic it is suddenly a threat?

I mean, you want help coming up with a solution to a problem that I just don't see. If the wizard looks at the fact that the Bard can now have Dream after a long rest, and decides that it is no longer worth it to have that spell, then did they look at the Cleric and say the same thing about detect magic and sending?

And, considering they still have a lot of unique spells only they can cast, is it bad if they seek those out and let the other classes handle the niche spells?

I mean, is this "the wizard is threatened" or is this "the other classes are catching up"?

[diplomancer]

There is no longer any distinction between divine and arcane magic in 5th edition. We just have people that cast spells. Even if there were, then I would say that bard was divine (due to healing and resurrection magic), sorcerer might be (divine soul might be divine - clue is in the name, anything from a bloodline seems to depend), warlock might be divine (if you see fiends an celestials as divine rather than mortal).

Any change will "enabling him to still keep the "I'm the guy you come to when you want the perfectly-tailored spell list for this adventure" situation" - this wont change the Wizard AT ALL. They will not become worse at it, all that will happen is an under appreciated class might also Get Nice Things.

The distinction is weaker than in other editions, but it's still there (PHB 205), and to which type each class has access is also clearly defined. So far, there has not been, to my knowledge, any mechanical use of it, but it is there ready for use in any particular adventure or setting, for instance.

In that respect, here are some thoughts from Jeremy Crawford. The themes are still there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USqR_-pcXAw

[Chaosmancer]

(I'm aware that both of these are also on the cleric list. Do I need to repeat again how the cleric having free access to his entire list is a design problem

Do I need to keep a running tally of how many times I said that clerics and druids are in fact a waiting problem? Making more people more like them is not an improvement.

Y'know what, though? I think I've come to a balance solution that would make you happy. Since clericlike access to a full list is apparently not a problem, let wizards dispense with their spellbooks and take their daily prep from any wizard spells available for their level. You can even remove spellbook part of the wizard's ritual feature, since he won't have a separate pool of spells "known" beyond his daily prep. Sorcerers, bards, and warlocks then get SV exactly as published in the UA.

Then try running a game with mid or high level casters, and tell me how it goes for you.

I'm on my phone, so mo blue text, but I'd like to point out how many threads of "cleric and druid spellcasting is OP" always show up on these forums.

I've seen zero.

So, maybe making wizards work exactly like clerics would be just fine. After all, having to prepare their rituals just like everyone else would be a big hit to them.

But, I don't need a fix. I'm happy with adding Spell Versatlity as is. So, I won't try the experiment, though it could be fun.

[Segev]

There is no longer any distinction between divine and arcane magic in 5th edition. We just have people that cast spells. Even if there were, then I would say that bard was divine (due to healing and resurrection magic), sorcerer might be (divine soul might be divine - clue is in the name, anything from a bloodline seems to depend), warlock might be divine (if you see fiends an celestials as divine rather than mortal).

Any change will "enabling him to still keep the "I'm the guy you come to when you want the perfectly-tailored spell list for this adventure" situation" - this wont change the Wizard AT ALL. They will not become worse at it, all that will happen is an under appreciated class might also Get Nice Things.As others have said, the problem introduced by SV can be solved by making the Wizard not need a spellbook, and just operate exactly like a cleric or druid (except they can cast any ritual spell on the wizard spell list).

This introduces a new thematic problem, but would solve the one I'm concerned with regarding SV.


I'm not terrified of anything. My entire point is that there seems to be little evidence this is an issue.No, it's just that you obviously don't see what the issue I'm alleging is. And I say "alleging" because I'm acknowledging that you might disagree that it's a problem, but the trouble here is that you don't even understand what I'm saying the issue is. As evidenced here:


If the wizard didn't lose the excitement of hunting down and discovering his spellbook when the knowledge cleric with identify and detect magic swapped in these "perfect tailored spell lists" how is the sorcerer challenging it? SV doesn't do a thing about that particular theme of wizardry. Neither does cleric powers. I'm not concerned, when it comes to "the excitement of discovering a new spell as a wizard," with anything in any other class. Clerics having magic spells that wizards also have is utterly irrelevant to that point.

The "excitement," the theme I'm talking about? It's supposed to be part of the wizard play experience that new spells to put in your spellbook are something you get excited about. Something you seek out, and are glad to find.

That theme cannot actually be changed by changes to other classes. It also is not the one I'm talking about SV stepping on.

The one I'm talking about SV stepping on, however, could be fixed easily: remove the spellbook. Wizards, like clerics and druids, have all-list access for preparation (and their special ritual power lets them cast any ritual spell on their list, whether it's prepped or not). There, SV is no longer stepping on the theme that Wizards are the best class to tailor their spells for the mission.

The trouble here is that that easy solution destroys the "excitement" theme we were just discussing. There's no need for wizards to hunt down spells for their spellbooks when they can prepare any spell they want from the wizard spell list. When they basically don't have spellbooks at all.

This is a bigger problem than just that one lost theme, though, because the whole excuse behind wizard casting is knowledge and study. It's unrealistic to assume wizards know literally every spell. It's weird that they spend no time studying to learn spells. Clerics and druids just pray for what they want, so they don't need to "know" spells. They just have them granted to them. Wizards theoretically gain their spells by knowing them thoroughly, though.

Anyway, you're clearly conflating two separate problems, and confusing what my allegation of the problem with SV is. This makes it difficult to have a meaningful discussion. I hope I've successfully clarified.


I mean, is this "the wizard is threatened" or is this "the other classes are catching up"?The former. The "other classes" are surpassing the wizard in one particular area that has always been a selling point of being a wizard.

I actually don't have a problem with SV, in a vacuum. I have a problem with SV as presented with the wizard remaining stuck with a limited selection of spells he can POSSIBLY prepare, unless and until he levels up or finds a spell and spends some money, while SV classes can have literally any spell in their class list "tomorrow."

To repeat: I don't see too big of a problem with SV classes having literally any spell in their class list "tomorrow." I have a problem with that being true when wizards cannot. Especially since the closest the wizard can come costs him money, but it doesn't cost the SV classes anything.

[MrCharlie]

I actually thought that sorcerer's were handled very well in 5e. In fact, I think the class has more identity now than it did in 3.5; making them metamagic masters fits the idea of someone who is self-taught and has managed to break the rules due to such more than having them cast more or "flexibly" and simply use charisma.

As it is, sorcerer's are kings of a few tricks that other classes can't match and suffer a narrow focus-which is a strong thematic niche and valid in gameplay (the key is they aren't a substitution for a cleric or wizard, lacking the flexibility, but more on par with a Bard-they are the fifth man, not the third or fourth).

The one thing sorcerers need isn't really the "flexibility"-it's an expanded list or expanded picks from a list. Divine soul does this, and is miles better for most sorcerers than anything else. I'd even give the other sorcerer's an always prepared list, or some other thematic option-shadow gets every darkness spell and a few xanathar's guide spells, draconics get to pick a spell that does their damage type every spell level (or another from the list), Storm should get lightning/thunder and cloud spells, and I'd do something special for wild magic. But if you added this, then their picks outside of that template could be more varied, they would have comparable spells known to other full casters, and they would still have the strong theme they currently have.

For Wild Magic, incidentally, I'd let them add any spell that affects them to their list by using a reaction to absorb the magic, getting up to charisma modifier spells known this way. It fits the chaotic nature of their magic and gives them a massive upgrade, which the blue sheep of the sorcerer family needs.

(To clarify, in this system divine soul has their current feature but no other free spells, while the other sorcerer's get 5-10 free spells they don't need to learn, which puts everyone at about the same level and implicitly nerfs divine soul).

[Yunru]

Wizards shouldn't even be preparation casters.
They should be spells known, just like the Ranger and Sorcerer.
What sets them apart is their spells known being stored in a book, allowing them to gain or lose spells.

[diplomancer]

As others have said, the problem introduced by SV can be solved by making the Wizard not need a spellbook, and just operate exactly like a cleric or druid (except they can cast any ritual spell on the wizard spell list).

This introduces a new thematic problem, but would solve the one I'm concerned with regarding SV.

No, it's just that you obviously don't see what the issue I'm alleging is. And I say "alleging" because I'm acknowledging that you might disagree that it's a problem, but the trouble here is that you don't even understand what I'm saying the issue is. As evidenced here:

SV doesn't do a thing about that particular theme of wizardry. Neither does cleric powers. I'm not concerned, when it comes to "the excitement of discovering a new spell as a wizard," with anything in any other class. Clerics having magic spells that wizards also have is utterly irrelevant to that point.

The "excitement," the theme I'm talking about? It's supposed to be part of the wizard play experience that new spells to put in your spellbook are something you get excited about. Something you seek out, and are glad to find.

That theme cannot actually be changed by changes to other classes. It also is not the one I'm talking about SV stepping on.

The one I'm talking about SV stepping on, however, could be fixed easily: remove the spellbook. Wizards, like clerics and druids, have all-list access for preparation (and their special ritual power lets them cast any ritual spell on their list, whether it's prepped or not). There, SV is no longer stepping on the theme that Wizards are the best class to tailor their spells for the mission.

The trouble here is that that easy solution destroys the "excitement" theme we were just discussing. There's no need for wizards to hunt down spells for their spellbooks when they can prepare any spell they want from the wizard spell list. When they basically don't have spellbooks at all.

This is a bigger problem than just that one lost theme, though, because the whole excuse behind wizard casting is knowledge and study. It's unrealistic to assume wizards know literally every spell. It's weird that they spend no time studying to learn spells. Clerics and druids just pray for what they want, so they don't need to "know" spells. They just have them granted to them. Wizards theoretically gain their spells by knowing them thoroughly, though.

Anyway, you're clearly conflating two separate problems, and confusing what my allegation of the problem with SV is. This makes it difficult to have a meaningful discussion. I hope I've successfully clarified.

The former. The "other classes" are surpassing the wizard in one particular area that has always been a selling point of being a wizard.

I actually don't have a problem with SV, in a vacuum. I have a problem with SV as presented with the wizard remaining stuck with a limited selection of spells he can POSSIBLY prepare, unless and until he levels up or finds a spell and spends some money, while SV classes can have literally any spell in their class list "tomorrow."

To repeat: I don't see too big of a problem with SV classes having literally any spell in their class list "tomorrow." I have a problem with that being true when wizards cannot. Especially since the closest the wizard can come costs him money, but it doesn't cost the SV classes anything.

I still think that the solution of giving it to the Wizard too, though obviously it subtracts from the excitement of finding spells for your spellbook, is still limited enough (just one spell, if you need more in a hurry you are in trouble) that it remains in the Wizard's best interest to keep adding to his spell book.

With this UA, the wizard has about 20 exclusive spells (considering only PHB, I was shamelessly exploiting chaosmancer's labor,) with some of them being Rituals (and so not exactly exclusive). It's still more than other classes, but it should be , since spells are almost the only base class features wizards get.

Edit: the class identity problem is not so much that now there are MORE classes with the "I can have that spell by tomorrow" feature, it's that now wizards are the ONLY spellcasting class without it. For someone whose thing has always been about flexibility (compared to other arcane casters at least), it feels off.

[Theaitetos]

I mean, is this "the wizard is threatened" or is this "the other classes are catching up"?

I think the latter.

The Wizard theme is "wizards are the only class that learnss Magic through hard work and study". Warlocks bargain for magic power, Clerics and Druids are granted their magic power, Bards take up magic power through frivolity and song, Sorcerers are born with magic power.

And this is what this entire complaint is about: the desire to be a born magic prodigy like the sorcerer, instead of the self-earned power, although this is the very theme of the Wizard.

There's a super easy homebrew fix for those with that complaint: Spell scrolls don't disappear when transcribed into a spellbook! Problem solved. Now every wizard academy can just put every single spell scroll up in the library and every wizard can transcribe it.

[Segev]

I think the latter.

The Wizard theme is "wizards are the only class that learnss Magic through hard work and study". Warlocks bargain for magic power, Clerics and Druids are granted their magic power, Bards take up magic power through frivolity and song, Sorcerers are born with magic power.

And this is what this entire complaint is about: the desire to be a born magic prodigy like the sorcerer, instead of the self-earned power, although this is the very theme of the Wizard.On the contrary, it's not about wanting the Wizard to "be a born magic prodigy like the Sorcerer." It's irritation that apparently being a "born magic prodigy" means that you have all of the spells (just not all at once).

Less snarkily, it's simply a matter of answering the following question: "If you want to hire a spellcaster who isn't beholden to religion for a particular job, do you look for wizards, sorcerers, or bards to do it?" With SV as-is and nothing changed in the Wizard, the answer is, "Any that have SV." Because they'll have the spell(s) you need without you having to pay them extra to hunt them down and scribe them into their spellbooks.

Phrasing it as "oh no, the other classes are catching up!" makes it sound like some sort of unreasonable position to take. But if you always made your niche in the market by selling the medium-quality products of your sort at low prices, and your biggest competitors sell expensive, luxurious versions of the same thing, it does become rather fair to be annoyed when government subsidies start being given to the purchase of the luxurious, expensive versions such that they become actively cheaper for the consumer than what you're selling, while you get no subsidies to offset the prices of your medium-quality goods.

Now, you have no point on which you can rest to say your business model is competitive. Instead, the others are selling better goods cheaper, because they've been given a hand-out you're denied.

Wizards are not supposed to be the spellcasting class with the LEAST access to their spell list!


There's a super easy homebrew fix for those with that complaint: Spell scrolls don't disappear when transcribed into a spellbook! Problem solved. Now every wizard academy can just put every single spell scroll up in the library and every wizard can transcribe it.

No need to house rule that. If you want to claim wizarding academies can and would do that, they could already just have libraries full of spellbooks that contain that information. Transcribing from one spellbook to your own doesn't destroy the source spellbook.

[MaxWilson]

Also: Planar binding. 5th level, but can be upcast for long-duration. On the one hand, it's nice that sorcerers can get it. Very thematic. Nice that they can do it without consuming a very limited spell known. On the other, though, basically every sorcerer has it, now, while not every wizard will. Wizards have to use up resources to get it; every sorcerer essentially has it for free, because they just need a day's downtime to swap a spell out for it, cast it, then swap back in a more useful spell.

Planar Binding, Remove Curse, Greater Restoration, Lesser Restoration, Raise Dead. These are all great spells to have available to the party, but they're not *urgent* spells in most cases. (A Gas Spore will kill you in d12+Con mod hours, but most other curses and diseases take a few days.) If a Divine Soul gets the ability to change spells on a long rest, he's freeing up five spells known by not taking these spells, and yet he can still Greater Restoration someone who gets their mind eaten by an Intellect Devourer. Instead of having to search for a legendary NPC with powerful magic, the party sorcerer just swaps out a spell and does it himself, easy peasy.

Teleport, Planar Binding, Regeneration, Magic Circle, True Polymorph, Commune, Divination, Scrying, Sending... Spell versatility feels exciting because it's extremely powerful at relieving pressure on spells known. It's not just for fixing mistakes--it's a very powerful class feature if the DM allows it, unless the DM railroads the party onto a timeline so tight that spell versatility becomes irrelevant.

IMO, spell versatility ought to just be an optional rule for cinematic/low paperwork campaigns. "If this optional rule is in place, the contents of a wizard's spellbook and shields known by classes like Rangers/Bards/Warlocks/Sorcerers can be freely changed between adventures, including a Warlock's Mystic Arcana. All spellcasters just choose an appropriate number of spells at the start of every adventure, and it's assumed you did whatever research/practicing/etc. was necessary to have those spells available, before the adventure starts." Don't put it on a long rest timer *during* an adventure--make it explicitly a downtime activity for cinematic campaigns.

You can do the same thing with skills and languages.

[Chaosmancer]

No, it's just that you obviously don't see what the issue I'm alleging is. And I say "alleging" because I'm acknowledging that you might disagree that it's a problem, but the trouble here is that you don't even understand what I'm saying the issue is. As evidenced here:

Maybe I'm not understanding the issue, because every issue I've addressed I've been told "that isn't the issue"

It isn't that Wizards will no longer be excited to fill their spellbooks.

It isn't that other classes will have that one spell that can solve the adventure by tomorrow and the wizard won't (because if that was the problem, it would be a problem constantly brought up when a wizard is in a party with a Druid and a Cleric, and it obviously isn't a problem because it took spell versatlity existing to bring this discussion up)

It isn't that Sorcerers, Bards and Warlocks should never swap spells, because they could always swap spells on a level up and no one called foul then.

It isn't that bards and sorcerers will use all the wizard spells, since I showed the wizard still has almost a full compliment of unique spells, so them possibly sharing the few extra spells shouldn't be a big deal compared to all the spells they shared before.

I mean, all that's left as the issue is "we don't get it too"... And I see that as a very minor problem if one at all, because wizards just need it less than those spells known classes did.

So, what is the issue. If it is none if this, if it isn't that wizards shouldn't be "the guy that knows the spell" or "the one who has the easiest time getting the spell" then what is the issue that is so big you would solve it by making wizards super-clerics who have access to every ritual at all times. Because it is not clear to me.




I actually don't have a problem with SV, in a vacuum. I have a problem with SV as presented with the wizard remaining stuck with a limited selection of spells he can POSSIBLY prepare, unless and until he levels up or finds a spell and spends some money, while SV classes can have literally any spell in their class list "tomorrow."

To repeat: I don't see too big of a problem with SV classes having literally any spell in their class list "tomorrow." I have a problem with that being true when wizards cannot. Especially since the closest the wizard can come costs him money, but it doesn't cost the SV classes anything.

Saw this afterwards as I was checking your post. This was the big issue then. They can do it and I can't.

If you go back a few pages you'll see a discussion we had with people about why SV was not OP. Because it has limits.

You must swap a spell of the same level as the spell you are getting.

So, just because I know the sorcerer better, let's say you want Tongues for the day of adventure. You usually have enough spells to have 2 spells of a given level. So, to get the 3rd level Tongues, do you lose Fireball or Fly?

What if there is a fight? Your big attack spell is gone, but fly is just more flexible. That is not an insignificant opportunity cost.

And sure, a prepared caster or wizard has to not take a spell too. Of course, it can be one of any level. So they could instead not have magic missile or thunderwave for the day.

And the second major point. Players generally take the best spells they want anyways. Suggestion cam be a powerful tool to solve a problem. I could see dropping a spell for it, but, I likely took suggestion in the first place. So it is already on my list.

And, for a third and minor point. All of this only applies when a wizard and an SV class are in the same party, encounter a medium lengrh situation that a spell could solve, neither one has the spell ready to go, and the wizard does not have it in their spellbook ready to learn for the day. That is a rare occurence. And what about the game that only has a sorcerer, or only had a Warlock? This is a change for those classes that helps them fulfill their role as the "arcane character" and no wizard is harmed where no wizard existed in the first place.

[Spiritchaser]

I really don’t see this as a problem, the wizard can switch many spells quickly where the sorcerer cannot, and has far more spells ready at one time, plus on class balance alone, the sorcerer still comes up short of the wizard (though admittedly by much less now)

That said, if you feel it is critically necessary to penalize a sorcerer just dock x hit points per spell level swapped out until their next long rest, where x is some number between 1 and 3 depending on how restrictive you feel it necessary to be.

I’d argue that if you’re going to do this (and honestly even if your not going to do this) you need to add some more spells to the sorcerer list. Bespoke sorcerer spells would be great, but failing that, Evard’s tentacles, wall of force and force cage would be a good start

[Chaosmancer]

Less snarkily, it's simply a matter of answering the following question: "If you want to hire a spellcaster who isn't beholden to religion for a particular job, do you look for wizards, sorcerers, or bards to do it?" With SV as-is and nothing changed in the Wizard, the answer is, "Any that have SV." Because they'll have the spell(s) you need without you having to pay them extra to hunt them down and scribe them into their spellbooks.

I've said this before, but in terms of game design this is meaningless.

Ignoring all the thematic issues with assuming "beholden to religion" this should not effect the game like you think.

"I want to Teleport, should I go to the Wizard, the Bard, or the Sorcerer?"

The answer should be "any of them, all three can cast Teleport". Whether or not the DM wants to just hand you the spell or make you pay for it or make you adventure for it doesn't matter.

Maybe the SV sorcerer has been imprisoned and you have to pay the (cost of teleport plus 350) gp fine to get them out of jail so they can help you.

Maybe the SV Bard will do it for free, if you can do a favor for them.

The DM is always in charge of what NPC abilities are available, how much they cost, and how big a pain they are.

And, if this change means you never hire another NPC wizard again... So what? That's a choice at your table for your story, it isn't a problem of game mechanics. Because, right now? You're probably not hiring many NPC sorcerers, warlocks or bards anyways.

[Theaitetos]

Wizards are not supposed to be the spellcasting class with the LEAST access to their spell list!

Yes they are. Wizards are the only spellcasting class supposed to work hard for every spell. Divine casters and warlocks are granted those powers from powerful beings and Sorcerers are born with it. Studying to learn spells is the core theme of Wizards.

[diplomancer]

Yes they are. Wizards are the only spellcasting class supposed to work hard for every spell. Divine casters and warlocks are granted those powers from powerful beings and Sorcerers are born with it. Studying to learn spells is the core theme of Wizards.

If they are then the designers have been wrong for the past 5 years - maybe 20(and still are, since UA is playtest content)

[Veldrenor]

Planar Binding, Remove Curse, Greater Restoration, Lesser Restoration, Raise Dead.

Except Divine Soul sorcerers can't use Spell Versatility for any of those spells. The sorcerer's Spell Versatility only let's you swap for spells on the sorcerer spell list. Divine Magic says that you can learn spells from the cleric list, it does not say that you treat the cleric list as though it's part of the sorcerer list.

[diplomancer]

Except Divine Soul sorcerers can't use Spell Versatility for any of those spells. The sorcerer's Spell Versatility only let's you swap for spells on the sorcerer spell list. Divine Magic says that you can learn spells from the cleric list, it does not say that you treat the cleric list as though it's part of the sorcerer list.

True. But once you learn them at level up, they become sorcerer spells for you. Which means you can swap them out and them swap them back in as needed.

[Yunru]

If they are then the designers have been wrong for the past 5 years - maybe 20(and still are, since UA is playtest content)

Yes, but that's actually the problem. Wizards are the spoiled favourite child that gets basically the kitchen sink and thus lacks a true identity.
It's gotten better, admittedly, but it's not completely there.

[Theaitetos]

Except Divine Soul sorcerers can't use Spell Versatility for any of those spells. The sorcerer's Spell Versatility only let's you swap for spells on the sorcerer spell list. Divine Magic says that you can learn spells from the cleric list, it does not say that you treat the cleric list as though it's part of the sorcerer list.

That's not true. I double-checked all the RAW things and spell versatility allows Divine Souls to swap spells for spells from the cleric list.

Here's the way all of these things work:



Here you’ll find features that replace or enhance the normal features of your character’s class. The class feature variants each specify which feature they replace or enhance, as summarized in the Class Feature Variants table (see page 2). If a feature is replaced, you gain no benefit from it and don’t qualify for anything in the game that requires it. If a feature is enhanced, you continue to enjoy its benefits but now with new capabilities.


This establishes how the new features are integrated into the class, either as replacement (completely removing the original feature) or as enhancement (adding additional content to an already existent class feature).



Spell Versatility
1st-level sorcerer feature (enhances Spellcasting)
Whenever you finish a long rest, you can replace one spell you learned from this Spellcasting feature with another spell from the sorcerer spell list. The new spell must be the same level as the spell you replace.


This clarifies that Spell Versatility is an enhancement to the Sorcerer class feature Spellcasting, i.e. it works as if it had been added to the class feature.



Divine Magic

Your link to the divine allows you to learn spells from the cleric class. When your Spellcasting feature lets you learn or replace a sorcerer cantrip or a sorcerer spell of 1st level or higher, you can choose the new spell from the cleric spell list or the sorcerer spell list. You must otherwise obey all the restrictions for selecting the spell, and it becomes a sorcerer spell for you.


The Divine Soul's subclass feature enables the cleric spell list for learning/replacing spells via the Sorcerer class feature Spellcasting, i.e. exactly the feature that was enhanced with Spell Versatility. Therefore the Divine Magic subclass feature also works on Spell Versatility, which is just a part of the Spellcasting feature.

[micahaphone]

Didn't Crawford mention this rule was made because they learned that some campaigns go for months without a level up, so if a spontaneous caster has a spell they don't like, they can't swap it out for absolutely ages? They didn't intend for someone to be stuck with their choice for real-life months, they expected a level up to happen roughly every 5-15 sessions, in which you could swap out a spell.

So this rule isn't specifically for literally any campaign, the way I'd say the ranger changes are meant, but for a certain slow-burn playstyle.

Personally, I like it, but I'd be okay with the time/cooldown increasing. Like others have mentioned, maybe not every long rest. I suppose that I'm a looser DM - I let my wizard player retroactively change one of his level-up spell choices a few sessions later, and hadn't even cast the spell.

[Segev]

I think the best solution, to me, would be making SV cost the same price to swap out a spell in GP that scribing a new spell into a wizard's spellbook costs.

It's still a LITTLE annoying: the wizard has to actually hunt down planar binding to have it, unless he spends a precious 2-per-level freebie on it, while the Sorcerer just has to decide he wants it tomorrow and spend the same thing the wizard would to add it after successfully hunting it down. But it's no longer a casual thing: the sorcerer is spending money TWICE to get it, and get back to his normal spell selection. It will introduce reluctance to casually shuffle known-list classes' selections, while leaving "crud, this wasn't as good a choice as I thought it was, and I want this other thing" as a means for SV to fix.

[Theaitetos]

the wizard has to actually hunt down planar binding to have it

And with the dramatic-sounding "hunt down", you actually mean "copy & paste" from one book to the other. That's really crippling for the poor wizards…

[Yunru]

It's still a LITTLE annoying: the wizard has to actually hunt down planar binding to have it, unless he spends a precious 2-per-level freebie on it

Oh boo hoo, the Wizard has to use one of their two extra spells per level, how many free spells per level do other casters get again? :P

[Veldrenor]

snip

Huh, right you are. I've been thinking about Spell Versatility like it's its own new ability when, technically, it's not, it's an additional paragraph in the spellcasting feature. Thank you for pointing this out!

[Segev]

And with the dramatic-sounding "hunt down", you actually mean "copy & paste" from one book to the other. That's really crippling for the poor wizards…

It's dramatic-sounding because, unless the wizard chooses to get it as one of his 2-per-level "personal research" freebies, he has to hunt down that "one book" that has it in it, to copy it to "the other" book that is his personal spellbook.

At a minimum, this makes it a "DM, may I?" thing, and hope your DM says, "Sure, you ask around town for local wizards, and after an hour or so finally find Bob, who has the spell you want, who'll let you copy it for X gp. Don't forget to pay the Y gp for the scribing cost, too!" In practice, it's going to be a bit more involved than that.

And heaven forefend that you might want to cast planar binding without having to go back to town to pick up the spell. I mean, unless you're a sorcerer with SV, in which case you can do it tomorrow, after all.

TL;DR: Mocking me for "dramatic-sounding" language when you fail to acknowledge that finding the source book for the spell DOES require EXACTLY the verbs I chose is... a poor argument.


Oh boo hoo, the Wizard has to use one of their two extra spells per level, how many free spells per level do other casters get again? :P

Fewer! But now they can fix those if they chose poorly much more easily than the wizard can!

[diplomancer]

I think the best solution, to me, would be making SV cost the same price to swap out a spell in GP that scribing a new spell into a wizard's spellbook costs.

It's still a LITTLE annoying: the wizard has to actually hunt down planar binding to have it, unless he spends a precious 2-per-level freebie on it, while the Sorcerer just has to decide he wants it tomorrow and spend the same thing the wizard would to add it after successfully hunting it down. But it's no longer a casual thing: the sorcerer is spending money TWICE to get it, and get back to his normal spell selection. It will introduce reluctance to casually shuffle known-list classes' selections, while leaving "crud, this wasn't as good a choice as I thought it was, and I want this other thing" as a means for SV to fix.

Well, but this is just weird. The costs the wizard pays are scribing costs. To whom the sorcerer is "paying" those costs? Does gold have special alchemical properties so that "consuming" it allows the sorcerer to change the spells he knows?

Also, when the wizard pays those costs, apart from the immediate use of the spell, he is getting a real increase in versatility for the rest of his adventuring career. The sorcerer is getting no such thing... at the very least, make it so that, for each swapped spell, they only pay the cost ONCE, and that swapping back to a spell learned by levelling is free. This way they are both getting the immediate use AND an increase in versatility (bigger for the wizard, as it should be).

[MrStabby]

As others have said, the problem introduced by SV can be solved by making the Wizard not need a spellbook, and just operate exactly like a cleric or druid (except they can cast any ritual spell on the wizard spell list).


This seems to be an extraordinary buff that I think the wizard doesnt need. What makes you feel the wizard needs a boost of such magnitude?

[Theaitetos]

TL;DR: Mocking me for "dramatic-sounding" language when you fail to acknowledge that finding the source book for the spell DOES require EXACTLY the verbs I chose is... a poor argument.

I'm mocking your drama, because you're making drama mountains out of little mole-hills. Smart wizards – i.e. INT > 10 – can prepare themselves, memorizing a spell's gestures & sounds by reading it in a book and then adding it to their spellbook once they hit the appropriate level. There's no requirement for wizards to first hit the required level before reading another wizard's spellbook. There's also no need for any caster/library/academy/school/temple to be selfish with wizard spells in books, since they don't lose anything by letting a wizard copy it. And if there's such a super-rare spell out there, just pick it up as a freebie at level-up and then sell the spell to other wizards/libraries/temples/academies.

Your drama rests on the aberrant idea that the world is populated with idiotic, chaotic evil wizards in small towns, preciously guarding an infinite resource. If spells were hard to come by, there'd be books or magazine series like Evoker's Enquirer or Daily Diviner being sold/lent with appropriate spells inside them. And even clerics, druids, … could write down shared spells and join in on the fun. In fact, there are just 40 exclusive wizard spells, i.e. a wizard could learn the entire wizard spell list without having to copy a single spell from another wizard and pick the unique ones as his freebies over his lifetime (to level 20).

And if you're playing an INT 6 wizard who picks Magic Missile as his freebie, well, you deserve it.

[MaxWilson]

Yes they are. Wizards are the only spellcasting class supposed to work hard for every spell. Divine casters and warlocks are granted those powers from powerful beings and Sorcerers are born with it. Studying to learn spells is the core theme of Wizards.

Mazirian the Magician would approve.

However, Mazirian would not approve of the existence of sorcerers, bards, warlocks, clerics, druids, paladins, or rangers.

(Hmmm, a campaign restricted to fighters, rogues, barbarians, monks, and wizards might actually be kind of fun.)


Oh boo hoo, the Wizard has to use one of their two extra spells per level, how many free spells per level do other casters get again? :P

Under this UA? ALL OF THEM.

[Aimeryan]

I would probably add a requirement that the caster must have seen the spell cast before, much like wildshapes for druids - this allows for much easier control of spell access by the DM and also likely means the Wizard has access to the spell as well.

That said, any stepping on the Wizards toes is going to require quite contrived situations to be noticed:

Has to be a spell the Wizard did not feel was useful enough to learn at level up - this very much narrows the possibilities already
Has to actually be useful enough to be felt missed by the Wizard - a minor effect on the adventure is hardly anything to cry over
Has to not be a frequent spell for NPC Wizards to have - Wizard will likely have transcribed it (or can do on long rest)
Has to not be a frequent scroll spell - this is sort of what scrolls are made for; infrequent or one-time use spells
Has to be a spell the Sorcerer would not normally have kept around
Has to remain useful with a long rest delay - this is highly controllable by the DM
Has to not be a spell that a Cleric, Druid, or Paladin has access to


If any of those are not true then the situation is unchanged from non-SV.

[Segev]

Well, but this is just weird. The costs the wizard pays are scribing costs. To whom the sorcerer is "paying" those costs? Does gold have special alchemical properties so that "consuming" it allows the sorcerer to change the spells he knows?I presume for ritual incense, or sacrifices, or other consumables they use to "clear their mind" and "refocus their magical energies." I mean, it's not like the wizard is literally gluing gold pieces into his spellbook like some sort of macaroni painting.


Also, when the wizard pays those costs, apart from the immediate use of the spell, he is getting a real increase in versatility for the rest of his adventuring career. The sorcerer is getting no such thing... at the very least, make it so that, for each swapped spell, they only pay the cost ONCE, and that swapping back to a spell learned by levelling is free. This way they are both getting the immediate use AND an increase in versatility (bigger for the wizard, as it should be).The SV caster is also getting a real benefit: they're replacing a spell that isn't as useful for one that is moreso. Even if it's just useful one time, they just have to pay twice to get it that one time.

Yes, the wizard gets more out of it; that's the point.

Let's pretend SV was always written with that gp cost. Do you still say, "Wow, that nerfs sorcerers; why would you pick on them that way? What does the wizard do to deserve such a buff?" No, of course not, because the SV is still a buff over the lack of any such option for the sorcerer or bard or warlock prior to it, and the wizard still hasn't actually gained anything!


This seems to be an extraordinary buff that I think the wizard doesnt need. What makes you feel the wizard needs a boost of such magnitude?Why do clerics and druids need to already have such a powerful ability?

The wizards' "nerf" compared to them is either purely for thematics and is not necessary for game balance, or open access to spells the Wizard can get is game-breaking, and thus SV should be seriously reconsidered.


I'm mocking your drama, because you're making drama mountains out of little mole-hills. Smart wizards – i.e. INT > 10 – can prepare themselves, memorizing a spell's gestures & sounds by reading it in a book and then adding it to their spellbook once they hit the appropriate level. There's no requirement for wizards to first hit the required level before reading another wizard's spellbook. There's also no need for any caster/library/academy/school/temple to be selfish with wizard spells in books, since they don't lose anything by letting a wizard copy it. And if there's such a super-rare spell out there, just pick it up as a freebie at level-up and then sell the spell to other wizards/libraries/temples/academies.

Your drama rests on the aberrant idea that the world is populated with idiotic, chaotic evil wizards in small towns, preciously guarding an infinite resource. If spells were hard to come by, there'd be books or magazine series like Evoker's Enquirer or Daily Diviner being sold/lent with appropriate spells inside them. And even clerics, druids, … could write down shared spells and join in on the fun. In fact, there are just 40 exclusive wizard spells, i.e. a wizard could learn the entire wizard spell list without having to copy a single spell from another wizard and pick the unique ones as his freebies over his lifetime (to level 20).

And if you're playing an INT 6 wizard who picks Magic Missile as his freebie, well, you deserve it....really?

You're positing that wizards have, obviously, seen literally every spell on their spell list before they hit the level they need to cast it, and that they have also memorized everything they'd need to know to scribe it into their spellbook. And that other wizards just casually let every wizard who asks borrow and study their spellbooks to make all these memorizations. Therefore, all a wizard needs to add a spell to his spellbook at a time of his choosing is the gp.

Is that right? Because that's the only way your explanation here makes sense as a refutation of my "drama mountains [I'm making] out of little mole-hills."

[Bosh]

I like having different classes feel distinct. It was annoying in AD&D when everyone was fully Vancian and it's annoying in 5ed when everyone (with some differences) is at least quasi spontaneous.

Here's how I'd divide it up:

1. Wizards go back to full Vancian. No rituals, no cantrips, no nothing. 100% Vancian. Give them enough power to balance out the hassles of Vancian magic.

2. Sorcerers can stay as in 5ed but maybe a little more flexibility to swap out spells, just not as much as a 5ed wizard.

3. For clerics bring back 2ed spheres and let then spontaneously cast any spells in their spheres. So pretty strictly limited to spells that match their god's schtick but any spell within that with a "general" sphere to cover spells any cleric can cast.

4. Mystic: let yourself be possessed by spirit. While possessed you get a suite of bonuses/abilities/weaknesses. Casting the spell associated with that spirit casts it off and then you can call on another one.

5. Maybe warlocks as the at-will focused guy?

Druids and bards don't really need distinct casting systems.

[MrStabby]

Why do clerics and druids need to already have such a powerful ability?



To compensate for a relatively weak spell list with no wall of force, force cage, fireball, counterspell and the like.

It is a powerful thing to have the best spells on your class list. It is a powerful thing to have access to you entire list without having to make sacrifices.

Together it is just silly.

[ezekielraiden]

Okay. Genuinely trying to be open-minded without entirely evacuating my beliefs, which is (as always) easier said than done.


Okay, then, would you object to Wizards having a "Spell Versatility" slot that is a single spell that they know without their spellbook, and it can be any one wizard spell they have slots to cast, swappable with a long rest?
As a simpler alternative than my "research points" suggestion, it works, I suppose? Perhaps the Wizard selects a number of spells equal to their Intelligence modifier which they have not merely learned, but rote-memorized; they can always prepare these spells, even without their spellbook, as they are deeply ingrained through constant repetition. You could even tie it to arcane traditions, with the school-based ones specifying that these "rote spells" come from the associated school, while the non-school ones give some kind of list or focus. Ways to make it more Wizard-thematic, at least.


Secondly, while that's true, up until this UA, wizards WERE presented in the same light as earlier editions as the go-to arcanists for preparing spells tailored to the quest's needs. Bards and Sorcerers were tacitly, if not explicitly, presented as the ones who build to a theme and make do with what they have, and stretch what they have further than Wizards can.
Frankly? I really don't care that much what descriptors the designers use for a given class. Because those descriptors are not based on tested outcomes, they're based on hopes and goals. 3e had exactly the same problem with most "martial" classes, e.g. the Monk was consistently billed as a mobile attacker...but the design of full-attacks meant they could not do so and do anything like meaningful damage.


Wizards really aren't "cast lots of spells guys." Not more than other classes.
I disagree. Wizards are the only class that naturally gets Arcane Recovery, giving them (level/2) extra spell slots per day. Because costs scale faster than SP gain, Sorcerers won't break even until high-ish level. IOW, Sorcerers can only be better at "cast lots of spells" if they shortchange themselves on all their other features...which means the Wizard's other features are pulling them ahead anyway. E.g. at the high levels, it literally doesn't matter that a Sorcerer can conceivably cast up to 14 first-level spells, because the Wizard can cast a selected first- and second-level spell each as many times as they like, and can change which spells those are with merely an 8-hour delay, not even a proper long rest; at 20, they get two 3rd level spells (nonflexible, unfortunately) they can cast for free once each per short rest. In other words, a high-level Wizard feature blows a significant portion of Sorcerer flexibility out of the water, and their capstone blows a significant portion of Warlock flexibility out of the water. Wizards really, truly are "cast lots of spells"--other characters can emulate this at great cost, or with enough rests, but Wizards can just do it.

E.g. to your point of Sorcerers having "significantly more spell slots" than Wizards? Nope. For most early levels, because SP=char level but cost is approximately spell level*1.5 (rounding up sometimes and down other times), Sorcerers end up behind for most early levels and only start to break even at level 8 (when you can finally afford to create one 4th-level slot and one 1st-level slot)...at which point the Sorcerer is only one 1st-level slot ahead. And a level later, things are exactly the same (one max-level, 5th, and one 1st-level) for the Sorcerer, again putting it only one 1st-level slot ahead, which means the Sorcerer has zero metamagic for the day.


I'm saying that the ability to make your spell list more perfect with whatever spells you want from the whole class list with just a few days' prep is superior to the Wizard's ability to customize his spell list with niche spells that will be unusually useful if he happens to already have them in his spellbook.
In practice, I think this concern will end up significantly overblown. It's only if the party both (a) gets frequent "wow a niche spell would be AMAZING here" moments, that (b) aren't under any meaningful time pressure so that 24-48 hours is no biggie, and (c) rarely if ever has opportunities for the Wizard to expand their spells learned. Hence why I proposed, for people anxious over a power imbalance even though I think it is overblown, give the Wizard some "free research" bonus spells that they can spend with a day's downtime. That way, while they don't have quite the flexibility that Spell Versatility gives, they can permanently acquire a niche spell with just a couple of day's downtime...which is comparable to what SV does, but in a much more Wizard-y kind of way.


Ignoring balance in favor of analogy, <snip> All of a sudden, even stronger than the Barbarian or the Fighter, the Monk and Rogue are the go-to tanks,
I hold these two statements logically contradictory. The former says you are ignoring balance and simply making an analogy. The latter critically depends on a balance notion, that Monk and Rogue should not be tanks because that's not what they were designed to be. And honestly? Ignoring five attacks a day is...really not very good for the kind of thing you want here. Ignoring five hits, even if you select them with perfect optimization, is nowhere near enough to make a good tank. And if these classes are getting squished so often that a more serious contender for "wow that's kind of broken," e.g. five attacks per encounter, there's a much, much more serious problem going on than the one you're focused on.


Also: Planar binding.
As noted: not a Sorc spell, though it is a Bard spell so I won't hold that too much against you. But two big counterpoints.
First, you are making the assumption that I really, really, really don't buy: "basically every sorcerer has it, now." That isn't true. Acting as though it is true makes SV into "every Sorcerer has every Sorcerer spell always," and yes, THAT would be broken. Too many spell slots will be "dedicated" at any given level--all non-Draconic sorcerers really, really want mage armor, nearly all Sorcerers want shield and absorb elements, you're going to need at least two solid offense spells as soon as you have room (e.g. chromatic orb to start, getting fireball and similar upgrades as you go). For most of the early game, e.g. level 1-6, Sorcerers are insanely starved for spells known and usually cannot afford even one slot spent on niche utility. Even Bards aren't doing great, and they get 2 extra to play with until Magical Secrets kicks in. IOW? Your argument appears to commit the 5e form of the "Batman Wizard" fallacy, assuming that potential access means current access for "basically every [character] now."

Second point? You neither provided two spells (which I did ask for and provide justification when I asked), nor provided an explanation of the situation this addresses. I get that your focus isn't on "having a spell to solve the problem" but rather on "what bill of goods was I sold." But I did lay out clear and, IMO, justified requests, which really aren't altered by a retort of "okay but I don't want to argue over that."


Tongues <snip>, Sending <snip>
I agree that these can be useful spells, though having to wait 24 hours for either of them (and 48 hours for both) seriously reduces the value of both--particularly since once you have them, the opportunity cost for the rest of the day seems serious. Plus? Only tongues is a Sorcerer (etc.) spell; sending is Bard, Cleric, Wizard. It just seems like the situations where these spells would be so helpful that it would overcome the opportunity cost, yet not so helpful that waiting at least 8 (if not 24) hours is no big deal, are going to be pretty slim.

Really, these suggestions more and more make me think that SV is more or less perfectly fine for Sorcerers, because of the Sorcerer's very limited spell list. It's Bards that have any room for people to claim it's a problem, since they have both substantially more spells known (at least 47% more) and enough of the strong utility spells that maybe, possibly, there are a few that you'd want to pick them up just for a day and have that be a Huge Benefit and not "oh, that's kind of nice."

Plus, that last bit I think is a huge sticking point. Whenever I get specific spells, they sound either like "oh, that would be kind of nice to have," *or* they sound like "well sure that's a good spell, but why would you need it on such short notice?"


(I'm aware that both of these are also on the cleric list. Do I need to repeat again how the cleric having free access to his entire list is a design problem?)
Okay, so, why wasn't this a problem worthy of comment before SV? I haven't ever heard this complaint before literally this thread, and even if I had, doesn't this argue a lot more that Wizards should get a (small but meaningful) buff so that Sorcerers, Bards, and Rangers aren't staying crapped-on relative to literally everyone else including Wizards?


If you're comparing spells known vs. the wizard's reserve in his spellbook, you're comparing apples and oranges.
I vehemently disagree. The issue is accessibility; a Wizard's "reserve" is what is accessible to them.


Wizard daily spell prep vs. bard spells known is pretty close. Sorcerers fall behind hard, but that's an issue with the sorcerer and doesn't need to be "fixed" by a sledgehammer of an OP feature.
Then, uh, how does it get fixed? Especially if I don't actually see this as a "sledgehammer" feature. You seem to agree that there's a serious problem with at least the Sorcerer and possibly the Bard, one that should be fixed. Why not fix it, and then also give some small benefit so that Wizards don't feel left out?


Which worries me not because they'll outshine the wizard, but because of how easily they'll be able to have just the right tool to fix whatever medium-term goal.
I think you under-value the time cost of having to wait 24 hours, and both the number and utility of the Wizard spells that aren't on any of the Bard, Druid, Cleric, Sorcerer, or Wizard lists. (According to my main tool for checking these things, there are 43 such spells between the PHB and Xanathar's, which include things like rope trick, passwall, telepathic bond, fabricate, and phantom steed, some of which are even rituals so they won't cost spell slots.)

Hence why it seems to me that the best solution is to keep SV more or less as-is, with perhaps a braking mechanism to slow down turnover and increase opportunity cost, while giving Wizards more ability to expand their learned spells so that they can really leverage all those Wizard-unique or near-Wizard-unique spells (e.g. ones that are Wizard and Druid but otherwise unique, or Wizard and Cleric etc.)


Do I need to keep a running tally of how many times I said that clerics and druids are in fact a waiting problem? Making more people more like them is not an improvement.
I disagree! I think making more people like them is an improvement, and then giving Wizards something else so they don't feel left out is even better. WotC will never be able to put this genie back in the bottle--not without a 5.5e and I'm pretty sure they *really* don't want to do that--so we might as well accept it and find ways to work with and around it. Stubbornly insisting "that was a bad move, we should pretend like it's not there and balance everything else accordingly" is not an effective strategy given the climate and WotC's own preferences.


Y'know what, though? I think I've come to a balance solution that would make you happy. Since clericlike access to a full list is apparently not a problem, let wizards dispense with their spellbooks and take their daily prep from any wizard spells available for their level. You can even remove spellbook part of the wizard's ritual feature, since he won't have a separate pool of spells "known" beyond his daily prep. Sorcerers, bards, and warlocks then get SV exactly as published in the UA.

Then try running a game with mid or high level casters, and tell me how it goes for you.
I know you weren't speaking to me, but that definitely wouldn't make me happy. Hence why I proposed what I did. Since it seems that proposal has been lost, ignored, or forgotten, I'll re-present it here:

1. Add an extra "cooldown" to SV, a number of days (24-hour periods, NOT long rests) equal to the spell level of the replaced spell. Replacing a 3rd-level slot means that you must wait 72 hours before you can use SV again, for any spell. Changing a first-level spell means you must wait a full 24 hours, so you cannot change 1st-level spells back to back.
2. Give Wizards passive "research point" generation (1/day when not adventuring, .5/day when adventuring) which they can spend during any long rest to instantly learn a new spell of a level they can cast. Scribing this spell is treated as though it were copying a spell they already know into a new book, but it requires no time whatsoever beyond the associated long rest (as the scribing time is already represented by the time required to collect the research points).

The first adds an opportunity cost to SV, one narrowly tailored to people hot-swapping niche spells. This avoids penalizing mere "dud spell removal" use of SV, since characters will need at least a few days to test the replacements anyway, while making it significantly more costly to pick up a niche-but-applicable spell. Particularly for high-level spells, this restriction could even end up meaning the character levels up before they're able to use SV again. 9 days is a long time.

The second corrects the consistently-lamented problem that the Wizard is (allegedly) no longer good at having the right spell for the job. Now, although they cannot guarantee they always will for absolutely every situation, they're in very good shape to do so most of the time. They still benefit from having access to proper scrolls, books, or libraries, and the mechanic could be adjusted to make those accelerate the research (e.g. +1 extra research point if non-adventuring days are spent in active research at a library or with a colleague).

Further, this addition permanently expands the Wizard's options, while SV only temporarily shifts a spells-known caster's options, meaning Wizards legitimately benefit more from extended downtime than spells-known classes do.

Edit:
@Aimeryan's proposal, that you need to have seen the spell before, is...borderline for me. It's a little punitive, as at low levels it's unlikely that you've seen a spell you'd want to switch to. But at higher levels, especially if the Bard/Sorc/etc. has other casters in the party, it's not an unreasonable restriction.

[Segev]

Quick reply: Land druids also get the same mechanic as arcane recovery, though I think it's under a different name.


No, I didn't provide two spells. Tongues and sending do work, though. Sending, in particular, can easily be one of those spells you need only once every few days.

The issue with SV is that any spell you need only once every few days, more or less to your own schedule, now is essentially freely given to any SV class that has it on their class list. You cast it on "off days" and swap it back out for whatever necessary adventuring spell you replaced with it for that one day afterwards.

Any spell with a long duration is never one the sorcerer or bard would need to lock up their known spells with, because they just cast on an off day and swap back.

I have only a minor problem with this, and would shrug and just run with it, but the fact that wizards actually have to invest something for the same benefit is what bugs me. This kind of "off day" casting is really not what sorcerers and bards are meant to be doing, while it is what wizards are meant to be doing. I mean, several of those spells are things I might consider on a bard or sorcerer even without SV; with it, they're not even choices, because I just have them.

Examples include dominate person/monster, major image, programmed illusion, and mirage arcane. Those are just off the top of my head, without even looking at the book to remind myself of others.

[NigelWalmsley]

I like having different classes feel distinct. It was annoying in AD&D when everyone was fully Vancian and it's annoying in 5ed when everyone (with some differences) is at least quasi spontaneous.

I agree. Part of what was compelling about 3e was the variety of ways classes work. I wish 5e had done more of that kind of thing.

[Dork_Forge]

Quick reply: Land druids also get the same mechanic as arcane recovery, though I think it's under a different name.

On mobile so AFB, but I think it's natural recovery, though it should be noted that its the main aspect of the Land Druid, a subclass meant to be the most castery Druid rather than just a core class feature like Wizard. Side mini rant, Arcane Recovery really grinds my gears, it's completely unnecessary and doesn't stick with a consistent theme for the Wizard. It's also a very potent ability that tips the balance of Wizard into the favoured child territory.

To the thread in general, I don't understand why Wizard defenders here aren't acknowledging the huge advantage Wizards have in the sheer number of spells the know and can prepare. When mixed with the ability to scribe more in and ritually class spells NOT prepared (the most powerful version of ritual casting, exclusive to the Wizard) on the biggest and most diverse spell list....

Even with SV Wizards ARE still the I've got just the thing for that class, SV doesn't change that between the limited spell lists, time cost and limited spells known. This UA seems to be trying to address things classes
Seem to be lacking in (either perceived to be lacking by the designers and/or players through feedback). The Wizard got nothing but some extra spells, that should say something about the current state of the Wizard.

[Segev]

On mobile so AFB, but I think it's natural recovery, though it should be noted that its the main aspect of the Land Druid, a subclass meant to be the most castery Druid rather than just a core class feature like Wizard. Side mini rant, Arcane Recovery really grinds my gears, it's completely unnecessary and doesn't stick with a consistent theme for the Wizard. It's also a very potent ability that tips the balance of Wizard into the favoured child territory.You won't get me disagreeing; I don't care about Arcane Recovery, and wouldn't complain if it vanished, especially if something more interesting (not necessarily more powerful, just more interesting) replaced it.


To the thread in general, I don't understand why Wizard defenders here aren't acknowledging the huge advantage Wizards have in the sheer number of spells the know and can prepare. When mixed with the ability to scribe more in and ritually class spells NOT prepared (the most powerful version of ritual casting, exclusive to the Wizard) on the biggest and most diverse spell list.... I haven't seen anybody denying it. But it's kind-of irrelevant. Because it's beside the point, at least for me.


Even with SV Wizards ARE still the I've got just the thing for that class, SV doesn't change that between the limited spell lists, time cost and limited spells known. This UA seems to be trying to address things classes
Seem to be lacking in (either perceived to be lacking by the designers and/or players through feedback). The Wizard got nothing but some extra spells, that should say something about the current state of the Wizard.I know what it's trying to address. And it does an okay job at it. It just has unintended side-effects whereby, no, wizards are no longer the best class to play if you want to have "just the thing...tomorrow."

[Theaitetos]

No, I didn't provide two spells. Tongues and sending do work, though. Sending, in particular, can easily be one of those spells you need only once every few days.

I mean, several of those spells are things I might consider on a bard or sorcerer even without SV; with it, they're not even choices, because I just have them.

Oh really, you would seriously consider Tongues on a Sorcerer even without SV? How about you post your sorcerer spell list without SV here for all to see?

To me, it seems you aren't playing your wizards very creative, because you're kind of spoiled by their large spells known every day. Tongues is an unnecessary spell for any creative wizard who has the Comprehend Languages ritual written into his spellbook, since this ritual can easily replace Tongues (without even using a single spell slot when cast as a ritual, which is totally free for wizards).

And Sending, which isn't even a sorcerer spell, can usually be replaced by sending one's familiar, which wizards too can freely acquire with the Find Familiar ritual spell. A wizard can even send to several people at once with the new Flock of Familiars spell, which is a 2nd-level spell while Sending is 3rd-level.


Examples include dominate person/monster, major image, programmed illusion, and mirage arcane. Those are just off the top of my head, without even looking at the book to remind myself of others.

Programmed Illusion and Mirage Arcane aren't even sorcerer spells.

And none of the other spells are somehow super-breaking spells, that they're worth waiting for an entire day to overcome some huge plot/adventure obstacle:

Dominate Person is a combat spell, since out-of-combat there are other spells like Suggestion available that don't just last 1 minute.
Dominate Monster is a powerful 8th-level spell – in which kind of situation would a party (with 8th-level spell slots available) decide that there is no other spell able to help and decide to wait for an entire day just for this spell?
And Major Image is a very nice spell with incredible versatility – but is it a) really worth waiting for for an entire day, b) really not a spell that most wizards take at level 6 or copy even earlier, and c) really so un-useful that it's not among the many wizard spells prepared?

I still think you should post your sorcerer spell list without SV. Choose a level, or several levels, and teach us.

[Bosh]

I agree. Part of what was compelling about 3e was the variety of ways classes work. I wish 5e had done more of that kind of thing.

Yeah, I've got a lot of love for 3.5ed in all it's baroque broken glory. It's like the Gormenghast of D&D editions.

The great thing about a class based system is you can have classes that a majority of the playerbase would never be caught dead playing because a minority love them.

I'm starting to realize that the 5ed version of the rogue (specifically the "fast hands" ability of the thief sub class) is the class dedicated to making me happy despite it not being a particularly popular class or subclass.

Same with the champion fighter. Most people HATE saying "I hit it with my sword" every combat round but it's perfect for a minority of people so it's a good design (my son loves it for example).

Having all the casters jammed into such a small design space (quasi-Vancian, quasi sponteous) is a bit weird. Have a full on at-will caster (with some champion-fighter style nova buttons), a full-on no cantrips no exceptions Vancian wizard and a sorcerer or whatever in the middle and make each mnority happy.

[Segev]

What is with this assumption that I'm calling anything "super-breaking?"

And yes, depending on the character, I MIGHT take tongues on a sorcerer. Probably not, no, but I might. It would be much more likely on a Charm-focused one.

It seems to me that people who resort to insulting intelligence and creativity are afraid they're losing the argument, and I'm not even trying to have an argument. I'm trying to suggest we come up with a way to fix an issue. And the primary argument against even trying that I seem to be seeing is, "I hate wizards and want to stick it to them." I'm not even exaggerating; there've been several posts about how it's about time wizards got what's coming to them, in one way of wording it or another.

[ezekielraiden]

And the primary argument against even trying that I seem to be seeing is, "I hate wizards and want to stick it to them." I'm not even exaggerating; there've been several posts about how it's about time wizards got what's coming to them, in one way of wording it or another.

I think you are having a small but vital misunderstanding, at least as it pertains to what I've said in this vein. That is, Wizards have always been really good. Like, really really really good. To the point that the lead designer of 4e explicitly said that he had to fight a constant, pervasive push toward Wizards being just a little bit better than all other classes. He even recognized that they might have overcorrected slightly, but that that was an acceptable situation for him.

It is that latter feeling that I am expressing. Wizards have pretty much always been amazing. Other classes have risen and fallen over the years (Cleric and Fighter are two key examples, usually but not always moving in opposite directions), but other than possibly during early 4e, Wizards have always been extremely good. Sorcerers, meanwhile, have usually been at best second fiddle, and Bards even moreso (being a bizarro esoteric build in 1e, a weak generalist in 2e, and the intended average power in 3e when Wiz/CoDzilla were at their peak).

5e is really the first time both of them have been within spitting distance of "actually really good, arguably better" territory compared to the Wizard. So yeah, there's going to be a certain amount of, "Why do we always have to cater to the Wizard? Maybe it's not such a bad thing that the Wizard is, for once, second fiddle to someone else." Particularly given that Spell Versatility does not take anything from the Wizard. It is purely additive; any complaints a Wizard might have are solely "why aren't you giving ME things?" Which, regardless of how it's intended, can very much sound petulant and grasping, expecting that no matter what happens to the power of other classes, Wizards always need to get at least as much support as others. Doesn't matter if it's to fulfill the class fantasy or to make the fluff text accurate or whatever else.

It is not such an unreasonable thing, to have two parties where the first has pretty much always had Very Many Nice Things and the second has pretty much always had Fewer Nice Things, to give a Rather Nice Thing to the latter such that it maybe possibly sometimes could lead to it being better than the first party. When the first party almost immediately demands either such restrictions on that free rein, to the point that it's really not changed anything at all, or compensation for not getting enhanced, it begins to sound like the only acceptable situation is where the first party has more Nice Things than the second party, and that any situation where that is reversed is not only unacceptable, but necessarily unacceptable.

Edit:
And, as noted, I have presented what seems to me like a perfectly cromulent slight reduction to SV's power, while also presenting a concomitant benefit for Wizards that would almost erase the difference. Not entirely, but close enough to equalized that any further complaints seem, to me, like it really does have to be that Wizards must be better than Sorcerers and Bards, not merely approximately-as-good.

[Hytheter]

I disagree. Wizards are the only class that naturally gets Arcane Recovery, giving them (level/2) extra spell slots per day. Because costs scale faster than SP gain, Sorcerers won't break even until high-ish level.

Might want to double check your maths on that one.

At second level, a Wizard can get one first level spell with Arcane recovery, while a Sorcerer can use their 2sp for one 1st level spell. So they're even to start with.

At level 3 the Wizard pulls ahead slightly as he can get one 2nd level spell or two 1st level spells, but the sorcerer matches or slightly exceeds that by 4th (two 1st level spells or a 2nd level spell plus change).

At 5th/6th, the Wizard can get one 3rd OR one 2nd one 1st OR three 1st. At 5th the sorcerer can get one 3rd OR one 2nd one 1st OR two 1st, while at 6th he can get one 3rd plus change OR *two* 2nd OR one 2nd one 1st plus change 1st OR three 1st.

So the wizard and sorcerer break even immediately, though the advantage swings back and forth slightly each level (the wizard wins odd levels, the sorcerer wins even levels).

But at level 7-8 the sorcerer pulls ahead for good. The wizard's One 4th vs the sorcerer's one 4th and change (one 4th one 1st at level 8). The Wizard's one 3rd one 1st vs the sorcerer's one 3rd one 1st (plus change or 2nd instead of 1st at level 8). The Wizard's two 2nd vs the sorcerer's two 2nd plus change (or two 2nd one 1st at level 8). Wizards can uniquely get four 1st level spells at 7, but at 8 sorcerers can too.


So in summary, they certainly don't wait until high level to break even - they break even at 2, more or less stay like that until 6 and then stay firmly ahead from 7 to 17.

That said, I agree that they don't get "significantly more" as Segev claimed, especially since Wizards can cast rituals for free on top of their daily allotment. And indeed spending all your SP on spells slots basically means giving up your other features - if you're giving up metamagic just to break even with a wizard's spell slots, then you're just playing a wizard with fewer options.

[ezekielraiden]

Might want to double check your maths on that one.

At second level, a Wizard can get one first level spell with Arcane recovery, while a Sorcerer can use their 2sp for one 1st level spell. So they're even to start with.

At level 3 the Wizard pulls ahead slightly as he can get one 2nd level spell or two 1st level spells, but the sorcerer matches or slightly exceeds that by 4th (two 1st level spells or a 2nd level spell plus change).

At 5th/6th, the Wizard can get one 3rd OR one 2nd one 1st OR three 1st. At 5th the sorcerer can get one 3rd OR one 2nd one 1st OR two 1st, while at 6th he can get one 3rd plus change OR *two* 2nd OR one 2nd one 1st plus change 1st OR three 1st.

So the wizard and sorcerer break even immediately, though the advantage swings back and forth slightly each level (the wizard wins odd levels, the sorcerer wins even levels).

But at level 7-8 the sorcerer pulls ahead for good. The wizard's One 4th vs the sorcerer's one 4th and change (one 4th one 1st at level 8). The Wizard's one 3rd one 1st vs the sorcerer's one 3rd one 1st (plus change or 2nd instead of 1st at level 8). The Wizard's two 2nd vs the sorcerer's two 2nd plus change (or two 2nd one 1st at level 8). Wizards can uniquely get four 1st level spells at 7, but at 8 sorcerers can too.


So in summary, they certainly don't wait until high level to break even - they break even at 2, more or less stay like that until 6 and then stay firmly ahead from 7 to 17.

That said, I agree that they don't get "significantly more" as Segev claimed, especially since Wizards can cast rituals for free on top of their daily allotment. And indeed spending all your SP on spells slots basically means giving up your other features - if you're giving up metamagic just to break even with a wizard's spell slots, then you're just playing a wizard with fewer options.

Okay well, I disagree with where you're drawing the line for "breaking even" though I admit I was probably under-valuing the benefit of having exactly one extra 1st level spell *if* you've blown all your SP for the day. (I tacitly assumed that a 1st level spell was probably less worthwhile than some metamagic, given that 1st level spells are by far the least efficient expenditure of SP-for-slots, costing 2x level rather than 1.5x-round-down.)

But yes, the core thrust of my argument was the suggestion that Sorcerers have "significantly more" slots. That is...basically never true, particularly when Spell Mastery and Signature Spells kick in. It's only at fairly high levels (10+) where the Sorcerer can afford anything more than a single first-level slot beyond what Arcane Recovery grants a Wizard (or Natural Recovery grants a Land Druid).

[Corran]

I have only a minor problem with this, and would shrug and just run with it, but the fact that wizards actually have to invest something for the same benefit is what bugs me.
It shouldn't. By which I mean, that arguing balance concerns is only one of the ways to look at it.


This kind of "off day" casting is really not what sorcerers and bards are meant to be doing, while it is what wizards are meant to be doing. I mean, several of those spells are things I might consider on a bard or sorcerer even without SV; with it, they're not even choices, because I just have them.
Bullseye! Even if spell versatility helps balance some of the classes, it does so by trying to make them function as similarly as possible. With every new UA (especially with the latest ones though), choosing a class feels like becoming less and less of an impactful decision.

Personally, I think that clerics are s*****d from spell versatility. But this (ie what class benefits or not, and by how much) is simply beside the point (since we are talking about class identities).

[KillingTime]

Clerics can swap out their entire load in one night. That's much more powerful than SV.

[Anymage]

Okay, so, why wasn't this a problem worthy of comment before SV? I haven't ever heard this complaint before literally this thread, and even if I had, doesn't this argue a lot more that Wizards should get a (small but meaningful) buff so that Sorcerers, Bards, and Rangers aren't staying crapped-on relative to literally everyone else including Wizards?

Ultimately? Neither clerics nor druids have expanded too far from their basic phb lists yet, and neither is all that sexy. It's the same reason that CoDzilla went unnoticed for so long in early 3e.

Still, at heart, my problem comes any time that one game element lets you scour through any relevant books to come up with a solution, because it limits design space for future options and ensures that someone will forget that new things have to be created with that feature in mind. The polymorph line is notorious for being able to find that one creature with super beefy stats and going to town. Summoning similarly has people scouring books for things with useful magical abilities; summoning pixies was already enough of a problem that summoning spells had to be "fixed" by making them super awkward. Being able to pick through all published spells to choose whatever you want in the morning sends up similar flags for me.


Then, uh, how does it get fixed? Especially if I don't actually see this as a "sledgehammer" feature. You seem to agree that there's a serious problem with at least the Sorcerer and possibly the Bard, one that should be fixed. Why not fix it, and then also give some small benefit so that Wizards don't feel left out? ... Really, these suggestions more and more make me think that SV is more or less perfectly fine for Sorcerers, because of the Sorcerer's very limited spell list.

First. If your brakes-on proposal is to institute a one day per spell level cooldown after using SV while mine is a one day per spell level upfront cost, we seem to be narrowing in on an acceptable limiter. Put that in, and the wizard doesn't need to gain anything. SV becomes a mistake fixer and limited ability to prepare, not an ability to pick situational spells with just a bit of heads up.

Second, assuming that the sorcerer is happy with their spell list on a given morning, the fact still remains that they have a hard time keeping up. Their spells known remain really tight (I have a hunch that features like ravnica backgrounds that add known spells were playing around with stealth fixes to this), and their spell points are too limited to sustain both meaningful metamagic use and the spell slot volume they had back in 3e. Losing their shtick for spontaneous casting hurt, and the things intended to replace it haven't held up.

That needs to be addressed with errata, though. Ignoring how SV should also look at how someone like the bard could make use of it, the sorcerer's shtick shouldn't be "I'm usually severely limited, but sometimes I can pull out the perfect solution to an intermediate term problem" should not be their thing. On days when SV doesn't let them pull out a perfectly tailored solution, being saddled with all the sorcerer flaws still sounds rather unsatisfying.

[HiveStriker]

I really don't get the people complaining about "Wizard vs other casters".

That kind of rant that leaves a feeling of egocentrical behaviour is beyond me. But let's put aside the "what do you care about goodies other casters get if you enjoy playing a Wizard" to adress something much more primordial.

Let's recall something basic but essential: 5e (and D&d in general) IS DESIGNED AS A PARTY GAME.

Consequences?
- Wizard is the only caster in party: then the whole debate is completely pointless, as Wizard will always be the one party turns up to for specific spells.
- Wizard is not the only caster in party, there is, random example, a Druid: whole debate still as pointless since Druid were prepared casters in the first place. To note though, Wizard could already "learn" many spells from Druid (let's recall they have roughly 40 spells commun, cantrips excluded of course).
- Wizard is not the only caster in party, there is, another random example, a Bard: well congrats, now the Bard can "feed" the Wizard with all spells they have in common without hurting his own taste, provided enough downtime (they have like what, around 60? 70? Spells in common).
(Well, unless DM decides that for some reason casters would not know how to at least write down spells on a scroll, but I don't see any legitimate reason for that?).

People should stop whining about Wizards not having spell swap. It's not in their ADN, it would be incredibly fluff-breaking to make it work. And anyways, you should not play a Wizard for the "spell versatility" if you don't expect DM to go half-way towards you...

People should cry in joy that every other class can swap a spell per long rest, because any Wizard in a party with such caster becomes incredibly less dependent on DM for extra spells. Instead of "getting jealous" for no reason.

(Which incidentally and consequentially means that, now at least with that variant rule in play, a Wizard can hope to best a Druid in the long run in actual, real-life situations versatility).

EDIT: with that said, I completely understand (and share) people concerns fluff-wise. Seems to me it kinda breaks Sorcerer's essence (as much as it's a welcome addition for qualify of life mechanically), and while I could get for Warlock (ask your patron) I fail to see justification for Bard.
Also, my personal opinion of that change balance-wise is that really, only the Sorcerer needed it because only Sorcerer has nearly all features directly tied to spellcasting and spell choice. All other have enough non-spellcasting features to cope waiting the next level to swap a spell that proved underwhelming, or bear not having *all* the spells they wanted, especially since their spell list is always oriented towards a few areas.
So, if I was the one choosing what/how to keep, I'd let only Sorcerer have it.
Then again, if everyone gets it, well, good for everyone.

[HiveStriker]

Oh really, you would seriously consider Tongues on a Sorcerer even without SV? How about you post your sorcerer spell list without SV here for all to see?

To me, it seems you aren't playing your wizards very creative, because you're kind of spoiled by their large spells known every day. Tongues is an unnecessary spell for any creative wizard who has the Comprehend Languages ritual written into his spellbook, since this ritual can easily replace Tongues (without even using a single spell slot when cast as a ritual, which is totally free for wizards).

Sorry to chime in, but since you allow yourself to predjuge on other people's creativity, let me present my ultimate spy (well to be honest build here is far from ultimate, but I don't recall exactly how I made it ^^ Main idea is here though).

Sorcerer 7 / Tome Warlock 5-7 (Sorcerer 1 -> Warlock 1 -> Sorcerer 3 -> Warlock 3 -> Sorcerer 5 -> Warlock 5 etc). Preferably Divine Soul for some useful spells and rituals like Command, Augury, Zone of Truth, Speak With Dead.
Start Half-Elf or other race with high CHA.
Grab Command (Sorcerer or Warlock archetype), Comprehend languages (which you'll later write as ritual), Disguise Self (possibly Invocation), Invisibility (Sorcerer -> Warlock), Silence (Divine Soul), Suggestion, Misty Step, Detect Thoughts, Fly, then later Tongues and Polymorph.
Learn Observant and Keen Mind.
Obviously grab Extend and Subtle, as well as Persuasion, Stealth, Acrobatics and Sleight of Hand proficiency (Expertise in Persuasion would be a plus, proficiency in Insight can be nice too)

Congrats, you can now understand everyone's talks from up to 1 mile away (feat) or as close as a few feet (Polymorphed as a mouse), all day when in non directly hostile environments (Extend spell to supplement if need be when short rests, well, are in short supply if I may), and you memorize 100% of it.

You can also learn and write down Cleric and Sorcerer rituals as you level on your Warlock Ritual Book to further make you the powerhouse of problem solving besides plain life & death fight.

Yeah, you know close to 0 offensive spells besides cantrips. Who cares really? You are manipulating everyone into doing your bidding anyways... :)

[Dork_Forge]

Also, my personal opinion of that change balance-wise is that really, only the Sorcerer needed it because only Sorcerer has nearly all features directly tied to spellcasting and spell choice. All other have enough non-spellcasting features to cope waiting the next level to swap a spell that proved underwhelming, or bear not having *all* the spells they wanted, especially since their spell list is always oriented towards a few areas.
So, if I was the one choosing what/how to keep, I'd let only Sorcerer have it.
Then again, if everyone gets it, well, good for everyone.

The main aim of the change is not to provide day to day utility but to prevent people getting stuck with spells they don't want, the designers have received data that shows that people are playing much longer per level than they intended (so swapping spells on level up isn't as they desired). I think because of that it should stay as a Warlock and Bard feature too, but since the aim isn't day to day versatility just make it a downtime thing. It becomes a lot less abuseable (though imo only in very niche situations) when you need to spend a full 24 hours to swap out a spell.

[HiveStriker]

The main aim of the change is not to provide day to day utility but to prevent people getting stuck with spells they don't want, the designers have received data that shows that people are playing much longer per level than they intended (so swapping spells on level up isn't as they desired). I think because of that it should stay as a Warlock and Bard feature too, but since the aim isn't day to day versatility just make it a downtime thing. It becomes a lot less abuseable (though imo only in very niche situations) when you need to spend a full 24 hours to swap out a spell.
Well, it's funny you would say that because that's precisely how I got the developer's intent too...
But I still disagree that it's really necessary.
- Bards have Expertise in skills, different uses of Bardic Inspirations, decent weapon and armor proficiencies.
- Warlocks have free spammable spells, many non-spell features that are very useful (Patron ones, plus super familiar or big utility expansion with rituals and cantrips, or very good mundane martial ability).
- Sorcerers get... Errr... Ahem... A handful of non-spell features when you put all archetype features together! Everything else is directly tied to spell casting. Putting even more pressure on spell choice.

That's my view behind backing the idea that if that idea were to be officialized, only Sorcerer should get it. DM would of course still be free to extend the privilege. :)

[Dork_Forge]

Sorry to chime in, but since you allow yourself to predjuge on other people's creativity, let me present my ultimate spy (well to be honest build here is far from ultimate, but I don't recall exactly how I made it ^^ Main idea is here though).

Sorcerer 7 / Tome Warlock 5-7 (Sorcerer 1 -> Warlock 1 -> Sorcerer 3 -> Warlock 3 -> Sorcerer 5 -> Warlock 5 etc). Preferably Divine Soul for some useful spells and rituals like Command, Augury, Zone of Truth, Speak With Dead.
Start Half-Elf or other race with high CHA.
Grab Command (Sorcerer or Warlock archetype), Comprehend languages (which you'll later write as ritual), Disguise Self (possibly Invocation), Invisibility (Sorcerer -> Warlock), Silence (Divine Soul), Suggestion, Misty Step, Detect Thoughts, Fly, then later Tongues and Polymorph.
Learn Observant and Keen Mind.
Obviously grab Extend and Subtle, as well as Persuasion, Stealth, Acrobatics and Sleight of Hand proficiency (Expertise in Persuasion would be a plus, proficiency in Insight can be nice too)

Congrats, you can now understand everyone's talks from up to 1 mile away (feat) or as close as a few feet (Polymorphed as a mouse), all day when in non directly hostile environments (Extend spell to supplement if need be when short rests, well, are in short supply if I may), and you memorize 100% of it.

You can also learn and write down Cleric and Sorcerer rituals as you level on your Warlock Ritual Book to further make you the powerhouse of problem solving besides plain life & death fight.

Yeah, you know close to 0 offensive spells besides cantrips. Who cares really? You are manipulating everyone into doing your bidding anyways... :)

I appreciate what you're trying to do (pointing out versatility can be useful as well), but your build defeats the point of your argument. The issue was the Sorcerer's limited spells known, a problem your build doesn't suffer from since it multiclasses with Warlock. I also don't know if it's RAW (or RAI) that you can put spells from your multiclass into your Book of Shadows. The invocation is worded like a Wizard finding a scroll or spell book, nothing really indicates you can do that and Sorcerer doesn't get the Ritual Casting feature to ritual cast Cleric spells otherwise.

[Chaosmancer]

Sorry to chime in, but since you allow yourself to predjuge on other people's creativity, let me present my ultimate spy (well to be honest build here is far from ultimate, but I don't recall exactly how I made it ^^ Main idea is here though).

Sorcerer 7 / Tome Warlock 5-7 (Sorcerer 1 -> Warlock 1 -> Sorcerer 3 -> Warlock 3 -> Sorcerer 5 -> Warlock 5 etc). Preferably Divine Soul for some useful spells and rituals like Command, Augury, Zone of Truth, Speak With Dead.
Start Half-Elf or other race with high CHA.
Grab Command (Sorcerer or Warlock archetype), Comprehend languages (which you'll later write as ritual), Disguise Self (possibly Invocation), Invisibility (Sorcerer -> Warlock), Silence (Divine Soul), Suggestion, Misty Step, Detect Thoughts, Fly, then later Tongues and Polymorph.
Learn Observant and Keen Mind.
Obviously grab Extend and Subtle, as well as Persuasion, Stealth, Acrobatics and Sleight of Hand proficiency (Expertise in Persuasion would be a plus, proficiency in Insight can be nice too)

Congrats, you can now understand everyone's talks from up to 1 mile away (feat) or as close as a few feet (Polymorphed as a mouse), all day when in non directly hostile environments (Extend spell to supplement if need be when short rests, well, are in short supply if I may), and you memorize 100% of it.

You can also learn and write down Cleric and Sorcerer rituals as you level on your Warlock Ritual Book to further make you the powerhouse of problem solving besides plain life & death fight.

Yeah, you know close to 0 offensive spells besides cantrips. Who cares really? You are manipulating everyone into doing your bidding anyways... :)


Sorry to be picky, but with the new UA what is the point of the Sorcerer in this build as compared to taking wizard?

Command can come from Warlock, Augury and Speak with Dead are now wizard spells. They get all the other rituals except Silence and Zone of Truth.

But, you can use the rituals through the wizard's book, meaning you could swap to chainlock and get an invisible familiar that can observe and allow you to read lips of everyone up to... anywhere on the same plane of existence. And, with the familiar you might not need subtle, along with just being hidden or other such things.

And extend was only if you were low on spell slots.


Finally, this isn't a "sorcerer", this is a warlock being supplemented by the Sorcerer. Tongues is far less useful on a pure sorcerer. Not worthless, it allows you to talk back to people (if you just want to understand them, Comprehend Languages is better since it is cheaper) which can be good, but it isn't a great choice.

[Theaitetos]

Tongues is far less useful on a pure sorcerer. Not worthless, it allows you to talk back to people (if you just want to understand them, Comprehend Languages is better since it is cheaper) which can be good, but it isn't a great choice.

Comprehend Languages allows you to talk back via paper: Just grab a document written in the foreigner's language (you can also read all languages) and then point at single words in the document with your finger to formulate sentences. The other person can then simply "read" what you are "saying".

[Chaosmancer]

Comprehend Languages allows you to talk back via paper: Just grab a document written in the foreigner's language (you can also read all languages) and then point at single words in the document with your finger to formulate sentences. The other person can then simply "read" what you are "saying".

Fair enough, a pain in the butt but clearly possible.

[diplomancer]

Comprehend Languages allows you to talk back via paper: Just grab a document written in the foreigner's language (you can also read all languages) and then point at single words in the document with your finger to formulate sentences. The other person can then simply "read" what you are "saying".

I am not a professional translator, but I am pretty sure that this method could lead to horrible (or funny) misinterpretations

[MaxWilson]

RE: class identity, if you're going to give warlocks, sorcerers and bards an automatic built-in spell book bigger than the wizard's, you might as well give the wizard flexible casting better than the sorcerer's: that is, use the DMG Spell Point variant, but restrict it to wizards, warlocks, and bards. Sorcerers still have to cast with spell slots, so they're now worse (less efficient) at converting big spells into small spells and vice-versa, which was previously their shtick.

Doesn't feel so good, right? Classes which are best at a certain thing in a certain game should STAY best at that thing instead of becoming the worst in an optional, late-breaking rules supplement.

(Yes, yes, wizards were never the best at knowing all the spells anyway--clerics and druids were always the best because wizards have to find their spells in the wild. I know.)


Comprehend Languages allows you to talk back via paper: Just grab a document written in the foreigner's language (you can also read all languages) and then point at single words in the document with your finger to formulate sentences. The other person can then simply "read" what you are "saying".

Having attempted to use this method in real life as a way to learn languages (refer to an known translation of a specific book written in the other language), I will say that this method is cripplingly slow even *before* you try to express something moderately abstract like the concept "instead."

[Theaitetos]

It's similar to talking to a mute person: The mute guy (caster) can understand everything the other person says, but needs to show ("sign language") what he means on paper. It's not cripplingly slow unless you want to hold a philosophic debate…

[MaxWilson]

It's similar to talking to a mute person: The mute guy (caster) can understand everything the other person says, but needs to show ("sign language") what he means on paper. It's not cripplingly slow unless you want to hold a philosophic debate…

Can you restate your opinion here using only references to words on page #1 of this thread? How long would it take you to do that?

A mute person can at least write down what he means. You can't do that--you can only hunt for words already written elsewhere (and hope they mean the same thing out of context). It's much, much slower IME. I chose the word "instead" as an example because I spent literally days hunting for that word (in addition to doing other stuff of course), and the experience stuck in my mind.

[diplomancer]

Can you restate your opinion here using only references to words on page #1 of this thread? How long would it take you to do that?

A mute person can at least write down what he means. You can't do that--you can only hunt for words already written elsewhere (and hope they mean the same thing out of context). It's much, much slower IME. I chose the word "instead" as an example because I spent literally days hunting for that word (in addition to doing other stuff of course), and the experience stuck in my mind.

To the point that, in the comprehend languages/tongues case, it's probably better (both more efficient and more accurate) to use mimicry and have the other person ask yes or no questions to clarify your meaning. Make a performance check out of it to get more use out of an underused skill.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Why exactly are we comparing swapping a single spell per LR vs swapping Int+Level (assume 4 at level 1, 25 at 20) ?

They don't remotely equal each other.

[MaxWilson]

Why exactly are we comparing swapping a single spell per LR vs swapping Int+Level (assume 4 at level 1, 25 at 20) ?

They don't remotely equal each other.

Because the freedom granted by swapping to ANY spell on your class list every single long rest is greater than the freedom to potentially swap a large number of spells to a small preselected subset of the total spells on your class list. Generally you don't even really WANT to swap a large number of spells, you just want something specific like Raise Dead, Planar Ally, or Teleport without having to pay a permanent cost for it.

[diplomancer]

Why exactly are we comparing swapping a single spell per LR vs swapping Int+Level (assume 4 at level 1, 25 at 20) ?

They don't remotely equal each other.

Because the single one is from a list of more than a hundred and fifty (depending on how it is implemented, the divine soul sorcerer would get to pick from about 250 spells), making it very versatile, while the 25 might be from as small a list as 44, and because the guy who has the smaller list is supposed to have versatility as one of his main selling points.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

He still has versatility as his main selling point. Yeah there's more than 100 spells but most double up in purpose.

You have Chromatic Orb? Don't need Burning Hands or Witch Bolt or Magic Missile.

Have Comprehend Languages? Don't need Tongues.

Also we're talking a very narrow area ofna game where the DM specifically screws over the Wizard Player AND there's a Bard/Sorc in the party.

[Anymage]

He still has versatility as his main selling point. Yeah there's more than 100 spells but most double up in purpose.

If having broadly applicable spells is enough to grant versatility, the sorcerer would be happy with just a small handful of these very flexible spells. Sorcerer fans are not happy, and I can't say I blame them. Feeling constrained to just the handful of super flexible options makes it feel like there are only a handful of viable cookie-cutter builds.


Also we're talking a very narrow area ofna game where the DM specifically screws over the Wizard Player AND there's a Bard/Sorc in the party.

The wizard has to prioritize which spells they want more than others, if for no other reason than because no practically existing wizard will have the cash to afford scribing every spell. That's before you even reach the question of finding copies of everything.

That, and it's been covered how being able to pick the ideal solution off a list every morning will, best case scenario, severely limit future design space because nobody wants to put silver bullets on the relevant spell list. Worst case scenario, silver bullet spells do get printed and being able to pick them in the morning becomes a huge power boost.

[Dork_Forge]

If having broadly applicable spells is enough to grant versatility, the sorcerer would be happy with just a small handful of these very flexible spells. Sorcerer fans are not happy, and I can't say I blame them. Feeling constrained to just the handful of super flexible options makes it feel like there are only a handful of viable cookie-cutter builds.



The wizard has to prioritize which spells they want more than others, if for no other reason than because no practically existing wizard will have the cash to afford scribing every spell. That's before you even reach the question of finding copies of everything.

That, and it's been covered how being able to pick the ideal solution off a list every morning will, best case scenario, severely limit future design space because nobody wants to put silver bullets on the relevant spell list. Worst case scenario, silver bullet spells do get printed and being able to pick them in the morning becomes a huge power boost.

I think the think missing from your thoughts though is theme, it's baked into both subclasses and how people inherently create characters. Wizard players will pick a school and likely focus will fall largely on that school/playstyle and that's where the issue comes in. A Wizard (without scribing) easily has enough spells for the essentials (Shield, Mage Armor, Absorb Elements) and their niche spells with some room left over for general utility. A Sorcerer doesn't have that luxury, if you're not a Draconic Origin then you're 2-3 spells down on nothing but staying alive (because for some stupid reason Sorcs are also a D6 class). As levels increase the problem really just become worse, you get higher slots so want the new spells but still want/need some of those lower ones, meanwhile the Wizard started with 6 and by the time the Sorc catches up to that will have 14. The versatility of prepared casters comes from the ability to reshuffle every morning and the versatility of the Wizard comes from the sheer number of spells they know (and the abililty to ritual cast non prepped) it always has in 5e and should stay that way. The spell versatility thing isn't ideal, ideally a player could just talk to the DM and to maintain having fun a dud can be swapped out, but the designers clearly see an issue with what seems to happen instead. I think just slapping a day of downtime on it would be enough, but there's no mechanical reason to justify buffing an already powerful class for no reason other than perceived identity encroachment.

On the silver bullets thing, I can't see and still haven't seen an example given in this thread where being able to grab a single spell over a LR actually poses an issue after the publication of Xanathar's and the medley of spells put in various adventures. Maybe this is harkening back to issues in previous editions? But unless some serious issues with supplements happen (given the glacial pace we receive these it is unlikely) there's no solid basis for the silver bullet issue.

Key point: These are variant rules and will likely be published as variants to not diminish the PHB, so if this actually proves a problem or a DM has an issue with this for any reason they can just say no. Feat at first level being troublesome? No Variant Human. Multiclassing giving you headaches? No multiclassing. The core of 5e is meant to be very simple with all the juicy stuff an optional bolt on to help deal with this.

[MaxWilson]

Also we're talking a very narrow area ofna game where the DM specifically screws over the Wizard Player AND there's a Bard/Sorc in the party.

Or just a player who chose to play and wizard and is unhappy with the rules being changed in midgame, even if there isn't a bard/sorc in the party, because he might have chosen differently if those rules had been announced at the beginning.

[TheUser]

Not sure if anyone here cares about AL but it should be noted that finding scrolls and exchanging spell book notes is not limited by the PHB+1 rule, only the spells gained from levelling up.

A Hobgoblin Invoker can have Dawn if he finds a scroll or another wizard with the spell.
Same with a Bladesinger and Shadowblade.

Kill an enemy with a Spellbook, grab a customised scroll reward here and there, or just straight up beg a friend to grab a non-phb+1 spell you want and trade them one of your own level up options for a wee bit of gold out of pocket.

The Wizard's unique mechanic is not only extremely easy to abuse with another Wizard in the group (grabbing spells the other wants on level up and having +4 new spells per level from copying potentially) but just straight up better in standardized play the more sourcebooks come out.

[HiveStriker]

Sorry to be picky, but with the new UA what is the point of the Sorcerer in this build as compared to taking wizard?

Command can come from Warlock, Augury and Speak with Dead are now wizard spells. They get all the other rituals except Silence and Zone of Truth.

But, you can use the rituals through the wizard's book, meaning you could swap to chainlock and get an invisible familiar that can observe and allow you to read lips of everyone up to... anywhere on the same plane of existence. And, with the familiar you might not need subtle, along with just being hidden or other such things.

And extend was only if you were low on spell slots.


Finally, this isn't a "sorcerer", this is a warlock being supplemented by the Sorcerer. Tongues is far less useful on a pure sorcerer. Not worthless, it allows you to talk back to people (if you just want to understand them, Comprehend Languages is better since it is cheaper) which can be good, but it isn't a great choice.
True, I posted my build without thinking that that particular build was off-mark pertaining the thread.

So let me present a (near) pure Sorcerer adaptation (simply, my build with single dip into Hexblade Warlock).
By the way, just, "Augury and Speak With Dead are now Wizard spells". No, they are not. We are still speaking about Variant rules that have yet to make their way to official.

Half-Elf, starting stats STR 10 / DEX 14 / CON 14 / INT 9 / WIS 13 / CHA 17.
Level 4, pick Observant (+WIS). Level 8, pick Keen Mind (+INT). Level 12, pick Elven Accuracy (+CHA). Level 16, pick Alert. Level 19, max CHA or push CON.

From Warlock, pick Armor of Agathys and Hex.
From Sorcerer, pick Shield and...
- Mage Armor -> Mirror Image -> Blur.
- Misty Step -> Thunder Step -> Far Step.
- Comprehend Languages + Tongues.
- Enhance Ability + Skill Empowerment.
- Suggestion + Mass Suggestion.
- Chromatic Orb, removed later.
- Burning Hands -> Shatter -> Fireball -> Sickening Radiance.
- Sleep -> Hypnotic Pattern.
- Invisibility.
- Disguise Self.
From Divine Soul, pick Aid, Sanctuary, Silence.
Reminder, metamagics are Subtle, Extend, and Quicken.

You have all the tools at your disposal to spend near all day being the one that understands everyone. Just use Comprehend Languages as your basis, Tongues being kept only for when you or another member of party needs to be understood by everyone.

Tongues is in fact one of the most powerful utility spells you could put your hands on. Because it's a multiplier/enabler of everything else (Suggestion / Detect Thoughts spells, lips reading with Observant, Persuasion checks from you or better a Rogue/Bard pal with proper Expertise).

What do you care that you're less good in direct fighting than most other Sorcerers you could have made? There are so many fights that have been completely averted or trivialized thanks to your information and manipulation that party can certainly bear handling itself the brunt of the rest.
(And honestly, I put the Warlock dip there because I'm afraid anyone on this forums would say the character is useless if it doesn't have at least Eldricht Blast, but you can do without imo. I think a much better single level dip would be Grave or Knowledge Cleric).

Information is power because it's from information that every decision is made. Let's never forget that. :)

[Chaosmancer]

RE: class identity, if you're going to give warlocks, sorcerers and bards an automatic built-in spell book bigger than the wizard's, you might as well give the wizard flexible casting better than the sorcerer's: that is, use the DMG Spell Point variant, but restrict it to wizards, warlocks, and bards. Sorcerers still have to cast with spell slots, so they're now worse (less efficient) at converting big spells into small spells and vice-versa, which was previously their shtick.

Doesn't feel so good, right? Classes which are best at a certain thing in a certain game should STAY best at that thing instead of becoming the worst in an optional, late-breaking rules supplement.

(Yes, yes, wizards were never the best at knowing all the spells anyway--clerics and druids were always the best because wizards have to find their spells in the wild. I know.)

And Sorcerers aren't the best at casting a lot of small spells either. They are the best at cannibalizing their own resources in a desperate attempt to keep up, and making everyone else spell points doesn't change that.

So in fact, your point proves nothing.

Wizards weren't the best at having the right spells. Sorcerers aren't the best at casting lots of little spells. And none of this applies to the simple idea of trying to let people pull out bad spells and have a little more freedom in their builds.


Having attempted to use this method in real life as a way to learn languages (refer to an known translation of a specific book written in the other language), I will say that this method is cripplingly slow even *before* you try to express something moderately abstract like the concept "instead."

Yes it is slow, but it still works.

And, since we are talking how powerful it is to wait 24 hours to get tongues, I have to ask, is "Crippling slow" mean 2 days? 36 hours to hold a conversation?

As someone who has also gone this method, I can answer with a resounding no. Sure, a 15 minute conversation might now take 2 hours, but that is still far faster than waiting 24 hours to get the perfect spell.




Because the single one is from a list of more than a hundred and fifty (depending on how it is implemented, the divine soul sorcerer would get to pick from about 250 spells), making it very versatile, while the 25 might be from as small a list as 44, and because the guy who has the smaller list is supposed to have versatility as one of his main selling points.


I know the graph was back a few pages, but let us remember. They do not get to swap for any spell from their entire list.


To reiterate for people who might have been overlooking this. Spell Versatility allows you to swap a spell for a spell of the same level.

So, you want a new 5th level spell, you have to give up a 5th level spell. And, to remind people of this as well, Sorcerers tend to have only 1 or 2 spells of a given level, unless they start following common advice like "get rid of all your 1st level spells and use those slots to make more sorcerery points so you can do metamagic" in which case, they could never swap for a useful 1st level spell, because they will have no 1st level spells to swap.

This is a massive limiter for the sorcerer, and still a big one for warlocks and bards, who also will only have around 3 or 4 spells at most in a given level. This matters in the decision making process, because you have to give up a powerful option you wanted (because you chose it at level up for you build) to even use Spell Versatility in the first place.




By the way, just, "Augury and Speak With Dead are now Wizard spells". No, they are not. We are still speaking about Variant rules that have yet to make their way to official.

I would argue that if we are trying to prove "this UA is overpowered because it hurts the wizard" then allowing the things it does to empower the wizard to show up are completely valid points.


Half-Elf, starting stats STR 10 / DEX 14 / CON 14 / INT 9 / WIS 13 / CHA 17.
Level 4, pick Observant (+WIS). Level 8, pick Keen Mind (+INT). Level 12, pick Elven Accuracy (+CHA). Level 16, pick Alert. Level 19, max CHA or push CON.

From Warlock, pick Armor of Agathys and Hex.
From Sorcerer, pick Shield and...
- Mage Armor -> Mirror Image -> Blur.
- Misty Step -> Thunder Step -> Far Step.
- Comprehend Languages + Tongues.
- Enhance Ability + Skill Empowerment.
- Suggestion + Mass Suggestion.
- Chromatic Orb, removed later.
- Burning Hands -> Shatter -> Fireball -> Sickening Radiance.
- Sleep -> Hypnotic Pattern.
- Invisibility.
- Disguise Self.
From Divine Soul, pick Aid, Sanctuary, Silence.
Reminder, metamagics are Subtle, Extend, and Quicken.

You have all the tools at your disposal to spend near all day being the one that understands everyone. Just use Comprehend Languages as your basis, Tongues being kept only for when you or another member of party needs to be understood by everyone.

Tongues is in fact one of the most powerful utility spells you could put your hands on. Because it's a multiplier/enabler of everything else (Suggestion / Detect Thoughts spells, lips reading with Observant, Persuasion checks from you or better a Rogue/Bard pal with proper Expertise).

A nitpick, because I nitpick, Tongues does not assist in Lip Reading, you only understand languages that you hear.


What do you care that you're less good in direct fighting than most other Sorcerers you could have made? There are so many fights that have been completely averted or trivialized thanks to your information and manipulation that party can certainly bear handling itself the brunt of the rest.
(And honestly, I put the Warlock dip there because I'm afraid anyone on this forums would say the character is useless if it doesn't have at least Eldricht Blast, but you can do without imo. I think a much better single level dip would be Grave or Knowledge Cleric).

Information is power because it's from information that every decision is made. Let's never forget that. :)

I agree, and this looks like a solid build (I also agree that the warlock dip seems extraneous, who cares if you don't have eldritch blast. )

I do wonder how many times Tongues comes up though, (since that was the particular spell talked about.) You picked Half-Elf, and you could take a background like Sage for two more languages (fits with the diplomat style polygot character you seem to be building)

And that means you know Common, Elvish and three other languages. There are 16 languages in the book, so you know about 1/3 of all spoken languages in the world (assuming the DM hasn't expanded that list) and since we are talking about a level 20 build by the end, I think it is fair to point out that you can use the Xanathar rules for training to learn a new language, it only takes 10 weeks and 250 gold, but could also be done by allies who happen to speak a language you don't (in which case I'd say it just takes the 10 weeks and maybe a few "teaching skill" checks). And for every language you learn, Tongues becomes less useful.


Which, is where I think we come back full circle to the point that caused you to post your build in the first place. Even for a character whose specialty is talking to everyone, and who has a clear goal in mind for taking Tongues, there is a lot of pressure to not take it. After all, you dropped spells like Suggestion so you could afford the mass suggestion, but wouldn't it be nice to have both of them? Tongues is taking the slot that Suggestion could go in. You dropped Thunder Step, but it is a nice damage spell, and very good for taking a non-hostile with you. Could have kept it instead if you didn't have Tongues.

You can make the argument that keeping it "just in case" and because it fits the style you want makes it easier, but considering how easy it is to work around it, eventually you may find yourself dropping it just because you are so desperate for some other part of your build to get improved.

[Rowan Wolf]

So far I have observed a lot of displeasure with the Spell Versatility and stepping on what it is to be a wizard for some members of the forum. Think about where future design can go I can only see the developers starting to get closer and closer to existing roles and fantasies as the edition continues. Partial were the wizard class is concerned is the fact they were designed with so many archetype from launch and probably gives them a more limited area to explore new ones.

Back onto the subject, in one of the dndbeyond interviews Crawford discuss the Psionic Wizard tradition and in that detailed that the spellbook is part of what make a wizard a wizard from their design decision. So I can't really see them changing how the book works after this long.

Some of this dislike for this new feature seems to be rooted in how individual poster's tables have (or perhaps do) played the game, so maybe it is not for their groups, but would be welcome in other groups.

I know that most of the discuss has centered around Sorcerer and wizard, but I find the idea added to the ranger to be quite appealing as the limited number of spell known kind of clashes with the fantasy of the Ranger for me.

[Segev]

"You whiny wizards shoudl stop being upset that others get nice things!" is a trite argument, but it's very ad hominem and misses the point.

The point isn't, "I want my wizard to be cooler than your sorcerer or bard." The point is, "Why should I play a wizard if I want to be the guy who can have the perfect arcane spell tomorrow?"

The answer is: you shouldn't. The Bard (especially) and the Sorcerer now do it better, because they don't spend money to add things to spellbooks, because they're not limited BY spellbooks.

[Rowan Wolf]

"You whiny wizards shoudl stop being upset that others get nice things!" is a trite argument, but it's very ad hominem and misses the point.

The point isn't, "I want my wizard to be cooler than your sorcerer or bard." The point is, "Why should I play a wizard if I want to be the guy who can have the perfect arcane spell tomorrow?"

The answer is: you shouldn't. The Bard (especially) and the Sorcerer now do it better, because they don't spend money to add things to spellbooks, because they're not limited BY spellbooks.

You seem awfully defense on this "whiny" point. I do not think I have made that statement, but are you arguing for the sake of argument or are your groups that hard on wizard's additional spell acquisition. Though to argue the point until Wish enters play wizards are probably the guy with the "perfect arcane spell" just not tomorrow as they have much larger list to potentially draw from many of which are unavailable to other arcane casters. Do you have as much issue with the Cleric and druid who have access to their whole list and possess many of the same problem solving spells?

[Chaosmancer]

"You whiny wizards shoudl stop being upset that others get nice things!" is a trite argument, but it's very ad hominem and misses the point.

The point isn't, "I want my wizard to be cooler than your sorcerer or bard." The point is, "Why should I play a wizard if I want to be the guy who can have the perfect arcane spell tomorrow?"

The answer is: you shouldn't. The Bard (especially) and the Sorcerer now do it better, because they don't spend money to add things to spellbooks, because they're not limited BY spellbooks.

I'll counter your point.

If you want to be the guy you has the perfect arcane spell today, you should play the wizard.

Wizards are the most powerful ritual casters in the game, and they do not need to prepare those rituals. A wizard is far more likely to have the perfect spell "just give me 10 minutes to cast it" compared to the bard "just give me 24 hours to get it"

[HiveStriker]

A nitpick, because I nitpick, Tongues does not assist in Lip Reading, you only understand languages that you hear.

Well, you are right, if you can hear you probably don't need lip reading. I guess it depends on DM taste whether you could lip when noise is not enough to really understand but that would feel cheesy.

You're right, I'm so used to use Tongues for close spying and self-learning (and teaching, strange as may be XD) languages during downtime (allowed by my DM at least) that I totally mixed up Observant and Keen Mind uses... XD

Thanks for stressing that out. :)

You're also right in the fact that, provided enough downtime, you could completely ditch the spell.
I did it myself at high high level because I finally learned all languages and I was really the people's person.

Thing is...
- You may not always have the chance to learn it (like, Draconic you *may* find some people with draconic origins to teach you. But more exotic languages? DM dependent of course).
- You may simply not have the time to learn it (like, you expected to find goblins and you find yourself with a faction of Orcs. In a desolate region, so nobody can translate for you).
- You may not be the one needing the ability to speak: you can simply keep it for when your Rogue goes spying on a "foreign" faction, where your Wizard goes to another Plane to negotiate, because he's the one with most reputation to manage something, or simply when your party crafts a strategy around mind tricks against uncommon foes.

IMO the main thing that makes it worth or not is the degree of "societality" of the campaign and/or the rules DM enforces regarding creature's knowledge.
In classic dungeoneering campaigns, or if there is no check involved ever to know about a creature, or simply encounters are generally baked into pure tactical and there is no information gathering involved...
Tongues would probably rate in the top 10 most situational spells.

If you happen to have in your party both a heavy social/spy expert that learned 2/3 of languages, AND another one that has a high rate in all "knowledge" skills, it would equally be situational.

From what I've read on this forum, rarely do people care about languages and knowledge checks.
In the games I play, those get a great importance because many of my friends like this aspect of strategy (and one group of them play characters that would die in any head-on fight anyways XD).

[MrStabby]

"You whiny wizards shoudl stop being upset that others get nice things!" is a trite argument, but it's very ad hominem and misses the point.

The point isn't, "I want my wizard to be cooler than your sorcerer or bard." The point is, "Why should I play a wizard if I want to be the guy who can have the perfect arcane spell tomorrow?"

The answer is: you shouldn't. The Bard (especially) and the Sorcerer now do it better, because they don't spend money to add things to spellbooks, because they're not limited BY spellbooks.

The point is, "Why should the wizard be the class to play if I want to be the guy who can have the perfect arcane spell tomorrow?"

Why shouldn't this be supported in other classes? Just because before a rules fix a class had a huge advantage in one area should not mean that it should continue to have that advantage after re-balancing. Precedent is an argument for never changing anything, no matter how much better it make things.

[Corran]

The point is, "Why should the wizard be the class to play if I want to be the guy who can have the perfect arcane spell tomorrow?"

Why shouldn't this be supported in other classes?
Because the more overlap the classes have in the way they function, the less meaningful picking one becomes. Don't get me wrong, I don't say that classes shouldn't overlap at all (even if that was possible). But how much they should overlap is a matter of personal preference. Or in other words, if you take a class's unique toys that significantly characterize this class, and hand them around to a few other classes, then that initial class is less unique now.

[MrStabby]

Because the more overlap the classes have in the way they function, the less meaningful picking one becomes. Don't get me wrong, I don't say that classes shouldn't overlap at all (even if that was possible). But how much they should overlap is a matter of personal preference. Or in other words, if you take a class's unique toys that significantly characterize this class, and hand them around to a few other classes, then that initial class is less unique now.

So... kind of like taking every sorcerer spell and adding it to the wizard spell list? Or are you more talking about taking spontaneous casting and adding it to every class?

If these things should not overlap, or should not in this case, then there is still the missing argument that they should be taken from the sorcerer rather than the wizard. I am not saying they should in my personal view, but any argument to that effect is conspicuously missing.

[Chaosmancer]

Well, you are right, if you can hear you probably don't need lip reading. I guess it depends on DM taste whether you could lip when noise is not enough to really understand but that would feel cheesy.

You're right, I'm so used to use Tongues for close spying and self-learning (and teaching, strange as may be XD) languages during downtime (allowed by my DM at least) that I totally mixed up Observant and Keen Mind uses... XD

Thanks for stressing that out. :)

Shrug

Like I said, nitpicking.


You're also right in the fact that, provided enough downtime, you could completely ditch the spell.
I did it myself at high high level because I finally learned all languages and I was really the people's person.

Thing is...
- You may not always have the chance to learn it (like, Draconic you *may* find some people with draconic origins to teach you. But more exotic languages? DM dependent of course).
- You may simply not have the time to learn it (like, you expected to find goblins and you find yourself with a faction of Orcs. In a desolate region, so nobody can translate for you).
- You may not be the one needing the ability to speak: you can simply keep it for when your Rogue goes spying on a "foreign" faction, where your Wizard goes to another Plane to negotiate, because he's the one with most reputation to manage something, or simply when your party crafts a strategy around mind tricks against uncommon foes.

IMO the main thing that makes it worth or not is the degree of "societality" of the campaign and/or the rules DM enforces regarding creature's knowledge.

All true, and like I said, there are reasons to keep the spell.

It is just in an odd position that the better you get in filling the role it helps you fill, the more likely the pressure to drop the spell for something else will increase.

[Corran]

If these things should not overlap, or should not in this case, then there is still the missing argument that they should be taken from the sorcerer rather than the wizard. I am not saying they should in my personal view, but any argument to that effect is conspicuously missing.
The argument, or at least my argument, is that I don't like how spell versatility acts like a pseudo spontaneous casting, because it makes classes less distinct and more interchangeable than I would like. Mind you, I don't think the game was perfect and here comes spell versatility and messes everything up, but I think it's a big step towards the wrong direction. Why would I want [bards, sorcerers, warlocks] and [clerics, druids, wizards] to start functioning that similarly? I enjoy the mechanical distinction that some classes can work with more spells while other classes have to work with fewer spells (as long as the latter is compensated somehow). It makes picking a class to be more of a consequential decision.

[Aimeryan]

The argument, or at least my argument, is that I don't like how spell versatility acts like a pseudo spontaneous casting, because it makes classes less distinct and more interchangeable than I would like.

I agree that people probably don't want homogenisation, however, I would not want one (or more) class(es) to be weaker than another just to stop homogenisation, either. Spell Versatility is a step towards homogenisation, but a leap towards fixing some of the biggest issues Sorcerers have; being able to make bad choices that may last for a significant gameplay experience.

Feel free to come up with something else that accomplishes the task without any homogenisation.

~~~

On the topic of changes to SV, the idea of a cool-down period after making the swap does not really stop the Sorcerer from being able to switch out for the perfect spell with a long rest that a Wizard could not do - it only stops this happening repeatedly within a short period of time. Given that the whole situation is likely to be exceedingly rare in the first place (see my previous post), stopping it from happening frequently hardly seems a worthy goal to aspire to.

Perhaps instead we should play on the chaotic/untrained side of the Sorcerer; instead of getting to choose what spell they get of the same level, make it random (barring those they already have). Now you can replace a bad choice, but don't get automatically get the perfect spell for the next day. If they don't like the spell they get, next long rest they can try again for something else.

[TheUser]

On the topic of changes to SV, the idea of a cool-down period after making the swap does not really stop the Sorcerer from being able to switch out for the perfect spell with a long rest that a Wizard could not do - it only stops this happening repeatedly within a short period of time. Given that the whole situation is likely to be exceedingly rare in the first place (see my previous post), stopping it from happening frequently hardly seems a worthy goal to aspire to.

Perhaps instead we should play on the chaotic/untrained side of the Sorcerer; instead of getting to choose what spell they get of the same level, make it random (barring those they already have). Now you can replace a bad choice, but don't get automatically get the perfect spell for the next day. If they don't like the spell they get, next long rest they can try again for something else.
Eww god no. A random spell? We're trying to improve player satisfaction remember?


Current limitations spell versatility has:

1. It has to be the same level you swap from
Compared to other prepared casters this is actually very significant.

2. Switching to a new spell means switching out an old one remember?

3. Warlocks and Sorcerers in particular still have exceedingly small spells known.


This isn't some catch all 100% always prepared fix. Sorcerers and Warlocks will still have roughly 33-45% less spells than a wizard and neither can ritual cast baseline. And they still only get there small retinue of spells to help prepare for unknown obstacles. This means that in the circumstance where you encounter an unforeseeable problem without any preparation, the wizard is far more likely to be able to say "I have something for that."

Wizards will also still have a superior pool of spells to draw from.

This is a mountain out of molehill; if you didn't have a problem with Druids, Clerics and Paladins drawing from their entire spell list before, I don't see how this all of a sudden is an upheaval of the Wizard's niche.

[Chaosmancer]

On the topic of changes to SV, the idea of a cool-down period after making the swap does not really stop the Sorcerer from being able to switch out for the perfect spell with a long rest that a Wizard could not do - it only stops this happening repeatedly within a short period of time. Given that the whole situation is likely to be exceedingly rare in the first place (see my previous post), stopping it from happening frequently hardly seems a worthy goal to aspire to.

Perhaps instead we should play on the chaotic/untrained side of the Sorcerer; instead of getting to choose what spell they get of the same level, make it random (barring those they already have). Now you can replace a bad choice, but don't get automatically get the perfect spell for the next day. If they don't like the spell they get, next long rest they can try again for something else.

How do you imagine that conversation going, honestly?

Player: "I shouldn't have taken witch bolt, I'm never close enough to use it, can I switch it for Chromatic Orb"

DM: "Sure, take this d25, roll it, and if you get a 3 you get Chromatic Orb"

Player: "I rolled a 19"

DM: "Congratulations, you got Thunderwave, an even closer range spell. But, good news, you can roll again tomorrow"


This is just going to end up with the players that use it having to use their spell swap at level up (because that is still a thing they can do) to fix the mistakes of the random results.

[Hytheter]

How do you imagine that conversation going, honestly?

Player: "I shouldn't have taken witch bolt, I'm never close enough to use it, can I switch it for Chromatic Orb"

DM: "Sure, take this d25, roll it, and if you get a 3 you get Chromatic Orb"

Player: "I rolled a 19"

DM: "Congratulations, you got Thunderwave, an even closer range spell. But, good news, you can roll again tomorrow"


This is just going to end up with the players that use it having to use their spell swap at level up (because that is still a thing they can do) to fix the mistakes of the random results.


I would've thought someone called "Chaosmancer" would be more receptive to the idea :P

Jokes aside, I think the idea is that you could use the daily re-roll repeatedly until you end up with a spell you actually want, or at least one you can work with. The result is that sorcerers can't reliably just take a nap to get a spell they know they'll need tomorrow, but with luck and patience they can get any spell eventually.

Personally though I think it'd be simpler and less annoying to just extend the duration required to swap spells, like say a week of downtime instead of a single long rest.

[Chaosmancer]

I would've thought someone called "Chaosmancer" would be more receptive to the idea :P

Jokes aside, I think the idea is that you could use the daily re-roll repeatedly until you end up with a spell you actually want, or at least one you can work with. The result is that sorcerers can't reliably just take a nap to get a spell they know they'll need tomorrow, but with luck and patience they can get any spell eventually.

Personally though I think it'd be simpler and less annoying to just extend the duration required to swap spells, like say a week of downtime instead of a single long rest.

LOL, I've been wondering if anyone would joke about the name. It was the title of the first book I ever tried to write, so I keep it around.

And yeah, I get the idea is to just keep rolling. But, I've actually done that before. Just kept rolling a large die until I got the result I wanted. It can take hundreds of rolls for that to happen. I mean, 1/25 is 4%. There is no way that is going to get it.

Plus, I actually think it is worse that the player will just get fed up and stick with "well, this is good enough" because spells are the core component of spellcasting classes. And so, when they level up and can swap any spell for any other spell (without level requirements) in the case of the sorcerer who usually has to do this to keep their list relevant and drop options that aren't going to be useful at the new level, they are going to want to use it to fix this. It is just BS, no one would ever take that risk of rolling for a new spell randomly, unless they were playing a chaos sorcerer or similar concept and that was the fun for them. And in that case, they probably rolled randomly for all their spells to begin with.

And, in terms of extending, if you need a slow down on the swap, I'm still more of a fan of the idea of it being half the spell level rounded up in days for recovery.

So, 1st and 2nd take one day. 3rd and 4th two days, ect. It puts a small brake on it, especially for big spells, and if that solves the problem people have with it then I think it is the best solution.

[Terebin]

"You whiny wizards shoudl stop being upset that others get nice things!" is a trite argument, but it's very ad hominem and misses the point.

The point isn't, "I want my wizard to be cooler than your sorcerer or bard." The point is, "Why should I play a wizard if I want to be the guy who can have the perfect arcane spell tomorrow?"

The answer is: you shouldn't. The Bard (especially) and the Sorcerer now do it better, because they don't spend money to add things to spellbooks, because they're not limited BY spellbooks.

I actually think I finally understand your point.

However, I think I disagree with your premise that the Wizard was ever the "I can have it tomorrow" guy. I would say the Wizard is actually the "I probably already have it prepared" guy.

It's rare that what is needed is a single, specific spell (that is on the wizard spell list and also at least one other arcane caster list). In D&D, most problems can be solved a variety of ways - one of several similar spells, skill checks, minions, bribes, creativity. See the earlier discussions of Tongues vs Comprehend Languages vs taking language proficiencies in chargen or through training. The problem isn't "I need Tongues," it's "I need to communicate with someone I don't share a language with." Because D&D is a game you play with other people and your imagination (not a computer), there are infinite solutions to any problem or goal.

The Wizard, by virtue of a spell book and their Ritual Casting feature, has more spells known or immediately accessible than any other arcane caster - even if they have SV and the Wizard doesn't. The Wizard probably already has a solution to the problem right now, today, already. A 20th level Wizard has 25+ spells prepared. PLUS has immediate access to any of their ritual spells. 20th level Warlock and Sorcerer have 15. Only the Bard comes close, with 22 spells known (+ Magical Secrets), but their ritual casting is much worse. Warlock can potentially have good ritual casting, but it costs a fair amount of investment and opportunity cost.

Who cares what the Bard can do tomorrow? The Wizard can solve your problem today.

[malachi]

My DM has a houserule that wizards can swap out a spell prepared with another in the spellbook by spending 10 minutes / spell level. (It specifically doesn't apply to clerics / druids / paladins)
Would that rule go any length toward mitigating the class identity problem, or would it be too strong?

[Theaitetos]

A 20th level Wizard has 25+ spells prepared. PLUS has immediate access to any of their ritual spells. 20th level Warlock and Sorcerer have 15.

Yes, that adds up to 45 spells available all the time to a 20th level wizard, 3 times as many as a 20th level sorcerer. Wizards can change 25 of these spells every night, but cry foul when a sorcerer can change 1 of his 15 spells. Oy vey!

[Chaosmancer]

My DM has a houserule that wizards can swap out a spell prepared with another in the spellbook by spending 10 minutes / spell level. (It specifically doesn't apply to clerics / druids / paladins)
Would that rule go any length toward mitigating the class identity problem, or would it be too strong?

For many people, it seems the issue is when the spell is not in the spellbook in the first place (because obviously there is no problem if the sorcerer can get a spell tomorrow if the wizard can get the exact same spell tomorrow). Through that lens, allowing players to access their spellbook more readily would not solve the issue they are pointing towards.

[malachi]

For many people, it seems the issue is when the spell is not in the spellbook in the first place (because obviously there is no problem if the sorcerer can get a spell tomorrow if the wizard can get the exact same spell tomorrow). Through that lens, allowing players to access their spellbook more readily would not solve the issue they are pointing towards.

It does give a different identity to wizards and spontaneous casters, which was the original concern.

[Segev]

I'll counter your point.

If you want to be the guy you has the perfect arcane spell today, you should play the wizard.

Wizards are the most powerful ritual casters in the game, and they do not need to prepare those rituals. A wizard is far more likely to have the perfect spell "just give me 10 minutes to cast it" compared to the bard "just give me 24 hours to get it"Yes and no. Yes, if the wizard has it in his spellbook, of course he's already caught up with the SV-user.

Yes, the wizard has more spells in his spellbook than the SV-user knows, and more prepared than the SV-user knows. However, your argument about ritual casting could equally be made as: "Well, obviously the wizard is more likely to have the perfect spell already prepared, since he has more spells prepared than a bard, let alone a sorcerer."

But that point isn't in dispute. The point is that, if you want all-list access, you can play anything BUT a Wizard, now, and have literally any spell on your class list tomorrow (if you don't already have it today). This is a huge turnover from what used to be a major reason to play a wizard over a sorcerer or bard or warlock.


The point is, "Why should the wizard be the class to play if I want to be the guy who can have the perfect arcane spell tomorrow?"

Why shouldn't this be supported in other classes? Just because before a rules fix a class had a huge advantage in one area should not mean that it should continue to have that advantage after re-balancing. Precedent is an argument for never changing anything, no matter how much better it make things.Why should it be supported BETTER in other classes?

Is there some reason "survivable melee combatant" shouldn't be supported by monk? Clearly, we should let monks full-heal their hp 2x per short rest as a reaction to being knocked to 0 hp. The fact that this makes them tankier than barbarians is irrelevant; those barbarians aren't losing anything, and why should barbariancs continue to have that advantage now that we're rebalancing monks?


My DM has a houserule that wizards can swap out a spell prepared with another in the spellbook by spending 10 minutes / spell level. (It specifically doesn't apply to clerics / druids / paladins)
Would that rule go any length toward mitigating the class identity problem, or would it be too strong?This would be too powerful.

[Corran]

I agree that people probably don't want homogenisation, however, I would not want one (or more) class(es) to be weaker than another just to stop homogenisation, either.
I don't think we should consider this dilemma to be a valid one. We shouldn't have to choose between homogeneous and imbalanced classes. If a class cannot be distinct or balanced, then it shouldn't exist imo, simple as that. At least until a better way is found to represent it mechanically.



Spell Versatility is a step towards homogenisation,
Yep.



but a leap towards fixing some of the biggest issues Sorcerers have; being able to make bad choices that may last for a significant gameplay experience.
That's debatable. I have a different idea about what the issue of a sorcerer is. For example, I hate it that the spells available don't support all that well a green draconic sorcerer (not to mention how poor of a choice picking poison as the main type of your damage output can be). But this is not supposed to be a sorcerer issue, otherwise spell versatility would be something exclusive to sorcerers. So lets not dwell on one class.

For the sake of discussion though, let me agree momentarily that players making bad choices when playing a caster creates an issue worth of solving. Does spell versatility seem to you like a solution intended to solve this problem? The designers might very well have misjudged the amount of time a player spends at a given level, probably because there must be lots of tables not following the adventuring day's typical encounter layout. Spell versatility in its current implementation suggests that the designers must have initially thought a pc will level up every adventuring day. Does that seem logical. Even if we agree that this is a problem worth solving, and we agree that it's so important to solve it that we might as well do it at the cost of homogenization, you have to admit that the solution does not even fit the perceived problem as you describe it.

All of this is unnecessary though. Making a class more viable for a subset of players is a poor excuse for trying to make classes redundant for all players from a mechanical point of view.


Feel free to come up with something else that accomplishes the task without any homogenisation.
If you consider players making bad choices at character building to be such a big issue that warrants a drastic solution, I imagine that eliminating choice as much as possible is your best answer. You basically want the champion fighter version for spellcasters. This is something that can be easily done. If not by you or me, then certainly be someone over at WotC. All you need is some premade (to the degree you think it's needed) spell lists. At your discretion disallow at your table whatever else you feel overcomplicates the game (be it multiclassing, extra sourcebooks, etc).

[ZZTRaider]

My DM has a houserule that wizards can swap out a spell prepared with another in the spellbook by spending 10 minutes / spell level. (It specifically doesn't apply to clerics / druids / paladins)
Would that rule go any length toward mitigating the class identity problem, or would it be too strong?


I agree with Segev that this is likely too powerful. But I think it could be tweaked to something usable...

At least in Pathfinder (I have no idea if it's a carryover from 3e or 3.5e), Wizards were not required to prepare all of their spell slots at the same time. If you wanted to, you could leave some slots unfilled (and thus unusable) until later in the day when you had a specific spell you wanted to prepare there. At that point, you could take the normal amount of time to prepare that spell slot with whatever applicable spell you want.

This could be used to great effect to prepare whichever specific utility spell you needed -- as long as you have time to burn on the preparation -- and then cast it. Since back then you needed to prepare a spell the number of times you wanted to cast in, it could also be handy to add more castings of AOE, single target, or buff/debuff spells depending on what you ended up needing in prior encounters, so make sure you remain flexible for the rest of the day.

So, perhaps it'd work to just let a wizard decide to leave a portion of their prepared spell allowance undecided at the end of a long rest, then fill that later. Of course, once the spell is prepared, you keep it until your next long rest, but it still makes some of those situational but non-ritual spells more accessible in the same situations that ritual spellcasting is an option, at the cost of other spell options that you might have prepared instead.

[Chaosmancer]

Yes and no. Yes, if the wizard has it in his spellbook, of course he's already caught up with the SV-user.

Yes, the wizard has more spells in his spellbook than the SV-user knows, and more prepared than the SV-user knows. However, your argument about ritual casting could equally be made as: "Well, obviously the wizard is more likely to have the perfect spell already prepared, since he has more spells prepared than a bard, let alone a sorcerer."

But that point isn't in dispute. The point is that, if you want all-list access, you can play anything BUT a Wizard, now, and have literally any spell on your class list tomorrow (if you don't already have it today). This is a huge turnover from what used to be a major reason to play a wizard over a sorcerer or bard or warlock.

But I think the point of "You can have any spell you want tomorrow" is getting a little overblown.

Firstly, it is a level for a level spell. You cannot give up a first level spell and gain a third level spell. You give up a first, and you get a first.

Secondly, these classes don't have nearly the number of spells per level to make this an easy decision to make. Sorcerer is the most extreme, but let us say that you choose to never replace a spell on level up and just gain your spells as normal.

You will have 3 first level, 2 second, 2 third, 2 fourth, 2 fifth, 1 sixth, 1 seventh, 1 eighth, 1 ninth

So, if you want to take Tongues today, you have to give up 50% of your 3rd level spells until you take a long rest. That is not insignificant opportunity cost, especially since the Sorcerer generally takes the most omni-utility spells they can. Or dream of building up a thematic list.

And even if you swap both spells to make a more perfect list, that takes 2 days, and you have none of the spells you chose to begin with.

[king_steve]

The point is that, if you want all-list access, you can play anything BUT a Wizard, now, and have literally any spell on your class list tomorrow (if you don't already have it today). This is a huge turnover from what used to be a major reason to play a wizard over a sorcerer or bard or warlock.


So, my understanding is your criticism is centered around the fact that wizards do not have full access to their spell list.

What if they added a wizard specific enhancement that allowed a wizard to research a new spell during their long rests?

What if they had something like:

Arcane Research
1st-level wizard feature (enhances Spellcasting)
Each time you take a long rest you can spend your down time researching a new spell of your choice to add to your spellbook for free. The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the Wizard table.

[ezekielraiden]

So, my understanding is your criticism is centered around the fact that wizards do not have full access to their spell list.

What if they added a wizard specific enhancement that allowed a wizard to research a new spell during their long rests?

What if they had something like:

Arcane Research
1st-level wizard feature (enhances Spellcasting)
Each time you take a long rest you can spend your down time researching a new spell of your choice to add to your spellbook for free. The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the Wizard table.

As written that sounds more than a little too powerful, since it completely obviates the need for copying spells from any other source; now every Wizard who takes a month off of adventuring can pick up basically every spell they've ever wanted, for free. Sure would be nice if someone had suggested a downtime-based research thing that wasn't instant-use though. That person would be so clever and handsome and brave!

Of course I am facetiously saying I proposed such a thing. Twice in this very thread, actually. Guess the third time's the charm.

1. SV gains a cooldown--you must wait a number of days equal to the spell level you just changed before you can use it again.
2. Wizards get a "Research Pool" feature, representing their extra ancillary research. They gain +1 research point for every day of downtime, and half as much on adventuring days. At any time, they can spend Research Pool points equal to twice a spell's level to instantly learn a new spell. Scribing the spell into the wizard's spellbook has a cost equal to what they would pay if they were copying one of their own spells into a new book.

With the two of those, every complaint I've seen is fixed. Spell Versatility slows down dramatically. You can still change out lame spells when you realize they're lame. But switching to a niche utility spell like sending or tongues would have a real cost, putting you through multiple days of "wasted" spells known. Still useful when you really need them, but constrained. And the Wizard regains their position of "always having the right spell for the job,"* by being able to whip up a spell solution to any problem they might have, instantly, if they've had enough preparation time.

*Personally, I think this is an insanely selfish "role" or "class fantasy" to have. "I am always able to solve the problem!" is not a role, it's halfway to being a Mary Sue, a naked power fantasy. But I suppose nobody accuses D&D Wizards of being humble team players.

[MaxWilson]

As written that sounds more than a little too powerful, since it completely obviates the need for copying spells from any other source; now every Wizard who takes a month off of adventuring can pick up basically every spell they've ever wanted, for free. Sure would be nice if someone had suggested a downtime-based research thing that wasn't instant-use though. That person would be so clever and handsome and brave!

The authors of posts #5, #15, #16, and #62 thank you for the compliment.

[Aimeryan]

Eww god no. A random spell? We're trying to improve player satisfaction remember?

...

This is a mountain out of molehill; if you didn't have a problem with Druids, Clerics and Paladins drawing from their entire spell list before, I don't see how this all of a sudden is an upheaval of the Wizard's niche.

I'm actually in the camp that feels that the whole stepping on the Wizard's toes is nothing more than a minor issue of quite some rarity - hence, I am happy with Spell Versatility as it is. However, if feedback from other users steers the writers away from Spell Versatility as is I would rather guide them to the alternative.

Lorewise, the choatic/untrained swapping of spells feels more thematic. It doesn't step on Wizards toes in any reliable way. It still solves the issue of having poor performing/disliked spells on a class that is very lean in spell choice - albeit, it might take a few goes to get something you really want, but the random part can be fun in its own way (or so people who like dice rolling keep telling me!). I would not be displeased with this.

~~~


LOL, I've been wondering if anyone would joke about the name. It was the title of the first book I ever tried to write, so I keep it around.

And yeah, I get the idea is to just keep rolling. But, I've actually done that before. Just kept rolling a large die until I got the result I wanted. It can take hundreds of rolls for that to happen. I mean, 1/25 is 4%. There is no way that is going to get it.

First, nice!

Second, the intent, as I understand it, is to solve the problem of being stuck with spells for a significant amount of time that the player wishes they could change to something else. I do not believe the intent is for players to pick the perfect spell each day.

If you have Witchbolt and instead want another spell, well there are a lot of spells that are likely to be an improvement for you - it doesn't matter if the chance for specific spell XYZ is 4% because the idea is not to get XYZ but to not have Witchbolt. Furthermore, yeah, you can eventually get XYZ for sure at level up (one way or the other) - so you aren't reliant on randomness to get the spell.

Could also be paired with the option of taking a longer downtime to switch out for a specific spell. The problem with this option alone is that it relies on you having that downtime, which is sort of the same problem of relying on leveling up - it may not occur for some significant amount of game time in which the player is frustrated.

[Segev]

But I think the point of "You can have any spell you want tomorrow" is getting a little overblown.

Firstly, it is a level for a level spell. You cannot give up a first level spell and gain a third level spell. You give up a first, and you get a first.

Secondly, these classes don't have nearly the number of spells per level to make this an easy decision to make. Sorcerer is the most extreme, but let us say that you choose to never replace a spell on level up and just gain your spells as normal.

You will have 3 first level, 2 second, 2 third, 2 fourth, 2 fifth, 1 sixth, 1 seventh, 1 eighth, 1 ninthIrrelevant. The only limit is what level spell they can cast. It's not that hard a choice; let's say I want to have a 4th level spell, and I only know one of those. I swap out the one I know for the perfect spell. The wizard, who doesn't have that spell in his spellbook, can't match my ability to have that spell. Do I only need it once? Okay, I use it the day I swapped out for it, and the next night, I swap back for the spell I had there before. No muss, no fuss, no cost save lacking my usual fourth level spell of choice for one day.

Meanwhile, the wizard? If he didn't already have it, and he's lucky enough to be in a town where he can hunt down a fellow wizard who does have it, must spend 40 gp plus whatever it costs to get the other wizard's permission to borrow his spellbook. After that, yeah, he's better at picking up that spell than I am (barely), but if he can't find another wizard with that spell or lacks the gp...well, I'm just better at getting spells than he is.


So, my understanding is your criticism is centered around the fact that wizards do not have full access to their spell list.

What if they added a wizard specific enhancement that allowed a wizard to research a new spell during their long rests?

What if they had something like:

Arcane Research
1st-level wizard feature (enhances Spellcasting)
Each time you take a long rest you can spend your down time researching a new spell of your choice to add to your spellbook for free. The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the Wizard table.Obviates the need for the spellbook, and may as well just say that Wizards prepare spells from their whole list the way clerics and druids do. Mechanically, probably not any more broken than the cleric or druid already are, but thematically as bad as allowing them to magically swap spells in their spellbook at long rest the way SV lets bards and sorcerers swap spells known.

[Aimeryan]

Irrelevant. The only limit is what level spell they can cast. It's not that hard a choice; let's say I want to have a 4th level spell, and I only know one of those. I swap out the one I know for the perfect spell. The wizard, who doesn't have that spell in his spellbook, can't match my ability to have that spell. Do I only need it once? Okay, I use it the day I swapped out for it, and the next night, I swap back for the spell I had there before. No muss, no fuss, no cost save lacking my usual fourth level spell of choice for one day.

Meanwhile, the wizard? If he didn't already have it, and he's lucky enough to be in a town where he can hunt down a fellow wizard who does have it, must spend 40 gp plus whatever it costs to get the other wizard's permission to borrow his spellbook. After that, yeah, he's better at picking up that spell than I am (barely), but if he can't find another wizard with that spell or lacks the gp...well, I'm just better at getting spells than he is.

Obviates the need for the spellbook, and may as well just say that Wizards prepare spells from their whole list the way clerics and druids do. Mechanically, probably not any more broken than the cleric or druid already are, but thematically as bad as allowing them to magically swap spells in their spellbook at long rest the way SV lets bards and sorcerers swap spells known.

To be fair Segev, how likely it is that there will be a single perfect spell that the Wizard doesn't have that is on the Sorcerer's list that the party can wait a long rest for and was not already possible as a Cleric or Druid? Even then, several slightly less perfect spells almost certainly exist such that you just don't really care - the decent Wizard covers all his bases, even if not perfectly for all of them.

To put it another way, I see the possibility that concerns you, I just don't see it actually happening much at all. Weigh this against what Spell Versatility solves for the Sorcerer; it is difficult to justify not giving it.

[malachi]

To be fair Segev, how likely it is that there will be a single perfect spell that the Wizard doesn't have that is on the Sorcerer's list that the party can wait a long rest for and was not already possible as a Cleric or Druid? Even then, several slightly less perfect spells almost certainly exist such that you just don't really care - the decent Wizard covers all his bases, even if not perfectly for all of them.

To put it another way, I see the possibility that concerns you, I just don't see it actually happening much at all. Weigh this against what Spell Versatility solves for the Sorcerer; it is difficult to justify not giving it.

By my research (ignoring damage spells and ones that are just plain bad), there are 54 spells of level 1-9 (only 8 of levels 6-9) that are on a sorcerer's list and not also on the cleric / druid list.


comprehend languages
disguise self
expeditious retreat
feather fall
mage armor
shield
silent image
sleep
alter self
blur
darkness
detect thoughts
invisibility
knock
levitate
mirror image
misty step
phantasmal force
pyrotechnics
see invisibility
spider climb
suggestion
web
blink
catnap
counterspell
enemies abound
fear
fly
gaseous form
haste
hypnotic pattern
major image
slow
stinking cloud
dimension door
greater invisibility
animate objects
creation
dominate person
far step
hold monster
seeming
telekinesis
teleportation circle
arcane gate
eyebite
globe of invulnerability
mass suggestion
scatter
teleport
dominate monster
mass polymorph
time stop

[Aimeryan]

By my research (ignoring damage spells and ones that are just plain bad), there are 54 spells of level 1-9 (only 8 of levels 6-9) that are on a sorcerer's list and not also on the cleric / druid list.


comprehend languages
disguise self
expeditious retreat
feather fall
mage armor
shield
silent image
sleep
alter self
blur
darkness
detect thoughts
invisibility
knock
levitate
mirror image
misty step
phantasmal force
pyrotechnics
see invisibility
spider climb
suggestion
web
blink
catnap
counterspell
enemies abound
fear
fly
gaseous form
haste
hypnotic pattern
major image
slow
stinking cloud
dimension door
greater invisibility
animate objects
creation
dominate person
far step
hold monster
seeming
telekinesis
teleportation circle
arcane gate
eyebite
globe of invulnerability
mass suggestion
scatter
teleport
dominate monster
mass polymorph
time stop

I saw before, good work!

One issue here is that although the spells might not be on the Cleric/Druid lists, similar enough spells might be - would be some work and quite subjective to figure out a list with these taken out. For example, Blindness/Deafness can substitute for Darkness when fighting a Beholder - one of those situations waiting for a long rest would be a really good idea.
Add on that not all of the spells are 'perfect spells' to wait a long rest for - would need to remove those. For example, Blur is hardly a 'perfect spell' that would solve encounters by itself.
You would also need to take out spells that are broadly useful enough in adventuring that a Wizard would likely have taken them. For example, Counterspell.
Finally, you would need to figure out what spells are similar enough to each other that having one covers the others. For example, Greater Invisibility would cover Invisibility.

I would not be surprised if there are not many left - enough that a Wizard could be expected to use some of their spells known per level or time/gold to acquire. After that you still have to actually have a situation where a 'perfect spell' is both foreseeable and possible. Oh, and not be on a timer that you can afford to just take a long rest.

So, likely to be pretty rare.

[Chaosmancer]

Second, the intent, as I understand it, is to solve the problem of being stuck with spells for a significant amount of time that the player wishes they could change to something else. I do not believe the intent is for players to pick the perfect spell each day.

If you have Witchbolt and instead want another spell, well there are a lot of spells that are likely to be an improvement for you - it doesn't matter if the chance for specific spell XYZ is 4% because the idea is not to get XYZ but to not have Witchbolt. Furthermore, yeah, you can eventually get XYZ for sure at level up (one way or the other) - so you aren't reliant on randomness to get the spell.

Could also be paired with the option of taking a longer downtime to switch out for a specific spell. The problem with this option alone is that it relies on you having that downtime, which is sort of the same problem of relying on leveling up - it may not occur for some significant amount of game time in which the player is frustrated.

I can see your point, but I can't get over the possibility that the player will end up with something worse than what they got rid of (subjectivity). To me, since the point is to help the player get to the character they want, making them play roulette for the chance doesn't feel right to me.




Irrelevant. The only limit is what level spell they can cast. It's not that hard a choice; let's say I want to have a 4th level spell, and I only know one of those. I swap out the one I know for the perfect spell. The wizard, who doesn't have that spell in his spellbook, can't match my ability to have that spell. Do I only need it once? Okay, I use it the day I swapped out for it, and the next night, I swap back for the spell I had there before. No muss, no fuss, no cost save lacking my usual fourth level spell of choice for one day.

Meanwhile, the wizard? If he didn't already have it, and he's lucky enough to be in a town where he can hunt down a fellow wizard who does have it, must spend 40 gp plus whatever it costs to get the other wizard's permission to borrow his spellbook. After that, yeah, he's better at picking up that spell than I am (barely), but if he can't find another wizard with that spell or lacks the gp...well, I'm just better at getting spells than he is.

You are right completely irrelevant.

As long as you have exactly one challenge for the entire day, and no other challenges.

Because if you have a second challenge or encounter in that day, it is possible that the spell you switch out would have been the perfect spell for that challenge. And, since the game recommends 6 to 8 encounters a day, I would say that this matters quite a bit. Is it worth it to spend the entire day without your normal spell of your highest level, or your most utility focused spell, just to make a single encounter easier? Maybe, but it is a meaningful decision to allocate your resources, not a costless one where the OP sorcerer laps the wizard for the fifth time.

[Segev]

You are right completely irrelevant.

As long as you have exactly one challenge for the entire day, and no other challenges.

Because if you have a second challenge or encounter in that day, it is possible that the spell you switch out would have been the perfect spell for that challenge. And, since the game recommends 6 to 8 encounters a day, I would say that this matters quite a bit. Is it worth it to spend the entire day without your normal spell of your highest level, or your most utility focused spell, just to make a single encounter easier? Maybe, but it is a meaningful decision to allocate your resources, not a costless one where the OP sorcerer laps the wizard for the fifth time.

Even if you're needing it for one of several challenges tomorrow, the sorcerer isn't entirely without his other spells.

And really, I'm not discussing in particular a situation where a wizard and a sorcerer are in the same party. I'm looking at this from the standpoint of a player choosing to make a character.

Pre-SV, if you want to play an arcane caster who can reshape his spell array to suit a given challenge set, in particular with the ability to prepare for specific challenges, you'd go for the Wizard. But with the advent of SV, Bard (or, less likely, Sorcerer or Warlock) becomes the superior choice for this. Because the Bard can have any spell from his list, while the wizard is still limited to a subset he'd previously picked up at level-up, or has to hope he can find more and has the gp to buy the components to scribe it into his spellbook.

Alternatively, you can look at it from an in-game perspective: as Roy, hiring party members, you want a spellcaster who can, by the time you get to the dungeon, have just the right spells to solve the dungeon. Prior to SV, that was the Wizard; sure, he may need to do some research in town and take a day or two to scribe some spells he's missing, but he's the only arcanist who can do that. Now that SV is available, you want a Bard or a Sorcerer or (maybe) a Warlock, because they can swap out spells on the journey to the dungeon, don't have to know any fellow wizards who have and are willing to share those spells, and don't need an advance on their share of the loot to afford the addition of those spells to their repertoire.

When hiring a wizard, you need to interview him carefully on what spells he has. When hiring an SV-Bard or SV-Sorcerer, you just need to ascertain his willingness to spend long rest swap-outs to tailor his list.


When faced with a party spellcaster who's unable to prepare the spells needed for the adventure because he doesn't have them in his spellbook, your lament should not be, "I wish I'd hired a bard; they'd be better able to get the spells we need."

[Aimeryan]

I can see your point, but I can't get over the possibility that the player will end up with something worse than what they got rid of (subjectivity).

It is possible, but for a new player it is quite helpful to be able to try out different spells, while for an experience player they likely didn't fall into the trap in the first place.

Hmm, perhaps it could be mitigated somewhat. Instead of random from all spells at that level, perhaps the player chooses four spells they would be happy with and then roll a d4 to determine which one they get. You remove the reliable 'can grab the perfect spell with just a long rest', yet do not fall to bad luck and get one of the few other trap spells.

[MaxWilson]

To be fair Segev, how likely it is that there will be a single perfect spell that the Wizard doesn't have that is on the Sorcerer's list that the party can wait a long rest for and was not already possible as a Cleric or Druid? Even then, several slightly less perfect spells almost certainly exist such that you just don't really care - the decent Wizard covers all his bases, even if not perfectly for all of them.

To put it another way, I see the possibility that concerns you, I just don't see it actually happening much at all. Weigh this against what Spell Versatility solves for the Sorcerer; it is difficult to justify not giving it.

It's not a dichotomy between Spell Versatility or status quo. Why not solve the problem in a way that doesn't radically alter the game so much? Numerous proposals have been made, from cooldowns to allowing spell research in downtime (for sorcerers/bards/warlocks as well as wizards).

This is a solution but it's probably not the best solution.

[Theaitetos]

There's no need to mitigate or change anything. It's just one huge whining temper tantrum from wizard fanboys. You don't see any druid, cleric, … fanboys cry over Spell Versatility, do you?

Yet there is a wonderful beauty hidden in all of this, something I hadn't realized just until now. For I think this entire ordeal here is an exercise in Shakespeare-level irony, as we finally see how sorcerer/wizard players (outgame) are the exact opposites of the sorcerer/wizard characters (classes) they play:

A wizard character supposedly studies arcane magic for a long time and carefully prepares all his spells in advance, a great feat of his INTellect. Yet wizard players hardly put much thought into which spells they choose at level-up or which spells they try to scribe into their spellbook first – after all, there's no limit to any of that; so instead of carefully preparing things by thinking everything through for a long time, they only care about that one instant-gratification spell they want at any given moment and get over-emotional if they can't just have it.

This wizard player behavior fits very well the theme of the sorcerer character, who is supposed to be emotion-driven & lazy in terms of studying magic. However, the sorcerer players often spend days contemplating the exact progression of their spell lists, confering with their peers about it on this very forum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?603958-Share-your-Sorcerer-spell-lists!), reading dozens of pages on the creative application of spells, and carefully studying guides on spells & metamagic, just to make sure that their prepared spells best fit the possible future needs of their parties – i.e. exactly what wizard characters supposedly do.

Truly, if Spell Versatility has shown us one thing, it's the magical irony that sorcerer-players think like ingame-wizards while wizard-players think like ingame-sorcerers. :smallbiggrin:

[Chaosmancer]

Even if you're needing it for one of several challenges tomorrow, the sorcerer isn't entirely without his other spells.

I won't argue that. I will argue that every sorcerer spell represents a far larger investment than any single wizard spell though, so choosing to change out a spell is a very big deal wo


And really, I'm not discussing in particular a situation where a wizard and a sorcerer are in the same party. I'm looking at this from the standpoint of a player choosing to make a character.

Pre-SV, if you want to play an arcane caster who can reshape his spell array to suit a given challenge set, in particular with the ability to prepare for specific challenges, you'd go for the Wizard. But with the advent of SV, Bard (or, less likely, Sorcerer or Warlock) becomes the superior choice for this. Because the Bard can have any spell from his list, while the wizard is still limited to a subset he'd previously picked up at level-up, or has to hope he can find more and has the gp to buy the components to scribe it into his spellbook.

I think this is a minor concern compared to the other advantages wizards get in having the right spell, right now.

For example, I would look very hard the fact that Bard's only have about 15 ritual spells, while wizards have 22. And, a wizard does not need to prepare a ritual to have it available, it simply is. So, I can prepare more spells and have my rituals, increasing the number of events I can be prepared for.

Sure, the Bard Post-SV can now lose one spell to gain one spell, giving them a little more versatility, but the wizard has an entire stable of spells that are always ready to go without needing to prepare them or lose anything.

And honestly, I'm glad that players are going to be able to shape themselves to prepare for specific challenges. That's a good thing, the other classes had zero way to do this before, except for waiting on a level up, so getting this small way to contribute is a useful skill. It has a cost though, and it doesn't immediately make them better than the wizard at being the most prepared for a day's challenges like people keep claiming.


Alternatively, you can look at it from an in-game perspective:

No, you really can't.

DM playstyle, tablestyle, and decisions play such a large role in what NPCs are available, what they can do, and what abilities they use that you can't use in-game hiring of NPCs to determine anything.

Heck, these are variant rules the DM is free to adopt to any degree they want. The UA clearly allows the DM to only allow PC Bards to use Spell Versatility which obviates the entire point.



It is possible, but for a new player it is quite helpful to be able to try out different spells, while for an experience player they likely didn't fall into the trap in the first place.

Hmm, perhaps it could be mitigated somewhat. Instead of random from all spells at that level, perhaps the player chooses four spells they would be happy with and then roll a d4 to determine which one they get. You remove the reliable 'can grab the perfect spell with just a long rest', yet do not fall to bad luck and get one of the few other trap spells.

I could see that working as a solution

[Aimeryan]

It's not a dichotomy between Spell Versatility or status quo. Why not solve the problem in a way that doesn't radically alter the game so much? Numerous proposals have been made, from cooldowns to allowing spell research in downtime (for sorcerers/bards/warlocks as well as wizards).

This is a solution but it's probably not the best solution.

Sure, that is one reason for having feedback - for people to say, 'this is good, but what about this?'. Still, if you only look to implement the best solution you'll probably never implement any solution because perfection is difficult to attain.

Cooldowns do not solve the issue, only repeat occurrences within a specified timeframe. Research for Wizards mitigates the issue, but has its own issues (namely, overpowering the Wizard even more). To note, I find the issue minor and rare in the first place, so I particularly don't think either of those solutions are apt.

Some chance of not getting exactly what you want (but still replacing the bad with something good) feels more thematic for a Sorcerer and allows for the argument that a Wizard may be more reliable for acquiring the spell in the timeframe required. For a Bard, eh, I haven't really looked at Spell Versatility for the Bard, however, it feels unneeded to me. Same for a Warlock.

[Segev]

I won't argue that. I will argue that every sorcerer spell represents a far larger investment than any single wizard spell though, so choosing to change out a spell is a very big deal

Not with Spell Versatility. It's a very minor deal, fixable the next day.

The way I expect the current version of Spell Versatility will be used most often is not to fix a poor choice in spells (though it WILL be used that way), but instead to allow a sorcerer or bard incidental access to spells which used to be considered "something only generally a wizard would bother with" due to their best use being casting during off-days. The second most common utility I expect will be from players of bards and sorcerers who want to experiment, which is a fine use for it. "Well, I want to see if I like this spell." The third most common use will likely be for the "I need the perfect spell...and can wait for tomorrow" issue.

It's the most common use and the third most common uses that are problematic. They effectively grant a list of spells to the Bard and Sorcerer that they, for all intents and purposes, always "know" because they can pick them up when they need them and enjoy their benefits when they have swapped back out for others. Wizards "used to" have this benefit exclusively, and had to pay for it - albeit only a little - by spending money on putting such spells in their spellbooks. (Just like with "the perfect situational spell that I need tomorrow.") Now, sorcerers, bards, and warlocks not only also have this benefit, but have better access to it for less investment. It costs them literally nothing, since by the time the opportunity cost of having a spell taken up by the swapped-out one could be an issue, they'll almost certainly have swapped it back out for the one they prefer to have ready-to-hand.

[malachi]

I saw before, good work!

Thanks!


One issue here is that although the spells might not be on the Cleric/Druid lists, similar enough spells might be - would be some work and quite subjective to figure out a list with these taken out. For example, Blindness/Deafness can substitute for Darkness when fighting a Beholder - one of those situations waiting for a long rest would be a really good idea.
Add on that not all of the spells are 'perfect spells' to wait a long rest for - would need to remove those. For example, Blur is hardly a 'perfect spell' that would solve encounters by itself.
You would also need to take out spells that are broadly useful enough in adventuring that a Wizard would likely have taken them. For example, Counterspell.
Finally, you would need to figure out what spells are similar enough to each other that having one covers the others. For example, Greater Invisibility would cover Invisibility.

I would not be surprised if there are not many left - enough that a Wizard could be expected to use some of their spells known per level or time/gold to acquire. After that you still have to actually have a situation where a 'perfect spell' is both foreseeable and possible. Oh, and not be on a timer that you can afford to just take a long rest.

So, likely to be pretty rare.

I see your point about comparing options with what Clerics and Druids have that fill similar roles to these spells, so I tried grouping things together a bit. To me, it looks like there are 5 types of 'silver bullet' spells that a sorcerer might want to grab that a cleric or druid couldn't already fill.


1. feather fall (same someone from falling)
2. phantasmal force / suggestion / dominate person / dominate monster / mass suggestion / silent image / major image (trick or control people)
3. telekinesis / animate objects (move objects in unexpected ways; STR checks or smart play can already do this)
4. detect thoughts
5. creation (get the exact right tool for the job; depending on what it is, various other spells work just as well)


Analysis: Wizards probably already have (or can cheaply get) feather fall and detect thoughts, and will typically pick up one or two of the "trick or control people" category already (as would the sorcerer). TK and Animate Objects are already known for being strong general purpose spells for combat, and it's kind of hard to think of a situation where you would know that one of these spells would be a huge help tomorrow when it wouldn't be part of your normal loadout. So Creation is really the only thing here that stands out - but if you know you need the spell (and don't normally prepare it for it's utility), what situations are there that you wouldn't be able to just grab the object you'd be creating?




1. darkness / pyrotechnics / eyebite (blind or block LoS – plenty of spells available to everyone do this)
2. levitate / spider climb / fly / gaseous form / misty step / dimension door / scatter / far step / arcane gate / knock (get where you’re not supposed to be; druids already have wildshape for this, but also polymorph, etc.)
3. greater invisibility / disguise self / alter self / invisibility / seeming (different type of getting where you’re not supposed to be; druids can use wildshape or polymorph for this)
4. teleportation circle / teleport (druids can also handle teleportation across continents)
5. comprehend languages (tongues, telepathy, etc; also, it’s a cheap ritual for a wizard to have without needing to prepare it)


Analysis: A wizard is probably already taking at least one spell in each of these categories, and druids already have options for meeting these needs, so the sorcerer isn't bringing anything new to the table.




1. mage armor / shield / blur / mirror image / blink (the sorcerer is going to have their typical loadout)
2. catnap (you either work this into your typical loadout or you don’t)
3. enemies abound (it’s just bad)
4. hold monster (you either work this into your typical loadout or you don’t)
5. time stop (you either work this into your typical loadout or you don’t)
6. mass polymorph (the sorcerer was probably going to take polymorph anyways, and this doesn’t give anything new)
7. expeditious retreat / haste (this is probably in your typical loadout, and any niche mobility use is covered by #3 above)
8. sleep / web / slow / hypnotic pattern / fear / stinking cloud (you probably have at least one aoe crowd control spell)
9. see invisibility / counterspell / globe of invulnerability (counter certain magical tactics; everyone has dispel magic; various other proactive defenses exist; and you probably have counterspell in your party already)


Analysis: Most of these spells fall into the category of "I'd prepare this everyday anyways" or "I didn't want it before, so what situation would make me want it tomorrow?".




From this, I don't see a sorcerer bringing anything to the table that a druid (or maybe a cleric) wasn't already providing. Does anyone see anything that I'm missing here?


The third most common use will likely be for the "I need the perfect spell...and can wait for tomorrow" issue.

It's the most common use and the third most common uses that are problematic. They effectively grant a list of spells to the Bard and Sorcerer that they, for all intents and purposes, always "know" because they can pick them up when they need them and enjoy their benefits when they have swapped back out for others. Wizards "used to" have this benefit exclusively, and had to pay for it - albeit only a little - by spending money on putting such spells in their spellbooks. (Just like with "the perfect situational spell that I need tomorrow.") Now, sorcerers, bards, and warlocks not only also have this benefit, but have better access to it for less investment. It costs them literally nothing, since by the time the opportunity cost of having a spell taken up by the swapped-out one could be an issue, they'll almost certainly have swapped it back out for the one they prefer to have ready-to-hand.

From my analysis of sorcerer spells not available to clerics/druids, I don't really see anything that could fit the "I need the perfect spell... and can wait for tomorrow" that a druid couldn't already solve, so I object to the part that I bolded in your quote. Druids already shared this benefit with wizards.

The way it stands with SV, I see casters falling into 4 groups:
1. Wizards - I can pay to expand my list of 'silver bullet' spells, and also get access to lots of awesome general purpose spells
2. Clerics / Druids - I passively have access to my full list of 'silver bullet', but don't (typically) have access to as much proactively powerful general purpose spells (particularly when it comes to damage)
3. Bards / Sorcerers / Warlocks / Rangers (kind of) - I can grab one 'silver bullet' spell per day, but have to be careful with my spell choices in order to keep enough swappable spells of each level in order to have that flexibility without dipping into my general purpose spells
4. Paladins / Eldritch Knights / Arcane Tricksters / Four Elements Monks - What's this 'silver bullet' thing you're talking about?

[MaxWilson]

Wizards "used to" have this benefit exclusively, and had to pay for it - albeit only a little - by spending money on putting such spells in their spellbooks.

Only with explicit DM approval--like being able to buy a magic sword. Honestly, I wouldn't really care about Spell Versatility in this campaign, if the wizard can catch up using nothing but cash. It's the regular campaign where it hurts: when playing a wizard means being the only class with a crippling tiny spell selection. Even Rangers know more spells than you do now!

It doesn't change the fact that the wizard spell list is, in general, better than the warlock/sorcerer spell lists. But it would definitely be frustrating, and I'd only do it if I were planning on exploiting *hard* the wizard-exclusive spells like Rope Trick, Tiny Servant, Contingency, and Clone (which aren't really even exclusive thanks to domain/subclass spells and Sorcs and Bards having easy access to Wish) and probably exploiting spell research too.

[JBPuffin]

So, as someone who’s spent the last two months playing or DMing an average of seven hours a week, with a lot of spellcasters played by players of varying levels of DND knowledge - everyone at the table has a “spells known” list as players, even when their characters don’t necessarily. I’m playing a wizard right now, and despite only having 12 spells counting cantrips, I have no issue with feeling “limited” or “sub-potent.” The clerics and druids don’t stray from the spells they know and love, leaving them with just about as many options, and the spontaneous casters have yet to be troubled by their selections. Additionally, despite explicitly mentioning this new rule to my players, none have taken the offer - they already use the spells they like to use, so why go looking for new ones? The exception to that is my cleric who wanted a copy of a spell basically every enemy spell caster has been throwing around, but that wasn’t even about having more options so much as understanding what his enemies were capable of.

Obviously most of y’all are taking this from the theory-side PoV, because that’s the only perspective everyone with a book can weigh in on regardless of time spent at the table, but as someone who’s highly saturated in the game opportunity department, I assure you all, it’s not as world-shattering as some might make it out to be. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

[Ravinsild]

I don't really think it would be bad to let Rangers swap out a spell very much at all. In my experience, Ranger players tend not to take advantage of swapping spells known on level-up, so this feature might add a little more fun for them and encourage spell usage.

For me it's been a god send. I've been able to use so many spells for a variety of situations! Also rectify mistakes! I thought Entangle was stronger than it was, but it turned out what I ACTUALLY wanted was Spike Growth. I thought Entangle was like AOE Ensnaring Strike, but it is not. Also if they break free from the restrained it does absolutely nothing except just be difficult terrain.

I've really enjoyed Favored Foe in game (playing 2 different) rangers and thus without needing to concentrate on Hunter's Mark I can really, really make great use of my 4 spells known (level 6 atm on both Rangers, 2 different campaigns).

One is focus on support and healing, the other on traps and ambushes, and both are greatly rewarded for using my spell slots for more than being a 1 trick first off, and second off allowing me a lot more tactical, fun and creative play.

[Chaosmancer]

Not with Spell Versatility. It's a very minor deal, fixable the next day.

Cost is never an easily fixable thing. It is cost. Their is an opportunity cost to be found in dropping 50% to 100% of your spells of a given level. No matter how you slice it, that is true.


The way I expect the current version of Spell Versatility will be used most often is not to fix a poor choice in spells (though it WILL be used that way), but instead to allow a sorcerer or bard incidental access to spells which used to be considered "something only generally a wizard would bother with" due to their best use being casting during off-days. The second most common utility I expect will be from players of bards and sorcerers who want to experiment, which is a fine use for it. "Well, I want to see if I like this spell." The third most common use will likely be for the "I need the perfect spell...and can wait for tomorrow" issue.

It's the most common use and the third most common uses that are problematic. They effectively grant a list of spells to the Bard and Sorcerer that they, for all intents and purposes, always "know" because they can pick them up when they need them and enjoy their benefits when they have swapped back out for others. Wizards "used to" have this benefit exclusively, and had to pay for it - albeit only a little - by spending money on putting such spells in their spellbooks. (Just like with "the perfect situational spell that I need tomorrow.") Now, sorcerers, bards, and warlocks not only also have this benefit, but have better access to it for less investment. It costs them literally nothing, since by the time the opportunity cost of having a spell taken up by the swapped-out one could be an issue, they'll almost certainly have swapped it back out for the one they prefer to have ready-to-hand.

Excuse me for being confused, but what possible problems could spells on "off-days" when the party is not facing challenges cause? If the idea is that characters could use spells when nothing is at stake... Then isn't nothing at stake?



. It's the regular campaign where it hurts: when playing a wizard means being the only class with a crippling tiny spell selection. Even Rangers know more spells than you do now!

I had to read this twice, are you bleeping joking?

Sorcerers have spent years saying that 15 spells are "cripplingly tiny" and prevent fun. And we are often told that it is more than enough, that that is part of the challenge and the theme of the class.

And now, you want to claim that the wizard with a minimum of 44 spells, a minimum, is suddenly stuck with a cripplingly tiny spell selection?

I have never before accused someone of arguing with ill intent, but this is so ridiculous that I can't imagine you are in anyway expecting someone to seriously agree with it.

[Aimeryan]

From this, I don't see a sorcerer bringing anything to the table that a druid (or maybe a cleric) wasn't already providing. Does anyone see anything that I'm missing here?

Absolutely brilliant malachi - this was exactly the sort of analysis that needed to be done.

This doesn't even take into account the non-Sorcerer spells for the Wizard, some of which are amazing - Find Familiar, Rope Trick, Leomund's Tiny Hut, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, Wall Of Force, Contingency, Forcecage, Simulacrum, Antimagic Field...

Those matter because if it is one of those 'silver bullets' (great term) that you need then the Sorcerer can never accomplish it.

~~~


Only with explicit DM approval--like being able to buy a magic sword. Honestly, I wouldn't really care about Spell Versatility in this campaign, if the wizard can catch up using nothing but cash. It's the regular campaign where it hurts: when playing a wizard means being the only class with a crippling tiny spell selection. Even Rangers know more spells than you do now!

Sure, a DM could choose to never have enemy Wizards, friendly Wizards, Scrolls, or Academies/Schools, however, that is not the regular campaign. A DM can screw anyone over, if they so desire - it isn't unique to Wizards. Also, seriously, crippling tiny - have you seen the Sorcerer Spells Known?!

Presuming that there will no spells copied is pretty much the same as removing a feature from the class. Yes, Spell Versatility in such a situation is likely to shine, but so what? Why shouldn't it? Specialised campaigns create abnormal niches.

[RifleAvenger]

The real issue to my eyes is that Wizard already hedged in on Sorcerer territory, while Sorcerer got fewer spells known and per day, in the transition from 3e to 5e.

Wizard used to decide not only what they could cast each day, but how many times. Sorcerer couldn't decide what they could cast, but they were free to spend their slots flexibly. They also knew many more spells than in 5e at a given level.

But to facilitate simplicity, 5e turned every wizard into the PF arcanist. Arcanist got to determine castable spells every day and could flexibly cast those spells. The downside was they had fewer spells immediately castable in the moment than the sorcerer and fewer spells/day than the wizard (no specialty slots). This downside didn't carry over to 5e, where everyone has the same spells/day and wizards can easily prepare more spells than a sorcerer knows. Sure sorcerer can get some more slots via pool, but that's expensive and gives up metamagic uses.

So now WotC is doubling down on that dilution of class tradeoffs by giving spont casters an easy way to trade out spells.

I'm not a fan, but it's unreasonable to give wizard so much of the sorcerer's classical benefits and give no leeway to the sorcerer. Though I'd rather they just give sorcerer more spells known and not make wizards offbrand arcanists.

[Segev]

Cost is never an easily fixable thing. It is cost. Their is an opportunity cost to be found in dropping 50% to 100% of your spells of a given level. No matter how you slice it, that is true.So, then, you should be equally okay with a bard or sorcerer entirely swapping out their list every long rest, with anything they want from their class lists, right? Because that, too, requires them to trade out even MORE of their spells, which only increases the cost. Right?

If your answer is "no, that'd be broken," please explain how your reasoning for swapping all of a sorcerer's 1 4th level spells (for example) doesn't apply to swapping all of a sorcerer's 1st-4th level spells.


Excuse me for being confused, but what possible problems could spells on "off-days" when the party is not facing challenges cause? If the idea is that characters could use spells when nothing is at stake... Then isn't nothing at stake? Let's play with a Bard for a moment.

Every bard now has illusory script available, because it lasts for 10 days and he can just cast it on an off-day and have the illusory script ready. Or, for a longer-term, intrigue-based game, he can cast it for whatever purpose he wants during downtime. It will be rare to non-existent for a bard to bother having the spell in his adventuring repertoire, but he can just assume he has it available on any day he's not actively got to keep an eye on his spells known for moment-to-moment incidents.

Every bard also now has animale messenger. Sure, he's not using it while "adventuring," unless he gets in a sticky situation and needs to send for help, but he has it tomorrow if he does need it. (And the spell isn't likely to be terribly useful immediately if it's not also useful tomorrow.) Moreover, he has it during downtime because he can swap it in, use it, and swap it out before he ever misses whatever he swapped it for.

Every bard also has lesser restoration. Sure, sure, so does every cleric (tomorrow, at least), but is it intended that every bard should be able to cure disease without a serious investment? That's the kind of change in paradigm this feature brings to classes like the Bard; no longer is learning something like lesser restoration a statement about the kind of character you're playing with him. It's just something every Bard has access to.

Magic mouth, too, is now just a tool in the downtime bard's repretoire. Every bard can cast it all over his hotel room, house, gear, etc., with whatever triggers he wants, and do it without having to actually waste a spell known on it during serious adventuring days.

If your party does interrogations of medium-term prisoners, every Bard now has zone of truth. So, again, does the cleric, but, again, the paradigm-shift means that the Bard is basically a cleric-lite in terms of spell preparation. There are no spells the Bard picks up that say much about his design, other than "I needed it for a day."

Same with glyph of warding. Every Bard has it, now. Cast during downtime, with any Bard spell you want (even ones you wouldn't adventure with), and just wait a couple days to get your spell list back in order before adventuring again.

Major image, too, once you can cast 6th level spells. Permanent. If a bard wants to have some permanent illusion somewhere, he can! Just because he's a Bard. No investment at all necessary, beyond a spare day.

Awaken is another example of a spell that is just on every Bard's available list. This one's expensive to even cast, but it's there if they want it, and no need to consider carrying it around on adventuring days.

Planar binding, too, is one you almost always want to upcast to longer than a day. A bard will never bother carrying it around,but every bard will benefit from it when it can be upcast.

Raise dead
Scrying
Teleportation circle
Programmed illusion
Mirage arcane
Regenerate
Resurrection
Symbol
To a lesser extent, teleport, though that one you might consider just having available all the time.
True polymorph, at least for the permanent version. Though again, might well consider having it all the time. But even if you don't! Even if you prefer foresight for adventuring! You can still get it without any investment other than a spare day if you want to permanently change something into something else!


I had to read this twice, are you bleeping joking?

Sorcerers have spent years saying that 15 spells are "cripplingly tiny" and prevent fun. And we are often told that it is more than enough, that that is part of the challenge and the theme of the class. I would agree with sorcerers who felt 15 were cripplingly tiny in number. But you're utterly missing the point of the guy you're accusing of "bleeping joking." He's not talking about the non-SV state of things. He's talking about how this will feel in regular gameplay with SV available to sorcerers, bards, and warlocks. The wizard will feel "cripplingly tiny" in his spell list options compared to even the sorcerer if the wizard ever feels limited at all, because the sorcerer, at worst, will only feel temporarily so. The wizard will feel limited for longer, and with a more questionable ability to correct the limitation.


I have never before accused someone of arguing with ill intent, but this is so ridiculous that I can't imagine you are in anyway expecting someone to seriously agree with it.
Thing is, you're dangerously close to opening yourself up to such an accusation, here, since you're possibly-deliberately bringing the sorcerer in and presuming that anybody here is disagreeing that 15 spells was "cripplingly small" as a list size, or that fixing that accessibility problem for the sorcerer isn't even being considered, and that just because the sorcerer had it worse, the wizard doesn't get to feel like his limited selection is a weakness. Especially when the sorcerer has had his whole list opened up to him, while the wizard still has 44 + whatever he can beg, borrow, or steal from his DM's gracious permission.

[Corran]

It doesn't change the fact that the wizard spell list is, in general, better than the warlock/sorcerer spell lists. But it would definitely be frustrating, and I'd only do it if I were planning on exploiting *hard* the wizard-exclusive spells like Rope Trick, Tiny Servant, Contingency, and Clone (which aren't really even exclusive thanks to domain/subclass spells and Sorcs and Bards having easy access to Wish) and probably exploiting spell research too.
I was thinking along the same lines, by accident. I was discussing this with a friend yesterday, and when the discussion derailed a bit and we started talking about individual classes, I half jokingly said that with spell versatility in play, the wizard becomes the simulacrum class. Which was an exaggeration of an otherwise valid point.

I am also starting to think that my problem is not with spell versatility exactly. I sure don't like it, but it (or a better implementation of it) might be necessary for the next edition (I honestly don't see it becoming a thing in this one, as it is a complete 180 degree turn from what has been done so far), assuming all existing classes make it there. If you have to make mechanically viable 6 different fullcaster classes, it kind of makes sense for the class with access to some of the strongest spells to be the least versatile. So the wizard ends up as the class you pick for some powerful niche, with a spellbook there mostly for flavor. I'd still prefer that class features would be the way to go about making arcane casters balanced and different enough (which as far as I understand was how this edition so far tried to handle this; and in theory I like this idea), but I am totally guessing that this ship is slowly sailing away. Anyway, I am starting to think that my problem is partly with the number of spellcasting classes the game is supposed to support. Maybe they are too many for them to be distinct enough from one another and at the same time remain balanced to each other.



Only with explicit DM approval--like being able to buy a magic sword. Honestly, I wouldn't really care about Spell Versatility in this campaign, if the wizard can catch up using nothing but cash. It's the regular campaign where it hurts: when playing a wizard means being the only class with a crippling tiny spell selection. Even Rangers know more spells than you do now!
Maybe WotC is aware of some data indicating that the majority of tables play as if magic item economy is the thing it used to be? Again, I am totally guessing that spell versatility is an idea being worked for the next edition, where magic item economy might be a thing. It would sure help the wizard keep up by being versatile enough and not some class intended for strong niches.

[MaxWilson]

I had to read this twice, are you bleeping joking?

Sorcerers have spent years saying that 15 spells are "cripplingly tiny" and prevent fun. And we are often told that it is more than enough, that that is part of the challenge and the theme of the class.

And now, you want to claim that the wizard with a minimum of 44 spells, a minimum, is suddenly stuck with a cripplingly tiny spell selection?

I have never before accused someone of arguing with ill intent, but this is so ridiculous that I can't imagine you are in anyway expecting someone to seriously agree with it.

You're confusing spells known with spell selection. Maybe this is my fault so I'll try to restate the point. People claim several things about today's sorcerer, but having a small spell selection isn't one of them--it's just a not-very-good spell selection, except for Divine Souls. By giving sorcerers three or four times as many spells in their "spellbook" as wizards, you're fixing a problem that no one ever said the sorcerer had.

Sorcerer's problems are:

(1) Too few spells known;
(2) Not enough of the best spells.

Spell versatility is a solution in search of a problem.

Do you still feel that this is an argument in bad faith? It isn't, but I don't know what more I can do to make that clear.


I see your point about comparing options with what Clerics and Druids have that fill similar roles to these spells, so I tried grouping things together a bit. To me, it looks like there are 5 types of 'silver bullet' spells that a sorcerer might want to grab that a cleric or druid couldn't already fill...

...Analysis: A wizard is probably already taking at least one spell in each of these categories, and druids already have options for meeting these needs, so the sorcerer isn't bringing anything new to the table.

...From this, I don't see a sorcerer bringing anything to the table that a druid (or maybe a cleric) wasn't already providing. Does anyone see anything that I'm missing here?

I question the approach you're using. If Spell Versatility is in play, a Jorasco halfling Divine Soul 1/Life Cleric 1/Warlock 2/Divine Soul X has all of the best parts of being a cleric, most of the best parts of being a wizard, and the best parts of being a warlock. You're an incredible healer (thousands of HP healed per day via Extended Aura of Vitality), a great blaster (Quickened spells + Eldritch Blast invocations + effective +~1 to hit for being a halfling), and a great utility caster (selecting from the entire cleric + sorcerer spell list on a daily basis). And yet because he isn't really bringing anything new to the table that a wizard, cleric, or druid couldn't provide, wouldn't your methodology conclude that nothing has changed? Correct me if I misunderstand.

Without Spell Versatility as presented in UA, a cleric has some real potential advantages over the Divine Lifelock, in particular real access to spells like Augury and Divination and Protection From Poison which in real life are only theoretical possibilities for the Sorlock: he won't really ever have them because the opportunity cost of learning them is too high. Spell Versatility drastically shrinks that cost, by design: it makes it cheap and easy to access the entire class spell list (cleric + sorcerer).

The "something new" being brought to the table is a synergistic package, not a single spell.

[Dork_Forge]

You're confusing spells known with spell selection. Maybe this is my fault so I'll try to restate the point. People claim several things about today's sorcerer, but having a small spell selection isn't one of them--it's just a not-very-good spell selection, except for Divine Souls. By giving sorcerers three or four times as many spells in their "spellbook" as wizards, you're fixing a problem that no one ever said the sorcerer had.

Sorcerer's problems are:

(1) Too few spells known;
(2) Not enough of the best spells.

Spell versatility is a solution in search of a problem.

Do you still feel that this is an argument in bad faith? It isn't, but I don't know what more I can do to make that clear.
[QUOTE/]

The problem spell versatility is aimed to fix is very clear, people are playing without leveling up longer than the designers intended. I don't think this is a good fix (and with a reasonable DM a mechanical one isn't needed), but it certainly isn't looking for a problem.

And even though the Op was mixing spells known with prepared, it doesn't really change much. Wizards still prepare many more spells than a Sorcerer knows (maybe a bard but AFB) and with off prepared list ritual casting have access to a lot more spells during the day than just level+int.

[QUOTE]
I question the approach you're using. If Spell Versatility is in play, a Jorasco halfling Divine Soul 1/Life Cleric 1/Warlock 2/Divine Soul X has all of the best parts of being a cleric, most of the best parts of being a wizard, and the best parts of being a warlock. You're an incredible healer (thousands of HP healed per day via Extended Aura of Vitality), a great blaster (Quickened spells + Eldritch Blast invocations + effective +~1 to hit for being a halfling), and a great utility caster (selecting from the entire cleric + sorcerer spell list on a daily basis). And yet because he isn't really bringing anything new to the table that a wizard, cleric, or druid couldn't provide, wouldn't your methodology conclude that nothing has changed? Correct me if I misunderstand.

Without Spell Versatility as presented in UA, a cleric has some real potential advantages over the Divine Lifelock, in particular real access to spells like Augury and Divination and Protection From Poison which in real life are only theoretical possibilities for the Sorlock: he won't really ever have them because the opportunity cost of learning them is too high. Spell Versatility drastically shrinks that cost, by design: it makes it cheap and easy to access the entire class spell list (cleric + sorcerer).

The "something new" being brought to the table is a synergistic package, not a single spell.

A three class multi class (using two subclass with cleric spell list access) and a brand new race (with a spell adding feature that shouldn't have been implemented) is hardly a valid criticism of a UA feature. Spells known has never been an issue on multiclass casters and seeing as that build is still missing ritual casting that goes beyond first level, meaningful spell recovery on a SR and missing a pact (and level gated invocations) I don't agree with the best of x y and z either.

It's a thrown together equivalence of a cleric that stunts spell progression, sorcery points and outside of long rest based healing doesn't really do much else that well. Being a Divine Soul is great on paper, in reality? Sorcerers were struggling with spells known before and now they have two lists of spells to choose from. SV doesn't change that. You can swap an equivalent level spell (a restriction that keeps either getting ignored or downplayed for the most part) once per LR, even if you string together LR to change your list you're still stuck in that limitation and having to give up spells you'd probably rather keep prepared.

[MaxWilson]

And even though the Op was mixing spells known with prepared, it doesn't really change much. Wizards still prepare many more spells than a Sorcerer knows (maybe a bard but AFB) and with off prepared list ritual casting have access to a lot more spells during the day than just level+int.

Rituals are a very, very tiny fraction of all good spells, and most of the good rituals aren't on the wizard spell list--and even if they were it wouldn't solve the wizard's problem of pressure on spells known: you only get two picks per level, and rituals still count against that limit!


A three class multi class (using two subclass with cleric spell list access) and a brand new race (with a spell adding feature that shouldn't have been implemented) is hardly a valid criticism of a UA feature.

It's a valid criticism of a methodology to point out that the methodology isn't asking the right questions, and to present a counterexample in the form of an exceptionally strong character that the methodology fails to detect anything special about.


Sorcerers were struggling with spells known before and now they have two lists of spells to choose from. SV doesn't change that. You can swap an equivalent level spell (a restriction that keeps either getting ignored or downplayed for the most part) once per LR, even if you string together LR to change your list you're still stuck in that limitation and having to give up spells you'd probably rather keep prepared.

This is not my experience with Divine Souls. The problem with spells known is that it's now or never: you don't take Greater Restoration because you're planning on casting it today, you take it so that when someone gets their brain eaten by an Intellect Devourer they're not permanently stunned (or at least until you can level up). Ditto Raise Dead, mostly ditto Regeneration. You don't need Death Ward on a daily basis--cast it when you're going to war with something bad and sneaky, like Orcus or a beholder clan. Teleport? Don't need it all the time, but when you need it you really need it. Ditto Symbol, Planar Binding, to a certain extent even Wish! (If you're planning on casting Meteor Swarm, you don't need Wish today.) Being able to offload spells into the future without losing access to them does relieve pressure on spells known, despite what you claim.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Sorcerers were struggling with spells known before and now they have two lists of spells to choose from. SV doesn't change that. You can swap an equivalent level spell (a restriction that keeps either getting ignored or downplayed for the most part) once per LR, even if you string together LR to change your list you're still stuck in that limitation and having to give up spells you'd probably rather keep prepared.

This reads to me like pretending that you can't just swap back to a spell if you really need it later. You never lose something for more than a day and you aren't swapping out spells that you're going to regret losing.

Say I'm like most Sorcerer's and I took Fireball for my third level spell. We make an unexpected trip to the Nine Hells, Fireball is pretty rotten right now. I take my long rest and switch it for Lightning Bolt (still not ideal, but significantly better) and can now defend myself in the Nine Hells. We finish up our adventure here and at my next long rest I decide "You know, Fireball is really where it's at" and replace Lightning Bolt with Fireball instead.

Replace "Fireball" and "Lightning Bolt" with just about any spell. Why are you at all upset about "losing" spell A when you made an active choice to trade it for spell B because you don't expect to use it or it won't perform up to standard? You're not upset. Your spell list is greatly expanded by SV, I don't understand how you could argue otherwise.

I guess I just don't understand the argument, you're never swapping into a spell you wouldn't want.

[Veldrenor]

I wonder how much of the argument over Spell Versatility actually boils down to differences in everyone's respective games. For example, in the games I play in and the games I run Spell Versatility would be useless for finding a "silver bullet." We don't have that kind of time. If we need Darkness or Blindness to deal with a beholder it's because we just walked into a room and it contains an angry beholder. If we need Zone of Truth it's because bad things are going to happen if we don't get answers out of the bad guy in the next few hours. If we need the perfect spell we need it now, we can't afford to spend a day sitting around doing nothing. An imperfect solution today is far better than a perfect solution tomorrow. And if the obstacle isn't immediate enough that we can spare the time to sit and wait, do we have enough rations and water to cover the extra day? Do we have cards or a book or something to keep ourselves occupied, because waiting is boring as hell? What are the villains doing with the extra day we're giving them? Waiting has a cost; the world is always moving and the clock is always ticking, even if we can't see it happening.

[MaxWilson]

I wonder how much of the argument over Spell Versatility actually boils down to differences in everyone's respective games. For example, in the games I play in and the games I run Spell Versatility would be useless for finding a "silver bullet." We don't have that kind of time. If we need Darkness or Blindness to deal with a beholder it's because we just walked into a room and it contains an angry beholder. If we need Zone of Truth it's because bad things are going to happen if we don't get answers out of the bad guy in the next few hours. If we need the perfect spell we need it now, we can't afford to spend a day sitting around doing nothing. An imperfect solution today is far better than a perfect solution tomorrow. And if the obstacle isn't immediate enough that we can spare the time to sit and wait, do we have enough rations and water to cover the extra day? Do we have cards or a book or something to keep ourselves occupied, because waiting is boring as hell? What are the villains doing with the extra day we're giving them? Waiting has a cost; the world is always moving and the clock is always ticking, even if we can't see it happening.

Good point--this might be a Combat As War vs. Combat As Sport distinction. Quoting from the seminal thread (https://www.enworld.org/threads/very-long-combat-as-sport-vs-combat-as-war-a-key-difference-in-d-d-play-styles.317715/):

Both are deeply gamist, but they don't agree on what the game is. For CAS, the game starts when you roll initiative. Each combat is self-contained, similar to a sports league. They get irritated if they have to bother with boring stuff like counting arrows. They get irritated if the Wizard scys the next enemy group and has the right spell prepared to end the combat in his first action.
For CAW, an entire module is a game. They get irritated if they don't get the chance to prepare fights. They hate if the resource management is handwaved. They consider it a good fight if they walk over the enemies in one big swoop.

How do you ever accomodate both? This isn't something that you can integrate by giving players spotlight who enjoy a certain game element. This is about how the DM sets up the entire game.

Spell Versatility is a mere player convenience for CAS play but a very powerful ability in CAW play. This is one reason I think it should be rewritten to be a optional downtime rule for cinematic campaigns: that way it's explicitly restricted to types of campaigns that don't care much about logistics.

[Daghoulish]

most of the good rituals aren't on the wizard spell list

May I ask what the good rituals are? To my knowledge wizards get the most and best rituals. Leomond's Tiny Hut, Identify, Detect Magic, Water Breathing, Alarm, Find Familiar, those are most of the good ones to me but they do have a lot more. All of these are fantastic rituals to have, the only two I might see them as missing is Animal Messenger(which is all right but not great to me), and Meld Into Stone. Which I guess is alright for espionage, but do you really know where those kinds of things are happening and that they're guaranteed to happen within eight hours in that exact place?

[Chaosmancer]

So, then, you should be equally okay with a bard or sorcerer entirely swapping out their list every long rest, with anything they want from their class lists, right? Because that, too, requires them to trade out even MORE of their spells, which only increases the cost. Right?

If your answer is "no, that'd be broken," please explain how your reasoning for swapping all of a sorcerer's 1 4th level spells (for example) doesn't apply to swapping all of a sorcerer's 1st-4th level spells.

I don't know why I need to explain something I never claimed, but sure, let's do it.

Imagine a supreme pizza, it has onion, green pepper, mushroom, pepperoni, sausage, black olives, and cheese.

Spell Versatility is taking one of those toppings and changing it for another. It is a decision, what do you want to keep, what will go good with what remains, will the group find the change to their taste.

What you are suggesting by swapping their entire spell list is ordering an entirely different pizza.


Now, if you want to explain to me how changing a single topping is exactly the same as ordering an entirely new pizza with whatever toppings you want, feel free. The underlying point remains the same. Switching one spell for a spell of the same level has an opportunity cost, especially since these classes tend to have only very few spells of that level known.

You know what, maybe that pizza analogy was bad, let's try a holiday one.

You go out and spend $150 on toys. Two toys that cost $25, a big fancy one that cost $75, a nice one that costs $15 and two cheap $5 toys.

Spell Versatility is going to the return desk and swapping a single toy for a toy of the exact same price. Not the same price or lower, not store credit that allows you to add some extra money later. The exact same price. Once. Maybe you can come back tomorrow and swap something else out. Of course, there is a limited selection of toys at any price point.

What you are proposing with swapping an entire list is returning all the toys and getting $150 to spend again on whatever you decide you need.

Clear on the differences here? Is swapping your entire list broken and overpowered. Depends on the game. Seriously, I've seen some games with some homebrew rules where this wouldn't cause an eye to be blinked. Others where this would be god-like. End of the day, it isn't the issue being discussed. Because despite people trying to equate spell versatility to swapping every spell on a long rest, or having access to their entire spell list with no consequences or costs, it doesn't work like that.



Every bard now has illusory script available, because it lasts for 10 days and he can just cast it on an off-day and have the illusory script ready. Or, for a longer-term, intrigue-based game, he can cast it for whatever purpose he wants during downtime. It will be rare to non-existent for a bard to bother having the spell in his adventuring repertoire, but he can just assume he has it available on any day he's not actively got to keep an eye on his spells known for moment-to-moment incidents.

Great, that spell might actually see some use. It is so situational as to be deemed nearly useless. Especially since writing everything in a pigdin of different languages, writing in ciphers and codes (either because the DM lets you make a check or knowing it was an intrigue campaign you took Linguist)


Every bard also now has animale messenger. Sure, he's not using it while "adventuring," unless he gets in a sticky situation and needs to send for help, but he has it tomorrow if he does need it. (And the spell isn't likely to be terribly useful immediately if it's not also useful tomorrow.) Moreover, he has it during downtime because he can swap it in, use it, and swap it out before he ever misses whatever he swapped it for.

You mean the ritual spell that any Druid might have? I mean, if there are no stakes, you are in town. This is downtime right? So you could also just hire a messenger. Gold coin gets you a message delivered to anyone within 100 miles. Two or three additional gives you back ups in case the messenger is waylaid, or you can get them to hire a horse. I can't see the Bard being able to send mail to be incredibly powerful outside of an adventuring context. Sure, if they have stakes, as in an enemy group approaching them while they are stranded in the wilderness and they need to send for reinforcements... but that immediately breaks into the fact that they are adventuring, and maybe not having Hold Person when the enemy attacks is going to end up mattering.


Every bard also has lesser restoration. Sure, sure, so does every cleric (tomorrow, at least), but is it intended that every bard should be able to cure disease without a serious investment? That's the kind of change in paradigm this feature brings to classes like the Bard; no longer is learning something like lesser restoration a statement about the kind of character you're playing with him. It's just something every Bard has access to.

I don't see the big deal. Every bard can now magical heal people? Sure, they could do that anyways like you pointed out. Healing has never seemed to me like it was making a statement about the Bard. And if they want to make a statement... they take it initially. I've actually rarely seen Lesser Restoration used, because the effects it cures are usually temporary and my groups don't waste the action mid-fight to use it. Never had someone important need it during downtime when there is no threats around either.

Plus, like you said, clerics and druids can already do this.


Magic mouth, too, is now just a tool in the downtime bard's repretoire. Every bard can cast it all over his hotel room, house, gear, etc., with whatever triggers he wants, and do it without having to actually waste a spell known on it during serious adventuring days. [/QUOTE

The Bard has talking equipment. Sounds like great roleplaying fodder. Why are we against this? Seems like a fun thing to include just so people can be creative. After all, Magic Mouth is another spell I rarely see get put to any use. It would be nice to have people other than NPCs use it.

[QUOTE=Segev;24304702]If your party does interrogations of medium-term prisoners, every Bard now has zone of truth. So, again, does the cleric, but, again, the paradigm-shift means that the Bard is basically a cleric-lite in terms of spell preparation. There are no spells the Bard picks up that say much about his design, other than "I needed it for a day."

Was Bard design really so hinged on their spell selection? Were people really making "statements" about their bard through the spells they took?

Again, this can't be a balance issue, because Clerics and Paladins can already do exactly this. It seems you are more worried "Bards will act like Clerics, and it won't be a choice of permanent theme, just magical effects they can do"... And I'm left with a big "And?" because it seems like a thing that was happening anyways.

Also, lots of Bard things they could do to also interrogate someone without obvious magic that smart people will keep their mouths shut during. After all Zone of Truth doesn't compel answering, just truth.


Same with glyph of warding. Every Bard has it, now. Cast during downtime, with any Bard spell you want (even ones you wouldn't adventure with), and just wait a couple days to get your spell list back in order before adventuring again.

And do what with it?

RAW Glyph of Warding can't be transported. So, you are setting a trap? Rogue with Thieve's Tools can do that too. A magic trap? Okay, cool, for what purpose? Just want to put some 1 minute Hold Person traps up so people stand around awkwardly for a little bit while breaking into your base.


Major image, too, once you can cast 6th level spells. Permanent. If a bard wants to have some permanent illusion somewhere, he can! Just because he's a Bard. No investment at all necessary, beyond a spare day.

A permanent billboard? I mean, I guess permanent illusions can be used cleverly, but I'm not sure what you are doing with it that is breaking the game if the Bard can just choose to do it. And, if they are the type to really want to do this, they are going to grab this spell anyways and use it anyways.


Awaken is another example of a spell that is just on every Bard's available list. This one's expensive to even cast, but it's there if they want it, and no need to consider carrying it around on adventuring days.

Again, Druids can do this, so it can't be that broken to allow in the game. What makes Bard's doing this special?


Planar binding, too, is one you almost always want to upcast to longer than a day. A bard will never bother carrying it around,but every bard will benefit from it when it can be upcast.

So, a spell that no bard would ever take from the bard list might get used now because of this rule? Again, that sounds like a good thing to me. I like people to be able to use spells that I don't normally see.


Raise dead
Scrying
Teleportation circle
Programmed illusion
Mirage arcane
Regenerate
Resurrection
Symbol
To a lesser extent, teleport, though that one you might consider just having available all the time.
True polymorph, at least for the permanent version. Though again, might well consider having it all the time. But even if you don't! Even if you prefer foresight for adventuring! You can still get it without any investment other than a spare day if you want to permanently change something into something else!

A lot of very powerful stuff that Bards might have taken anyways, and kept. Woo.

Except Raise Dead. Every temple in the world generally offers that, so even with Spell Versatility, it is less likely to be taken.



I would agree with sorcerers who felt 15 were cripplingly tiny in number. But you're utterly missing the point of the guy you're accusing of "bleeping joking." He's not talking about the non-SV state of things. He's talking about how this will feel in regular gameplay with SV available to sorcerers, bards, and warlocks. The wizard will feel "cripplingly tiny" in his spell list options compared to even the sorcerer if the wizard ever feels limited at all, because the sorcerer, at worst, will only feel temporarily so. The wizard will feel limited for longer, and with a more questionable ability to correct the limitation.

I find this to be completely ridiculous.

Let us just take 1st level for a moment. A sorcerer will have two spells. It can be any two spells sure, and tomorrow they might even change one for a different one. But, tomorrow, it will still be two spells that they have.

The wizard, if they take only two rituals, prepares 4 spells and has two rituals they can cast whenever they feel like it. Leaving them with a paltry six spells available whenever they want.

I'm sure they feel so devastated when the Sorcerer swaps to a different spell the next day, because they only have the six best spells they could pick for their theme and level.



Thing is, you're dangerously close to opening yourself up to such an accusation, here, since you're possibly-deliberately bringing the sorcerer in and presuming that anybody here is disagreeing that 15 spells was "cripplingly small" as a list size, or that fixing that accessibility problem for the sorcerer isn't even being considered, and that just because the sorcerer had it worse, the wizard doesn't get to feel like his limited selection is a weakness. Especially when the sorcerer has had his whole list opened up to him, while the wizard still has 44 + whatever he can beg, borrow, or steal from his DM's gracious permission.

You know what, you have some fair points here. And I am getting heated about this. Because, somehow, the wizard has gone from being universally considered one the most powerful classes in the game, the class that always has the perfect spell, to being considered one of the worst classes in the game who has to beg, borrow and steal to get even a chance of catching up with the competition...

And the wizard mechanics have not changed one iota.

Mechanically, the 44+ spell wizard with 25 prepared spells, two free 1st or second level at will spells, rituals constantly prepared no matter what has gone from the gold standard of versatile power to a poor waif who is struggling with a "crippling small" spell list... who still has more spells per day than any of the other classes. MaxWilson didn't mention sorcerers, mentioned Rangers though.

Want to know why I'm not discussing Rangers as part of Spell Versatility? I gave them prepared casting and access to their entire list years ago. It was a blip on the radar of balance. And I used the Revised Ranger and gave them domain spell for their subclasses too. It was barely noticeable. A few extra tricks they could try out and the ability to swap out somethings that weren't working.

Of course, now on this thread a lesser version of that same ability is being touted up, because now the wizard has "even fewer spells than the ranger"... as long as you ignore full caster progression, having more spell prepared, ritual casting, cantrips, Arcane Recovery....

deep breath

Like I said, I know I'm getting heated about this. I am more than willing to debate whether SV is against theme. OR breaks some delicate balance because of a specific abusable spell, or that is just too fast and allows too much freedom. But, I am not going to debate that the wizard is suddenly constrained and crippled, when the wizard has not changed. In a game with only a wizard and no bard, warlock or sorcerer, implementing this entire UA only makes the wizard stronger by giving them more rituals other classes used to have unique, and alters nothing about how they work mechanically.



You're confusing spells known with spell selection. Maybe this is my fault so I'll try to restate the point. People claim several things about today's sorcerer, but having a small spell selection isn't one of them--it's just a not-very-good spell selection, except for Divine Souls. By giving sorcerers three or four times as many spells in their "spellbook" as wizards, you're fixing a problem that no one ever said the sorcerer had.

Sorcerer's problems are:

(1) Too few spells known;
(2) Not enough of the best spells.

Spell versatility is a solution in search of a problem.

Do you still feel that this is an argument in bad faith? It isn't, but I don't know what more I can do to make that clear.

This is a completely different argument than the one you made.

Referring to this argument, I would have never thought that Sorcerers have bad spell selection. After all, they have many of the same spells that Wizards and Druids have, and some of them are very good.

I see Spell Versatility as addressing some parts of the too few spells known, because if you can switch one or two out, then it is less of a burden if you make a mistake or misjudge the campaign. This is for retraining your spells. It can be used like a spellbook the size of the entire list, but since it doesn't provide ritual casting, or the ability to swap the entire list in a single day, then it is actually far weaker than the spell book in that instance.


And actually, it is that powerful ritual casting that leads me to try and avoid talking about 25 spells prepared for the wizard. Because it is a misleading number, if they have 8 rituals in their book, they actually have 33 spells prepared compared to other casters. It makes a large difference.

IF you want to argue that this doesn't actually solve the problems of the sorcerer, I actually completely agree. I just disagree that this also massively harms the wizard, who is still usually more fully loaded out with spells than any other class in the game.

[Kane0]

A wizard character supposedly studies arcane magic for a long time and carefully prepares all his spells in advance, a great feat of his INTellect. Yet wizard players hardly put much thought into which spells they choose at level-up or which spells they try to scribe into their spellbook first – after all, there's no limit to any of that; so instead of carefully preparing things by thinking everything through for a long time, they only care about that one instant-gratification spell they want at any given moment and get over-emotional if they can't just have it.

This wizard player behavior fits very well the theme of the sorcerer character, who is supposed to be emotion-driven & lazy in terms of studying magic. However, the sorcerer players often spend days contemplating the exact progression of their spell lists, confering with their peers about it on this very forum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?603958-Share-your-Sorcerer-spell-lists!), reading dozens of pages on the creative application of spells, and carefully studying guides on spells & metamagic, just to make sure that their prepared spells best fit the possible future needs of their parties – i.e. exactly what wizard characters supposedly do.

Truly, if Spell Versatility has shown us one thing, it's the magical irony that sorcerer-players think like ingame-wizards while wizard-players think like ingame-sorcerers. :smallbiggrin:

Indeed. Some on this forums did point that out prior to the UA, but it really did highlight the issue.

[MaxWilson]

May I ask what the good rituals are? To my knowledge wizards get the most and best rituals. Leomond's Tiny Hut, Identify, Detect Magic, Water Breathing, Alarm, Find Familiar, those are most of the good ones to me but they do have a lot more. All of these are fantastic rituals to have, the only two I might see them as missing is Animal Messenger(which is all right but not great to me), and Meld Into Stone. Which I guess is alright for espionage, but do you really know where those kinds of things are happening and that they're guaranteed to happen within eight hours in that exact place?

The very best rituals are (IMO) Augury, Divination, and Commune, which are all cleric rituals.

Leomund's Tiny Hut is excellent if your DM interprets it as Leomund's Tiny Invulnerable Hut, but I don't think that's implied by the spell. (Unlike Wall of Force it has no "immune to damage" clause. I think it's just as tough as a normal locked building would be, which is to say moderately.)

Find Familiar is pretty good too, especially in dungeon crawling and low level combats. (Depends though on how much the DM is willing to handwave gold <===> spell component conversion.)

The others you list are not spells I would prioritize. E.g. I can pick 8 first-level spells total, and I definitely want Expeditious Retreat, Shield, Absorb Elements, Sleep, Mage Armor, Find Familiar, Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Disguise Self, Unseen Servant, Longstrider... that's ten spells so I'm already having to cross of two of my must-haves. I'm definitely not going to forego three more of them to grab Identify, Alarm, and Detect Magic.

Phantom Steed is a pretty good ritual too, but it's a tough one to get because it's a 3rd level spell and there are so many must-have 3rd level spell picks like Fireball, Fear, Hypnotic Pattern, Counterspell, Animate Dead, Tiny Servant, etc. (Same goes for Leomund's Tiny Hut, also third level.)

Part of me suspects that the people who think Spell Versatility isn't a big deal have never actually tried playing wizards and seeing how painful that spellbook restriction actually is... but the more charitable part of me thinks they've probably played wizards and sorcerers and are just enjoying having unlimited access to the class list on at least one of the too. I.e. I suppose they must know at some level that it is a huge deal, but see that as a feature, not a bug.


A wizard character supposedly studies arcane magic for a long time and carefully prepares all his spells in advance, a great feat of his INTellect. Yet wizard players hardly put much thought into which spells they choose at level-up or which spells they try to scribe into their spellbook first – after all, there's no limit to any of that; so instead of carefully preparing things by thinking everything through for a long time, they only care about that one instant-gratification spell they want at any given moment and get over-emotional if they can't just have it.

Um, there's a very restrictive limit: you get two spells per level and that's it, unless you find more in the wild or your DM allows spell research. (Even that limit is arguably too generous: in AD&D you have to find all of your spells in the wild or research them.)

It sounds like your DM is way too easy on wizards. Tell him to go read Mazirian the Magician and consider how finding a lost spell is supposed to be much like discovering a new magic item.

[Chaosmancer]

Rituals are a very, very tiny fraction of all good spells, and most of the good rituals aren't on the wizard spell list--and even if they were it wouldn't solve the wizard's problem of pressure on spells known: you only get two picks per level, and rituals still count against that limit!

I'm not sure about rituals being a very tiny fraction or that wizards don't get most of the good ones. I'd have to double check the spell lists I've been compiling to get a really good feel for it.


I do want to point out though that your pressure of "two spells per level" is again missing a point.

Bards, Warlocks and Sorcerers? They only learn one new spell per level. And rituals still count against their limits too.

Now, you'll likely point to SV and say that that pressure is entirely gone, because now they can pick any spell they want the next day, but that misses the point of them potentially losing the spell they just got in the swap. So, it is a zero sum game for them. And pointing out that the Wizard gets double the spells per level that they can choose, doesn't paint it like the wizard is hurting for options.



This reads to me like pretending that you can't just swap back to a spell if you really need it later. You never lose something for more than a day and you aren't swapping out spells that you're going to regret losing.

Say I'm like most Sorcerer's and I took Fireball for my third level spell. We make an unexpected trip to the Nine Hells, Fireball is pretty rotten right now. I take my long rest and switch it for Lightning Bolt (still not ideal, but significantly better) and can now defend myself in the Nine Hells. We finish up our adventure here and at my next long rest I decide "You know, Fireball is really where it's at" and replace Lightning Bolt with Fireball instead.

Replace "Fireball" and "Lightning Bolt" with just about any spell. Why are you at all upset about "losing" spell A when you made an active choice to trade it for spell B because you don't expect to use it or it won't perform up to standard? You're not upset. Your spell list is greatly expanded by SV, I don't understand how you could argue otherwise.

I guess I just don't understand the argument, you're never swapping into a spell you wouldn't want.


I'd say it is less that you are never swapping into a spell you would want, and more that it is being presented like you never swap out of a spell you would want.

Sure, Fireball in the Nine Hells is going to be pretty worthless. But what if you are swapping Fireball for Tongues when visiting Sigil? Is Fireball really never going to be missed while you are in the city? Or did you have to give up something to get something?

It can be an easy decision, but more than likely in the worst case scenario where suddenly these classes are the best Arcane Casters in the multiverse, it is likely a hard decision, because trying to tactically change only a single aspect of your tool set can easily lead to holes in your ability to react to problems.



The very best rituals are (IMO) Augury, Divination, and Commune, which are all cleric rituals.

I would like to note that this UA gave Wizards Augury and Divination to their spell list. They can now have these as well.

So, they are only missing Commune.


Part of me suspects that the people who think Spell Versatility isn't a big deal have never actually tried playing wizards and seeing how painful that spellbook restriction actually is... but the more charitable part of me thinks they've probably played wizards and sorcerers and are just enjoying having unlimited access to the class list on at least one of the too. I.e. I suppose they must know at some level that it is a huge deal, but see that as a feature, not a bug.

I definitely see this feature as doing what it is intended to do, but I still don't think it is as bad as people seem to think it will be for the wizard.

And, while I have never played a wizard myself, I have played a Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, and Paladin and everyone of them felt very restrictive in the spells I had for the day. So I fully expect Wizard would feel the exact same way (though in terms of 1st levels, I have built wizards for con games and I have far fewer musts than you have, so I often end up with extra spell selections I don't know what to do with)

And yes, you read that correctly, I felt constrained by the Cleric and Druid, the classes that can have any spell any day at no cost... except, you can only prepare a small number of those, and you have to prepare your rituals, so when picking only 8 or 10 spells throughout 3 or 4 levels of spells, it becomes a bit challenging and you have to make hard decisions about what you aren't going to be able to do today.

[MaxWilson]

Bards, Warlocks and Sorcerers? They only learn one new spell per level. And rituals still count against their limits too.

Now, you'll likely point to SV and say that that pressure is entirely gone, because now they can pick any spell they want the next day, but that misses the point of them potentially losing the spell they just got in the swap. So, it is a zero sum game for them. And pointing out that the Wizard gets double the spells per level that they can choose, doesn't paint it like the wizard is hurting for options.

There is no "potentially losing the spell they just got in the swap." Spell versatility completely removes the "one new spell per level" limitation and replaces it with "all the spells." You're trying to pretend this isn't a problem, but to do so you're having to change the subject from how many spells you have in your "spellbook" (virtual spellbook in the case of Spell Versatility) to how many spells you can prepare at a time.

When you say "the Wizard gets double the spells per level that they can choose", that's not true any more under Spell Versatility. It's now more like "the sorcerer gets 3x to 5x more spells per level that they can choose than the wizard." (129 Sorcerer PHB spells vs. 44 wizard spells. 215 PHB Cleric + Sorcerer spells for the Divine Soul.)

If you want to talk about spells prepared, then talk about that, but don't bring it up in the middle of a discussion on spellbook spells and pretend that you're not changing the subject. That would be arguing in bad faith, and you're better than that.

[diplomancer]

I'm not sure about rituals being a very tiny fraction or that wizards don't get most of the good ones. I'd have to double check the spell lists I've been compiling to get a really good feel for it.


I do want to point out though that your pressure of "two spells per level" is again missing a point.

Bards, Warlocks and Sorcerers? They only learn one new spell per level. And rituals still count against their limits too.

Bards, Warlocks and Sorcerers now learn ALL of the spells of the new level they can cast every odd level, while Wizards learn 4 by spell level. Wizards can prepare more than Warlocks and Sorcerers (and Bards if you count the ritual spells).

Having said that, I hope they don't change Spell Versatility. Just give it to the Wizard on the same terms and he will still be considerably more versatile than the other arcane casters. And why should they be so? Because of Wizard Supremacy? Because it's Wizards of the coast? Because I'm a wizard fanboy? No. They should be more versatile because that's their only base class feature apart from Arcane Recovery until 18th level.

[ezekielraiden]

Bards, Warlocks and Sorcerers now learn ALL of the spells of the new level they can cast every odd level, while Wizards learn 4 by spell level. Wizards can prepare more than Warlocks and Sorcerers (and Bards if you count the ritual spells).
A gross misrepresentation of what it does, but frankly I'm tired of repeatedly noting that "having EVERY spell on the list" and "potentially having any singular spell on the list" are radically different things. Especially when there is, even with the ability as written, a 24-hour cooldown on it.

You have said something that is straight-up wrong. As long as you keep arguing as though it's true, you will continue to have an inflated sense of what Spell Versatility does.


Having said that, I hope they don't change Spell Versatility. Just give it to the Wizard on the same terms and he will still be considerably more versatile than the other arcane casters. And why should they be so? Because of Wizard Supremacy? Because it's Wizards of the coast? Because I'm a wizard fanboy? No. They should be more versatile because that's their only base class feature apart from Arcane Recovery until 18th level.
Why should that matter? You can't compare the quantity of base class features vs subclass-derived features across classes. The comparison is well past "apples and oranges" territory.

[Dork_Forge]

Rituals are a very, very tiny fraction of all good spells, and most of the good rituals aren't on the wizard spell list--and even if they were it wouldn't solve the wizard's problem of pressure on spells known: you only get two picks per level, and rituals still count against that limit!


I don't really agree at all with the rituals comments, arguably the ritual spells embody the utility that a Wizard should represent and they have access to a lot of them (which I do consider good). I'm not going to agree on spells known pressure either, they start with 6 spells and can effectively have 4 spells per spell level after 1st. That doesn't really seem too much like pressure, especially seeing as a lot of characters will have themes/preferences that will have them favour certain spells over others.


It's a valid criticism of a methodology to point out that the methodology isn't asking the right questions, and to present a counterexample in the form of an exceptionally strong character that the methodology fails to detect anything special about.


You made it seem as if the Sorcerer had prepared spells everyday like a Cleric (which is flat out misleading and doesn't take spells known cost into it) in a build that arguably wasn't really much of what you claimed it was.


This is not my experience with Divine Souls. The problem with spells known is that it's now or never: you don't take Greater Restoration because you're planning on casting it today, you take it so that when someone gets their brain eaten by an Intellect Devourer they're not permanently stunned (or at least until you can level up). Ditto Raise Dead, mostly ditto Regeneration. You don't need Death Ward on a daily basis--cast it when you're going to war with something bad and sneaky, like Orcus or a beholder clan. Teleport? Don't need it all the time, but when you need it you really need it. Ditto Symbol, Planar Binding, to a certain extent even Wish! (If you're planning on casting Meteor Swarm, you don't need Wish today.) Being able to offload spells into the future without losing access to them does relieve pressure on spells known, despite what you claim.

Except it doesn't? If you didn't take it at the level up it's because you took another spell you wanted/needed more. So to gain access to whatever you need that day you need to lose something you'll probably also need. This again relies on knowing a day ahead of time what problems you may face, in my experience as a player, DM and consumer of online games and forum posts this is not a particularly common occurence (and times where one certain spell that no one else has that happens to be on your list throw into the mix... well I've never heard of and the examples in this thread so far have been weak to say the least).


snipped for length
The argument is that people are treating SV like being the silver bullet solution to scenarios that mostly just seem white room (and even niche by those standards) when in reality they aren't. The scenarios suggested thus far aren't equivalences like you propose, its taking spell x to solve the problem that only it could solve that we somehow knew about ahead of times. It's swapping Fireball for Tongues, without considering you've just dropped your big gun to do it. People seem to be complaining that the Sorcerer etc. can fill the just what we need utility niche, that isn't really the case (especially not without the Sorc suffering for it).

What you propose is closer to actually the intent of the ability, the campaign has taken a turn that would gimp your character and drain your fun so you altered your spell list. The same thing is doable RAW now via level up, and something like you proposed would likely have a level up before/through/after it.


Part of me suspects that the people who think Spell Versatility isn't a big deal have never actually tried playing wizards and seeing how painful that spellbook restriction actually is... but the more charitable part of me thinks they've probably played wizards and sorcerers and are just enjoying having unlimited access to the class list on at least one of the too. I.e. I suppose they must know at some level that it is a huge deal, but see that as a feature, not a bug.

I openly prefer Sorcerers, but I have both built and played Wizards, 9/10 times I'm looking through the spell list for something to fill out the numbers because I have the spells I actually want for that character. I like the idea of SV because it means people playing spells known classes won't be missing out on fun because of a poor choice made potentially months ago. I dislike the idea of it because it hammers home that there's DMs out there which won't allow players to swap spells for the sake of fun whilst simultaneously putting large gaps between levels.


When you say "the Wizard gets double the spells per level that they can choose", that's not true any more under Spell Versatility. It's now more like "the sorcerer gets 3x to 5x more spells per level that they can choose than the wizard." (129 Sorcerer PHB spells vs. 44 wizard spells. 215 PHB Cleric + Sorcerer spells for the Divine Soul.)

If you want to talk about spells prepared, then talk about that, but don't bring it up in the middle of a discussion on spellbook spells and pretend that you're not changing the subject. That would be arguing in bad faith, and you're better than that.

From book Ritual Casting and essential spells invalidate those numbers greatly. When would a non Draconic Sorc ever be caught without Mage Armour or Shield (unless they MC'd for armor)? Mixing Rituals in also moves that number greatly again and since another Wizard in the party means you don't need a DM's approval to use a class feature the numbers can get skewed even further.

In general: SV ISN'T giving a class every spell on it's list, as ezekielraiden said above, it's drastically different. Apart from that how many players are actually going to use SV that much? Hell how many Clerics and Druids actually change around their lists that much? How often do you know what you'll need 9+ hours in advance?

As a forum debate this has been frustating but entertaining and informative, as a real world conisderation? I feel like this thread has long departed from that and hope things like this don't find their way into the survey for variant featuers.

[diplomancer]

A gross misrepresentation of what it does, but frankly I'm tired of repeatedly noting that "having EVERY spell on the list" and "potentially having any singular spell on the list" are radically different things. Especially when there is, even with the ability as written, a 24-hour cooldown on it.

You have said something that is straight-up wrong. As long as you keep arguing as though it's true, you will continue to have an inflated sense of what Spell Versatility does.


Why should that matter? You can't compare the quantity of base class features vs subclass-derived features across classes. The comparison is well past "apples and oranges" territory.

I'm comparing base class Features with base class features. Wizards get arcane recovery and more flexibility in their spell selections (before 18th level, so most wizards never even see Spell Mastery or Signature Spell). Bards get Bardic Inspiration, Jack of All Trades, Song of Rest, Expertise, Font of Inspiration, Countercharm and Magical Secrets (technically, they also get superior inspiration, but that is so undewhelming that I think even PCs who reach 20th level will have made a dip at some point. Even if you played a straight Bard to level 19, it's probably better to get one level of Hexblade, Cleric, Sorcerer, or Wizard than that crapstone). Therefore, Wizards should have more flexibility in their spell selections than Bards. Without giving Spell Versatility to Wizards also, they won't have that. At best, they will have a different kind of versatility.

[Chaosmancer]

There is no "potentially losing the spell they just got in the swap." Spell versatility completely removes the "one new spell per level" limitation and replaces it with "all the spells." You're trying to pretend this isn't a problem, but to do so you're having to change the subject from how many spells you have in your "spellbook" (virtual spellbook in the case of Spell Versatility) to how many spells you can prepare at a time.

When you say "the Wizard gets double the spells per level that they can choose", that's not true any more under Spell Versatility. It's now more like "the sorcerer gets 3x to 5x more spells per level that they can choose than the wizard." (129 Sorcerer PHB spells vs. 44 wizard spells. 215 PHB Cleric + Sorcerer spells for the Divine Soul.)

If you want to talk about spells prepared, then talk about that, but don't bring it up in the middle of a discussion on spellbook spells and pretend that you're not changing the subject. That would be arguing in bad faith, and you're better than that.

But saying you know all your spells (in terms of the sorcerer and bard) isn't quite accurate even under SV. Because saying that indicates you are a prepared caster. And you aren't. A prepared caster can choose from any of their spells at any time.

For example, a cleric could choose to prepare only one first level spell and spend all the rest on second levels. Even under SV Bards and Sorcerers cannot do that.

It is creating a new middle category, but trying to ignore that there are still limits here just seems wrong to me. A sorcerer can't stop knowing 1st level spells with SV. If they lose a 1st level spell, they must take a 1st level spell. And, if they do not use their level up swap to remove it, or instead learn 1st level spells instead of higher level spells, then they only can have three 1st level spells at any given time.

Can it be any three spells? Yes. It can be any three spells. They can go in and get a different 1st level spell every night until they have three different 1st level spells.

But, to say they don't lose any opportunity by returning a spell they picked (people seem to object to me saying losing) is wrong. They no longer have that spell. They had to give it up to get a different one. And, most sorcerers (and bards too) generally pick the spells they wanted in the first place.

I think that is another thing getting lost here. Spellcasters don't just pick any old thing when they pick their spells. They pick the spells they want to have. The spells they want the most. The Sorcerer has looked through their entire selection of 25 1st level spells and picked the three best ones, the ones they want to have available. If they end up switching, that means they don't have something they wanted in the first place. They are giving up something because the situation demanded it.

And, they can't swap multiple spells. They don't get to prepare three spells from 25 every day. They get to take one spell and replace it. If they replace a 1st, they do not get to replace a 3rd or a 4th or a 5th. Today, they replaced a 1st level spell. This is also a limit of SV.


So, as I keep saying, putting forth that the wizard only can prepare from 44 spells while the Sorcerer can now prepare from 129 spells, is misleading, it isn't telling the full story. It makes it sound like the work entirely like Clerics or Druids, but they do not. It is just swapping a single spell, not preparing an entirely new list. Unless they have a week of time where nothing is happening and there is no risk, but even then, they are swapping out of the spells they wanted to always have into different spells, and no one seems to be able to point anything wrong with that other than it making the wizard feel bad for some reason.


Bards, Warlocks and Sorcerers now learn ALL of the spells of the new level they can cast every odd level, while Wizards learn 4 by spell level. Wizards can prepare more than Warlocks and Sorcerers (and Bards if you count the ritual spells).

Having said that, I hope they don't change Spell Versatility. Just give it to the Wizard on the same terms and he will still be considerably more versatile than the other arcane casters. And why should they be so? Because of Wizard Supremacy? Because it's Wizards of the coast? Because I'm a wizard fanboy? No. They should be more versatile because that's their only base class feature apart from Arcane Recovery until 18th level.


As I said right above this, if you say they learn all their spells, it implies that they can freely change their entire list on a long rest. Swapping multiple spells, or not preparing certain levels of spells in favor of others.

That is not true. They do not learn their entire spell list.

They can swap a single spell for a single different spell of the same level once per day. This is a different thing. Sorcerers, Bards and Warlocks have no become prepared casters with all that that entails. They just have a small bit more flexibility in what spells they have for the day.

[Theaitetos]

This reads to me like pretending that you can't just swap back to a spell if you really need it later. You never lose something for more than a day and you aren't swapping out spells that you're going to regret losing.

Say I'm like most Sorcerer's and I took Fireball for my third level spell. We make an unexpected trip to the Nine Hells, Fireball is pretty rotten right now. I take my long rest and switch it for Lightning Bolt (still not ideal, but significantly better) and can now defend myself in the Nine Hells. We finish up our adventure here and at my next long rest I decide "You know, Fireball is really where it's at" and replace Lightning Bolt with Fireball instead.

So your point is, that the only way for wizard players to continue having fun with D&D, is for sorcerer players to be stuck with Fireball in the Nine Hells? :smallconfused:


Rituals are a very, very tiny fraction of all good spells, and most of the good rituals aren't on the wizard spell list

Wizards have 50% more freely castable rituals than sorcerers have entire spells known, and yet they still complain that they don't really get ALL the good rituals for free. WTF? :smallconfused:


This is not my experience with Divine Souls. The problem with spells known is that it's now or never: you don't take Greater Restoration because you're planning on casting it today, you take it so that when someone gets their brain eaten by an Intellect Devourer they're not permanently stunned (or at least until you can level up). Ditto Raise Dead, mostly ditto Regeneration. You don't need Death Ward on a daily basis--cast it when you're going to war with something bad and sneaky, like Orcus or a beholder clan.

And so can the cleric. Yet you don't hear cleric players whine about SV or wizard players whine about clerics. :smallsigh:


Ditto Symbol, Planar Binding, to a certain extent even Wish! (If you're planning on casting Meteor Swarm, you don't need Wish today.) Being able to offload spells into the future without losing access to them does relieve pressure on spells known, despite what you claim.

Yeah, because a 9th level spell like Wish is a good way of evaluating spell lists & spells known. Following your twisted logic, why would you need a cleric with Greater Restoration or Resurrection if you have a wizard with Wish to cast on off-days? Sorry, but going to such lengths – like evaluating Wish and MAD "Jorasco halfling Divine Soul 1/Life Cleric 1/Warlock 2/Divine Soul X" multi-class builds that might infringe upon "wizard territory" – to try to make a point, shows not the strength of your argument, but the complete weakness of your position.


The very best rituals are (IMO) Augury, Divination, and Commune, which are all cleric rituals.

Leomund's Tiny Hut is excellent if your DM interprets it as Leomund's Tiny Invulnerable Hut, but I don't think that's implied by the spell. (Unlike Wall of Force it has no "immune to damage" clause. I think it's just as tough as a normal locked building would be, which is to say moderately.)

Find Familiar is pretty good too, especially in dungeon crawling and low level combats. (Depends though on how much the DM is willing to handwave gold <===> spell component conversion.)

It's really funny that you constantly tell us how incredibly weak wizards are because of their alleged DM dependency ("if your DM allows/handwaves/interprets"), yet you consider the cleric spells Augury, Divination, and Commune the very best rituals in the game. :smallamused:

Seriously, Find Familiar and Leomund's Tiny Hut are DM-dependent but Augury and Commune are somehow not? WTF? :smallconfused:

p.s.: Since the UA wizards also have Augury and Divination in their spell list. But I guess now that they're free wizard spells they will soon drop from your "most powerful" list? I guess Commune with Nature and Forbiddance will make a sudden surge to the top? :smallwink:


Um, there's a very restrictive limit: you get two spells per level and that's it, unless you find more in the wild or your DM allows spell research. (Even that limit is arguably too generous: in AD&D you have to find all of your spells in the wild or research them.)

It sounds like your DM is way too easy on wizards.

Yes, yes, wizards are weak "because DM". :smallsigh:


…consider how finding a lost spell…

I'm also not sure what a "lost spell" really is. Is there a chapter about lost spells somewhere in the PHB?


Tell him to go read Mazirian the Magician and consider how finding a lost spell is supposed to be much like discovering a new magic item.

And finding spells is like discovering a new magic item, which, however, did not stop you from using Wish in your previous arguments. Makes sense.

p.s.: If "lost" spells are like a new magic item, then this means wizards get to choose up to 2 new magic items per level! Sounds really powerful! :smallwink:

[HiveStriker]

Even if you're needing it for one of several challenges tomorrow, the sorcerer isn't entirely without his other spells.

And really, I'm not discussing in particular a situation where a wizard and a sorcerer are in the same party. I'm looking at this from the standpoint of a player choosing to make a character.

Pre-SV, if you want to play an arcane caster who can reshape his spell array to suit a given challenge set, in particular with the ability to prepare for specific challenges, you'd go for the Wizard. But with the advent of SV, Bard (or, less likely, Sorcerer or Warlock) becomes the superior choice for this. Because the Bard can have any spell from his list, while the wizard is still limited to a subset he'd previously picked up at level-up, or has to hope he can find more and has the gp to buy the components to scribe it into his spellbook.

Nope. You'd go for Druid. Or a multiclass Cleric/Druid, or at worst Cleric / Wizard.
But not a Wizard. Unless you happen to know there will be other Wizards in your party and/or DM will give chances of extra spells like candies.

[diplomancer]

Nope. You'd go for Druid. Or a multiclass Cleric/Druid, or at worst Cleric / Wizard.
But not a Wizard. Unless you happen to know there will be other Wizards in your party and/or DM will give chances of extra spells like candies.

None of those are Arcane casters.

[ezekielraiden]

Nope. You'd go for Druid. Or a multiclass Cleric/Druid, or at worst Cleric / Wizard.
But not a Wizard. Unless you happen to know there will be other Wizards in your party and/or DM will give chances of extra spells like candies.

Technically speaking, only the Cleric/Wizard is even partially an "arcane caster." The term may be very nearly devoid of meaning in 5e, but it's not quite totally meaningless yet.

But yes, if you want a "do-anything" caster, since "arcane" vs "divine" is 99.99% pure fluff in 5e, you take an Arcana Cleric or a Land Druid. The former because, at least at high level, you get to add one Wizard spell each of levels 6 to 9, so you can pick up some of the few higher-level spells you don't have as a Cleric. The latter because it has Natural Recovery, meaning it has both the easily-accessed extra slots of the Wizard and the "I know literally all my class's spells" of the Cleric.

(And yes, Segev, I know you've said you don't like this facet of Cleric and Druid casting. But despite the number of times you've said it in this thread, you cannot deny that that opinion really hasn't been particularly loud or relevant prior to this thread.)

[MaxWilson]

A gross misrepresentation of what it does, but frankly I'm tired of repeatedly noting that "having EVERY spell on the list" and "potentially having any singular spell on the list" are radically different things. Especially when there is, even with the ability as written, a 24-hour cooldown on it.

You're changing the subject. You're interjecting your viewpoint into a conversation about wizards being restricted to 4 spells of each level over first, vs. Spell Versatility casters getting *all* spells of each level (44 wizard spells vs. 215 Divine Sorc spells in PHB alone)... and you're trying to change the conversation back to a wizard's spells prepared, but it's actually you who's missing the point.

We're talking about the spells you know (from an in-character standpoint, i.e. have available), not the spells you have prepared. Sorcerers don't "prepare" spells from a *game jargon* standpoint, but the UA effectively erases the distinction between prepared-spell casters and known-spell casters from an in-character standpoint. A Bard who can raise your friend from the dead by this time tomorrow clearly knows Raise Dead, or he wouldn't be able to make you that guarantee.

That is what we're talking about.

[Corran]

So, as I keep saying, putting forth that the wizard only can prepare from 44 spells while the Sorcerer can now prepare from 129 spells, is misleading, it isn't telling the full story. It makes it sound like the work entirely like Clerics or Druids, but they do not. It is just swapping a single spell, not preparing an entirely new list. Unless they have a week of time where nothing is happening and there is no risk, but even then, they are swapping out of the spells they wanted to always have into different spells, and no one seems to be able to point anything wrong with that other than it making the wizard feel bad for some reason.
Being able to change X+1 of your prepared spells is better than being able to change X of your prepared spells, for sure. But the benefit is logarithmic. The bulk of the value lies on being able to change 1 spell, or a couple of spells if you prefer. Sure, spell versatility does that in a more restrictive way. I don't think anyone disputes that. Some of the dispute is over how valuable this is, and that's an interesting conversation, but IMO it is missing the point.

Bolded part: You have casters who work with a fixed spell list (bards, sorcerers and warlocks), casters who can change it every day (clerics and druids), and then you have wizards who fall somewhere in the between. This is an interesting mechanical distinction. It is interesting, because it helps differentiate the classes on a mechanical level. And we want classes to be different enough on a mechanical level, so that the choice of actually picking and playing one is meaningful.

[ezekielraiden]

None of those are Arcane casters.

As a rebuttal:
What, exactly, does the difference mean in 5e? As far as I can tell, you don't even have all class texts referencing the difference. You can't even rely on a class using an "arcane focus" for spells--because Bards use musical instruments as their foci instead. In fact, the Bard class never features the term whatsoever! (It even, technically, implies that they're divine casters, by saying that Bard magic "is an attempt to snatch and harness...echoes" of the "words of the gods" that "gave [the universe] shape.")


You're changing the subject. You're interjecting your viewpoint into a conversation about wizards being restricted to 4 spells of each level over first, vs. Spell Versatility casters getting *all* spells of each level (44 wizard spells vs. 215 Divine Sorc spells in PHB alone)... and you're trying to change the conversation back to a wizard's spells prepared, but it's actually you who's missing the point.
I'm not changing or interjecting anything. Sorcerers get 15 spells known. Flat.* Not all, and certainly not 215.

I said nothing about prepared spells whatsoever. I literally did not mention them in any way. I am specifically talking about the Sorcerer "spells known," as in, how many spells you know. Because you have an explicit limit on the number of "spells known." That is literally the term the game uses. You know 15 spells. Spell Versatility would let you change exactly one of those spells, once a day, to a spell of the same level. That emphatically does not equate to knowing "all" Sorcerer spells. It's not even close.


That is what we're talking about.
You really shouldn't, then, or you should be much more specific. Because it is--even in natural language terms--explicitly wrong to say that Sorcerers (or any other "spells known" class) "knows" all those spells, because they don't. They can lock themselves into a SINGULAR new one of those spells with 24 hours notice. When you say that the Sorcerer (or whatever) "knows" all of these spells, you are quite clearly indicating that they can access any of them, all the time, whenever. Which, as I said, is a HUGE overstatement of the benefit of Spell Versatility.

You can get one new spell a day. And that has to come out of all the other presumptively good spells you had, that were useful most of the time, because you couldn't waste a single spell known. Sure, you get 15 to play with--at level 17. At level, say, 6? You know six spells. Locking yourself into a single niche spell (utility or not) for 24 hours is a pretty serious ask when it's one sixth of "all the spells you could possibly cast in a single day," aka what "spells known" actually means in the book itself.

You do not "know" all the spells on your list as a Bard or Sorcerer with Spell Versatility. You can, at best, potentially know a different one of them tomorrow. That is not distortion. That is using the words as the game uses them, indeed as people in this thread have repeatedly used them (e.g. to contrast "prepared casters" from "spells known casters.")

*Technically, Divine Soul Sorcerers get 1 extra, which must come from the Cleric list. The devs really wanted to make Divine Soul Sorcerers just better, I guess.

[Segev]

I don't know why I need to explain something I never claimed, but sure, let's do it.

Imagine a supreme pizza, it has onion, green pepper, mushroom, pepperoni, sausage, black olives, and cheese.

(snip)

You know what, maybe that pizza analogy was bad, let's try a holiday one.

You go out and spend $150 on toys. Two toys that cost $25, a big fancy one that cost $75, a nice one that costs $15 and two cheap $5 toys.

Spell Versatility is going to the return desk and swapping a single toy for a toy of the exact same price. Not the same price or lower, not store credit that allows you to add some extra money later. The exact same price. Once. Maybe you can come back tomorrow and swap something else out. Of course, there is a limited selection of toys at any price point.

What you are proposing with swapping an entire list is returning all the toys and getting $150 to spend again on whatever you decide you need. So? The point is that the Wizard is allowed to borrow toys from a small selection, while the sorcerer can trade all of his toys for any toy in the store. Sure, he still has to have two $25 toys, one $75, a $15 and two $5s, but he can pick any of them, and can trade back if he decides he likes the ones he had before, better. Or keep trading. For any toy in the store.

The wizard maybe is allowed any combination of toys up to $150, but he has a much smaller selection of toys he can swap out between.

I want you to really appreciate this: the wizard has a much smaller selection of toys he can choose between than the sorcerer does. I'm not engaging in hyperbole. I'm not blowing anything out of proportion. This is absolutely, 100% true.

And any scoffing over wizard players "whining" that the sorcerer is "finally catching up," or scornful dismissal that wizards should "learn what it's like," is utterly missing the point.

As the thread title says, this is about class identity.

And you dismissed without addressing my point, tacitly admitting I'm right without even realizing it, with your pizza analogy. "It's ordering a whole other pizza!" you said, if you can trade out all the toppings. That's true! And with SV, you can trade out all the toppings, ordering a whole other pizza. It just takes multiple calls to the pizzaria.

You said it's no big deal because the sorcerer is giving up one topping to replace it with another, and that's a cost. I queried whether you'd be okay with giving up all the toppings to replace all of them with others. That's where you balked. But you can already do that. And, if "it costs you one spell for another" is such a fair trade, so much so that the wizard (who you seem to think doesn't have this restriction) should consider it enough to counterbalance the bard or sorcerer having the ability to replace that spell with literally any spell of the same level on their class list, why is allowing them to do it with 2 spells, or 1 spell of every level, or all of their spells so very different? In terms of the cost you specified as being so limiting as to make this not a problem, it's identical: they still have to give up one spell for each new one they pick up!

But, the truth is, the wizard also has to give up one spell for each spell he swaps in each day. He doesn't get to just prepare an additional spell. The difference is, unlike the SV caster, the wizard is limited to less than 44 spells that he can even consider swapping out for daily, while the sorcerer and bard and other SV casters now, like clerics and druids, can swap for any spell on their list.

In other words, the moment you scoffed at "ordering a whole other pizza," you unwittingly conceded my point. Now, I'm willing to let you try again, because I doubt you meant to, but I hope you can see better where I'm coming from by recognizing why I say that your balking at SV being "every spell in the Sorcerer's repertoire" rather than "just one per day" is accepting that the "but he has to give up a spell to pick up a new one!" trade-off is not really a cost. Or at least, is no worse a cost than the wizard already pays.



Great, that spell might actually see some use.

(...)

You mean the ritual spell that any Druid might have?

(...)

I don't see the big deal. Every bard can now magical heal people? Sure, they could do that anyways like you pointed out.

(...)

Plus, like you said, clerics and druids can already do this.

(...)

The Bard has talking equipment. Sounds like great roleplaying fodder. Why are we against this? Seems like a fun thing to include just so people can be creative. After all, Magic Mouth is another spell I rarely see get put to any use. It would be nice to have people other than NPCs use it.


(...)

And do what with it?

RAW Glyph of Warding can't be transported. So, you are setting a trap? Rogue with Thieve's Tools can do that too. A magic trap? Okay, cool, for what purpose? Just want to put some 1 minute Hold Person traps up so people stand around awkwardly for a little bit while breaking into your base.

(...)

A permanent billboard? I mean, I guess permanent illusions can be used cleverly, but I'm not sure what you are doing with it that is breaking the game if the Bard can just choose to do it. And, if they are the type to really want to do this, they are going to grab this spell anyways and use it anyways.

(...)

Again, Druids can do this, so it can't be that broken to allow in the game. What makes Bard's doing this special?

(...)

So, a spell that no bard would ever take from the bard list might get used now because of this rule? Again, that sounds like a good thing to me. I like people to be able to use spells that I don't normally see.

(...)

A lot of very powerful stuff that Bards might have taken anyways, and kept. Woo.

Except Raise Dead. Every temple in the world generally offers that, so even with Spell Versatility, it is less likely to be taken.

So, in other words, you believe that the Bard would be perfectly fine if it just prepared spells like a cleric or druid. Is this correct?

Do you realize that what you're doing here is admitting that SV essentially turns those who have it into "prepared" casters who just have a shorter list of spells prepared at any one point in time?

Is this a good design choice?




Like I said, I know I'm getting heated about this. I am more than willing to debate whether SV is against theme. OR breaks some delicate balance because of a specific abusable spell, or that is just too fast and allows too much freedom. But, I am not going to debate that the wizard is suddenly constrained and crippled, when the wizard has not changed. In a game with only a wizard and no bard, warlock or sorcerer, implementing this entire UA only makes the wizard stronger by giving them more rituals other classes used to have unique, and alters nothing about how they work mechanically.
It's not about the wizard "suddenly being crippled." However, it is very much about class themes.

The wizard is now the WORST choice for playing a character who has the "arcane spell list" schtick and also can prepare and tailor his spell list. He knows the fewest spells, and spends money to know more; other classes might have fewer spells prepared at a time, and take longer to swap them around, but the wizard is uniquely limited to a subset of his class list in terms of spells he knows (i.e. can choose to prepare).

He doesn't have all those many and varied wizard spells; he has a subset of them, possibly as few as 4 of each level above 1st.

This doesn't make him "crippled," and I'm not arguing that it does. It does change the game such that he goes from top of the list for, well, arcane spell versatility to the absolute bottom for any kind of spell versatility.




Spell Versatility's purpose is to solve a legitimate problem: players being stuck with a mistake for too long, because they're not leveling up fast enough. And it does solve that problem, but it does so by basically turning "known list" casters into "slow-change prepared list" casters. And that's a huge paradigm shift in terms of how you play them and how you think about character design for them.

"We solved the problem of monks being too fragile!"
"Yeah, but now they're invincible!"
"So? Stop whining, it's not like barbarians got LESS tanky because of it."

I'm happy to discuss solutions ot the problem SV was designed to address. The simplest is a blurb to DMs: "If a player is unhappy with his spell selection, let him trade them out for a better one. Use your judgment; this is not meant to be a class feature, but you want to help them build the character they meant to play, or alter it to a fun one. They shouldn't be doing this daily, but if it takes a few tries to find the right spell picks, work with them to figure out the right ones."

[Ravinsild]

This thread is incredibly frustrating to read as a Ranger player running 2 Rangers in 2 campaigns with 4 spells known for each Ranger. That's 8 spells across two characters and Spell Versatility has been an absolute god send. Keep quibbling about your Wizards though. I swear half the people on forums don't actually play the game and just theorycraft white room scenarios.

[Protolisk]

Bolded part: You have casters who work with a fixed spell list (bards, sorcerers and warlocks), casters who can change it every day (clerics and druids), and then you have wizards who fall somewhere in the between. This is an interesting mechanical distinction. It is interesting, because it helps differentiate the classes on a mechanical level. And we want classes to be different enough on a mechanical level, so that the choice of actually picking and playing one is meaningful.

And yet, with Spell Versatility, this only adds another tier:

Classes that are absolutely stuck (now only Eldritch Knights and Arcane Trickster, "four elements monk", I suppose) until level up,

Those who change 1, count em, ONE spell per long rest (sorc, bard, ranger, warlock),

Those who change ALL spells on a long rest, but from a pool of spells they've accrued (wiz),

And lastly, classes that change their WHOLE list on long rests from the entire spell school (druid, cleric, paladin)

Thinking on it more, I wonder how much this benefit grants Sorcs over Wizards in a real environment. Granted, this would be my game as I ran it so far, and I'd see if there were differences between a Wizard, and a player who is already going through it as a Sorc, and lastly, the upgrades he'd receive if he had spell versatility from the get go.

For a point of reference, this was Curse of Strahd, so the game is fairly fast paced as I go by milestone, and the adventuring area is quite small. They've had 5 long rests (I counted as much), and are level 7.

A wizard starts with 6, and gets 2 per level. Right now, they are level 7, so his book, without any other books found, would have 18 spells he's gained that can be freely swapped around. He was playing with an 18 spell casting stat, so assuming the same, he could prepare 4 + 7 spells, for 11 right now. And this is not counting any spells he could have found from his adventures, at all.

The Sorcerer as is, without SV, would have had a grand total of 13 total spells even if he swapped a spell every level up for something different (which is padding numbers) even though I know he did not, because Shield and Chromaric Orb were valuable at every turn. Still, that's 8 known, with a bonus 6 swaps. So for the running total, that's a total of 13 spells possibly used, but still just 8 known.

If he had SV from the beginning, he could change just as many spells as long rests. That means... 5 more spells. So that would bring it up to 18 spells, but still only 8 spells known at any one time.

So even after six months of playtime, the sorcerer would have FINALLY caught up to a wizard in total variety of spells "known" (but not really, he never used those chances), but still less prepared at any one time. And the second his theoretical wizard found a spell book, he would have shot ahead in spells in his book. And he would have, because Death House has a wizard book right there on the table, at level 2. Six months of playtime.

That was a fun mental exercise, but overall, it is "basically" meaningless, as it is anecdotal. But for my table, my experience, all Spell Versatility did was bridge the gap, not actually make Sorcs out pace the wizard at all. And even still, the player doesn't even swap. So even at perfect abuse, it would be equal spells "known" over time, but even then he'd likely have lost his favorite spells during those days. It's slightly less white-room analysis than most of the arguements here.

Edit for clarity: As soon as that UA came out, I switched over to it. This was hypothetical of I somehow had it for the entire duration of the campaign.

Second edit: yes, wizards swap lists on long rests, not level up. My brain broke. Sorry about that.

[Corran]

This thread is incredibly frustrating to read as a Ranger player running 2 Rangers in 2 campaigns with 4 spells known for each Ranger. That's 8 spells across two characters and Spell Versatility has been an absolute god send. Keep quibbling about your Wizards though. I swear half the people on forums don't actually play the game and just theorycraft white room scenarios.
You are doing the same mistake you are accusing others of. This is not about one class vs another. And it really does not help viewing this through the lenses of 'what class I like playing'. If you think that the ranger is poorly balanced and unfun to play, and that some change is needed, that does not mean that any change is good, even if it solves whatever issues you have with playing a ranger. And that's because it might create problems elsewhere, which you can't see, because you are focused on how this affects one particular class. Judging the design of spell versatility just by how it fixes one's favorite class misses the bigger picture.



And yet, with Spell Versatility, this only adds another tier:

Classes that are absolutely stuck (now only Eldritch Knights and Arcane Trickster, "four elements monk", I suppose) until level up,

Those who change 1, count em, ONE spell per long rest (sorc, bard, ranger, warlock),

Those who change ALL spells on a level up, but from a pool of spells they've accrued (wiz),

And lastly, classes that change their WHOLE list on long rests from the entire spell school (druid, cleric, paladin)
'Adds another tier' is misleading IMO. The way I see it, it just makes bards, sorcerers and warlocks (I am thinking it's beneficial to focus on fullcasting classes, since spells are their main area, hence it is these classes in risk of stepping on each other's toes) operate more similarly to how clerics, druids and wizards do.

[Ravinsild]

You are doing the same mistake you are accusing others of. This is not about one class vs another. And it really does not help viewing this through the lenses of 'what class I like playing'. If you think that the ranger is poorly balanced and unfun to play, and that some change is needed, that does not mean that any change is good, even if it solves whatever issues you have with playing a ranger. And that's because it might create problems elsewhere, which you can't see, because you are focused on how this affects one particular class. Judging the design of spell versatility just by how it fixes your favorite class misses the bigger picture.

The entire argument was literally started by Wizard players. I'm pretty sure all non-Wizard players were pretty excited and relieved to see Spell Versatility and in actual game play turns out, at least for me (And the Ranger) it has been extremely effective. It certainly hasn't broken the game and has come to some "wow cool" moments from my DM because I had some unique spells prepared that I ordinarily wouldn't because there's like 4 blue spells in every Ranger guide and all Rangers basically HAD to pick the same spells to be effective. Spell Versatility is amazing for half casters - if it counted for the Artificer I bet it would be welcome there too.

In the actual game it feels extremely good, and very rewarding and opens up new ways to play some classes with extremely limited spells known. How this is a problem I have no idea. It appears on my end to literally just be butt hurt wizard players and I have no idea what they are so upset about as the premier and best casting class in the game. Reading through two threads now just makes it look like Wizard players are entitled and selfish and honestly I'd just rather never play a wizard in my life at this point.

Wizards literally became gods in 3.5, and pretty much can in 5.0 and essentially by late game over shadow martials but that's not good enough because they ought to have everything I guess.

[diplomancer]

The entire argument was literally started by Wizard players. I'm pretty sure all non-Wizard players were pretty excited and relieved to see Spell Versatility and in actual game play turns out, at least for me (And the Ranger) it has been extremely effective. It certainly hasn't broken the game and has come to some "wow cool" moments from my DM because I had some unique spells prepared that I ordinarily wouldn't because there's like 4 blue spells in every Ranger guide and all Rangers basically HAD to pick the same spells to be effective. Spell Versatility is amazing for half casters - if it counted for the Artificer I bet it would be welcome there too.

In the actual game it feels extremely good, and very rewarding and opens up new ways to play some classes with extremely limited spells known. How this is a problem I have no idea. It appears on my end to literally just be butt hurt wizard players and I have no idea what they are so upset about as the premier and best casting class in the game. Reading through two threads now just makes it look like Wizard players are entitled and selfish and honestly I'd just rather never play a wizard in my life at this point.

Wizards literally became gods in 3.5, and pretty much can in 5.0 and essentially by late game over shadow martials but that's not good enough because they ought to have everything I guess.

I may be mistaken, but I think I was the first one to point out the problem in these forums, and I didn't see it by looking at other forums either. It was the realization that, now, of all the casters (and even half-casters), the Wizard is the ONLY one that does not get full access to its list (Paladins, Clerics, and Druids, get full access at a fast speed. Sorcerers, Warlocks, Bards, and Rangers get full access at a low speed. Wizards get partial access at a fast speed)

And I am not a wizard player. Last time I played a Wizard was in D&D basic, if I remember correctly. In this edition, they are about my least favourite full caster. If you look at my post history you will see I'm a Bard fan first of all (check also my name :smallbiggrin:). So, no, this is not "wizard players complaining". BECAUSE I am a Bard fan, I recognize that having more flexibility in spell choices is a big deal for the wizard. It's their main class feature.

So, my solution is to let the Wizard keep his fast access to a partial list, but give him a slow access to his full list.

[ProsecutorGodot]

So your point is, that the only way for wizard players to continue having fun with D&D, is for sorcerer players to be stuck with Fireball in the Nine Hells? :smallconfused:
I'm not totally against the idea of SV, I'm just against the way the UA has presented it.

If you want to take my example in that direction, what I'd really push for is both Wizards and Sorcerers to not just take Fireball at 5th level. That wasn't the point of the example though, Fireball and Lightning Bolt were just big name spells that function well as examples, and I made that clear.

The point was to illustrate that the argument that there's any meaningful opportunity cost to just switching spells in the way its implemented now isn't really there. You switch your 3rd level spell to something you need more for now and switch back as soon as that need has been fulfilled. You're not switching out anything you really didn't want to switch out because your new choice is always an improvement. This is normally a defining feature of prepared casters.

[Corran]

snip
Well, let us not stop at spell versatility then. Let's take it all the way, until all classes are a slight variation of one another. Then the wizard players will play their wizards, the ranger players will play their rangers, so on and so forth, and everyone will be happy. Classes will still have reason to exist just as long as we like their different names.

Can we be mature and discuss this just as players who enjoy the same game? If we can only think about this in terms of what it means for our favorite class, and not for the game as a whole, then I can't see how we can have any meaningful arguments.

[HiveStriker]

You're confusing spells known with spell selection. Maybe this is my fault so I'll try to restate the point. People claim several things about today's sorcerer, but having a small spell selection isn't one of them--it's just a not-very-good spell selection, except for Divine Souls. By giving sorcerers three or four times as many spells in their "spellbook" as wizards, you're fixing a problem that no one ever said the sorcerer had.

Not at all either. You're the first one I read asserting that Sorcerer's spell list is "not very good".
The one thing I've always read was "it's so hard to choose spells as Sorcerer".
Well, would that be hard to *choose* if really there were so few good spells?
No.
Sorcerer has 80% of spells that any player may want to have. It just so happens that Wizard has them and more. Which makes choice equally hard for Wizard imo in fact, because the "two spells per level" is not a boon in proportion of the extra wideness of spell list.

Here is the thing though: Wizard are NOT supposed to be the "I have the perfect spell" per essence. They simply don't.
And only because so many people proclaim otherwise on this forum do we get these kind of void discussions.

Wizards are the ones that get access to all (or nearly) the spells you need to make plans in the long run, and the ones traditionnally tasked with rituals because they get a bit more than half of the "always useful" ones and the daily investment is 0 to them, only investment is to learn it if they couldn't get it from someone, one way or another.

The one and only caster that has the best chance of having access to the spell most fitting to any situation is the Druid, because he has so many different kinds of spells and can change up to 100% in a single day.

Is that a problem? No, it's not.
Sorcerers may use Subtle to use spells when other people would get noticed, so they have an edge in that they can afford to use spells in other situations. Plus they get enough creative spells to fill up their spell known.

Wizards that picked Illusion will find ways to convince or otherwise manipulate people to achieve effects that could have been provided by a spell they didn't want to invest into.
Others that picked Transmutation may use Polymorph to gather information, and otherwise build up power and money through false sales and such.

My point is: unless/until you are a very high level caster, you're not supposed to count on having every spell for any situation. You're supposed to learn how to make the most of the spells you have and your class/archetype features.
And barring pure combat archetypes like Bladesinger or War, Wizard archetypes provides features that significantly enhances a few spells, and other few spells of higher level are enough to supercede many lower level ones, with Wish as a culmination, and before that spells like Arcane Gate, Contingency, Wall of Force, Magic Jar, Teleport, Simulacrum, Demiplane, Finger of Death.
So at higher level, if you properly play a Wizard, *even* if your DM is really stingy with extra spells, you still have solutions you can craft for any problem provided you have enough time. And because you're a Wizard, because you're supposedly *intelligent*, you make all your life about gathering information to anticipate, so you usually have time. :)
Which also stresses another point: many other spells are situational, aka you can probably find another way.

This has been explained several times in threads: many spells, nobody takes them, *even Wizards*, because people consider them easy enough to make without. Only prepared casters can afford to "try out a spell for a day", and only provided a) you know it will be useful next day b) you can afford to take the time to change your spell selection.
Fulfilling both requirements is not a given at all.

--------------
Plus, as I already said, it's a party game: if everyone wants Variant Rule into play for a game, you can leech off every spells you have in common with another caster, for a win-win situation: you can take care of all rituals (freeing up "slots" for the other caster) "for free", and you can focus on learning all the spells nobody else can pick, so you actually easily end up as the most versatile caster.

In fact, that would be my blocking point of that variant feature: it seems to me it can break not only the fluff of casters it's applied to, but also and more importantly the whole coherence of the universe.
So I'd much rather, as a DM, distribute Rings of Spell Storing or possibly give a boon to a caster as a quest reward if the player really felt contrived in its spell choice.


This thread is incredibly frustrating to read as a Ranger player running 2 Rangers in 2 campaigns with 4 spells known for each Ranger. That's 8 spells across two characters and Spell Versatility has been an absolute god send. Keep quibbling about your Wizards though. I swear half the people on forums don't actually play the game and just theorycraft white room scenarios.
Yeah, since a few pages I feel like I'm reading children bickering because they feel their toy is broken because other toys are being offered an upgrade. XD

It's not like it was official either: it was obviously a big rock thrown in pond to see how fishes react, pushing an idea "strong": anyone *really pleased* or *really worried* should simply express themselves directly in the survey. ^^
I have no doubt that Spell Versatility, should it actually be integrated as anything more than a *variant* (so, OPTIONAL) rule would come in a very toned down version.
After all, from designers themselves, it's easiest for them to try ideas like this than trying to get a balanced mechanic on the first try... ^^


Well, let us not stop at spell versatility then. Let's take it all the way, until all classes are a slight variation of one another. Then the wizard players will play their wizards, the ranger players will play their rangers, so on and so forth, and everyone will be happy. Classes will still have reason to exist just as long as we like their different names.

Can we be mature and discuss this just as players who enjoy the same game? If we can only think about this in terms of what it means for our favorite class, and not for the game as a whole, then I can't see how we can have any meaningful arguments.
This is indeed the hint behind those Variant rules (and latest UA in general, confer for example Paladin exclusive spells that are given to oh so many other classes now) that I dislike. I have the feeling that WoTC wants to blur the lines more and more, and I don't see any real long-term interest in doing that.

After all, it's nice too to get classes which have distinct personality and play style. Nothing prevents a DM to make on-the-fly adjustments (like, precisely, custom spell choice) for a player if multiclassing/feats were too hard a way to realize a concept.

[ZZTRaider]

This thread is incredibly frustrating to read as a Ranger player running 2 Rangers in 2 campaigns with 4 spells known for each Ranger. That's 8 spells across two characters and Spell Versatility has been an absolute god send. Keep quibbling about your Wizards though. I swear half the people on forums don't actually play the game and just theorycraft white room scenarios.

My personal feedback to WotC was that Spell Versatility ought to be a downtime activity, rather than something on every long rest, basically for the reasons of power creep for Bards and (to a lesser extent) Sorcerers. That said, I added a caveat that Sorcerers should also be given a thematic list of bonus spells known as one of these variant class features, because I feel that solves a real problem for Sorcerers in a better way than Spell Versatility does.

For Rangers, though, I explicitly said that I felt they're the only class that should be able to use Spell Versatility exactly as written, because versatility is part of their class fantasy. Though I also noted that Rangers should have always been a prepared caster, like it was in prior editions and like the Paladin is now. Heck, maybe WotC should just provide prepared casting as a variant class feature for Rangers. That'd be even better for them.

Suffice to say, I totally get your concerns, but I think we can improve Rangers without having to make Bards an even better full caster than they already are. (I'd argue they're the best, honestly.)

[HiveStriker]

My personal feedback to WotC was that Spell Versatility ought to be a downtime activity, rather than something on every long rest, basically for the reasons of power creep for Bards and (to a lesser extent) Sorcerers. That said, I added a caveat that Sorcerers should also be given a thematic list of bonus spells known as one of these variant class features, because I feel that solves a real problem for Sorcerers in a better way than Spell Versatility does.

For Rangers, though, I explicitly said that I felt they're the only class that should be able to use Spell Versatility exactly as written, because versatility is part of their class fantasy. Though I also noted that Rangers should have always been a prepared caster, like it was in prior editions and like the Paladin is now. Heck, maybe WotC should just provide prepared casting as a variant class feature for Rangers. That'd be even better for them.

I fully support that point of view. :)

[MaxWilson]

For Rangers, though, I explicitly said that I felt they're the only class that should be able to use Spell Versatility exactly as written, because versatility is part of their class fantasy. Though I also noted that Rangers should have always been a prepared caster, like it was in prior editions and like the Paladin is now. Heck, maybe WotC should just provide prepared casting as a variant class feature for Rangers. That'd be even better for them.

I 100% endorse this view. I'll even give up Favored Enemy in exchange. ;-)

[Yakk]

I mean, making SV require and consume a scroll of the spell you swap to is a really simple step.

It makes the cost (money and story wise) of changing your spell the same as the cost of a wizard learning that new spell, and gives a sorcerer an "out" if they have a spell they don't want.

[micahaphone]

Could anyone who disagrees with SV address Protolisk's example in Curse of Strahd? This seems like the scenario where it'd be most powerful (rapid leveling when it's meant for groups that take a long time to level up) and yet their hypothetical sorcerer doesn't seem to have any new leg up on the wizard.

[Protolisk]

Could anyone who disagrees with SV address Protolisk's example in Curse of Strahd? This seems like the scenario where it'd be most powerful (rapid leveling when it's meant for groups that take a long time to level up) and yet their hypothetical sorcerer doesn't seem to have any new leg up on the wizard.

I'd actually go so far as to say that this may be when it's at its weakest, technically. In this group I DM ford, I'd probably say its "fast" leveling, gaining a level every 3 or so sessions (is that not recommended, though?). The slower a group levels, the bigger the long rest:level up ratio gets, in favor of the long rests and therefore, SV.

However, even in a campaign where I was a player, we were stuck at level 6 for nearly 5 months. And during that time, the known casters didnt complain about their few known, but the Wizard complained he didnt have enough spells known. In a game without SV, but in the same game as a bard and warlock.

And by what Jeremy Crawford stated, it was in THOSE campaigns that they designed SV around, the ones where Known casters don't have many chances to swap around, because they heard some groups don't level fast. And yet here we are, arguing that this is a "solution in search of a problem" when it had a problem clearly stated, a problem I personally found, and therefore put in my own campaign to fix the issue, and it's not abused whatsoever.

But its anecdotal, so I can't say it generalizes to everyone.

Edit for clarity: as for this whole arguement, this is a VARIANT RULE. Which is just as optional as Feats and Multiclassing, but also as variant as Encumbrance, Gritty Realism, Sanity scores, Flanking, and so on. If you really fear that this weakens wizards compared to sorcs/warlocks/bards/rangers, then at your table... don't use this variant! But I am, and I so far find no issues with it.

[Ravinsild]

My personal feedback to WotC was that Spell Versatility ought to be a downtime activity, rather than something on every long rest, basically for the reasons of power creep for Bards and (to a lesser extent) Sorcerers. That said, I added a caveat that Sorcerers should also be given a thematic list of bonus spells known as one of these variant class features, because I feel that solves a real problem for Sorcerers in a better way than Spell Versatility does.

For Rangers, though, I explicitly said that I felt they're the only class that should be able to use Spell Versatility exactly as written, because versatility is part of their class fantasy. Though I also noted that Rangers should have always been a prepared caster, like it was in prior editions and like the Paladin is now. Heck, maybe WotC should just provide prepared casting as a variant class feature for Rangers. That'd be even better for them.

Suffice to say, I totally get your concerns, but I think we can improve Rangers without having to make Bards an even better full caster than they already are. (I'd argue they're the best, honestly.)

Ah, that makes so much sense. For a Ranger, at least, with how FEW spells they actually KNOW in the game at levels 5-7 (I'm at level 6 right now) it really does feel like "baby prepared casting" which is why it feels so good. Yeah, maybe the variant for Rangers ought to just be prepared casting. That helps smooth things out so much.

Yeah, I think my frustration is that classes who genuinely need this and it really alleviates some pain points are going to suffer because Wizard players are complaining and it legitimately might actually make Bards too powerful. I'm fine with it on Sorcerers and Warlocks though. Warlocks get 2 spell slots anyway, for forever and low spells known so might as well help them feel more useful poor guys. I like the warlock class but yikes.

[Rowan Wolf]

I mean, making SV require and consume a scroll of the spell you swap to is a really simple step.

It makes the cost (money and story wise) of changing your spell the same as the cost of a wizard learning that new spell, and gives a sorcerer an "out" if they have a spell they don't want.

Why would the cost need to be the same to switch a spell as someone permanently adding the spell to the spell book? You might as well just add an additional spells known mechanic instead, making it more costly in time and money than researching would be for the wizard.

[Yakk]

Could anyone who disagrees with SV address Protolisk's example in Curse of Strahd? This seems like the scenario where it'd be most powerful (rapid leveling when it's meant for groups that take a long time to level up) and yet their hypothetical sorcerer doesn't seem to have any new leg up on the wizard.
Slow leveling with no source of magic items/scrolls produces the biggest return for the sorcerer compared to the wizard under the UA rule. Faster leveling makes it better for the wizard.

With fast leveling (relative to long rests), the wizard gained spells keeps up with the sorcerer swap abilities.

[Yakk]

Why would the cost need to be the same to switch a spell as someone permanently adding the spell to the spell book?
It is one way to make the sorcerer ability to swap spells strictly worse than the wizard ability to swap spells.

You might as well just add an additional spells known mechanic instead, making it more costly in time and money than researching would be for the wizard.
Nope, not additional known. Just gives you the right to swap a spell out.

The intent isn't that you swap a spell out and back again (giving near full access to the spell list), but rather you decided you need to change your build and your campaign gains levels slowly.

It also means that the availability of spell scrolls gives sorcerers the ability to swap spells, and gives wizards the ability to learn new spells; so class breadth scales with the same free parameter.

By the standard rules, wizards learn 2 new spells per level. Sorcerers learn 1 new spell per level and swap 1 spell out. So the total number of spells Sorcerers could (in theory) have access to is bounded above by what the Wizard gets as a class feature.

Under this variant -- where sorcerers can swap out spells by burning a scroll -- this remains true. Sorcerers can burn X scrolls to have access to X additional spells (over their adventuring career), and wizards can burn X scrolls to have access to X additional spells (in their spellbook).

And, given that the idea that wizards can "fill their spellbook" and hence have access to the entire spell list is viewed as a feature, the cost to do so is now mirrored by the sorcerer cost to have access to their entire spell list.


---

Now, we could maintain this invariant other ways.

If it takes 1 day plus 1 day per spell level of downtime to swap out a spell for a sorcerer, and 1 day plus 1 day per spell level of downtime for a wizard to research a new spell, that maintains that "sorcerers have access to strictly fewer spells than wizards".

This downtime could even be non-consecutive. And it serves the purpose of permitting a sorcerer to fix a build error without waiting for a level-up.

[Protolisk]

Slow leveling with no source of magic items/scrolls produces the biggest return for the sorcerer compared to the wizard under the UA rule. Faster leveling makes it better for the wizard.

With fast leveling (relative to long rests), the wizard gained spells keeps up with the sorcerer swap abilities.

Which is the problem. Without SV, and in any game that is slower than mine, Wizard trumps Sorcerer (and Warlocks too) in both short campaigns, and for any day they have in addition, plus any spell scroll they find, plus ritual access not even needing to be prepared (not that sorcs and non time locks even HAVE access to rituals), plus... yadda yadda yadda. One discrepancy that always stood out to me is that a "blasty" sorc with things like Careful Spell is outright trumped by Evocation wizards, as Careful is "chosen targets auto suceed" at a Sorc point cost while Evocation is "chosen targets auto succeed and are immune if they succeed", for free, and a level earlier to boot. Even if Sorcs try to grab a niche, a similar wizard pretty much always out does them, on top of the versatility of grabbing nearly every spell.

Point is, as it stands, some campaigns Sorcs and other known casters have it bad. SV tips the scales back toward Sorcs instead of a reigning king that is Wizard. But when a UA comes out that does tip these scales so that Sorcs can stand a chance, it's always the fact that now Sorcs can outshine Wizards at... something. Not like they had much going for them before.

[Rowan Wolf]

It is one way to make the sorcerer ability to swap spells strictly worse than the wizard ability to swap spells.


Why would the swapping need to be any worst than it is in base line rules? SV doesn't grant so much power that it needs a cost to equate to the permanent addition of a spell. If is the inherent for the spells known classes to be worst than the spells prepared classes we might as well go back to full vancian magic on prepared classes.


Which is the problem. Without SV, and in any game that is slower than mine, Wizard trumps Sorcerer (and Warlocks too) in both short campaigns, and for any day they have in addition, plus any spell scroll they find, plus ritual access not even needing to be prepared (not that sorcs and non time locks even HAVE access to rituals), plus... yadda yadda yadda. One discrepancy that always stood out to me is that a "blasty" sorc with things like Careful Spell is outright trumped by Evocation wizards, as Careful is "chosen targets auto suceed" at a Sorc point cost while Evocation is "chosen targets auto succeed and are immune if they succeed", for free, and a level earlier to boot. Even if Sorcs try to grab a niche, a similar wizard pretty much always out does them, on top of the versatility of grabbing nearly every spell.

Point is, as it stands, some campaigns Sorcs and other known casters have it bad. SV tips the scales back toward Sorcs instead of a reigning king that is Wizard. But when a UA comes out that does tip these scales so that Sorcs can stand a chance, it's always the fact that now Sorcs can outshine Wizards at... something. Not like they had much going for them before.

Didn't Perkins give Strix (from DCA) the evocation wizards version of Sculpt Spell in place of Careful Spell for the streaming games?

[Yakk]

Do you want the ability to swap out spells caused by build errors, or do you want spell access supremacy as a sorcerer?

To avoid spell access supremacy, just ensure whatever means the sorcerer has to swap out spells is matched by a wizard ability to scribe a new spell in their spellbook.

If you do want spell access supremacy for the sorcerer, /shrug.

By the baseline, wizards have access to 4 more spells over their adventuring career than sorcerers do (4 + 2 per level, vs 1 + 1 per level, plus 1 swap every level after 1st), and about twice as many at any one time.

If is the inherent for the spells known classes to be worst than the spells prepared classes we might as well go back to full vancian magic on prepared classes.
No, the wizard is designed to be better at knowing a wide selection of spells than the sorcerer.

As a core class feature, wizards get basically nothing besides that.

The sorcerer, in turn, gets metamagic, which lets you do things like cast spells silently or as a bonus action. If metamagic isn't good enough, make metamagic better.

So, to avoid that inverting, simply make the cost of learning a new spell be equal or lower for the wizard than the sorcerer.

Burn a scroll in both cases, or adding spell research to a wizard that takes the same amount of time as swapping does for a sorcerer, works. And if we make the cost modest enough, the sorcerer doesn't get stuck with spells that where picked in error, and the wizard keeps a wider selection of spells by 4 or more.

[Segev]

This thread is incredibly frustrating to read as a Ranger player running 2 Rangers in 2 campaigns with 4 spells known for each Ranger. That's 8 spells across two characters and Spell Versatility has been an absolute god send. Keep quibbling about your Wizards though. I swear half the people on forums don't actually play the game and just theorycraft white room scenarios.Making Rangers a "known spell list" class was a strange decision in 5e. I'd have little problem with letting them change ALL their spells known every long rest. Their class list is restrictive enough, and their play style not spell-focused enough, that letting them play like mini-druids isn't going to suddenly make them the go-to class for what Druids OR Wizards are billed as.

The trouble lies with Bards and Sorcerers, who have very similar class lists to Wizards, and the question of whether Bards and Sorcerers are suppsoed to play like "prepared classes" or like "known list" classes.

I don't know why the Ranger was made a "known list" class in the first place.


Those who change ALL spells on a level up, but from a pool of spells they've accrued (wiz)

Maybe you meant "on a long rest," here, rather than "on a level-up," because if not, then you're just plain wrong. >_>

Wizards swap out prepped spells daily, but they don't get to change up their spellbooks completely every level-up.

Pre-SV bards and sorcs and warlocks got to change up one spell every level-up. Post-SV bards and sorcs and warlocks essentially are wizards who change their spell selection more slowly, but who also aren't restricted to their spellbook for what spells they can prepare.

[RifleAvenger]

This is indeed the hint behind those Variant rules (and latest UA in general, confer for example Paladin exclusive spells that are given to oh so many other classes now) that I dislike. I have the feeling that WoTC wants to blur the lines more and more, and I don't see any real long-term interest in doing that.

After all, it's nice too to get classes which have distinct personality and play style. Nothing prevents a DM to make on-the-fly adjustments (like, precisely, custom spell choice) for a player if multiclassing/feats were too hard a way to realize a concept.Indeed. I played every base class fullcaster in 3e/Pathfinder 1e except Shaman, and with houserules to remove delayed progression all were fun. Arcanist, Sorcerer, and Wizard used the same spell list, but each felt distinct and flexible in different ways. Wizard probably pulled ahead at a narrative scale, sure, but sorcerer had its advantages, and Arcanist mixed the strengths and weaknesses of both with some of its own (some exploits were amazing, but Arcanist had the least access to bonus feats).

Then 5e gave the wizard one of sorcerer's biggest strengths while not being as limited on spells prepared as the PF Arcanist was relative to its competition. Meanwhile sorcerer gets reduced to a piddly 15 spells and a worse list, because Metamagic I guess.

Now WotC wants to fix that identity bleed by... more identity bleed.

IMO they should either return to pre-5e casting styles, minus delayed progression for spont casters, or fold Wizard and Sorcerer back into Magic-User. Otherwise we'll wind up with near palette swaps where one will be objectively superior because there's so little design space left to differentiate function.

[Segev]

I think the easiest fix for SV is to pay closer attention to the narrow problem it is supposed to fix, and make it strictly worse than the wizard's ability to add spells to his spellbook, with one exception.

The exception is the ability to keep all-list access for your choice of what spell to swap in.

The way you keep this from overshadowing the wizard in terms of usable versatility is to make the process for swapping out a known spell via Spell Versatility a ritual with reagent requirements that amount to 10 gp per level of the spell being replaced. The fact that it's a ritual with needed reagents means that a DM can reasonably expect that it takes a shopping trip to buy them, so no doing it mid-adventure away from town unless you had planned this out carefully. The gp cost is nigh-negligible if you're just using it to correct a mistake you made when you were leveling up (the purported purpose of SV), but racks up fast if you're trying to treat it like you prepare a new spell each day.

The "instinctive" caster (sorcerer) is realigning his understanding of magic, and can learn any new available spell. The inspired caster (the bard) is changing his musical repertoire and perhaps charming new magical beings into his service. The one with a patron is petitioning for new magic, because what he has is not doing the job. All of these are fine reasons to pick from anything on the spell list; all of these are things which can reasonably cost money, even to "go back" to an old spell once rejected.

And the cost and the potential need to go back to town lines up nicely with the wizard's limitations. While still giving the SV classes a solution to the problem SV is supposed to be solving.

[Kane0]

The way you keep this from overshadowing the wizard in terms of usable versatility is to make the process for swapping out a known spell via Spell Versatility a ritual with reagent requirements that amount to 10 gp per level of the spell being replaced. The fact that it's a ritual with needed reagents means that a DM can reasonably expect that it takes a shopping trip to buy them, so no doing it mid-adventure away from town unless you had planned this out carefully. The gp cost is nigh-negligible if you're just using it to correct a mistake you made when you were leveling up (the purported purpose of SV), but racks up fast if you're trying to treat it like you prepare a new spell each day.

The "instinctive" caster (sorcerer) is realigning his understanding of magic, and can learn any new available spell. The inspired caster (the bard) is changing his musical repertoire and perhaps charming new magical beings into his service. The one with a patron is petitioning for new magic, because what he has is not doing the job. All of these are fine reasons to pick from anything on the spell list; all of these are things which can reasonably cost money, even to "go back" to an old spell once rejected.

And the cost and the potential need to go back to town lines up nicely with the wizard's limitations. While still giving the SV classes a solution to the problem SV is supposed to be solving.

That sort of becomes DM-may-I then since you're reliant on the DM to get the right mystery ingredients, like when crafting a magic item.

How about making use of the exhaustion mechanics as a cost, so there is a buffer between having access to a spell swap on-tap (provided a LR) and needing something like full downtime.

[Segev]

That sort of becomes DM-may-I then since you're reliant on the DM to get the right mystery ingredients, like when crafting a magic item.

How about making use of the exhaustion mechanics as a cost, so there is a buffer between having access to a spell swap on-tap (provided a LR) and needing something like full downtime.

Less so than it is DM-may-I for wizards adding new spells to their spellbook. The "mystery ingredients" are just what you're buying with the gp cost. To answer the question snarkily asked by somebody earlier of what, exactly, the sorcerer is doing with the gp he's spending to change out his spells, last time I suggested something like this.

Anything you can recover with downtime isn't going to really do the job. Okay, sure, in theory you can recover gp with downtime, but I've NEVER seen anybody claim that meant wizards could fill up their spellbooks for free.

[Kane0]

Less so than it is DM-may-I for wizards adding new spells to their spellbook. The "mystery ingredients" are just what you're buying with the gp cost. To answer the question snarkily asked by somebody earlier of what, exactly, the sorcerer is doing with the gp he's spending to change out his spells, last time I suggested something like this.

Anything you can recover with downtime isn't going to really do the job. Okay, sure, in theory you can recover gp with downtime, but I've NEVER seen anybody claim that meant wizards could fill up their spellbooks for free.

Ah, so like magical ink.

I think it would in practice. The major concern appears to be 'but the sorcerer can have what they need when they need it', putting aside the LR requirement adding say one level of exhaustion adds a cost to the decision of swapping a spell that is neither crippling nor negligible. Yes, it isn't a concern if you're not actively adventuring but I don't think that's the problem people have with the ability.

Then again, I'm not one of the people that see a problem with the feature in the first place so i'm a poor Devil's Advocate.

[Theaitetos]

You're not switching out anything you really didn't want to switch out because your new choice is always an improvement. This is normally a defining feature of prepared casters.

No, the defining feature of prepared casters was Vancian. The defining feature of the sorcerer was the spontaneous casting.

But now everyone's a spontaneous caster: The wizard kept all his features AND gobbled up the entire defining feature of the sorcerer. Yet when the sorcerer (and other formerly spontaneous casters) were granted a single step (literally: one single spell) in direction of prepared casters, the wizard players go bat guano¹ crazy and scream sulfurously¹ that the world is ending & they're losing their sacred feature!

¹: side effect of casting too many Fireballs

The amount of whining is simply incredible. Make Wizards Vancian Again!

[ProsecutorGodot]

No, the defining feature of prepared casters was Vancian. The defining feature of the sorcerer was the spontaneous casting.

But now everyone's a spontaneous caster: The wizard kept all his features AND gobbled up the entire defining feature of the sorcerer. Yet when the sorcerer (and other formerly spontaneous casters) were granted a single step (literally: one single spell) in direction of prepared casters, the wizard players go bat guano¹ crazy and scream sulfurously¹ that the world is ending & they're losing their sacred feature!

¹: side effect of casting too many Fireballs

The amount of whining is simply incredible. Make Wizards Vancian Again!

I'm not sure what Vancian casting has to do with 5E. In 5E, a defining feature of prepared casters is that given a long rest they can be prepared for most situations. I'm not concerned with how magic was cast, I'm concerned with how it it's done now and how SV impacts that.

[Aimeryan]

The mechanical problem is being overly focused on and arguably not even a problem; the advantage is minor and rare to behold. The real problem is thematic; it seems wrong that the untrained chaotic spellcaster is the one that is able to reliably switch out for any spell amongst a large pool to meet problems that are foreseen.

I think any solution that revolves around either more time (initially or afterwards) or monetary costs is not trying to solve the thematic problem but the non-existent mechanical problem, and therefore just does not work for me.

For solving the thematic one you need to require something that makes Spell Versatility not act like a tool of the prepared and planned but something that literally just switches out spells that are generally bad for the meta-situation for spells that are generally good for the meta-situation. The example of fire-based spells in an adventure revolving around the Abyss is one where you would want to reasonably be able to switch out these spells. To this end, I still don't personally think anyone has topped the idea of the spell acquired being somewhat random - pick 4, roll a d4, get one.

Edit: This is in relation to Sorcerers - Warlocks and Rangers I personally see as being very thematic to be prepared casters, if not fully prepared casters. Ideally for Bards I would make them 2/3 casters, have spells known that can be learned like a Wizard, have a dedicated support/endurance sort of casting style - perhaps even spell-slotless but with some sort of recovery mechanic -, but Spell Versatility fits them well enough thematically with what we have.

[Kane0]

Spontaneous Sorcery:
You have uncanny magical talent, able to pull together just the spell you need when you need it. When you cast a spell you can choose to cast any spell of a level you can cast drawn from the Sorcerer list, as if it were one of your spells known. Once you use this ability you cannot do so again until you finish a long rest.

Thematically appealing?

[Aimeryan]

Spontaneous Sorcery:
You have uncanny magical talent, able to pull together just the spell you need when you need it. When you cast a spell you can choose to cast any spell of a level you can cast drawn from the Sorcerer list, as if it were one of your spells known. Once you use this ability you cannot do so again until you finish a long rest.

Thematically appealing?

Sure, however, it doesn't fit the intent the writers are going for; being able to swap out a bad spell selection for the campaign, without having to wait for a potentially far off level up.

[RifleAvenger]

I'm not sure what Vancian casting has to do with 5E. In 5E, a defining feature of prepared casters is that given a long rest they can be prepared for most situations. I'm not concerned with how magic was cast, I'm concerned with how it it's done now and how SV impacts that.You can't ignore how it was when D&D design is often partly guided by a desire to retain some degree of legacy features. Even though 5e gave sorcerers undelayed progression, and metamagic as a personal domain, they lost a huge defining feature in being the only arcane fullcaster who could flexibly use their slots to cast any spell they knew in the moment.

I hate SV, and think Thea is being overly antagonistic to wizard players, but I hate it because it furthers the progression of class identity erasure.

If someone needs a rebuild, regardless of class, then the GM should work with them. I might have to help a player rebuild their wizard-alike soon because they're dissatisfied. That contingency shouldn't be a codified rule open to abuse, and I can only see it being pushed so either because some GMs are unreasonable, AL, or because WotC is planning further homogenization under the banner of simplicity.

[ProsecutorGodot]

You can't ignore how it was when D&D design is often partly guided by a desire to retain some degree of legacy features. Even though 5e gave sorcerers undelayed progression, and metamagic as a personal domain, they lost a huge defining feature in being the only arcane fullcaster who could flexibly use their slots to cast any spell they knew in the moment.

Sure, but at this point in the design of 5E we've already stepped past which legacy features we want to keep as far as general spellcasting ability is concerned. I guess a lot of my lack of sympathy for those who really miss those aspects of the class comes from never having experienced that version of the class myself, which is only another reason that I don't see much value in continuously comparing the two.

To be blunt, that Sorcerer is in the past, and it's going to stay there. It's not gone, it's part of a different system built for a different type of gameplay. Any further input from that old Sorcerer needs to be looked at purely in the space of how it interacts with 5E's systems, and my opinion is that it's potentially disruptive to the system of magic that 5E has built for the spellcasting classes.

[Rowan Wolf]

In 5E, a defining feature of prepared casters is that given a long rest they can be prepared for most situations. I'm not concerned with how magic was cast, I'm concerned with how it it's done now and how SV impacts that.

That is your definition of a prepared casters, I could argue that the preparation system was put in place to ease the play form the vancian systems of the past while not penalizing a prepared caster for choosing poorly and having to wait for a long rest to fix that issue.

While any antagonizing isn't really going to help the situation. The continued need for any and all other spell casting classes features to be inferior to those of the wizard, by those arguing against SV very existence is kind of shortsighted and combatant. I recall quite a bit of general saltiness when the loremaster tradition with built in metamagic like effects failed to make the cut for Xanathar's and to a lesser degree in the similar design of the psionic tradition stepping on the design space of aberrant mind.

From what we see now whether SV becomes an optional rule or not (and for AL players that may or may not truly be optional) one continued thing from the design team is going to be the creation of spells that are shared across multiple classes (fluff wise it may have something to do with the default setting not really seeing arcane characters as their class but as all practitioners of the Art) and that will be just as homogenizing as any sort of easier access to switching up spells on a spell known based class.

[diplomancer]

While any antagonizing isn't really going to help the situation. The continued need for any and all other spell casting classes features to be inferior to those of the wizard...



Please point out who has stated that need. I have stated that the Bard's spellcasting feature should be inferior to the Wizard's, EXACTLY because spellcasting is almost the only base class feature wizards get, while Bards get a lot more base class features.

[ZZTRaider]

The continued need for any and all other spell casting classes features to be inferior to those of the wizard, by those arguing against SV very existence is kind of shortsighted and combatant.
I feel like we've been reading different threads, tbh. I don't think anyone is arguing against SV's existence, just the currently proposed implementation. I think everyone has pretty much agreed that there should be a way for Spells Known casters to fix mistakes or bad choices, we just want it to be done in a way that doesn't also give free access (albeit slowly) to the entirety of a class's spell list. Not just because of power concerns, but because it dilutes the thematics of spellcasting classes even further.

Sorcerers definitely have issues that deserve fixes. Metamagic is their big thing in this edition, and yet it's still somewhat anemic. They simply don't have enough spells known to both hit a bloodline theme and still remain generally useful. These things ought to be fixed, but I think SV is a poor method of doing it.


I recall quite a bit of general saltiness when the loremaster tradition with built in metamagic like effects failed to make the cut for Xanathar's
Wait, am I reading you wrong or did I miss something? I don't remember seeing anyone upset that the Loremaster didn't make the cut, specifically because it absolutely trampled all over the Sorcerer's Metamagic gimmick, except it did it better than the Sorcerer possibly could. (Personally, I'm still hoping that something from the Loremaster will eventually make it into additional Sorcerer options.)

[Corran]

The continued need for any and all other spell casting classes features to be inferior to those of the wizard, by those arguing against SV very existence is kind of shortsighted and combatant.
There have been arguments that are not based on some pathological need to keep one class better than the rest. And while I do not expect of you to read every post, I'll just bring one to your attention:

but I hate it (SV) because it furthers the progression of class identity erasure.
This way the conversation can carry on productively instead of focusing on whomever is thinking it is a good idea to judge game design by simply looking it from the perspective of one class, no matter what class that may be.

[ProsecutorGodot]

That is your definition of a prepared casters, I could argue that the preparation system was put in place to ease the play form the vancian systems of the past while not penalizing a prepared caster for choosing poorly and having to wait for a long rest to fix that issue.
I really don't understand what you're saying here. By nature of preparing spells from a list of all their spells (or in the case of Wizards, the large list of vetted spells) they can carefully pick the spells they need at the end of a long rest, always being prepared for a situation they have knowledge of (We're fighting underwater tomorrow, prepare Water Breathing, we're taking a long trip, prepare Create Food and Water).

That's not my opinion of anything, it's a (probably very intentional) consequence of the design. This version SV takes that away strength from them to a large enough extent that I can't encourage implementing it.


While any antagonizing isn't really going to help the situation. The continued need for any and all other spell casting classes features to be inferior to those of the wizard, by those arguing against SV very existence is kind of shortsighted and combatant. I recall quite a bit of general saltiness when the loremaster tradition with built in metamagic like effects failed to make the cut for Xanathar's and to a lesser degree in the similar design of the psionic tradition stepping on the design space of aberrant mind.
I don't think I'm being antagonistic here, the prepared casters (that aren't wizards) also suffer from SV. Clerics and Druids (as casters rather than Wild Shape machines) are underappreciated as it is. It may take steps to solve the issue of Wizards being above the rest but not in a way that I like. Should it really be OK to stomp all over all of the prepared spellcasting classes because Wizard might be problematic?

I'm not against the idea of SV, I'm against this version of it because I don't think it does a good enough job in its goal. Finally, On the bolded note, that's not my experience with Lore Mastery. My experience has been people almost universally ecstatic that a blatantly overpowered Wizard subclass didn't find its way into an official source book. It was rather infamous in that regard.

EDIT: To be clear, Spell Versatility as a way to respond to unexpected scenarios where your spell list for a Spells Known caster is made ineffectual is something I do support. The problem is that with this version of the feature it also allows them to be better at the problem solving that a Prepared Caster normally has as a core strength of their spellcasting and that there's no consequence for them to be changing spells at every opportunity, effectively erasing the limitation to begin with. If a version of the feature could accomplish the former without the latter, I would almost certainly be all aboard with it.

[Rowan Wolf]

I feel like we've been reading different threads, tbh. I don't think anyone is arguing against SV's existence, just the currently proposed implementation. I think everyone has pretty much agreed that there should be a way for Spells Known casters to fix mistakes or bad choices, we just want it to be done in a way that doesn't also give free access (albeit slowly) to the entirety of a class's spell list. Not just because of power concerns, but because it dilutes the thematics of spellcasting classes even further.

Sorcerers definitely have issues that deserve fixes. Metamagic is their big thing in this edition, and yet it's still somewhat anemic. They simply don't have enough spells known to both hit a bloodline theme and still remain generally useful. These things ought to be fixed, but I think SV is a poor method of doing it.


Wait, am I reading you wrong or did I miss something? I don't remember seeing anyone upset that the Loremaster didn't make the cut, specifically because it absolutely trampled all over the Sorcerer's Metamagic gimmick, except it did it better than the Sorcerer possibly could. (Personally, I'm still hoping that something from the Loremaster will eventually make it into additional Sorcerer options.)

In general I would say so as I read threads across many different forums as well as talk with people at the local gaming stores (Some people really miss the 3-3.5/pf feel of Wizard as masters of magic in my area though not many DM that have space want to run any of those). We all have our favorites and I think the designers are no different and that why different, but equal is so difficult. I do like what SV does for the ranger who many have argued probably should have been a prepared caster (and in my opinion was only changed for the sake of being different from the paladin).

On subject of favorites I honestly try not to have any I try to envision my characters first and figure out class and the rest after and depending on the gaming group there have been many issues with almost all classes I've tried. Some mechanical issues are more glaring than others, but just look at the Ranger based argument that are pretty much ongoing from launch about how it is either fine or terribly broken.

(added thought)
I think there is a lot of baggage attached to all the classes and some of it while helping define identity also basically limited the existance of design space for other classes and it really shows in the beginning. As they are afraid of stepping on any toes, now years later the design space is crowded and everyone is wearing open toed shoes.

[HiveStriker]

The mechanical problem is being overly focused on and arguably not even a problem; the advantage is minor and rare to behold. The real problem is thematic; it seems wrong that the untrained chaotic spellcaster is the one that is able to reliably switch out for any spell amongst a large pool to meet problems that are foreseen.

I think any solution that revolves around either more time (initially or afterwards) or monetary costs is not trying to solve the thematic problem but the non-existent mechanical problem, and therefore just does not work for me.

For solving the thematic one you need to require something that makes Spell Versatility not act like a tool of the prepared and planned but something that literally just switches out spells that are generally bad for the meta-situation for spells that are generally good for the meta-situation. The example of fire-based spells in an adventure revolving around the Abyss is one where you would want to reasonably be able to switch out these spells. To this end, I still don't personally think anyone has topped the idea of the spell acquired being somewhat random - pick 4, roll a d4, get one.

Edit: This is in relation to Sorcerers - Warlocks and Rangers I personally see as being very thematic to be prepared casters, if not fully prepared casters. Ideally for Bards I would make them 2/3 casters, have spells known that can be learned like a Wizard, have a dedicated support/endurance sort of casting style - perhaps even spell-slotless but with some sort of recovery mechanic -, but Spell Versatility fits them well enough thematically with what we have.
Agreed on that.

And that's why I'd suggest not only making Spell Versatility only for Rangers and Sorcerers, but making SP as written only for Rangers (because their spell list and number of spell known is restricted enough that there is no risk of overshadowing anyone really) and instead for Sorcerer make a houserule similar to the following idea.

"Spellcasting feature, level 8: you learned how to strain your body to quickly assert the mastery of new effects, at a cost. When you end a long rest, you can now choose to consume one spell slot to learn a spell of a level no higher than half the level of the slot, rounded up. That slot represents the amount of energy you spent to quickly master the spell. Until the end of the next long rest, you know the chosen spell and can cast it as any other spell known. It doesn't count against your spell known.
That feature automatically ends at the end of the next long rest (you can choose to reactivate it again, otherwise you restore your slot(s) as usual).
You can use this feature a number of times equal to your proficiency modifier."

Sorry for the very poor writing, I'm sure there are actual example of rules from WoTC that would convey ideas very similar (in the recharge mechanic) to what I wanted to express, but it's very late, and I'm tired, and I'm kinda drunk, so I'm damn lazy. XD

Anyways, I feel this idea, or any other similar, would be fitting in both solving the "spell known limit" of Sorcerer (because it's actually extra spell known here) and the "keep class fluff intact" (more or less) and also keeping the balance / identity between classes (you distort your raw power to gain new way to express it, which seems right enough for a Sorcerer, yet the cost makes it a meaningful decision that bars any kind of overshadow).

My tentative to contribute to actual "solution"/"fix"/whatever you call the "problem" of SV. Cheers ;)

[malachi]

I question the approach you're using. If Spell Versatility is in play, a Jorasco halfling Divine Soul 1/Life Cleric 1/Warlock 2/Divine Soul X has all of the best parts of being a cleric, most of the best parts of being a wizard, and the best parts of being a warlock. You're an incredible healer (thousands of HP healed per day via Extended Aura of Vitality), a great blaster (Quickened spells + Eldritch Blast invocations + effective +~1 to hit for being a halfling), and a great utility caster (selecting from the entire cleric + sorcerer spell list on a daily basis). And yet because he isn't really bringing anything new to the table that a wizard, cleric, or druid couldn't provide, wouldn't your methodology conclude that nothing has changed? Correct me if I misunderstand.

Without Spell Versatility as presented in UA, a cleric has some real potential advantages over the Divine Lifelock, in particular real access to spells like Augury and Divination and Protection From Poison which in real life are only theoretical possibilities for the Sorlock: he won't really ever have them because the opportunity cost of learning them is too high. Spell Versatility drastically shrinks that cost, by design: it makes it cheap and easy to access the entire class spell list (cleric + sorcerer).

The "something new" being brought to the table is a synergistic package, not a single spell.


I don't know what benefit Jorasco halflings provide (because I don't play in Eberron - and I had to google it to figure out that's where they're from), but your example character is locked to a specific campaign setting, is 3 levels behind in terms of highest level spell known (1 behind in terms of highest spell slot available), lacks the speed at which Clerics can swap spells, and can only ritually cast 1st level Cleric spells. This means you don't get access to Fireball / Fear / Hypnotic Pattern / Spirit Guardians until level 8 (although you can cast it as a lvl 4 spell at that point).

At level 11, you have access to all the 1st level Cleric spells you want (1+WIS, swappable freely every LR), you have three 1st level Warlock spells from a list of 15 spells (no Shield though), 3 1st level Sorc spells, 2 2nd level Sorc/Cleric spells, 2 3rd level Sorc/Cleric spells, 2 4th level Sorc/Cleric spells. You probably swapped the three 1st level spells into other spell levels during level-ups, but not using SV. Oh, and you also have another 1st level Cleric spell that you can swap out with other cleric spells.

The 1st level spells you might want for this character that can't come from your Cleric or Warlock are: Absorb Elements, Catapult / Chromatic Orb / Magic Missile, feather fall, fog cloud, grease, shield, thunderwave, silent image, disguise self. That includes a few tough decisions that typical logic on this forum say you can't live without (absorb elements, shield). You could probably go without the damage spell (since you have agonizing blast), and you might have taken the invocation for at-will disguise self or silent image (but not both without hurting your blasting). Lots of tough choices for this character, and while you can swap these around on a LR, you can't always do it.

2nd level spells you might want (spells with * are spells you'll probably either want every day OR not care about):
-Damage: *Spiritual Weapon
-Protection: *Mirror Image
-Buff: *Aid, Darkvision
-Control: Earthbind, Phantasmal Force, *Web
-Utility: Alter Self, Augury, Calm Emotions, Darkness, Detect Thoughts, *Enhance Ability, Gust of Wind, Invisibility, Levitate/Spiderclimb, Locate Object, *Misty Step, *Suggestion

You have 2 - 5 spells known here (but more than two pulls from your 1st level spells). Which spells are you thinking are safe to trade out for tomorrow without impacting your normal procedure for handling problems?


3rd level spells you might want:
-Damage: *(Erupting Earth / Fireball / Lightningbolt / Spirit Guardians)
-Protection: *Aura of Vitality, Beacon of Hope, *Blink, *Counterspell, Protection from Energy
-Buff: *Haste
-Control: *Bestow Curse, *(Fear / Hypnotic Pattern / Slow / Stinking Cloud)
-Utility: *Animate Dead, *Catnap, Clairvoyance, Create Food and Water, Daylight, Dispel Magic, Fly, Magic Circle, Major Image, Meld Into Stone, Remove Curse, *Revivify, Sending, Speak with Dead, Thunderwave, Tongues, Water Breathing, Water Walk

Again, you have 2-5 spells known here (more than two pulls from your 1st level spells). You mentioned Aura of Vitality as a big part of the build. That leaves 1-4 other spells. Probably one of the damage or AOE control spells, leaving 0-3 others. Counterspell seems like a good choice that you'd need most days (but takes a tradein of another level's spell knowns). Anything you trade out for a silver bullet is going to disrupt your normal plans, or require you to spend a second one of your 1st level spells known just to keep that utility spot open. Very difficult choice that impacts your normal plans.

There are some good utility spells here like Tongues and Water Breathing / Walking (which a straight Cleric would be able to cast as a ritual w/out spending a slot), so you clearly have some added versatility, but it feels painful to make that decision.


4th level spells you might want:
-Damage: Sickening Radiance / Vitriolic Sphere / Wall of Fire
-Protection: Aura of Life/Purity, *Death Ward, Fire Shield
-Buff: *Polymorph
-Control: *Banishment
-Utility: Charm Monster, Dimension Door, Divination, Freedom of Movement, *Greater Invisibility, Locate Creature

Surprisingly, 4th level spells don't look nearly as hard a choice as 3rd level, particularly since you can still get by with your 3rd level damage spell and Polymorph / Greater Invisibility (especially when twinned) are so darned good for a variety of purposes. So you take 1 of those and Banishment. Which do you give up for a day where you need Divination, one of these Auras, or Locate Creature? Or do you suck in another slot to hold in reserve for that purpose (meaning you can only have up to 4 3rd level spells).


For reference, at level 11, a Cleric is easily making these decisions (having 16 spells prepared at this point), a wizard is able to know 4 spells per level (including 8 1st level spells) to include many of the more broadly useful spells, and both can cast 6th level spells.

[Chaosmancer]

Being able to change X+1 of your prepared spells is better than being able to change X of your prepared spells, for sure. But the benefit is logarithmic. The bulk of the value lies on being able to change 1 spell, or a couple of spells if you prefer. Sure, spell versatility does that in a more restrictive way. I don't think anyone disputes that. Some of the dispute is over how valuable this is, and that's an interesting conversation, but IMO it is missing the point.

Bolded part: You have casters who work with a fixed spell list (bards, sorcerers and warlocks), casters who can change it every day (clerics and druids), and then you have wizards who fall somewhere in the between. This is an interesting mechanical distinction. It is interesting, because it helps differentiate the classes on a mechanical level. And we want classes to be different enough on a mechanical level, so that the choice of actually picking and playing one is meaningful.

I would say there are two important parts to bring up, and a third personal point.

1) Bards, Sorcerers and Warlocks were never fully with a "fixed" spell list. They could swap one spell on a level up. This has always been true. It was minor but it was true.

2) We want classes to be mechanically different and interesting as long as being so does not impact enjoyment of the game. People were finding that they were stuck with spells far longer than the designers intended. Are they over-correcting? Yes, if we just look at this just from the perspective of meeting when players should level up, they are definitely over-correcting. But it was done to bring things closer to where they should have been, not to erase an intended mechanical difference.

3) Differences are only interesting if they are equal. Being weaker than the other options does not make you interesting. It makes you less likely to get picked. If this one change is enough to erase the mechanical differences enough that there is no reason to choose between a Bard, Sorcerer or Wizard... well, I don't think this rule was actually the problem, because what it is doing is relatively minor.



Snipping for length

As the thread title says, this is about class identity.

Okay, I guess I must have misunderstood what you wanted me to defend. Because most of what you are saying seems to miss the point.

You asked me "So, then, you should be equally okay with a bard or sorcerer entirely swapping out their list every long rest, with anything they want from their class lists, right? Because that, too, requires them to trade out even MORE of their spells, which only increases the cost. Right?"

Trying to get me to agree to a point I never made, or claimed. That swapping your entire spell list in a single long rest is the exact same as swapping a single spell for a single spell of the same level. You proposed that because I see a cost in that action (1 spell for 1 spell) that the exact same cost must be had in a more extreme example (all spells for an equivalent number of spells of any level).

You even went a step further, claiming that if I didn't agree with that premise (assuming I would claim it is broken which I never did) that I must explain why, because they are the exact same thing.

So now, in explaining that swapping X spells for X spells of any level during a long rest is completely different from swapping 1 spell for 1 spell of the same level, I have unwittingly agreed that Spell Versatility allows you swap all your spells and is therefore identical?

No, once again, they are completely different abilities. Swapping 2 spells for 2 spells is different from swapping 1 spell for 1 spell too.

Now, you may try to claim that Spell Versatility can allow you to swap X spells for X spells, as long as they all remain of the same level to each other. But, this obviously takes multiple days. Multiple days of downtime, I would presume, because clearly there would be a cost involved in being mid list-shift if you were in any danger of actual adventuring.

And, you may try to claim that there is no actual cost, because when you need your old spells back, you simply swap back to them... of course, that takes multiple days too. So, the Bard (since everyone seems to be sick of me using the sorcerer) has had a week or more to completely prepare for an entirely known set of challenges, then they get another week to re-prepare for another entirely known set of challenges.

I can see how this completely normal set up for an adventure seems like it is made trivially easy by the Bard being able to have the perfect spell list every time. Of course, if the Bard doesn't know exactly what is coming... doesn't that change things just a wee bit? I mean, if I spent an entire week respeccing my character to fight a zombie encounter followed by a puzzle that requires comprehend languages which leads to a room where the key is at the bottom of a lake requiring water breathing which opens a door to an enemy weak to the shatter spell and it turns out I don't actually need any of those spells... doesn't it take me four days to swap all of them back to other spells? I'm sure glad there is absolutely no consequences for staying four days locked in the first room, slowly but powerfully altering my entire casting repertoire to perfectly match the challenges ahead that I now know about.

Of course, turns out I should have kept Water Breathing, but we'll just retreat and wait another day while I slot it back into the rotation.

Clearly, I am the most powerful class in the game.

Probably should be more blue text up there, but I think it came across as both sarcastic and making an actual point.

And, let us take that exact same scenario with the Wizard. Let us say the poor hapless wizard went out and bought those spells by begging and pleading with their taskmaster DM (I'm being hyperbolic, but it seems in vogue to play up the challenge of asking the DM if they can find certain spells). We'll say 350 gold and 7 to 14 hours of work scribing them (hmm, compared to the bards 96 hours that seems kind of fast, if a little pricier). Oh, and they actually don't prepare Comprened Languages or Water Breathing, those are rituals so they have two other spells they can have prepared. Which, I mean, they could have whatever the Bard spent those four days swapping into for our new challenge already ready, since two of the spells didn't need to be prepared in the first place. And, even if they did, they can change all for spells out of prepared in a single night, instead of four. And they don't need to retreat and re-prep water breathing either.


These classes still are mechanically different, the wizard is still having a fairly sizeable advantage, with the sole exception that we are assuming that the wizard can find spells. And, I am not going to deny, that is an actual challenge. But, it is the challenge that the wizard class has always faced, and been designed around. The Bard being able to slowly alter their list to fit their needs doesn't change anything for the wizard and doesn't replace the wizard.







So, in other words, you believe that the Bard would be perfectly fine if it just prepared spells like a cleric or druid. Is this correct?

Do you realize that what you're doing here is admitting that SV essentially turns those who have it into "prepared" casters who just have a shorter list of spells prepared at any one point in time?

Is this a good design choice?

You really seem dead set on getting me to admit things. So, you know what, I'm getting tired of seeing you say that all the time. Here's a list.

The game won't be broken by letting Bards become prepared Casters.
The game won't be broken by letting Sorcerers become prepared Casters.
The game won't be broken by letting Warlocks become prepared Casters.
The game won't be broken by letting Wizards become prepared Casters.
The game won't be broken by letting Fighters become prepared Casters.
The game won't be broken by letting Monks become prepared Casters.
ect

Is all of that interesting to me? No. It isn't. I also don't think that SV suddenly turns Bards and Sorcerers into prepared casters. It is just too slow of an ability, and I've already agreed that a fine fix is making it even slower. But, I admitted it all so you can stop asking those questions. The game won't break, the game will be fine, we will find new ways to challenge players is Wizards suddenly have access to their entire spell list and get all rituals for free as was sarcastically suggested a few pages ago to "shock us" into agreeing that SV is broken and shouldn't be allowed.

Will it be fun? No. But if it makes everyone happy we can go forward with that premise that Wizards should be able to win every single encounter with the perfect spell that they got for free with no limits.

Of course, no one actually wants that. No one would even consider actually implementing it into their game, because Wizards have had no problems being powerful enough up until this point. It is only being suggested because now people realize that any bard could have any spell (which was always true to a degree) and the wizard might not have that exact same spell.




It's not about the wizard "suddenly being crippled." However, it is very much about class themes.

The wizard is now the WORST choice for playing a character who has the "arcane spell list" schtick and also can prepare and tailor his spell list. He knows the fewest spells, and spends money to know more; other classes might have fewer spells prepared at a time, and take longer to swap them around, but the wizard is uniquely limited to a subset of his class list in terms of spells he knows (i.e. can choose to prepare).

He doesn't have all those many and varied wizard spells; he has a subset of them, possibly as few as 4 of each level above 1st.

This doesn't make him "crippled," and I'm not arguing that it does. It does change the game such that he goes from top of the list for, well, arcane spell versatility to the absolute bottom for any kind of spell versatility.

Okay, we can both agree that "cripplingly tiny" was a step too far, so we can move on from there.

But, I think you are wrong that Wizards are suddenly the worst for tailor made spell lists. They are still the fastest at swapping spells. They still do not need to prepare rituals, giving them a larger "daily" list than it first appears. While they only have a subset of their spells, their list is still the largest and most unique list. To the point where, when making pre-gen wizards for Con games, I have run out of spells I want them to have, and just started picking up extras just because.

The wizard still has many advantages, enough that I think this could be seen as balanced instead of the Wizard suddenly being the worst Arcane Caster in the game.





Spell Versatility's purpose is to solve a legitimate problem: players being stuck with a mistake for too long, because they're not leveling up fast enough. And it does solve that problem, but it does so by basically turning "known list" casters into "slow-change prepared list" casters. And that's a huge paradigm shift in terms of how you play them and how you think about character design for them.

"We solved the problem of monks being too fragile!"
"Yeah, but now they're invincible!"
"So? Stop whining, it's not like barbarians got LESS tanky because of it."

I'm happy to discuss solutions to the problem SV was designed to address. The simplest is a blurb to DMs: "If a player is unhappy with his spell selection, let him trade them out for a better one. Use your judgment; this is not meant to be a class feature, but you want to help them build the character they meant to play, or alter it to a fun one. They shouldn't be doing this daily, but if it takes a few tries to find the right spell picks, work with them to figure out the right ones."

It is a paradigm shift, but I don't think it is a huge one. I don't think this "slow-change prepared list" is nearly as powerful as people seem to think it is. It is nice, and a boost, but I don't think it will actually make more than ripples if implemented at a table. The game always assumes the players have the spells to do something anyways. Them actually being able to have the spells isn't going to break things.



'Adds another tier' is misleading IMO. The way I see it, it just makes bards, sorcerers and warlocks (I am thinking it's beneficial to focus on fullcasting classes, since spells are their main area, hence it is these classes in risk of stepping on each other's toes) operate more similarly to how clerics, druids and wizards do.

What else would you call "operating more similarly but not identically" other than adding a new option between to other options?

What you are proposing sounds similiar to saying that pickup trucks aren't another tier of vehicle, they are just cars that operate more similarly to semi-trucks



I don't think I'm being antagonistic here, the prepared casters (that aren't wizards) also suffer from SV. Clerics and Druids (as casters rather than Wild Shape machines) are underappreciated as it is. It may take steps to solve the issue of Wizards being above the rest but not in a way that I like. Should it really be OK to stomp all over all of the prepared spellcasting classes because Wizard might be problematic?

Wait, a minute. How is SV bad for Druids and Clerics? It is a far inferior version of what they can already do. How can someone getting a worse version of what you can do be bad for you?

[MaxWilson]

Wait, a minute. How is SV bad for Druids and Clerics? It is a far inferior version of what they can already do. How can someone getting a worse version of what you can do be bad for you?

Because they have things they do better than you (like metamagic and blasting), and if they can do everything you can do too, about as well as you can, you have no reason to exist (as a class, not as an individual PC).

[Chaosmancer]

Because they have things they do better than you (like metamagic and blasting), and if they can do everything you can do too, about as well as you can, you have no reason to exist (as a class, not as an individual PC).

Ok, they can't do everything you can do anywhere close to as well as you can. That's why it is an inferior ability. A far inferior ability.

And Druids and Clerics can both do "blasting" quite well.

[MaxWilson]

Ok, they can't do everything you can do anywhere close to as well as you can. That's why it is an inferior ability. A far inferior ability.

Your opinion is noted.

[Chaosmancer]

Your opinion is noted.

I'm glad, since you seem to think I'm wrong can you provide evidence that Spell Versatility allowing you to swap a single spell of a level for a single spell of the same level is somehow equal or superior to prepared casting, where you can swap any number of spells for any number of spells of any level?

I mean, I'd love to see how 1 is equal to 15, I've never been a huge math nerd so those sorts of proofs weren't usually on my radar.

[Dork_Forge]

Your opinion is noted.

You just stated that Sorcerers do everything a Cleric and Druid can do, but even better without providing anything to support that and then essentially ignored the reply to you?

Cleric and Druids have abilities and spells that Sorcerers do not have access to (with the exception of Divine Soul). You basically just said that SV on a sorcerer made Druids and Clerics invalid as a casting class without any actual evidence or argument.

You provide a lot of insightful comments and further discussion in many threads, you can do better than "opinion noted. "

[Kane0]

I find myself generally agreeing with Chaosmancer, abrasiveness aside.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'm glad, since you seem to think I'm wrong can you provide evidence that Spell Versatility allowing you to swap a single spell of a level for a single spell of the same level is somehow equal or superior to prepared casting, where you can swap any number of spells for any number of spells of any level?

I mean, I'd love to see how 1 is equal to 15, I've never been a huge math nerd so those sorts of proofs weren't usually on my radar.

How often will you need (or want) to swap 15 spells though? A realistic comparison would be at most 3 or 4 spells swapped, I still feel that's being generous.

[MaxWilson]

You just stated that Sorcerers do everything a Cleric and Druid can do, but even better without providing anything to support that and then essentially ignored the reply to you?

Oh, come on now. That's not what happened.

He proposed a standard of judgment, asking what's wrong with it. (If they can do what you can do, how are you harmed?) I pointed out how it was deficient. (It can erode your competitive advantage, even if it doesn't erode the other guy's competitive advantage.) He took issue with whether the deficiency was applicable in this particular case.

I very much disagree with his quibble: clerics have nothing interesting that a Divine Soul doesn't have, but Divine Souls have lots of interesting stuff that clerics don't have. Furthermore, clerics aren't very good blastiers.

However, quibbling about someone else's quibble is a bridge too far for me. Apparently it wasn't a bridge too far for you to quibble about my lack of quibbling over his quibble, nor for me to quibble with you briefly here... but I"m not going to continue this line of discussion. If you can't see that nothing productive can come out of arguing over whether clerics are good at blasting... try it and see what happens, but as far as I'm concerned that discussion about clerical blasting isn't going to happen, not on this thread anyway.

[Segev]

I think any solution that revolves around either more time (initially or afterwards) or monetary costs is not trying to solve the thematic problem but the non-existent mechanical problem, and therefore just does not work for me.

It solves the primary thematic problem, because it discourages the bard or sorcerer from treating it like a trip to the library to pick up whatever they need. They can't out-wizard the wizard's theme here because it costs them more to do it if they try to do it regularly.

[MaxWilson]

You provide a lot of insightful comments and further discussion in many threads, you can do better than "opinion noted. "

On second thought, I do find myself with some desire to talk about cool things Jorasco Divine Souls can do, not really as a rebuttal to Chaosmancer but just because I feel like it. A few quick notes before my movie starts:

Twin Revivify: twice as cheap.

Careful Symbol of Insanity for no-friendly-fire zone which absolutely destroys bad guys.

Twin Regenerate to make *two* PCs never miss a turn due to death saves. (It's not quite trollish regeneration but it's pretty close to repeating Death Ward. Good insurance against tough monsters like dragons.)

Extended Aura of Vitality for double healing. Combined with Life Cleric 1 this is 720 HP of healing per long rest by level 6.

Extended Aid the night before to have "free" Aid for the first eight hours of the next day.

Can't do all of these on one sorc of course because you only get two metamagics, edit at high level.

I should note that IMO the right time to take Warlock 2 is levels 11-12. Before that you're just Divine Soul 1, Life Cleric 1, Divine Soul 2-9. This gets you quickest possible access to all the important cleric spells.

Now I'm going to go watch Jumanji. I may edit this post some more afterwards.

[Kane0]

It solves the primary thematic problem, because it discourages the bard or sorcerer from treating it like a trip to the library to pick up whatever they need. They can't out-wizard the wizard's theme here because it costs them more to do it if they try to do it regularly.

Despite their differences in number of spells on their lists and number of spells they can have ready at any given time?