Spell Versatility and Class Identity

[diplomancer]

That's because I see this (ie being able to play with a fixed list) as a legitimate option that is worth existing, and I don't want it to be taken away from the game, even optionally.

And I simply cannot understand how it is possible to optionally eliminate an option (or rather, I see it, but the options would have to be grossly unbalanced, which is not the case here). But I think we are just repeating ourselves by now.

[Protolisk]

Spell versatility does not exactly allow me to try out a different play style with charisma based casters, and that's because this new play style is already provided by other casters. I don't have an issue with charisma casters being able to change (some of) their spell preparations for the day. I have a problem with the fact that under this optional rule, I lose the option to play a caster with a fixed (you know what I mean) list. That's because I see this (ie being able to play with a fixed list) as a legitimate option that is worth existing, and I don't want it to be taken away from the game, even optionally. And the reason I don't want it to be taken away from the game, is because it is one of the few major ways to distinguish casters mechanically. And I think it's important to be able to distinguish classes mechanically, so that the choice of picking a class can actually be impactful. And picking a class should be impactful on how you experience the game, assuming a game system that utilizes classes as the main way to categorize into broad packets the various options that will appeal to different play styles in a somewhat generalized (as the unfortunate by product of having to deal with countless individual preferences) way.

Even if you are at a table that has SV in play, you can just... not use it. If your DM allows SV, you as a player would still need to make the conscious decision to use/abuse it. So you can just... not use it. There, playstyle intact. The playstyle literally does not get "removed" because you could swap out a spell.

I've already seen this happen. My player really, really liked his spells chosen: Shield, Chromatic Orb, Slow, Haste, Fireball, and Misty Step by level six (so he had one extra, don't even remember what it was) He chose these spells because they fit his character design, and felt they were the strongest for his playstyle, which was a stealthy Wild Magic Sorc (until a surge made stealth a non-option, he would sneak around and teleport where needed)

Since sorcerers typically MUST chose the absolute best spells before hand, he didnt see the need to swap out other spells as they would weaken his build, because even for a day, losing his other spells prepared was a flat negative to his playstyle.

So even when offered, he decided not to, for a variety of reasons.

A, his playstyle would be negatively influenced by swapping
B, he had no foresight other than "we are adventuring soon, meaning likely combat and travel tomorrow, dont know what to swap to"
C, he had basically already chosen the typical "best" spells and had room for one niche spell, which when he leveled up to 7 became a swapped level 4 spell and he doesn't even have it anymore.

The playstyle can be alive and well due to being enforced by general game feel and player decision. That's what makes it a choosable playstyle, and not a requirement to take.

[MaxWilson]

When someone says the Sorcerer will pay the same amount, why wouldn't it also cost exactly the same #BST? It had very, very much sounded to me like all costs a Wizard must pay--time, money, and acquisition--were applied in full.

Also, the unterlined statement is false in the game as written (remember, this proposal was instead of SV, so we're talking about base game + "Sorcerer can swap if they pay a cost equal to the Wizard's cost to copy a spell"). Sorcerers DO NOT "get the whole list up front for free." That is not a thing and never, ever has been. They get to pick one spell known, plus one per level, up to level 11; plus one every other level until 17; then no new spells thereafter, for a total of 15 spells. This is just over one third the amount of spells a Wizard learns. They get no free spells whatsoever (unless they're Divine Soul Sorcs), so I have no idea where you're getting the Water Walking thing from.

How can you have no idea? You just quoted it! <<base game + "Sorcerer can swap if they pay a cost equal to the Wizard's cost to copy a spell">>

Water Walking is on the Sorcerer spell list. They have access for free, up front, but have to pay 150 gp every time they swap it in during a campaign (except once per sorcerer level), whereas wizards pay up front (#BloodSweatTears + 150 gp) to get access in the first place (except for two spells per wizard level) but can swap it in and out very cheaply after that (no more than an hour or two after a long rest). These facts aren't in dispute because you just repeated them, so I know you know the rules. How can you claim not to know "where you're getting the Water Walking thing from"?

Edit: or did you just not realize that Water Walking is a sorcerer spell? I left it off my list of spells the player wants because the hypothetical player doesn't want it enough to pay up-front #BST + gold for it, as a wizard.

And yes, I as DM would generally skip over that requirement if the player makes a token effort and the situation doesn't egregiously conflict with that effort. E.g. the party just got back from adventuring, "I'm hitting up the Waziri library again as soon as I've had a bath. Anything new or interesting arrive for me to check out?" (Of course, I also expect that a Wizard--being explicitly an academician--must have graduated from one of several academies and thus, unless a downtime situation expressly forbids it, they have access to academic resources exactly the way people have had access to university libraries since at least the late medieval period, when our university system came into being.)

Interesting. Why don't the Waziris also handle the adventuring part too? (I'm not saying there's no reasonable answer--I'm just curious how you set up your campaign so that PCs still have a job to do in the narrative.)

Regardless, you're focusing on something other than what I am:
When a Wizard learns a spell, regardless of the #BST or whatever else (I assume most Wizards either do solo research, thus obviating anything beyond time cost, or make use of found scrolls, which have no BST cost whatsoever as far as I'm concerned), they earn that spell. Permanently. Therefore, there is an explicit one-to-one association between "learned a spell of level N" and "paid an amount of gold." Yet the Sorcerer, under this proposal, pays exactly the same cost, and then also "pays" the old spell known, too. The old spell is gone. Vanished, as though it had never been known. Normally, the loss of something like that would be hard to quantify, but the game has helpfully told us exactly what the gold cost of knowing a spell is--what a Wizard would pay to learn it. Therefore, the Sorcerer is being asked to pay actual gold pieces, and something of identical value that isn't gold pieces. That is two costs.

Not under this proposal. The sorcerer already knows the spell, he's just paying to swap it in. (And apparently we're interpreting things differently because I don't think the sorcerer is being required to pay #BloodSweatTears to find the spell, whereas the wizard is. You seem to think the opposite, that the sorcerer will also be asked to find the spell in the wild via #BloodSweatTears. In your campaign this doesn't matter of course because #BST = zero, it's just "hit the Waziri library." In other campaigns it's quite a bit more.)

[Tanarii]

diplomancer, optional rules that are power ups are not optional in practice. cf. Variant Humans, Feats, Multiclassing from the PHB alone.

When they're OP and added as an official source books and become official, they rapidly dominate the zeitgeist and become assumed by players in the scene. cf. SCAG cantrips and Hexblades.

And when they involve no actual trade off at all to use, just a straight power up? It's easy to predict what will happen in that case. Calling it an 'optional' rule is misleading. If it sees print, in the mind of most players it will have received official sanction and will cease to be option, requiring DMs to put in special effort to 'defend their position' against using it.

Given this is a problem affecting only a minuscule fraction of the player base, and the so-called solution is so detrimental to other games, it's like trying to fix an ant infestation in your house by taking a flamethrower to the entire neighborhood. An entirely disproportionate response.

[MaxWilson]

One thing I really like about SV is how it allow players to experiment with spells. Without it, a player who wants to try out different playstyles to figure out which one works best for him (note, not the best playstyle, period- I don't think that actually exists) has to play several different characters, maybe taking YEARS of real-time for that. With it, they can easily do it over the course of a campaign.

It's why I am opposed to adding extra costs to it, (apart from the abomination to class fluff involved in having those monetary costs to Sorcerers, and, to a lesser extent, to Bards). It discourages that sort of experimentation, and that is unfun.

So, it is true that it does create the problem of "the perfect spell" (how big that problem is is a different question, let's assume here, for the sake of argument, that it is big enough to be relevant). Having the wizard be the only casting class without access to the "perfect" spell is making other classes better than the wizard at what's supposed to be one of their defining characteristics as Arcane casters. This is wrong.

From what I see, there are two ways to handle it, I think both of them solve the problem:
- Having the next spell be somewhat random,(choose four spells, 1d4 to define which spell you get) as the poster above me just suggested (fluffwise, it fits the Sorcerer and the Warlock well, slightly less so for the Bard, but I can live with that)
- Give Wizards SV. Even if you implement it as a choice they make every long rest (either prepare spells from their spellbook as normal OR use SV- I think this solution encourages wizards to still keep hunting for spells, while not subtracting too much from the class fluff- you can say the wizard spent the long rest working out the principles of magic to be able to cast a different spell instead of memorizing spells from their spellbook) , their much bigger spell list will ensure that they will still be better than the others at having the "perfect" spell.

Way #3: play some one-shots. Not only does this allow you to experiment with different spells, it lets you experiment with different metamagics, different feats, different subclasses, even completely different builds.

I tried to make clear (evidently unsuccessfully) that my previous statement has nothing to do with personal preference. I can use analogies if you prefer. And I'll bring into it personal preference for you to see the difference. I don't like the monk class. Never played one, probably never will. Personally, I couldn't care less if the monk class was gone tomorrow. I can still understand that an optional rule saying ''Hey, here is an optional rule: There are no monks!'' is a pretty bad one.

@Corran, may I suggest a different analogy? "Optional rule: everyone gets the core monk class abilities if they want them." Monks don't disappear from the rules, they're just mostly redundant, and they disappear as a side effect of "adding" the optional rule. People who say "Well why don't you just not play a monk? I don't want you spoiling my wizard-monk fun!" are missing the point: it's about game design, not specific PCs.

[Yakk]

If he plays a sorcerer, he gets the whole list up front for free (plus some others like Water Walking), but he only gets one or two swaps for free. If he winds up swapping more than 11 times over the course of the campaign, he will find that it would have been cheaper in gold to be a wizard instead, especially if his DM is the type for whom #BloodSweatTears is negligible or low. (The PHB says, "When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a spell level you can prepare and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it." Emphasis mine. Do DMs really exist who just handwave the requirement to find the spell, and skip straight to the scribing?)

The sorcerer isn't the only one who's paying twice here, and he could very well wind up being much less than the wizard to get the same benefit--it depends on how often he swaps his spell list around.

But the feature is not supposed to give the sorcerer access to the entire spell list, it is supposed to give the sorcerer the ability to correct a mistake on their spell picks.

If the sorcerer is using the entire spell list and constantly swapping over it, that means they are abusing the feature in ways it was not intended.

If, instead, they sorcerer was spending 6 play months at level 5, and didn't pick fireball ("I already have shatter, that looks like the same"), but then learned that fireball would be awesome, and wanted to swap a 3rd level spell for fireball so they can blow things up effectively. That is the point of the feature.

Your complaint -- that "if sorcerers abuse this feature and use it for things it isn't intended for, they pay an unfair high cost" is the point of charging that cost. The lack of cost means that the feature does give access to the entire spell list, instead of it letting sorcerers fix mistakes they made in choosing their fixed list of spells.

[diplomancer]

Way #3: play some one-shots. Not only does this allow you to experiment with different spells, it lets you experiment with different metamagics, different feats, different subclasses, even completely different builds.

Not everyone is fortunate enough to have enough gaming options for that. I spent the last 2 years in Africa, my gaming options were slim. Also, I like developing characters over the course of a campaign, which one-shots don't allow for. That is also the preference of my regular gaming groups.

diplomancer, optional rules that are power ups are not optional in practice. cf. Variant Humans, Feats, Multiclassing from the PHB alone.

When they're OP and added as an official source books and become official, they rapidly dominate the zeitgeist and become assumed by players in the scene. cf. SCAG cantrips and Hexblades.

This is simply not true. According to the statistics we have available, about half the players of 5e play without feats. It is firmly optional, and literally millions of people enjoy the game without them. That theory-crafting on the Internet tends to assume the existence of feats or multiclassing does not make it the "standard" rule. Multiclassing is probably "active" in considerably less than half of the tables, even those that, in theory, allow it.

As to SV, right before you posted someone just said how, in their own game, the sorcerer said "no, thanks, I'll pass". It's optional. And, since you mentioned the SCAG cantrips and the Hexblade, it's less powerful than those.

[MaxWilson]

But the feature is not supposed to give the sorcerer access to the entire spell list, it is supposed to give the sorcerer the ability to correct a mistake on their spell picks.

If the sorcerer is using the entire spell list and constantly swapping over it, that means they are abusing the feature in ways it was not intended.

If, instead, they sorcerer was spending 6 play months at level 5, and didn't pick fireball ("I already have shatter, that looks like the same"), but then learned that fireball would be awesome, and wanted to swap a 3rd level spell for fireball so they can blow things up effectively. That is the point of the feature.

Precisely. The entire problem with SV as written is that it invites what you call here "abuse" but EzekielRaiden and diplomancer call a desirable class feature. There have been numerous proposals on this thread that would give the sorcerer the ability to correct a mistake on their spell picks, e.g. "if it's been a real-time month since you last swapped out a spell, go ahead and swap another." None of them are perfect but at least they don't invite this behavior.

I will let you argue it out with EzekielRaiden and diplomancer whether "abuse" is the right word.

Your complaint -- that "if sorcerers abuse this feature and use it for things it isn't intended for, they pay an unfair high cost" is the point of charging that cost. The lack of cost means that the feature does give access to the entire spell list, instead of it letting sorcerers fix mistakes they made in choosing their fixed list of spells.

I think you're confusing me with EzekielRaiden. I have no complaint about the proposed gp cost. He or she does.

Not everyone is fortunate enough to have enough gaming options for that. I spent the last 2 years in Africa, my gaming options were slim. Also, I like developing characters over the course of a campaign, which one-shots don't allow for. That is also the preference of my regular gaming groups.

Dare I point out that the same will be true of any way you choose to solve this problem? "Not everyone is fortunate enough to have access to [it]." You suggested two ways, and unless you somehow force all DMs to adopt one of your two proposals, it will still depend on the gaming situation.

Let the record reflect that there are more than two ways to solve that problem.

This is simply not true. According to the statistics we have available, about half the players of 5e play without feats. It is firmly optional, and literally millions of people enjoy the game without them. That theory-crafting on the Internet tends to assume the existence of feats or multiclassing does not make it the "standard" rule. Multiclassing is probably "active" in considerably less than half of the tables, even those that, in theory, allow it.

As to SV, right before you posted someone just said how, in their own game, the sorcerer said "no, thanks, I'll pass". It's optional. And, since you mentioned the SCAG cantrips and the Hexblade, it's less powerful than those.

According to the statistics we have available, your critique here is unsound. It's not that half the players play without feats, it's that most PCs on D&D Beyond (especially low-level PCs) have no feats. That's not surprising, since low-level non-human PCs can't have feats. We know that the majority of D&D Beyond PCs at high levels have feats (58% at levels 12-17), and since not all PCs will prefer feats over ASIs, the number of tables which allow feats must be higher still.



Source: https://www.enworld.org/threads/here...e-pack.666137/

[diplomancer]

Dare I point out that the same will be true of any way you choose to solve this problem? "Not everyone is fortunate enough to have access to [it]." You suggested two ways, and unless you somehow force all DMs to adopt one of your two proposals, it will still depend on the gaming situation.

True. But a game where having access to SV depends on the DM is better than a game without SV. Before SV, my gaming groups never thought of it. Now they are all "why didn't I think of that before?".

In the same way that it works for those who like feats, or multiclassing, or half elves (all of those are optional, "overpowered", options)

It would be a shame if it was rejected and went unpublished, since some people would read that as an indication that it is overpowered. Fortunately, I don't think that's going to happen, specially since the main complaint seems to be "if SV exists I will be tempted to use it" or "SV sorcerers make my wizard feel less special" (though the second complaint might be fixed by some adjustments to the wizard).

Edit: Variant humans are, according to that statistic, a whopping 4% of characters. Does not exactly scream "overpowered choice". (Edit of the edit- going further into those statistics, seems that about 10.5% of characters are variant humans, and 11% are regular humans- I.e, variant humans remain strongly optional and not the default choice)
Also, even if there are slightly more 11+ level characters with feats than without, you have to weigh that against the fact that there are more 1-10 level characters than 11-20. It still means that about half of the characters (probably more) don't have feats, whether because feats are banned or because feats are just not that powerful is a separate and, I'd say, unimportant, question.

Less than 1/3 of Characters are multi-classed. Optional.

[Tanarii]

This is simply not true. According to the statistics we have available, about half the players of 5e play without feats. It is firmly optional, and literally millions of people enjoy the game without them. That theory-crafting on the Internet tends to assume the existence of feats or multiclassing does not make it the "standard" rule. Multiclassing is probably "active" in considerably less than half of the tables, even those that, in theory, allow it.

I think this is the first time I've heard anyone make that claim? (? Because it's vaguely ringing some bells.) What are your statistics to back that up?

It certainly goes against my experience in dealing with (at this point) well over a hundred college-age D&D 5e players. Unless they are brand new to D&D, the always assume feats and Multiclassing and variant humans are really the default. I'm not talking about theory-crafting internet here, I'm talking real world personal experience. (Of course that's anecdotal. If you really have some statistics I'm interested to see them.)

[MaxWilson]

I think this is the first time I've heard anyone make that claim? (? Because it's vaguely ringing some bells.) What are your statistics to back that up?

It certainly goes against my experience in dealing with (at this point) well over a hundred college-age D&D 5e players. Unless they are brand new to D&D, the always assume feats and Multiclassing and variant humans are really the default. I'm not talking about theory-crafting internet here, I'm talking real world personal experience. (Of course that's anecdotal. If you really have some statistics I'm interested to see them.)

I know of two data sources that people commonly cite on this issue, both commonly misinterpreted: one is a remark from a WotC employee (Crawford or Mearls, I forget) to the effect that WotC isn't that focused on providing new feat content because the majority of 5E PCs do not have feats anyway, according to WotC internal polling. The other is D&D Beyond Data for actively-played PCs, e.g. here for multiclassing or here for feats.

This data is commonly misinterpreted as if it were data about which rules are allowed, instead of about PCs which are currently taking advantage of those rules.

There's also an explicit Enworld poll here with ~120 votes: https://www.enworld.org/threads/does...-feats.668290/ according to which 73% of tables allow feats "pretty much always" and 11% allow them never. That seems consistent with your experience, which as I understand it is: players are accustomed to having feats available unless the DM tell them no.

True. But a game where having access to SV depends on the DM is better than a game without SV. Before SV, my gaming groups never thought of it. Now they are all "why didn't I think of that before?".

In the same way that it works for those who like feats, or multiclassing, or half elves (all of those are optional, "overpowered", options)

Sure. And my post was also for the sake of any potential readers out there who might see it and think, "Why didn't I think of that before?" If one shots to experiment with different spells/metamagics/subclasses/builds don't interest you, then it wasn't for you.

[diplomancer]

I know of two data sources that people commonly cite on this issue, both commonly misinterpreted: one is a remark from a WotC employee (Crawford or Mearls, I forget) to the effect that WotC isn't that focused on providing new feat content because the majority of 5E PCs do not have feats anyway, according to WotC internal polling. The other is D&D Beyond Data for actively-played PCs, e.g. here for multiclassing or here for feats.

This data is commonly misinterpreted as if it were data about which rules are allowed, instead of about PCs which are currently taking advantage of those rules.

There's also an explicit Enworld poll here with ~120 votes: https://www.enworld.org/threads/does...-feats.668290/ according to which 73% of tables allow feats "pretty much always" and 11% allow them never.

The enworld poll is, obviously, flawed (very small sample size, self-selection bias, user-type bias).

Whether most characters don't have feats (which is what the actual data shows us) because "feats are banned" or because players don't want to have feats is, in the end, irrelevant. Players without feats are still enjoying the game, not feeling overshadowed by players with feats. Feats are character customization options. So is SV (the developers have already stated that one of the purposes of giving SV, apart from fixing mistakes, is to demonstrate that the game system is robust enough to "take it")
The existence of feats has not eliminated featless characters. Same thing will happen with SV. We already have at least one example of a sorcerer player who said to SV "thanks, but no, thanks".

[MaxWilson]

The enworld poll is, obviously, flawed (very small sample size, self-selection bias, user-type bias).

I am aware of the issues with Internet polls, which is why I went out of my way to highlight the sample size up front. I am not an idiot.

If you have better data feel free to share it, but a poll of 120 people is better than nothing.

Whether most characters don't have feats (which is what the actual data shows us) because "feats are banned" or because players don't want to have feats is, in the end, irrelevant. Players without feats are still enjoying the game, not feeling overshadowed by players with feats. Feats are character customization options. So is SV. The existence of feats has not eliminated featless characters. Same thing will happen with SV. We already have at least one example of a sorcerer player who said to SV "thanks, but no, thanks".

It's not irrelevant in the context of Tanar'ri's point about what happens with "optional" rules, which is what we're discussing here. They can become part of the assumed-to-be-allowed metagame. That hasn't happened with other optional rules in 5E such as DMG spell points or DMG Disarm, but it seems to have happened with feats, based on anecdotal and available statistical data.

[diplomancer]

I am aware of the issues with Internet polls, which is why I went out of my way to highlight the same size up front. I am not an idiot.

If you have better data feel free to share it, but a poll of 120 people is better than nothing.

Well, I have no interest in finding out how many people allow or ban feats, and I don't have the means to find out. As to that poll, no, a self-selected, user-type biased poll is worse than nothing if you want to know what is the general community play experience. Bad information is worse than no information. Thankfully, we DO have good information about how many characters have feats. It's less than half. It's a popular variant rule, more popular than spell points or flanking. It's still has not driven out other choices.

My point is that the existence of feats and multiclassing has not eliminated featless, single-classed characters. And, in fact, those types of characters are still the majority. The variant human has not eliminated the regular human, regular humans are still more popular. SV will not eliminate the current sorcerer.

[Corran]

Even if you are at a table that has SV in play, you can just... not use it. If your DM allows SV, you as a player would still need to make the conscious decision to use/abuse it. So you can just... not use it.

Optionality of a rule is not some kind of a free pass. If a rule is bad, and we make this bad rule an optional one, it's still a bad rule. It wont affect negatively the game when it's not used, but it will affect negatively the game when it's used. Net value is still negative. I can make up some very bad rules on the spot and list them for you. And when you say that they are pretty bad (which the will be), I'll say ''but they are optional, so you don't have to use them if you don't think they are good rules''. But that wont change the fact that they will be bad rules. I am interested in discussing whether SV is a bad rule or not, but I am not interested in discussing whether there is a point in having a discussion over the value of optional rules because they are optional, so from now on assume that I think there is a point in doing so.

There, playstyle intact.

No. That's because there is a very distinct (and easy to spot, I'd say) difference in being able to shape your toolkit in order to deal with what's ahead and in not being able to do so. It doesn't matter which approach you or I prefer at any moment in time. I think it's good to have both, so we can choose. I like variety, but even if I didn't, it is objectively a good thing to have when you are dealing with the many and different (and often conflicting) preferences of a player base.

The playstyle literally does not get "removed" because you could swap out a spell.

There is a difference on the degree of effectiveness. The change in playstyle is very real though, whether one is aware of it or not.

[Tanarii]

It's not irrelevant in the context of Tanar'ri's point about what happens with "optional" rules, which is what we're discussing here. They can become part of the assumed-to-be-allowed metagame. That hasn't happened with other optional rules in 5E such as DMG spell points or DMG Disarm, but it seems to have happened with feats, based on anecdotal and available statistical data.

That's an easy one: most players don't know jack about the contents of the DMG. (I'm being edition agnostic here.)

Especially when they aren't a built in option to any online tools. (Less agnostic, since said tools being available / easily accessible is a newer thing.)

Thankfully, we DO have good information about how many characters have feats. It's less than half. It's a popular variant rule, more popular than spell points or flanking. It's still has not driven out other choices.

If the enworld analysis of level 4+ D&D beyond characters is accurate, it's anywhere from 1/3 (4-7 range) to more than half (pops level 8). That implies far more than half of D&D players who use this online tool play at tables where feats are a rule. Otherwise those numbers don't make any sense.

If it's not that widespread (e.g. We assume only 60% of tables use it), then the statistics are even more damning. Because that means at tables where it's allowed, feats are used in higher percentage. (ie 34%/60% = 56%)

Final edit to bring this full circle back to the main point: The Feats variant rule is one that involves a character building resource trade off. It's not just a straight power up. So the effect is just a fraction of how much Spell Versatility is likely to become commonly assumed.

[diplomancer]

That's an easy one: most players don't know jack about the contents of the DMG. (I'm being edition agnostic here.)

Especially when they aren't a built in option to any online tools. (Less agnostic, since said tools being available / easily accessible is a newer thing.)


If the enworld analysis of level 4+ D&D beyond characters is accurate, it's anywhere from 1/3 (4-7 range) to more than half (pops level 8). That implies far more than half of D&D players who use this online tool play at tables where feats are a rule. Otherwise those numbers don't make any sense.

If it's not that widespread (e.g. We assume only 60% of tables use it), then the statistics are even more damning. Because that means at tables where it's allowed, feats are used in higher percentage. (ie 34%/60% = 56%)

Final edit to bring this full circle back to the main point: The Feats variant rule is one that involves a character building resource trade off. It's not just a straight power up. So the effect is just a fraction of how much Spell Versatility is likely to become commonly assumed.

To me, SV is, powerwise, so minor, that, if I was trying to optimize, and had to choose between it and the new Bard spells of the same UA, I would go with the new Bard spells. That might also apply to the Psionic Bard spells of the following UA, but it would be a closer choice. It is simply not that powerful in the kinds of campaign I play (I see how it CAN be overpowered in very long campaigns at high levels, but those campaigns are, in my perspective, broken already, it's not SV that would break them). It's just fun.

[Chaosmancer]

Now, the subjectivity enters on how similar is too similar for some people and not too similar for others. I think this does not affect my point above, and that's why I would say that SV is objectively a bad optional rule.


But that's not what I am saying. An optional rule is meant to add something to the game. This optional rule (SV) takes away something from the game, because it makes my experience and enjoyment of some classes similar to that of other classes. I have reason to be excited about playing a caster while not worrying about how to change my spell list before every set of encounters. An optional rule that takes that away from me does not add anything to the game. At best nothing changes. At worst, I lose an option.

I swapped your paragraphs, because I had to read this a few times.

I did some bolding, highlighting ect, because while I want to agree with the thrust of your argument, it ends up being wrong simply because you don't seem to be using the right definitions.

Objective means without bias. It means that you can step outside your own experience and desires and see how things are affected from an outside perspective.

Subjective is your own opinion, fully acknowledging biases you have in the process.

So, when you say that your experience and enjoyment will be affected because of how you approach classes that have spells known so that you don't have to do as much mental overhead, that is all a subjective reading of the rule.

And so no, the rule is not objectively bad because it hurts your play experience. And in fact, I would say the rule does add something to the game, because I would enjoy the chance to swap spells and play around with different niche things for fun RP. I do not strongly consider prepared vs known spell lists when I build a character, I do consider it a little, but I am mostly concerned with other abilities and the type of story I want the class to tell.

So, my subjective opinion against yours. You say it adds nothing, I say it does. None of this leads us to an objective answer.

I tried to make clear (evidently unsuccessfully) that my previous statement has nothing to do with personal preference. I can use analogies if you prefer. And I'll bring into it personal preference for you to see the difference. I don't like the monk class. Never played one, probably never will. Personally, I couldn't care less if the monk class was gone tomorrow. I can still understand that an optional rule saying ''Hey, here is an optional rule: There are no monks!'' is a pretty bad one.

I see this conversation kept going, dang, I hate playing catch up.

I think the issue is, saying "well none of this has to do with my personal opinion" when all you talk about is your perspective on how the class is to be played, your specific enjoyment of not having the option to swap spells reducing your desire to analyze and allowing you to relax... well, here, I'll do this. I'm going to requote your paragraph again, and I'm going to delete everything that is your personal opinion on the class.

But that's not what I am saying. An optional rule is meant to add something to the game. This optional rule (SV) takes away something from the game, because [......] An optional rule that takes that away from me does not add anything to the game. At best nothing changes. At worst, I lose an option.

Now, the subjectivity enters on how similar is too similar for some people and not too similar for others. I think this does not affect my point above, and that's why I would say that SV is objectively a bad optional rule.

As you can see, you no longer have an argument. There is nothing there to grasp onto that isn't your subjective opinion on the class and why you play it.

Switch without quote

You know, you also keep saying that optional rules can only add to the game. But, I think that is also completely false.

For example, there are optional rules in the DMG that state you cannot spend HD on a short rest without a Healer's kit being use. Another one that says you do not recover HP on a long rest, and must instead spend HD.

Objectively, both of these subtract from the game. They are removing abilities that you otherwise had. But, just because they are not adding to the game by the rule (as in the rule is not increasing the number of things, the rule itself is decreasing them) that does not make these bad optional rules. In fact, many people think these are great optional rules.

So, even your most basic assertion "optional rules must add to the game, not subtract" seems to be a subjective opinion that does not reflect the reality of the game itself.

I am arguing that there is an important reason for non-SV casters to exist. If you agree with that, you'll see why I don't think SV is a good rule.


Maybe. Maybe not. I haven't thought about it much. I am not very interested in thinking about any potential balance concerns and mechanical ramifications of a rule that (IMO) is flawed in its design and not official at this point. It's not that I don't like SV because of how much it improves the sorcerer. I don't like it because of the cost that implementing this rule has. Bottom line, my argument does not have to do with mechanical balance at all.

This probably gets addressed on the next page, but I'm still catching up.

I agree there is a reason for non-SV casters to exist.

I also recognize that adding SV does not remove non-SV casters from the game, therefore they still exist.

And, a discussion doesn't have to be about mechanical balance to still be subjective opinions. Especially since you really can't talk about things like "theme" and "what a player wants out of a class" without getting into highly subjective territory.

diplomancer, optional rules that are power ups are not optional in practice. cf. Variant Humans, Feats, Multiclassing from the PHB alone.

When they're OP and added as an official source books and become official, they rapidly dominate the zeitgeist and become assumed by players in the scene. cf. SCAG cantrips and Hexblades.

And when they involve no actual trade off at all to use, just a straight power up? It's easy to predict what will happen in that case. Calling it an 'optional' rule is misleading. If it sees print, in the mind of most players it will have received official sanction and will cease to be option, requiring DMs to put in special effort to 'defend their position' against using it.

Given this is a problem affecting only a minuscule fraction of the player base, and the so-called solution is so detrimental to other games, it's like trying to fix an ant infestation in your house by taking a flamethrower to the entire neighborhood. An entirely disproportionate response.

While I can appreciate the thought Tanarii, I do have to wonder if the tables most against this rule would really suffer so much. Because, if you for example find all the optional rules you listed to be issues, and you have had to defend that repeatedly.... don't players start getting a sense for what you will and won't allow?

I mean, if I was at a table that put forth "Nothing from SCAG or Xanathers without talking to me, no feats, no variant human, no multiclassing" and then I saw SV, I'm not going to even bother thinking about it at that table. It will clearly not fly.

Now, sure, you are going to end up with new people who don't know your limitations, and DMs will have to put in work and maybe discuss the option, but that is just human nature. It is going to happen, no matter what. Presenting these rules as optional is about the best that WoTC can do, especially since there are people who are getting a benefit from this rule and are quite happy with it.

@Corran, may I suggest a different analogy? "Optional rule: everyone gets the core monk class abilities if they want them." Monks don't disappear from the rules, they're just mostly redundant, and they disappear as a side effect of "adding" the optional rule. People who say "Well why don't you just not play a monk? I don't want you spoiling my wizard-monk fun!" are missing the point: it's about game design, not specific PCs.

Max, can you see why "give everyone an entire class worth of abilities" might seem a bit extreme when compared to SV?

I know you see SV as giving sorcerers a spellbook with every single sorcerer spell in it, but most of us do not see it that way. And if you are going to compare giving 17 class features some of which have multiple features built into them to a single feature, you are going to get a massive pushback of being too hyperbolic.

[Corran]

And so no, the rule is not objectively bad because it hurts your play experience.

I think that it is objectively a good thing (regardless who agrees or not) to have enough options to accommodate many different play styles. A rule that narrows down the available options (assuming they deserved existing in the first place; and if they didn't, you don't take them away optionally, you just take them away), does hurt my play experience because I like variety, but at the same time I think it's also objectively bad. I've gone through the why. I don't expect you to agree with anything of course, but at the same time I've offered all the justification that I can.

And in fact, I would say the rule does add something to the game, because I would enjoy the chance to swap spells and play around with different niche things for fun RP.

You can already do that. Wanting to do that with a charisma based caster is something I could probably stand behind. But in no way, shape or form, do I think that this desire is enough to justify taking a wider option that already serves an important function off the table.

I have my own desires too. I would very much enjoy a new class that would be a mixture of rogue and sorcerer (I'd be even happier if I got to handpick what it would get from both of these classes). But I can understand why having such a class would be objectively bad for the game. As I also understand why having an optional rule add maneuvers to the champion would be a bad rule, even though I would enjoy the champion more under this optional rule. In a class based game system, there will be compromises. That's something we have to accept.

And so no, the rule is not objectively bad because it hurts your play experience. And in fact, I would say the rule does add something to the game, because I would enjoy the chance to swap spells and play around with different niche things for fun RP. I do not strongly consider prepared vs known spell lists when I build a character, I do consider it a little, but I am mostly concerned with other abilities and the type of story I want the class to tell.

This undermines your desire for a charisma based versatile caster.

So, my subjective opinion against yours. You say it adds nothing, I say it does. None of this leads us to an objective answer.

It takes away the option of playing a caster with a fixed spell list. That's a fact.

You know, you also keep saying that optional rules can only add to the game. But, I think that is also completely false.

For example...

You are right. I'll narrow it down. When an optional rule removes something that should not be removed, then it's a bad rule. Meaning that a bad rule is a bad rule, optional or not, essentially.

I agree there is a reason for non-SV casters to exist.

I also recognize that adding SV does not remove non-SV casters from the game, therefore they still exist.

Who's left? Rhetorical, cause I know what you'll say. I've limited my opinions on SV as it pertains to fullcasters for a reason. I don't mind it on non-fulcasters, cause spellcasting is not as big a part of their identity as it is for fullcasters.

[Chaosmancer]

I think that it is objectively a good thing (regardless who agrees or not) to have enough options to accommodate many different play styles. A rule that narrows down the available options (assuming they deserved existing in the first place; and if they didn't, you don't take them away optionally, you just take them away), does hurt my play experience because I like variety, but at the same time I think it's also objectively bad. I've gone through the why. I don't expect you to agree with anything of course, but at the same time I've offered all the justification that I can.

I would agree with you, if this rule actually narrowed down available playstyles. Instead, I would say it increases a number of viable playstyles.

I understand you see SV as removing playstyles because it is like Prepared Casting and therefore everything is prepared casting and the number of classes heads towards 1.

I however, see that all of those classes now have have an SV and non-SV version, and that in conjuction with other class abilities, this increases the number of options.

To restate, in clear language: This rule does not reduce your options at the table.

You can already do that. Wanting to do that with a charisma based caster is something I could probably stand behind. But in no way, shape or form, do I think that this desire is enough to justify taking a wider option that already serves an important function off the table.

I have my own desires too. I would very much enjoy a new class that would be a mixture of rogue and sorcerer (I'd be even happier if I got to handpick what it would get from both of these classes). But I can understand why having such a class would be objectively bad for the game. As I also understand why having an optional rule add maneuvers to the champion would be a bad rule, even though I would enjoy the champion more under this optional rule. In a class based game system, there will be compromises. That's something we have to accept.

None of those are objectively bad, nor are they bad for the game for you to include. And again, SV removes zero options from the game. IT is a false statement to say that SV removes the non-SV sorcerer, the Non-SV Bard, and the Non-SV Warlock from the game.

And, there is an optional rule that adds manuevers to the Champion. Two of them in fact. The optional rule of feats, which allows you to take the Battle Master feat, which I believe you can take multiple times, and add MAneuvers to your champion, and the new optional Fighting Style which the Champion can take.

In fact, despite the fact that this thread is about Spell Versatility, I find it very interesting that there was almost no discussion about Manuever Versatility, which allows any class which has Maneuvers (battlemaster, people with the feat, or people with the fighting style) to swap their manuevers on the short rest. No calls of homogenizing the Battlemaster have come, or claims that this ruins people's theming by allowing all Battlemasters to be the same, or calls that Rogues now having access to a manuever that does (X) and can be swapped out on a long rest for (Y) is somehow bad as well.

This undermines your desire for a charisma based versatile caster.

Not really.

It takes away the option of playing a caster with a fixed spell list. That's a fact.

No, it doesn't. It cannot, in any way, take away that option. It is impossible.

Analogies rarely work, but a commercial just played and it seems appropriate.

Burger King is selling the "Impossible Whopper" it is a whopper that uses vegan materials to make the patty, but supposedly taste just like a whopper. The inclusion of the "Impossible Whopper" has not removed my option to buy a Whopper. Even though it removes things from the menu (because of how restaurants work), even though it might be objectively healthy and better for the environment, even if it is more delicious and will convert anyone who eats it into eating nothing else, my option to order a normal Whopper still exists.

SV does not remove the option of playing a caster with a Fixed Spell List.
SV does not remove the option of playing a Charisma caster with a Fixed Spell List.
SV does not remove the option of playing a Sorcerer with a Fixed Spell List.
SV does not remove the option of playing a Dragon Sorcerer with a Fixed Spell List.
SV does not remove the option of playing a Half-Elf Green Dragon Sorcerer Sailor with a Fixed Spell List.

It removes zero options from the game. You can still do it. Even if you included SV and your DM demanded you write the ability in permanent marker across your character sheet, where you could always see it, you can still play a caster with a fixed spell list.

Who's left? Rhetorical, cause I know what you'll say. I've limited my opinions on SV as it pertains to fullcasters for a reason. I don't mind it on non-fulcasters, cause spellcasting is not as big a part of their identity as it is for fullcasters.

You seem to be wrong about what I'll say.

Non-SV Bards, Sorcerers and Warlocks still exist. Open up your PHB and you will see them. That is what the "optional" part of optional rules means. It is a choice. If you choose not to take that option, then it changes nothing for those classes.

And if you think that is false, I will propose this.

Somewhere on he internet is an overpowered wizard that has an ability that allows them to create subservient wizards that follow their every command and can level up as the wizard does. Those subservient wizards also can make further subservient wizards, because they can take the same subclass. This class exists, I can even search and likely find the link to it again and show it to you. There is the option to include this in your game. Allowing Homebrew content is an optional rule and a choice, just like SV. Once I show you the link the that class, have I ruined other wizards? Do other wizard subclasses stop existing in your game?

No, on the face of it, that would be a ridiculous claim. Just knowing that an option exists does not mean you are using it. Even if that subclass was accepted by your table, you could choose a different subclass, even knowing it is incredibly powerful and is the most powerful option you could take.

So, why is SV different? Why does it's very existence as an option remove classes from the game? That makes no sense. It cannot do that, it only does so because you keep insisting that it does. .

[Tanarii]

So, why is SV different? Why does it's very existence as an option remove classes from the game? That makes no sense. It cannot do that, it only does so because you keep insisting that it does. .

SV is different if it becomes an officially published upgrade. Because then in the minds of players it's no longer an option.

This would be like publishing a revised ranger. They've avoided doing that multiple times because they know this to be true. Publishing SV invalidates their evergreen policy, just as publishing a revised ranger would.

Otoh if they're seriously considering these flat upgrades, it may be we're not looking at a sourcebook at all. We're looking at the precursor to 5.5e

[Corran]

I understand you see SV as removing playstyles because it is like Prepared Casting and therefore everything is prepared casting and the number of classes heads towards 1.

Yes. There is a difference in the degree of effectiveness, but yeah, that's basically my argument.

I however, see that all of those classes now have have an SV and non-SV version, and that in conjuction with other class abilities, this increases the number of options.

The number of options would increase if the choice between the SV and non-SV versions was a real thing, like it is supposed to be between existing versatile and non versatile casters (who are supposed to bridge the gap differently; and that's the additional play style: take a hit in your spellcasting versatility, but profit from the additional stuff that you'll get by restricting yourself in the way mentioned; for some people this is too much of a blow, while others prefer it cause they have clear preferences where spells are concerned and they also probably don't like go through whole lists trying to pick the best spell list for every different occasion because it's too much of a homework to do). There is no choice to be made, say, between an SV and a non-SV sorcerer, because one version is strictly better than the other. Being able to change spells is strictly better (human error notwithstanding) than not being able to.

In fact, despite the fact that this thread is about Spell Versatility, I find it very interesting that there was almost no discussion about Manuever Versatility, which allows any class which has Maneuvers (battlemaster, people with the feat, or people with the fighting style) to swap their manuevers on the short rest.

That's probably because maneuvers don't define any class as much as spellcasting defines some classes. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any reason not to like maneuver versatility, if I got the gist of it right from your description.

It removes zero options from the game. You can still do it. Even if you included SV and your DM demanded you write the ability in permanent marker across your character sheet, where you could always see it, you can still play a caster with a fixed spell list.

I wouldn't want to play a non versatile caster when I've got an option to have spell versatility for free. I am not allergic to playing versatile casters.

Somewhere on he internet is an overpowered wizard that has an ability that allows them to create subservient wizards that follow their every command and can level up as the wizard does. Those subservient wizards also can make further subservient wizards, because they can take the same subclass. This class exists, I can even search and likely find the link to it again and show it to you. There is the option to include this in your game. Allowing Homebrew content is an optional rule and a choice, just like SV. Once I show you the link the that class, have I ruined other wizards? Do other wizard subclasses stop existing in your game?

I'd be annoyed because of how badly balanced this subclass (which hypothetically got the green light by people who design games for a living) would presumably be. I might not use it, as a silent form of protest of some sort, but if I had no emotional qualms, or if I got over them, then yeah, this subclass would make all other subclasses a waste of space, at least in my PHB. Because if it can do everything (or almost everything) that the other subclasses could do, and a whole bunch of other powerful stuff on top of that, where's the choice I am supposed to make?

Furthermore, you are confusing what a DM might decide, or what a table might agree to, to bring into their game, with official content. I have no expectation of good quality from homebrew (even from the UA ones, which are made by professionals), although it's nice (and pleasantly surprising) when it happens. I do however have an expectation of good quality official content.

=========================

@Corran, may I suggest a different analogy? "Optional rule: everyone gets the core monk class abilities if they want them." Monks don't disappear from the rules, they're just mostly redundant, and they disappear as a side effect of "adding" the optional rule. People who say "Well why don't you just not play a monk? I don't want you spoiling my wizard-monk fun!" are missing the point: it's about game design, not specific PCs.

Yes! I wanted to say something like this at some point, but I couldn't find the right words.

[Aimeryan]

If the sorcerer is using the entire spell list and constantly swapping over it, that means they are abusing the feature in ways it was not intended.

The interview suggests otherwise:

– So these enhancements and these replacements, again it’s a buffet, and the group can decide how many of these things they would like to engage with. Many of these things, especially when it comes to the enhancements, are also ultimately about providing greater versatility. If you look at the UA, the word versatility in fact shows up over and over again.

– [Todd] Quite often. (laughs)

– And one of the reasons for that is I wanted us to provide an official answer to the desire in many groups, which we have observed over the last five years, to be able to have a bit more flexibility with their character. For when they make a choice, not be trapped by that choice.

– [Todd] Right.

– Because we have provided in the player’s handbook various ways to, say if you’re a Sorcerer, when you level up, swap out a spell.

– [Todd] Yes, that is remarkable by the way.

– But that’s in the player’s handbook.

– [Todd] Yeah.

– In this, we provide you the ability to swap out a spell at the end of the long rest.
...

Without directly asking we can't be certain, however, the intent seems to be that they want Sorcerers to swap out their spells with flexibility and versatility with the vehicle for each spell being a long rest. They don't want Sorcerers to be trapped in their spell selection. I can only infer from this that changing spells regularly, which is a pretty obvious possibility, was intended as a use of this feature.

It could be that they only wanted a single mistake to be fixed and then the feature largely abandoned, however, that would be wild speculation with no evidence. The 'Perfect Spell^TM' issue may also be desired, however, it is not an obvious consequence and in fact mechanically is likely to be a very rare situation (the issue is more thematic than a mechanical or balance issue).

Being able to regularly adapt, given enough time, the Sorcerer's spell selection to the campaign environment does not step on on the toes of the Wizard; the time required for multiple uses is not insignificant - in fact, only a long specific campaign environment is likely to see full adaptation, while the Wizard was fully adapted after the first long rest. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that this is the reason for the one spell limitation, which highly suggests they thought about this. Similarly, because of the slow adaptation the Sorcerer needs to keep a significant portion of their low spells known as generally applicable spells in case the environment changes - so even at 'full adaptation' the Sorcerer would still be far less adapted to the campaign environment than the Wizard could be.


Edit: I have gone on to watch more of the interview - they literally talk exactly about this issue and that it is intended that SV casters can slowly switch out spells as they see fit. They talk about how switching out one spell at a time vs switching out the entire list means the identity has not been encroached upon. I can confidently say that the only issue that has been brought up here and that they haven't considered is the Perfect Spell issue. You can argue about regularly switching spells with SV, however, it is intended and thus not being abused.

The significance of this is that any supposed solution to the Perfect Spell issue should respect the intention of being able to regularly switch out spells - this means expensive costs (or any cost, really), cooldowns, etc., is going against the intention of SV pretty strongly in order to fix a very very minor issue. It is not like this is unavoidable - I've already suggested a solution that fixes the Perfect Spell issue without punishing the intent of SV.

[MaxWilson]

Max, can you see why "give everyone an entire class worth of abilities" might seem a bit extreme when compared to SV?

Absolutely Chaosmancer, but I'm not discussing SV with Corran there. I'm discussing how to explain subtracting a class from the game by adding options instead of banning the class. SV is not strong enough to subtract any classes from the game in and of itself and nobody has claimed that it is. Even with SV, wizards do still have some strengths which I've pointed out repeatedly (e.g. post #164), among them access to spells like Fabricate and Contingency.

I know you see SV as giving sorcerers a spellbook with every single sorcerer spell in it, but most of us do not see it that way. And if you are going to compare giving 17 class features some of which have multiple features built into them to a single feature, you are going to get a massive pushback of being too hyperbolic.

You said, "if you are going to...", so I'll just state that I haven't done so. Reminder: I'm not an idiot and I don't say obviously-stupid things, especially not things that contradict my own publicly-stated opinions in this thread (see post #164) like the strength of the wizard spell list (as opposed to the strength of an individual wizard's spellbook).**

If you get confused by what I say--if it seems obviously stupid to you and seems to come out of nowhere--click on the little arrow icon next to my name, in the quote box, and it will send you back to the post which made it, so you can see what I was actually responding to. Context matters. Or just ignore the post because I was talking to someone else about something else.

** I'm aware that you don't share this opinion, Chaosmancer, and consider the sorcerer spell list just as strong as the wizard's. Hopefully you're also aware by now that I feel differently, so it should have been obvious to you that I wasn't saying wizards had been subtracted from the game by SV the way monks would be by that hypothetical.

That's an easy one: most players don't know jack about the contents of the DMG. (I'm being edition agnostic here.)

Especially when they aren't a built in option to any online tools. (Less agnostic, since said tools being available / easily accessible is a newer thing.)

If your conjecture is correct (and I agree, player ignorance of the DMG is probably a factor, judging by how little-known DMG Disarm seems to be even among DMs on this forum), then that has lessons for how to publish other options like Spell Versatility-for-those-running-slow-paced-games without having undue influence on normal games. Will WotC heed those lessons? Probably not. Early UAs had DM-facing content but they've pretty much dropped that ball in favor of player-facing content. It's probably smart marketing even if it doesn't seem like good game design--you can build more hype for a product by targeting players than DMs since there are many more players, and players are also more reliant on WotC products than DMs are.

Now, sure, you are going to end up with new people who don't know your limitations, and DMs will have to put in work and maybe discuss the option, but that is just human nature. It is going to happen, no matter what. Presenting these rules as optional is about the best that WoTC can do, especially since there are people who are getting a benefit from this rule and are quite happy with it.

I suspect this is not true. WotC could do better at making a rule clearly optional by putting the optional rules in a DM-facing product just like DMG Disarm and DMG spell points and Oathbreakers and Death domain clerics and DMG Eladrin, instead of in a player-facing product which (apparently) invites the players to feel ownership of the option.

In fact, despite the fact that this thread is about Spell Versatility, I find it very interesting that there was almost no discussion about Manuever Versatility, which allows any class which has Maneuvers (battlemaster, people with the feat, or people with the fighting style) to swap their manuevers on the short rest. No calls of homogenizing the Battlemaster have come, or claims that this ruins people's theming by allowing all Battlemasters to be the same, or calls that Rogues now having access to a manuever that does (X) and can be swapped out on a long rest for (Y) is somehow bad as well.

Well, that was empty design space before. There weren't any Battlemasters whose shtick was "you lose [XYZ] but you can swap your maneuvers on a [set schedule]." In order for the Spell Versatility thing to resemble Maneuver Versatility, there would have had to have been no clerics, druids, or wizards in the game. In that scenario I can imagine Spell Versatility getting a lot less pushback.

So yeah, it is interesting, but not in a way which suggests that SV as written is a good idea which is likely to be uncontroversial.

Non-SV Bards, Sorcerers and Warlocks still exist. Open up your PHB and you will see them. That is what the "optional" part of optional rules means. It is a choice. If you choose not to take that option, then it changes nothing for those classes.

It does, however, change the game within which those classes are played, which affects the play experience of even the players who aren't playing a PC who takes advantage of those options. Case in point...

Somewhere on he internet is an overpowered wizard that has an ability that allows them to create subservient wizards that follow their every command and can level up as the wizard does. Those subservient wizards also can make further subservient wizards, because they can take the same subclass. This class exists, I can even search and likely find the link to it again and show it to you. There is the option to include this in your game. Allowing Homebrew content is an optional rule and a choice, just like SV. Once I show you the link the that class, have I ruined other wizards? Do other wizard subclasses stop existing in your game?

No, on the face of it, that would be a ridiculous claim. Just knowing that an option exists does not mean you are using it. Even if that subclass was accepted by your table, you could choose a different subclass, even knowing it is incredibly powerful and is the most powerful option you could take.

If that subclass is accepted by your table, it absolutely would ruin some peoples play experience, certainly including mine, because it ruins the gameworld. Why does this gameworld even still exist? It should have been taken over by those stupid viral wizards long ago.

If a DM adopted this rule and refused to change it, I would quit the table and find something better to do with my time.

[Chaosmancer]

SV is different if it becomes an officially published upgrade. Because then in the minds of players it's no longer an option.

This would be like publishing a revised ranger. They've avoided doing that multiple times because they know this to be true. Publishing SV invalidates their evergreen policy, just as publishing a revised ranger would.

Otoh if they're seriously considering these flat upgrades, it may be we're not looking at a sourcebook at all. We're looking at the precursor to 5.5e

I guess I don't understand how publishing options turns into publishing a destruction of the system as we know it.

I mean, to read what you've been posting, DMs are powerless in the face of their players to set which options they can and cannot use, and players are powerless to resist options they may not like. That doesn't make sense to me, and I don't see how it violates "evergreen policy"

After all, Xanathar's downtime rules are a direct upgrade to the PHB downtime rules, but no policy seems to have been destroyed. In fact, most players and DMs I've played with seem unaware of the rules until I bring them up and ask to utilize them in getting my character advantage on their checks and getting mileage out of the many tool profs I tend to have. If WoTC is avoiding making any upgrade or change to the PHB, they wouldn't have done that, right?

But nothing requires people to use those rules. They are options to be put in or taken out as desired.

The number of options would increase if the choice between the SV and non-SV versions was a real thing, like it is supposed to be between existing versatile and non versatile casters (who are supposed to bridge the gap differently; and that's the additional play style: take a hit in your spellcasting versatility, but profit from the additional stuff that you'll get by restricting yourself in the way mentioned; for some people this is too much of a blow, while others prefer it cause they have clear preferences where spells are concerned and they also probably don't like go through whole lists trying to pick the best spell list for every different occasion because it's too much of a homework to do). There is no choice to be made, say, between an SV and a non-SV sorcerer, because one version is strictly better than the other. Being able to change spells is strictly better (human error notwithstanding) than not being able to.

So, this reads to me like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

SV versus non-SV is a meaningful choice to you, because of how it will impact your enjoyment of the class. But, SV versus non-SV is a meaningless choice because SV is clearly better in every aspect.Except the aspect that negatively impacts your enjoyment right?

So, since one version is a negative for you, there is a meaningful choice to be had here. If there was no meaningful choice, you wouldn't feel impacted by switching. You can't have this discussion both ways. Is there value in a non-SV caster? If yes, then there is necessarily a choice between SV and non-SV, based upon the value of that difference.

That's probably because maneuvers don't define any class as much as spellcasting defines some classes. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any reason not to like maneuver versatility, if I got the gist of it right from your description.

Interesting since it runs into many of the same issues that have been brought up here as being problematic for SV.

I wouldn't want to play a non versatile caster when I've got an option to have spell versatility for free. I am not allergic to playing versatile casters.

But you have stated that your enjoyment of the class would be painfully impacted by playing an SV caster? So, can you square this circle for me? You don't want the rule, because it will negatively impact your enjoyment of the classes, but if the rule exists, you would never play the classes in the old way again, despite how much less you would enjoy yourself?

How do you justify that to yourself?

Furthermore, you are confusing what a DM might decide, or what a table might agree to, to bring into their game, with official content. I have no expectation of good quality from homebrew (even from the UA ones, which are made by professionals), although it's nice (and pleasantly surprising) when it happens. I do however have an expectation of good quality official content.

I'm not confusing it, I just see no difference between it.

I've got official WoTC materials and 3pp stuff I have purchased that included rules I felt were poorly made and just bad. So, I looked for content from homebrew (or just made my own) that fixed that problem. All material is equal when deciding whether or not to include it in the game. And especially after some of the terrible stuff I have seen in the official materials, I do not discriminate in my reading for balance and enjoyment issues.

You said, "if you are going to...", so I'll just state that I haven't done so. Reminder: I'm not an idiot and I don't say obviously-stupid things, especially not things that contradict my own publicly-stated opinions in this thread (see post #164) like the strength of the wizard spell list (as opposed to the strength of an individual wizard's spellbook).**

I never said you were an idiot, and I have no idea why you would think that. I try very hard to never insult anyone when I post. Though I can get a bit abrasive.

However, when discussing the viability of an analogy I feel it is important to try not to over-inflate one side. Yes, that would be an example of subtracting a class by adding options. But, you did not add a single feature with that option, which makes it a poor analogy, and one that is not going to get across the point you want to get across. That was all I was trying to say.

** I'm aware that you don't share this opinion, Chaosmancer, and consider the sorcerer spell list just as strong as the wizard's. Hopefully you're also aware by now that I feel differently, so it should have been obvious to you that I wasn't saying wizards had been subtracted from the game by SV the way monks would be by that hypothetical.

I didn't realize I thought that. With wizards having a spell list nearly three times larger than any other in the game, and possibly more unique spells than any other in the game, I would say they generally have the most powerful spell list in the game. The Sorcerer list isn't weak by any means, they get a lot of powerful options, but they are definetly not equal.

I suspect this is not true. WotC could do better at making a rule clearly optional by putting the optional rules in a DM-facing product just like DMG Disarm and DMG spell points and Oathbreakers and Death domain clerics and DMG Eladrin, instead of in a player-facing product which (apparently) invites the players to feel ownership of the option.

I know that by putting that in purple you don't intend to really discuss this, but who says they won't do that? I mean, I guess they have never really released a fully DM book, but the books do clearly have DM sections and Player sections, and optional rules like Spell Versatility could easily find there way there.

Well, that was empty design space before. There weren't any Battlemasters whose shtick was "you lose [XYZ] but you can swap your maneuvers on a [set schedule]." In order for the Spell Versatility thing to resemble Maneuver Versatility, there would have had to have been no clerics, druids, or wizards in the game. In that scenario I can imagine Spell Versatility getting a lot less pushback.

So yeah, it is interesting, but not in a way which suggests that SV as written is a good idea which is likely to be uncontroversial.

I hadn't considered the impetus of empty design space in that discussion.

It does, however, change the game within which those classes are played, which affects the play experience of even the players who aren't playing a PC who takes advantage of those options. Case in point...

If that subclass is accepted by your table, it absolutely would ruin some peoples play experience, certainly including mine, because it ruins the gameworld. Why does this gameworld even still exist? It should have been taken over by those stupid viral wizards long ago.

If a DM adopted this rule and refused to change it, I would quit the table and find something better to do with my time.

And that is a valid point to a degree.

But, Corran doesn't seem to be saying that other people using SV would be a problem. They seem to be saying that if it exists they will have to switch over to it.

My point wasn't about proving something at the table level, but at the individual player level. Just because a powerful option exists, does not mean that you will choose to use it. And this seems to be a major sticking point for Corran, who is saying that they will definitely use this option, even though it will negatively impact their play experience. I was just trying to make a point that, you do not have to choose to use something that you do not like or enjoy simply because it is more powerful

[Tanarii]

Yes Xanathar's downtime revision does go against their evergreen policy. But here's the difference: those are optional DM rules in the first place. What we're talking about here is revising core class features. It's exactly what they said they weren't going to do several times.

Now ... as far as I'm aware times and policy may have changed. It's possible 5e PHB sales have slumped and they want to engage with the existing player base, instead of growing the brand. Because if they publish this, they'll be in effect requiring new players to buy 2 new books, not just one.

[Kane0]

Yes Xanathar's downtime revision does go against their evergreen policy. But here's the difference: those are optional DM rules in the first place. What we're talking about here is revising core class features. It's exactly what they said they weren't going to do several times.

Now ... as far as I'm aware times and policy may have changed. It's possible 5e PHB sales have slumped and they want to engage with the existing player base, instead of growing the brand. Because if they publish this, they'll be in effect requiring new players to buy 2 new books, not just one.

It's been a few years now, it wouldn't be the end of the world. If they do revise PHB content though it should be pretty easy to navigate in terms of AL and such, say for example instead of 'The PHB +1' it becomes 'A PHB +1', and just make sure the 'alternative' PHB covers your bases for character creation.

[MaxWilson]

I didn't realize I thought that. With wizards having a spell list nearly three times larger than any other in the game, and possibly more unique spells than any other in the game, I would say they generally have the most powerful spell list in the game. The Sorcerer list isn't weak by any means, they get a lot of powerful options, but they are definetly not equal.

Ah, I misunderstood what you meant earlier then. Thanks for clarifying--looks like we basically agree on this point, for purposes of this thread.

And that is a valid point to a degree.

But, Corran doesn't seem to be saying that other people using SV would be a problem. They seem to be saying that if it exists they will have to switch over to it.

My point wasn't about proving something at the table level, but at the individual player level. Just because a powerful option exists, does not mean that you will choose to use it. And this seems to be a major sticking point for Corran, who is saying that they will definitely use this option, even though it will negatively impact their play experience. I was just trying to make a point that, you do not have to choose to use something that you do not like or enjoy simply because it is more powerful

I suspect I understand Corran's perspective but I'll let him speak for himself. For me, the issue with SV is thematic, and it *does* ruin the game world, not just an individual PC, and it also ruins some nice play dilemmas in the current game design by removing a constraint. (Take my distaste with a grain of salt though because I don't like 5E as a TTRPG very much in the first place--saying that it ruins one of the good parts of 5E for me just means yet another reason to run AD&D even for combat-heavy, linear, Combat As Sport games where 5E is currently a good fit.)

Be that as it may, I just don't like the idea of bards, for example, having a dozen spells suddenly at their fingertips as soon as they level up, when the 5E design has hitherto been the exact opposite. Either it implies an implausible degree of magical knowledge--knowledge for which I've worked out rationales where clerics and druids are concerned, but which don't apply to sorcs, warlocks, or bards--or a high degree of gamism, implying that we're supposed to pretend that bards and other PCs don't *know* they can do this thing every long rest even though the players do. Both are irksome flaws in the simulation which harm my suspension of disbelief and enjoyment of the game system/world.

It's not a problem with a PC. It's an objection to a game design choice. Corran's excited agreement with a similar earlier statement suggests to me (1) that Corran's objection is fundamentally similar in nature although he struggles to articulate it, and (2) that Corran ought to read Rules of Play by MIT Press, outlining numerous principles for and facets of designing a meaningful game experience. Seriously, @Corran, it's a famous book for a reason. Even if you just skim it you'll get great ideas for your D&D games, and it may help you understand why you like the things you like and how to do it even better. E.g. why you enjoy having constraints imposed upon you by a game, and dislike having a constraint removed by SV.

[Corran]

So, this reads to me like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

SV versus non-SV is a meaningful choice to you, because of how it will impact your enjoyment of the class.

I think it's a feature of the game for the players to be able to choose between distinct and interesting balanced options (in this case, options refers to classes). Spellcasting classes are defined to a great extent by their spellcasting (assume I am talking only about fullcasters). One way to go about differentiating spellcasters in a significant way, is to differentiate the way they get their spells, ie known and prepared spells. This separation is beneficial, not only because it allows to approach the game in a different way when playing a caster, but also because it varies the complexity of that approach. And thus your choice of caster class is now more meaningful from a mechanical perspective. So long as the options (ie classes) are balanced, I think that being able to choose between a versatile caster class (ie prepared spells) and a non-versatile caster class (ie spells known) is something that should be preserved.

But, SV versus non-SV is a meaningless choice because SV is clearly better in every aspect. Except the aspect that negatively impacts your enjoyment right?

Yes, having the ability to change spells is better than not having the ability to change spells. Hence, all else being equal, there is no choice to be made here.

But you have stated that your enjoyment of the class would be painfully impacted by playing an SV caster?

If I said that or even implied it, let me correct myself. My enjoyment of the game would be painfully impacted if I no longer had the choice to pick between versatile and non versatile casters. That's because I like having the option of playing both. Regardless of my preferences though, having classes be mechanically distinct from one another is a positive thing.

So, can you square this circle for me? You don't want the rule, because it will negatively impact your enjoyment of the classes, but if the rule exists, you would never play the classes in the old way again, despite how much less you would enjoy yourself?

How do you justify that to yourself?

I don't want this rule because I think it's a very bad one. And you know why I think that SV is a very bad rule. You summed it nicely in one of your previous posts and I went ahead and confirmed it. I don't agree with how you interpret my views in this quote, but I already attempted at making some clarifications earlier in this post about everything else mentioned in this quote.

I've got official WoTC materials and 3pp stuff I have purchased that included rules I felt were poorly made and just bad. So, I looked for content from homebrew (or just made my own) that fixed that problem. All material is equal when deciding whether or not to include it in the game. And especially after some of the terrible stuff I have seen in the official materials, I do not discriminate in my reading for balance and enjoyment issues.

Fair enough.

[Chaosmancer]

Yes Xanathar's downtime revision does go against their evergreen policy. But here's the difference: those are optional DM rules in the first place. What we're talking about here is revising core class features. It's exactly what they said they weren't going to do several times.

Now ... as far as I'm aware times and policy may have changed. It's possible 5e PHB sales have slumped and they want to engage with the existing player base, instead of growing the brand. Because if they publish this, they'll be in effect requiring new players to buy 2 new books, not just one.

Huh?

Are you saying that the PHB downtime rules are optional DM rules or that the Xanathar's Downtime are optional DM rules?

And how is that different from the optional DM rules that Spell Versatility is. Since, it explicitly states that DMs can take any, some, none or all of the rules presented in the UA?

I suspect I understand Corran's perspective but I'll let him speak for himself. For me, the issue with SV is thematic, and it *does* ruin the game world, not just an individual PC, and it also ruins some nice play dilemmas in the current game design by removing a constraint. (Take my distaste with a grain of salt though because I don't like 5E as a TTRPG very much in the first place--saying that it ruins one of the good parts of 5E for me just means yet another reason to run AD&D even for combat-heavy, linear, Combat As Sport games where 5E is currently a good fit.)

Be that as it may, I just don't like the idea of bards, for example, having a dozen spells suddenly at their fingertips as soon as they level up, when the 5E design has hitherto been the exact opposite. Either it implies an implausible degree of magical knowledge--knowledge for which I've worked out rationales where clerics and druids are concerned, but which don't apply to sorcs, warlocks, or bards--or a high degree of gamism, implying that we're supposed to pretend that bards and other PCs don't *know* they can do this thing every long rest even though the players do. Both are irksome flaws in the simulation which harm my suspension of disbelief and enjoyment of the game system/world.

It's not a problem with a PC. It's an objection to a game design choice. Corran's excited agreement with a similar earlier statement suggests to me (1) that Corran's objection is fundamentally similar in nature although he struggles to articulate it, and (snip)

In terms of the worldbuilding, it just doesn't bother me as much. I don't remember if I said it here or somewhere else, but DnD magic in general is a nightmare for any coherent worldbuilding. I still haven't figured out how to explain spell slots, why you can't combine them or break them apart into smaller units, and why you get more with "leveling" and what that represents.

So, since all DnD magic occupies a weak facade of story coherence for me anyways, it bothers me less for it to get weirder. Additionally, I can think of explanations easier, because it is a stretchier concept for me.