The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed
The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed - Coming in December and available for pre-order now
Page 10 of 20 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516171819 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 300 of 583
  1. - Top - End - #271
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    May 2018

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    If you really, really love Destroy Undead or Divine Intervention, then for you X = false.
    I'm sorry but is that all clerics get? because that's a flat out lie. Comparing a subclass to a subclassless cleric is disingenuous at best. All domains give domain spells, that are always prepared and sometimes(50%+? I'm uncertain, I haven't checked) that aren't on the cleric spell list as well as divine strike/potent cantrips. Not to mention the whole host of other things they get from their subclasses such as Heavy armor proficiency, skills/expertises, giving wizard cantrips, imposing disadvantage on attacks, giving you a +1 magic item at level 1, giving you a reaction attack to getting hit that always does some damage, getting an extra attack per turn, and all these are just the level 1 benefits they have far more to offer. That's not even mentioning that all domains get their own specific use of channel divinity that are generally pretty great. Trying to say that empowered healing is anywhere near as good as 90%+ of cleric features is a flat out lie. I would always take a cleric over a divine soul sorc any day of the week and would play a cleric any day of the week even with spell versatility, because it's not that good.
    Last edited by Daghoulish; 2019-12-13 at 11:42 AM.

  2. - Top - End - #272
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by Daghoulish View Post
    I'm sorry but is that all clerics get? because that's a flat out lie. Comparing a subclass to a subclassless cleric is disingenuous at best.
    Am I just a really bad communicator or did you misread an example as a rule?

    Of *course* clerics get other things besides Destroy Undead. Of *course* different players value those things differently. Didn't I already say that in the very sentence you quoted?

  3. - Top - End - #273
    Orc in the Playground
     
    micahaphone's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    North

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Sorry max, but that is also how I read your earlier post

  4. - Top - End - #274
    Orc in the Playground
     
    micahaphone's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    North

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    While I'm still of the mind that this is a good change, I can understand concerns about swapping out entire spells known. How would people feel about SV still taking only a long rest, but then put on a cooldown for a number of days equal to a spell level? I know that's been recommended in this thread before.

    For example, if your party scouts out the dungeon and finds out you're going after Salamandar Sam, the Salamander Tamer, and you've built a fire themed sorcerer, you could swap out Fireball for Lightning Bolt. But I highly doubt you'll still be fighting Salamander Sam in three days, and will still have Fire bolt, Burning Hands, and Scorching Ray during this dungeon.

    This way you can still have some flexibility to your spells known caster between level ups, but it would take a level 5 sorcerer 12 days to swap out their spell list for another, not exactly the time scale of a prepared caster. This would be doable during a downtime, but I'm hesitant to use any official downtime, as for some campaigns that can be a rarity. During adventuring time, you'd be able to swap out probably only 1 spell, unless you're staying in a themed area/campaign that you're horrifically mismatched for.

    This also means that swapping out a level 1 spell is much easier than swapping out a higher level spell, making it less punishing to swap out Absorb Elements for Shield, but more care is needed when you drop Fireball for Hypnotic Pattern.

  5. - Top - End - #275
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    May 2019

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    Am I just a really bad communicator or did you misread an example as a rule?

    Of *course* clerics get other things besides Destroy Undead. Of *course* different players value those things differently. Didn't I already say that in the very sentence you quoted?
    Perhaps you're just not coming across as you intend but this is not what you've portrayed so far. To begin with you lumped Clerics and Druids together and said that Sorcerers (though you clearly mean Divine Souls) do everything they do but just better. You seem to mean they cast better with SV, in which case you should have specified (and left the Druid out of it). If you think that DSs do Cleric casting better than Clerics then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, though you DID imply/say that it essentially made Clerics obsolete entirely. This doesn't take into account their skills, proficiences, domain spells, Channel Divinity, Ritual Casting (which I personally think invalidates the whole Cleric casting better than a Cleric thing) or any subclass abilities. Including a level of Cleric in your example build also didn't really help your case.

    For the record I mainly objected to you making a post that had no purpose than to dismiss what Chaosmancer said (opinion noted). You didn't reply to what he said about blasting, you replied to him saying Sorcerers can't do everything a Cleric/Druid can (which he is entirely correct in saying). You presented something rather outlandish, didn't provide any support for that thing, then replied to dismiss only instead of just leaving it be.

    As for the Jorasco things, I don't really understand what being a Jorasco is necessary for when you can do those things as a DS, but I do love twinning Cleric spells. Some of my favourite times as a DS involved twinning Death Ward and Shield of Faith.
    For D&D 5e Builds, Tips, News and more see our Youtube Channel Dork Forge

    Feel free to message for any build requests or challenges

  6. - Top - End - #276
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Goblin

    Join Date
    Nov 2016

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    Am I just a really bad communicator or did you misread an example as a rule?

    Of *course* clerics get other things besides Destroy Undead. Of *course* different players value those things differently. Didn't I already say that in the very sentence you quoted?
    Well I mean you said that Spell Versatility Sorcerer (I guess you SPECIFICALLY meant DIVINE SOUL Sorcerer, but you just said Sorcerer) replaces all Clerics and all Druids because it can do anything they can do, but now even better.

    Which just isn't even remotely true. They don't have the same spell lists, and let us assume somehow Divine Soul does give you the entire cleric spell list as a Sorcerer, even still they have different HP values, different armor proficiencies, different ways of casting, different subclass features and core class features... and Divine Soul doesn't even begin to approach the Druid.

    I don't think you're bad at communication, I just think you're using extreme hyperbole that doesn't appear true on closer examination, especially because if you pick literally any OTHER type of sorcerer the Sorcerer has almost 0 overlap with Druids or Clerics...

  7. - Top - End - #277
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Aimeryan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    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.
    In the same way a sledgehammer successfully knocks a nail into a shelf, sure - that is, poorly, not all that well, likely to overshoot the nail back out the shelf on the other side, and with a lot of collateral.

    The more precise and reliable solution is not to punish the Sorcerer for doing what is intended (switching out spells when they don't fit the situation), but instead to make it so they can't reliably get the absolute best spell for the situation (as long as it is on their list). It need not be the solution I proposed (ego would like it be so, of course!), however, money just isn't it.

    ~~~

    Quote Originally Posted by micahaphone View Post
    While I'm still of the mind that this is a good change, I can understand concerns about swapping out entire spells known. How would people feel about SV still taking only a long rest, but then put on a cooldown for a number of days equal to a spell level? I know that's been recommended in this thread before.
    It does not solve the unintended side-effect of being able to 'prepare' the single most perfect spell when one can be foreseen (see my earlier posts on just how rare this would be) - mechanically (or perhaps, balancey) this is not an issue, but it is an issue from a thematic point of view of potentially being more Wizard than a Wizard.

    Furthermore, though, it punishes and may almost completely stop the intended use; changing out spells that are inappropriate when the meta-situation changes. If one month you are adventuring in an icy tundra against Humanoids with lots of social interactions thrown in as well, then the next month adventuring in the Abyss against demons in an onslaught of survival in enemy territory - well the spells most appropriate for this are fairly different. A Wizard/Cleric/Druid just takes a long rest and swaps out a lot/all of his more specialised spells prepared for ones more appropriate. An SV caster swaps out one-by-one the most inappropriate spell known for one that fits more aptly. It is slow, but at least they have some reasonable recourse at hand - unless, say, someone put a cooldown of several days in place.

    (As a side note, a non-SV spells known caster deals with this by choosing from cookie-cutter spells that are largely always useful, because they can not afford to do otherwise.)
    Last edited by Aimeryan; 2019-12-13 at 12:55 PM.

  8. - Top - End - #278
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by Aimeryan View Post
    In the same way a sledgehammer successfully knocks a nail into a shelf, sure - that is, poorly, not all that well, likely to overshoot the nail back out the shelf on the other side, and with a lot of collateral.

    The more precise and reliable solution is not to punish the Sorcerer for doing what is intended (switching out spells when they don't fit the situation), but instead to make it so they can't reliably get the absolute best spell for the situation (as long as it is on their list). It need not be the solution I proposed (ego would like it be so, of course!), however, money just isn't it.
    You're making assertion without backing it up.

    Why is what I propose "a sledgehammer?" To me, it seems pretty delicate.

    Why isn't money the solution? You haven't done anything other than say, "It just isn't." And add a bit of possible-hyperbole about it ruining everything forever.
    Last edited by Segev; 2019-12-13 at 01:06 PM.

  9. - Top - End - #279
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravinsild View Post
    Well I mean you said that Spell Versatility Sorcerer (I guess you SPECIFICALLY meant DIVINE SOUL Sorcerer, but you just said Sorcerer) replaces all Clerics and all Druids because it can do anything they can do, but now even better.
    No I didn't. I mean, I do think that, but that's a matter of opinion and it's not the thing I was talking about. What I said was this:

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaosmancer View Post
    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 didn't specify a specific "someone", but he asked a question: how can it be bad for you if someone gets a worse version of what you do? Due to recent events, in my head I was thinking of the aforementioned Jorasco Divine Lifelock (warlock levels around 11-12) as an example of someone who fulfills this criteria: they get a clearly worse version of clerical spellcasting which only does 90% of what a cleric can, whereas by RAW today they can only do maybe 30% of what a cleric can. How can someone else going from 30% to 90% be bad for the cleric class? The question answers itself.

    But although that was in my head when I wrote that, I wasn't trying to talk about that specific build in that statement. I was trying to talk about the standard of judgment.

    Can we all agree that if build A can do much of what B can do and a whole bunch of other stuff besides, and then A gains the ability to do even more of what B can do, that that is bad for class B from a game design standpoint? Once we've got that settled I'm happy to discuss whether A = Divine Soul and B = cleric is actually true, but is there anyone here who would argue that it doesn't matter because A gaining B's abilities isn't bad for B in the first place?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dork_Forge View Post
    Perhaps you're just not coming across as you intend but this is not what you've portrayed so far. To begin with you lumped Clerics and Druids together and said that Sorcerers (though you clearly mean Divine Souls) do everything they do but just better.
    I never said that, and it would be an obviously stupid generalization if I had. I dare you to find a quote where I ever said that.

    Which just isn't even remotely true. They don't have the same spell lists, and let us assume somehow Divine Soul does give you the entire cleric spell list as a Sorcerer, even still they have different HP values, different armor proficiencies, different ways of casting, different subclass features and core class features... and Divine Soul doesn't even begin to approach the Druid.

    I don't think you're bad at communication, I just think you're using extreme hyperbole that doesn't appear true on closer examination, especially because if you pick literally any OTHER type of sorcerer the Sorcerer has almost 0 overlap with Druids or Clerics...
    I'm happy to discuss this issue after we wrap up the main issue.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dork_Forge View Post
    As for the Jorasco things, I don't really understand what being a Jorasco is necessary for when you can do those things as a DS, but I do love twinning Cleric spells. Some of my favourite times as a DS involved twinning Death Ward and Shield of Faith.
    I didn't say it was "necessary" but I'll pretend you asked why it was desirable/fun/cool from my perspective: what Jorasco is bringing to the table.

    Spoiler: Off topic
    Show
    Mainly because without Jorasco you've got a gaping hole in your healing capabilities, due to the fact that clerics (as a class) are not actually very good at healing HP even though they're good at raising the dead and fixing diseases/exhaustion/Feeblemind/etc.

    Without that I'd still want a bard/druid/ranger/paladin in the party to keep everyone at full HP.

    Counterpoint: 5E is so easy by DMG difficulty standards that you don't really need a healer at all. PCs rarely ever use up all of their HD healing even.

    Counter-counterpoint: yes, but I don't like using DMG difficulty standards as a DM, and the best fun I've had as a player has also been when DMG difficulty is wildly exceeded, and in any case I'm not trying to persuade you that you need a good HP healer in your party (you'd know better than I would what difficulty your DM's game runs on). I'm just answering Dork_Forge's question about what is the point.

    Q: Does that mean you don't really think it's necessary?

    A: For whom? For me I'd feel like I was falling down on the job if I couldn't heal the (8th level) party back to full health after a most of them got dropped to 0 HP by a demi-lich's wail.** For you, maybe you don't care. YMMV.

    ** As it happened I was playing a Lore Bard so I couldn't heal everyone, but at least I healed ~140 HP with Aura of Vitality and got some of them back to full health. I didn't like partially failing, whereas the Jorasco build would have healed everybody and had several hundred HP of healing still left over.
    Last edited by MaxWilson; 2019-12-13 at 01:40 PM.

  10. - Top - End - #280
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2017

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by Aimeryan View Post
    Furthermore, though, it punishes and may almost completely stop the intended use; changing out spells that are inappropriate when the meta-situation changes. If one month you are adventuring in an icy tundra against Humanoids with lots of social interactions thrown in as well, then the next month adventuring in the Abyss against demons in an onslaught of survival in enemy territory - well the spells most appropriate for this are fairly different. A Wizard/Cleric/Druid just takes a long rest and swaps out a lot/all of his more specialised spells prepared for ones more appropriate. An SV caster swaps out one-by-one the most inappropriate spell known for one that fits more aptly. It is slow, but at least they have some reasonable recourse at hand - unless, say, someone put a cooldown of several days in place.
    I don't mind prepared casters having an edge when suddenly dropped into a new situation that's radically different from their old one. Not any more than I mind monks having an edge over paladins when the party is stripped of all their stuff. What matters is that the overwhelming majority of the time, these situations are either resolved quickly or the party is allowed to timeskip after a bit to a point when they have adjusted. Yes the bard is screwed if the DM constantly tries to play against his strengths. If we're talking jerk DMs, do you really think the wizard's spellbook will be left alone?

    General case, I think it's perfectly fair to ask what sort of time frame (and/or other costs) are okay to let the sorcerer make some adventure specific tweaks without treating new spells like library books he can check out.

  11. - Top - End - #281
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    You're making assertion without backing it up.

    Why is what I propose "a sledgehammer?" To me, it seems pretty delicate.

    Why isn't money the solution? You haven't done anything other than say, "It just isn't." And add a bit of possible-hyperbole about it ruining everything forever.
    I really dislike the money solution also. Feels horribly weird to the class fluff, except perhaps for the warlock. What is aSorcerer, who doesn't even have Ritual Casting, doing with "incenses and other things" to change their magical nature. Why is the Bard paying to "find out new chords" so to speak?

  12. - Top - End - #282
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by Aimeryan View Post
    Furthermore, though, it punishes and may almost completely stop the intended use; changing out spells that are inappropriate when the meta-situation changes. If one month you are adventuring in an icy tundra against Humanoids with lots of social interactions thrown in as well, then the next month adventuring in the Abyss against demons in an onslaught of survival in enemy territory - well the spells most appropriate for this are fairly different. A Wizard/Cleric/Druid just takes a long rest and swaps out a lot/all of his more specialised spells prepared for ones more appropriate. An SV caster swaps out one-by-one the most inappropriate spell known for one that fits more aptly. It is slow, but at least they have some reasonable recourse at hand - unless, say, someone put a cooldown of several days in place.
    For clerics and druids, yes. For wizards, I think you're wildly overoptimistic about the odds of him having appropriate spells in his spellbook. (Yes, I realize you said "more appropriate" which is a low bar to clear if the spell you're swapping out is useless enough, e.g. Web spell against ghosts, but from the way you lumped in wizards with clerics and druids I suspect you're thinking more along the lines of "most appropriate". Correct me if I'm wrong.)

    Quote Originally Posted by diplomancer View Post
    I really dislike the money solution also. Feels horribly weird to the class fluff, except perhaps for the warlock. What is aSorcerer, who doesn't even have Ritual Casting, doing with "incenses and other things" to change their magical nature. Why is the Bard paying to "find out new chords" so to speak?
    In your view, where do new bard spells come from? Does the bard just wake up one day and realize he knows how to Teleport and repair severed limbs and cast Wish? Or is there a handwaved research process which takes place offscreen between adventures?

    For people who adopt the latter view, that there is some kind of handwaved research process, charging gold for additional handwaved research seems pretty reasonable. I am one of those people. I believe you are not so I'm interested in how it does work in your view.
    Last edited by MaxWilson; 2019-12-13 at 01:51 PM.

  13. - Top - End - #283
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2017

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by diplomancer View Post
    I really dislike the money solution also. Feels horribly weird to the class fluff, except perhaps for the warlock. What is aSorcerer, who doesn't even have Ritual Casting, doing with "incenses and other things" to change their magical nature. Why is the Bard paying to "find out new chords" so to speak?
    Not being super gung ho about the money myself. But for the same reason that wizards need special ingredients to experiment with in order to convert a spell into their own notation (while these as well as ink costs are waived for level up spells), sorcerers and bards trying to retrain their talents into a specific magical effect could easily want some components to experiment with to ensure that their spell works right without any weird hitches.

  14. - Top - End - #284
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    May 2019

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    I never said that, and it would be an obviously stupid generalization if I had. I dare you to find a quote where I ever said that.
    "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)."

    My emphasis, if you did not mean that then I'm sure it's miscommunication, but I hope why you can see multiple people got that impression from you.


    I'm happy to discuss this issue after we wrap up the main issue.
    I just wanted to make you didn't think you were replying to me with this part, you quoted someone else's post.



    I didn't say it was "necessary" but I'll pretend you asked why it was desirable/fun/cool from my perspective: what Jorasco is bringing to the table.

    Spoiler: Off topic
    Show
    Mainly because without Jorasco you've got a gaping hole in your healing capabilities, due to the fact that clerics (as a class) are not actually very good at healing HP even though they're good at raising the dead and fixing diseases/exhaustion/Feeblemind/etc.

    Without that I'd still want a bard/druid/ranger/paladin in the party to keep everyone at full HP.

    Counterpoint: 5E is so easy by DMG difficulty standards that you don't really need a healer at all. PCs rarely ever use up all of their HD healing even.

    Counter-counterpoint: yes, but I don't like using DMG difficulty standards as a DM, and the best fun I've had as a player has also been when DMG difficulty is wildly exceeded, and in any case I'm not trying to persuade you that you need a good HP healer in your party (you'd know better than I would what difficulty your DM's game runs on). I'm just answering Dork_Forge's question about what is the point.

    Q: Does that mean you don't really think it's necessary?

    A: For whom? For me I'd feel like I was falling down on the job if I couldn't heal the (8th level) party back to full health after a most of them got dropped to 0 HP by a demi-lich's wail.** For you, maybe you don't care. YMMV.

    ** As it happened I was playing a Lore Bard so I couldn't heal everyone, but at least I healed ~140 HP with Aura of Vitality and got some of them back to full health. I didn't like partially failing, whereas the Jorasco build would have healed everybody and had several hundred HP of healing still left over.
    Personally I greatly dislike yoyo healing for mechanical and roleplay reasons and believe that (Healing Spirit aside) the healing in 5e is entirely adequate. I'm not really sure what you mean by Clerics as a class being bad at restoring HP, they have ample helaing spells and the Life Cleric gets a straight up healing bump.

    So is Jorasco just for Aura of Vitality then? It seems a nice spell to keep people up for a single slot but I'm guessing the real value is between combats?
    For D&D 5e Builds, Tips, News and more see our Youtube Channel Dork Forge

    Feel free to message for any build requests or challenges

  15. - Top - End - #285
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Goblin

    Join Date
    Nov 2016

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    No I didn't. I mean, I do think that, but that's a matter of opinion and it's not the thing I was talking about. What I said was this:



    Chaosmancer didn't specify a specific "someone", but he asked a question: how can it be bad for you if someone gets a worse version of what you do? Due to recent events, in my head I was thinking of the aforementioned Jorasco Divine Lifelock (warlock levels around 11-12) as an example of someone who fulfills this criteria: they get a clearly worse version of clerical spellcasting which only does 90% of what a cleric can, whereas by RAW today they can only do maybe 30% of what a cleric can. How can someone else going from 30% to 90% be bad for the cleric class? The question answers itself.

    But although that was in my head when I wrote that, I wasn't trying to talk about that specific build in that statement. I was trying to talk about the standard of judgment.

    Can we all agree that if build A can do much of what B can do and a whole bunch of other stuff besides, and then A gains the ability to do even more of what B can do, that that is bad for class B from a game design standpoint? Once we've got that settled I'm happy to discuss whether A = Divine Soul and B = cleric is actually true, but is there anyone here who would argue that it doesn't matter because A gaining B's abilities isn't bad for B in the first place?



    I never said that, and it would be an obviously stupid generalization if I had. I dare you to find a quote where I ever said that.



    I'm happy to discuss this issue after we wrap up the main issue.

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



    I didn't say it was "necessary" but I'll pretend you asked why it was desirable/fun/cool from my perspective: what Jorasco is bringing to the table.

    Spoiler: Off topic
    Show
    Mainly because without Jorasco you've got a gaping hole in your healing capabilities, due to the fact that clerics (as a class) are not actually very good at healing HP even though they're good at raising the dead and fixing diseases/exhaustion/Feeblemind/etc.

    Without that I'd still want a bard/druid/ranger/paladin in the party to keep everyone at full HP.

    Counterpoint: 5E is so easy by DMG difficulty standards that you don't really need a healer at all. PCs rarely ever use up all of their HD healing even.

    Counter-counterpoint: yes, but I don't like using DMG difficulty standards as a DM, and the best fun I've had as a player has also been when DMG difficulty is wildly exceeded, and in any case I'm not trying to persuade you that you need a good HP healer in your party (you'd know better than I would what difficulty your DM's game runs on). I'm just answering Dork_Forge's question about what is the point.

    Q: Does that mean you don't really think it's necessary?

    A: For whom? For me I'd feel like I was falling down on the job if I couldn't heal the (8th level) party back to full health after a most of them got dropped to 0 HP by a demi-lich's wail.** For you, maybe you don't care. YMMV.

    ** As it happened I was playing a Lore Bard so I couldn't heal everyone, but at least I healed ~140 HP with Aura of Vitality and got some of them back to full health. I didn't like partially failing, whereas the Jorasco build would have healed everybody and had several hundred HP of healing still left over.
    No. I donít agree with you. Sorry.

    Even if a Jorsaco Warlock can do 90% of what a Cleric can they still only have 2 spell slots. Even with 2 short rests in between a long rest thatís only 6. Clerics of an equivalent level just have more spell casting they can do.

    Theyíre not comparable. Warlocks are barely spell casters.

    And also, still no, a Jorasco Warlock still canít do 90% of what a cleric can do. I donít even think they can use shields.

    Our 17 AC Cleric has not been threatened at all by our tables 12 AC Celestial Pact warlock.... the warlock spends 90% of the time using Eldritch blast and the Cleric is usually casting Bless and other useful things. They have some overlap but play and feel completely different.

    Yes we are using all of the UA ACF. No it hasnít been a problem literally at all.

    When I say ALL I mean ALL. The Paladin has not at all complained about the Cleric gaining aura spells, no one has complained about spell versatility (in fact I think theyíre grateful that I used it to change some spells out... they did point out Cordon of Arrows was kind of trash in practice), none of these things have been a problem at our table.

    We are a party of 5 at level 6 with a Mountain Dwarf Battle Master (enjoying the new maneuvers to experiment with), Half-Elf Light Cleric, Half-Elf Oath of Heroes Paladin, Wood Elf Beast Master Ranger, and Half-Elf Celestial Warlock.
    Last edited by Ravinsild; 2019-12-13 at 02:16 PM.

  16. - Top - End - #286
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by Dork_Forge View Post
    "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)."

    My emphasis, if you did not mean that then I'm sure it's miscommunication, but I hope why you can see multiple people got that impression from you.
    Sorry, that just proves you were misunderstanding me. Please find a quote anywhere that says the obviously-stupid thing you said I said. Your words: "To begin with you lumped Clerics and Druids together and said that Sorcerers (though you clearly mean Divine Souls) do everything they do but just better." You're claiming that there was a quote where I said "sorcerers" and meant "divine souls," and said they do everything clerics and druids do but just better. That would be a stupid generalization to make, and I never said it because I am not an idiot. Somehow you apparently have a memory of me saying that--why?

    I just wanted to make you didn't think you were replying to me with this part, you quoted someone else's post.
    You're right--my bad. GITP has this rule about needing to edit your post to respond to multiple people instead of posting separate replies to each person, and it looks like I accidentally put my response to you between my two responses to Ravinsild.

    Personally I greatly dislike yoyo healing for mechanical and roleplay reasons and believe that (Healing Spirit aside) the healing in 5e is entirely adequate. I'm not really sure what you mean by Clerics as a class being bad at restoring HP, they have ample helaing spells and the Life Cleric gets a straight up healing bump.

    So is Jorasco just for Aura of Vitality then? It seems a nice spell to keep people up for a single slot but I'm guessing the real value is between combats?
    If you eliminate yoyo healing (as I like to do, as DM) then HP healing potentially becomes even more important. Now healing an almost-dead Paladin from -80 HP back to 100 HP costs 180 HP of healing, not just 100. (Obviously it also depends upon how the DM rewrites the demilich's wail: does it drop you to 1 HP above the death threshold, -maxHP+1, or only to 0 HP?)

    Jorasco is for Aura of Vitality and for freeing up a Lesser Restoration spell known, so that people don't die to Gas Spores/etc. But mostly it's for keeping everyone at full HP, which hard-counters 80-90% of monsters in the MM. And yeah, I'm mainly thinking of the between-combat usage, though if the DM does allow pop-up healing then I suppose you could start it during combat and just leave it running afterwards to top everyone off.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravinsild View Post
    No. I donít agree with you. Sorry.

    Even if a Jorsaco Warlock can do 90% of what a Cleric can they still only have 2 spell slots. Even with 2 short rests in between a long rest thatís only 6. Clerics of an equivalent level just have more spell casting they can do.
    Spoiler: Off topic
    Show
    You're not talking about the same build that Dork_Forge and I are talking about. You're assuming warlock-primary. I'm not. I'm talking about a Spell Versatility Divine Soul 1, Life Cleric 1, Divine Soul 2-9, Warlock 1-2 (doesn't matter which kind but Celestial would be the most RP-appropriate although Hexblade would have the most powerful nova), Divine Soul 10-17.

    Without Spell Versatility the cleric still has an edge in cleric spells, because Divine Souls can only afford to cherry-pick a few of the best cleric spells. Even then it's still a very interesting build IMO.
    Last edited by MaxWilson; 2019-12-13 at 02:33 PM.

  17. - Top - End - #287
    Orc in the Playground
     
    micahaphone's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    North

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson
    Sorry, that just proves you were misunderstanding me. Please find a quote anywhere that says the obviously-stupid thing you said I said.
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    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).
    Post number 240, bottom of page 8. Happy?
    Last edited by micahaphone; 2019-12-13 at 02:27 PM.

  18. - Top - End - #288
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    May 2018

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    You're assuming warlock-primary. I'm not. I'm talking about Divine Soul 1, Life Cleric 1, Divine Soul 2-9, Warlock 1-2 (doesn't matter which kind but Celestial would be the most RP-appropriate although Hexblade would have the most powerful nova), Divine Soul 10-17.[/spoiler]
    So, to make a better cleric you have to be a cleric? I mean, that character is a cleric. You had to have a level of cleric to even justify this. Despite the fact that a regular life cleric will have maximized healing and be able to use aura of vitality as well as lesser restoration being a domain spell, which is another free slot. My word, it's almost like your build doesn't do anything the cleric can't do and isn't as good. What a shock.

  19. - Top - End - #289
    Orc in the Playground
     
    micahaphone's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    North

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Also if you're triple-multiclassing to show how powerful the sorcerer is, maybe it's not the sorcerer that's powerful.

    Normally this is where Jeremy Crawford would dodge balance complaints by saying that multiclassing is technically an optional rule. I do wish they had looked at multiclassing a little bit more during initial game design.

  20. - Top - End - #290
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by micahaphone View Post
    Post number 240, bottom of page 8. Happy?
    Not happy. #240 says something quite different than what Dork_Forge claimed I said. See post #286 for details.

    Quote Originally Posted by micahaphone View Post
    Also if you're triple-multiclassing to show how powerful the sorcerer is, maybe it's not the sorcerer that's powerful.
    I'm not obligated to defend obviously-stupid claims that came out of other people's imaginations instead of my mouth. I'm not your NPC.

    Quote Originally Posted by micahaphone View Post
    I do wish they had looked at multiclassing a little bit more during initial game design.
    I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daghoulish View Post
    So, to make a better cleric you have to be a cleric? I mean, that character is a cleric. You had to have a level of cleric to even justify this. Despite the fact that a regular life cleric will have maximized healing and be able to use aura of vitality as well as lesser restoration being a domain spell, which is another free slot. My word, it's almost like your build doesn't do anything the cleric can't do and isn't as good. What a shock.
    I think you just said that there's nothing that build from post #286 can do that a cleric can't. Do I hear you correctly? *wicked grin* Are you just speaking hyperbolically or are you willing to defend this claim?
    Last edited by MaxWilson; 2019-12-13 at 02:47 PM.

  21. - Top - End - #291
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    May 2018

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    I think you just said that there's nothing that build from post #286 can do that a cleric can't. Do I hear you correctly? *wicked grin* Are you just speaking hyperbolically or are you willing to defend this claim?
    {scrubbed}
    Last edited by Peelee; 2019-12-13 at 03:11 PM.

  22. - Top - End - #292
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by Daghoulish View Post
    {scrub the post, scrub the quote}
    You quote post #286 and make a claim about it. I ask you if you mean that sincerely. You call that "moving the goalpost until I'm right."

    I don't think "moving the goalposts" means what you think it means.
    Last edited by Peelee; 2019-12-13 at 03:12 PM.

  23. - Top - End - #293
    Orc in the Playground
     
    micahaphone's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    North

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Max, I think most people will agree that we shouldn't base balance discussions based off the fact that a triple class multiclass, using the new UA rules, can do the same or more than a single class of 1 of those. For example, when discussing if the base sorcerer class is over/underpowered, it's pointless to say "the sorcerer class itself is OP because you can use these multiclasses subclasses and/or races to create a coffeelock".


    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson
    I'm not obligated to defend obviously-stupid claims that came out of other people's imaginations instead of my mouth. I'm not your NPC.
    This seems overly combative to other people. You yourself posted an example build that you say is overly powerful while arguing with Daghoulish, and then you're going to claim other people are "obviously-stupid" and "imagined it" when we quote you? If this claim came out of other people's mouths, why are you challenging Daghoulish with a "wicked grin" on the subject?

    Compare to what Aimeryan writes. They brought up a good critique of my suggestion. They didn't resort to name-calling and combative language.

  24. - Top - End - #294
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by micahaphone View Post
    This seems overly combative to other people. You yourself posted an example build that you say is overly powerful while arguing with Daghoulish, and then you're going to claim other people are "obviously-stupid" and "imagined it" when we quote you? If this claim came out of other people's mouths, why are you challenging Daghoulish with a "wicked grin" on the subject?

    Compare to what Aimeryan writes. They brought up a good critique of my suggestion. They didn't resort to name-calling and combative language.
    Neither have I resorted to name-calling or misquoting people. *wicked grin* is the only mildly-combative language I've used, and only when presented with an obviously-wrong statement which the poster immediately backed away from when challenged.

    Objecting to being misquoted is just being assertive, not combative. And yes, I do object. You have not as yet even acknowledged the misquote--you've doubled down on it.

    If you want to have a fruitful discussion you need to own up when you've said untrue things about someone else's posts. I apologized to Dork_Forge for accidentally putting their quote in the wrong place. Will you and Dork_Forge apologize for accidentally twisting my words?
    Last edited by MaxWilson; 2019-12-13 at 03:24 PM.

  25. - Top - End - #295
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by diplomancer View Post
    I really dislike the money solution also. Feels horribly weird to the class fluff, except perhaps for the warlock. What is aSorcerer, who doesn't even have Ritual Casting, doing with "incenses and other things" to change their magical nature. Why is the Bard paying to "find out new chords" so to speak?
    What is the Sorcerer or Bard doing that is causing him to learn a new spell overnight, from scratch, but forget another one?

    I mean, I can come up with explanations for why spending gp on "something" is needed for the Bard or Sorcerer, but I think asking me to do so without justifying the alternative you seem to support as working better is a bit unfair.


    For the Bard, you just need to look at historical and even current prima donnas, and how artists exploited the patronage system. "I need my special rare delicacies or my muse deserts me!" "How can I create without the inspiring presence of a beautiful courtesan?" "My bed sheets must be the finest satin, and my practice garb silk, or I just can't properly prepare." "My voice needs the soothing wines of the finest grapes in Champaigne, or my vocal chords will not be up to my exacting standards." "I need paints made from EXACTLY these herbs and flowers, or the colors are wrong!"

    The bard needs to create the ambiance, to gather music and inspiring art and even study people in the right environments, possibly throw or get invited to the right party, in order to inspire himself and change his outlook on music so that his magical effects shift to the new spell.


    For the Sorcerer, clearly his natural magical expressions are failing him. This is a problem in his subconscious, or in his mana alignment, or something, and he needs to purify and cleanse them, re-attuning to the kinds of magic he wants. Special henna inks, foods from properly-aligned plants or animals, arrangements to spend time in private gardens or elementally-aligned grottos... he needs to alter his magical essence to reshape it to enable him to cast what he WANTS, rather than what he by default HAS (or, perhaps, foolishly beat his essence into emulating last time).


    If you don't like money, though, what's wrong with just making it a DM-guided thing? The player comes to the DM, explains that he's not happy with his alotment, and the DM makes a judgment call as to whetehr this player is just trying to swap spells around willy-nilly, or has a legitimate concern, probably based on how frequently the player has asked in the past to change things out. If the DM doesn't feel like the player is abusing the privilege, he just lets him swap out spells. Not "every night," but "this once."

  26. - Top - End - #296
    Orc in the Playground
     
    micahaphone's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    North

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    I guess I'm confused, I didn't think I was ever twisting your words. In post 286, you ended with an example build that uses cleric, sorcerer, and warlock. You point out (correctly) that without SV, a cleric would have more cleric spells to choose from and to grab niche cases, but with SV, your triple-class setting-specific build is a better cleric than going straight cleric.
    I objected to your balance critique that uses a triple multiclass. Your response was "I'm not obligated to defend obviously-stupid claims that came out of other people's imaginations instead of my mouth. I'm not your NPC."

    I didn't put words in your mouth, and you're declaring my opinion to be "obviously stupid". I'm not trying to puppet you, you're not an NPC in my world.

    And for the record, calling another person's claims "obviously stupid" is kind of name calling.


    ------------------------------------------------------

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    What is the Sorcerer or Bard doing that is causing him to learn a new spell overnight, from scratch, but forget another one?
    "I need my special rare delicacies or my muse deserts me!" "How can I create without the inspiring presence of a beautiful courtesan?" "My bed sheets must be the finest satin, and my practice garb silk, or I just can't properly prepare." "My voice needs the soothing wines of the finest grapes in Champaigne, or my vocal chords will not be up to my exacting standards." "I need paints made from EXACTLY these herbs and flowers, or the colors are wrong!"

    The bard needs to create the ambiance, to gather music and inspiring art and even study people in the right environments, possibly throw or get invited to the right party, in order to inspire himself and change his outlook on music so that his magical effects shift to the new spell.
    Segev, I'm loving this imagery. I want to see more prima donna bards storming out of inns. "You said this place would have 2000 thread count sheets. That couldn't have been more than 500!"


    I agree that it shouldn't be an every night thing, as the purpose is to give the players a way to correct a poor spell choice when they have a while between level ups. But tying it to gold is too campaign-dependent, and is effectively the same thing as asking the DM. If I'm in a game where we find piles of gold in every dungeon, SV will be easy for me. In a survival campaign, it'd suck to have to scrape and save every penny I find to try and do it.

    As for making it a DM-dependent request, I think this rule is trying to codify it so a DM will have guidance. It'd be nice for a player to have something to point towards, that says "hey can I have this mulligan". It's kind of like the problem with Wild Magic Sorcerer RAW, that if your DM isn't feeling it or forgets, they are 100% in the right to make you effectively a sorcerer without subclass.

    As a DM, I've done this for a wizard player of mine, who chose a spell on level up that he hadn't actually used once, that he felt was lacking compared to what he had hoped to accomplish with it. I was just fine with it then, and I'm happy to see the game designers suggesting something similar.

    Maybe a section of informal DM advice in a next Xanathar-style book would be good, where one of several tips could be "hey if your players are really regretting their spell choices, let them swap. Just don't let them do it all the time."
    Last edited by micahaphone; 2019-12-13 at 03:40 PM.

  27. - Top - End - #297
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by micahaphone View Post
    I guess I'm confused, I didn't think I was ever twisting your words. In post 286, you ended with an example build that uses cleric, sorcerer, and warlock. You point out (correctly) that without SV, a cleric would have more cleric spells to choose from and to grab niche cases, but with SV, your triple-class setting-specific build is a better cleric than going straight cleric.
    I objected to your balance critique that uses a triple multiclass. Your response was "I'm not obligated to defend obviously-stupid claims that came out of other people's imaginations instead of my mouth. I'm not your NPC."

    I didn't put words in your mouth, and you're declaring my opinion to be "obviously stupid". I'm not trying to puppet you, you're not an NPC in my world.

    And for the record, calling another person's claims "obviously stupid" is kind of name calling.
    I never called your claims obviously stupid. I said that you and Dork_Forge were claiming that I was claiming a certain thing which I don't claim and wouldn't claim, because it's so obviously wrong that you've have to be an idiot to believe it. I know you know this because in post #287 you quoted the context, and in #post #290 I addressed you directly and explained it to you personally--and yet here you are in post #296 claiming that I "call[ed] another person's claims obviously stupid," twisting my words yet again, this time to say the opposite of what I actually said.

    You owe me an apology twice over now.

    Edit: And you're also quoting from a section of #286 which is explicitly spoilered as off-topic, and trying to use that to justify your misinterpretation of post #240, fifty posts earlier. I can't even.
    Last edited by MaxWilson; 2019-12-13 at 03:58 PM.

  28. - Top - End - #298
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by micahaphone View Post
    I didn't put words in your mouth, and you're declaring my opinion to be "obviously stupid". I'm not trying to puppet you, you're not an NPC in my world.

    And for the record, calling another person's claims "obviously stupid" is kind of name calling.
    I don't think Max is calling your claims stupid, he's calling the statement that was being attributed as something he said stupid. That goes a long way in explaining why he's so vehemently against having that pinned on him. I don't think it's fair to either, because as he says he did not make any such statement.

  29. - Top - End - #299
    Orc in the Playground
     
    micahaphone's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    North

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Max, between the "uses for the spell darkness" thread I started and this one, I think you and I are communicating on fundamentally different wavelengths, and we're in a cycle of misunderstanding each other. Because I read what you wrote directly under a quote from me as responding to me, and apparently I've been misunderstanding what you've written this entire time, and our attempts to sort this out have lead to further hurt feelings.

    I thought this was all about your triple multiclass, and now maybe the earlier stuff, or maybe you have no beef with the triple-multiclass stuff and it's all about the earlier quoting. I know the triple multiclass thing was marked off topic but it seems to me linked directly to your earlier statement in post 280. I must be wrong.I'm not the only person who misunderstood your earlier comparison between sorcerer and cleric/druid, and I think you feel I was misquoting or twisting your words. I swear I'm not trying to twist your words.

    I'm sorry if I have insulted you, this was not my intent.
    -------------------------

    On topic, I understand Segev and other's complaints that this feature lets you do far more than what the feature is intended to fix. But the proposed fixes are also not satisfactory to me, including the one I posted earlier on page 10. I'm going to double down on what I said earlier: this isn't a problem that can be fixed with a hard and always applicable rule, and this is best fixed with a "guidelines for DMs" section or other expanded DMing advice chapter.
    Last edited by micahaphone; 2019-12-13 at 04:06 PM.

  30. - Top - End - #300
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by micahaphone View Post
    Max, between the "uses for the spell darkness" thread I started and this one, I think you and I are communicating on fundamentally different wavelengths, and we're in a cycle of misunderstanding each other. Because I read what you wrote directly under a quote from me as responding to me, and apparently I've been misunderstanding what you've written this entire time, and our attempts to sort this out have lead to further hurt feelings.

    I thought this was all about your triple multiclass, and now maybe the earlier stuff, or maybe you have no beef with the triple-multiclass stuff and it's all about the earlier quoting. I'm not the only person who misunderstood your earlier comparison between sorcerer and cleric/druid, and I think you feel I was misquoting or twisting your words. I swear I'm not trying to twist your words.

    I'm sorry if I have insulted you, this was not my intent.
    Apology accepted. Moving on...

    Quote Originally Posted by micahaphone View Post
    On topic, I understand Segev and other's complaints that this feature lets you do far more than what the feature is intended to fix. But the proposed fixes are also not satisfactory to me, including the one I posted earlier on page 10. I'm going to double down on what I said earlier: this isn't a problem that can be fixed with a hard and always applicable rule, and this is best fixed with a "guidelines for DMs" section or other expanded DMing advice chapter.
    Point of clarification: when you say "page 10" do you mean post #274, about the cooldown? <<How would people feel about SV still taking only a long rest, but then put on a cooldown for a number of days equal to a spell level? I know that's been recommended in this thread before.>>

    Spoiler: Late feedback on post #274
    Show
    Personally I could live with that one. I don't love it for the same reason I don't love the wizard getting two extra spells in his spellbook out of nowhere every time he gains a level up--it's a little bit gamist for my taste--but I think it's one way to solve the problem Jeremy Crawford was trying to solve (correcting spell mistakes even in games where you rarely level up) without too much impact on the overall design of 5E. It's inconvenient enough that it is effectively making a statement to the player "do not use this ability casually."

    One downside is that it's also adding bookkeeping for the player, which 5E generally tries to avoid. There are a limited number of effects which require you to track time for longer than a long rest: Raise Dead penalties last for multiple long rests, Divine Intervention can succeed only 1/week, exhaustion penalties get worse over multiple days. This would add another of those penalties.

    Overall I'd call this one a workable compromise that I could live with in the same way I can live with wizards just suddenly knowing legendary spells like Simulacrum and Wish without having to find them... it's a rule that I don't dislike enough to bother changing.

    Edit: But I also agree with you that this is actually better-dealt-with in a "guidelines for DMs" section instead of as a class ability.
    Last edited by MaxWilson; 2019-12-13 at 04:24 PM. Reason: Spoilered late feedback

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •