The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed
The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed - Coming in December and available for pre-order now
Page 2 of 20 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 583
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by Spriteless View Post
    Hearing Crawford describe it, it was meant to get rid of spells one never uses. A balm for buyer's remorse given to players whose characters don't level often, either because they don't meet often or they don't like to be high level. Personally, when I run, I would consider letting spells known casters change out whenever there is a week of downtime.
    This is certainly where I think the setup is most needed. A Player that just got (ex.) 3rd level spells and finds out that the two they picked simply will not work as planned (perhaps they picked Hypnotic Pattern and Stinking Cloud as their bard spells only to find out that their party keeps charging the enemies before they have a chance to get them off or the like) may literally not wait until they level up and change them out (either they die because they are facing new challenges without usable 3rd level spells, or they just abandon the character). For that reason I like the idea of some avenue of changing this. Not sure if the proposed method would be the one I chose.


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

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

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

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

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

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

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    May 2019

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    I'm not sure why this concerns you, though it is a good point. It might not be an issue.

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

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

    I mean, heck: should dipping Sorcerer or Bard for 1 level in order to open up an "extra spell book" full of 1st level spells be a temptation? I think not; it's a perverse incentive.
    It concerns me because this is UA, and if feedback prevents a feature from making it to print or modifies it then I'd rather it be based on an actual problem not a perceived one.

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

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

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Berlin
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

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

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

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

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2007

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

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

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

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

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

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

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

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2017

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by Dork_Forge View Post
    My issue when that situation comes up is this, when you come across a situation where you wanted x spell and didn't have it, did you have 24 hours notice you'd want it? And if not, would that same spell be as relevant 24 hours later when you can prepare it?
    This is the crux of the matter. I've often had characters who could take a night to process while the core problems behind the adventure remained intact. To take two classic plots that can be ruined by a single spell; a murder victim will remain just as dead if you wait a day to prepare Resurrection, and a faraway spot will remain just as far off if you wait a day to prep Teleport. Having to pore over the wizard's spellbook to see what plots are immediately trivialized by spells is annoying, having to do the same with the cleric's whole list even more so. Having to treat the sorcerer's and bard's lists like the cleric's is just extra obnoxiousness.

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

    ...

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

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

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

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    May 2019

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by Anymage View Post
    This is the crux of the matter. I've often had characters who could take a night to process while the core problems behind the adventure remained intact. To take two classic plots that can be ruined by a single spell; a murder victim will remain just as dead if you wait a day to prepare Resurrection, and a faraway spot will remain just as far off if you wait a day to prep Teleport. Having to pore over the wizard's spellbook to see what plots are immediately trivialized by spells is annoying, having to do the same with the cleric's whole list even more so. Having to treat the sorcerer's and bard's lists like the cleric's is just extra obnoxiousness.
    Both of your examples are 7th level spells and based on problems that shouldn't really be that much of an obstacle to 13th level+ characters. Most examples I can think of myself are much more in the moment, like oh this would have been a nice time to have access to feather fall etc. It just keeps feeling like more of a perceived problem than an actual one or a case of the Wizard maybe having their toes stepped on.

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

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Troll in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

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

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

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

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

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2018

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

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

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

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

    If someone can provide this--two spells, and for each a reasonably respectable but not common situation where that spell would make a huge difference but an 8-24 hour wait would not--then I will concede that spell versatility, as written, creates enough of a problem that it truly *should* be changed (e.g. in the way I suggested).
    Last edited by ezekielraiden; 2019-12-04 at 06:18 PM.

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Berlin
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by Anymage View Post
    This is the crux of the matter. I've often had characters who could take a night to process while the core problems behind the adventure remained intact. To take two classic plots that can be ruined by a single spell; a murder victim will remain just as dead if you wait a day to prepare Resurrection, and a faraway spot will remain just as far off if you wait a day to prep Teleport.
    None of these situations is trivialized. Resurrection is an expensive spell to cast, and a murder victim often doesn't even know who killed him: If he says "I was poisoned", you're not better off than a successful investigation check by a high INT wizard "He's dead, Jim." "He was poisoned, Jim."

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Anymage View Post
    Having to pore over the wizard's spellbook to see what plots are immediately trivialized by spells is annoying, having to do the same with the cleric's whole list even more so. Having to treat the sorcerer's and bard's lists like the cleric's is just extra obnoxiousness.
    Is there even a single such significant spell on the sorcerer's spell list, that is not on the wizard spell list as well?

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by Dork_Forge View Post
    It concerns me because this is UA, and if feedback prevents a feature from making it to print or modifies it then I'd rather it be based on an actual problem not a perceived one.
    It probably shouldn't be made "canon" without some sort of rethinking. Even if that rethinking just means changing the Wizard so that it isn't written as if it were the best class to use for changing around your spell selection.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dork_Forge View Post
    Multiclassing to get more 1st level spells known has always been a viable thing, being able to swap one per long rest stops this from being particularly abuseable and to be honest if someone were inclined to dip into another class (hurting their spell progression, requiring an unrelated stat of 13 and tying those versatile spells to a non primary casting stat) then is that really a problem? Bear in mind that multiclassing is also a variant rule, whilst it's common and balance is and should be kept in mind, it is a variant that shouldn't be de facto assumed for the system.
    Okay, then, would you object to Wizards having a "Spell Versatility" slot that is a single spell that they know without their spellbook, and it can be any one wizard spell they have slots to cast, swappable with a long rest?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    If someone can provide this--two spells, and for each a reasonably respectable but not common situation where that spell would make a huge difference but an 8-24 hour wait would not--then I will concede that spell versatility, as written, creates enough of a problem that it truly *should* be changed (e.g. in the way I suggested).
    I don't have anything of that sort off the top of my head, but let me pose a counter-point: I'm not really saying the party can't advance without this perfect spell. I'm saying that the ability to make your spell list more perfect with whatever spells you want from the whole class list with just a few days' prep is superior to the Wizard's ability to customize his spell list with niche spells that will be unusually useful if he happens to already have them in his spellbook.



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

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



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

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    May 2016

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    Also: Planar binding. 5th level, but can be upcast for long-duration. On the one hand, it's nice that sorcerers can get it. Very thematic. Nice that they can do it without consuming a very limited spell known. On the other, though, basically every sorcerer has it, now, while not every wizard will. Wizards have to use up resources to get it; every sorcerer essentially has it for free, because they just need a day's downtime to swap a spell out for it, cast it, then swap back in a more useful spell.
    Except sorcerer's can't get it, it's not on their current spell list or the proposed post-UA spell list. If you meant warlock with the new UA, fair enough, but my question then would be: how are you keeping the Celestial/Fiend/Fey/Elemental busy for 24 hours so your warlock can swap in Planar Binding? If it's one your party has conjured then this sounds like a deliberate tactic by the party instead of a spell of convenience, in which case I'd ask why the Wizard doesn't know Planar Binding already?

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2017

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

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

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

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

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


    Unique to Cleric and Druid


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

    Unique to Wizard

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



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

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

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

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

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

    A mere 16 spells.

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

    16 spells.

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

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

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2017

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by diplomancer View Post
    Sorcerer was not tbe only one who got spell versatility. The Bard also got it, and it's more powerful for him, since, even though their list is smaller than the sorcerer (after Xanathar), it's more versatile, combining typical "arcane" and "divine" spells. Raise dead just got a big bump for Bards, for instance.
    And yet, if you read most of this thread, it is mostly about how the sorcerer now overshadows the wizard because their spells overlap too much. And the counter argument that it hasn't been an issue with the wizard and the cleric or druid has been met with claims that the cleric and druid list are "less powerful" or "less focused on the same things the wizard is" so it isn't a problem.


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

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

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


    So, I set out to disprove that argument. No one has been complaining about Bards getting it, or if they did it was in an off-hand manner, so I didn't focus on that.
    I'd say it's more about the weakening of the wizard class identity as the "I can have a spell for that tomorrow" class. The sorcerer was used as an example, but the problem is there for all casters who got SV. Spell Versatility is a real bump for Bards, and it can be argued that now they are the "I'll have a spell for that tomorrow" class.

    Somewhat related to this: I wonder if SV allows a Bard to swap out a Magical Secret for another Bard spell and then get it back later (since it "becomes a Bard spell for you")
    Last edited by diplomancer; 2019-12-05 at 08:39 AM.

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Troll in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

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

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

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

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

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

  18. - Top - End - #48
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    May 2019
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

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

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

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

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

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

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

    A wizard who has made smart choices in spells known and whose DM is anything other than a complete and utter disgrace will not even sweat at the existence of Spell Versatility.
    Last edited by Chaos Jackal; 2019-12-05 at 09:17 AM.

  19. - Top - End - #49
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2017

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by diplomancer View Post
    I'd say it's more about the weakening of the wizard class identity as the "I can have a spell for that tomorrow" class.
    How were Clerics and Druids not the "I can have a spell for that tomorrow class"?

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

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

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


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



    Quote Originally Posted by diplomancer View Post
    The sorcerer was used as an example, but the problem is there for all casters who got SV. Spell Versatility is a real bump for Bards, and it can be argued that now they are the "I'll have a spell for that tomorrow" class.
    Sure, why not, let's do the list for bards.

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

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


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

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


    Quote Originally Posted by diplomancer View Post
    Somewhat related to this: I wonder if SV allows a Bard to swap out a Magical Secret for another Bard spell and then get it back later (since it "becomes a Bard spell for you")
    I'd say yes, otherwise they lose a class feature by swapping it. No reason not to allow it.

  20. - Top - End - #50
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

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

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

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

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Troll in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

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

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

    I find it really annoying that people are so terrified that SV won't be exactly as it is in the UA article if there isn't universal praise for it as 100% perfect that we're having to argue that this IS an issue, rather than discussing how to solve it. If you like SV as-is, and no change to it could possibly be acceptable, then help by coming up with ways to preserve the important theme of excitement in hunting down and discovering new spells for the wizard and the importance of his spellbook while enabling him to still keep the "I'm the guy you come to when you want the perfectly-tailored spell list for this adventure" situation.
    There is no longer any distinction between divine and arcane magic in 5th edition. We just have people that cast spells. Even if there were, then I would say that bard was divine (due to healing and resurrection magic), sorcerer might be (divine soul might be divine - clue is in the name, anything from a bloodline seems to depend), warlock might be divine (if you see fiends an celestials as divine rather than mortal).

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

  22. - Top - End - #52
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2017

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

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

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

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

    If someone can provide this--two spells, and for each a reasonably respectable but not common situation where that spell would make a huge difference but an 8-24 hour wait would not--then I will concede that spell versatility, as written, creates enough of a problem that it truly *should* be changed (e.g. in the way I suggested).
    Tongues is a clear case where few people would make a priority of going out and getting it, but when a language barrier comes up it's handy to clear up. You're also unlikely to immediately die because you can't speak to some people, but being able to communicate with them can become hugely helpful.

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaos Jackal View Post
    I won't comment on class identity issues. Those are entirely subjective.

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

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaosmancer View Post
    How were Clerics and Druids not the "I can have a spell for that tomorrow class"...
    Do I need to keep a running tally of how many times I said that clerics and druids are in fact a waiting problem? Making more people more like them is not an improvement.

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

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

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2017

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  24. - Top - End - #54
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

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

    Any change will "enabling him to still keep the "I'm the guy you come to when you want the perfectly-tailored spell list for this adventure" situation" - this wont change the Wizard AT ALL. They will not become worse at it, all that will happen is an under appreciated class might also Get Nice Things.
    The distinction is weaker than in other editions, but it's still there (PHB 205), and to which type each class has access is also clearly defined. So far, there has not been, to my knowledge, any mechanical use of it, but it is there ready for use in any particular adventure or setting, for instance.

    In that respect, here are some thoughts from Jeremy Crawford. The themes are still there.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USqR_-pcXAw
    Last edited by diplomancer; 2019-12-05 at 01:01 PM.

  25. - Top - End - #55
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2017

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

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

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

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

    Then try running a game with mid or high level casters, and tell me how it goes for you.
    I'm on my phone, so mo blue text, but I'd like to point out how many threads of "cleric and druid spellcasting is OP" always show up on these forums.

    I've seen zero.

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

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

  26. - Top - End - #56
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2017

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

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

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

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

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

    (To clarify, in this system divine soul has their current feature but no other free spells, while the other sorcerer's get 5-10 free spells they don't need to learn, which puts everyone at about the same level and implicitly nerfs divine soul).
    Last edited by MrCharlie; 2019-12-05 at 12:06 PM.

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Yunru's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

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

  29. - Top - End - #59
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    To repeat: I don't see too big of a problem with SV classes having literally any spell in their class list "tomorrow." I have a problem with that being true when wizards cannot. Especially since the closest the wizard can come costs him money, but it doesn't cost the SV classes anything.
    I still think that the solution of giving it to the Wizard too, though obviously it subtracts from the excitement of finding spells for your spellbook, is still limited enough (just one spell, if you need more in a hurry you are in trouble) that it remains in the Wizard's best interest to keep adding to his spell book.

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

    Edit: the class identity problem is not so much that now there are MORE classes with the "I can have that spell by tomorrow" feature, it's that now wizards are the ONLY spellcasting class without it. For someone whose thing has always been about flexibility (compared to other arcane casters at least), it feels off.
    Last edited by diplomancer; 2019-12-05 at 01:20 PM.

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Berlin
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Spell Versatility and Class Identity

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaosmancer View Post
    I mean, is this "the wizard is threatened" or is this "the other classes are catching up"?
    I think the latter.

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

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

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

Posting Permissions

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