Spell Versatility and Class Identity

[Segev]

I think the latter.

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

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

On the contrary, it's not about wanting the Wizard to "be a born magic prodigy like the Sorcerer." It's irritation that apparently being a "born magic prodigy" means that you have all of the spells (just not all at once).

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MaxWilson]

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

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

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

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

You can do the same thing with skills and languages.

[Chaosmancer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Spiritchaser]

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

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

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

[Chaosmancer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Theaitetos]

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

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

[diplomancer]

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

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

[Veldrenor]

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

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

[diplomancer]

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

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

[Yunru]

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

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

[Theaitetos]

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

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

Here's the way all of these things work:

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

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

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

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

Divine Magic

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

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

[micahaphone]

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

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

[Theaitetos]

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

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

[Yunru]

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

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

[Veldrenor]

snip

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

[Segev]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[diplomancer]

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

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

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

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

[MrStabby]

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

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

[Theaitetos]

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

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

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

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

[MaxWilson]

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

Mazirian the Magician would approve.

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

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

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

Under this UA? ALL OF THEM.

[Aimeryan]

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

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

I presume for ritual incense, or sacrifices, or other consumables they use to "clear their mind" and "refocus their magical energies." I mean, it's not like the wizard is literally gluing gold pieces into his spellbook like some sort of macaroni painting.

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

The SV caster is also getting a real benefit: they're replacing a spell that isn't as useful for one that is moreso. Even if it's just useful one time, they just have to pay twice to get it that one time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...really?

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

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

[Bosh]

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

Here's how I'd divide it up:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MrStabby]

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

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

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

Together it is just silly.

[ezekielraiden]

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

Okay, then, would you object to Wizards having a "Spell Versatility" slot that is a single spell that they know without their spellbook, and it can be any one wizard spell they have slots to cast, swappable with a long rest?

As a simpler alternative than my "research points" suggestion, it works, I suppose? Perhaps the Wizard selects a number of spells equal to their Intelligence modifier which they have not merely learned, but rote-memorized; they can always prepare these spells, even without their spellbook, as they are deeply ingrained through constant repetition. You could even tie it to arcane traditions, with the school-based ones specifying that these "rote spells" come from the associated school, while the non-school ones give some kind of list or focus. Ways to make it more Wizard-thematic, at least.

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

Frankly? I really don't care that much what descriptors the designers use for a given class. Because those descriptors are not based on tested outcomes, they're based on hopes and goals. 3e had exactly the same problem with most "martial" classes, e.g. the Monk was consistently billed as a mobile attacker...but the design of full-attacks meant they could not do so and do anything like meaningful damage.

Wizards really aren't "cast lots of spells guys." Not more than other classes.

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

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

I'm saying that the ability to make your spell list more perfect with whatever spells you want from the whole class list with just a few days' prep is superior to the Wizard's ability to customize his spell list with niche spells that will be unusually useful if he happens to already have them in his spellbook.

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

Ignoring balance in favor of analogy, <snip> All of a sudden, even stronger than the Barbarian or the Fighter, the Monk and Rogue are the go-to tanks,

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

Also: Planar binding.

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

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

Tongues <snip>, Sending <snip>

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

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

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

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

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

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

I vehemently disagree. The issue is accessibility; a Wizard's "reserve" is what is accessible to them.

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

Then, uh, how does it get fixed? Especially if I don't actually see this as a "sledgehammer" feature. You seem to agree that there's a serious problem with at least the Sorcerer and possibly the Bard, one that should be fixed. Why not fix it, and then also give some small benefit so that Wizards don't feel left out?

Which worries me not because they'll outshine the wizard, but because of how easily they'll be able to have just the right tool to fix whatever medium-term goal.

I think you under-value the time cost of having to wait 24 hours, and both the number and utility of the Wizard spells that aren't on any of the Bard, Druid, Cleric, Sorcerer, or Wizard lists. (According to my main tool for checking these things, there are 43 such spells between the PHB and Xanathar's, which include things like rope trick, passwall, telepathic bond, fabricate, and phantom steed, some of which are even rituals so they won't cost spell slots.)

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

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

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

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

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

I know you weren't speaking to me, but that definitely wouldn't make me happy. Hence why I proposed what I did. Since it seems that proposal has been lost, ignored, or forgotten, I'll re-present it here:

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

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

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

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

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

[Segev]

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


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

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

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

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

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

[NigelWalmsley]

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

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

[Dork_Forge]

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

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

You won't get me disagreeing; I don't care about Arcane Recovery, and wouldn't complain if it vanished, especially if something more interesting (not necessarily more powerful, just more interesting) replaced it.

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

I haven't seen anybody denying it. But it's kind-of irrelevant. Because it's beside the point, at least for me.

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

I know what it's trying to address. And it does an okay job at it. It just has unintended side-effects whereby, no, wizards are no longer the best class to play if you want to have "just the thing...tomorrow."