As much as you squeal and express your opinion in that unpleasant way and repeating monosyllables, it is your opinion, just as valid as those of others. We all have different experiences and different playing circumstances, which promotes different visions. Here we are simply arguing ideas. :)
On the other hand, some of us have said that the total list of wizards should not be confused with the real list of the book. You are taking for granted a series of circumstances around increasing the wizard's spells that don't have to happen (especially at high levels).
I agree with you regarding the versatility of the wizard's book. But what some of us have pointed out is that there is another perspective of versatility and it is the one that promotes spell versatility by giving access to the total list of spells with a simple long rest.
You are right, they do not need to happen, and if your dm does not have you interact with any areas where it would, or any of the numerous spellbooks in modules, or spell scrolls that are recieved as loot, then it will not happen.
But this leads to the same problem? It seems as though you have less of a problem with the overall mechanics, and more with the wizard, and I must ask why? Of course this might not be the case, but your solutions of "the wizard has enough, let's pause giving wizards anything until every class is equal with it" doesn't really appeal to me. Different classes bring different strengths. Plus, this supplement was presented as "take all, some, or none" so it would make more sense to provide the option of spell versatility to wizards and letting each table decide for itself whether or not to use it. That would allow you and your table to play whatever way is most fun for your group, and other groups theirs.
It is clear that we are at an impasse and you do not stop to appreciate the different reasons that have been given here.
While it is true that a low level scroll is a common object, it is not the same for high level spells (if you don't believe it, I encourage you to search this page for scrolls). The same goes for libraries. If a DM makes it possible to access level 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 spells as easily (as you argue) in this way, it's being quite generous, so it's not something you can hold on to.
All this, without counting the cost of money to not only copy, but also to buy a high level scroll.
On the other hand, the frequency with which you meet a wizard and his book under the arm with the spells you want seems something more punctual than common and much less powerful than sleeping placidly.
For this reason, some of us are seeing that the wizard loses the value that his versatility associated with his book possessed in front of other classes.
The big question here is, "Is the Wizard's generally regarded best spell list and the fact he can swap sections out actively as well as access to all his ritual spells in exchange for him needing to spend gold and time to permanently unlock it, roughly equivalent to essentially every caster having full access to their spell lists given what is realistically not much downtime?"
This comes down to type of campaign, access to extended downtime, funds, and a source for spellbooks whether that be from enemies or neutral npcs. Having a second wizard, which isn't that crazy given the breadth of spells available, would also alleviate this. Things worth remembering though is that, unless your dm is allowing people to buy magic items, there tends to not be much to spend it on come tiers 2 and 3. Assuming the party isn't just full of hoarders, it is very reasonable for the wizard to get multiple shares of gold just because it is so expensive to be a wizard. This again goes into the "that's unfair for you to get extra loot" argument, but if you look at it as "The party can invest all this liquid asset laying around so the wizard can get more utility and solve more problems for the party." it can be a half decent deal. Another thing to remember is that clerics and druids can already trade out every spell they have on a long rest, not just one or two. Are they broken? Generally speaking no, you have a set of spells you use consistently and spare room to pick out any situational utility you might expect to need. Going underwater? Better hope you have a druid or one of those poor arcane spellcasters took water breathing as a spell.
Personally, I think it is a fairly flawed variant rule since those classes can already trade a spell each level up, and most dms are reasonable enough to let you trade out more spells if you truly screwed yourself. It IS a variant rule though, likely one of the few from the UA to actually see many people not using it.
Also, Wizards having this would be silly, not just because of the basic mechanics of how the spellbook works, but the fact that you could craft a scroll with that spell to rememorize it. Though your likely to have enough spells to scribe if your DM throws a few occasional wizards with spellbooks at you.
Assuming the party isn't just full of hoarders, it is very reasonable for the wizard to get multiple shares of gold just because it is so expensive to be a wizard. This again goes into the "that's unfair for you to get extra loot" argument, but if you look at it as "The party can invest all this liquid asset laying around so the wizard can get more utility and solve more problems for the party." it can be a half decent deal.
This, while technically true, is still a big ask for many, and may not get the instant affirmative.
Another thing to remember is that clerics and druids can already trade out every spell they have on a long rest, not just one or two. Are they broken? Generally speaking no, you have a set of spells you use consistently and spare room to pick out any situational utility you might expect to need. Going underwater? Better hope you have a druid or one of those poor arcane spellcasters took water breathing as a spell.
True, which I see as an issue. Now, if you include this UA, the wizard is the only spellcasting class who can't access any spell on their list with simply a long rest. This includes pact magic spells but not mystic arcanum spells for warlocks. That seems to be a drawback.
I suggest making the spell versatility say "you can use this ability some number of times before you gain your next level in this class." That way you can still fix a mistake without waiting months, but you don't gain the true versatility of prepared casters.
I somewhat agree with this conceptually, maybe have it scale off your casting stat, or intelligence since arcana. The issue is really the fact downtime is something very campaign dependent, but having it limited does solve the problem.
Even change, every long rest, a spell of the highest known level for another of the same level, but limited to a number of times related to your spell ability bonus (charisma... and a minimum of 1). So that this number of changes is reset when the next cast level is reached. This way, the wrong choices can be solved as you develop the character and you don't become a "Swiss army knife" that can pass from the wish spell to meteor swarm spell.
Having read the rules and played a few times there really is no point in playing a wizard. Most other classes can either cast the same spells or spells that are equal. If there is a bard in the party there for sure is no reason to play a wizard. They get all your spells.
I disagree wholeheartedly! This UA does potentially leave Wizards a bit lacking, but there are plenty of reasons to play one. For one thing, a lot of the arguments against Wizard in this thread are worst case scenarios. Generally speaking, Wizards have a level of utility unmatched by other classes. Plus, your Bard solution only goes so far, with too many Wizard-exclusive spells for a Bard to nab with Magical Secrets.
Oh also bards totally cant get spell versatility with magical secrets, or if they can, that was an oversight. Like, thats every spell on every list in the game right there, jesus.
Spell versatility is not broken for sorcerers once you take in consideration the massive buff 5e gave to prepared casting. Wizards basically cast like sorcerers except they can swap their entire spells known every single day. I have no issue with that change per se but there was not anything done to buff spontaneous casters to counter balance it. This change was done to make the game easier to pick up and play which is fine but it does create an imbalance in the classes. So giving spell versatility is an effort to correct a power imbalance inherrent in the magic system itself. It does not fix the imbalance but it is a step in the right direction.
They started designing this UA two years ago in response to this set of surveys listing overall player satisfaction including one for each of the Sorcerer, Wizard, and Warlock.
Still arguing the Sorcerer has it too easy when most (92.3%) of the players LOVE their Wizard, and most of the players (71.1%) are very happy with their Warlock, and most (69.1%) of their players think that the Sorcerer needs a li’l tweaking?
Oh hardly, even if people complain a whole lot more than seems necessary, that doesn't make the complaints invalid. I feel as though Sorcerer would be greatly enhanced with the variants, and Wizard would be just fine. Still, it's important to see all the sides of an argument.
Play a divination or abjuration wizard out for 5 or 6 levels, and then tell me how a bard is better. Not saying that the wizard is better either, but there is more to every class than just their spell lists.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Back and ready to DM and chew bubblegum. And I'm alllll outta bubblegum.
There seems to be some misconception going on here. Crawford stated in an interview (which is on this site) that the reason for spell versatility is because over years of observation they found spells known classes were not leveling up as quickly as anticipated at some tables, and therefore the spells were locked in longer than anticipated. He continued on to say spell versatility addresses that concern. He went further in addressing the wizard identity and the game system being capable of sorcerer swapping spells on a long rest. It's working as intended. If a person disagrees then he or she is denying the intent of the designers.
In practice, the ability to swap spells daily does not give a reason to swap spells daily. People are commenting as if every other spell listed of the same level is going to be worth trading on a regular basis. It is not. The vast majority of spells serve no purpose in swapping simply because they can be swapped. A single spell or two might be situationally worth swapping and that is different. It is not hard to peruse the sorcerer spell list and see that it is more than limited enough in utility not to threaten a wizard. Wizards have a lot of spell not available to sorcerers but the reverse isn't true, an in both case both classes will have already selected when each considers good spells. There are simply only so many good spells in the first place.
The result after swapping spells still leaves the sorcerer far behind the wizard because the actual number of spells available during play has not changed. It's still a case of the wizard having many plus rituals and the sorcerer balancing out a little for all he or she can get out of it.
Spell versatility does not work with magical secrets. Spell versatility requires that the spell being swapped out is known from the class's spell casting feature. Magical secrets is a different feature gained at 10th level and so spells learned that way are not spells learned from the spell casting feature. Completely ineligible. Magical secrets can still be swapped out during level up, but the spell swapped in still has to be on the bard spell list, so the advantage of pulling from another class list I lost in that process. I find at 10th level there are enough 5th level bard spells I want that it's not even a relevant feature until 14th level unless I go lore. Magical secrets gets massively over-rated on forums. It's good but it's not that good. ;)
It is true that a sorcerer can respect the entire spell list over time if there is enough time. There just no reason to do so. If they do it's no different than if that sorcerer had selected those spell in the first place. There are only 2 legitimate concerns here. The first is situational benefits that requires the conditions of advanced knowledge and time. That was addressed by Crawford already as something the system can handle so it's a molehill issue if a person does consider it an issue. The other is trying to abuse magic item creation rules but that's hard to take seriously because it's not actually happening with other classes that already have access to the entire spell list.
Spell versatility addresses a specific concern as intended and does not break anything in the system.
The most generous reading of the interact from magical secrets is that the bard would add those spells to their list and could switch back to only the added spell if they change with one of the same level.
The most generous reading of the interact from magical secrets is that the bard would add those spells to their list and could switch back to only the added spell if they change with one of the same level.
It is the most generous, in fact it is too generous; it ignores the wording of the features involved.
Whenever you finish a long rest, you can replace one spell you learned from this Spellcasting feature with another spell from the bard spell list. The new spell must be the same level as the spell you replace.
Magical secrets aren't learned from the spellcasting feature. You only learn spells from the Bard list with the spellcasting feature. The Bard spell list is not the list of spells that count as bard spells for you; so your magical secrets aren't on the Bard spell list.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As much as you squeal and express your opinion in that unpleasant way and repeating monosyllables, it is your opinion, just as valid as those of others. We all have different experiences and different playing circumstances, which promotes different visions. Here we are simply arguing ideas. :)
On the other hand, some of us have said that the total list of wizards should not be confused with the real list of the book. You are taking for granted a series of circumstances around increasing the wizard's spells that don't have to happen (especially at high levels).
I agree with you regarding the versatility of the wizard's book. But what some of us have pointed out is that there is another perspective of versatility and it is the one that promotes spell versatility by giving access to the total list of spells with a simple long rest.
"Esta perfecta melodía que acompasa y guía mi movimiento es la voz de mi compañera Aegnor"
Gowther Irerath, El'Tael de los Fragmentos Extraordinarios.
You are right, they do not need to happen, and if your dm does not have you interact with any areas where it would, or any of the numerous spellbooks in modules, or spell scrolls that are recieved as loot, then it will not happen.
But this leads to the same problem? It seems as though you have less of a problem with the overall mechanics, and more with the wizard, and I must ask why? Of course this might not be the case, but your solutions of "the wizard has enough, let's pause giving wizards anything until every class is equal with it" doesn't really appeal to me. Different classes bring different strengths. Plus, this supplement was presented as "take all, some, or none" so it would make more sense to provide the option of spell versatility to wizards and letting each table decide for itself whether or not to use it. That would allow you and your table to play whatever way is most fun for your group, and other groups theirs.
Because spell versatility on the wizard is a whole different beast then spell versatility on the sorcerer
It is clear that we are at an impasse and you do not stop to appreciate the different reasons that have been given here.
While it is true that a low level scroll is a common object, it is not the same for high level spells (if you don't believe it, I encourage you to search this page for scrolls). The same goes for libraries. If a DM makes it possible to access level 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 spells as easily (as you argue) in this way, it's being quite generous, so it's not something you can hold on to.
All this, without counting the cost of money to not only copy, but also to buy a high level scroll.
On the other hand, the frequency with which you meet a wizard and his book under the arm with the spells you want seems something more punctual than common and much less powerful than sleeping placidly.
For this reason, some of us are seeing that the wizard loses the value that his versatility associated with his book possessed in front of other classes.
"Esta perfecta melodía que acompasa y guía mi movimiento es la voz de mi compañera Aegnor"
Gowther Irerath, El'Tael de los Fragmentos Extraordinarios.
The big question here is, "Is the Wizard's generally regarded best spell list and the fact he can swap sections out actively as well as access to all his ritual spells in exchange for him needing to spend gold and time to permanently unlock it, roughly equivalent to essentially every caster having full access to their spell lists given what is realistically not much downtime?"
This comes down to type of campaign, access to extended downtime, funds, and a source for spellbooks whether that be from enemies or neutral npcs. Having a second wizard, which isn't that crazy given the breadth of spells available, would also alleviate this. Things worth remembering though is that, unless your dm is allowing people to buy magic items, there tends to not be much to spend it on come tiers 2 and 3. Assuming the party isn't just full of hoarders, it is very reasonable for the wizard to get multiple shares of gold just because it is so expensive to be a wizard. This again goes into the "that's unfair for you to get extra loot" argument, but if you look at it as "The party can invest all this liquid asset laying around so the wizard can get more utility and solve more problems for the party." it can be a half decent deal. Another thing to remember is that clerics and druids can already trade out every spell they have on a long rest, not just one or two. Are they broken? Generally speaking no, you have a set of spells you use consistently and spare room to pick out any situational utility you might expect to need. Going underwater? Better hope you have a druid or one of those poor arcane spellcasters took water breathing as a spell.
Personally, I think it is a fairly flawed variant rule since those classes can already trade a spell each level up, and most dms are reasonable enough to let you trade out more spells if you truly screwed yourself. It IS a variant rule though, likely one of the few from the UA to actually see many people not using it.
Also, Wizards having this would be silly, not just because of the basic mechanics of how the spellbook works, but the fact that you could craft a scroll with that spell to rememorize it. Though your likely to have enough spells to scribe if your DM throws a few occasional wizards with spellbooks at you.
This, while technically true, is still a big ask for many, and may not get the instant affirmative.
True, which I see as an issue. Now, if you include this UA, the wizard is the only spellcasting class who can't access any spell on their list with simply a long rest. This includes pact magic spells but not mystic arcanum spells for warlocks. That seems to be a drawback.
I suggest making the spell versatility say "you can use this ability some number of times before you gain your next level in this class." That way you can still fix a mistake without waiting months, but you don't gain the true versatility of prepared casters.
Another possibility might be that classes like sorcerer when leveling up can change 1 spell from each level and not just one spell.
"Esta perfecta melodía que acompasa y guía mi movimiento es la voz de mi compañera Aegnor"
Gowther Irerath, El'Tael de los Fragmentos Extraordinarios.
I somewhat agree with this conceptually, maybe have it scale off your casting stat, or intelligence since arcana. The issue is really the fact downtime is something very campaign dependent, but having it limited does solve the problem.
Even change, every long rest, a spell of the highest known level for another of the same level, but limited to a number of times related to your spell ability bonus (charisma... and a minimum of 1). So that this number of changes is reset when the next cast level is reached. This way, the wrong choices can be solved as you develop the character and you don't become a "Swiss army knife" that can pass from the wish spell to meteor swarm spell.
"Esta perfecta melodía que acompasa y guía mi movimiento es la voz de mi compañera Aegnor"
Gowther Irerath, El'Tael de los Fragmentos Extraordinarios.
Having read the rules and played a few times there really is no point in playing a wizard. Most other classes can either cast the same spells or spells that are equal. If there is a bard in the party there for sure is no reason to play a wizard. They get all your spells.
I disagree wholeheartedly! This UA does potentially leave Wizards a bit lacking, but there are plenty of reasons to play one. For one thing, a lot of the arguments against Wizard in this thread are worst case scenarios. Generally speaking, Wizards have a level of utility unmatched by other classes. Plus, your Bard solution only goes so far, with too many Wizard-exclusive spells for a Bard to nab with Magical Secrets.
Oh also bards totally cant get spell versatility with magical secrets, or if they can, that was an oversight. Like, thats every spell on every list in the game right there, jesus.
Spell versatility is not broken for sorcerers once you take in consideration the massive buff 5e gave to prepared casting. Wizards basically cast like sorcerers except they can swap their entire spells known every single day. I have no issue with that change per se but there was not anything done to buff spontaneous casters to counter balance it. This change was done to make the game easier to pick up and play which is fine but it does create an imbalance in the classes. So giving spell versatility is an effort to correct a power imbalance inherrent in the magic system itself. It does not fix the imbalance but it is a step in the right direction.
They started designing this UA two years ago in response to this set of surveys listing overall player satisfaction including one for each of the Sorcerer, Wizard, and Warlock.
Still arguing the Sorcerer has it too easy when most (92.3%) of the players LOVE their Wizard, and most of the players (71.1%) are very happy with their Warlock, and most (69.1%) of their players think that the Sorcerer needs a li’l tweaking?
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Oh hardly, even if people complain a whole lot more than seems necessary, that doesn't make the complaints invalid. I feel as though Sorcerer would be greatly enhanced with the variants, and Wizard would be just fine. Still, it's important to see all the sides of an argument.
Play a divination or abjuration wizard out for 5 or 6 levels, and then tell me how a bard is better. Not saying that the wizard is better either, but there is more to every class than just their spell lists.
Back and ready to DM and chew bubblegum. And I'm alllll outta bubblegum.
There seems to be some misconception going on here. Crawford stated in an interview (which is on this site) that the reason for spell versatility is because over years of observation they found spells known classes were not leveling up as quickly as anticipated at some tables, and therefore the spells were locked in longer than anticipated. He continued on to say spell versatility addresses that concern. He went further in addressing the wizard identity and the game system being capable of sorcerer swapping spells on a long rest. It's working as intended. If a person disagrees then he or she is denying the intent of the designers.
In practice, the ability to swap spells daily does not give a reason to swap spells daily. People are commenting as if every other spell listed of the same level is going to be worth trading on a regular basis. It is not. The vast majority of spells serve no purpose in swapping simply because they can be swapped. A single spell or two might be situationally worth swapping and that is different. It is not hard to peruse the sorcerer spell list and see that it is more than limited enough in utility not to threaten a wizard. Wizards have a lot of spell not available to sorcerers but the reverse isn't true, an in both case both classes will have already selected when each considers good spells. There are simply only so many good spells in the first place.
The result after swapping spells still leaves the sorcerer far behind the wizard because the actual number of spells available during play has not changed. It's still a case of the wizard having many plus rituals and the sorcerer balancing out a little for all he or she can get out of it.
Spell versatility does not work with magical secrets. Spell versatility requires that the spell being swapped out is known from the class's spell casting feature. Magical secrets is a different feature gained at 10th level and so spells learned that way are not spells learned from the spell casting feature. Completely ineligible. Magical secrets can still be swapped out during level up, but the spell swapped in still has to be on the bard spell list, so the advantage of pulling from another class list I lost in that process. I find at 10th level there are enough 5th level bard spells I want that it's not even a relevant feature until 14th level unless I go lore. Magical secrets gets massively over-rated on forums. It's good but it's not that good. ;)
It is true that a sorcerer can respect the entire spell list over time if there is enough time. There just no reason to do so. If they do it's no different than if that sorcerer had selected those spell in the first place. There are only 2 legitimate concerns here. The first is situational benefits that requires the conditions of advanced knowledge and time. That was addressed by Crawford already as something the system can handle so it's a molehill issue if a person does consider it an issue. The other is trying to abuse magic item creation rules but that's hard to take seriously because it's not actually happening with other classes that already have access to the entire spell list.
Spell versatility addresses a specific concern as intended and does not break anything in the system.
The most generous reading of the interact from magical secrets is that the bard would add those spells to their list and could switch back to only the added spell if they change with one of the same level.
It is the most generous, in fact it is too generous; it ignores the wording of the features involved.
Magical secrets aren't learned from the spellcasting feature. You only learn spells from the Bard list with the spellcasting feature. The Bard spell list is not the list of spells that count as bard spells for you; so your magical secrets aren't on the Bard spell list.