Thank you everyone for all of your explanations. I appreciate all of you.
I know just how to nip that in the bud if it ever comes up in my campaign.
“Alright, you can do it... but you will have double Disadvantage on everything, and all enemies will have Advantage on all Attacks and Saving Throws against you until you LR if you do.
Sure, you can change your mind.”
What you're describing is pretty close to exhaustion mechanics.
Honestly? The new fighting style options are pretty slick. More nichey in most cases than the current crop, but they open up some really interesting new playstyles and options for certain character types. It's good shit.
I really can't wait until these are implemented. I'm thinking that since there are some invocations it may force (or light a fire under their tushes) to jumpstart the homebrew invocation options
Honestly? The new fighting style options are pretty slick. More nichey in most cases than the current crop, but they open up some really interesting new playstyles and options for certain character types. It's good shit.
The thrown and Fisticuff ones are solid and flavorful, they have a very specific type of character in mind. I see someone requesting those styles less as "Oh this makes me super powerful!" as "This is EXACTLY what I envisioned my character doing but didn't have an option that fit!".
That being said, I'm side-eyeing the Superior Technique one a bit. It's great on a battlemaster since it ties in with the abilities and the martial adept feat, but on anyone else I'm not sure it really competes with a +2 to each attack damage or +2 ranged accuracy. I think it's a bit of a weaker option overall given the 1per short rest limitation.
Does anyone think bumping that up from 1 superiority die to 2 would be too much? I'm honestly on the fence.
I really can't wait until these are implemented. I'm thinking that since there are some invocations it may force (or light a fire under their tushes) to jumpstart the homebrew invocation options
I've started making custom Wondrous Items to add the features into my current character sheet.
Honestly? The new fighting style options are pretty slick. More nichey in most cases than the current crop, but they open up some really interesting new playstyles and options for certain character types. It's good shit.
The thrown and Fisticuff ones are solid and flavorful, they have a very specific type of character in mind. I see someone requesting those styles less as "Oh this makes me super powerful!" as "This is EXACTLY what I envisioned my character doing but didn't have an option that fit!".
That being said, I'm side-eyeing the Superior Technique one a bit. It's great on a battlemaster since it ties in with the abilities and the martial adept feat, but on anyone else I'm not sure it really competes with a +2 to each attack damage or +2 ranged accuracy. I think it's a bit of a weaker option overall given the 1per short rest limitation.
Does anyone think bumping that up from 1 superiority die to 2 would be too much? I'm honestly on the fence.
I think I'd be happy if it were 1d8 instead of d6...
@The_Runner_Who_Runs: There is now south thing as “Double” Disadvantage in The Rules. My imposing Double Disadvantage would mean that even if something provided Advantage it would not cancel out.
The in-character, in-world solution to Coffeelocking - assuming you need one because pulling the player aside and saying "Dude...maybe not, please?" isn't enough - is that a body is not meant to store that amount of magical potential at once. A fully loaded Coffeelock is carrying three or four times the spell slots they're supposed to. Every time they try and tap that power, every time they cast, they make a saving throw to see if they can manage to continue restraining all that overcharge. If they fail? All the 'spare' slots burn off and you roll a Wild Magic surge.
If you want to be particularly delightful in the way only an irritated DM can be, roll a Wild Magic surge for every overcharge spell slot. They're carrying around twenty extra spells? Twenty Wild Magic surges if they fail that stiff save to keep a lid on their overcharge. Which is something every table will do once and precisely once, just to watch the fireworks, and then your Coffeelock will know better.
The in-character, in-world solution to Coffeelocking - assuming you need one because pulling the player aside and saying "Dude...maybe not, please?" isn't enough - is that a body is not meant to store that amount of magical potential at once. A fully loaded Coffeelock is carrying three or four times the spell slots they're supposed to. Every time they try and tap that power, every time they cast, they make a saving throw to see if they can manage to continue restraining all that overcharge. If they fail? All the 'spare' slots burn off and you roll a Wild Magic surge.
If you want to be particularly delightful in the way only an irritated DM can be, roll a Wild Magic surge for every overcharge spell slot. They're carrying around twenty extra spells? Twenty Wild Magic surges if they fail that stiff save to keep a lid on their overcharge. Which is something every table will do once and precisely once, just to watch the fireworks, and then your Coffeelock will know better.
I'm going to now have to roll Coffeelock just so I can tell my DM how to stop me
I've been thinking a little bit about the Spell Versatility enhancement and while I don't have a problem with it, I can understand why some people do. What do you think about the following addendum? (Sorcerer used for example)
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. The spell you replace is permanently erased from your mind and cannot be relearned.
I think this would prevent the shenanigans some people were worried about while allowing someone to replace a spell they didn't like. The downside is that it creates something else to be tracked, but anything else I thought of was worse.
I also very much like that these rules will remain optional and not be a revision to the PHB.
My bard is currently level 8 and has 11 spells known + 3 cantrips. To change out all my spells will take more than a tenday, and I only can swap out level for level spells.
To be fair, in our campaign there are only two full casters, a druid and my bard. There is no infringing on a wizard, and I don't believe there would be any infringement on a wizard, if we had one.
We recently ran into a problem with an informant. He died (might have been our fault, too) before we had a chance to talk to him.
Now, speak with dead is on the bard spell list, but I didn't learn the spell. It was just too niche for me to bother with it.
We ended up dragging his corpse out of the underdark into a temple, paid a lot of money to the priest to cast the spell, and when the priest heard the answers and knew that we had a certain (contraband) item in our possession, we had to escape the temple grounds.
This took a lot longer than 1 long rest, and could have been completely avoided.
Did we have fun? Heck, yes!
Would we have gathered the information faster using the UA? Heck, yes!
Would that have hurt any other character class? Er, no.
If you consider that the sorcerer, bard, and ranger lists are curated and trimmed, while the wizard has access to learning almost all spells, I don't think that switching out 1 spell per long rest is jeopardizing the wizard's unique-ness.
If you have a lot of downtime in your campaign, and think that it would be unfair that Spell Versatility gives you access to the full spell list, consider that the wizard can pick his preferred spells when he's leveling up, creating his own curated list, and that downtime gives the wizard the opportunity to find and transcribe spell scrolls, too.
And if you still believe that the wizard in your campaign is being short changed, don't unlock the feature in your campaign.
In my opinion, having this option available, making it a 'sanctioned' variant, is creating more benefits than drawbacks.
As we're playing a collaborative game, having more options for my fellow players does not feel threatening to me.
If you permanently block a spell, I would never consider changing spells in the scenario above.
Sometimes it's about versatility, not having made bad choices.
Would you mind sharing what bothers you about spell versatility? What do you foresee could be abused?
I've been thinking a little bit about the Spell Versatility enhancement and while I don't have a problem with it, I can understand why some people do. What do you think about the following addendum? (Sorcerer used for example)
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. The spell you replace is permanently erased from your mind and cannot be relearned.
I think this would prevent the shenanigans some people were worried about while allowing someone to replace a spell they didn't like. The downside is that it creates something else to be tracked, but anything else I thought of was worse.
that's horrible. Why in the world would you do that? The entire point of this feature is to NOTpunish players for taking, I don't know, Skywrite, when you're in a freaken underground cave for 5 sessions so you swap it out for the remaining sessions. You get out and now want to send a love letter to your girlfriend in the sky which is what you intended to do with it in the first place, but now you can never do it EVER again.
I've been thinking a little bit about the Spell Versatility enhancement and while I don't have a problem with it, I can understand why some people do. What do you think about the following addendum? (Sorcerer used for example)
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. The spell you replace is permanently erased from your mind and cannot be relearned.
I think this would prevent the shenanigans some people were worried about while allowing someone to replace a spell they didn't like. The downside is that it creates something else to be tracked, but anything else I thought of was worse.
that's horrible. Why in the world would you do that? The entire point of this feature is to NOTpunish players for taking, I don't know, Skywrite, when you're in a freaken underground cave for 5 sessions so you swap it out for the remaining sessions. You get out and now want to send a love letter to your girlfriend in the sky which is what you intended to do with it in the first place, but now you can never do it EVER again.
No
Same. There's literally nothing wrong with Spell Versatility IMO.
I really can't wait until these are implemented. I'm thinking that since there are some invocations it may force (or light a fire under their tushes) to jumpstart the homebrew invocation options
I've started making custom Wondrous Items to add the features into my current character sheet.
I think you misunderstood, I said I personally had no issue with Spell Versatility. Some of the earlier posts mentioned that Spell Versatility encroached into the area of prep casters. This was a suggestion was for people who felt that Spell Versatility was too strong. Adding the downside was a give take type of thing.
I think you misunderstood, I said I personally had no issue with Spell Versatility. Some of the earlier posts mentioned that Spell Versatility encroached into the area of prep casters. This was a suggestion was for people who felt that Spell Versatility was too strong. Adding the downside was a give take type of thing.
I thought you may be able to help me understand.
I really struggle finding cases where there would be 'shenanigans' with this mechanic.
So far, only two objections made sense, and even those are minor in my opinion.
For one, the mere adding of complexity, which could lead to slowing down the game. I don't think this would be a big impact, though. It is just one spell per long rest, only level for level, and if the DM gives the player autonomy, this should happen quickly in the background, without much interference for others at the table.
The second was the implicit full access to the spell list as opposed to wizards having to find their spells separately. Considering that wizards also learn spells as they level up, can find them on scrolls, or even research them, I think they still will be the class with the most spells known, regardless. And the most versatile, as they can switch out their whole repertoire with a long rest.
Then there was a lore objection, how to justify the forgetting and suddenly knowing a new spell. This mechanic is already in place when leveling up. So whatever lore rationalization your make up for that, will be as good for the long rest.
So if anyone has concrete reasons why they think spell versatility is objectionable, please tell me. I do want to know.
If you want to be particularly delightful in the way only an irritated DM can be, roll a Wild Magic surge for every overcharge spell slot. They're carrying around twenty extra spells? Twenty Wild Magic surges if they fail that stiff save to keep a lid on their overcharge. Which is something every table will do once and precisely once, just to watch the fireworks, and then your Coffeelock will know better.
Call me a lazy DM, but that's a lot of rolls to slow the table with (and also because I've run tables that'd find the risk of becoming an invisible giant blue sheep surrounded by angry flumphs that are on fire vastly too fun to turn down). I'd rule that every spell level over the class standard just adds to the wild magic DC, which needs to be rolled for every turn. You're carrying around 3 extra spell levels? Wild magic DC is now 4 or lower. Carrying an extra 20 levels? Let's hope you don't fireball your friends! Let the player determine their risk appetite while letting them play with the mechanics.
I like the Spell Versatility feature and yes some folks will abuse it others won't. A player will not change spells everyday but when they need to change spells due to what is happening in the campaign. You have a Draconic sorcerer specialized in fire and gets stuck on the elemental plane of fire, would you as DM prefer telling your player your character is useless unless you start swinging that staff like Negin with a Bat, or you can change your spells so they can work here.
On the subject of variant features, I understand most of the UA is focused on lower levels but man I really wish there was a replacement for the Empty Body feature for Monks. I mean I guess it's alright (invisibility + resistance to almost everything), but I can't help but look and feel kinda "eh" about it.
You know, I do love just about everything about this UA, but there's one thing that bothers me a little about it. Looking at the additions to spellcasting, it specifies that prepared casters (cleric, druid, wizard) can switch their cantrips out as they level, but with the way Spell versatility for non-prep spellcasters is worded it seems to imply they can switch out cantrips after a long rest, which by the looks of it prep casters aren't able to do.
Is it just me? Am I reading this right or am I crazy?
What you're describing is pretty close to exhaustion mechanics.
Honestly? The new fighting style options are pretty slick. More nichey in most cases than the current crop, but they open up some really interesting new playstyles and options for certain character types. It's good shit.
Please do not contact or message me.
I really can't wait until these are implemented. I'm thinking that since there are some invocations it may force (or light a fire under their tushes) to jumpstart the homebrew invocation options
The thrown and Fisticuff ones are solid and flavorful, they have a very specific type of character in mind. I see someone requesting those styles less as "Oh this makes me super powerful!" as "This is EXACTLY what I envisioned my character doing but didn't have an option that fit!".
That being said, I'm side-eyeing the Superior Technique one a bit. It's great on a battlemaster since it ties in with the abilities and the martial adept feat, but on anyone else I'm not sure it really competes with a +2 to each attack damage or +2 ranged accuracy. I think it's a bit of a weaker option overall given the 1per short rest limitation.
Does anyone think bumping that up from 1 superiority die to 2 would be too much? I'm honestly on the fence.
I've started making custom Wondrous Items to add the features into my current character sheet.
I think I'd be happy if it were 1d8 instead of d6...
@The_Runner_Who_Runs: There is now south thing as “Double” Disadvantage in The Rules. My imposing Double Disadvantage would mean that even if something provided Advantage it would not cancel out.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The in-character, in-world solution to Coffeelocking - assuming you need one because pulling the player aside and saying "Dude...maybe not, please?" isn't enough - is that a body is not meant to store that amount of magical potential at once. A fully loaded Coffeelock is carrying three or four times the spell slots they're supposed to. Every time they try and tap that power, every time they cast, they make a saving throw to see if they can manage to continue restraining all that overcharge. If they fail? All the 'spare' slots burn off and you roll a Wild Magic surge.
If you want to be particularly delightful in the way only an irritated DM can be, roll a Wild Magic surge for every overcharge spell slot. They're carrying around twenty extra spells? Twenty Wild Magic surges if they fail that stiff save to keep a lid on their overcharge. Which is something every table will do once and precisely once, just to watch the fireworks, and then your Coffeelock will know better.
Please do not contact or message me.
I'm going to now have to roll Coffeelock just so I can tell my DM how to stop me
I've been thinking a little bit about the Spell Versatility enhancement and while I don't have a problem with it, I can understand why some people do. What do you think about the following addendum? (Sorcerer used for example)
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. The spell you replace is permanently erased from your mind and cannot be relearned.
I think this would prevent the shenanigans some people were worried about while allowing someone to replace a spell they didn't like. The downside is that it creates something else to be tracked, but anything else I thought of was worse.
If you permanently block a spell, I would never consider changing spells in the scenario above.
Sometimes it's about versatility, not having made bad choices.
Would you mind sharing what bothers you about spell versatility? What do you foresee could be abused?
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
that's horrible. Why in the world would you do that? The entire point of this feature is to NOT punish players for taking, I don't know, Skywrite, when you're in a freaken underground cave for 5 sessions so you swap it out for the remaining sessions. You get out and now want to send a love letter to your girlfriend in the sky which is what you intended to do with it in the first place, but now you can never do it EVER again.
No
Same. There's literally nothing wrong with Spell Versatility IMO.
Partway through the quest for absolute truth.
I think you responded to the wrong person...
I think you misunderstood, I said I personally had no issue with Spell Versatility. Some of the earlier posts mentioned that Spell Versatility encroached into the area of prep casters. This was a suggestion was for people who felt that Spell Versatility was too strong. Adding the downside was a give take type of thing.
I thought you may be able to help me understand.
I really struggle finding cases where there would be 'shenanigans' with this mechanic.
So far, only two objections made sense, and even those are minor in my opinion.
For one, the mere adding of complexity, which could lead to slowing down the game. I don't think this would be a big impact, though. It is just one spell per long rest, only level for level, and if the DM gives the player autonomy, this should happen quickly in the background, without much interference for others at the table.
The second was the implicit full access to the spell list as opposed to wizards having to find their spells separately. Considering that wizards also learn spells as they level up, can find them on scrolls, or even research them, I think they still will be the class with the most spells known, regardless. And the most versatile, as they can switch out their whole repertoire with a long rest.
Then there was a lore objection, how to justify the forgetting and suddenly knowing a new spell. This mechanic is already in place when leveling up. So whatever lore rationalization your make up for that, will be as good for the long rest.
So if anyone has concrete reasons why they think spell versatility is objectionable, please tell me. I do want to know.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
Call me a lazy DM, but that's a lot of rolls to slow the table with (and also because I've run tables that'd find the risk of becoming an invisible giant blue sheep surrounded by angry flumphs that are on fire vastly too fun to turn down). I'd rule that every spell level over the class standard just adds to the wild magic DC, which needs to be rolled for every turn. You're carrying around 3 extra spell levels? Wild magic DC is now 4 or lower. Carrying an extra 20 levels? Let's hope you don't fireball your friends! Let the player determine their risk appetite while letting them play with the mechanics.
I like the Spell Versatility feature and yes some folks will abuse it others won't. A player will not change spells everyday but when they need to change spells due to what is happening in the campaign. You have a Draconic sorcerer specialized in fire and gets stuck on the elemental plane of fire, would you as DM prefer telling your player your character is useless unless you start swinging that staff like Negin with a Bat, or you can change your spells so they can work here.
On the subject of variant features, I understand most of the UA is focused on lower levels but man I really wish there was a replacement for the Empty Body feature for Monks. I mean I guess it's alright (invisibility + resistance to almost everything), but I can't help but look and feel kinda "eh" about it.
You know, I do love just about everything about this UA, but there's one thing that bothers me a little about it. Looking at the additions to spellcasting, it specifies that prepared casters (cleric, druid, wizard) can switch their cantrips out as they level, but with the way Spell versatility for non-prep spellcasters is worded it seems to imply they can switch out cantrips after a long rest, which by the looks of it prep casters aren't able to do.
Is it just me? Am I reading this right or am I crazy?
abuse it, how?
I apologize if that sounds aggressive, I really only want to understand.
I can't come up with a easy to abuse this in my head. Am I lacking imagination? Am I overthinking something?
Please help me see.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules