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?
I read it the same way. Prep casters with versatile cantrip can switch out as they level.
Non-prep casters can switch one spell out per long rest, equal level spell exchange. Cantrips are explicitly pointed out as level 0 spells, and can be switched out under spell versatility one per long rest.
Not sure why the difference in frequency between cantrip versatility and spell versatility, though.
Any ideas when this will be added to the character building options? We're doing a oneshot in a week and would love to do this, but don't wanna have to figure out how to homebrew it all just for a oneshot
Shenanigans was probably a poor word choice on my part. I posted this after watching the latest Dragon+ with Jeremy Crawford discussing the latest UA. I'll summarize the main points re: Spell Versatility
Intended as a way to counteract "Buyer's Remorse"
Some groups level very slowly meaning a player would be stuck with a spell they didn't like for months in real time
They had an internal discussion about whether this enhancement stepped on the prep spell caster's toes
Ultimately they decided that because it was only 1 spell per day and had to be level for level it was okay to release
My suggestion was intended as a solve for "buyer's remorse" in games with DMs who might feel that felt that Spell Versatility did step on prep spell caster's toes. There are other ways to add a cost besides what I suggested ie (gold cost, level(s) of exhaustion). At the end of the day Spell Versatility is probably fine because of how stingy most of the "known spells" casters are on total known spells.
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?
I read it the same way. Prep casters with versatile cantrip can switch out as they level.
Non-prep casters can switch one spell out per long rest, equal level spell exchange. Cantrips are explicitly pointed out as level 0 spells, and can be switched out under spell versatility one per long rest.
Not sure why the difference in frequency between cantrip versatility and spell versatility, though.
It's especially strange since the Tip Text says "Cantrips are Spells." If the ruling of cantrips are spells then wouldnt it make more sense to simply tie their use into the existing Spell mechanics of the classes? Clerics and Druids can flip them around on a long rest since Spells are Spells, Wizards can scribe them and swap them out on a long rest (or go crazy and scribing a cantrip makes it available ALL the time!). Putting this other mechanic in is a fine and functional baseline ability, but does lack a bit of the flavor of the class to me.
So as far as the implementation given in the UA, it's fine and it gets the job done. But I certainly do think there is some room for improvement.
I think the cost of doing so is a lot higher in melee.... you could hit, potentially with sneak attack if you have an ally next to you, and disengage and run away to a safe distance... or you could give yourself advantage, get sneak attack, and then get squished by whatever you just hit, because you can't run away.
People responded. But its not particularly alarming that they can do it in melee, because it comes at the cost of them staying in melee instead of using Cunning Action to disengage and run off somewhere. While doing it at range has far fewer costs and risks associated.
Rogues giving themselves advantage on a single attack every round is pretty good. Definitely some niche builds I can see coming together around that. But it doesn't really have the same wide-ranging implications for play as the spellcasting thing that everyone is focusing on right now.
Wow, no one responded to my post? Did no one care that rogues can now give themselves advantage anytime even in melee?
It's not as big a deal as it sounds.
When they were building 5e, the dev team built the rogue class with the specific understanding that it was going to find a way to do Sneak Attack damage every round. Rogues were balanced around having constant access to Sneak Attack, whether that be via hide-and-shoot, rogue demi-flanking, or some other means. Honestly, the fact that a melee rogue can use this ability to gain advantage on its melee strike is less impactful than the aforementioned sniping options. As people figured out within thirty seconds of seeing it, this option means elves and their Accuracy can freely fish for crits, and with a longbow they can do so from relative safety. Hell, even the shortbow rogues get default access to lets them do that.
Trading a bonus action for advantage on their attack is not significantly different than trading their bonus action for a second attack a'la Two-Weapon Fighting. All it means is that rogue players who don't care for TWF get a better chance to make their one significant hit a turn. The game is expecting them to do that, and a DM should be expecting the same. The guys Aim-ing in melee are also leaving themselves open to reprisal in a way rogues seldom do. The feature is less troublesome in melee, not more, and having had time to absorb it I'm not really sure it's troublesome at all.
Wow, no one responded to my post? Did no one care that rogues can now give themselves advantage anytime even in melee?
It's not as big a deal as it sounds.
When they were building 5e, the dev team built the rogue class with the specific understanding that it was going to find a way to do Sneak Attack damage every round. Rogues were balanced around having constant access to Sneak Attack, whether that be via hide-and-shoot, rogue demi-flanking, or some other means. Honestly, the fact that a melee rogue can use this ability to gain advantage on its melee strike is less impactful than the aforementioned sniping options. As people figured out within thirty seconds of seeing it, this option means elves and their Accuracy can freely fish for crits, and with a longbow they can do so from relative safety. Hell, even the shortbow rogues get default access to lets them do that.
Trading a bonus action for advantage on their attack is not significantly different than trading their bonus action for a second attack a'la Two-Weapon Fighting. All it means is that rogue players who don't care for TWF get a better chance to make their one significant hit a turn. The game is expecting them to do that, and a DM should be expecting the same. The guys Aim-ing in melee are also leaving themselves open to reprisal in a way rogues seldom do. The feature is less troublesome in melee, not more, and having had time to absorb it I'm not really sure it's troublesome at all.
Also mobility is key in a lot of Rogue builds. Trading mobility for more damage is cool but it's also giving the creature you stuck around to stab another shot at depleting your less than impressive HP pool. So it's good to have options, but it's not a super power.
I can confirm, the rogue in the campaign I'm running right now has consistently found ways to use her sneak attack in just about every round of combat thus far. As far as melee goes, it adds some variety but otherwise it probably won't be that large of a game changer (again, as far as melee goes).
Wow, no one responded to my post? Did no one care that rogues can now give themselves advantage anytime even in melee?
It is not a big deal just look at the Inquisitive Rogue win a insight roll vs deception and do not need advantage for 10 rounds just have to not have disadvantage.
Why not do that? What's game-breaking or fun-destroying about character using Spell Versatility to tweak their kit a touch at the end of a long rest? That's kinda what it's there for. That's hardly an abuse, that's the intended use case.
Some players will swap out spells on a daily basis if they believe this new spell grants a better chance against X,
I thought that is the intent of that feature?
It is supposed to give you a little flexibility in your spell selection, so you can adjust your options to the situations you predict you're heading into.
So if someone does end up using it daily, switching out the one permitted spell with another spell of the same level, that is abuse?
What does that negatively impact? Who at the table is off worse for someone using this feature? How does it prevent moving forward in a campaign?
I understand that some people are having a gut feeling reaction and are annoyed or upset. That is usually a good indicator for something being 'bad' for us.
However, in order to find out if something really *is* 'bad', you need to actually be able to show that. Find a use case where it is not only better to not have it, but where you can demonstrate that it impacts play negatively.
I've exhausted my imagination and come up with nothing. But I'm biased, playing a bard and loving spell versatility.
So this is why I'm asking here, what am I missing?
Outside the cantrip thing, which I could see boiling the britches of your druids and wizards and such, I really don't see where Spell Versatility infringes on other classes. Changing one spell for one other spell of equivalent level on a long rest is not remotely near the level of flexibility that being able to change your entire spell loadout, without regard for spell level, brings to the table.
I could see forbidding innate casters from changing cantrips on a long rest, change the wording on Versatility to "spell of 1st level or higher", but at that point they'd get the same Cantrip Versatility on level-up that everybody else gets. Beyond that? Let the innates have some fun. No skin off the wizard's nose when said wizard can change out every one of their thirty-eight prepared spells on long rest anyways.
I started using the Variant Ranger Features this weekend in my current campaign and my Ranger loves them so far. The free uses of Hunter’s Mark were enough to sell her on Favored Foe. She loves her Natural Explorer too much to give it up though.
Natural Explorer varies depending on the campaign you're in. If you're doing an entire campaign in the jungle or the Underdark, then Natural Explorer eliminates a lot of the danger posed by the environment. If you're doing a story of the week style, as a lot of my friends do, I could see why some people don't care much for the Ranger.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I read it the same way. Prep casters with versatile cantrip can switch out as they level.
Non-prep casters can switch one spell out per long rest, equal level spell exchange. Cantrips are explicitly pointed out as level 0 spells, and can be switched out under spell versatility one per long rest.
Not sure why the difference in frequency between cantrip versatility and spell versatility, though.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
Any ideas when this will be added to the character building options? We're doing a oneshot in a week and would love to do this, but don't wanna have to figure out how to homebrew it all just for a oneshot
Shenanigans was probably a poor word choice on my part. I posted this after watching the latest Dragon+ with Jeremy Crawford discussing the latest UA. I'll summarize the main points re: Spell Versatility
My suggestion was intended as a solve for "buyer's remorse" in games with DMs who might feel that felt that Spell Versatility did step on prep spell caster's toes. There are other ways to add a cost besides what I suggested ie (gold cost, level(s) of exhaustion). At the end of the day Spell Versatility is probably fine because of how stingy most of the "known spells" casters are on total known spells.
It's especially strange since the Tip Text says "Cantrips are Spells." If the ruling of cantrips are spells then wouldnt it make more sense to simply tie their use into the existing Spell mechanics of the classes? Clerics and Druids can flip them around on a long rest since Spells are Spells, Wizards can scribe them and swap them out on a long rest (or go crazy and scribing a cantrip makes it available ALL the time!). Putting this other mechanic in is a fine and functional baseline ability, but does lack a bit of the flavor of the class to me.
So as far as the implementation given in the UA, it's fine and it gets the job done. But I certainly do think there is some room for improvement.
@TheAmishMan Probably it won't be for a while. Most UA's take a week to go up, and this is way more complex than any of those...
that should be the title of the thread
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137390-weretouched-beasthide
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137424-weretouched-longtooth
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137431-weretouched-razorclaw
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137461-weretouched-swiftstride
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137646-weretouched-wildhunt
Wow, no one responded to my post? Did no one care that rogues can now give themselves advantage anytime even in melee?
I think the cost of doing so is a lot higher in melee.... you could hit, potentially with sneak attack if you have an ally next to you, and disengage and run away to a safe distance... or you could give yourself advantage, get sneak attack, and then get squished by whatever you just hit, because you can't run away.
Partway through the quest for absolute truth.
People responded. But its not particularly alarming that they can do it in melee, because it comes at the cost of them staying in melee instead of using Cunning Action to disengage and run off somewhere. While doing it at range has far fewer costs and risks associated.
Rogues giving themselves advantage on a single attack every round is pretty good. Definitely some niche builds I can see coming together around that. But it doesn't really have the same wide-ranging implications for play as the spellcasting thing that everyone is focusing on right now.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It's not as big a deal as it sounds.
When they were building 5e, the dev team built the rogue class with the specific understanding that it was going to find a way to do Sneak Attack damage every round. Rogues were balanced around having constant access to Sneak Attack, whether that be via hide-and-shoot, rogue demi-flanking, or some other means. Honestly, the fact that a melee rogue can use this ability to gain advantage on its melee strike is less impactful than the aforementioned sniping options. As people figured out within thirty seconds of seeing it, this option means elves and their Accuracy can freely fish for crits, and with a longbow they can do so from relative safety. Hell, even the shortbow rogues get default access to lets them do that.
Trading a bonus action for advantage on their attack is not significantly different than trading their bonus action for a second attack a'la Two-Weapon Fighting. All it means is that rogue players who don't care for TWF get a better chance to make their one significant hit a turn. The game is expecting them to do that, and a DM should be expecting the same. The guys Aim-ing in melee are also leaving themselves open to reprisal in a way rogues seldom do. The feature is less troublesome in melee, not more, and having had time to absorb it I'm not really sure it's troublesome at all.
Please do not contact or message me.
Also mobility is key in a lot of Rogue builds. Trading mobility for more damage is cool but it's also giving the creature you stuck around to stab another shot at depleting your less than impressive HP pool. So it's good to have options, but it's not a super power.
I can confirm, the rogue in the campaign I'm running right now has consistently found ways to use her sneak attack in just about every round of combat thus far. As far as melee goes, it adds some variety but otherwise it probably won't be that large of a game changer (again, as far as melee goes).
It is not a big deal just look at the Inquisitive Rogue win a insight roll vs deception and do not need advantage for 10 rounds just have to not have disadvantage.
Some players will swap out spells on a daily basis if they believe this new spell grants a better chance against X,
And?
Why not do that? What's game-breaking or fun-destroying about character using Spell Versatility to tweak their kit a touch at the end of a long rest? That's kinda what it's there for. That's hardly an abuse, that's the intended use case.
Please do not contact or message me.
Personally, I'm fine with that. Granted, I'm a super permissive DM to begin with, but that really doesn't bother me personally.
I thought that is the intent of that feature?
It is supposed to give you a little flexibility in your spell selection, so you can adjust your options to the situations you predict you're heading into.
So if someone does end up using it daily, switching out the one permitted spell with another spell of the same level, that is abuse?
What does that negatively impact? Who at the table is off worse for someone using this feature? How does it prevent moving forward in a campaign?
I understand that some people are having a gut feeling reaction and are annoyed or upset. That is usually a good indicator for something being 'bad' for us.
However, in order to find out if something really *is* 'bad', you need to actually be able to show that. Find a use case where it is not only better to not have it, but where you can demonstrate that it impacts play negatively.
I've exhausted my imagination and come up with nothing. But I'm biased, playing a bard and loving spell versatility.
So this is why I'm asking here, what am I missing?
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
Outside the cantrip thing, which I could see boiling the britches of your druids and wizards and such, I really don't see where Spell Versatility infringes on other classes. Changing one spell for one other spell of equivalent level on a long rest is not remotely near the level of flexibility that being able to change your entire spell loadout, without regard for spell level, brings to the table.
I could see forbidding innate casters from changing cantrips on a long rest, change the wording on Versatility to "spell of 1st level or higher", but at that point they'd get the same Cantrip Versatility on level-up that everybody else gets. Beyond that? Let the innates have some fun. No skin off the wizard's nose when said wizard can change out every one of their thirty-eight prepared spells on long rest anyways.
Please do not contact or message me.
Ah damn thanks, figured someone would know the usual timeline
I started using the Variant Ranger Features this weekend in my current campaign and my Ranger loves them so far. The free uses of Hunter’s Mark were enough to sell her on Favored Foe. She loves her Natural Explorer too much to give it up though.
Natural Explorer varies depending on the campaign you're in. If you're doing an entire campaign in the jungle or the Underdark, then Natural Explorer eliminates a lot of the danger posed by the environment. If you're doing a story of the week style, as a lot of my friends do, I could see why some people don't care much for the Ranger.