Talk:Change Sex (5e Spell)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Why in the merciful Lord's good name is this a paladin spell?! Quincy (talk) 08:12, 3 September 2018 (MDT)

Why in the merciful Lord's name is this a spell?! It seems to be a spell for every spell-casting class, so perhaps a better question would be which classes, if any, should have this spell? Are there any spells in the PHB which all classes can cast?--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2018 (MDT)

Class Spell[edit]

I can see why paladin or ranger don't need this spell, but I don't follow why warlock needs removed. I am also confused why an artificer needs to have this spell. More of the tinkerer than they are the surgeons I think. Red Leg Leo (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2020 (MST)

Warlock was not removed, i don't believe this was a warlock spell in the first place. Or if it was removed, was not by me, and i agree that this is a spell fitting for a warlock. As for the artificer, transmutation is part of their theme and make for a good chunk of their spells, so it made sense to me give this to them. Anastacio (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2020 (MST)
I'd strongly disagree with this assessment as they affect non-living things. This may help out a little. Red Leg Leo (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2020 (MST)
They don't only affect non-living things, at least the spell list doesn't reflect that. One good example is the spell "Alter Self", which basically allow you to do with this Change Sex spell does. And, if you are referring to this line: " This artificer channels magic into or through non-living items for their own personal use, thus any spells in the Enchantment/Charm school which happen to affect living things", about the 2e Artificer, a lot of constraints classes used to have in 2e doesn't exist in 5e.Anastacio (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2020 (MST)
I guess this is on me for not being more aware of their spell list and thinking about the traditional artificer.
What you call a constraint though, isn't what I'd say. The artificer wasn't constrained. They were arguably the least constrained. But, classes already existed for transmuting living things. The artificer is a tinkerer, or a builder. Instead of casting cats grace on someone, they would enchant an item. Their magic worked through items. I'll digress though. Clearly 5e chose a different path with their spell list, and new players without background will make decisions on that. *grumble grumble* Red Leg Leo (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2020 (MST)
ok boomer ;) — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 10:19, 10 December 2020 (MST)
hahahaha that is exactly how I feel. Well played. Red Leg Leo (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2020 (MST)
Warlock was removed, I'm the one who removed it and some other stuff about three months ago. I used the Spell Design Guidelines to determine what ought to go and what ought to stay. If I've made an error in doing so please say so, but I was approaching it under the mindset that warlocks are meant to get weird freaky eldritch spells, which this, well, isn't, or at least, it doesn't feel like one to me. To be honest I feel like it'd be best if someone else went through and adjusted categories as they see fit, giving some form of reasoning here on the talk page so we can all stay on, well, the same page.
As for the aforementioned Alter Self, that seems to do essentially everything this spell does and more, besides duration, which would in my opinion leave this spell firmly in the category of redundant content. --Nuke The Earth (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2021 (MST)
A lot of spells wouldn't make the [warlock] spell list if weird and freaky was the criteria. Keep it, remove it (already done), I was curious why remove it and appears to be a preference thing. :-) Red Leg Leo (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2021 (MST)
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!