Compendium of broken spells/abilities

[Gurka]

What I'd like to do here is get a list going of each ability or spell that folks think are broken. What I'd like to see here is what the spell or ability is, why you consider it over or under powered, and what you'd like to see done with it to balance things out.

This isn't a "hate magic" thread. It's for magic, mundane, class abilities, you name it. I'd just like to get a running list of the things you guys think are busted, in the hopes that it will help DMs (especially new DMs) in identifying problems before they crop up in game, and either house ruling them ahead of time, or knowing where to look for in-game abuses before they happen.

Please, no debating whether or not something is OP, I don't want to get things derailed. If you're gonna respond to somebody else, do so in a constructive way to ADD to their post, not to refute it. Everybody can decide for themselves whether or not they see the ability in question as broken.

Thanks guys.

[PoeticDwarf]

What I'd like to do here is get a list going of each ability or spell that folks think are broken. What I'd like to see here is what the spell or ability is, why you consider it over or under powered, and what you'd like to see done with it to balance things out.

This isn't a "hate magic" thread. It's for magic, mundane, class abilities, you name it. I'd just like to get a running list of the things you guys think are busted, in the hopes that it will help DMs (especially new DMs) in identifying problems before they crop up in game, and either house ruling them ahead of time, or knowing where to look for in-game abuses before they happen.

Please, no debating whether or not something is OP, I don't want to get things derailed. If you're gonna respond to somebody else, do so in a constructive way to ADD to their post, not to refute it. Everybody can decide for themselves whether or not they see the ability in question as broken.

Thanks guys.
This is 5e, if you want to be broken, be a lv. 17 character.

[Gurka]

This is 5e, if you want to be broken, be a lv. 17 character.

Not really helpful, but thanks for the post all the same. I guess we can put that down as Ability: All 17+, Reason: Because 5e, Solution: None.

[hacksnake]

Bards can pick up class defining spells of hybrid classes (ranger, paladin) through magical secrets much earlier than the classes who normally get them because of spell slot level differences.

This creates situations where bard is a better archer martial classes for periods of time or has better healing etc. In general the bard unlocks level 17 features of another class at level 10 (AFB so going from memory). It feels really wrong to me.

Solution? Not sure... Maybe put a minimum level on the spells vs just spell slot? Rebalance hybrids to have spell slots that match the expected class level of the abilities.

[pwykersotz]

Simulacrum and the Archdruid feature are high up there. Wish is a middle ground, I think.

Archdruid for vast amounts of HP by infinite shifting.

Simulacrum because of the concept. A spell that requires no concentration could make an otherwise permanent (dispellable) and friendly copy of a no-CR limit creature.

[Morcleon]

Simulacrum and the Archdruid feature are high up there. Wish is a middle ground, I think.

I posted a combo where you can use Simulacrum and Wish to get resistance to all damage types. It's fine in a higher power game (especially since you're at level 17), but it might be a bit much for lower power. Solution? Glare at the player until they stop doing high power stuff in a low power game.

There's also the Stormborn Sorcerous Origin (from Waterborne (https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/UA_Waterborne_v3.pdf)), mostly at higher levels because of Wind Soul (but also because it get so many more spells). Again, it's fine for a mid or high power game, but it's out of place for lower power. Solution (although I personally don't feel flight/two energy immunities is really that powerful at level 18)? Don't allow it.

[Wartex1]

Stormborn Sorcerer isn't really that powerful, seeing as how the extra spells only give it as many spells as a Paladin.

[Morcleon]

Stormborn Sorcerer isn't really that powerful, seeing as how the extra spells only give it as many spells as a Paladin.

Except it's spells added to sorcerer, which is a significantly better class than paladin and helps with the sorcerer's small spells known issue. I agree that it's not that bad at higher power levels though.

[Wartex1]

I wouldn't say that the Sorcerer is more powerful than the Paladin. I mean, Sorcerer is probably the weakest full caster while the Paladin is probably one of the strongest classes in the game.

Sorcerer, despite a total lack of actual class features to make up for it, has the least spells known out of any class, being tied with the Ranger.

[Tenmujiin]

Except it's spells added to sorcerer, which is a significantly better class than paladin and helps with the sorcerer's small spells known issue. I agree that it's not that bad at higher power levels though.

Given that both of the sorcerer sub-classes that Wizards have released recently have a list of bonus spells known I'd say that they think they made sorcerers too weak and its an intentional buff.

[Morcleon]

Given that both of the sorcerer sub-classes that Wizards have released recently have a list of bonus spells known I'd say that they think they made sorcerers too weak and its an intentional buff.

Ah, okay. That makes sense then.

...what's the other subclass though? I only know of Stormborn?

[Wartex1]

Favoured Soul.

They get a set of domain spells.

[SharkForce]

polymorph at the levels where you first gain access is broken. at level 7, you can use a spell slot to turn someone into a CR 7 beast (my recommendation is the giant ape for CR 8 as well, having a ranged attack is very nice). you gain a huge amount of hit points that you can throw away over the course of the next hour, your damage is vastly out of line for what you'd expect from someone at that level, you gain basically the same athletic ability as a proficient warrior at that level, and you can do things with it that a proficient warrior couldn't hope to do (like grapple a creature larger than large size). and this can be applied to any character a wizard who might need to spend resources to contribute to several fights can simply spend only a level 4 spell slot and be able to contribute about as much as any primary melee class for the next hour, but doesn't have to care about HP lost in the process.

this is in addition to opening up a world of utility options, of course.

this is relatively speaking not a problem for long, but only because there are no beasts above CR 8.

note that for a group of 4 level 7 characters, a "deadly" encounter would be an exp budget of 1400 exp. a single CR 7 creature is worth 2900 exp, or over double that amount. or, in other words, you can turn a character into something massively more dangerous than the hardest recommended encounter for an entire group of that level.

recommended solution: i think it might be best to limit the spell to CR 5 (one higher than summoning spells because you're replacing a character rather than adding a new threat), plus one per additional spell level above 4th. however, i have not playtested this solution admittedly.

edit: correction, as noted below after the pixie rant: the encounter budget is per character, so it isn't quite as bad. a single CR 7 is a deadly encounter for 2 characters, however; that is, when outnumbered 2 to 1, it is expected that this creature will have a good chance of killing one or both characters.

********************

conjure woodland beings can be used to obtain 8 pixies which can cast a large variety of spells, including the above mentioned polymorph, confusion, sleep, and a few others.

recommended solution: pixies should be higher CR. personally, i think CR 1 would be best; 2 pixies is still a good deal in some ways, but not nearly as destructive to game balance as 8 from the spell, and the fragility of the pixies means that it is still hard to make good use of all their offensive spells without the pixies getting killed.

as an added benefit, this also fixes the problem that CR 1/8 pixies that do fight the party for some reason or another are going to crush the party mercilessly if valued accordingly. consider, for example, the sleep spell. a single pixie is *supposedly* an easy encounter for a level 1 group of 4 characters. on a good roll, the pixie can put 3/4 of the party to sleep with no save (on a *really* good roll, the entire party may be put to sleep with no save. note that the pixie can still be invisible at this point). 2 pixies (supposedly a "hard" encounter) is an almost-guaranteed TPK as the pixies can most likely put 2 people to sleep each. in either case, if the party has sustained even minor injuries in a previous fight, their chances of being able to act at all decreases substantially.

consider, for example, a typical first level party. for the sake of argument, we'll give 14 or 15 constitution all around, and make it a fairly typical wizard, rogue, cleric, fighter party. an average roll for a pixie is 23.5 HP for a sleep spell, or enough to easily take out the wizard and either the rogue or the cleric. a reasonably good roll (28 or higher, not unreasonably hard to roll at all) will take out whichever of the cleric or rogue are awake. from 2 pixies, a second sleep spell will, on average, put the fighter and cleric or rogue (whichever didn't previously fall asleep) to sleep. assuming the first pixie didn't roll well.

as noted, if each party member has sustained 2 HP of damage in previous fights which they have not healed up, their chances of staying awake decrease dramatically; specifically, a roll of 23 (just a hair below average) on the first spell will put everyone except the fighter to sleep with no save allowed.

this is without even touching on the potential to open up with one of their spells that can hit the entire group and only allow saving throws at what will be about a 50% chance to save. at CR 1/2 a single pixie is considered a deadly encounter (as might well be expected from a monster that has a good chance of putting the entire party to sleep in the first round with no chance to react). at CR 1, it is double the XP of a deadly encounter (bearing in mind that the single pixie can open with turning the fighter into a creature with 0 CR, and then drop a sleep spell that suddenly has a very real chance of putting the entire party to sleep even if none of them are wounded, and is almost guaranteed if they were all hurt a little bit sometime during the rest of their adventuring day).

for contrast, consider the stirge (another CR 1/8 creature). with AC 14 and 2 HP, and about a 50% chance to hit a level 1 character that cares about AC, there's a significant chance a single stirge will do nothing before it is killed. this is appropriate for what is described as an "easy" encounter.

so yeah, CR 1/2 or 1 pixies should really be a thing.

edit: correction, i've just discovered i was reading the encounter rules wrong. encounter budgets are far more generous than i was reading; a pixie is supposedly an *easy* challenge for a *single* character, not a party. the XP budget for 4 characters considers 2 CR 1/8 creatures to be less than an easy encounter, and 3 to be somewhere between easy and medium, closer to medium (4 is a "hard" encounter).

or, in other words, it is even worse than i originally thought.


************************


edit: almost forgot, any item or class feature that boosts save DCs (possible exception if there is a massive and immediate cost). by the time high levels are reached, many monsters will have +5 to +10 in their good saves, but only +1 or less in their bad save(s). meanwhile, expected DCs for characters will be 19 (8 + 6 proficiency + 5 attribute) at the highest levels.

the result is that on a d20, under normal circumstances, only monsters with a -1 save or worse will require a 20 to make their saving throws.

now throw in a +2 DC from a robe of the archmagi or staff of the magi (or a +2 rod of the pact keeper, or a stat-boosting book and the ioun stone that increases your proficiency bonus). suddenly, you need a +2 bonus just to avoid dropping to a flat 5% chance. heaven help you if your caster manages to get their hands on several of these boosts (the *absolute* worst-case scenario is of course quite improbable; a warlock with 5 stat tomes, a +3 rod of the pact keeper, and both the robe and staff can get DC 31 spells, which makes even a +11 save modifier from a monster basically irrelevant).

and remember, these saving throws can massively alter how a fight goes; even a lowly entangle spell can turn a tough fight against a mob of assassins into a joke if the DC is high enough.

[Dralnu]

Every time I read Crown of Madness I get angry at how crappy of a spell it is. It's not bad, it's aggressively bad. It PUNISHES you for wasting a spell slot on it by eating your actions too, the gluttonous spellwhore.

It's a 2nd level spell and you must spend your action to maintain control of the target. The target gets the initial saving throw, and can make another saving throw each round. And for what? MAYBE forcing the creature to attack an ally if you have the PERFECT set up, once, before it and its allies spread out and its free to punch you in the face for wasting your time on a ****ty spell.

Maybe the point of the spell is to make the reader go mad. If so, very effective.

[Ashrym]

The problem spells are wish, true polymorph, and some summoning cheese. I don't actually find them as problematic, but there is a clear argument that they can cause issues if the DM gives the leeway.


Bards can pick up class defining spells of hybrid classes (ranger, paladin) through magical secrets much earlier than the classes who normally get them because of spell slot level differences.

This creates situations where bard is a better archer martial classes for periods of time or has better healing etc. In general the bard unlocks level 17 features of another class at level 10 (AFB so going from memory). It feels really wrong to me.

Solution? Not sure... Maybe put a minimum level on the spells vs just spell slot? Rebalance hybrids to have spell slots that match the expected class level of the abilities.

This isn't broken it's just not willing to share. There's no difference between adding a unique spell vs a non-unique spell that's also on the 5th-level ranger list.

Without the archery fighting style, hunter's prey, volley, and the hunter's mark spell that bard being able to swiftquiver twice per day isn't better during that twice per day and remains worse the rest of the time.

Your assement is flawed.


Every time I read Crown of Madness I get angry at how crappy of a spell it is. It's not bad, it's aggressively bad. It PUNISHES you for wasting a spell slot on it by eating your actions too, the gluttonous spellwhore.

It's a 2nd level spell and you must spend your action to maintain control of the target. The target gets the initial saving throw, and can make another saving throw each round. And for what? MAYBE forcing the creature to attack an ally if you have the PERFECT set up, once, before it and its allies spread out and its free to punch you in the face for wasting your time on a ****ty spell.

Maybe the point of the spell is to make the reader go mad. If so, very effective.

When the allies spread out they trigger opportunity attacks so that's a good thing and the damage from those attacks plus the attack the target lost against the party and used on it's ally justified the use of the spell. Once that is done drop the spell and then no more actions are lost to maintaining it.

Players want enemies to move and trigger opportunity attacks; it's a good thing. The mistake is trying to maintain the spell past it's point of effectiveness. A person doesn't need to use the duration just because it's there.

The issue with crown is it is situational and hold person is almost always better.

As it is, I do have it on a bard for those off situations and when I use it the other PC's have taken to using pushing attacks to move enemies back to position for another attack if I let them know that I want to maintain it. Our table looks like D&D pinball moving enemies and ourselves sometimes.

So far, it's been a better choice than a lot of spells. The biggest issue so far is the humanoid restriction that also impacts many other low level spells.

[Dralnu]

When the allies spread out they trigger opportunity attacks so that's a good thing and the damage from those attacks plus the attack the target lost against the party and used on it's ally justified the use of the spell. Once that is done drop the spell and then no more actions are lost to maintaining it.

The target must:
1) be adjacent to another enemy
and
2) be adjacent to one of your allies to provoke the AoO
and
3) the adjacent enemy can't move away from the crowned target without provoking the AoO (no moving w/o leaving ally's reach)

Or you could just cast a cantrip instead of wasting a 2nd lvl spell on that nonsense.

[Malifice]

Archdruid for vast amounts of HP by infinite shifting.

Yeah - my fix for Archdruid is to swap the onion druid ability for:

Archdruid: Beginning at 20th level you gain resistance to acid, fire, cold, thunder and electricity damage. You can plane shift yourself to any of the elemental planes at will as an action. While on those planes, you are immune to any of the negative planar traits of that plane.

Nice exploration and combat pillar capstone (with a fluffy social pillar title attached!).

I also tweaked wild shape a bit (druid retains his own HD and HP, gains [druid level x 3] temp HP on transforming, uses own or beasts prof bonus - whichever is higher, may calculate his new AC by adding his prof bonus to new forms base AC [to compensate for removal of 'ghost' HP and provide discouragement for monk and barb dips and 'bear barding' shenanigans], any special attacks of the new form may use the druids spell save modifier if higher than the base save DC).

Been play testing the new wild shape above, and its working a treat (barring 30 odd HP spider oddity).

[MOLOKH]

This has probably been discussed a lot before, but I'll throw it out there anyway - Eldtritch Blast, or more specifically, what invocations turn it into as early as level 2.

Agonizing blast basically makes a Warlock as good, if not better than most dedicated archers, who must take feats or exhaust resources to keep up with the DPS provided by a single invocation. Repelling Blast ticks me off even more, as it adds a free, no save, no restrictions repositioning effect to the EB. Compare that to similar abilities granted by the Battlemaster or Way of Open Hand Monk - they require you to expend points, they have a limit on the size of the creature they can push, and the creature gets a save.

It's not really the effect that's broken, just the fact that Repelling Blast is strictly superior to similar abilities and comes at much less of a cost. And the idea that for instance a Kraken can be flung back up to 40 ft (more if you count Sorcerer abuse) by a cantrip all day long seems just ludicrous, even by DnD standards.

[Ashrym]

The target must:
1) be adjacent to another enemy
and
2) be adjacent to one of your allies to provoke the AoO
and
3) the adjacent enemy can't move away from the crowned target without provoking the AoO (no moving w/o leaving ally's reach)

Or you could just cast a cantrip instead of wasting a 2nd lvl spell on that nonsense.

That's all just as feasible with crown of madness as it is with any other spell that promotes movement. Dissonant whispers is good because of the opportunity attacks and requires half or more of the party to be next to the target.

1) is common
2) is easy
3) do you mean "can move" without provoking an opportunity attack? That part would be generally true but also why our guys group the way they do in combat and just use push tactics if needed.

This spell is as easy as casting it when there's a melee cluster going on. That's all it generally takes.

The spell also works with spell glyphs so I can ignore it except when it is useful. The target cannot attack me because it's charmed. Concentration is bypassed because that's a benefit of a spell glyph. No actions are used that are not effective use of said actions because each is an active and deliberate choice. The bard thread at the WotC forum has this spell listed as dark blue in the guide. You might want to review it a bit more and try playing with it more. It's situational and often not the better choice, and a tactical spell, but it's been useful in my experience.

I find your response more nonsense than my experience, so I'm sorry you feel that way.

[Battlebooze]

Not really helpful, but thanks for the post all the same. I guess we can put that down as Ability: All 17+, Reason: Because 5e, Solution: None.

I hate that ability, mainly because I never seem to get there in the games I play. :smallsmile:

[Kryx]

I think the whole "OMG IT'S HIGH LEVEL, EVERYTHING IS BROKEN" mindset is really unfortunate. I'd suggest we avoid it if possible.

There are many threads about this on the internet. http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?358754-Let-s-list-the-quot-broken-quot-spells and http://community.wizards.com/forum/product-and-general-dd-discussions/threads/4132461 for example (basically the same thread)

Spells:

Simulacrum is inherently broken - see the hundreds of threads on it.
Contagion should take effect on the 3rd failed save as Crawford has clarified in a tweet
Polymorph and True Polymorph should have their CR limited to spell level. True Polymorph shouldn't be permanent
Forcecage
Leomund's Tiny Hut isn't meant to have arrows shot out of it per Crawford's tweet
Wall of Force
Wish


I'm sure there are many others.

[Sindeloke]

Setting Contagion to act on the their save doesn't make it not broken. It just breaks it the other way.

It should either be first save infects, but no option to inflict the Con disease, or third save infects, but it's doable at any distance as a ten-minute cast on a lock of your target's hair or whatever. As it is now it's either OP or worthless, neither of which is good.

[pwykersotz]

Setting Contagion to act on the their save doesn't make it not broken. It just breaks it the other way.

It should either be first save infects, but no option to inflict the Con disease, or third save infects, but it's doable at any distance as a ten-minute cast on a lock of your target's hair or whatever. As it is now it's either OP or worthless, neither of which is good.

It's a 7 day duration, it's not really a combat spell. It's fantastic for social manipulation without needing to resort to domination. Also, since it induces a natural disease, you might even be able to cripple the horde of goblins by infecting one of them and letting him return. The spell is called Contagion, I'm sure it's contagious. :smallamused:

[Mjolnirbear]

Setting Contagion to act on the their save doesn't make it not broken. It just breaks it the other way.

It should either be first save infects, but no option to inflict the Con disease, or third save infects, but it's doable at any distance as a ten-minute cast on a lock of your target's hair or whatever. As it is now it's either OP or worthless, neither of which is good.

Wasn't there a tweet that said you don't actually get the effects of the disease until you've failed the three saves?

[Easy_Lee]

I say Heat Metal. I know it's not a spell many think of, but there's no save to resist it. Target someone's armor; that person takes 2d8 fire damage when you cast it and each turn that you spend your bonus action (+1d8 per slot), period. Finally, they must make a strength saving throw each turn or have disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks on top of that. The target can't end the effect, and can't avoid the damage. Considering that metal armor is extremely common, as are metal weapons, this is a nasty effect, able to seriously cripple one target.

[Ashrym]

I say Heat Metal. I know it's not a spell many think of, but there's no save to resist it. Target someone's armor; that person takes 2d8 fire damage when you cast it and each turn that you spend your bonus action (+1d8 per slot), period. Finally, they must make a strength saving throw each turn or have disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks on top of that. The target can't end the effect, and can't avoid the damage. Considering that metal armor is extremely common, as are metal weapons, this is a nasty effect, able to seriously cripple one target.

Metal weapons can be dropped and metal armor is very not common at all. It's generally only found on humanoids and giants, and virtually all of those wear no armor, hide armor, or leather armor.

Generally it's only humanoid leaders (worse even than being restricted to all humanoids), human guards, and special NPC's.

Take a quick look through the monster manual and you'll see this spell is only useful in certain campaigns.

[Malifice]

I say Heat Metal. I know it's not a spell many think of, but there's no save to resist it. Target someone's armor; that person takes 2d8 fire damage when you cast it and each turn that you spend your bonus action (+1d8 per slot), period. Finally, they must make a strength saving throw each turn or have disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks on top of that. The target can't end the effect, and can't avoid the damage. Considering that metal armor is extremely common, as are metal weapons, this is a nasty effect, able to seriously cripple one target.

They can smash you in the face cant they?

I find that works.

[Gurka]

Round up so far:

************** Too Strong ****************************************

Bard: Ability to take class defining spells earlier than the class they borrow from.

Simulacrum: the obvious reasons.

Druid: Infinite shifting for infinite HP.

Sorcerer: Stormborn Bloodline offering flight and additional spells.

Polymorph: Ability to turn anybody into a monster, Only a 4th level slot.

Conjure Woodland Beings: Summons too many pixies with too many strong spells.

Wish: It's wish.

True Polymorph: See Polymorph; worse.

Warlock: Eldritch blast Agonizing blast plus repelling blast, also 4 shots earlier than other archer archetypes have access to that many shots.

Force Cage/Wall of Force: No saves, extremely effective at shutting down nearly any creature.

Heat Metal: No save and highly effective against a large variety of common foes, particularly PCs.


*************** Too Weak *****************************************

Crown of Madness: Occupies too much action economy for the minimal (and situational) effect.


Note that I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with any of these so far, just cataloging what we've got at this point. Keep them coming guys, I really appreciate it. I'll compile the suggested fixes in a later post.

[rollingForInit]

This has probably been discussed a lot before, but I'll throw it out there anyway - Eldtritch Blast, or more specifically, what invocations turn it into as early as level 2.

Agonizing blast basically makes a Warlock as good, if not better than most dedicated archers, who must take feats or exhaust resources to keep up with the DPS provided by a single invocation. Repelling Blast ticks me off even more, as it adds a free, no save, no restrictions repositioning effect to the EB. Compare that to similar abilities granted by the Battlemaster or Way of Open Hand Monk - they require you to expend points, they have a limit on the size of the creature they can push, and the creature gets a save.

It's not really the effect that's broken, just the fact that Repelling Blast is strictly superior to similar abilities and comes at much less of a cost. And the idea that for instance a Kraken can be flung back up to 40 ft (more if you count Sorcerer abuse) by a cantrip all day long seems just ludicrous, even by DnD standards.

Yeah. I really hope that they don't nerf Agonizing Blast of Eldtrich Blast, since that'd weaken the Warlock to the point of ... well, not being competitive in terms of damage. But I really dislike the 2-leve-dip for it. Just setting a level limit of 5 would deter that type kind of multiclassing, since most classes can afford 2 levels of MR. 5, though ... if you're that dedicated to a second class, I don't have nearly as many issues with it. Repelling Blast could do with a level restriction as well.

[Dralnu]

3) do you mean "can move" without provoking an opportunity attack? That part would be generally true but also why our guys group the way they do in combat and just use push tactics if needed.

Yes, as long as they don't leave the threatened range of a character they don't provoke the opportunity attack. So step to the side instead of backwards generally.


This spell is as easy as casting it when there's a melee cluster going on. That's all it generally takes.

My experiences differ from yours.


The spell also works with spell glyphs so I can ignore it except when it is useful. The target cannot attack me because it's charmed. Concentration is bypassed because that's a benefit of a spell glyph. No actions are used that are not effective use of said actions because each is an active and deliberate choice. The bard thread at the WotC forum has this spell listed as dark blue in the guide. You might want to review it a bit more and try playing with it more. It's situational and often not the better choice, and a tactical spell, but it's been useful in my experience.

Of course I used this spell in actual playtesting. I wanted it to work. Why else would I gripe about it being awful?

If you're a bard and you have a SWAT team level of cooperation with multiple push effects (open hand monk / repelling lock) then just use Cloud of Daggers. It forces movement and deals damage without requiring your subsequent actions to sustain the effect. Oh yeah, and no save! Plus the damage scales well.

If you're a wizard... you're not using this. Seriously. If you really need forced movement, you're using Flame Sphere or Cloud of Daggers again. If you want to do something damaging, you have a plethora of superior abilities. There are far better 2nd level spells, much better things to put into a spell glyph, that you shouldn't ever be touching this.


I find your response more nonsense than my experience, so I'm sorry you feel that way.

I find your response equally nonsense. "My dedicated team of pushers makes this good, oh and let's ignore these superior alternatives that accomplish the exact same thing but better and are available to the exact same classes. But IGNORING those this spell has situational tactical use!"

The spell is underpowered. It's that simple.

[hacksnake]

...Your assement is flawed...

Very well could be. In large part I was basing the conclusion off of this Class Comparisons for Ranged Damage (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?375185-Class-Comparisons-for-Ranged-Damage) thread.

Did this guy math it wrong or is Bard actually top ranged DPR for a set of levels due to Swift Quiver?

[Easy_Lee]

Very well could be. In large part I was basing the conclusion off of this Class Comparisons for Ranged Damage (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?375185-Class-Comparisons-for-Ranged-Damage) thread.

Did this guy math it wrong or is Bard actually top ranged DPR for a set of levels due to Swift Quiver?

No that's true. A bard who dedicates himself to ranged damage gets one or two more attacks than the norm during mid levels. In addition, one possibility not on that list is swift quiver + agonizing EB DPR.

[Ashrym]

Yes, as long as they don't leave the threatened range of a character they don't provoke the opportunity attack. So step to the side instead of backwards generally.



My experiences differ from yours.



Of course I used this spell in actual playtesting. I wanted it to work. Why else would I gripe about it being awful?

If you're a bard and you have a SWAT team level of cooperation with multiple push effects (open hand monk / repelling lock) then just use Cloud of Daggers. It forces movement and deals damage without requiring your subsequent actions to sustain the effect. Oh yeah, and no save! Plus the damage scales well.

If you're a wizard... you're not using this. Seriously. If you really need forced movement, you're using Flame Sphere or Cloud of Daggers again. If you want to do something damaging, you have a plethora of superior abilities. There are far better 2nd level spells, much better things to put into a spell glyph, that you shouldn't ever be touching this.



I find your response equally nonsense. "My dedicated team of pushers makes this great, oh and let's ignore these superior alternatives that accomplish the exact same thing but better and are available to the exact same classes. But IGNORING those this spell has situational tactical use!"

Cloud of daggers doesn't cost the opponent it's opportunity to attack the party and can be used by opponents on my own party.

Neither of those spells you listed prevent attacks from that target on the party and do damage and create the charmed condition and promote movement. The time to use crown is when the group cannot or should not attack a hold person target or if the caster wants to promote one of the other situational uses.

Flaming sphere is a good spell but does the same thing where opponents who move might circle allies instead of trigger opportunity attacks so it's not a gain when it still costs me my bonus action and my concentration and the opponents just move to avoid the effects and it's missing some features I want.

Like I said, it's often not the best spell and hold person is almost always the better option, but hold person is also missing some situational uses; longer range, promoting movement, target inflicting damage, charmed condition.

It also doesn't take a SWAT team. Hyperbole won't make your case. Generally, it's repelling blast on a warlock, and a battlemaster fighter will sometimes add pushing attack.



Very well could be. In large part I was basing the conclusion off of this Class Comparisons for Ranged Damage (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?375185-Class-Comparisons-for-Ranged-Damage) thread.

Did this guy math it wrong or is Bard actually top ranged DPR for a set of levels due to Swift Quiver?

Those levels only apply 2 feats / ASI's available and the bard only casts swiftquiver a couple of times in a day. At 65% accuracy, it looks like this:


Bard, longbow, swiftquiver, DEX20 (no feats as spent on DEX):

4*5% crit chance 2d8+5 = 2.8
4*60% normal damage 1d8+5 = 22.8
damage = 25.6 each for 2 encounters
2*5% crit chance 2d8+5 = 1.4
2*60% normal damage 1d8+5 = 11.4
damage = 13.8 each for 4 encounters
averaged through the day = 17.73333 for a lower average, similar on the best rounds, and much worse on other encounters


Ranger, archery style, longbow, hunter's mark, colossal slayer, DEX 20 (no feats as spent on DEX):
2*5% crit chance 2d8+2d6+5 = 1.9
2*70% normal camage 1d8+1d6+5 = 18.2
colossal damage crit 5% 2d8 = 0.45
colossal damage normal 91% 1d8 = 4.095
damage = 24.645

The ranger will lose the colossal damage in the first round of combat if he there isn't a damaged target already to attack, but is better off most of the time even without it.



For comparison with crossbow expertise....

Bard, heavy crossbow, swiftquiver, DEX18 (one feat and one ASI spent on DEX):

4*5% crit chance 2d10+4 = 3.0
4*55% normal damage 1d10+4 = 20.9
damage = 23.9 each for 2 encounters
2*5% crit chance 2d10+4 = 1.5
2*55% normal damage 1d10+4 = 10.45
damage = 11.95 each for 4 encounters
averaged through the day = 15.93333 for a lower average, similar on the best rounds, and much worse on other encounters so the crossbow expertise feat adds the removal of disadvantage from close range but is a drop in damage.


Ranger, archery style, hand crossbow, hunter's mark, colossal slayer, DEX 18 (one feat and one ASI spent on DEX):
3*5% crit chance 2d6+2d6+4 = 2.7
3*65% normal damage 1d6+1d6+4 = 21.45
colossal damage crit 5% 2d8 = 0.45
colossal damage normal 95.7125% 1d8 = 4.307063
damage = 28.9070625

In this case the feat increases the damage because it adds that bonus action attack to only be 1 behind the bard. This can be a bit misleading because some bonus action attack damage is lost moving hunter's mark and colossal damage still needs a wounded target, but overall still better and with the volley option.



For comparison with sharpshooter running -5+10....

Bard, longbow, swiftquiver, DEX18 (one feat and one ASI spent on DEX):

4*5% crit chance 2d8+4+10 = 4.6
4*30% normal damage 1d8+4+10 = 22.2
damage = 26.8 each for 2 encounters
2*5% crit chance 2d8+4+10 = 2.3
2*30% normal damage 1d8+4+10 = 11.1
damage = 13.4 each for 4 encounters
averaged through the day = 17.8667; this is the closer option compared to the hand crossbow ranger in actual damage for 2 encounters


Ranger, archery style, longbow, hunter's mark, colossal slayer, DEX 18 (one feat and one ASI spent on DEX):
2*5% crit chance 2d6+2d6+4 = 2.7
2*% normal damage 1d6+1d6+4 = 21.45
colossal damage crit 5% 2d8 = 0.45
colossal damage normal 95.7125% 1d8 = 4.307063
damage = 28.9070625

In this case the feat increases the damage because it adds that bonus action attack to only be 1 behind the bard. This can be a bit misleading because some bonus action attack damage is lost moving hunter's mark and colossal damage still needs a wounded target, but overall still better and with the volley option.


For comparison with both crossbow expertise and swift quiver at -5/+10...

Bard, heavy crossbow, swiftquiver, DEX16 (starting DEX, 2 feats):

4*5% crit chance 2d10+3+10 = 5.2
4*25% normal damage 1d10+4+10 = 19.5
damage = 24.7 each for 2 encounters
2*5% crit chance 2d10+3+10 = 2.6
2*55% normal damage 1d10+3+10 = 9.75
damage = 12.35 each for 4 encounters
averaged through the day = 16.4667


Ranger, archery style, hand crossbow, hunter's mark, colossal slayer, DEX 16 (starting DEX, 2 feats):
3*5% crit chance 2d6+2d6+3+10 = 4.05
3*35% normal damage 1d6+1d6+3+10 = 21.0
colossal damage crit 5% 2d8 = 0.45
colossal damage normal 87.04% 1d8 = 3.9168
damage = 29.4168


All examples above are at the same AC. AC can change accuracy as it goes up or down and favor some options more than others, but the end result is the bard is generally running similar numbers some encounters and worse numbers most encounters at those levels. There are enough variables and circumstances to change things but generally even going with swift quiver does not match up the hunter's options, and it's presumptive to believe rangers have some claim to being better archers than archery focused valor bards anyway.

All spells are ranked by spell level regardless of character level or class, so it doesn't matter if the spell is normally a ranger only spell. In the case of magical secrets it's a ranger and bard spell only when bards add it. Typically that's actually a drop in ability over animate objects that was available a level earlier and more a style focus for bards than a stronger option.

[Dralnu]

Cloud of daggers doesn't cost the opponent it's opportunity to attack the party and can be used by opponents on my own party.

Cloud of Daggers has zero saving throws and doesn't require additional actions/saving throws to maintain. It does the forced movement thing and damage tremendously better than Crown, minus potentially avoiding an attack on your ally.


Neither of those spells you listed prevent attacks from that target on the party and do damage and create the charmed condition and promote movement. The time to use crown is when the group cannot or should not attack a hold person target or if the caster wants to promote one of the other situational uses.

Both do two of those things tremendously better without being absolutely terrible with saving throws and additional actions.


Flaming sphere is a good spell but does the same thing where opponents who move might circle allies instead of trigger opportunity attacks so it's not a gain when it still costs me my bonus action and my concentration and the opponents just move to avoid the effects and it's missing some features I want.

Spending Bonus Action >>>>>>>>>> Spending Action. Also the Bonus Action is optional (you could just keep it in place), and it does guaranteed damage. Crown can literally do nothing adverse to the monster in many situations.

Again, my experiences is that I never need charmed AND movement OR damage AND opportunity cost from the target AND I'm willing to give the creature saving throws every single turn and give up my own action to do so AND I have at least 2 allies that have repeatable push abilities that will work with me to get some mileage out of this trash spell. This is a magical christmasland that has never, ever come up for me.


It also doesn't take a SWAT team. Hyperbole won't make your case. Generally, it's repelling blast on a warlock, and a battlemaster fighter will sometimes add pushing attack.

Yeah it kinda does.

A warlock traditionally stay BEHIND the tank and pewpew. To knock the enemy back into range of your melee allies, which you keep stating is what they do, they need to run around the tank or even be ahead of the frontline to knock them back where you need them to be. That's a super easy way to get yourself isolated and killed. You've set up this ideal situation and it's STILL a bad spell.

Hence when the thread asks, "which spells are underpowered?" I respond with Crown of Madness.

We can argue this all day. It's a bad spell. Bad bad spell. Sure, it can get SOME use in the most ideal situations where you have a list of four arbitrary things you absolutely "need," but that just furthers my point that it's a bad spell. Good spells, decent spells, don't need you to jump through a dozen hoops to get a mediocre effect, especially when we have spells that demand a lot less of you for the same purpose.

[Ashrym]

Cloud of Daggers has zero saving throws and doesn't require additional actions/saving throws to maintain. It does the forced movement thing and damage tremendously better than Crown, minus potentially avoiding an attack on your ally.

No, cloud of daggers only promotes movement of one enemy 5 ft and doesn't even prevent an attack on a neighboring ally at all because the opponent can attack before or after moving. The movement isn't actually forced either. It's just a 10 damage attack in 1 small area, nothing more. Damage doesn't scale well at all with it because that takes higher level spell slots, unlike save DC's or the damage of the targets that might have crown applied at higher levels in the same low level slot. Crown guarantees the attack against the party is not made on that failed save because the target is required to make the attack before moving. An orc leader that does 1d12+4+1d8 damage is an average of 15 damage so more than cloud of daggers, more than the bard attack would, and not a bad option even at lower levels on something with a weak save, for example.


Both do two of those things tremendously better without being absolutely terrible with saving throws and additional actions.

I'm using my action regardless, no matter what happens on my turn. I'm not losing an action I'm using it for something else. What I would do with flaming sphere is lose my bonus action to attacks and movement with it. At what point did targeting weak saves stop working in 5e? If saving throws are terrible it wipes out most of the spell lists. ;-)


Spending Bonus Action >>>>>>>>>> Spending Action. Also the Bonus Action is optional (you could just keep it in place), and it does guaranteed damage. Crown can literally do nothing adverse to the monster in many situations.

See above, but I never have to spend that action to maintain the spell. Your response is based on the illogical assumption that I would choose to maintain the spell in the event it's not advantageous to do so. Either it's worth maintaining and an action well spent, or it's not and I have my action. That's the same illogical assumption in having cast crown in a situation where it would do nothing, and ignores the fact other spells you mentioned can have similar issues.


Again, my experiences is that I never need charmed AND movement OR damage AND opportunity cost from the target AND I'm willing to give the creature saving throws every single turn and give up my own action to do so AND I have at least 2 allies that have repeatable push abilities that will work with me to get some mileage out of this trash spell. This is a magical christmasland that has never, ever come up for me.

It's not AND movement OR damage because the move is not allowed until after the attack. It's damage and then possibly more damage or movement. The saving throws are no different than hold person giving saving throws every turn or flaming sphere granting a saving throw every attack you make with it as a bonus action.

You are still missing the obvious when I don't have to do any of that and can let the spell drop after it's served my purpose. No spell caster is forced to maintain it or cast it when it's not to his or her benefit. All I need is one next to another on whom I want to use the spell or a tight melee pack with my party and I can cast it for the effects I want but after that maintaining it just because it has a duration doesn't make sense. It's maintained based on circumstances after the first use or not. Spending my turn to use the ability again if the situation looks worth it is hardly a bad investment. It's only bad if I choose to maintain it when the situation doesn't look beneficial, which doesn't happen.

Your associated costs of concentration and repeat saves exist in many spells. The action is the only other cost and isn't spent unwisely or outside of my control so your premise is flawed.


A warlock traditionally stay BEHIND the tank and pewpew. To knock the enemy back into range of your melee allies, which you keep stating is what they do, they need to run around the tank or even be ahead of the frontline to knock them back where you need them to be. That's a super easy way to get yourself isolated and killed. You've set up this ideal situation and it's STILL a bad spell.

That's not necessarily true, but it doesn't matter because the "tank" you need can move too. If your combats consist of your PC's all standing still it's no wonder you struggle with some of the tactics that can be used. I don't set up ideal situations; I use the ones that present themselves which aren't uncommon and then drop the spell usually fairly quickly.


Hence when the thread asks, "which spells are underpowered?" I respond with Crown of Madness.

We can argue this all day. It's a bad spell. Bad bad spell. Sure, it can get SOME use in the most ideal situations where you have a list of four arbitrary things you absolutely "need," but that just furthers my point that it's a bad spell. Good spells, decent spells, don't need you to jump through a dozen hoops to get a mediocre effect, especially when we have spells that demand a lot less of you for the same purpose.

We can argue it all day. It's not a bad spell just because you have trouble with it when I don't. It's a decent but situational spell and all we have is disagreement. Your disagreement with my experience won't make it a bad spell. It shows me you don't share the same experience, and nothing more, and I see flaws in your arguments so I would just continue debating or eventually agree to disagree. I find value in a spell that only takes one spell known to cover a few various situational uses over 2-3 (like charm or friends plus dominate plus whatever movement spell selected) to do the same thing. I can use that and it works well enough for me to carry it.

[Shaofoo]

The only truly broken thing in 5e is Simulacrum, I think being able to have a second obedient copy of whoever is just too much and it opens up all kinds of cheese. If I were to run the game I will always ban Simulacrum from my games full stop, no exceptions from the players or the NPCs, it never existed.

Everything else has varying levels of power but I feel that within the game it is fine. Yes even Wish is fine because you are at the mercy of the DM if you choose anything that isn't listed and even if you choose something that is listed but is not a spell then you are debuffed hard (although personally I would change putting Strength to 3 to putting Constitution to 3, making Wizards lose strength is like making Fighters lose intelligence) and can run the risk of never ever casting Wish again. You either play it safe or run the risk (both the debuff and if you tried anything too funny then how the DM is feeling at the moment)

[Vogonjeltz]

Wish: It's wish.

I'd remove this one, the only 'safe' use of wish is to cast an 8th level spell from a 9th level spell slot (yay?).

Everything else is a 33% chance of never casting wish again and being crippled for 2-8 days. Similarly, the simulacrum entry is based on using wish in a DM-adjudicatingly bad manner (i.e. I'm going to have my minion wish for something that will probably result in me getting permanently turned to stone or some other object (provide immunity to the damage type requested of course...)).

Also, Rogue's capstone is basically wish without the drawback (getting an automatic 20 on failure is better than a re-roll) of being immediately crippled.

[Morcleon]

Everything else is a 33% chance of never casting wish again and being crippled for 2-8 days. Similarly, the simulacrum entry is based on using wish in a DM-adjudicatingly bad manner (i.e. I'm going to have my minion wish for something that will probably result in me getting permanently turned to stone or some other object (provide immunity to the damage type requested of course...)).

Granting a group of creatures resistance (not immunity) to a type of damage is explicitly a safe use of wish.

And even if you don't have wish, simulacrum chaining is still incredibly powerful (given some downtime and ruby dust, you can create a few dozen adventuring parties to go do things).

[Shaofoo]

Granting a group of creatures resistance (not immunity) to a type of damage is explicitly a safe use of wish.

And even if you don't have wish, simulacrum chaining is still incredibly powerful (given some downtime and ruby dust, you can create a few dozen adventuring parties to go do things).

Nope, if you use Wish for ANYTHING other than duplication of an 8th level or lesser spell then it is unsafe and you get hit with the debuffs, the only thing is that the DM has no say in how to interpret your wish as anything but the actual effect. I would probably say that you can only wish for one resistance and wishing for another type of resistance will just overwrite the old one with a new one.

[Morcleon]

Nope, if you use Wish for ANYTHING other than duplication of an 8th level or lesser spell then it is unsafe and you get hit with the debuffs, the only thing is that the DM has no say in how to interpret your wish as anything but the actual effect. I would probably say that you can only wish for one resistance and wishing for another type of resistance will just overwrite the old one with a new one.

"Safe" as in "DM can't screw you over". :smalltongue: The debuffs can be ignored by using simulacrums.

While that's an entirely reasonable houserule (and one that I'd probably use in anything other than a high power game), it's not RAW.

[Vogonjeltz]

Granting a group of creatures resistance (not immunity) to a type of damage is explicitly a safe use of wish.

And even if you don't have wish, simulacrum chaining is still incredibly powerful (given some downtime and ruby dust, you can create a few dozen adventuring parties to go do things).

As mentioned, it's not a safe use.
And the concept of simulacrum chains is based off a very questionable house rule allowing a simulacrum to gain in power, besides which, this party would have 1/2 hp and no gear.

[Morcleon]

As mentioned, it's not a safe use.
And the concept of simulacrum chains is based off a very questionable house rule allowing a simulacrum to gain in power, besides which, this party would have 1/2 hp and no gear.

The simulacrum does not itself gain in power. It gains control over another simulacrum. Saying that gaining control over another creature counts as gaining in power would also disallow it from casting a Dominate spell.

[Shaofoo]

"Safe" as in "DM can't screw you over". :smalltongue: The debuffs can be ignored by using simulacrums.

While that's an entirely reasonable houserule (and one that I'd probably use in anything other than a high power game), it's not RAW.

Like I said before, I will ban all Simulacrums from my games as I feel the spell is too broken. One of the reasons is to ignore the Wish backlash.

And yes by RAW you can have all resistances if you risk it.

[Morcleon]

Like I said before, I will ban all Simulacrums from my games as I feel the spell is too broken. One of the reasons is to ignore the Wish backlash.

And yes by RAW you can have all resistances if you risk it.

That's also a reasonable houserule. :smalltongue:

Or if you use simulacrums. :smallwink:

On that note, I'd be kinda curious to see what a tippyverse-style 5e world would look like... :smallamused:

[Vogonjeltz]

The simulacrum does not itself gain in power. It gains control over another simulacrum. Saying that gaining control over another creature counts as gaining in power would also disallow it from casting a Dominate spell.

An interesting point....it probably can't do that by RAW.


And yes by RAW you can have all resistances if you risk it.

True, it would take 13 iterations though which itself would cost 19500 gold, several tons of snow and ice, and at least a week of consecutive time (so, maybe a month if we include time for sleeping?)

Setting aside the improbability of this occurring in anything but game theory, and the ease with which it could be undone, is this not costly enough for the return? It's not like they're even getting immunity, just resistance. (So they're emulating rage?)

[Morcleon]

An interesting point....it probably can't do that by RAW.

I asked this question on the 5e RAW thread for another viewpoint, which gave this response:

Q 522: The simulacrum spells states that the created simulacrum "lacks the ability to...become more powerful". Would picking up a weapon (increasing damage), casting simulacrum (gaining a minion), or becoming the ruler of a nation (can now order people around successfully) count as becoming more powerful?


A 522 Somewhat ironically, the literal definition of the word is something that I would put beyond the purview of RAW, as this will inevitably lead to increasingly contrived limitations. Any increase in potential energy, for instance, could be interpreted as the construct becoming more powerful. Because the PHB itself does not specify what 'becoming more powerful' means, besides the inability to regain spell slots and similar explicit restrictions, I would state that RAW procedure would be to ignore that stipulation, or establish a proper definition on a per-campaign basis.

...in which case, the simulacrum spell only works if your DM takes a non-strict reading of the spell.


True, it would take 13 iterations though which itself would cost 19500 gold, several tons of snow and ice, and at least a week of consecutive time (so, maybe a month if we include time for sleeping?)

Setting aside the improbability of this occurring in anything but game theory, and the ease with which it could be undone, is this not costly enough for the return? It's not like they're even getting immunity, just resistance. (So they're emulating rage?)

You can spend a bit more time to use another simulacrum to just create the ruby dust for you, so it only costs 1500 gp to make the first one, after which you get another 25000 gp worth of ruby dust.

And how is it easily undone? Wish is an instantaneous spell, so the magic is there for an instant to create a permanent effect, then disappears. The effects of a wish cannot be dispelled or removed, except maybe via another wish, which would be a more powerful use of wish, which the DM will then twist.

[Ashrym]

I use something I call "the law of transference" when it comes to simulacrum shenanigans. IE, there is a magical link between the spells the simulacrum has from the player, so there can be only 1 simulacrum, and wishing wouldn't be any different from the simulacrum than the player, having essentially cast a spell to cast a wish.

It is a house rule, and it works for players who want to try things like that, although I don't encounter players who do things like that except with rare exception.

[Morcleon]

I use something I call "the law of transference" when it comes to simulacrum shenanigans. IE, there is a magical link between the spells the simulacrum has from the player, so there can be only 1 simulacrum, and wishing wouldn't be any different from the simulacrum than the player, having essentially cast a spell to cast a wish.

It is a house rule, and it works for players who want to try things like that, although I don't encounter players who do things like that except with rare exception.

This is a pretty good houserule, although if you cast simulacrum on other people against their will (via capture and repeated hourly applications of nonlethal damage), you can force their simulacrum to cast wish until they no longer can, and then destroy all the evidence.

Honestly, the best solution is just to tell your player not to use simulacrum tricks because you don't want to deal with that in the game. :smalltongue:

[Ashrym]

This is a pretty good houserule, although if you cast simulacrum on other people against their will (via capture and repeated hourly applications of nonlethal damage), you can force their simulacrum to cast wish until they no longer can, and then destroy all the evidence.

Honestly, the best solution is just to tell your player not to use simulacrum tricks because you don't want to deal with that in the game. :smalltongue:

It takes a long time to cast simulacrum, or I'm using wish to do it and down my own wish spell for something that only affects other spell casters who can cast wish. That's not really a high occurence and players don't know who can or cannot cast wish in order to try it, normally.

Edit: I would normally apply it to whoever cast the simulacrum anyway. ;-)

[coredump]

Very well could be. In large part I was basing the conclusion off of this Class Comparisons for Ranged Damage (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?375185-Class-Comparisons-for-Ranged-Damage) thread.

Did this guy math it wrong or is Bard actually top ranged DPR for a set of levels due to Swift Quiver?


No that's true. A bard who dedicates himself to ranged damage gets one or two more attacks than the norm during mid levels. In addition, one possibility not on that list is swift quiver + agonizing EB DPR.

Bard makes a mediocre archer. Once they get Swift Quiver they can be a decent archer for 1 min at a time. Still not as good as a dedicated archer..... Heck even that guys limited comparison only showed the bard above 4th place at three levels. And I am not convinced even those levels are accurate.

[ImSAMazing]

This is 5e, if you want to be broken, be a lv. 17 character.

Lvl 17 characters aren't exactly broken. Have you ever heard of a warrior/general which was so good that he could run into a forest and could kill ALL the boars in it? Thats the power of level 17. They are so rare, you never hear of them. Ever heard of a person who could make 4 attacks(8 with some abilities) in 6 seconds? I personally didn't. Lvl 17 is just a high power level, it isn't broken when you compare it to the amount of monsters you needed to kill to get to that level. Thats why E6 or E7 works very well, because it's logical. Nobody can run into a village and kill everyone without dying, or call down meteors from the sky. I don't think lvl 17 is too OP/broken in 5e, because every ability, including spells, still have a saving throw. Else they wont be that good. Meteor Shower calls for a save to halve damage, and True Polymorph calls for a Wisdom save(common save) too. Attacks still ask for an attack roll, etc.

[redemedic]

I am a little new to the entire 'broken' spell scene, but the spell invulnerability in Xanthar's Guide to Everything is definitely powerful, seeing as almost no encounter will ever last for 1 hour, and becoming immune to all forms of damage is rather busted.

[Mikal]

I am a little new to the entire 'broken' spell scene, but the spell invulnerability in Xanthar's Guide to Everything is definitely powerful, seeing as almost no encounter will ever last for 1 hour, and becoming immune to all forms of damage is rather busted.

Ah the most broken ability of all: Thread Necromancy

[Man_Over_Game]

Ah the most broken ability of all: Thread Necromancy

You missed the chance for a great pun!: Raise Thread.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: :smallannoyed: