Things banned in your campaign for mechanical reasons?

[Wasp]

Hi everyone!

I thought it may be interesting to see what has been banned from your campaigns - not for roleplaying of worldbuilding reasons - but for mechanical reasons. Why specifically did you remove that option? And if you are not the DM - did you find it reasonable?

I personally have experienced the "banning" of Variant Humans and Booming Blade/Greenflame Blade spells as "overpowered". And I was ok with that, if a bit disappointed.

But what's your experience?

[Exocist]

Pixies, from the spell "Conjure Woodland Beings".

Multi-classing with Homebrew or Unearthed Arcana, because it's not really balanced around that. It's all fair game though (Homebrew is subject to DM approval, UA is treated as an official source).

[Rerem115]

I'll give a +1 to banning multiclassing with regards to homebrew and UA (except for UA Ranger, because sweet jesus, Rangers still suck past ~level 10). Most really aren't balanced with multiclassing in mind, and besides, if you're going out of your way to find your own special class, you darn well better be willing to stick with it.

Dipping homebrew just feels dirty. It's a pure power play, and definitely not in the spirit of what I want at my table.

Besides that, however, I probably won't flat out ban something unless it's really stupid (cough dandwiki cough). I'm reasonably well versed with homebrew myself, and if you really want to play something, I'm willing to work to adjust it so we both can be happy.

[lxion]

When I play with my friends, the whole cover mechanics are skipped. The components for casting are also usually overlooked. I mentioned it myself that my bard actually needed a 100gp pearl to cast Identify, simply because I noticed it a few sessions in. We also don't count ammunition (assuming arrows are retrieved after combat). Now, they're not really banned, but usually overlooked. One friend who DM'd banned Zone of Truth though.

[Exocist]

I'll give a +1 to banning multiclassing with regards to homebrew and UA (except for UA Ranger, because sweet jesus, Rangers still suck past ~level 10).

Whoops, I forgot about UA ranger. We always let that one get multi-classed and even let you stack Revised + Spell-less ranger. No one has ever taken it, despite the fact that's its ridiculously front-loaded to the first two levels.

[mephnick]

-Variant Human, but mainly because I offer a free flavour feat at level 1 for all and have changed standard human a bit.

-Healing Spirit. This spell is so unbalanced out of combat we nerfed the crap out of it and still decided it was too strong. "Hey, let's create a spell that completely removes the attrition that has been the core concept of D&D for decades...and let's make it 2nd level! AND let's not include it in the UA for spells so no one can provide feedback!" *snorts a line*

[LudicSavant]

> The Enlarge/Reduce spell now has a size limit on its targets, and the "it stops growing if there's not space for it to grow" is now applied to the Reduce function as well ("it stops shrinking if there's no space for it to shrink")

[Crgaston]

> The Enlarge/Reduce spell now has a size limit on its targets, and the "it stops growing if there's not space for it to grow" is now applied to the Reduce function as well ("it stops shrinking if there's no space for it to shrink")

How can there not be space to shrink?

What sort of shenanigans were you up to??

[LudicSavant]

How can there not be space to shrink?

If there's something inside of the object.

[ZorroGames]

TBH, I do not think there are not other ways to deal with shenanigans like this then banning. Ruling limits seem less draconian.

But I play AL at the FLGS so think letting the players use the game weirdness (in a good geek sense) is less controlling.

I would be very discerning with lots of questions if I ever played in a private group ever again. Plenty of “scars” from the OD&D/AD&D days with DM versus PC mindsets.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't ban anything (except certain player behaviors).

I do have a white-list of acceptable things, but it's really broad and the excluded things are there for thematic or setting reasons, not purely mechanical ones.

UA is on a case-by-case basis, anything 3PP needs prior approval.

[jaappleton]

I'm not the DM of my table. But as a group, we've banned the following (And most of this was my suggestion, not the DMs)

-Races with at-will Flight
-Healing Spirit
-Lore Wizard

That's.... pretty much it, I think.

[CTurbo]

I only ban extremely cheesy exploits like Coffeelock and one handed Quarterstaff Shillelagh Polearm Master with a Shield.

I haven't had anybody try to dual wield Lances on a mount yet but I probably wouldn't allow that either lol

[Sorlock Master]

Heavy Armor and casting spells.

[jaappleton]

Heavy Armor and casting spells.

How do you handle half the Cleric Domains? Or Paladins?

[PhantomSoul]

How do you handle half the Cleric Domains? Or Paladins?

It's ok, Paladins just smite anyhow eh!

Edit: Oops, wasn't blue...

[Mortis_Elrod]

It's ok, Paladins just smite anyhow eh!

and clerics?
what about EKs?

[Hypersmith]

Really very little is banned. Stuff is swapped out for alternatives pretty often though. Varient human is out, because everyone gets a free level one feat. Homebrew is really tentative, if ever introduced.
Besides that, I trust my players not to want to go for straight cheese, and if they want quick dips, I'm fine with it the vast majority of the time, long as everyone keeps having fun. Though I may have to keep an eye on healing spirit.

Banning heavy armor and casting? I think that one is kind of odd, since it's usually a specific style, or a caster making an investment to get to heavy armor. (Thiugj I guess if all your casters are taking a single level of fighter, I see how it can get annoying)

[Rerem115]

I guess I'm kind of lucky; most of the people I play with are Munchkin-averse. They know about a lot of the cheese that exists, and they avoid it because they don't want to look like they are abusing cheese.

In the groups I play with, some of these things are so ingrained as cheese that outside of convention one-shots, I've never had a game where somebody tried to play with GWM, racial flight, or PAM/Sentinel/Shillelagh. It wasn't that it's been banned; it's just never been brought up.

[thrdeye]

Heavy Armor and casting spells.

In another thread you were talking about DMing for a Fighter 1/Warlock 2/Wizard 17 who was using the Shield spell and to whom you also gave +3 heavy armor and a +3 shield. I'm not alone in believing the issue was breaking bounded accuracy with 2 +3 AC items (although the Shield spell is indeed very strong). Have you had other issues as well with heavy armor casters?

[sophontteks]

The outlander ability. If there is access to food and water, they automatically succeed on finding food for 4. RIP survival checks. Its a useless ability in most campaigns, but on the ones where it matters (OotA) its OPAF.

[Rebonack]

I let players choose between multiclassing and using UA/Homebrew material.

I'm really leery about classes, but subclasses are fine.

I don't allow VHuman, but I give everyone a feat at first level and I've tweaked the races to prevent an 18 in any stat at level 1. Humans are changed significantly in my games, mostly focused on human endurance and tenacity.


Heavy Armor and casting spells.

Any spells or just arcane spells? Seems like a needless nerf to Eldritch Knight either way.

[sithlordnergal]

Heavy Armor and casting spells.

Wasn't your issue that they had +3 plate and shield? Giving the caster a base 26 AC? That's far less "mechanical" and more "I gave my players Legendary and Very Rare items, and now they're op". Plus, as I said on that other thread, you can bypass AC entirely with breath weapons, AoEs, and unavoidable attacks.

As for my homebrew, my only rules are:

PHB+2, one book for race, one book for spells/classes

And no Unearthed Arcana and no Homebrew

[sightlessrealit]

Nothing, I could have a player play full cheese coffeelock and I wouldn't be bothered.

[Ganymede]

I also ban Pixies from being summoned by Conjure Woodland Beings.

Well, I don't directly ban it. Let's just say that, if you try to summon eight CR 1/4 creatures with it, Blink Dogs are showing up.

[Belier]

Pixies, from the spell "Conjure Woodland Beings".

Multi-classing with Homebrew or Unearthed Arcana, because it's not really balanced around that. It's all fair game though (Homebrew is subject to DM approval, UA is treated as an official source).

Pixies are not broken if the dm do control what appear. He could allow 1-2 pixies and they can do their best to help the caster. Also they are intelligent beings, they know they are fragile and may prefer to cloak themselves rather than fight and the player would have to persuade them into helping with a spell.

[Sigreid]

We don't use UA unless we all agree to a specific one. We don't need to ban anything in the official released content because no one is trying to break the game.

[Tanarii]

Feats and Multiclassing, kinda sorta. I first played 5e in AL at game stores. When I started my campaign as an alternative in three stores, I wanted a bit more of an old-school feeling, and single class without feats was one of the ways I went about it. But also because AL characters are so often heavy on the most powerful Feats and Multiclass combinations.

[Naanomi]

I don’t do UA; but nothing else formally banned. If a disruptive coffeelock or simulacrum army showed up, I’d likely retroactively ban it... but not players have tried so far so it is academic at this point

Most games I also disallow always-flying races; but if we were starting at higher levels I would likely allow it

[mgshamster]

There's nothing I've banned from all games, but there have been things I've banned for specific games.

Examples include:
- PHB only for a first time DM
- All chargen choices for a game of Tomb of Horrors
- No characters higher than level 7 for an E6 game
- No character generation choices except race and personality for a game of Shadow of the Demon Lord (much of the chargen is rolling on charts or choosing from the chart; and I removed the option to pick for most of it).

I've been in games where you have to roll for race and class, games where race or class have already been chosen for you, games which ban starting equipment, and more. But it's all dependent on the game itself.

[JoeJ]

When I ban something it's almost always for aesthetic reasons; that thing just doesn't fit in the particular world I've created. The only limit I have that's based on mechanics is that PCs can't learn or cast a spell that isn't in the PHB unless they first encounter that spell during play. The purpose of this rule is to reduce the number of possible combinations that I have to worry about balancing.

As for non-RAW classes, races, etc., I don't ban those but I do require that they be discussed by the entire group before making a decision. Also, they have to be in a source that I can access whenever I need to while I'm planning. (Either online or dead tree is fine.)

[ProseBeforeHos]

I banned sharpshooter (negating cover is a bridge too far), removed the 'provides nutrition' part of good-berries (wrecks survival), and added a save at end of turn to hypnotic pattern (it's just way too good otherwise) and races with permanent flight speed (way too good).

I handle polymorph by forcing the players to RP the animal's intellect, and summoning spells by occasionally giving them what they don't ask for (e.g. never a pixie swarm).

Also made the 'tongues' spell effect multiple people, because otherwise it can make some RP encounters a one man show.

[Hooligan]

Things I've seen banned as a player:

Because It's Too Powerful
-Polymorph
-banishment
-Lucky
-Sharpshooter, either the "ignores cover" part or the entire feat.
-PAM + Sentinel
-Player-generated homebrew
-UA
-Variant humans
-rolling for stats (interestingly this same DM had no problem with the players rolling for HP)

Because It leads to players killing & stealing from everyone
-Evil characters (perhaps the most reasonable thing to ban on here)

[Exocist]

Pixies are not broken if the dm do control what appear. He could allow 1-2 pixies and they can do their best to help the caster.

Problem with this is then we'd have to apply it to every other conjuration (because we like consistency) which we don't want to do because the other conjurations aren't as broken.


Also they are intelligent beings, they know they are fragile and may prefer to cloak themselves rather than fight and the player would have to persuade them into helping with a spell.

Actually, not quite


The summoned creatures are friendly to you and your companions. Roll initiative for the summoned creatures as a group, which have their own turns. They obey any verbal commands that you issue to them (no action required by you). If you don’t issue any commands to them, they defend themselves from hostile creatures, but otherwise take no actions.

"Pixies 1-3, polymorph me and my two companions into Tyrannosaurus Rexes. Pixies 4-8, Cast Phantasmal Force on the enemies".

We'd just prefer to have conjurations obey your commands and not have to do rewrite it for one specific spell

[Pharaon]

removed the 'provides nutrition' part of good-berries (wrecks survival)

Goodberry can ruin survival games, but the way the DM in my last survival game solved it was making the material component consumable. That way we had to pick: forage for food or forage for mistletoe.

There were days we found neither, preserving the survival aspect while allowing goodberry to keep all it's functionality.

As for banning, the closest I come to banning anything is strongly discouraging PC flight outside of the fly spell. Permanent (or even semi-permanent like winged boots) are drastically game altering.

[Ganymede]

Problem with this is then we'd have to apply it to every other conjuration (because we like consistency) which we don't want to do because the other conjurations aren't as broken.

We'd just prefer to have conjurations obey your commands and not have to do rewrite it for one specific spell

You could avoid this consistency issue by saying "These particular pixies have already attempted to cast Polymorph earlier in the day so it is currently not available to them."

I obviate the problem by having blink dogs appear instead.

[ProseBeforeHos]

Goodberry can ruin survival games, but the way the DM in my last survival game solved it was making the material component consumable. That way we had to pick: forage for food or forage for mistletoe.

There were days we found neither, preserving the survival aspect while allowing goodberry to keep all it's functionality.


That's a good fix, sure.

[Whyrocknodie]

Counterspell.

[Maelynn]

As a first time DM, I banned 3 things for my party's character creation:

- no evil alignment. I'm too much of a rookie to be able to handle the backstabbing, double agendas, and drama. I really don't need that bovine secretion in my first campaign.

- no Aasimar. For the sole reason that this race comes with a divine guide that's played by the DM. I didn't want to add this responsibility to all the other things I still need to learn and get the hang of. Something I realised later that made me glad I banned this, is that I've got a quest coming that involves both an Aasimar and their Deva - the bond that two Aasimar feel between each other could ruin this quest.

- no exotic races (think Aarakocra, Tortles, Firbolg). The port city that is my setting is very multicultural and hosts many species, but some are just too far out to make sense even there.

For the rest, I only allow homebrew if I've taken a look at it and decided it's balanced enough and fits in the setting. One player wanted to play an Alchemist, but one of the variants he sent me was too modern (one archetype had a flak vest). The Dawnforged version looked really good, so I did allow that one.

[Tanarii]

Counterspell.But it's so much fun watching players blow a 3rd level slot against a cantrip. :smallamused:

[stoutstien]

Things I've banned.
Alignment- it pointless and is only used to rationalize PC acting like a bag of seal phalluses.
Warlocks dips- agonizing blast is attached to warlock level.
Rule lawyering- just no.
Phones- besides emergencies
Unknown Homebrew- all homerbrews must be tested first.
Reese's Peanut Butter Cups-my true weakness.(yes it is mechanical, my mouth be too full of these to be able to talk)
Mini dice-all dice must have faces measuring at least a quarter inch.

[Toadkiller]

Our group, we have at several of us DM I am currently, hasn’t really banned anything I can think of so far. We have had some group decrees of things that need to be set limited by the players.

One campaign the chain pact familiar’s ability to scout ahead invisibility used to the point that the game risked becoming just a narration with little to no character involvement. So, the player scaled back the use. Likewise diivination magic is sparingly used to drive specific investigations not spammed as a way to avoid playing the scenario.

Basically if something comes up at table that the seems off we will discuss it (either right then or later) and we have a good group so some sort of agreement is reached. But the goal is to make the story/game work not to nerf a player or a character ability. I feel it mostly has been successful.

We don’t tend to really optimize though. Current game has two characters that are deliberately out of step with optimization but fun in their own way. There are two others (out of 5) that are strong magic users so it has evened out.

[jas61292]

The only things explicitly banned in general in my group's campaigns are flying races, and the Sharpshooter, Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master feats. Variant Human is also not allowed, but I don't consider not using a variant rule to be banning something. Oh, and I would ban Wish and a few other spells, but we never get that high in level, so I've had no need to actually do that.

Other things may be banned on a campaign by campaign basis, but that is mostly due to specific setting or whatnot.

[the secret fire]

- Warlock dipping: PCs can be Warlocks, but once they take a level in that class, it is the only class they can advance in. The pact is a one-way street.

Spells I ban for mechanical reasons (and the narrative elements I feel they trivialize):
- Banish: many encounters
- Arcane Eye: do-it-yourself scouting
- Revivify: death
- Pass Without Trace: conventional stealth
- Healing Spirit: out-of-combat healing

These are the spells that I find most deprive me of the ability to test the party's strategic and tactical skills. I generally like how spells are handled in 5e, but I like to dial it back by removing the ones I feel make magic a little "too easy".

[the secret fire]

One campaign the chain pact familiar’s ability to scout ahead invisibility used to the point that the game risked becoming just a narration with little to no character involvement. So, the player scaled back the use.

Yes, too many things in the game allow the party to bypass simply going out and...you know, scouting. This is an activity which (ostensibly) plays a sizeable role in the exploration pillar of the game. While it should be possible to get an advantage in any of the pillars of play through the clever use of resources, it shouldn't be possible to nullify one pillar almost entirely through the use of a single spell or class ability. That's selling scouting down the river too cheaply.

[KorvinStarmast]

I thought it may be interesting to see what has been banned from your campaigns - Yuatn Ti PC's banned.


The outlander ability. If there is access to food and water, they automatically succeed on finding food for 4. RIP survival checks. Its a useless ability in most campaigns, but on the ones where it matters (OotA) its OPAF. Not overpowered, useful.

As to variant human: no, not OP. Humans can't see in the dark, and don't get a free spell as a racial feature.

[Toadkiller]

Thought of something I don’t “ban” but I would have to be talked into it. Multiclassing into a class the party already has. It just feels like it can steal some of the special from another player’s toy to be asked to share it that way.

[Willie the Duck]

It's so ingrained I probably don't need to bother, but I still mention at the start of campaigns, "and no, you will not get away with any Wish + Simulacrum cheese."

[Skyblaze]

You can only multiclass to one class if you desire. I think it gets ridiculous after that.

[2D6GREATAXE]

At my table the players handbook beast master ranger is banned because they are under powered. UA's ranger is totally fine.

I also ban monster races unless it is a monster race adventure. I say ban, what I actually mean is I warn the player that society and the other races will treat them a certain way. as expected.

[Tanarii]

At my table the players handbook beast master ranger is banned because they are under powered.Except they aren't. It's just that the Internet hivemind thinks they are.

[Isaire]

Except they aren't. It's just that the Internet hivemind thinks they are.

Well, they function. At certain levels, it seems like the ranger is just better off using their own attack, especially if magic items have been shared round, rather than using their beast to do anything. Even when this isn't true (in my party, DM gave the beastmaster ranger (the gf..) a dire wolf), the pet still gets underutilised, and she ended up MC'ing into rogue rather than going for the higher beastmaster levels. Is a shame, that bonus action help command would be useful..

[Naanomi]

Except they aren't. It's just that the Internet hivemind thinks they are.
Assuming you take the ‘right’ pet and it doesn’t happen to die; leaving you without a subclass at all

[The Cats]

Except they aren't. It's just that the Internet hivemind thinks they are.

Yeah, I feel like 'underpowered' got conflated with 'awkward; somewhere down the line. They're not an especially weak subclass, the rules for controlling your companion are just awkward. Feels more like a remote-controlled robot.

EDIT: The only thing I outright ban is playing a blatantly evil character. Sneaky evil is OK. Chessmaster evil is just fine. Stabbing everyone and burning down a village because someone called you short evil, not so much.

[Scripten]

I've not had to outright ban anything yet, but there are certain class features that I ask players to find a replacement for. It's generally stuff that requires the DM to "babysit" players.

Beastmasters/Summoning: Beastmasters get to command their companions with a bonus action, because it makes for a more engaging character. I haven't seen this affect action economy to a breaking point yet. I also ask that summoners either choose their own summons or give me a list. If I have to choose appropriate summons for the environment, I don't want to have to compile a list every time the biome changes. :smalleek:

Wild Magic Sorcerers: I don't care how Wild Magic is replaced, I only care that it is. Wild Magic is everything I hate about DM-based class features. So not only am I expected to tell the player when their wild magic goes off, I'm the one who's expected to roll for it? Nah mate. Come up with some situation and make rolls when you encounter them if you want Wild Magic.

[JoeJ]

It's so ingrained I probably don't need to bother, but I still mention at the start of campaigns, "and no, you will not get away with any Wish + Simulacrum cheese."

I've never had any players get to that level, but if they did I'd tell them that where the spell description of Simulacrum says, "If you cast this spell again…" it means you or anyone controlled by you. And using Wish to cast another spell counts as casting that other spell.

[WereRabbitz]

Rolling for Stats is banned at my table... That's about it, I work with my players outside of the game to fix mechanical things when i can instead of out right banning it.

[MagneticKitty]

With wild magic we just had attack rolls be the wild magic roll. Anything with no
Attack roll the player rolled a d20 for instead of the dm. They also rolled percentile. Then would say "I got 42 on wild magic" and the dm consulted the chart and narrated what happened.

[Willie the Duck]

I've never had any players get to that level, but if they did I'd tell them that where the spell description of Simulacrum says, "If you cast this spell again…" it means you or anyone controlled by you. And using Wish to cast another spell counts as casting that other spell.

Actually, now that I think about it, we've never had anyone play an arcane caster to that level either. It's just the one thing I've made clear you won't be allowed to do (just to get it over with).

[Sorlock Master]

In another thread you were talking about DMing for a Fighter 1/Warlock 2/Wizard 17 who was using the Shield spell and to whom you also gave +3 heavy armor and a +3 shield. I'm not alone in believing the issue was breaking bounded accuracy with 2 +3 AC items (although the Shield spell is indeed very strong). Have you had other issues as well with heavy armor casters?

2 Sorcerers in full plate (1 Fighter/1 warlock/8 Sorcerer) one casts haste the other casts fly...

To be fair they used eldrich blast most of the time, But the character names were Sonny Tark and Rim Godes. You can probably guess what they were going for.

[Exocist]

2 Sorcerers in full plate (1 Fighter/1 warlock/8 Sorcerer) one casts haste the other casts fly...

To be fair they used eldrich blast most of the time, But the character names were Sonny Tark and Rim Godes. You can probably guess what they were going for.

A single Dispel Magic later and...

[Feuerphoenix]

I banned all multiclassing ( incidents in the campaign may allow it, as players may ask if there is a possibility to fulfill a certain concept) as well as feats (they earn feat abilities on top, but only one or two bullets max from one feat. It gives a much better feeling of progressing and learning)

[Afrodactyl]

My group only has a few points that we nerf/ban;

- racial at-will flight is instead "hops". They can fly, but they must land between turns, and vertical distance is included.
- casting goodberry consumes the mistletoe component.
- conjure animals/woodland beings/demons/etc the player chooses the CR, the DM chooses the creature.
- outlanders find food for two people rather than four.
- no monstrous PCs unless they make sense narratively (determined pre-character creation).
- rolling for stats is capped at 16, we don't like people running around with a 20 in a stat at first level. It's also capped at 6 at the other end of the scale.

[mephnick]

Oh yeah, I limit the Conjure spells to 1 or 2 creatures. I don't have time for your 8 minions.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Oh yeah, I limit the Conjure spells to 1 or 2 creatures. I don't have time for your 8 minions.

I haven't formally limited that yet, but I have made it clear that minionmancy has limits based on table time. You get 1 command, and all minions follow it. Same target, no changing targets if it dies after 2 attack, etc. So far, the only summoner has had a fascination with constrictor snakes, so he's only ever summoned one at a time. It's always been hideously ineffective, since he rolls like crap (not just for summons, for everything).

[Tanarii]

Oh yeah, I limit the Conjure spells to 1 or 2 creatures. I don't have time for your 8 minions.
Especially since Conjure animals, at the least, gives no indications they are controlled by the player. Just verbal orders.

Unlike Animate Dead or Animate Objects, which are explicitly controlled by the player, at least to the degree that they choose which actions they take.

[TheUser]

"Whisper casting"
using any type of ability check to try and make a spell not completely obvious to anyone within 60ft is kind of ridiculous in that it gives everybody the chance to have subtle spell without having subtle spell.

It really grinds my gears.

[KOLE]

The only straight out ban has been on all forms of minionmancy. One of our players comes from Pathfinder and has an unhealthy obsession with Dread Necromancers. He had every intention of playing a Necromancy Wizard with full cheese and having dozens of undead minions as soon as he could. DM gave him a flat out no, and now all summon spells are off the table because he doesn’t want said player flipping his lid if someone else were to have minions when he couldn’t.

Less formally, the aforementioned DM has banned Gnomes. Because, and I quote, “They’re ****ing stupid. They’re just lame, leas exciting Dwarves. Just play a dwarf.”

[JoeJ]

Less formally, the aforementioned DM has banned Gnomes. Because, and I quote, “They’re ****ing stupid. They’re just lame, leas exciting Dwarves. Just play a dwarf.”

Strange. I would have said that dwarves are lame, less exciting gnomes. What do dwarves have that can even begin to compare with the awesomeness of giant space hamsters?

[Trask]

"Whisper casting"
using any type of ability check to try and make a spell not completely obvious to anyone within 60ft is kind of ridiculous in that it gives everybody the chance to have subtle spell without having subtle spell.

It really grinds my gears.

Its not quite the same if said ability check would cause the spell to fail if the ability check was failed. I get where you're coming from but sometimes a wizard wants to try and sneakily charm someone and it just seems like it should be possible to do that without a specific class ability. Subtle Spell makes it guaranteed to work, with the ability check you could lose the spell and get nothing (thats how I would do it)

[Fuzzy Logic]

"Whisper casting"
using any type of ability check to try and make a spell not completely obvious to anyone within 60ft is kind of ridiculous in that it gives everybody the chance to have subtle spell without having subtle spell.

It really grinds my gears.

+1 to this
I banned the mystic after we playtested it. Just too powerful. Banned lore wizard and mystic theurge outright. Way too OP. And I banned frostbite cantrip for stepping on dissonant whispers' toes too much

[TheUser]

Its not quite the same if said ability check would cause the spell to fail if the ability check was failed. I get where you're coming from but sometimes a wizard wants to try and sneakily charm someone and it just seems like it should be possible to do that without a specific class ability. Subtle Spell makes it guaranteed to work, with the ability check you could lose the spell and get nothing (thats how I would do it)

Can I make an ability check to get the rage ability for free without barbarian levels? Athletics check to action surge? How about arcana check to gain magical secrets? Insight check to add sneak attack dice without rogue levels? What other core class feature can I emulate with an ability check?

[Naanomi]

I’ve let Arcane Tricksters do ‘free subtle casting’ on their mage-Hand on a skill check before, but otherwise agree... casting is obvious

[sightlessrealit]

Can I make an ability check to get the rage ability for free without barbarian levels? Athletics check to action surge? How about arcana check to gain magical secrets? Insight check to add sneak attack dice without rogue levels? What other core class feature can I emulate with an ability check?

Yes to all. Wouldn't be as good as the actual class features but certainly would allow it.

[Naanomi]

Yes to all. Wouldn't be as good as the actual class features but certainly would allow it.
So the most powerful character is a Rogue/Bard/Knowledge Cleric... proficient in everything, Reliable Talent, 8-9 Expertised skills... can emulate any other class feature reliably with skill checks!

[sightlessrealit]

So the most powerful character is a Rogue/Bard/Knowledge Cleric... proficient in everything, Reliable Talent, 8-9 Expertised skills... can emulate any other class feature reliably with skill checks!
Yep Yep, to an extant. A 35 skill check would be needed to emulate a class feature.

[Tanarii]

"Whisper casting"
using any type of ability check to try and make a spell not completely obvious to anyone within 60ft is kind of ridiculous in that it gives everybody the chance to have subtle spell without having subtle spell.

It really grinds my gears.
IRL in many cases, it is possible to speak without alerting everyone within 60ft. Not generally advocating ability checks to hide a V component when it's totally silent around you. Just pointing out that speaking in a not overly loud way sounds like a whisper at 30ft, and even speaking loudly at 60ft. That's just basic decibel levels, before even accounting for ambient noise. So something like casting without notice in a crowded (and loud) bazaar might be possible at fairly short ranges, considerably less than 60ft.

Of course, most players that want to do it want to cast while hidden, or otherwise being incredibly subtle in social situations, often when it's pretty quiet around them. :smallyuk:

[TheUser]

IRL in many cases, it is possible to speak without alerting everyone within 60ft. Not generally advocating ability checks to hide a V component when it's totally silent around you. Just pointing out that speaking in a not overly loud way sounds like a whisper at 30ft, and even speaking loudly at 60ft. That's just basic decibel levels, before even accounting for ambient noise. So something like casting without notice in a crowded (and loud) bazaar might be possible at fairly short ranges, considerably less than 60ft.

Of course, most players that want to do it want to cast while hidden, or otherwise being incredibly subtle in social situations, often when it's pretty quiet around them. :smallyuk:

I'm a big proponent of "if the players can do it, then so can their enemies"

If counterspell effectively dictates that all you need is to be within 60ft and have line of sight to be able to notice and counter a spell, we have to assume that even during an encounter's worth of background noise (a skirmish/battle) a PC will hear and notice a spell being cast (since there are no facing rules). If you introduce whisper casting to players then when they go to counterspell the DM can now say "sorry. They were whisper casting, you don't notice it and cannot counter spell."

Essentially the PHB uses the words "chanting mystic words..."
Whispering and chanting are mutually exclusive in my books.

[JoeJ]

I’ve let Arcane Tricksters do ‘free subtle casting’ on their mage-Hand on a skill check before, but otherwise agree... casting is obvious

Rather than allowing that, I would suggest that the character try to research a variant version of the cantrip that substitutes a consumable material component for the verbal one.

[Mordna]

I'm running an original campaign, structured into 16 episodes. Finished 3, playing the 4th, still working on part 6.

It's very dungeon crawly with very many puzzles and labirinth-like settings. There is a larger world outside, but the PCs are effectively stuck in my world and must go through the maps one by one.
So I banned the following things:

1. Teleportation, except for Misty Step. They could simply just bypass my painstakingly constructed complicated series of doors, etc.
2. All plane-shifting abilitites or spells.
3. True Necromancy - as in not the school of magic but the ability to mess with corpses.
4. Hoard-summoning. You can not have more then 2 minions at a time, no matter what your spell says or class ability or whatever. Just no. The battle is already overcrowded with the Paladin's Chocobo steed and the Artificer's Mechanical Owl. Just no.

Other things that are not banned, but closely looked at:
1. UA choices must be sanctioned by the DM no matter what.
2. Homebrew stuff just as a last resort if we can't find anything else that can supply your need.
3. Changing things up for flavour (like the Chocobo Steed) are usually ok, many times welcome, because fun!, but must be sanctioned by DM before the start of the session, not blurted out in the middle so everyone gets excited about things that may not happen.

Something I changed from the RAW is that anyone can read a spell scroll, not just a caster, but must roll. This is situational to my party as we are low on casters, so must make up for the need for magic.

My players were made well aware of these rules before anything started, so there is no griping now. Everyone knew not to choose Necromancy Wizard or Death Domain Cleric, although they were not specifically banned.
At the beginning of every new episode I send out this list to remind them, and there is peace and harmony and people don't get upset, just roll with it. My game, my rules, but they are the stars and they have the fun. So it's all good. :)


Let me know if you think any of my bans are unreasonable, thanks!

[ErrantNonsense]

I'm a big proponent of "if the players can do it, then so can their enemies"

If counterspell effectively dictates that all you need is to be within 60ft and have line of sight to be able to notice and counter a spell, we have to assume that even during an encounter's worth of background noise (a skirmish/battle) a PC will hear and notice a spell being cast (since there are no facing rules). If you introduce whisper casting to players then when they go to counterspell the DM can now say "sorry. They were whisper casting, you don't notice it and cannot counter spell."

Essentially the PHB uses the words "chanting mystic words..."
Whispering and chanting are mutually exclusive in my books.

Conceptually, I agree that freely allowing subtle casting with just a slight of hand check (or equivalent) causes some problems but at the same time, I feel like there has to be some leeway. Bards and enchantment/illusion wizards are thematically, if not mechanically, geared towards being able to use magic to influence social encounters. If you say a bard can't use charm person or suggestion to 'win' a conversation without everyone in the room knowing they're casting spells, that seems like a massive limitation on what the class is meant to be good at. It really seems like an area that needed more concrete rules than currently exist, rather than being entirely up to dms.

[Naanomi]

Rather than allowing that, I would suggest that the character try to research a variant version of the cantrip that substitutes a consumable material component for the verbal one.
I find that (especially the part about creating a new spell and having abilities that only work with Mage Hand then work with it) at least as houseruley as the other. Now, of course, I can just have them play a Gith for the same effect

[Maxilian]

"Whisper casting"
using any type of ability check to try and make a spell not completely obvious to anyone within 60ft is kind of ridiculous in that it gives everybody the chance to have subtle spell without having subtle spell.

It really grinds my gears.

Is this RAW? I have never seen this as part of RAW, though i have seen many people asking for the possibility

Me, the only thing i have banned is:

-Lore Wizard.

(And i'm really picky on letting someone be a mystic)

[TheUser]

Conceptually, I agree that freely allowing subtle casting with just a slight of hand check (or equivalent) causes some problems but at the same time, I feel like there has to be some leeway. Bards and enchantment/illusion wizards are thematically, if not mechanically, geared towards being able to use magic to influence social encounters.

Full stop. This is an assertion on your part.

Nothing stops them from using their magic in social encounters under the supposition the social encounter is being done under private circumstances.

If you are in a private area with a singular NPC without anyone else viewing (happens often) then you have nothing to worry about -OR- if you manage to convince onlookers that you are casting a spell that isn't the enchantment then you might be able to assuage their fears.


If you say a bard can't use charm person or suggestion to 'win' a conversation without everyone in the room knowing they're casting spells, that seems like a massive limitation on what the class is meant to be good at. It really seems like an area that needed more concrete rules than currently exist, rather than being entirely up to dms.

There are concrete rules:
The first is in the PHB under Verbal components Page 203:


VERBAL (V)
Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with
specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion. Thus, a character who is gagged or in an area
of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can't cast a spell with a verbal component.

Chanting and whispering are mutually exclusive in my books. The second rule that would seem to denote awareness within 60ft is Counterspell which has the following requirements:



Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell.


Since there are no obligatory* facing rules, we can assume that having line of sight and being within 60ft are all that is required to notice a person casting a spell even within the context of a pitched battle.


Bards have expertise that they can use towards social skills, ergo if we assume that spells can be used in place of said expertise then what becomes the point? If they can convince the person to meet with them privately then glamour it up.

Enchanter Wizards have alter memories which means that if they charm a person they can essentially alter the circumstances leading up to the charm....being able to do so openly brings their power level to a staggering degree that I find reprehensible and unfair to Sorcerers.

What is so terrible about the classes that literally BEND REALITY TO THEIR WHIM having a restriction like "people notice when you do this within 60ft of them...."

* Edit

[Fyorl]

Since there are no facing rules

There actually are facing rules, in the DMG, they're just optional.

[Rerem115]

While I generally don't allow whispered casting, I will make an allowance for suggestion. AFAIK, it's basically the Jedi mind trick, so it's not noticeable unless you know what you're looking for.

[TheUser]

While I generally don't allow whispered casting, I will make an allowance for suggestion. AFAIK, it's basically the Jedi mind trick, so it's not noticeable unless you know what you're looking for.

Are you thinking that the Verbal component of the spell is the suggestion itself? Because it's not. It's got a verbal chanting component to cast the spell and the additional requirement of speaking a suggestion afterwards.

(You're giving away subtle spell metamagic on what I would consider it's cornerstone compatible spell)

[JoeJ]

I find that (especially the part about creating a new spell and having abilities that only work with Mage Hand then work with it) at least as houseruley as the other. Now, of course, I can just have them play a Gith for the same effect

Well of course. What else would a new spell (or a new variation of an old spell) be?

[xen]

I ban nothing in my games. Of course, i play with a group that's been together since 3.5 and they don't really do cheese. We also have a few newer players and they are more interested in role playing than cheesing.

Well, except for lore wizard because come on...

[Fire Tarrasque]

Lore Wizard and Owlbears.

[Kane0]

Lore Wizard and Owlbears.

Sounds like there's a story in that.

I don't really ban so much as alter things. It's become a fairly long list at this point.

[xen]

Sounds like there's a story in that.

I don't really ban so much as alter things. It's become a fairly long list at this point.

This. I will say we have our houserules; I'd much rather alter something we don't care for than ban it. Except Lore Wizard, but that's mostly because several of us are big sorcerer fans and Lore Wiz just out-sorcerers every sorcerer. If we didn't have so many sorcerers I'd probably allow it with some tweaks.

Heck we even allow multiclass UA. I have found i can typically find many ways to challenge players no matter what.

We have a nomad Mystic in our current game, plus a revised ranger hunter, and a UA Cursebringer Hexblade/Divine Soul Sorlock. We also have an EK with a homebrewed fighting style based off intimidation checks.

In another game (with a different player DMing) we have a revised ranger stacked with horizon walker and we're using some crazy rules based off Talent Law. My character's randomly rolled flaw was a split personality, so we represent that as 2 different characters, and the personality changes after a long rest or if he gets hit by a critical. It's crazy but that game has been a blast.

None of this has been an issue for us. That said if I was DMing for players I didn't know so well, I'd tone it down.

[xen]

You know I just thought of something weird. Nobody in our group ever takes sharpshooter or GWM. Strange.

[mgshamster]

You know I just thought of something weird. Nobody in our group ever takes sharpshooter or GWM. Strange.

Same for my group.

And the one time I did take, after a level I asked the GM if I could switch it out. Found it rather useless.

[BlackRose]

As a quick note, page 85 of Xanathars goes into detail on noticing spells being cast. It even goes so far as to state that Charm Person has no outward signs of being cast, despite having both verbal and somatic components. It states that the effects of spells are what identifies them, not the components in their creation. This seems to suggest that the verbal and somatic components in spellcasting can certainly be casted in such a way as to be inperceptible to someone unskilled in arcana and who doesn't opt to use their reaction to identify the spell being cast.

I think it's therefore not absurd to allow a stealth check to be used to try and imitate the effects of subtle/still spell. That said, it's obviously your campaign and there's plenty of wiggle room in the rules to let you make your own interpretations. Plus xanathars rules are all considered variant rules that you don't necessarily have to explicitly follow

[Brundle]

id go with slight of hand not stealth if its up close

[Naanomi]

As a quick note, page 85 of Xanathars goes into detail on noticing spells being cast. It even goes so far as to state that Charm Person has no outward signs of being cast, despite having both verbal and somatic components. It states that the effects of spells are what identifies them, not the components in their creation. This seems to suggest that the verbal and somatic components in spellcasting can certainly be casted in such a way as to be inperceptible to someone unskilled in arcana and who doesn't opt to use their reaction to identify the spell being cast.

I think it's therefore not absurd to allow a stealth check to be used to try and imitate the effects of subtle/still spell. That said, it's obviously your campaign and there's plenty of wiggle room in the rules to let you make your own interpretations. Plus xanathars rules are all considered variant rules that you don't necessarily have to explicitly follow
Note that the paragraph you cite clearly states the *act of casting* the spell is noticeable determined by use of components; and is only talking about charm not having noticeable effects once already cast

[PhoenixPhyre]

As a quick note, page 85 of Xanathars goes into detail on noticing spells being cast. It even goes so far as to state that Charm Person has no outward signs of being cast, despite having both verbal and somatic components. It states that the effects of spells are what identifies them, not the components in their creation. This seems to suggest that the verbal and somatic components in spellcasting can certainly be casted in such a way as to be inperceptible to someone unskilled in arcana and who doesn't opt to use their reaction to identify the spell being cast.

I think it's therefore not absurd to allow a stealth check to be used to try and imitate the effects of subtle/still spell. That said, it's obviously your campaign and there's plenty of wiggle room in the rules to let you make your own interpretations. Plus xanathars rules are all considered variant rules that you don't necessarily have to explicitly follow

You may not be able to tell that what they're casting is charm person, but you can certainly tell they're casting a spell. That's a big thing (because it leaves able to blind-counterspell or otherwise gank the caster). In a world where mind-control magic is common, blatantly casting a spell in public might get a similar reaction as pulling a gun. Now if common-place magic is common (prestidigitation, etc), then simple spells can get lost in the "background noise" and might not be that remarkable. They'd still be noticeable (he's casting a spell), but if 90% of the people are doing so on a regular basis and it's usually harmless, it's like talking on a phone. Yes, cell phones can be used to detonate bombs, but most aren't.

[Sigreid]

I'm a big proponent of "if the players can do it, then so can their enemies"

If counterspell effectively dictates that all you need is to be within 60ft and have line of sight to be able to notice and counter a spell, we have to assume that even during an encounter's worth of background noise (a skirmish/battle) a PC will hear and notice a spell being cast (since there are no facing rules). If you introduce whisper casting to players then when they go to counterspell the DM can now say "sorry. They were whisper casting, you don't notice it and cannot counter spell."

Essentially the PHB uses the words "chanting mystic words..."
Whispering and chanting are mutually exclusive in my books.

IMO, you guys may be talking different things. I do believe you have to engage your voice box to cast a spell in order to hit the right tone etc. I don't believe you have to speak overly loudly or shout. I believe in a fight in a world where there are spellcasters people will be watching and listening for spells as surely as they would be watching for a blow to the side of the head.

That said, in a crowded bar or marketplace you can say a lot of things at considerable volume and not be noticed because there's a lot going on and people don't have any particular reason to care what you are doing or pay attention to you. If someone is already watching you for some reason, that is different.

[BlackRose]

Note that the paragraph you cite clearly states the *act of casting* the spell is noticeable determined by use of components; and is only talking about charm not having noticeable effects once already cast

Absolutely, sorry, I worded my statement poorly. I was simply saying that because the spell itself is not creating an obvious effect it wouldn't be unthinkable for the Bard to disguise his casting, since casting the spell does not immedietly give itself away. I think it would be a great rp opportunity for the Bard to disguise his charm effect with hand gestures and he's speaking, his audience assuming he's simply gesticulating as he speaks. Perhaps his arcane mantra could be incorporated into the words he's slyly speaking to the person in question. Making a stealth/sleight of hand could be a great opportunity to avoid detection while still fulfilling the social spellcasting role bards have. Especially since the target will quickly realize he's been duped anyway once the effects recede.

[DanyBallon]

The only dips available at our table are for chips and veggies!

More seriously, during session 0, the DM will often voice their dislike including class dipping, but there is no official ban.

Otherwise, we threat UA content on a case-by-case basis.

[Naanomi]

Absolutely, sorry, I worded my statement poorly. I was simply saying that because the spell itself is not creating an obvious effect it wouldn't be unthinkable for the Bard to disguise his casting, since casting the spell does not immedietly give itself away. I think it would be a great rp opportunity for the Bard to disguise his charm effect with hand gestures and he's speaking, his audience assuming he's simply gesticulating as he speaks. Perhaps his arcane mantra could be incorporated into the words he's slyly speaking to the person in question. Making a stealth/sleight of hand could be a great opportunity to avoid detection while still fulfilling the social spellcasting role bards have. Especially since the target will quickly realize he's been duped anyway once the effects recede.
I don’t like that model myself, but I can see the argument. Casting takes what... six seconds give or take? If people who have any clue about spellcasting at all are watching you, I don’t know how you are disguising that much clearly magical articulation and gesticulation

On the other hand, any bard worth her salt can probably make a six second distraction to get away with it anyways

[Tanarii]

Absolutely, sorry, I worded my statement poorly. I was simply saying that because the spell itself is not creating an obvious effect it wouldn't be unthinkable for the Bard to disguise his casting, since casting the spell does not immedietly give itself away. Except you're wrong. Xanathars says the effect of the spell does not immediately give itself away.

Casting the spell does immediately give itself away, if it has V, S or M components. Ie not a subtle spell.

Unless you as a DM rule it doesn't get noticed, getting lost in ambient noise or distractions. But that's a different matter.

[TheUser]

Absolutely, sorry, I worded my statement poorly. I was simply saying that because the spell itself is not creating an obvious effect it wouldn't be unthinkable for the Bard to disguise his casting, since casting the spell does not immedietly give itself away. I think it would be a great rp opportunity for the Bard to disguise his charm effect with hand gestures and he's speaking, his audience assuming he's simply gesticulating as he speaks. Perhaps his arcane mantra could be incorporated into the words he's slyly speaking to the person in question. Making a stealth/sleight of hand could be a great opportunity to avoid detection while still fulfilling the social spellcasting role bards have. Especially since the target will quickly realize he's been duped anyway once the effects recede.

Mmmmmnope. You are talking about using an ability check to disguise your spell casting; essentially mimicing subtle spell.

Tell me, what is the ability check a sorcerer makes to emulate a core bard feature like inspiration or magical secrets? How do you effectively disguise the guestures when absolute precision is necessary to cast? At best you need another player providing a -very- loud distraction imho or background noise strong enough that it would drown out a chanting singer.

[BlackRose]

Except you're wrong. Xanathars says the effect of the spell does not immediately give itself away.

Casting the spell does immediately give itself away, if it has V, S or M components. Ie not a subtle spell.

Unless you as a DM rule it doesn't get noticed, getting lost in ambient noise or distractions. But that's a different matter.

The rules say the components make the spell percievable. I'm saying by a dms interpretation one who is skilled in stealth or sleight of hand could disguise these percievable components as part of their conversation rather than part of a spell, since some spells don't create a percievable effect. If someone waves their arms around and sings the song of their people but nothing happens, then an onlooker (who is not skilled in arcana and using their reaction to identify your casting) may not know you've cast a spell.

I realize this is up to dm interpretation, perhaps the forceful gesticulations and pitches and resonances described in the phb would not actually be possible to disguise. In that case then you'd have to hide around a corner to cast the spell. I simply put it out there as an option for the chap discussing the bard using spells in normal situations. Now I'm just sorry I spoke up at all

[Sigreid]

I don't see why it would be hard for a performer to bury the necessary verbal and somatic components into an act. In that case it would not be subtle in the sense that you're not drawing attention to yourself but in filling the area with so much noise people don't pick up on the important bits. Frankly I would expect a spell's incantation to be mostly meaningless noise to hide the bits where power is hidden.

[Tanarii]

The rules say the components make the spell percievable. I'm saying by a dms interpretation one who is skilled in stealth or sleight of hand could disguise these percievable components as part of their conversation rather than part of a spell, since some spells don't create a percievable effect.I'm with TheUser on this one. It should not be possible to make a skill check to make your V, S or M components any less perceivable. I think they have a fixed value of percievability inherent to them that cannot be reduced.

Where I disagree is on the possibility of ambient noise or distractions making it overlooked at fairly short ranges. It's possible to be talking fairly loudly less than 60ft away from someone and for them to not even realize you're there under many circumstances.

Otoh, mechanically 60ft isn't a bad distance to set as the automatic (or at least DC 10 passive perception) range for detecting anything not stealthy. I set that distance at 30ft (provided you can make a DC 10 passive perception check), but that's probably too short in retrospect.

[KOLE]

After everyone talked about banning Lore Wizard here I took a look at it myself as I’d never heard of it. Sweet Polly Oliver, what were they thinking with that one?! Might as well have just come clean and just said God Wizard. That’s the worst decision I’ve seen in UA since the first draft of the revised ranger got 2d6 hit die per level.

So yeah, that’s on my ban list now too.

[jaappleton]

After everyone talked about banning Lore Wizard here I took a look at it myself as I’d never heard of it. Sweet Polly Oliver, what were they thinking with that one?! Might as well have just come clean and just said God Wizard. That’s the worst decision I’ve seen in UA since the first draft of the revised ranger got 2d6 hit die per level.

So yeah, that’s on my ban list now too.

Via Twitter, Crawford acknowledged that the Lore Wizard as a whole, as presented, was never really meant to be tested that way. Instead it was more an amalgamation of other ideas, like “Let’s put this feature here and this feature there”, it wasn’t supposed to be treated as the sum of its parts.

Considering every other UA is supposed to be treated exactly as the sum of its parts, I take what he said there with a grain of salt. Something like that certainly should’ve been stated in the headline of the UA release, IMO, if that’s what they had intended.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Interestingly, I don't think I've ever banned something for mechanical reasons. I allow UA and a fair bit of homebrew, usually just making exceptions for gunslinger or something else like that, which doesn't fit in the lore of the world.

I just have an understanding with my players that I will scale the world with them. If they find a way to abuse something like Pixies or Simulacrum or something, they'll probably run into a similar exploit that can give them a fair challenge. I'm not opposed to some of the things mentioned being banned, I just typically like to allow freedom for the PCs and tailor their enemies and encounters to match them.