Spells that are too weak for spell slot.

[stoutstien]

Are there any spells that are over/ underpowered and you could see moving due to slot cost? Time stop stands out to me due to the restrictions now with the spell, level 9 is outrageous. I could see it at 5th lv slot or even 4th.

[Amdy_vill]

I think you need to clarify your question. it looks like your asking if wizards will change a spell they have printed. the answer is No but ones i would like homunculus should be a level 2 or 3 spell probably 3.

The words moving down are the problem.

[Kadesh]

Are there any spells you could see moving down due to under use due to slot cost? Time stop stands out to me due to the restrictions now with the spell, level 9 is outrageous. I could see it at 5th lv slot or even 4th.

Youre going to need to explain that one to me.

[Man_Over_Game]

Are there any spells you could see moving down due to under use due to slot cost? Time stop stands out to me due to the restrictions now with the spell, level 9 is outrageous. I could see it at 5th lv slot or even 4th.

Wrathful Smite, I think should be a level 2 spell and bump the damage up slightly on it. Or have it errata'd so it's a wisdom SAVE and not a wisdom CHECK.

Find Steed, should be a level 1 spell, not because it's too weak but because mounts are usually available around level 2 anyway, Paladins can't afford to prepare too many spells (so this wouldn't be a major balance concern), and this would open up more mount-based builds if mounts were more reliable.

Bless, should be level 2. It's too good right now, and the risk of losing a level 2 spell slot vs a level 1 would make other spells see more use. People would still use Bless as the "generic buff spell number 1", but now they'll consider other options to see if there's anything better to do first.

Animate Dead, should be level 2. It's a difficult spell for PCs to use, and takes a decent amount of investment to utilize. Undead are sometimes rare to encounter, causing players to feel like their Turn Undead type abilities don't see much use, and thus are useless. By making undead more accessible, more undead enemies/allies will be used. 2 out of 12 classes have abilities that specifically interact with undead. 3 out of the remaining 10 have archetypes that interact with the undead. No other enemy type has so many specific type of class interactions than undead, and cheapening its staple spell will make players feel more rewarded. When necromancers start popping up around level 3-4, Clerics will start to feel really handy, and specialized abilities like that should be used whenever possible.

Witch Bolt, should be a cantrip. One of the worst spells that casts like a cantrip, and reskinning it to a cantrip version would see a lot more use.

[Jerrykhor]

If your answer to this thread is not Mordenkainen's Sword, you are wrong. That spell needs to be moved down 3 to 4 levels.

[Beelzebubba]

Are there any spells you could see moving down due to under use due to slot cost? Time stop stands out to me due to the restrictions now with the spell, level 9 is outrageous. I could see it at 5th lv slot or even 4th.

If it was 3rd Edition, you might have a point, because Wizards in that edition were gods.

In 5th Edition, it's fine and works very well. The power curve is much flatter, and action economy is everything, so those few rounds can make a huge difference.

[stoutstien]

[QUOTE=Jerrykhor;23365656]If your answer to this thread is not Mordenkainen's Sword, you are wrong. Haha, I completely wrote off that spell the first time I read it. Yea ill reword op

[stoutstien]

If it was 3rd Edition, you might have a point, because Wizards in that edition were gods.

In 5th Edition, it's fine and works very well. The power curve is much flatter, and action economy is everything, so those few rounds can make a huge difference.

seeing how you can't do anything that can affect another player or even an enemy the most logical use for the Spell is to runaway. I know very few people ever see the use of 9th level spells so it's a non issue but I've given out trinkets that allow it to be cast once a day as an action as early as lv 5 and the most damage it's done is by the thief for smash and grabs of unsecured items

[krugaan]

If your answer to this thread is not Mordenkainen's Sword, you are wrong. That spell needs to be moved down 3 to 4 levels.

It's pretty similar to an upcasted spiritual weapon, which is a better than average spell.

But yeah, it blows.

[MaxWilson]

It's pretty similar to an upcasted spiritual weapon, which is a better than average spell.

Mordenkainen's Sword: 1 action to cast, 1 minute (Concentration), 60' range, 3d10 (16) force damage, bonus action to repeat attacks.
Spiritual Weapon VI: bonus action to cast, 1 minute, 60' range, 3d8+WIS (18) force damage, bonus action to repeat attacks.

The only advantage Mordenkainen's Sword has is that, technically, by a strict reading, you can attack twice with it on the first turn (action to cast, plus another attack with your bonus action), but that is probably unintended. Other than that, it is higher-level, does less damage, and most importantly it eats your concentration.

If you removed the concentration requirement it would be an okay spell.

[Eragon123]

If you removed the concentration requirement it would be an okay spell.

That's probably the cleanest way to improve the spell though I still don't know if it would ever be picked.

Though with original overchannel (No errata nor sage advice), 30 dmg a turn as a bonus action is pretty nice. Maybe not 7th level nice but hey it's now at least an option.

[MaxWilson]

That's probably the cleanest way to improve the spell though I still don't know if it would ever be picked.

Though with original overchannel (No errata nor sage advice), 30 dmg a turn as a bonus action is pretty nice. Maybe not 7th level nice but hey it's now at least an option.

Overchannel doesn't work with spells above 5th level. But even if Overchannel worked on 7th level spells, Overchanneled Bigby's Hand VII would do 64 damage per turn (Clenched Fist for 8d8) as a bonus action anyway, so Mordenkainen's Sword is still worse.

[Eragon123]

Overchannel doesn't work with spells above 5th level. But even if Overchannel worked on 7th level spells, Overchanneled Bigby's Hand VII would do 64 damage per turn (Clenched Fist for 8d8) as a bonus action anyway, so Mordenkainen's Sword is still worse.


I completely forgot about that restriction. And yes Bibgy's Hand is awesome but since it has stats, things can kill it. Granted that's usually an advantage but still it'd be an option. A really bad sucky option but an option.

[krugaan]

Mordenkainen's Sword: 1 action to cast, 1 minute (Concentration), 60' range, 3d10 (16) force damage, bonus action to repeat attacks.
Spiritual Weapon VI: bonus action to cast, 1 minute, 60' range, 3d8+WIS (18) force damage, bonus action to repeat attacks.

The only advantage Mordenkainen's Sword has is that, technically, by a strict reading, you can attack twice with it on the first turn (action to cast, plus another attack with your bonus action), but that is probably unintended. Other than that, it is higher-level, does less damage, and most importantly it eats your concentration.

If you removed the concentration requirement it would be an okay spell.

ah, shoot, I forgot about the concentration part.

Well, that just confirms my belief that Mordenkainen's sucks. Honestly... it could be a third level spell and still be a questionable use of a concentration slot.

[MrStabby]

I would probably add shield to the list.

It is just a little bit too accessible for too many multiclasses.



Prismatic spray could possibly drop a level. Unpredictability, the damage effects not being so great at that level and so on make it a bit of a liability. A big advantage of spells is the ability to pick an attack that targets an enemies weakness and this doesn't do that. Instead you can hit known resistances/condition immunities.



Fabricate can sometimes get a bit weird. Might be worth a touch up.


Fireball is powerful enough to be a level 4 spell but probably not worth the outrage that shifting it would cause - Iconic spell and all.

[DarkKnightJin]

Witch Bolt, should be a cantrip. One of the worst spells that casts like a cantrip, and reskinning it to a cantrip version would see a lot more use.

I agree 100% on this. Hell, making it a cantrip would actually make it worth trying out.

Of course, you'd get people just recasting it every round to get the most damage instead of the 1d12 damage it has now. Honestly, who thought only the initial damage scaling with slot level was how to balance the spell?

[Eragon123]

I agree 100% on this. Hell, making it a cantrip would actually make it worth trying out.

Of course, you'd get people just recasting it every round to get the most damage instead of the 1d12 damage it has now. Honestly, who thought only the initial damage scaling with slot level was how to balance the spell?

My fix was to attach some utility to it. make the range 45-60 feet. At least for the unattaching range. And have it halve the speed of the creature affected. (also if you want to add scaling to the secondary damage, make it only scale every other level)

[MaxWilson]

My fix was to attach some utility to it. make the range 45-60 feet. At least for the unattaching range. And have it halve the speed of the creature affected. (also if you want to add scaling to the secondary damage, make it only scale every other level)

Also, it should prevent the target from using the Force.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'd drop the damage to a level scaling 1d4, replace the action use to a bonus action, but require a free hand to maintain.

Flavorful, light on initial damage, but would see some use with medium ranged casters. Would make a good cantrip concentration spell. Most casters don't run around with two weapons or a shield, so as long as it's worded so that it doesn't interfere with casting with your main action (since it doesn't itself "occupy" a hand, it simply requires a free hand, similar to Bladesinging).

This would put it on par with TWF, but strictly as a caster with a slight bit of range.

1d4 sounds weak, until I remembered that Vicious Mockery is a 1d4, requires an action each turn, and has a chance to miss every turn (This Witch Bolt wouldn't miss post turn 1).


Also, it should prevent the target from using the Force.
"Cannot be cast by good or neutral aligned characters"

[ImproperJustice]

Skill expertise needs to be dropped to level 3, maybe 4, but definitely not 5.

Each of the Investiture spells needs to be combined into one spell where you choose which element upon casting. It would compensate for the fact you only get to cast it once per long rest.

[MaxWilson]

Each of the Investiture spells needs to be combined into one spell where you choose which element upon casting. It would compensate for the fact you only get to cast it once per long rest.

Oooo, I like this one. *Yoink*

[Man_Over_Game]

Each of the Investiture spells needs to be combined into one spell where you choose which element upon casting. It would compensate for the fact you only get to cast it once per long rest.


Oooo, I like this one. *Yoink*

I was thinking the same thing. It's hard to tell which one will be useful when you need it, so it's difficult to prepare with it. If it was a little more versatile, like being able to choose which one you need, it'd be a solid spell to have on hand.

[MaxWilson]

"Cannot be cast by good or neutral aligned characters"

In all seriousness, restricting spells based on alignment is not a bad mechanic for certain types of games. 5E sort of, kind of has this in a roundabout way for Animate Dead, but there's a big difference between "casting this spell is not a good act and only evil characters cast it frequently" (which is basically an heavy-handed roleplaying statement which invites players to say, "Forget you, I think it's fine"), vs. "The dark energies fail to respond except to corrupt and vile souls. Go murder a baby first and then try to recast this spell." I think the latter is a lot more flavorful and might be worth stealing, for certain types of campaigns.

You might have certain specialized damage-dealing or mind-control or body-swapping spells that only work for evil alignments, and perhaps healing spells that only work for good alignments. Reminds me of Dragonlance.

Probably works best at a multi-party Diplomacy-flavored table like an old-school Gygaxian campaign or Steve Jackson's Head of Vecna campaign, where players are often competing with/interacting vicariously with other players who are actively pushing their own agendas, and where there is a real reputational cost to baby-killing. I wouldn't expect it to work too well at a hack-and-slash dungeon crawling table where murderhoboism carries no real downsides--at that kind of table it would just feel like an alignment tax forcing you to be evil to get the "best" spells.

[sophontteks]

I would say Enthrall should be dropped from level 2 but its weak as a level 1 spell.

[Man_Over_Game]

I would say Enthrall should be dropped from level 2 but its weak as a level 1 spell.

Lol, no kidding.

60 foot range. 2nd level spell. Gets negatives when used in combat. Can't be used on things who can't be charmed. Can't be used if the enemy can't hear you, and stops working completely if the enemy ever is unable to hear you. Does nothing if the initial Wisdom save was met.

The benefit?

Affected creatures have disadvantage to Perception Checks regarding creatures who aren't you (so I guess your friends can do whatever, but you're stuck there?), no concentration (doesn't matter, since you can't use it in combat anyway, what RP Concentration spells are there?), only uses an initial save for the spell to work for the full duration.

I'd say it's better than most level 1 spells, but much worse than most level 2 spells. Balance-wise, I could see this being a level 1. The main issue is that it's so specific. Most characters who'd have this (rogues, bards) are the kind who'd be the ones who wouldn't want to have the attention in the first place. You would need to be something like an Enchantment Wizard, who wasn't trying to be the one to steal things, and good luck finding one of those.

[LudicSavant]

Find Steed, should be a level 1 spell, not because it's too weak but because mounts are usually available around level 2 anyway

It's worth noting that the Paladin's mount is much better than normal mounts of the same creature type, because of its ability to share spells and act independently (which means that unlike everyone else's warhorses, you can take full advantage of Trampling Charge and its attacks).


Paladins can't afford to prepare too many spells (so this wouldn't be a major balance concern), and this would open up more mount-based builds if mounts were more reliable.

Also, the mount has an unlimited duration, which means that unless you're resummoning the horse when it dies, you're not even using slots on it.

As for opening up mount-based builds, you get Find Steed at level 5, only one level after most races can even choose to get a feat like Mounted Combatant.


so this wouldn't be a major balance concern

Let's take a look at a level 2 Paladin with Find Steed and see how that works out.

Level 2 VHuman Paladin w/ Great Weapon Fighting
The optimizing Paladin has precast Find Steed until she got one she liked (e.g. didn't roll badly on hit points). Also, since you're apparently assuming that other characters can have a warhorse by this point, let's put that money that you would have spent on a warhorse into Barding (so the intelligent horse has almost as good AC, hp, attack roll, and base damage as the Paladin herself). When battle is joined, she casts Thunderous Smite as a bonus action, sharing the buff to her steed. Then she rides into battle with Trampling Charge, knocking her foe prone. She then gets Advantage on her and her mount's attacks, which deal 8d6+17 damage on a hit (with an increased crit chance), and threaten to knock the foe prone two more times if Trampling Charge didn't do it already, and knock them back 20 feet (so they're prone, way out of position wherever you want them, and can't engage your team if they're not already dead). For overkill the Paladin could throw a Divine Smite on top of that for 8d6+2d8+17 damage. Oh, and the Paladin can grab the GWF fighting style and reroll 1s and 2s just for good measure.

Even if the enemy somehow isn't prone and/or dead by this point, if they tried to move away from you they'd provoke an OA from both the mount and the paladin, taking significant damage to the face again.

[Man_Over_Game]

Totally forgot about the clause that spells can be duplicated on your steed, and that it technically can fight on its own.

[MaxWilson]

It's worth noting that the Paladin's mount is much better than normal mounts of the same creature type, because of its ability to share spells and act independently (which means that unlike everyone else's warhorses, you can take full advantage of Trampling Charge and its attacks).

This interpretion of Find Steed as being "unlike everyone else's warhorses" and getting attacks is controversial. See http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?495084-Find-Steed-and-the-mounted-combat-rules for discussion.

[LudicSavant]

This interpretion of Find Steed as being "unlike everyone else's warhorses" and getting attacks is controversial. See http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?495084-Find-Steed-and-the-mounted-combat-rules for discussion.

This is one of those cases where the rules as written and Sage Advice contradict each other, yes.

JC's ruling means that the steed somehow loses its capacity for independent thought the second you mount it. In order to arrive at this interpretation, you need to read "allows" as "requires" and "fight as a seamless unit" as "cannot take coordinated independent actions like two intelligent creatures working as a team." Which, of course, isn't what those words mean in other contexts, which is why this is usually cited as JC contradicting RAW.

Even if your table is using JC's ruling, however, the mount can in fact act independently from you while you are not actually on it.

[MaxWilson]

This is one of those cases where the rules as written and Sage Advice contradict each other, yes.

Even if your table is using JC's ruling, however, the mount can in fact act independently from you while you are not actually on it, as pointed out in the thread you just linked to.

JC's ruling just means that the steed somehow loses its capacity for independent thought the second you mount it, due to reading "allow" as "requires" and "fight as a seamless unit" as "cannot take coordinated independent actions."

If you're fighting dismounted, using Find Steed purely to generate an attack horse, you might as well buy a bunch of attack dogs too. They'll soak hits, benefit from your horse's ability to knock prone, kill enemies faster, add opportunity attacks, etc.

Honestly I think 5E rules for mounts are garbage and need a serious rewrite. Warhorses are simultaneously too powerful for supplying movement and too weak at actual fighting compared to riding horses. IMO all warhorses, magical and otherwise, should get all the normal actions of a warhorse (including attack actions, because that's the whole point of buying a trained warhorse) but the rider and the warhorse should both act on the lower of both their initiative counts.

Just be aware, before relying too much on Find Steed, that you may need to have a discussion with your DM; and that it may be possible to get similar benefits through paying simple cash instead of class levels.

P.S. Thunderous Smite targets a creature besides yourself and is therefore not eligible for spell sharing with your steed, unless you want to knock both yourself and your steed prone with one spell in which case go for it, I guess.

[LudicSavant]

P.S. Thunderous Smite targets a creature besides yourself and is therefore not eligible for spell sharing with your steed

Whoops, you're right. For some reason I was thinking of it similarly to how Divine Favor works. You can use Divine Favor instead, then.


Honestly I think 5E rules for mounts are garbage and need a serious rewrite. Warhorses are simultaneously too powerful for supplying movement and too weak at actual fighting compared to riding horses. IMO all warhorses, magical and otherwise, should get all the normal actions of a warhorse (including attack actions, because that's the whole point of buying a trained warhorse) but the rider and the warhorse should both act on the lower of both their initiative counts.

Interesting. I'd be curious to see what others think of this rule, though that's probably a subject for another thread.

[sophontteks]

Lol, no kidding.

60 foot range. 2nd level spell. Gets negatives when used in combat. Can't be used on things who can't be charmed. Can't be used if the enemy can't hear you, and stops working completely if the enemy ever is unable to hear you. Does nothing if the initial Wisdom save was met.

The benefit?

Affected creatures have disadvantage to Perception Checks regarding creatures who aren't you (so I guess your friends can do whatever, but you're stuck there?), no concentration (doesn't matter, since you can't use it in combat anyway, what RP Concentration spells are there?), only uses an initial save for the spell to work for the full duration.

I'd say it's better than most level 1 spells, but much worse than most level 2 spells. Balance-wise, I could see this being a level 1. The main issue is that it's so specific. Most characters who'd have this (rogues, bards) are the kind who'd be the ones who wouldn't want to have the attention in the first place. You would need to be something like an Enchantment Wizard, who wasn't trying to be the one to steal things, and good luck finding one of those.

This charm spell doesn't actually charm. There is nothing stopping the enemy you are distracting from just attacking you. It doesn't change their outlook, stance, or position at all.

No its worse then that even.

Many people have the opinion that all spells have to be cast in such a way that its obvious to anyone you are casting a spell. So, They know you cast a spell on them!
The act of casting a spell on someone is almost always considered a hostile action, so, guess what? Yeah. They are just going to attack you immediately. Just to emphasize this spell doesn't charm them or in anyway restrict their ability to inflict violence upon you.

You'd literally be better off shouting profanities at them with the added benefit of being able to dash away. Anyone with the performance skill can do far better then this level 2 spell ever could.

[Sigreid]

This is one of those cases where the rules as written and Sage Advice contradict each other, yes.

JC's ruling means that the steed somehow loses its capacity for independent thought the second you mount it. In order to arrive at this interpretation, you need to read "allows" as "requires" and "fight as a seamless unit" as "cannot take coordinated independent actions like two intelligent creatures working as a team." Which, of course, isn't what those words mean in other contexts, which is why this is usually cited as JC contradicting RAW.

Even if your table is using JC's ruling, however, the mount can in fact act independently from you while you are not actually on it.

Hadn't thought about it before but I guess your pally steed could help you, even when mounted. Advantage forever, yay!

[LudicSavant]

This charm spell doesn't actually charm. There is nothing stopping the enemy you are distracting from just attacking you. It doesn't change their outlook, stance, or position at all.

No its worse then that even.

Many people have the opinion that all spells have to be cast in such a way that its obvious to anyone you are casting a spell. So, They know you cast a spell on them!
The act of casting a spell on someone is almost always considered a hostile action, so, guess what? Yeah. They are just going to attack you immediately. Just to emphasize this spell doesn't charm them or in anyway restrict their ability to inflict violence upon you.

You'd literally be better off shouting profanities at them with the added benefit of being able to dash away. Anyone with the performance skill can do far better then this level 2 spell ever could.

Oh wow, that really does pound the nails into the coffin for Enthrall.

And this is why nobody ever casts Enthrall. :smalltongue:

[sambojin]

Pass without Trace could probably afford to be a level 3 spell. Yes, it's a utility spell, but it's so universally useful for that situation, that a slot bump might be worth it. Might screw over Rangers with their limited slots though (this is one of the few things they're actually good at).

Call Lightning could probably be a lvl2 spell. Downscale the damage a die, still let it be up-cast as normal (so the standard 3d10 as a lvl3 slot). But it's mechanically inferior in most ways to Flame Sphere, almost exactly the same as Moon Beam except damage and save type, but is more situational to even be able to cast it. I know it's a lvl3 spell just to differentiate it from these two, but it just makes it even less used. It probably wouldn't change much, but it would be nice as an "iconic" spell for the class to not get sidelined so badly. It's fairly rare that a ten minute direct damage concentration spell is actually useful.

Wind Wall could use a slot drop or a damage buff of an extra die. It's nice and all, and can be very useful situationally (it's good defensively but can also be used as mini-chain-lightning), but it always feels a little underwhelming. Would it be too good as a lvl2 spell? Probably/maybe due to the excellent targeting. Yet it's only one instance of damage against an often fairly good creature save. It's not good enough as a lvl3, definitely, and can't even be up-cast. There's incredible competition for slots at that Druid level too. Maybe just bump it up a die to 4d8. Possibly even 2 extra dice to 5d8. At least it would feel like it did a bit even in fail-cases when being used offensively. And no-one would ever complain that druids lack in direct damage spells. Great for popping skeletons though :)

[ciarannihill]

Pass without Trace could probably afford to be a level 3 spell. Yes, it's a utility spell, but it's so universally useful for that situation, that a slot bump might be worth it. Might screw over Rangers with their limited slots though (this is one of the few things they're actually good at).

From a balance perspective I think you're correct here, however I think it's worth noting that for a Ranger or Druid who just got this spell using it feels like they're contributing above and beyond to the party, which is great for new players especially. Speaking from experience with my current group, our resident newbie decided this was his favorite spell because of how frequently he used it to enable the execution of sometimes ridiculous plans of action the party came up with/

It's an amazing feeling, and it's a non-combat spell which I think could use reasonably powerful options at all levels, if only to encourage people to pick them over damage spells.

[mephnick]

Find Steed, should be a level 1 spell, not because it's too weak but because mounts are usually available around level 2 anyway, Paladins can't afford to prepare too many spells (so this wouldn't be a major balance concern), and this would open up more mount-based builds if mounts were more reliable.

Movement and range are literally a paladin's only weakness. Find Steed ups the Paladin's ability to kill things a hundred fold. I'd make the spell cost them more.

Regular steeds can be killed easily and are hard to replace on the road. Find Steed is probably the best Paladin spell in the game, moving it to 1st level would be a mistake IMO.

[DarkKnightJin]

I'd drop the damage to a level scaling 1d4, replace the action use to a bonus action, but require a free hand to maintain.

Flavorful, light on initial damage, but would see some use with medium ranged casters. Would make a good cantrip concentration spell. Most casters don't run around with two weapons or a shield, so as long as it's worded so that it doesn't interfere with casting with your main action (since it doesn't itself "occupy" a hand, it simply requires a free hand, similar to Bladesinging).

This would put it on par with TWF, but strictly as a caster with a slight bit of range.

1d4 sounds weak, until I remembered that Vicious Mockery is a 1d4, requires an action each turn, and has a chance to miss every turn (This Witch Bolt wouldn't miss post turn 1).


"Cannot be cast by good or neutral aligned characters"

If you have a nice looking version of this alteration/fix for Witch Bolt, I would like to havr a copy of that to use with my Eldritch Knight.
He's Lawful Evil, and he has enough AC right now for me to drop the shield if needed to go Palpatine on someone.

[Kadesh]

Change it to Cantrip, change damage to deal d12 damage as per scaling according to Cantrip levels, otherwise keep it the same.