What spells do you ban? Disregarding source.

[Khrysaes]

Question in the title? In part because of one of the Simulacrum threads.

I was considering what spells to ban or change.

I want to ban Wish.

Namely, for two reasons, one lore, one because it is broken.

Lore wise, There is only one Genie capable of granting wishes.

What other's would you outright ban? Why?

Which ones would you change? Why? How?

[diplomancer]

None. But so far, there's an unspoken gentleman's agreement to not abuse the most broken spells.

[Warder]

I don't DM anymore but the spell I have the most issues with is Guidance - it seems to just be a net negative for the game. I understand the intention but it being a cantrip seems to unflinchingly devolve its use into yelling out "GUIDANCE" as soon as anyone tries to do anything, and with a ton of "can you really do that for this situation" and "how does the NPC react to you chanting mystic words while your friend speaks to them" style of questions. It just doesn't seem to add much and has a lot of downsides.

[Khrysaes]

None. But so far, there's an unspoken gentleman's agreement to not abuse the most broken spells.

Then, other than wish, what do you consider the most broken spells?

[Eldariel]

None. I find banning is lazy. I rather just nerf the problem spells to a point where they are no longer problems. The spells I've nerfed are:
- Tiny Hut
- Animate Dead (changed rather than strictly nerfed)
- Conjure Animals
- Conjure Woodland Beings
- Counterspell
- Dispel Magic (changed rather than strictly nerfed)
- Summon Greater Demon
- Animate Objects (as with Animate Dead; just made the various options more relevant so that you might want to actually do something other than animate 10 tiny things)
- Wall of Force
- Magic Jar
- Planar Binding
- Simulacrum
- Forcecage
- Wish
- Shapechange
- True Polymorph


Ones on my watchlist:
- Sleep
- Silvery Barbs
- Shield
- Absorb Elements
- Web
- Spirit Guardians
- Hypnotic Pattern
- Glyph of Warding
- Contact Other Plane
- Contingency
- Plane Shift
- Foresight

[diplomancer]

Then, other than wish, what do you consider the most broken spells?

Instead of a list, which might be quite long, I'll give you the general principle: spells that can be used during downtime to create adventuring power; so things like Demiplane+Glyphs of Warding for "telephone booth superman transformations", Upcast Planar Binding + different conjurations to have a small army of summons, etc. That sort of thing.

[rlc]

I don’t ban anything, but if somebody tries clone or simulacrum shenanigans, they raise the attention of divine beings

[Xervous]

My main bans tend to be the spells that run afoul of the setting lore for the campaign. When the only way to teleport long distances involves the use of portals at specific locations, you betcha Teleport is banned

[sambojin]

@Eladriel, in which way did you nerf Conjure Animals and Woodland Beings? I like finding out ways of making them more palatable to a DM and a table (I tend to just stick with CR1/2+ conjures with them, but they're still a bit too good if freedom of conjure choice is allowed).

[Pildion]

Question in the title? In part because of one of the Simulacrum threads.

I was considering what spells to ban or change.

I want to ban Wish.

Namely, for two reasons, one lore, one because it is broken.

Lore wise, There is only one Genie capable of granting wishes.

What other's would you outright ban? Why?

Which ones would you change? Why? How?

I don't ban anything in the official books. But I also play with a group that wants to have fun and we don't break the game with Simulacrum or Wish, or broken spell combos. We all know them, but whats the fun if its a cake walk? If I had to play with completely random people, I think this would be a session zero talking point. Do we want to ban the spells, or will everyone behave themselves haha?

On the flip side, when I DM for my 12 \13 year old Niece and 2 Nephews, breaking the game and being overpowered is exactly what they want to do so I let them have their fun. Its also fun for me trying to actually balance encounters haha.

[Mastikator]

I trust my players to not screw up the game. I don't ban spells.

[KorvinStarmast]

I trust my players to not screw up the game. I don't ban spells. Likewise. But there are a few spells that I work with players on to avoid table-time-clogging.
Conjure Animals
Conjure Woodland Beings
Most summoning spells.
We have pre agreed packages/options set up before play starts; that way we know what's coming and it gets inserted smoothly.

[nickl_2000]

-Silvery Barbs has never come up, but is likely to be banned.
-Conjure X is house ruled where the PC chooses, but from a list. However, for the sake of speed we generally use Summon X instead. Also no Pixies because polymorph on them is complete crap.
-Animate Objects is used, but infrequently so that it doesn't get annoying
-We have used a couple of 3rd party spells at DMs discretion. Most stayed, one got removed since it was to complicated and good for its level.
-Awaken is allowed, but limited to keep things sane

[Keravath]

I don't ban any spells. They all have a place and few are actually broken for the level they are at.

Wish is fine. It is a 9th level spell and its most common use is to cast a spell of 8th level or less - essentially amounting to the ability to cast an unprepared spell. It is a swiss army knife. If that is broken in your game so be it. The other uses of Wish - are generally not problematic either. Every other option besides casting a lower level spell gives a 1/3 chance of never casting Wish again. In my opinion that isn't broken but obviously opinions vary.

Simulacrum could be broken if allowed to produce infinite simulacrum chains. I use the simple rules from AL for simulacrum. You can only ever have one simulacrum and the stress caused by casting wish goes back to the caster of the simulacrum so the character doesn't avoid consequences by using a simulacrum. I also don't allow the simulacrum to regain resources - the spell text states spell slots but I would extend that to include sorcery points, battlemaster maneuvers, and any other expendable resource. The simulacrum is a copy at a particular point in time and can not benefit from short or long rest resource gains.

I've never found Guidance to be an issue. It is pretty obvious to most folks that you can't use it in a social situation to make persuasion checks and such if the caster can be seen casting it. Similarly, it is difficult to be stealthy while chanting a spell so most stealth checks wouldn't benefit (unless cast on someone else far enough away from whatever could hear/see before the stealth check is required). I also don't let folks walk around casting cantrips every minute to keep an active effect up - that just strikes me as something folks would not do realistically - so most of the time Guidance won't be applied to initiative or counterspell or other such checks. On the other hand, I have no issue with the extra d4 when making any other sort of skill check where there is time and situation that allows for the casting of Guidance. If players in a game are trying to abuse it, it is not the spell, it is the players and the DM needs to be clear in explaining how and when the cantrip can be reasonably used.

Summon spells also aren't broken. They can slow the game down by throwing a bunch of NPCs into a combat but most of the time that is about it (which might be a good enough reason right there to change them - but it isn't a balance issue). They are probably on a par with Fireball, Hypnotic Pattern, Spirit Guardians and other 3rd level spells in terms of total damage or battlefield control (some of which can be upcast). Their main benefit is to divert actions of attackers away from PCs. However, they don't break anything - they are just another tactical element to consider. (Keep in mind that, as written, the player chooses the CR and the DM picks the creature - so no pixies unless the DM wants them - I usually let the players choose but will step in if they try to conjure a creature that does have an issue)

However, I will ban content that does not fit the setting of the game. For example, spells from Theros, Strixhaven, Wildemount or Ravnica might be banned just because they are from a specific setting and may not be balanced with the setting of the game I am currently running. However, if I was running a game in Strixhaven, I'd likely include those spells from Strixhaven (Silvery Barbs being one example that some folks consider OP).

Except for "exploits", no spell "breaks" the game. Some spells can make encounters trivial if it works ... so be it ... that is good tactics and good thinking on the part of the players not a flaw in the game. The DM KNOWS the spells available to the players and can create any encounter they like which can include the possible effects of those spells. Even in game, NPCs that are aware of the party can likely figure out their capabilities and take them into account. Random encounters not so much but still the DM is in charge, decides the encounters, and can easily factor in the abilities of the players. Yes, it is more work, and can make encounter design more challenging but that is not breaking the game - that is making it more work for the DM (which honestly is another good reason to change spells - but it isn't because the spells are broken).

[Eldariel]

@Eladriel, in which way did you nerf Conjure Animals and Woodland Beings? I like finding out ways of making them more palatable to a DM and a table (I tend to just stick with CR1/2+ conjures with them, but they're still a bit too good if freedom of conjure choice is allowed).

Currently I'm just running it at half the written values (so linear progression) of:
1xCR 2
2xCR1
3xCR½
4xCR1/4

Of these, probably the most powerful is usually the CR1 option though CR½ and CR1/4 are competitive depending on if you need bulk or numbers. CR1/4 still does the most damage but at least no longer absurdly so; while the CR2 option is probably still the weakest sadly enough (should maybe be 2/3/4/6 at CR 1 / ½ / 1/4 / 1/8 instead, but at that point there's no good reason to prevent getting 1 CR2 since that's generally weaker than 2 CR1s). But this is what I'm running right now and it's not terribly bad, though still powerful. I have a game with a Moon Druid, another with a Shepherd Druid, and one with a Lore Bard who took Conjure Animals on 6. All of them are still using those spells a lot and they're still powerful so I definitely didn't overshoot with the nerfs (well, I kinda knew that).

[Psyren]

We don't ban anything outright, but there are gentleman's agreements in place against hordes of upcasted Conjure X and Simulacrum chaining.

We generally stick to the "Anyspell" use of Wish unless there is a big plot reason for a hail mary so no problems there.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Other than spells not allowed because they come from unapproved sources (ie anything I don't personally own), there's only one spell that's on my "don't try to learn it" list. And that's purely because you'll never be able to cast it. Dream of the Blue Veil. You'll never get the component, because my setting is not part of the conventional multiverse and there are no links to other settings, so no source of the material component.

I do ask that people who use Conjure X stick with the fewer, bigger options (I can handle two Dire Wolves better than 8 regular wolves) and reserve the right to veto certain animals/fey as not existing in the setting. And I have some constraints on simulacrum, true polymorph, and wish. But they're allowed.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Likewise. But there are a few spells that I work with players on to avoid table-time-clogging.
Conjure Animals
Conjure Woodland Beings
Most summoning spells.
We have pre agreed packages/options set up before play starts; that way we know what's coming and it gets inserted smoothly.

Yeah, these are the only ones that have given me issues; I think if I have a character that wants to lean into summon again we'll probably talk about options that don't involve 8 or more summoned. I don't think any of my group want to have combat look like a couple of armies having at each other for most encounters again.

Most of the other 'game changing' spells come online late enough that for me they're not game changing on their own. In other words I'd have to nerf or ban so much stuff that we wouldn't be playing 5e any more, so we leave the game as is.

[Menji]

Just Silvery Barbs.

[BoutsofInsanity]

My current world has a very specific flavor. So I've gotten rid of the following.


Any long form teleportation - (So like Teleport and Teleportation Circle)
Any long form of flight. This includes magic items. (Like there is ONE flying carpet. If you want it, go get it.)
Resurrection type spells (Except for Revivify. That's fine.)
Wish is around, but it's a quest spell.


I'm also on Gritty Realism resting which curtails a lot of the problems with spell casting in general anyway.

[JLandan]

I don't ban spells, I ban behavior. It very seldom even comes up, but if a caster gets abusive, I deal with it, preferably in-game. Divine interference, powerful foes appear, powerful allies appear, stuff like that.

I would never ban Guidance, in fact my players almost never take it, and I wish they would. First session, 1st level, Rogue and Fighter climb onto a roof, 20' up, I call it DC 7 because it's raining. They both fall. Now that's D&D! The Cleric waiting below heals them, he could just as easily, more easily really, cast Guidance before the climb and not needed to use two... both of his 1st level slots.

They almost never take Resistance either. And with how they roll.

[Demonslayer666]

No spells in my game are banned. I said in session 0 that there are no infinite loop combos (like simulacrum and wish).

Probably unnecessary with my group, they don't try cheesy combos anyway.

[Sigreid]

No spells are banned or nerfed. If someone in the group wants to abuse them in a way I don't want to deal with I tell them "Don't be a @#$%".

[kazaryu]

Question in the title? In part because of one of the Simulacrum threads.

I was considering what spells to ban or change.

I want to ban Wish.

Namely, for two reasons, one lore, one because it is broken.

Lore wise, There is only one Genie capable of granting wishes.

What other's would you outright ban? Why?

Which ones would you change? Why? How?

thus far i haven't banned any spells.

as far as wish, i really think the simplest solution is to play it literally. a person casting wish isn't 'making a wish' that is being granted by an outside force. like many spells/feature names, the name of the spell is actually a misnomer. what the spell *actually* does is allow the caster to pour their own magical talent into spontaneously creating some effect (specifically by altering the foundation of reality). But its still the casters magic. Meaning the effects they can get are going to be limited by the magic they wield.

the practical effect of this (for me) is that it doesn't take much for the spell itself to just...fail. or fall short of what the caster intended (i never monkey paw a self cast wish), simply because the caster isn't strong enough for the effect they want. They can't just...wish themselves into being a king, they don't have anywhere near that type of power.

the flip side to this is, when they are 'granted a wish' by an outsider...that is not the wish spell...its just fancy nomenclature for 'i owe you a favor'. And as such, in those situations the wish itself is limited by what the granter is capable of doing overall, not just the immediate magical power they wield. you can wish an outsider for something that may take more time than just them snapping their fingers.



other than that, similar to most people i don't ban spells because i don't play by strict RaW. i play by Rules as intended...specifically as they're intended based on what i can discern. So im never really concerned about loopholes, since they are, by definition, not intended.

[KorvinStarmast]

Given that I ban the entire Srixhaven book, I guess nothing from there gets into the games that I DM.
Same with Wildemount, Acq Inc, and so on. (I am still muddling over which Theros content to slip into the Wednesday night campaign, but there isn't anything pressing at the moment.

[Psyren]

Given that I ban the entire Srixhaven book, I guess nothing from there gets into the games that I DM.

Vortex Warp is insanely fun though :smallsmile:

[Hawk7915]

Currently none.

I am even allowing the Bard in my campaign to take Silvery Barbs (she swapped it in for Charm Person at 9th for context of level). So far it is clearly very strong, but hasn't been too busted - but we've only had two encounters since she leveled up, and is aware that I may nerf it by making it a 2nd level spell or something if it feels out of hand.

I also intend to ban Simulacrum if/when we get there but we've been playing ~1.5 times per month for nearly two years to get from 3rd to 9th so I have a while to figure it out.

None of my players have asked to use something from AI; I may ban it if they do just by virtue of not owning the sourcebook and having 0 interest in acquiring (heh) it.

[nickl_2000]

None of my players have asked to use something from AI; I may ban it if they do just by virtue of not owning the sourcebook and having 0 interest in acquiring (heh) it.

Are you sure you won't re-consider incorporating it into your game?

[Catullus64]

Generally speaking, if I ban a spell it's because I think it sucks interesting tension out of the game. Which tensions are interesting has some variation from game to game. Most of my games involve wilderness traversal and survival to some extent, so Goodberry is out, but I probably wouldn't bother in a city-based adventure. I generally get rid of Remove Curse, because I feel that curses, unlike other status effects, should be things you have to actually solve with roleplaying. For the most part, spells that resurrect the dead are out, with an occasional exception made for Revivify. Raising the dead should be a quest in its own right, or a miraculous bone the DM very rarely throws to the players after a very heroic death.

In most of these cases, though, I can deal with it not by outright banning, but saying "this spell doesn't just come free like the other spells on your list, there are extra hoops you have to jump through to do it, and/or it works differently than printed."

[Contrast]

None. I find banning is lazy. I rather just nerf the problem spells to a point where they are no longer problems. The spells I've nerfed are:
...
- Dispel Magic (changed rather than strictly nerfed)
...


I have to ask, in what way is Dispel Magic a problem spell?

[Psyren]

Generally speaking, if I ban a spell it's because I think it sucks interesting tension out of the game. Which tensions are interesting has some variation from game to game. Most of my games involve wilderness traversal and survival to some extent, so Goodberry is out, but I probably wouldn't bother in a city-based adventure. I generally get rid of Remove Curse, because I feel that curses, unlike other status effects, should be things you have to actually solve with roleplaying. For the most part, spells that resurrect the dead are out, with an occasional exception made for Revivify. Raising the dead should be a quest in its own right, or a miraculous bone the DM very rarely throws to the players after a very heroic death.

In most of these cases, though, I can deal with it not by outright banning, but saying "this spell doesn't just come free like the other spells on your list, there are extra hoops you have to jump through to do it, and/or it works differently than printed."

Oldie but goodie:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkHapG6kXUg

TL;DR: "Make goodberry more interesting for your survival campaign with this one weird trick!"

[KorvinStarmast]

None of my players have asked to use something from AI; I may ban it if they do just by virtue of not owning the sourcebook and having 0 interest in acquiring (heh) it.
Puns, we love them, Precious. :smallsmile:

I have to ask, in what way is Dispel Magic a problem spell? It isn't. (OK, that's one PoV)

[Aalbatr0ss]

I don't DM anymore but the spell I have the most issues with is Guidance - it seems to just be a net negative for the game. I understand the intention but it being a cantrip seems to unflinchingly devolve its use into yelling out "GUIDANCE" as soon as anyone tries to do anything, and with a ton of "can you really do that for this situation" and "how does the NPC react to you chanting mystic words while your friend speaks to them" style of questions. It just doesn't seem to add much and has a lot of downsides.

I think a session zero type discussion of "how is this spell going to work" could be helpful.

My table had some of the "yelling out GUIDANCE" issues.

I think if you look around the internet you'd think it's the best cantrip in the game, and players start thinking they're doing something wrong if they don't wedge it in to every roll.

The way we've started using it, other players usually ask that PC for help ahead of time. Or the druid will give another PC guidance if they're specifically heading into a social / skill challenge situation.

And if your concentration caster gets into the habit of yelling out guidance whenever anything happens, just hold them to it when they've broken concentration on their other spell.

[Contrast]

It isn't. (OK, that's one PoV)

Oh sure, its just most of the ones in that list I could understand why someone might be the opinion they were problematic and wanted to nerf/ban them even if I don't agree. Dispel Magic I really have no idea what the perceived issue could be.

[Mjolnirbear]

I haven't banned any... But I've nerfed a few.

I have two groups of problem spells: "that-should-have-been-a-skill-check" spells, and "let's ignore this challenge instead of engaging in it" spells.

For example, knock. You have rogues, artificers, criminals, and urchins all with thieves tools; failing that, you can chop a door down with an axe, break it down with a shoulder charge, or destroy it with spells such as shatter. Knock isnt needed. (Edge case for Arcane Lock, but that can be addressed via Arcane Lock).

Example 2, Pass Without Trace. If your entire party needs this because they're all wearing heavy armour, you maybe should reconsider this plan of approach. If only the paladin needs it, then just do a group check. It's worse in my mind because it stacks with advantage generation.

Example 3: guidance. While it's annoying to deal with at a table because it's a cantrip, it's my idea of a good spell. You don't bypass the challenge; you don't replace your skill check, you enhance it. You're engaging in the world.

Example 4: Tiny Hut. It's fine if your party travels indiana-jones-montage-style from City to Other City. But if you actually want to run travel, then it completely ignores any challenge to do with keeping watch, risking sleep, dealing with camp ambushes, or the like. Goodberry and Create Food And Water are similar spells; problems only if you engage in that kind of game. But if you do want that kind of game, these need to be addressed.


Here are my fixes:
1. If a spell gives you food and water only, it's gone. If it does more than that, then it does that other thing plus only gives sustenance if you gain a level of exhaustion.

2. If it should have been a skill check, it's gone. I am considering for Pass Without Trace to give it the Fly treatment: one target, requires concentration; it would probably give advantage instead.

3. If it bypasses a rest challenge, then I'll have to review it. Tiny Hut has some fun interactions; it's basically a mini Otiluke's Sphere, and when running away you can cast it to block a door. I may just end up rewriting the spell from the ground up, perhaps engaging with Advanced 5E's haven system.

4. Remove Curse in my game now only removes spells that curse (bestow curse, hex, arguably something like geas) or other minor curses (hexblade curse) in its basic form. Now it does two additional things: needs a material component you need to quest for for non-spell curses (for example, to cure lycanthropy, you'd need, say, a sprig of Wolfsbane empowered by a ritual by moonlight in the presence of the cursed, plus a casting of remove curse), and if you cast it on something that needs such a component, it instead reveals what you will need for the next time you cast the spell ("To cure this werewolf you'd need Blah and to cast this spell again").



I don't have a list of such spells ready. It's on an as-they-come-up basis for a game that's currently on hiatus. I do share this philosophy with my players, so if I decide to nerf something it will happen after the next time something comes up (I use "we always ran it this way and that's what we'll do this time too, but NEXT time it's gonna work like this...)

[Eldariel]

I have to ask, in what way is Dispel Magic a problem spell?

I don't like the mechanics. It can hit without LoS, it autostrips all spells of its level or lower, a level 5 Mage can dispel an effect placed by a deity (fairly easily if they're a Diviner), etc. Even with bounded accuracy, that's just a bit much for my taste. And upcasting it doesn't feel useful enough and there's no AOE version. Overall, I just don't like how 5e did Dispelling and Counterspelling in general so I've changed all of those (rolled Counterspell functionality back into Dispel Magic, made AOE Dispel Magic and single target Dispel Magic separate versions of the spell, made the spell always take a check and made the check get a bonus based on the level of Dispel Magic, single target version requires LoS and attempts to dispel all spells on the target, AOE targets the highest level spell on all targets in the area [the mode is especially there to counteract mass summons and such] and requires upcasting on level 5+).

[Hael]

I actually find rope trick to be a very problematic spell. Relatedly, anything that allows a caster to be invulnerable to certain enemies, all the while being able to hurt them (eg stoneshape, wall of stone etc).

I don’t like spells that provide no counterplay (eg wall of force), as it makes combat a sort of arms race between the DM and you..

[Warder]

I think a session zero type discussion of "how is this spell going to work" could be helpful.

My table had some of the "yelling out GUIDANCE" issues.

I think if you look around the internet you'd think it's the best cantrip in the game, and players start thinking they're doing something wrong if they don't wedge it in to every roll.

The way we've started using it, other players usually ask that PC for help ahead of time. Or the druid will give another PC guidance if they're specifically heading into a social / skill challenge situation.

And if your concentration caster gets into the habit of yelling out guidance whenever anything happens, just hold them to it when they've broken concentration on their other spell.

Yes, I don't think I'd actually ban it, but definitely part of a session zero discussion. I may not DM 5e anymore but I still play it with my online group and it just so happens that I play a cleric in that campaign. I deliberately didn't pick Guidance because I find its presence so disruptive, and I don't think anyone feels that I'm less of an asset to the team for it.

As an aside, I love playing casters but there are a lot of commonly picked spells I simply never pick because I feel like they have a net negative impact on the game, mainly those that have the potential to grossly overshadow other party members like Polymorph, Find (flying) Familiar and Animate Objects. That's not to say I see those spells as "bad", necessarily, just that I feel the game tends to be less fun with those at the table.

[Warlush]

-Silvery Barbs has never come up, but is likely to be banned.

If your DM doesn't want to ban this after three sessions, you're not using it enough. I love this spell. Love love love it.

As a DM I also don't ban spells. Or nerf spells. It's weak, and makes the game not fun and makes players lose respect for you.

[animorte]

I don't ban anything in my games. I just inform my players up front that if I see they're intending to min/max or break the game, they should fully expect me to do the same as the rules will allow. Overall it's about having fun though and if they get creative with stuff, I can totally get behind that. It tends to keep people from ever feeling it necessary to "break."

[JNAProductions]

If your DM doesn't want to ban this after three sessions, you're not using it enough. I love this spell. Love love love it.

As a DM I also don't ban spells. Or nerf spells. It's weak, and makes the game not fun and makes players lose respect for you.

That's a hell of a take.

Care to elaborate?

[KorvinStarmast]

I actually find rope trick to be a very problematic spell.
That's a reach. And let's not hate all over Rangers, eh? :smalltongue:

[animorte]

That's a hell of a take.

Care to elaborate?

It basically applies disadvantage to one enemy action as your reaction while granting you (or anybody of your choosing) advantage on your next action. 1st level spell.

I believe it seems OP because disadvantage and advantage, while useful all of the time, aren't always applicable. This guarantees it instantly, without warning.

Edit: also with No Save!

[JNAProductions]

It basically applies disadvantage to one enemy action as your reaction while granting you (or anybody of your choosing) advantage on your next action. 1st level spell.

I believe it seems OP because disadvantage and advantage, while useful all of the time, aren't always applicable. This guarantees it instantly, without warning.

Edit: also with No Save!

That's not the take I was talking about.

I was talking about this:


As a DM I also don't ban spells. Or nerf spells. It's weak, and makes the game not fun and makes players lose respect for you.

The way I read it, you're saying that nerfs are something that makes players lose respect for the DM.

[Eriol]

As a DM I also don't ban spells. Or nerf spells. It's weak, and makes the game not fun and makes players lose respect for you.
I also do not nerf/ban spells, though like others, if "shenanigans" of enough magnitude came up, I'd make "Divine Notice" a thing.

The reason is simple: I shoot my monks too. Let classes use their features to feel awesome. Make your encounters accordingly, knowing that they have said features. Spells are the dominant class features for the full casters, and to a degree the halves as well. So if they're able to use a spell creatively to finish things, great! But they should also know that the "big" encounters from that point on are probably going to be resistant to a "one spell and the problem is over" type things. But at the same time, if I have an evocation wizard that I'm DMing, you can bet that I'm going to find ways to throw a lot of small monsters at the party, so that Sculpt Spell gets FULL usage. Or whatever else.

Your job as a player in D&D is to make everybody else look awesome. And that applies to the DM too. While some specific uses of spells could "break" the game, I'll bet that character will feel awesome, especially if I let others "augment" the story of what happens. And if it starts breaking it, you have all the tools as a DM available to you to "discourage" such things in the future.

[Chronic]

OK first thing first, in my games, wizard are banned, they are a mess, poorly designed and would require too much work to be brought in line when a sorcerer using Intel as its casting stat do an excellent job as a primary arcane caster.
Outside of that I only have a few banned spell, mostly because I find them to reduce the amount of fun. Simulacrum is gone, never to come back, a stupidly written spell anyway. Wish isn't on anyone spell list, but can be found as a reward or a plot device. Arcane eye is gooooooone, sneaky classes are here for that, and don't like to be outclassed by a geek in robes. Animate objects, because it's pure power creep, it's replaced by a spell with the same flavor designed to be an utility spell. Create food and water is gone, so is tongue, purely for flavor reasons, not because of a balance problem.
Then there is the list of spells I've modified (nerfed most of the time) :
-good berry (no nourishment effect)
-shield
-find familiar
-pass without a trace
-hypnotic pattern
-clairvoyance
-leomund's tiny hut
-fireball
-force cage
-any long distance teleport is 1 spell level higher
-summoning spells are limited. The option to summon the highest number of critters are disabled. Single entity summon spells are untouched.

All of this come with individual classe and subclass rebalance and a martial overhaul, a feat rebalance (some feat banned, some modified and a few new ones), and of course a few house rules.

[Randomthom]

No bans but I do make a few tweaks sometimes e.g. Remove Curse might require a "Ritual Component" for more powerful curses e.g. Must be performed at X location or at Y time of year or with the blood of Z creature.

I tend to trust my players not to abuse the spells and to stick within the spirit of the rules.

[KorvinStarmast]

OK first thing first, in my games, wizard are banned, they are a mess, poorly designed and would require too much work to be brought in line when a sorcerer using Intel as its casting stat do an excellent job as a primary arcane caster. Interesting approach.
As I review the games that I am currently or recently in:
Oldest game (1 of 8 players): 1 wizard, 1 bard, two locks, 1 barb, 1 Fighter, 1 rogue, 1 Cleric.
Parallel game (DM, same world): no wizards, 1 sorc, 1 cleric, 1 bard, 1 Barb, 1 rogue, 1 Fighter, 1 Paladin, 1 Monk.
Dormant Tier 3 Game: 1 Champion, 1 Swashbuckler, 1 Tempest Cleric, 1 Gloom Stalker, 1 Barb/Druid. (Gloom stalker had started as a wizard but swapped PCs due to boredom, basically).
Recently concluded campaign: 1 Paladin, 1 Hexblade, 1 Bard, 1 SorcLock. (Charisma 'R Us).
Newest Campaign: 1 wizard, 1 paladin, 2 homebrews.
CoS: 1 lock(Celestial), 1 barb, 1 rogue, 1 paladin, 1 bard
Text Game: 1 cleric, 1 lock (genie), 1 rogue
Salt Marsh: 1 Monk, 1 Barbarian, 1 Artificer, 1 Sorcerer, 1 Druid
Dormant PBP game: 1 artificer, 1 cleric, 1 fighter/something MC, 1 druid (wizard recently joined but game went dormant shortly thereafter)

one could ban wizards and the game works fine. :smallbiggrin:


Outside of that I only have a few banned spell, mostly because I find them to reduce the amount of fun. not a fan of banning spells that are in the PHB. A tweak is all that some of them need.

Simulacrum is gone, never to come back, a stupidly written spell anyway. The AL restriction is all that one needs, but I agree that it could use a few other clarifications.

Wish isn't on anyone spell list, but can be found as a reward or a plot device. That is a great way to have wish in the game (and is where wish was placed in the original game).

Arcane eye is gooooooone, sneaky classes are here for that, and don't like to be outclassed by a geek in robes.
In a three person party, with 12 classes, you have just forced someone to be a rogue, is that where you are coming from?

Animate objects, because it's pure power creep, it's replaced by a spell with the same flavor designed to be an utility spell. It does non magical damage, it's concentration, but yeah, it can wreck an encounter. (If you just remove the Tiny option the spell gets a bit less shreddy. One of my DMs did that).

Create food and water is gone, so is tongue, purely for flavor reasons, not because of a balance problem. Tongues? What the heck is wrong with Tongues? :smalleek: Create food and water ... I can see a good reason to let that one go if you prefer a grittier campaign feel.

Then there is the list of spells I've modified (nerfed most of the time) :
-good berry (no nourishment effect)
-shield
-find familiar
-pass without a trace
-hypnotic pattern
-clairvoyance
-leomund's tiny hut
-fireball
-force cage
-any long distance teleport is 1 spell level higher
-summoning spells are limited. The option to summon the highest number of critters are disabled. Single entity summon spells are untouched.

The only feats I ban are race specific feats, (I allow Xanathar's Prodigy on any race), and I do not allow anyone who is not a lock to take the Tasha's lock feat, nor any non sorcerer to take the Sorc feat. (In general, I don't agree that those feats do what feats are supposed to do).

[Sigreid]

On guidance, there's other fun things that can happen. In one session the party used guidance, bardic inspiration and everything else they could think of to open a locked sarcophagus that was too hard for them to do otherwise...and promptly got eaten by the troll that was locked inside. This was a module setup BTW, not just me being a punk.

[KorvinStarmast]

On guidance, there's other fun things that can happen. In one session the party used guidance, bardic inspiration and everything else they could think of to open a locked sarcophagus that was too hard for them to do otherwise...and promptly got eaten by the troll that was locked inside. This was a module setup BTW, not just me being a punk. Sounds like Sunless Citadel to me. :smallwink:

[KyleG]

The only feats I ban are race specific feats, (I allow Xanathar's Prodigy on any race), and I do not allow anyone who is not a lock to take the Tasha's lock feat, nor any non sorcerer to take the Sorc feat. (In general, I don't agree that those feats do what feats are supposed to do).

Care to elaborate on why? And or do you have a rules document you could share?

Also you mentioned AL rules. Having never played AL can these changes be found somewhere?

[Trask]

I ban all the PHB Conjure spells, as I think the Tasha versions are much better balanced and more fun to use at the table. Summoning a horde of elk or wolves is strong, but its rarely fun for anyone as it slows the game down to a crawl. I have to ban them though, because after simply trying to discourage their use or come to a "gentleman's agreement", I find that doesn't work with the players I have. They're too tempted to just use the best options they have.

[diplomancer]

I ban all the PHB Conjure spells, as I think the Tasha versions are much better balanced and more fun to use at the table. Summoning a horde of elk or wolves is strong, but its rarely fun for anyone as it slows the game down to a crawl. I have to ban them though, because after simply trying to discourage their use or come to a "gentleman's agreement", I find that doesn't work with the players I have. They're too tempted to just use the best options they have.

I see your point, but you do know that the choice is yours, right? It's a terrible way to balance a spell, and might be best to just ban them, but nothing stops you from giving eight frogs when they ask for "8 beasts of cr 1/4 or less"

[PhoenixPhyre]

I see your point, but you do know that the choice is yours, right? It's a terrible way to balance a spell, and might be best to just ban them, but nothing stops you from giving eight frogs when they ask for "8 beasts of cr 1/4 or less"

That particular example comes across (to me) as kinda antagonistic. Solving an OOC problem with an IC solution.

I strongly prefer dealing at the table-agreement level where possible, dropping down to a "ok, this option's off the table" ban if that fails.

[Trask]

I see your point, but you do know that the choice is yours, right? It's a terrible way to balance a spell, and might be best to just ban them, but nothing stops you from giving eight frogs when they ask for "8 beasts of cr 1/4 or less"


That particular example comes across (to me) as kinda antagonistic. Solving an OOC problem with an IC solution.

I strongly prefer dealing at the table-agreement level where possible, dropping down to a "ok, this option's off the table" ban if that fails.

Echo what PhoenixPhyre said. It is my choice, but I've talked to my players about it and they feel that if I deliberately give the caster something other than what they want they'd rather just use a different spell and I can respect that. Besides that fact that more often than not, wolves or elk do make sense. Players are more often in woodlands or plains than they are in swamps or some other kind of environment and one of the things I value in my DMing style is plausibility.

It helps that the Tasha's conjure spells aren't weak by any means. And it really wasn't the power of the Conjure spells I had a problem with, just the tedium of suddenly having eight critters dropped in my lap to run, wolves, frogs, or chipmunks, it would still be tedious any way you slice it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And it really wasn't the power of the Conjure spells I had a problem with, just the tedium of suddenly having eight critters dropped in my lap to run, wolves, frogs, or chipmunks, it would still be tedious any way you slice it.

This. I'm fine with Conjuring 1 Giant Constrictor or 2 Dire Wolves. Strong, but not obscenely so. 8 velociraptors or 8 wolves? Or even 8 squirrels[1]? No thanks.

[1] I had a player (a 6-year-old nephew) play an awakened squirrel for one tiny segment (before he got distracted and wandered off) of an one-shot. He bit a zombie on the toe, dealing 1 damage. That was enough for him.

[KorvinStarmast]

Care to elaborate on why?
PHB feats were race agnostic. Xanathar's violated that basic structure. I dislike racial gating.

[diplomancer]

Echo what PhoenixPhyre said. It is my choice, but I've talked to my players about it and they feel that if I deliberately give the caster something other than what they want they'd rather just use a different spell and I can respect that. Besides that fact that more often than not, wolves or elk do make sense. Players are more often in woodlands or plains than they are in swamps or some other kind of environment and one of the things I value in my DMing style is plausibility.

It helps that the Tasha's conjure spells aren't weak by any means. And it really wasn't the power of the Conjure spells I had a problem with, just the tedium of suddenly having eight critters dropped in my lap to run, wolves, frogs, or chipmunks, it would still be tedious any way you slice it.

Just spitballing here, but how about this:

Use the Druid Wildshapes Table in Xanathar's and just roll randomly according to environment.
8 creatures of CR 1/4 or less means just that, I.e, it goes all the way down to CR 0.
All the other options use the "appointed CR", but it's still random if there's more than one choice.

It's a soft nerf to the spell (and a considerable nerf to the more annoying and powerful option of 8 creatures, I suppose most players would usually avoid that option), and it avoids the accusation of "adversarial DM'ing" that PhoenyxPhyre pointed out.

[Eldariel]

Just spitballing here, but how about this:

Use the Druid Wildshapes Table in Xanathar's and just roll randomly according to environment.
8 creatures of CR 1/4 or less means just that, I.e, it goes all the way down to CR 0.
All the other options use the "appointed CR", but it's still random if there's more than one choice.

It's a soft nerf to the spell (and a considerable nerf to the more annoying and powerful option of 8 creatures, I suppose most players would usually avoid that option), and it avoids the accusation of "adversarial DM'ing" that PhoenyxPhyre pointed out.

Why this instead of just decreasing the number? The whole problem is that it gives too many creatures: it's both tough-to-manage (imagine a party with 4 Druids casting level 5 Conjure Animals for a total of 64 things) and broken. 4 CR 1/4 is more than enough: it's still largely stronger than a single CR2 especially since when you summon, you get to position them optimally. And it's no fun to randomly get useless creatures - balancing spells by making them occasionally completely broken and occasionally completely useless doesn't feel good for anyone. Saying "CR2" and getting a single CR1/4 just also makes the higher CR options even more useless than they already are (way fewer high than low CR creatures in the game).

The Druid randomly rolls over encounters without party and randomly wastes a level 3 slot and action doing nothing. It's still good enough to use but this degree of uncontrollable variance in power is precisely one of the problems in the game, not a solution (and flies in the face of the Druid fantasy: if I want to play a Wolf Druid, I want to get Wolves and if I want to play a Bear Druid, I want to get Bears; don't give me Velociraptors no matter how strong they are, that's not what my character is about). Rather just give creatures of the appropriate CR and remove the "or lower"-clause; DM can then do DM things if they want. And decrease the numbers - everyone agrees the number is a problem, though some for different reasons.

[Warlush]

That's a hell of a take.

Care to elaborate?

Sure. DM stands for Dungeon MASTER, not manager. The DM controls the multiverse and all NPC in it, including deities. The DM is tasked with familiarizing themselves with every spell, and every class and subclass feature that can modify those spells.

A master doesn't have to nerf, or otherwise limit or handicap players. A master is CREATIVE, and can turn a players abusive tricks on themselves.

A manager takes the easy, lazy, self pitying way out.

If a player is doing something RAW that you don't like, you are tasked with coming up with consequences RAW.

Nerfing and banning is only RAW in the thinnest vaguest of senses sighting the DMG.

Also would you want the NBA to ban dunking just because Micheal Jordan took the Bulls to 6 championships?

Nefing and banning spells is just some weak haterade drinking bull poop.

[diplomancer]

Saying "CR2" and getting a single CR1/4 just also makes the higher CR options even more useless than they already are (way fewer high than low CR creatures in the game).

Just to make it clear: my suggestion was that, for the option of 8 creatures of CR 1/4, the "or lower" clause would apply, but for other options you'd get the CR you asked for, i.e, 4 creatures of CR 1/2, two of CR 1, or 1 of CR 2.

[Warder]

Sure. DM stands for Dungeon MASTER, not manager. The DM controls the multiverse and all NPC in it, including deities. The DM is tasked with familiarizing themselves with every spell, and every class and subclass feature that can modify those spells.

A master doesn't have to nerf, or otherwise limit or handicap players. A master is CREATIVE, and can turn a players abusive tricks on themselves.

A manager takes the easy, lazy, self pitying way out.

If a player is doing something RAW that you don't like, you are tasked with coming up with consequences RAW.

Nerfing and banning is only RAW in the thinnest vaguest of senses sighting the DMG.

Also would you want the NBA to ban dunking just because Micheal Jordan took the Bulls to 6 championships?

Nefing and banning spells is just some weak haterade drinking bull poop.

You do you, but wow, this is one hell of a view of D&D, or just playing games with friends in general. I'm curious, do you see the DM/player relationship as two sides trying to outsmart each other?

[Warlush]

You do you, but wow, this is one hell of a view of D&D, or just playing games with friends in general. I'm curious, do you see the DM/player relationship as two sides trying to outsmart each other?

Oof, yeah I suppose most of the time we treat it like chess. We're also all in our late 30s and 40s. Yikes, maybe my experience isn't really relevant here. But to your point yes that is our MO. We love it. I can see how that wouldn't be for urbody tho.

[Warder]

Oof, yeah I suppose most of the time we treat it like chess. We're also all in our late 30s and 40s. Yikes, maybe my experience isn't really relevant here. But to your point yes that is our MO. We love it. I can see how that wouldn't be for urbody tho.

I think everyone's experience is relevant, don't get me wrong! And I don't mean to suggest that your way of doing things is wrong, just that it's probably not applicable to how most people play the game. ;)

[Catullus64]

Yeah, Warlush, the fact that you had to employ a competitive sports analogy should tell you just how far afield of most typical D&D players' experience your philosophy is. :smallbiggrin:

[Tanarii]

1) to be pedantic, source is relevant, in that a DM "allows" spells that aren't in the PHB and "bans" spells that are. :smallamused:

2) I ended up banning Leomunds Tiny Hut, but not Rope Trick. That was due to a house rules where taking a Long Rest meant retreating and then ending the session. That made LTH a useless spell except in some specific pre-booked multi-session delves. And it's existence was causing me to have to 'defend' myself. Pointing out that it generally would be suicide to use anyway was annoying me, as well as not being full honest about the reason for the LR house rule anyway, which was purely for convenience of a pick-up table campaign at multiple game stores.

3) I didn't ban them, but I did warn off new players from Witch Bolt and True Strike.

[Warlush]

Yeah, Warlush, the fact that you had to employ a competitive sports analogy should tell you just how far afield of most typical D&D players' experience your philosophy is. :smallbiggrin:

Danny McBride chamber's a shell, "Thug life."

[False God]

If it's in print, it's in play.

Otherwise, the problem is always the players using spells not for unintended purposes or creative purposes, but for game-impeding purposes, to push not in-game limits, but to push the social tolerance of the table.

While good players are always a much more limited commodity than spells, I find it is far easier to remove a problem player, than a spell they're using to create a problem.

We're all here to have fun, DM included. If you're using some element of the game to create an un-fun experience for others, or using your definition of "fun" as the only valid one, YOU are the problem, and that is what needs to be removed.

[Warlush]

If it's in print, it's in play.

Otherwise, the problem is always the players using spells not for unintended purposes or creative purposes, but for game-impeding purposes, to push not in-game limits, but to push the social tolerance of the table.

While good players are always a much more limited commodity than spells, I find it is far easier to remove a problem player, than a spell they're using to create a problem.

We're all here to have fun, DM included. If you're using some element of the game to create an un-fun experience for others, or using your definition of "fun" as the only valid one, YOU are the problem, and that is what needs to be removed.

Boom, mic drop. You said it bud. But they didn't wanna hear it.

[JNAProductions]

Boom, mic drop. You said it bud. But they didn't wanna hear it.

I don't think that's really that accurate.

If WotC published a spell that was Magic Missile+, that did 3d6 damage per missile, started at five missiles and got an extra three per slot level above first, could deal any type of damage, and ignored Shield... You'd either need to ban the spell, or the players would have to ban it. Because it'd overwhelm any combat it was used in-there'd be no reason to use anything else, except for cleaning up a devastated foe. And yes, there are groups who would just say "We're not gonna take that spell, it'd make it too boring!" but that's the same result as the DM saying "This spell is off-limits."

I do agree that many issues will simply not come up if your players are good folk, all interested in having a fun game for everyone. But what if you want to run a grittier, survival-based campaign, where food and water are scarce and valuable? Goodberry and, to a lesser extent, Create Food And Water would completely dunk on that idea. I certainly wouldn't ban Goodberry for most games, but for that type of game? Yes, I would.

Banning something over player objections is something to be done with great care, and might indicate problem players. Banning something to curate the experience and make sure that what's supposed to be the focus isn't trivialized is totally fine-obviously get player buy in to the concept, but that's a given for anything.

And yes, you have tools as a DM to counter Forcecage or whatever. But, when every important enemy can teleport, or has a Rod of Cancellation, or whatever... It stretches credibility, sometimes to the breaking point.

[KorvinStarmast]

I am tempted to ban this second level spell, or tweak it. A Fizban's spell. (edited thanks to further commentary)
Rime's Binding Ice
A burst of cold energy emanates from you in a 30-foot cone. Each creature in that area must make a Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, a creature takes 3d8 cold damage and is hindered by ice formations for 1 minute, or until it or another creature within reach of it uses an action to break away the ice. A creature hindered by ice has its speed reduced to 0. On a successful save, a creature takes half as much damage and isn't hindered by ice.

At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd Level or higher, increase the cold damage by 1d8 for each slot level above 2nd. The lack of the "roll a save after the end of each turn" which 2d level spells like hold person (among others, such as slow, blindness/deafness, etc) is noticeably for its absence.

Kinda strong, and maybe too strong for level 2. Is someone else using an action to free you an acceptable surrogate?

I welcome comments on this.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I am tempted to ban this second level spell, or tweak it. A Fizban's spell.
The lack of the "roll a save after the end of each turn" which 2d level spells like hold person (among others, such as slow, blindness/deafness, etc) is noticeably for its absence.

Kinda strong, and maybe too strong for level 2. Is someone else using an action to free you an acceptable surrogate?

I welcome comments on this.

It's basically entangle with some damage. They can use an action to free themselves. I'm not particularly concerned. And speed of 0 is weaker than restrained by a long shot.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's basically entangle with some damage. They can use an action to free themselves. I'm not particularly concerned. And speed of 0 is weaker than restrained by a long shot.
Ah, so the "it or another creature" means that one need not rely on another someone to help and free one's self. Just an action economy hit like web.
Got it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ah, so the "it or another creature" means that one need not rely on another someone to help and free one's self. Just an action economy hit like web.
Got it.

Yeah. It's action-denial, if they want to move. And note there's no associated check, so there's no chance of failure at that action. Overall, I'd say it's on the weaker end of crowd-control spells. But it does deal some damage.

[tiornys]

I like Rime's Binding Ice a lot; in general I think 5e does a great job balancing spells that mix control and damage vs. spells that do only one or the other. RBI, Tasha's Mind Whip, Hunger of Hadar, Evard's Black Tentacles -- all of these are distinctly weaker than same-level alternatives if you only look at the control or only look at the damage, but the entire package is effective without being overpowered.

I haven't DM'ed 5e, but in general I'm more inclined to nerf than ban. In most cases it's easy enough to eliminate any game-breaking exploits while leaving the core of the spell intact.

[False God]

I don't think that's really that accurate.

If WotC published a spell that was Magic Missile+, that did 3d6 damage per missile, started at five missiles and got an extra three per slot level above first, could deal any type of damage, and ignored Shield... You'd either need to ban the spell, or the players would have to ban it. Because it'd overwhelm any combat it was used in-there'd be no reason to use anything else, except for cleaning up a devastated foe. And yes, there are groups who would just say "We're not gonna take that spell, it'd make it too boring!" but that's the same result as the DM saying "This spell is off-limits."

I do agree that many issues will simply not come up if your players are good folk, all interested in having a fun game for everyone. But what if you want to run a grittier, survival-based campaign, where food and water are scarce and valuable? Goodberry and, to a lesser extent, Create Food And Water would completely dunk on that idea. I certainly wouldn't ban Goodberry for most games, but for that type of game? Yes, I would.

Banning something over player objections is something to be done with great care, and might indicate problem players. Banning something to curate the experience and make sure that what's supposed to be the focus isn't trivialized is totally fine-obviously get player buy in to the concept, but that's a given for anything.

And yes, you have tools as a DM to counter Forcecage or whatever. But, when every important enemy can teleport, or has a Rod of Cancellation, or whatever... It stretches credibility, sometimes to the breaking point.

I understand that some folks feel X or Y spell completely busts the game. I simply don't share that experience. There is no spell, IMO, that is so powerful, it cannot be countered with some other element of gameplay.

On the subject of an exploration and survival game, I have experience on that, in 5E in particular.
Storytime, skip to the end for the TLDR. When 5E first came out I was really excited for the prospect of a D&D system that promoted a more middle-low magic type of game. I like to run exploration-based adventure games with a side-order of survival but yes, spells like Goodberry absolutely trash those kinds of ideas, and I don't like to ban the spells or ban the class because it limits the kind of game I run. Typically I just alter the kind of game I want to run.

So I put together a 5E exploration and survival game and of course I talked to my players that it was going to be this kind of game but didn't detail any specifics of the land they were going to. I ended up with a Fighter, a Druid, 2 Rangers (forest and grassland) and a Rogue. The Druid has Goodberry, but has to specifically burn spell slots to use the spell, at lower levels (we were level 3), this is fine, there is a resource that gets burned in order to provide food, but this resource is shared between other spells that may be more useful. The Druid is no real threat to the game because he's got 2 spells and while one of them could feed the party, a simple combat could burn up his resources and with no other meals, leave the party without food.

It was actually the Ranger(s) who was absolutely devastating to the concept of the game, because of his basic, no-resource, always-active level 1 ability: Favored Terrain. The party was always fed thanks to their foraging, they covered two very common types of terrain, and as an open-world game had the ability to just not go into areas their favored terrain did not cover, at least until they were fully up on supplies. The latter part was fine, being able to choose to take more time as opposed to exploring into new areas for more resources for their expedition was part of the campaign design. But not being able to get lost (except by magic) and not really ever running out of food basically eliminated the survival-side of the game. The exploration was interesting, but it wasn't intended to be the whole challenge, and even then Rangers had strong advantages on all of that as well.

TLDR: A simple non-magical 1st-level ability was far more harmful to the sort of game I wanted to run than any spell the party ever learned. My lesson was not to ban spells or classes or abilities, but just to by-and-large, abandon D&D, since the system doesn't seem interested in providing that sort of exploration and survival gameplay. If not at low levels with such simple features, and certainly not at high levels where spells make exploration and survival mundanities completely meaningless anyway.

Frankly, I found this 1st-level ability far more game breaking than any high-powered, over-powered, or potentially broken spell I've ever played with, even the dreaded Polymorph spells. There really wasn't even a counter aside from saying "Oh yeah, well this terrain is magical so your stuff doesn't work!" which seemed petty and pointless and wasn't the kind of game or world I was interested in running.

So I'm not worried about spells, spells have counterpsells, spells have anti-magic-zones, spells can have side-effects, weird-effects, and are self-limiting with spell slots. If a 1st-level non-magical non-resource-using ability can almost entirely eliminate a type of campaign, what threat could Wish or Shapechange possibly present with all of their built-in-counters?

[McSkrag]

Likewise. But there are a few spells that I work with players on to avoid table-time-clogging.
Conjure Animals
Conjure Woodland Beings
Most summoning spells.
We have pre agreed packages/options set up before play starts; that way we know what's coming and it gets inserted smoothly.

Same here. Banning spells because they are "too powerful" feels like lazy DMing to me. I want my players to feel like they have powerful characters they enjoy playing. It's up to me as a DM to challenge them with all their spells and abilities.

But I do agree with KorvinStarmast, that some spells, like the summing spells, can slow down gameplay so I expect my players to work with me on keeping the game moving.

[Witty Username]

The only spell I ban is errata healing spirit, It violates not matching my book.

[JNAProductions]

And what if you’re not the best DM?

Isn’t it better to know “I’m not skilled enough to handle this,” tell your players that and ban the option (whether it’s a spell or anything else) and have a fun game; than it is to assume you’re better than you are and have a game get crushed?

[KorvinStarmast]

And what if you’re not the best DM?

Isn’t it better to know “I’m not skilled enough to handle this,” tell your players that and ban the option (whether it’s a spell or anything else) and have a fun game; than it is to assume you’re better than you are and have a game get crushed? Hyperbole doesn't help you make a point. I think your core point is a good one "know your own limitations" and "work with your players to keep the table culture and tone harmonious". That takes a little bit of people skills, but it's worth the effort.

[animorte]

Hyperbole doesn't help you make a point. I think your core point is a good one "know your own limitations" and "work with your players to keep the table culture and tone harmonious". That takes a little bit of people skills, but it's worth the effort.


And what if you’re not the best DM?

Isn’t it better to know “I’m not skilled enough to handle this,” tell your players that and ban the option (whether it’s a spell or anything else) and have a fun game; than it is to assume you’re better than you are and have a game get crushed?

I appreciate this exchange very much.

[rel]

If your DM doesn't want to ban this after three sessions, you're not using it enough. I love this spell. Love love love it.

As a DM I also don't ban spells. Or nerf spells. It's weak, and makes the game not fun and makes players lose respect for you.

Oh totally, instead of supplying a list of materials that fit the game I want to run like a wimp I just blanket the next D6 dungeons in antimagic whenever a player uses a spell I don't like.

Then I T-pose to show how tough I am and establish dominance.

[Kane0]

Well i have a bunch of homebrewed spells so the originals get replaced, i generally prefer to tweak a spell rather than can it.

[Chronic]

Interesting approach.
As I review the games that I am currently or recently in:
Oldest game (1 of 8 players): 1 wizard, 1 bard, two locks, 1 barb, 1 Fighter, 1 rogue, 1 Cleric.
Parallel game (DM, same world): no wizards, 1 sorc, 1 cleric, 1 bard, 1 Barb, 1 rogue, 1 Fighter, 1 Paladin, 1 Monk.
Dormant Tier 3 Game: 1 Champion, 1 Swashbuckler, 1 Tempest Cleric, 1 Gloom Stalker, 1 Barb/Druid. (Gloom stalker had started as a wizard but swapped PCs due to boredom, basically).
Recently concluded campaign: 1 Paladin, 1 Hexblade, 1 Bard, 1 SorcLock. (Charisma 'R Us).
Newest Campaign: 1 wizard, 1 paladin, 2 homebrews.
CoS: 1 lock(Celestial), 1 barb, 1 rogue, 1 paladin, 1 bard
Text Game: 1 cleric, 1 lock (genie), 1 rogue
Salt Marsh: 1 Monk, 1 Barbarian, 1 Artificer, 1 Sorcerer, 1 Druid
Dormant PBP game: 1 artificer, 1 cleric, 1 fighter/something MC, 1 druid (wizard recently joined but game went dormant shortly thereafter)

one could ban wizards and the game works fine. :smallbiggrin:

not a fan of banning spells that are in the PHB. A tweak is all that some of them need.
The AL restriction is all that one needs, but I agree that it could use a few other clarifications.
That is a great way to have wish in the game (and is where wish was placed in the original game).
In a three person party, with 12 classes, you have just forced someone to be a rogue, is that where you are coming from?
It does non magical damage, it's concentration, but yeah, it can wreck an encounter. (If you just remove the Tiny option the spell gets a bit less shreddy. One of my DMs did that).
Tongues? What the heck is wrong with Tongues? :smalleek: Create food and water ... I can see a good reason to let that one go if you prefer a grittier campaign feel.

The only feats I ban are race specific feats, (I allow Xanathar's Prodigy on any race), and I do not allow anyone who is not a lock to take the Tasha's lock feat, nor any non sorcerer to take the Sorc feat. (In general, I don't agree that those feats do what feats are supposed to do).

For simulacrum, I don't play AL and don't know anything about it.
For arcane eye, well there is usually a sneaky class in most of my games, if there are not, the group will have to use a different approach that's all. Most magical scouting spells are nerfed in my games.
For tongue, as I said, purely flavor, I like when the groups encounter characters they cannot understand, fun roleplay.
For feats, I basically have removed the ones that tend to be taken by everyone, but also the ones that remove tactical decision making. Sharpshooter should not remove the malus for ennemy on cover for example. It's incredibly bad design. You don't create system to add depth in order to bypass them with another system. Anyway martials get access to manœuvres and such in my games so even with some key feat removed they stand both more powerful and more interesting to play.

[Khrysaes]

So, I am not the most active poster in threads I started.

That said, reading most of the posts it seems that generally there are three guidelines.

1: Don't ban spells for mechanical reasons, only ban for lore reasons.
2: Don't ban spells because they are broken, maybe tweak if needed.
3: Trust the players not to break the game with broken spells such as wish + simulacrum.

[Warder]

So, I am not the most active poster in threads I started.

That said, reading most of the posts it seems that generally there are three guidelines.

1: Don't ban spells for mechanical reasons, only ban for lore reasons.
2: Don't ban spells because they are broken, maybe tweak if needed.
3: Trust the players not to break the game with broken spells such as wish + simulacrum.

Those guidelines work for some games but are by no means universal. This is stuff that's completely dependent on the actual table in question, in my opinion - and I think that's displayed fairly well in this thread, since there are a number of different takes from a number of different people!

[sithlordnergal]

I'm in the same boat as False God. Near as I can find, there is nothing in RAW that can't be countered by some good, old fashioned DM pre-planning, sell wise at least. Even if that planning comes down to just making sure you have enough encounters to drain player resources. Sure, spells like Forcecage are incredibly powerful...but a Wizard can only cast that a maximum of 4 times per day at level 20. You don't even need to have every monster be able to teleport, just have more than 4 encounters where Forecage is useful. Or, even better, add in encounter variety to force out those other high level spell slots.

Honestly, the only non-RAW rules I use are the AL Spell rules for Clone and Simulacrum, and I use the pre-nerf Healing Spirit because its honestly its just not strong enough to require a nerf. And heck, even with two players that regularly cast the pre-nerf Healing Spirit, I manage to down players and even killed a Moon Druid with a Shield Guardian.

[KorvinStarmast]

Well i have a bunch of homebrewed spells so the originals get replaced, i generally prefer to tweak a spell rather than can it.
Good approach.

For simulacrum, I don't play AL and don't know anything about it. In AL, Simulacrums can't cast Simulacrum. Problem solved. :smallwink:

[sithlordnergal]

For simulacrum, I don't play AL and don't know anything about it.


They have a couple of handy little limitations. Simulacrum can't cast Simulacrum, you can only have 1 Simulacrum at a time, and if your Simulacrum casts Wish then you get to deal with the consequences of it doing so. Clone is similar, Wish may let you instantly cast the spell but it still requires time and a place to full mature.

[RedMage125]

I don't DM anymore but the spell I have the most issues with is Guidance - it seems to just be a net negative for the game. I understand the intention but it being a cantrip seems to unflinchingly devolve its use into yelling out "GUIDANCE" as soon as anyone tries to do anything, and with a ton of "can you really do that for this situation" and "how does the NPC react to you chanting mystic words while your friend speaks to them" style of questions. It just doesn't seem to add much and has a lot of downsides.

I mean, one way is to enforce the "Touch" range along with the Verbal and Somatic components. Also, let it be clear before the roll is made, too. once a roll is made, it's too late to add Guidance.

Bound to affect NPC reactions if they see a guy obviously casting a spell right next to the guy they're talking with. Like...using Guidance to help the Rogue pick a lock? Sure. Using Guidance to aid with any kind of time-critical negotiations or deception? Probably not.

My last game, we Guidance-d the crap out of the guy making Survival checks to skin a pair of Winter Wolves (to sell the pelts). Helped that his pre-Guidance rolls were already over 20, tho.

[Warlush]

Oh totally, instead of supplying a list of materials that fit the game I want to run like a wimp I just blanket the next D6 dungeons in antimagic whenever a player uses a spell I don't like.

Then I T-pose to show how tough I am and establish dominance.

Ain't nobody using antimagic. Don't worry your mom is right, you're tough and you're really really cool.

[Psyren]

I mean, one way is to enforce the "Touch" range along with the Verbal and Somatic components. Also, let it be clear before the roll is made, too. once a roll is made, it's too late to add Guidance.

Bound to affect NPC reactions if they see a guy obviously casting a spell right next to the guy they're talking with. Like...using Guidance to help the Rogue pick a lock? Sure. Using Guidance to aid with any kind of time-critical negotiations or deception? Probably not.

My last game, we Guidance-d the crap out of the guy making Survival checks to skin a pair of Winter Wolves (to sell the pelts). Helped that his pre-Guidance rolls were already over 20, tho.

Also the Concentration requirement. Guidance spam means losing concentration on whatever you were concentrating on previously, and you're not buffing anybody mid-ritual either.

But issues with Guidance might point to a larger problem - the table's approach to making ability checks in the first place. If the DM is calling for rolls unnecessarily, then unnecessary Guidance will inevitably accompany that and contribute to that feeling of annoyance at the table. For example, skinning wolves may or may not need a roll if there is no chance of failure and no meaningful consequence for that failure, in those cases the DM should just say they succeed without needing a check and therefore the Guidance spammer won't have to immediately chime in.