Do you have banned/nerfed spells?

[H_H_F_F]

Either for worldbuilding or balance reasons, some spells may just not work for you. Do you have any spells that you've banned/nerfed?

For me, I don't like what simulacrum does to the game, and I heavily dislike what zone of truth and clone do to my world. Those are gone.

Cure disease (and the similar paladin ability) has been nerfed to work on "most diseases" for worldbuilding reasons, and I changed the way resurrection spells work to make 'em less reliable.

How about you?

[Amnestic]

I removed Simulacrum from the game, nerfed Goodberry (berries now last either until you recast the spell or for 24 hours, so you can't stockpile more than 10 at a time over a long rest) and nerfed Conjure Animals (can only summon 1 or 2 creatures at a time, not counting upcasting).

I don't mind Zone of Truth and I've yet to have anyone try to abuse Clone so it's untouched.

[Pildion]

Either for worldbuilding or balance reasons, some spells may just bot work for you. Do you have any spells that you've banned/nerfed?

For me, I don't like what simulacrum does to the game, and I heavily dislike what zone of truth and clone do to my world. Those are gone.

Cure disease (and the similar paladin ability) has been nerfed to work on "most diseases" for worldbuilding reasons, and I changed the way resurrection spells work to make 'em less reliable.

How about you?

Nope, but serious wishes have serious consequences. The big thing about Simulacrum is that its dispellable. By the time your looking at 7th level spells you should be fighting high end smart bad guys. They are going to just dispell it. That said I do implement the only 1 Simulacrum nerf. I'm honestly more scared of my players trying to build an army with True Polymorph then Simulacrum haha.

[nickl_2000]

I removed Simulacrum from the game, nerfed Goodberry (berries now last either until you recast the spell or for 24 hours, so you can't stockpile more than 10 at a time over a long rest) and nerfed Conjure Animals (can only summon 1 or 2 creatures at a time, not counting upcasting).

I don't mind Zone of Truth and I've yet to have anyone try to abuse Clone so it's untouched.

Did you see Goodberries getting abused that often? Our campaign always had the distinct possibilities of rests being ruined overnight, so when I was playing a Druid I didn't usually spend all my spell slots to be ready for overnight combat. In general I made about 40 berries for a party of 4.

-Early Healing Spirit was nerfed to what WotC did to it.
-Some diseases resist lesser restoration and need multiple castings
-Conjures spells are just not used all that often since the slow down combat. Whole table requests the summon X instead in most cases.
-Silvery Barbs is banned until we start a new campaign

[Dungeon-noob]

I haven't seen high level D&D play yet, our games tend to die too quickly. But i have reduced fireball and lightning bolt to 6d6, which leaves them quite fine thank you very much. Guiding bolt is also quite viable with a die less damage, it's just out of line otherwise.

[Sigreid]

I do not. I have a group that doesn't actively try to wreck the fun for everyone else.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

No infinite goofiness with Simulacrum I guess? As a DM I've put two NPC Sims to good use at different times. Even disposed of Blackrazor to get a soul for one. As a player I haven't.

At the lower levels most games happen at here new race flight is more of a thing to be honest.

[Mastikator]

I banned silvery barbs (too disruptive) and limited summing spells to max 2 (mostly to speed up combat).

I don't mind healing spells being good, it means I can use more interesting monsters

[Amnestic]

Did you see Goodberries getting abused that often? Our campaign always had the distinct possibilities of rests being ruined overnight, so when I was playing a Druid I didn't usually spend all my spell slots to be ready for overnight combat. In general I made about 40 berries for a party of 4.

I wrote far more about this than I originally intended but the short version is "Yes it was a problem, to me."

The long version:

The party were frequently traveling through the wilderness for multiple days to get to their next destination (so 'downtime', because they were also on phantom steeds and could essentially outrun any random encounter if I cared to drop one in their face) and had a caster with Tiny Hut; rests couldn't be ruined unless I specifically kitted out a wandering enemy with dispel magic, which wouldn't have been appropriate most of the time, especially not repeatedly across the campaign.

Even 40 berries is an obscene amount of flexible healing, in my opinion, for what is essentially no cost whatsoever. ~6 perfectly portioned potions of healing, so ~300gp in healing resources, daily, without actually costing you a copper.

Of course, depending on the campaign structure such a nerf might not be/seem necessary. If you're doing heavy daily dungeon grinding where every slot in combat counts and you're frequently resting in a dangerous spot where you can be interrupted at any time...sure, probably not needed. But then, it also doesn't really hurt to add it in anyway.

But if you're safe in an inn? Or a Tiny Hut? If you're traveling in a caravan or on a Lightning Rail? Chances are good you can simply hedge those spell slots for the next day without fear. A 5th level druid is dropping 90 berries from a full commitment of slots that they didn't need because they were traveling or doing 'downtime' that day.

And as a final general point I find the incentives on a player to 'save' spell slots for the next day something I don't want to encourage in gameplay as a DM. Saving it for a big boss encounter later in the day? Fine. Saving it for the next day? Not something I want to see. Personal preference, perhaps.

[da newt]

Yes I do, but just a couple.

[nickl_2000]

I wrote far more about this than I originally intended but the short version is "Yes it was a problem, to me."

The long version:

The party were frequently traveling through the wilderness for multiple days to get to their next destination (so 'downtime', because they were also on phantom steeds and could essentially outrun any random encounter if I cared to drop one in their face) and had a caster with Tiny Hut; rests couldn't be ruined unless I specifically kitted out a wandering enemy with dispel magic, which wouldn't have been appropriate most of the time, especially not repeatedly across the campaign.

Even 40 berries is an obscene amount of flexible healing, in my opinion, for what is essentially no cost whatsoever. ~6 perfectly portioned potions of healing, so ~300gp in healing resources, daily, without actually costing you a copper.

Of course, depending on the campaign structure such a nerf might not be/seem necessary. If you're doing heavy daily dungeon grinding where every slot in combat counts and you're frequently resting in a dangerous spot where you can be interrupted at any time...sure, probably not needed. But then, it also doesn't really hurt to add it in anyway.

But if you're safe in an inn? Or a Tiny Hut? If you're traveling in a caravan or on a Lightning Rail? Chances are good you can simply hedge those spell slots for the next day without fear. A 5th level druid is dropping 90 berries from a full commitment of slots that they didn't need because they were traveling or doing 'downtime' that day.

And as a final general point I find the incentives on a player to 'save' spell slots for the next day something I don't want to encourage in gameplay as a DM. Saving it for a big boss encounter later in the day? Fine. Saving it for the next day? Not something I want to see. Personal preference, perhaps.

You know, I guess we did nerf it a little at our table. During downtime the DM made a rule to allow for 4 casting (40 goodberries). We hit some pretty difficult combats every day, so 10 points of healing per person wasn't all that much. Still all tables and campaigns are different :)

[DracoKnight]

I have Dream of the Blue Veil banned. I don’t want to have to have any conceivable world prepped after 13th level.

I am thinking about implementing the Blue Veil as a location within my world, a specific place where you can go to cast the spell. Which I feel is more in the spirit of the spell anyways; since it feels like it wants to be a DM plot point rather than a spell.

[Damon_Tor]

I wrote far more about this than I originally intended but the short version is "Yes it was a problem, to me."

The long version:

The party were frequently traveling through the wilderness for multiple days to get to their next destination (so 'downtime', because they were also on phantom steeds and could essentially outrun any random encounter if I cared to drop one in their face) and had a caster with Tiny Hut; rests couldn't be ruined unless I specifically kitted out a wandering enemy with dispel magic, which wouldn't have been appropriate most of the time, especially not repeatedly across the campaign.

Even 40 berries is an obscene amount of flexible healing, in my opinion, for what is essentially no cost whatsoever. ~6 perfectly portioned potions of healing, so ~300gp in healing resources, daily, without actually costing you a copper.

Of course, depending on the campaign structure such a nerf might not be/seem necessary. If you're doing heavy daily dungeon grinding where every slot in combat counts and you're frequently resting in a dangerous spot where you can be interrupted at any time...sure, probably not needed. But then, it also doesn't really hurt to add it in anyway.

But if you're safe in an inn? Or a Tiny Hut? If you're traveling in a caravan or on a Lightning Rail? Chances are good you can simply hedge those spell slots for the next day without fear. A 5th level druid is dropping 90 berries from a full commitment of slots that they didn't need because they were traveling or doing 'downtime' that day.

And as a final general point I find the incentives on a player to 'save' spell slots for the next day something I don't want to encourage in gameplay as a DM. Saving it for a big boss encounter later in the day? Fine. Saving it for the next day? Not something I want to see. Personal preference, perhaps.

Well I wouldn't call it a nerf to the spell exactly, but in my world a number of magical creatures (notably owlbears, but there are others) are attracted to Goodberries. Going to sleep with a pile of the things is a great way to ensure that owlbears are probably going to bother you during the night. If you've got a Tiny Hut they won't be able to hurt you, but you'll probably have a deadly encounter's worth of the things waiting for you when you wake up.

[Bobthewizard]

If you ban Zone of Truth, do you still allow Detect Thoughts? It doesn't even allow a save for surface thoughts.

I ban all conjure spells except the Tasha's Summons. Those are just cleaner and much better written than the hodgepodge of previous conjuring spells.

I wouldn't allow coffeelocks, nuclear wizards, or simulacrum chains.

[SpanielBear]

In our group we have a couple of games going, with different DMs for each. We have a general rule between us all about not abusing summon spells (because multiple creatures are a pain and just make combat endless), and Remove Curse/Disease can lift symptoms but not completely remove the cause of them, as they kill narratives stone dead otherwise.

[Sception]

I have Dream of the Blue Veil banned. I don’t want to have to have any conceivable world prepped after 13th level.

I am thinking about implementing the Blue Veil as a location within my world, a specific place where you can go to cast the spell. Which I feel is more in the spirit of the spell anyways; since it feels like it wants to be a DM plot point rather than a spell.

I mean, considering that 1) the PCs need to be aware of a given alternate reality in character in order to even think to try to go to it, something that won't happen unless the DM puts that information into the campaign themselves and 2) they need a creature or object from the target reality first in order to even cast the spell, and no such creature or object will exist in the campaign unless the DM puts it there first. So even if the spell isn't banned, the players can't use it to travel to other settings that you as the DM don't first actively invite them to by seeding the needed setting displaced information and item into your game. If you don't plan on inviting such travel it's probably good form to tell players not to waste limited spells known/spellbook space on it, though.

The only reason to ban it really is if you're planning a 'the party gets trapped in another reality and needs to find a way home' adventure, which the spell would solve before it started by virtue of the party themselves being the needed 'objects or creatures from the setting the party wishes to travel to'.

[H_H_F_F]

If you ban Zone of Truth, do you still allow Detect Thoughts? It doesn't even allow a save for surface thoughts.

I hadn't mentioned everything. Detect thoughts is a subtle nerf - you can still use it to detect creatures, but all it reveals without a save is their base emotional state - anxious, angry, concerned.

With a save, you can read their thoughts - but an aware target can just think a lie, if they're well disciplined.

I do not. I have a group that doesn't actively try to wreck the fun for everyone else.

...and Remove Curse/Disease can lift symptoms but not completely remove the cause of them, as they kill narratives stone dead.

Quoted these two together because on answers the other. I don't have to worry about my players abusing anything to want to nerf everything that just kills any disease. "The queen-consort has been under the weather for a while, and the clerics can't seem to help" is a line I want to be able to say without including some new form of powerful magic at every turn.

Same goes for resurrection spells - "The king was assassinated!" Is a line I want to be able to use without either saying the kingdom has no one able to raise dead (meaning, the PCs are the most powerful casters around by level 9) or saying that any VIP can only be assassinated by a caster with 9th level spells.

I want my world to make internal sense, not just to function as long as I and the PCs ignore the obvious consequences of what they can do.

[Sception]

I've been tempted to ban or nerf shield, even before treantmonk's house rules video that included that suggestion. It's way outside the appropriate bounds of bounded accuracy, it makes character types that are meant to be vulnerable and rely on tougher party members for protection harder to hit than their supposedly tougher allies if they lack the spell, and it makes already tough character archetypes absurdly hard to hit if they somehow gain access to the spell. I mean, imagine if 'mage armor' were both better than and stacked with all typical forms of worn armor, making mages with the spell tougher than fighters and paladins without it and making fighters and paladins with it untouchable by any monster not over CR by enough to kill outright any party member that it did hit. That's close to how degenerate Shield is in its current form.

It also slows down play significantly with constant interruptions while players stop to think if they should be casting shield or not to resist particular attacks - not a unique problem, this is an issue for reactions in general, but it is notably frustrating for shield due to it's ubiquity.

I have yet to ban or nerf it myself, but I haven't run a game for an experienced/optimized party recently so haven't really had cause to. The next time I do run for such a party I'm very likely to put some sort of limitation on it, whether a nerf to try to reign it in or a flat ban to just avoid the issue altogether.

[Ionathus]

I only nerf for RP reasons, because my players have never abused anything in a combat scenario badly enough that I felt the need to tone it back.

The only significant nerf I've ever done is to Remove Curse, and it's really more of a de facto nerf than an actual change to the spell description.

There are simply some curses in my world that are too powerful or complicated to remove with a single spell. Think of it as Remove Curse being the tool you use - it's your scalpel, and most curses are a simple surface-level tumor you need to cut out. However, the nastier ones are deeper and more integrated with the host, so you need specific know-how of how to remove it or you might deal permanent (and possibly fatal!) damage.

My players welcomed the change (at least, after the initial shock) because it's allowed them an excuse to find workarounds and live with the interesting side effects of the curse (in this case, lycanthropy for my Druid player) where they otherwise would've had a very boring exchange of "oh no I'm cursed" "don't worry, I prepped Remove Curse" "Oh. Okay."

Remove curse still works just fine on "standard" curses and cursed magic items. Really all I did was create a specific curse that beats the general rule. But I still guess I'd call that a nerf to the spell's intent.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My houserules on spells are as follows:



Summoning spells
All spells that summon, create, or animate creatures have the following addition: "Creatures created (or summoned or animated) by this spell cannot use any ability that would allow them to summon, create, or animate other creatures." This is categorical--no summon chains.

I strongly encourage use of Tasha's Summon X spells over the PHB (and other) Conjure X. If you choose to use the mass-conjure spells, please restrict yourself to either 1 or two creatures. I'll generally let you pick what you get, but please be prepared to run them quickly.

Counterspell
Xanathar's identification rules (requiring a reaction and an Intelligence (Arcana) check to identify a spell) are in effect. You cannot, generally, hide a spell-casting that has verbal or somatic components--the volume is at least that of a normal speaking voice and is uniquely identifiable as "arcane words". If a monster is casting a spell, I will say "The <X> begins casting a spell...."--that's your opportunity to counterspell. Monsters with counterspell will (in the main, with very few exceptions) counterspell the first N spells they can counterspell. I won't metagame the fact that you're telling me what spell you're casting.

Force Barriers
Tiny Hut, Wall of Force, and Forcecage have additional language: "The barrier created by this spell is an object with (10+spell level) AC and a damage threshold of 5+(spell level/2), resistance to non-magical attacks, and immunity to fire, cold, poison, lightning, radiant, psychic, and necrotic damage. If the barrier takes damage in excess of its threshold, the caster must make a Constitution saving throw as if they had taken the damage while concentrating on the spell (even if it does not require concentration), except that the minimum DC increases by 2 for every time it is triggered for the duration of the spell. On a failure, the spell ends. Note: if the spell does not require concentration normally, this does not occupy your concentration, and does not benefit from things like War Caster (or other sources of advantage on Concentration saves). Disintegrate still automatically ends the spells as well.

Forcecage specifically: It loses the "immune to all damage" line.

Dream of the Blue Veil
Don't take this spell. It will not function, as you'll never find the component. No other worlds outside the Crystal Sphere are accessible by any means.



The only actual changes are in bold. The others are recommendations and requests and statements of intent, not hard rules. The one about summoning multiple creatures is dominantly for play/practicality.

[Telok]

Out table doesn't but the players self regulate common problem spells like summons, banishment, etc., because over use starts warping many/all combats around them.

Goodberry isn't considered an issue because starting combats at full health all the time is a system assumption that it supports instead of breaking. We find the melee's hp & healing magic the only real fights-per-day limit. The other casters are warlocks or ok with relying on cantrips & low spells after going nova to own two combats.

[Amnestic]

Goodberry isn't considered an issue because starting combats at full health all the time is a system assumption that it supports instead of breaking.

Personally if I was to approach it like that I'd simply tell players they heal to full after an encounter instead. Cuts down on book-keeping.

[RogueJK]

The only spell banned at our table is Silvery Barbs. The DM feels it is grossly overpowered.

[Willie the Duck]

We use variation on gritty rest recharge, so most of the combat spells (even the summons and turn-me-into-a-Monster-Manual-Entry spells) are muted in effect. I still have reservations of those types, along with Simulacrum, Wish (especially the two together), Force Cage, and Banishment, but haven't much had to ban them because people have tended to try them once and get bored with them after a while.

[KorvinStarmast]

Do you have any spells that you've banned/nerfed? From the PHB? No. From Xanathar's? No. From Tasha's? Haven't found one that I want to nerf although Mind Sliver is almost too strong. Spells from Ravnica, Strixhaven, etc are not allowed. I don't have the book or I don't care for them is the why.
For me, I don't like what simulacrum does to the game, and I heavily dislike what zone of truth and clone do to my world. Those are gone. Zone of Truth is a problem? I've not seen it be a problem yet. Only seen Clone cast once this edition by a PC. Sim - it's not a problem as long as the wish/sim cheese has a mitigation.

Cure disease (and the similar paladin ability) has been nerfed to work on "most diseases" for worldbuilding reasons, and I changed the way resurrection spells work to make 'em less reliable. Glad I don't play at that table, as those spells/abilities are bread and butter for some classes. With that said, I'd not mind seeing side effects of things like Raise Dead or Resurrection being more like the AD&D system shock and "you lost a point of CON" (or something like that) but nothing has come up in play that has made me feel as though that's even necessary. We had a raise dead cast from a scroll on our Lore Bard who fell to his death (I was the Tempest Cleric in that group, made the roll to read the scroll). The "you need a long rest to recover each of those -1's" thing was in play and we kept adventuring; I have seen it work out and it's OK as a side effect that offers a penalty for dying. The player found keeping track of the -1's to be a pain in the butt.

I worked with our druid player to pre plan 'packages' for conjure animals and woodland beings and it makes implementing that soo much easier.

The way Phoenix runs counterspell works fine.

[meandean]

in my world a number of magical creatures (notably owlbears, but there are others) are attracted to Goodberries. Going to sleep with a pile of the things is a great way to ensure that owlbears are probably going to bother you during the night. If you've got a Tiny Hut they won't be able to hurt you, but you'll probably have a deadly encounter's worth of the things waiting for you when you wake up.If I were in your group, I would really much rather you just change the spell so that it's cast in the way you want it to be cast.

When is zone of truth a problem? Is it specifically in a courtroom/interrogation scenario? At least then you've solved the first obvious weakness of the spell, that the person can just walk away – presumably either they're restrained, or there will be further legal consequences if they bolt. But if your concern is essentially that this isn't how a "good" person gets information, why not instead say it's part of the legal code that you can't cast this spell? I don't think "if someone fails a save, they can't blatantly lie to you [but can still omit essential information, or just say nothing]" is overpowered in the sense of what a 2nd-level spell can do.

(STANDARD DISCLAIMER: You're the DM and it's your game, this is just my outside opinion)

[Damon_Tor]

If I were in your group, I would really much rather you just change the spell so that it's cast in the way you want it to be cast.

I like owlbears. Also, I don't like saying no to stuff. I always prefer "yes, but".

[Jervis]

Really the only spell I’ve found particularly ban worthy is Tasha’s Mind Whip and that’s just because I’ve had players treat it like a win button and get mad if they encounter something like a ogre with wizard levels or enemies that have bows. As a rule I give less powerful ranged attacks to almost everything with any Int score above 3 as well so flying doesn’t make you immune to everything published. I also ban any and all Mercer brew on principle so the critical role content like chronurgy magic is out.

[H_H_F_F]

When is zone of truth a problem? Is it specifically in a courtroom/interrogation scenario? At least then you've solved the first obvious weakness of the spell, that the person can just walk away – presumably either they're restrained, or there will be further legal consequences if they bolt. But if your concern is essentially that this isn't how a "good" person gets information, why not instead say it's part of the legal code that you can't cast this spell? I don't think "if someone fails a save, they can't blatantly lie to you [but can still omit essential information, or just say nothing]" is overpowered in the sense of what a 2nd-level spell can do.

(STANDARD DISCLAIMER: You're the DM and it's your game, this is just my outside opinion)

As I said, it's about worldbuilding, not balance. I don't think the spell is OP for PCs or anything.

Authorities having this spell at their disposal makes any justice system not relying on it (or at least using it) incredibly unrealistic, IMO. One that does is just... boring. Sure, there are ways to circumvent the spell, but they have their limits, and it still kills off about 50% of intrigue and mystery - and that's if we're being generous.

If that spell wasn't in core, and came out in an expansion while I was already running a game, I'd say "nah, that's out, it changes the world too much". That's much worse to me than silvery barbs being to good in combat, or whatever.

Zone if truth eliminates a lot of possible plot lines, and doesn't offer anything except eliminating those plot lines, IMO.

[nickl_2000]

Really the only spell I’ve found particularly ban worthy is Tasha’s Mind Whip and that’s just because I’ve had players treat it like a win button and get mad if they encounter something like a ogre with wizard levels or enemies that have bows. As a rule I give less powerful ranged attacks to almost everything with any Int score above 3 as well so flying doesn’t make you immune to everything published. I also ban any and all Mercer brew on principle so the critical role content like chronurgy magic is out.

Why is Mind Whip so bad? Okay damage and only one round on a failed save. Tasha's Hideous Laughter is a lower level spell and removes all actions for at least a round on a failed save.

[Jervis]

Why is Mind Whip so bad? Okay damage and only one round on a failed save. Tasha's Hideous Laughter is a lower level spell and removes all actions for at least a round on a failed save.

Int save. Big monsters who rely on melee damage usually have garbage Int saves. Their wisdom saves are usually better even if it’s not as amazing as Con. So fights with big boss mobs tend to be the wizard spamming TMW from out of range while everyone strafes and pinks it from range. It’s not the most broken spell in the game, but like I said I’ve had players take it like a win button and get mad if it doesn’t work.

[H_H_F_F]

Glad I don't play at that table, as those spells/abilities are bread and butter for some classes.

You know, you've said that to me before, and for similarly trivial reasons.

First thing first, this just feels weird. You don't know anything about my table, you have no idea how good I am at building fun encounters and mysteries and how engaging of a DM I am, but you're glad you're not there because... If you play a paladin, there'll be the occasional plot line that would be solved with 5 points of lay hands in other tables, but not at mine?

Be honest, when you say bread and butter - how often does it come up? How many diseases do you find yourself curing in most campaigns, where the transition from "all" to "most" is so radical that it makes you glad you're not at that table?

Second thing second: besides being weird, it's also an insulting way to approach the subject. I'm letting you know this in case it's mot an intentional choice: saying "I think that's a bad idea because X" is functionally the same, except it isn't being judgmental about my entire table, assumes less, and is more specific to the actual point at hand.

To clarify: I'm not at all asking you to cuddle me, or pretend like you find an idea I float good when you don't. You can tell me "IMO, that's a terrible idea". Saying you're glad you're not at my table is irrelevant and inflammatory, so I'll ask you to avoid that kind of language in future discussions with me, if that's alright with you.

[P. G. Macer]

The only spell I outright ban is silvery barbs, and I did so preemptively. I’ve nerfed a few others, though:

• Forcecage consumes its material component, as did goodberry when I ran a campaign with a somewhat strong survival component.
• In that same campaign, I decreased the quantity of food and water made by create food and water.
• I ban simulacrum-wish chaining and other cheese associated with the two spells, effectively nerfing them. This includes using the AL rule that the original caster of simulacrum risks losing the ability to cast wish when their copy uses the spell for an “off-label” usage.

I actually buff more spells than I nerf, now that I check my notes…

[H_H_F_F]

I actually buff more spells than I nerf, now that I check my notes…

That could be an interesting thread by itself.

[DracoKnight]

I mean, considering that 1) the PCs need to be aware of a given alternate reality in character in order to even think to try to go to it, something that won't happen unless the DM puts that information into the campaign themselves and 2) they need a creature or object from the target reality first in order to even cast the spell, and no such creature or object will exist in the campaign unless the DM puts it there first. So even if the spell isn't banned, the players can't use it to travel to other settings that you as the DM don't first actively invite them to by seeding the needed setting displaced information and item into your game. If you don't plan on inviting such travel it's probably good form to tell players not to waste limited spells known/spellbook space on it, though.

The only reason to ban it really is if you're planning a 'the party gets trapped in another reality and needs to find a way home' adventure, which the spell would solve before it started by virtue of the party themselves being the needed 'objects or creatures from the setting the party wishes to travel to'.

I am aware of all of this. I know the nuances of the spell. I still do not appreciate the worldbuilding implications.

[Yakmala]

The first and only spell I banned was Silvery Barbs. It's simply too powerful for a 1st level slot. And in the hands of a character with an Order Cleric dip, it gets even worse.

[Xihirli]

If you let me have a crack at Forcecage or Wall of Force, I'd make them have an AC and HP to break. I think they would still be really good spells, and it would let Fighters feel cool for smashing their way through them when an Enemy Wizard used them. Instead of "oh you should have taken the Misty Step Feat guess you have to sit this fight out, Steve."

[PhoenixPhyre]

If you let me have a crack at Forcecage or Wall of Force, I'd make them have an AC and HP to break. I think they would still be really good spells, and it would let Fighters feel cool for smashing their way through them when an Enemy Wizard used them. Instead of "oh you should have taken the Misty Step Feat guess you have to sit this fight out, Steve."

My version is something similar, except via a Constitution saving throw. Basically, they have AC and a damage threshold based on spell level (plus resistances/immunities to a bunch of damage types). If it takes more damage from that from a single effect, the caster must make a Constitution saving throw of DC = MAX(10 + 2* (number of times it's triggered since the spell was cast - 1), Damage/2), ending the spell on a failure. This isn't concentration, because forcecage (for example) doesn't require concentration. So you can have forcecage up and be concentrating on a different spell, and the two are separate. But also things like Warcaster doesn't help you here, because it's not a concentration check, just a regular Constitution saving throw.

Probably simpler to just give it HP and a damage threshold, but...

And I apply it to tiny hut as well.

[sithlordnergal]

I've yet to ban a spell, never found any that were strong enough to be worth banning.

The only spell I've nerfed is Simulacrum. I basically use AL rules for Wish/Simulacrum, and I only allow 1 Simulacrum per caster.

Outside of that, I've yet to find an OP spell. I have buffed spells though. For example, I removed the unneeded nerf that Wizards gave to Healing Spirit, letting it last the entire minute instead of making it end early. I also gave the Tasha Summons different buffs, usually in the form of more AC and slightly higher damage.

[KorvinStarmast]

You know, you've said that to me before, and for similarly trivial reasons. I've played at a table where cure disease for LoH was turned off by the DM and it sucked hard. (Particularly as we were dealing with a plague). The Paladin was nerfed, and then we discovered that 'these zombies' are immune to turn undead. Basic cleric function was turned off by a DM whim. I dislike that a great deal.
Beyond that, I find spell bans at low level to be not necessary.

As you get into the stratosphere (spell levels 7 and up) I can see where the problems crop up.

Saying you're glad you're not at my table is irrelevant and inflammatory, so I'll ask you to avoid that kind of language in future discussions with me, if that's alright with you. Given that I have had an experience at table with that nerf - and it sucked hard, and I was getting exasperated with the 'campaign' before it ended due to RL changes in various schedules of various people - I have grounds to not want to put up with a petty nerf like that.
I tend to look at this in the way that sithlordnergal looks at it:

I've yet to ban a spell, never found any that were strong enough to be worth banning. Since you got upset by that turn of phrase, I can easily find a different way to express my view of your next poor idea - unless this is the last idea you share that I find to be a poor one.

[Keravath]

Yep ... I agree with several folks "I've never found a spell strong enough to be worth banning".

The only "nerfs" I play with are 1 simulacrum at a time only and if your simulacrum casts wish, the original caster suffers the stress too so simulacrum is not a way to get risk free wishes.

I've run a game with a druid with one level of life cleric with absolutely immense healing from goodberries. They could use a 4th level slot to generate 10 x 7 hit point good berries. They could use 1/2 their spell slots before a long rest and have several hundred hit points of healing available the next day.

Game breaking? Not in the slightest and in no way whatsoever. The only effect was that the characters were at full hit points before each encounter and weren't burning spell slots to get there. Make the encounters slightly more challenging and you are golden. The player just loved doling out those berries to the party each day. They felt like it validated their character choices which was fine with me.

[H_H_F_F]

I've played at a table where cure disease for LoH was turned off by the DM and it sucked hard. (Particularly as we were dealing with a plague). The Paladin was nerfed, and then we discovered that 'these zombies' are immune to turn undead. Basic cleric function was turned off by a DM whim. I dislike that a great deal.
Beyond that, I find spell bans at low level to be not necessary.

As you get into the stratosphere (spell levels 7 and up) I can see where the problems crop up.
Given that I have had an experience at table with that nerf - and it sucked hard, and I was getting exasperated with the 'campaign' before it ended due to RL changes in various schedules of various people - I have grounds to not want to put up with a petty nerf like that.
I tend to look at this in the way that sithlordnergal looks at it: Since you got upset by that turn of phrase, I can easily find a different way to express my view of your next poor idea - unless this is the last idea you share that I find to be a poor one.

A lot of this sounds more like a communication issue than a rules issue, to me. Springing house rules on unsuspecting players mid-campaign is always a bad idea.

If the players knew in advance that such things were a possibility, I don't see a reason to get exasperated - unless it was much more prevalent than you were originally lead to believe.

[Dame_Mechanus]

I like owlbears. Also, I don't like saying no to stuff. I always prefer "yes, but".

From my perspective as a player, I'd always rather hear "no" than "yes, but..."

The former feels like we're on the same side and this is going to really screw up what you have planned for the game, so you're asking me as a player to not do something that is technically allowed but disruptive. And that's fine. The latter, though, feels like I'm stepping into a minefield where you have red lines you don't want crossed, but you don't want to say what any of them are and so you're going to pull out a "gotcha" on me when I'm not expecting it. Yes, even if you told me about this particular one, what other things are you going to push me to avoid doing?

I don't think that's your intention, mind you; it'd be unfair of me to ascribe motives to you that I can only speculate on. It's just how that particular dynamic feels to me, and I'd always prefer a GM tell me "no" or "I'm not going to allow that rule interaction" or even just come to me and ask me to play along rather than subtly punishing me.

(One of my favorite GMs used to actually have a way she would encourage people to do things; she handed out little tokens that you could use for various things like picking out a particular loot item or rerolling a bad save or something, but only if you first behaved in a way that was in-character but potentially detrimental. It was cute. Only works at the right kind of table, but that's true of most GM tricks.)

[Sigreid]

A lot of this sounds more like a communication issue than a rules issue, to me. Springing house rules on unsuspecting players mid-campaign is always a bad idea.

If the players knew in advance that such things were a possibility, I don't see a reason to get exasperated - unless it was much more prevalent than you were originally lead to believe.

It would be perfectly valid for a player to decide that wasn't a campaign they wanted to play in though, and noping out before it starts could save a lot of hassle and hurt feelings for everyone involved.

[Black Jester]

I've played at a table where cure disease for LoH was turned off by the DM and it sucked hard. (Particularly as we were dealing with a plague). The Paladin was nerfed, and then we discovered that 'these zombies' are immune to turn undead. Basic cleric function was turned off by a DM whim. I dislike that a great deal.


I understand why, but I also see where the Dungeon Master might come from - if you want to run a game where a plague plays a major role, it might feeel necessary to change some mechanisms from a world-building point of view to maintain setting integrity. "Why is there a devastating plague around, when every low level paladin and most clerics can simply cure it?" is a legitimate question. Likewise, if you want to have a Night of the living Dead scenario, an automatic "I win" button like turn undead might appear as less than ideal, because a) it greatly diminishes the contribution of other characters, b) removes any tactical planning of the PCs, because the solution is little too obvious and c) might be a little bit dull, if the threat isn't regarded as all that threatening.

I think those are legitimate concerns- However, they should probably be clearly communicated. Something like "Hey, I want to run a campaign where curing diseases is going to be difficult, and some magical means won't work. Ho do you want your Paladin's Lay on Hands work if they can't cure dieseases?" might give the player an active stake in the design and the campaign as a whole).

According to a one-time player at a small local Con, I nerfed Animate Dead hard and made his wizard "unplayable", because I instisted that travveling with a flock of undead minions might make him unpopular with the locals, you can't reanimate the same corpse twice after it had been destroyed, and, a freshly raised skeleton does not automatically gain a shortbow and a shortsword, no matter what it says in the Monser Manual. As far as I know, Animate Dead is the only spell I have nerfed, by applying some basic logic.

Invisibility might be another one, though, mostly because I ruled that the PCs could use a cloud of flour to reveal the position of an Invisble Stalker, which, logically should also be applied to invisible player characters. So far, this hasn't been an issue (the PCs rarely infiltrate the dungeon bakery), but it might.

[H_H_F_F]

It would be perfectly valid for a player to decide that wasn't a campaign they wanted to play in though, and noping out before it starts could save a lot of hassle and hurt feelings for everyone involved.
Oh, 100%. That wouldn't be a bad experience for anyone, though.

[KirbyDerby]

I've yet to ban a spell, never found any that were strong enough to be worth banning.

Aside from high level cheese using stuff like Simulacrum, Magic Jar, or True Polymorph, I would agree. If you made a list of every spell that you could reasonably argue requires a nerf, you'd end up with an exact list of basically every single staple casting option in the game. If you'll nerf Conjure Animals (into the ground), why not nerf Fireball? Or Hypnotic Pattern? Or Spirit Guardians? If you'll ban Tasha's Mind Whip, why not nerf Phantasmal Force? Or Web? Or Pass Without Trace? Certain spells might be especially strong in low encounter days where most encounters are against one or two enemies, but those days are usually trivial anyways.

[kazaryu]

Either for worldbuilding or balance reasons, some spells may just not work for you. Do you have any spells that you've banned/nerfed?

For me, I don't like what simulacrum does to the game, and I heavily dislike what zone of truth and clone do to my world. Those are gone.

Cure disease (and the similar paladin ability) has been nerfed to work on "most diseases" for worldbuilding reasons, and I changed the way resurrection spells work to make 'em less reliable.

How about you?

i can't think of any that i've banned/nerfed for worldbuilding reasons....i suppose there's the kinda soft-nerf i've placed on summons. like...the creature doesn't come from no where. so there's a chance that you may piss either it (or its boss) off and it'll come after you. But im not sure if i'd call that a nerf.

i know for sure that any of the mass summon spells (i.e. minor elementals) are either nerfed or banned. i've not yet had a player that wanted to use them so i've had no reason to set it in stone. currently im leaning towards a rule where its like 'in combat, you can only choose the highest CR option, and you can't upcast'. and thats just because i don't need all the extra creatures in initiative. i already tend to have multple enemies, in addition to the party.

Wish i don't let players just...choose. nor is it something i treat as an actual spell. if its something they want to pick up, then its something i'll let them quest for. or i may give it to them as loot.

i don't allow simulacrum chains...but i certainly allow the spell, likewise clone.

oh, planar binding. rather than it just changing the duration of whatever spell summoned it. i just have planar binding straight up supersede the spell. otherwise WTF is the point of the 'the creature will actively use whatever wiggle room you leave it to plot against you' clause, if most of the ways you use to summon a creature keeps them docile.

[kazaryu]

Same goes for resurrection spells - "The king was assassinated!" Is a line I want to be able to use without either saying the kingdom has no one able to raise dead (meaning, the PCs are the most powerful casters around by level 9) or saying that any VIP can only be assassinated by a caster with 9th level spells.

I want my world to make internal sense, not just to function as long as I and the PCs ignore the obvious consequences of what they can do.

to be fair, for the 'someone assassinated X political figure' thing. if someone wwere to ask 'why didn't they get ressed'. the answer would be (well, in that moment, the answer would be a shrug, and a suggestion that they could investigate). but the real answer could easily be anything from 'politics' to 'his soul wasn't willing'.

but then i also tend to take the world from the perspective of 'PC's are special, even if they don't realize it'. so the fact that a ressurection is all but guaranteed to work on a PC, but not so for NPC's, has never been a major issue for me.

[H_H_F_F]

to be fair, for the 'someone assassinated X political figure' thing. if someone wwere to ask 'why didn't they get ressed'. the answer would be (well, in that moment, the answer would be a shrug, and a suggestion that they could investigate). but the real answer could easily be anything from 'politics' to 'his soul wasn't willing'.

but then i also tend to take the world from the perspective of 'PC's are special, even if they don't realize it'. so the fact that a ressurection is all but guaranteed to work on a PC, but not so for NPC's, has never been a major issue for me.

You can always find your way around these questions, but "resurrection can fail" lets you do any of these or run it straightforward. It's more options for you as a DM, so not every historical event has to be a convoluted mess.

PCs are special does solve this, in a way, same for disease and curse. "You guys are special, so these spells will always work on you, but note that they won't always work on everyone else" is a valid approach, even if not one I personally find fun.

[Sigreid]

to be fair, for the 'someone assassinated X political figure' thing. if someone wwere to ask 'why didn't they get ressed'. the answer would be (well, in that moment, the answer would be a shrug, and a suggestion that they could investigate). but the real answer could easily be anything from 'politics' to 'his soul wasn't willing'.

but then i also tend to take the world from the perspective of 'PC's are special, even if they don't realize it'. so the fact that a ressurection is all but guaranteed to work on a PC, but not so for NPC's, has never been a major issue for me.

I could see gods preventing royal resurrections to cut down on revolutions, civil wars etc. Particularly lawful gods not wanting to allow that makes sense to me.

[Jervis]

In 3.5 I have a rule that the only resurrection spells where Revivify/last breath and the very high level ones. So most people couldn’t be raised unless they had taken precautions and had either a guardian spirit binding ritual or contingent gentle repose cast on them. It also means that a body that was sufficiently mutilated wouldn’t be a applicable target without mending or something on it cast on it (that works fight me). Not impossible mind you and something political figures and rich people would do but there are more ways to stop it.

5e doesn’t have the rules text for things like gentle repose contingency so that kinda doesn’t work here without custom magic items. I haven’t had the need to ban the revival spells and introduce that yet. Usually if it’s a political assassination I just treat it like a puzzle that the assassin has to solve to the point that wealthy targets are more costly for the employer. Druids are rare and reclusive so finding one in time for a reincarnate is hard, and 7th level spellcasters that are willing to help out a random human king are rare in this setting (as I suspect they are in most settings), so killing someone permanently is as easy as taking a important part of their bits so the spell can’t restore it. Cut out the heart, steal the head, etc. That means that the assassin needs to work harder to make sure the target stays dead but they can still stay dead.

Also Disintegrate can stop resurrection save from 9th level spells so that’s a option.

[meandean]

It's a fine line between blaming spells for making things too easy, and simply not creating plot hooks that are appropriate for a fantasy world where people have amazing powers. If you want to do a plot that challenges the characters to get across the continent quickly, but they have the teleport spell, the answer isn't "ban ​teleport from the game." That's of course not exactly the same as making resurrection harder or whatever, but IMO, in these situations, take the extra time to consider if this is really the best plot you could be writing.

[kazaryu]

You can always find your way around these questions, but "resurrection can fail" lets you do any of these or run it straightforward. It's more options for you as a DM, so not every historical event has to be a convoluted mess.

PCs are special does solve this, in a way, same for disease and curse. "You guys are special, so these spells will always work on you, but note that they won't always work on everyone else" is a valid approach, even if not one I personally find fun.

well, in the case of ressurection, the specialness of the PC is more the fact that they have a player that gets to decide if their characters soul is willing...rather than me the DM making that determination.

[Jervis]

It's a fine line between blaming spells for making things too easy, and simply not creating plot hooks that are appropriate for a fantasy world where people have amazing powers. If you want to do a plot that depends on the characters having to get across the continent quickly, but the characters have teleport, the answer isn't "ban the teleport spell". That's of course not exactly the same as making resurrection harder or whatever, but IMO, in these situations, take the extra time to consider if this is really the best plot you could be writing.

This is also my opinion on the case. I already mentioned it in the post above (would have just quote posted if this was said before but eh, reverse ninja), but using the fantasy to your advantage helps. Assassins taking the time to steal a targets heart, magic items that block teleportation into a area (one of the things In 3.5 that I liked, a lot of problematic spells could be stoped with magic items that NPCs could justifiably have via WBL rules), legal systems that make statements made while under the influence of enchantment spells inadmissible (something I do in my settings), can make the world feel like it’s adapting to the mechanics.

[MrStabby]

I've been tempted to ban or nerf shield, even before treantmonk's house rules video that included that suggestion. It's way outside the appropriate bounds of bounded accuracy, it makes character types that are meant to be vulnerable and rely on tougher party members for protection harder to hit than their supposedly tougher allies if they lack the spell, and it makes already tough character archetypes absurdly hard to hit if they somehow gain access to the spell. I mean, imagine if 'mage armor' were both better than and stacked with all typical forms of worn armor, making mages with the spell tougher than fighters and paladins without it and making fighters and paladins with it untouchable by any monster not over CR by enough to kill outright any party member that it did hit. That's close to how degenerate Shield is in its current form.

It also slows down play significantly with constant interruptions while players stop to think if they should be casting shield or not to resist particular attacks - not a unique problem, this is an issue for reactions in general, but it is notably frustrating for shield due to it's ubiquity.

I have yet to ban or nerf it myself, but I haven't run a game for an experienced/optimized party recently so haven't really had cause to. The next time I do run for such a party I'm very likely to put some sort of limitation on it, whether a nerf to try to reign it in or a flat ban to just avoid the issue altogether.

One interesting nerf for shield that I know a friend of mine uses is to make it a concentration spell; I haven't played with this - but it might be interesting.





I only nerf for RP reasons, because my players have never abused anything in a combat scenario badly enough that I felt the need to tone it back.

The only significant nerf I've ever done is to Remove Curse, and it's really more of a de facto nerf than an actual change to the spell description.

There are simply some curses in my world that are too powerful or complicated to remove with a single spell. Think of it as Remove Curse being the tool you use - it's your scalpel, and most curses are a simple surface-level tumor you need to cut out. However, the nastier ones are deeper and more integrated with the host, so you need specific know-how of how to remove it or you might deal permanent (and possibly fatal!) damage.

My players welcomed the change (at least, after the initial shock) because it's allowed them an excuse to find workarounds and live with the interesting side effects of the curse (in this case, lycanthropy for my Druid player) where they otherwise would've had a very boring exchange of "oh no I'm cursed" "don't worry, I prepped Remove Curse" "Oh. Okay."

Remove curse still works just fine on "standard" curses and cursed magic items. Really all I did was create a specific curse that beats the general rule. But I still guess I'd call that a nerf to the spell's intent.

I think that you need to be really careful nerfing remove curse. Its a pretty niche spell as it is and if you take away what few uses it has in the average campaign then not only are you screwing some characters that take it, but also screwing some classes where that should be a major thematic element to the class. If you take away the dramatic imporant uses of the spell are you ensuring that you put in enough other equally cool uses to not make the player regret taking fireball instead?



The only spell banned at our table is Silvery Barbs. The DM feels it is grossly overpowered.
I don't use setting specific content in my games - so no Strixhaven, but in other games I have played I have found them to be much better without Silvery Barbs. Its... just un-fun. Sucking the drama out of the potential critical hit or the spell not landing or a hosile NPC generally doing something 'cool'.


If you let me have a crack at Forcecage or Wall of Force, I'd make them have an AC and HP to break. I think they would still be really good spells, and it would let Fighters feel cool for smashing their way through them when an Enemy Wizard used them. Instead of "oh you should have taken the Misty Step Feat guess you have to sit this fight out, Steve."
My approach to this has been to allow a strength check in place of an attack. I didn't want to favour the damage focussed characters over the sword and shield ones and I felt strength as a stat was one that could do with a bit of a boost.




Generally I don't target specific spells to ban - as I mentoned just setting specific content. I prefer to try and create worlds where things are more balanced - if spells require a creaure you can see then there will be fog filled settings. there may be underwater adventures around levels 5 to 7 where fireball can be problematic and so on. All of this to be communicated up-front so players can make decisions accordingly.

Smart enemies will play to live and to win - this means taking appropriate defensive measures. Rings of resistance are most likely to protect against fire and radiant damage. Enemies that can, will take spells like misty step and any NPC that survives to be high level will have survived spells that I consider to be the most powerful spells. Still, my campaigns tend o cap out at about levels 12 to 14 so I dodge the really powerful spells that way.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Either for worldbuilding or balance reasons, some spells may just not work for you. Do you have any spells that you've banned/nerfed?

For me, I don't like what simulacrum does to the game, and I heavily dislike what zone of truth and clone do to my world. Those are gone.

Cure disease (and the similar paladin ability) has been nerfed to work on "most diseases" for worldbuilding reasons, and I changed the way resurrection spells work to make 'em less reliable.

How about you?

I haven't banned any of the low level stuff, but I'll agree that things like cure disease, particularly for a 1st level Paly is pretty weird for worldbuilding. I guess if you're in a high fantasy setting where all is good and even peasants have relatively comfortable lives then fine. But if you're going for a more traditional medieval setting where common problems like plagues can't be solved by cantrips or 1st level spells then some of the things tier 1 (even level 1) characters can do are problematic.

As a player I was going through Curse of Strahd, and one of the first things we did was help out a church. It was run-down with a lot of broken windows, so I wanted to use Mending to fix the place up. The first question that came up was, 'Why didn't someone else come along and do this? It only takes a cantrip." It kind of broke the immersion, and this example is pretty typical of what low level characters can trivialize. I'd be happier if magic was a lot more restricted in tier 1; by tier 2 at least there's some rationale that characters who are able to perform these acts are rarer.

[Jervis]

I haven't banned any of the low level stuff, but I'll agree that things like cure disease, particularly for a 1st level Paly is pretty weird for worldbuilding. I guess if you're in a high fantasy setting where all is good and even peasants have relatively comfortable lives then fine. But if you're going for a more traditional medieval setting where common problems like plagues can't be solved by cantrips or 1st level spells then some of the things tier 1 (even level 1) characters can do are problematic.

As a player I was going through Curse of Strahd, and one of the first things we did was help out a church. It was run-down with a lot of broken windows, so I wanted to use Mending to fix the place up. The first question that came up was, 'Why didn't someone else come along and do this? It only takes a cantrip." It kind of broke the immersion, and this example is pretty typical of what low level characters can trivialize. I'd be happier if magic was a lot more restricted in tier 1; by tier 2 at least there's some rationale that characters who are able to perform these acts are rarer.

Keep in mind there aren’t a lot of people with class levels so even if you can cure disease with a 1st level spell or low level class feature how many people can you reasonably heal in a settlement with a popular of several hundred. Likewise with cantrips, even if a cantrip can fix a problem, how many people with the ability to do that are willing to take them time out of their day to do so? How many doctors are there and how many of those doctors are willing to work at a free clinic? Yeah most of those spells are “free” in the sense it doesn’t cost you anything besides time, but how many people are willing to do that with their time when they probably have a lot of stuff on their plate already?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Keep in mind there aren’t a lot of people with class levels so even if you can cure disease with a 1st level spell or low level class feature how many people can you reasonably heal in a settlement with a popular of several hundred. Likewise with cantrips, even if a cantrip can fix a problem, how many people with the ability to do that are willing to take them time out of their day to do so? How many doctors are there and how many of those doctors are willing to work at a free clinic? Yeah most of those spells are “free” in the sense it doesn’t cost you anything besides time, but how many people are willing to do that with their time when they probably have a lot of stuff on their plate already?

Agreed. Assume that you have a moderately infectious disease (worthy of being called a plague). If there's 50 total points of lay on hands (distributed over 1+ paladins) in a town of 5000, that's 10 people per day that can be cured that way. And probably only a couple casters who can cast cure disease at all, and not very many times. So maybe 20 people/day can be cured. That's...nothing. And doesn't scale well at all, even if the clerics and paladins do nothing but that. Which is unlikely. Especially since some of the clerics might be clerics of the god of disease, who'd rather not cure it at all. And some the clerics of the god of "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". Who believe that surviving the disease on your own is a mark of worth. Etc.

[Angelalex242]

I like zone of truth. I think bigger kingdoms probably have a permanent one installed in every courtroom. There may also be one in the throne room, depending on how honorable the kingdom is.

[Dame_Mechanus]

I like zone of truth. I think bigger kingdoms probably have a permanent one installed in every courtroom. There may also be one in the throne room, depending on how honorable the kingdom is.

I mean, I have characters who have spent a great deal of time and rhetorical training learning exactly how to operate within a Zone of Truth even without anything remotely approaching the truth passing their lips. Zone of Truth is not Protection from Lies, just an inconvenience that certain people have learned how to work around.

[Leon]

Probably will. more to do with if they don't fit the setting than anything else i feel.

[Jervis]

I like zone of truth. I think bigger kingdoms probably have a permanent one installed in every courtroom. There may also be one in the throne room, depending on how honorable the kingdom is.

I find the idea that political figures would want to be unable to lie unlikely. I can see the king wanting one so long as the throne was specifically omitted though.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Keep in mind there aren’t a lot of people with class levels so even if you can cure disease with a 1st level spell or low level class feature how many people can you reasonably heal in a settlement with a popular of several hundred. Likewise with cantrips, even if a cantrip can fix a problem, how many people with the ability to do that are willing to take them time out of their day to do so? How many doctors are there and how many of those doctors are willing to work at a free clinic? Yeah most of those spells are “free” in the sense it doesn’t cost you anything besides time, but how many people are willing to do that with their time when they probably have a lot of stuff on their plate already?

I mean, I want to agree with you so that it makes sense in my head. And I suppose if leveled characters are really rare then it makes more sense. But, to go back to my earlier example, a church that's just run into disrepair? The church vied for power with the nobles in medieval times, so the fact they can't find 1 leveled character with a cantrip to fix the place up stretches believability to me.

[AdAstra]

I mean, I want to agree with you so that it makes sense in my head. And I suppose if leveled characters are really rare then it makes more sense. But, to go back to my earlier example, a church that's just run into disrepair? The church vied for power with the nobles in medieval times, so the fact they can't find 1 leveled character with a cantrip to fix the place up stretches believability to me.

This is in Barovia proper, correct? Because there the problems would be manyfold:
-Barovia's a relatively small, isolated area (demiplane I think?), with only the Vistani able to move more or less freely in and out.
-Basically everywhere's really poor, hardscrabble, and most importantly, kinda weak. Most people don't even have souls, towns are pretty much never well defended, and pretty much exist at the mercy of the monsters. There are likely vanishingly few casters amongst the non-murderous population compared to say, the Forgotten Realms. It's not a low magic world, per se, but it's definitely one where the most of the magic belongs to the bad guys. Probably plenty of evil necromancers and witches and such, not nearly so many clerics.
-Strahd controls basically everything and is likely not going to look fondly upon a very functional church. The churches and religious institutions of Barovia are not strong in the least, with few exceptions.

Even outside of Barovia, there are still viable explanations:
-The area is poor, small, and isolated. Any potentially sympathetic greater authority is far off or outright unaware of the existence of the church, and you're unlikely to find a leveled character among the locals.
-The specific church is either not of a mainstream faith, or is politically disfavored with major religious authorities. Those powerful churches you mention were just as subject to politics and bickering as one would expect, it's not at all unreasonable for DnD faiths to run into similar issues. Perhaps this church disagrees with the common doctrine of X, or worships an obscure god, or the priest pissed off someone important.

[Sigreid]

I mean, I want to agree with you so that it makes sense in my head. And I suppose if leveled characters are really rare then it makes more sense. But, to go back to my earlier example, a church that's just run into disrepair? The church vied for power with the nobles in medieval times, so the fact they can't find 1 leveled character with a cantrip to fix the place up stretches believability to me.

In that particular case, there are several reasons that church was in disrepair including the emnity of the damned, effectively demigod lord of the realm.

[wuaffiliate]

At one point I banned Conjure Animals, then I changed to only allowing the highest CR to be summed to keep numbers on the battlefield low, then I changed to allowing Conjure Animals with the only caviat being the player using it must roll their hits and damage between turns which completely eliminates the slowdown in combat.

I debated banning Silvery Barbs then realised it was not needed.

[x3n0n]

Not exactly a ban, but kinda: Strixhaven spells and Dunamancy spells aren't available out of setting. (If I were running a Strixhaven table, silvery barbs would not be able to affect saving throws.)

Power/balance/annoyance nerfs:
shield grants +3 AC (instead of +5 AC) when cast at first level, and upcasts for an additional +1 AC per level.
conjure animals and other 1/2/4/8 CR-scaling summon spells scale 1/2/3/4 instead. (The caster is allowed to select the creatures, but the player is expected to make all related decisions at the table very very quickly, and to have stat blocks, HP tracking, and appropriate dice/macros at hand.)
animate objects retains its existing limitations, plus it can only control 4 objects in total regardless of size (so 1 Huge and 2 Tiny is ok), with similar player expectations to the above.

Watchlist to see if they lead to repetitive or unfun gameplay: wall of force and forcecage. If so, I may pursue something like what others have mentioned above--making them vulnerable to destruction by more avenues than are available in the RAW.
Things that I expect not to see on my PCs' prepared lists, even though they may be very powerful: magic jar, summon greater demon, animate dead.

I have not run any settings where food and water spells would be disruptive to gameplay or worldbuilding, but I can imagine that some might exist.

[No brains]

If the tedium of disease (I get enough of that noise IRL; I live the fantasy of killing it with magic fire) is really so important to some DMs, how do you stand on Purify Food and Drink? Theoretically, it's the best disease-removal spell since it's a ritual. All you need to do is admit to being a cannibal and you can cure potentially more than 4 diseased people every 10 minutes.

[ecarden]

If the tedium of disease (I get enough of that noise IRL; I live the fantasy of killing it with magic fire) is really so important to some DMs, how do you stand on Purify Food and Drink? Theoretically, it's the best disease-removal spell since it's a ritual. All you need to do is admit to being a cannibal and you can cure potentially more than 4 diseased people every 10 minutes.

I mean, my answer on that would be 'amusing, but no, even if you're a cannibal, living people don't fit within the category of food and drink.'

[Angelalex242]

Well, here's the thing. If the King knows there's a zone of truth in his throne room (and he's not immune to it), he's going to learn every trick there is about speaking in technically true things...but it's unlikely his subjects or people in other kingdoms are trained to deal with it.

[Witty Username]

Does it qualify as a ban if the rule, is "no books I don't own"?
If so, I ban silvery barbs or anything else from Stryxhaven as it falls under books I don't own. I jokingly say I also don't allow post-errata healing spirit as it doesn't match my copy of Xanathar's (no one uses healing spirit in our games so it hasn't come up).

I have been sold that banning shield may be a good idea, but I don't care enough about that to implement in an ongoing game. Maybe in the future.

[Jervis]

Does it qualify as a ban if the rule, is "no books I don't own"?
If so, I ban silvery barbs or anything else from Stryxhaven as it falls under books I don't own. I jokingly say I also don't allow post-errata healing spirit as it doesn't match my copy of Xanathar's (no one uses healing spirit in our games so it hasn't come up).

I have been sold that banning shield may be a good idea, but I don't care enough about that to implement in an ongoing game. Maybe in the future.

I’m one of those weird people who has that rule and extends it to homebrew. You’d be surprised how many players are willing to share their DMsguild purchases with you then.

[Amnestic]

I understand why, but I also see where the Dungeon Master might come from - if you want to run a game where a plague plays a major role, it might feeel necessary to change some mechanisms from a world-building point of view to maintain setting integrity. "Why is there a devastating plague around, when every low level paladin and most clerics can simply cure it?" is a legitimate question.

The pathfinder Curse of the Crimson Throne adventure path addresses this directly, since one of its arcs involves a plague: Infection rate is too high. By the time the players discover the infection's existence, it's spread beyond the restoration capabilities of the city's healers to control. It had a sidebar detailing it. Bear in mind this was written for PF/3.5, so the exact mechanical specifics differ somewhat, but the overarching message is the same:



Where are all the healers?
Page 138 of the DMG presents a way to determine how many characters of each class reside in a city. According to this method, the average population of a large city like Korvosa includes 3 12th-level clerics, 6 6th-level clerics, 12 3rd-level clerics, and 24 1st-level clerics. Of these clerics, only nine are of high enough level to cast remove disease. Even including the average of 24 paladins—of which there are only three of a
high enough level to possess the remove disease ability—and disorganized numbers of rangers, druids, and visiting NPCs with access to healing magic, this is still less than 0.1 percent of the city’s population. With far more victims contracting blood veil every day, it’s easy to see how the city’s curative magics are quickly overwhelmed, even if every healer in the city were casting the maximum possible number of remove disease spells each day. To a certain extent, wands and potions and scrolls can bolster these numbers, but only as long as supplies hold out. When faced with a plague as virulent as blood veil, magic alone is not enough to save a city.

If it's a very small town being struck by plague, sure, might be harder to justify, but for any large city, the party's disease curing is going to be a grain of sand on the beach.

[H_H_F_F]

RE; everyone talking about adjusting the world to spells.

I agree with using the mechanics to your advantage in worldbuilding. For example, I just finished running a 5-session campaign in a setting I intend to run my next long campaign in. The players had to go to a bar in the poorest part of town at some point, where they could see that half of the wall behind the barman was old and decaying, while tue other half looked absolutely pristine. When asked, the barman explained that he had a rich girl studying artifice doing her thesis at his bar - proving to her teachers that she had mastered mending and prestidigitation, essentially.

Basically, I wanted to write a setting where the PCs aren't super exceptional at early levels, power-wise. It takes time. Among other decisions, I broke up spells to 4 tiers: 0-2 (commonplace), 3-5 (rare), 6-8 (exceptional), and 9 (Legendary or unknown)

So, anything that can be solved with a cantrip is usually solved, and everyone knows that if the captain of the guard is suddenly being weird someone probably charmed him, and shop owners guard their shops from invisible thieves.

However, only VIP have access to teleportation circles (most trade operates in carts), only people like kings and the patriarch have precautions against scry-teleport tactics, and no one knows the details of what a wish entails, or has ever heard of a psychic scream.

Now, what does all of this mean? It means that I'm never going to ignore the impact of a spell, it always has a place in my world. And that means that I ask myself at every turn whether I want to adjust my world (teleport) or adjust the spell (zone of truth).

To me, any approach to this question that isn't case-by-case is just... ludicrous, honestly. You could decide case by case to ban 0 spells, of course. But being utterly committed to accepting and adjusting for any possible spell anyone is ever going to spring on you is a weird position.

Again, I have nothing against anyone saying "I've managed to adjust my world to every spell as printed, and it's worth it to me". It's the "I'm committed to never rejecting a spell as long as someone in WoTC is the one who invented it, no matter how drastically it'd affect my worldbuilding" which I find weird.

To me, teleport is worth it. It is mechanically significant for players, and it doesn't just limit plotlines, it also opens others up. Zone of Truth? To me, less so, as a second level spell (given what that means in my world). Not worth it. Make it an actual zone in the world, or a unique magic item, or a (significantly) higher levels spell, and now we're talking.

[Black Jester]

The pathfinder Curse of the Crimson Throne adventure path addresses this directly, since one of its arcs involves a plague: Infection rate is too high. By the time the players discover the infection's existence, it's spread beyond the restoration capabilities of the city's healers to control.[...]

If it's a very small town being struck by plague, sure, might be harder to justify, but for any large city, the party's disease curing is going to be a grain of sand on the beach.

The problem with a calculation like this is hat they are assumed to apply in a vaccuum, and not in combination with sensible measures to hinder the spread of a disease which requires no magic. In combination with something as simple as a quarantine, and the knowledge that magically treated patients are 100% cured, you can pretty quickly create a plague-free zone and ever expand it. You can isolate the infected - for a short time, because you can heal some of them every day - and then release them risk-free to the healthy public. This would be the Milano way of handling the Black Death, only with fewer people immured in their houses.
(Milano is a fascinating example: During the original Black Death, the city's prince enforced a strict quarantine and counter measures, creating a uniquely low mortality rate compared to any other urbanized region in Europe. In the 17th century, the great plague of Milano wasn't met with a similar rigid set of regulations, leading to the death of 40% of the population).

[Amnestic]

The problem with a calculation like this is hat they are assumed to apply in a vaccuum, and not in combination with sensible measures to hinder the spread of a disease which requires no magic. In combination with something as simple as a quarantine, and the knowledge that magically treated patients are 100% cured, you can pretty quickly create a plague-free zone and ever expand it. You can isolate the infected - for a short time, because you can heal some of them every day - and then release them risk-free to the healthy public. This would be the Milano way of handling the Black Death, only with fewer people immured in their houses.
(Milano is a fascinating example: During the original Black Death, the city's prince enforced a strict quarantine and counter measures, creating a uniquely low mortality rate compared to any other urbanized region in Europe. In the 17th century, the great plague of Milano wasn't met with a similar rigid set of regulations, leading to the death of 40% of the population).

Depends on how it's being spread really. In the case of the Crimson Throne...


It was deliberately spread via infected coins to start with, and longer incubation periods meant it wasn't detected in a reasonable period of time.


That, combined with the disease's lethality and curing being rationed causes civil unrest and riots. Quarantine essentially comes too late, and by the time it comes it's harder to implement successfully.

The comparison to real life somewhat falls apart here due to the magical healing. When we didn't have a cure, quarantine and waiting to die if you were infected was just...accepted, there wasn't an alternative? It's a lot harder to justify that attitude when you know that Joe Paladin is out there curing THOSE people with 100% success but not YOU, and you're dead because of it.

[Eldariel]

Shield (doesn't stack with Shield items, only +4 bonus), Absorb Elements (has to be cast before knowing spell, has to pick element), Goodberry (heals too much for storeable and breaks survival way too early - only feeds 1 person per casting, need to find berries), Silvery Barbs (toxic effect - at level 3), Pass without Trace (too big a bonus, down to +5), Conjure Animals, Animate Dead, etc. (too many low end minions for Bounded Accuracy: generally halved, Animate Dead totally reworked), Counterspell (removed entirely, replaced by counterspelling mechanic like 3e), Dispel (modes like 3e), etc.

Honestly, I find the base level spell balance atrocious: I don't remember a D&D edition with this many problematic low level spells before.

[Azuresun]

My general rule is that any spell regarded as a must-have is getting a look. Tiny Hut doesn't exist in my current Frostmaiden campaign. Hypnotic Pattern has repeating saves for each affected creature. Silvery Barbs is banned because the game does not need another way for "single tough enemy" fights to become a total joke.

[Amnestic]

Also I might nerf or change Guidance. It kinda annoys me as is, since it encourages some weird gamer habits as written - Shillelagh does a bit as well, though not to the same degree. It's not 'overpowered', I'm not concerned about it breaking the game, it just kinda annoys me.

Some ideas:

Make it a cleric class feature with usage limits to prevent spamming (Might be too similar to bardic inspiration?)
Roll its effect into Bless (and the reverse into Bane). Bless becomes a more important spell out of combat as a result, if you need that ability check boost, and it helps in combat sometimes too (generally for stealth and spotting).
Boost its duration and/or nix the concentration requirement, but a character can only benefit from it once per long rest (or short rest, or hour).
Give it a minor costly material component (say, 1gp, as a 'tithe'). It's not much, so using it isn't really a problem, but it would prevent spamming since players hate spending money on nothing.



I'm leaning most towards the Bless version, but I'm not totally sold on any of them.

[H_H_F_F]

I don't remember a D&D edition with this many problematic low level spells before.

I mean... I love 3.5, but come on.

[Eldariel]

I mean... I love 3.5, but come on.

Sure, the spells were pretty strong there too but like...you had Glitterdust, Web, Stinking Cloud/Wall of Smoke, Dark Way, Darkbolt, Ray of Stupidity/Enfeeblement/Exhaustion/etc., Animate Dead, Alter Self, Summon Monster/Nature's Ally III, Blinding Spittle, etc. Of those, Animate Dead (+ Desecrate) and Alter Self are particularly crazy, but unless you optimize around something with feats, I think none of those really breaks the game as such. 4th level spells are different: Celerity, Polymorph, etc. are crazy. But the first 3 levels of spells are incredibly strong, yes, but generally something you can contend with unless there's like a metamagic stack or optimized Animate pool or something going on. Even Druid is holistically overpowered but their spells are merely incredibly strong.

I don't think any of those approaches the level of easy, stupid brokenness that Conjure Animals and 5e Animate Dead do in a system that's much softer to such options in the first place. And breaking action economy is much easier in 5e with plenty of really powerful reaction spells straight out of the book. In 3e you had to work to get small teleportation on low levels. This just plain gives you bonus action teleport on a silver platter on level 3. And you have 6 saves to target instead of 3 and basically everything is weak in one, in addition to how easy it is to get 2-3 Fighter's worth of minionmancy power (in 3e you generally had to settle for 1).

[Willie the Duck]

Alright, what about 3.0? Darkness and haste alone make it a solid contender to match 5e.

[Eldariel]

Alright, what about 3.0? Darkness and haste alone make it a solid contender to match 5e.

Mmh. A competitor to be sure. A close call there. Polymorph Other is way more egregious than 3.5e Polymorph too (though Alter Self is tamer) and you get free numbers from Animal's X as well.

[MrStabby]

My general rule is that any spell regarded as a must-have is getting a look. Tiny Hut doesn't exist in my current Frostmaiden campaign. Hypnotic Pattern has repeating saves for each affected creature. Silvery Barbs is banned because the game does not need another way for "single tough enemy" fights to become a total joke.

I think this aspect of Silvery Barbs could be improved a bit by changing the game as much as the spell (not saying the spell isn't stupidly overpowered, but a more general comment). The defence against some of hese effects is being pushed more and more towards just 'nope'. Legendary saves, condition immunities and other ways to basically ensure a whole range of spells does nothing. DMs are forced into this because the alternative is the spell ruining an encounter. Having more of a range of results from these spells would be helpful, rather than a binary outcome with either result likely to leave someone unsatisfied. Silvery barbs is actually a very cool effect and I could see it havng a role in the game - but as an archetype ability or similar rather than as a spell.





Shield (doesn't stack with Shield items, only +4 bonus), Absorb Elements (has to be cast before knowing spell, has to pick element), Goodberry (heals too much for storeable and breaks survival way too early - only feeds 1 person per casting, need to find berries), Silvery Barbs (toxic effect - at level 3), Pass without Trace (too big a bonus, down to +5), Conjure Animals, Animate Dead, etc. (too many low end minions for Bounded Accuracy: generally halved, Animate Dead totally reworked), Counterspell (removed entirely, replaced by counterspelling mechanic like 3e), Dispel (modes like 3e), etc.

Honestly, I find the base level spell balance atrocious: I don't remember a D&D edition with this many problematic low level spells before.

I kind of agree and kind of disagree. I think my view is that the big issue is any spell that stops other people from doing their special thing or their special thing no longer being special. Pass without trace for example kind of sucks if you special thing was being able to sneak past guards, but now everyone in the party can. Animate dead is an issue if the wizard can now do more archery damage than the sharpshooter ranger. Shield is an issue if you can get a higher AC than the party tank. There are plenty of low level spells that I consider "bad" from this perspecive, but the effects are somewhat modest and usually short lived.

As you go up spell levels, I do think this gets worse. If a fireball means an encounter is basically over before low initiative players get to take a turn (by over I mean there is no doubt to the outcome - some DMs may still ask for some dice to be rolled), or a hypnotic pattern that can equally well say that what might have been a fun encounter is just moving into routine mopping-up duty.

I think that the problem is rarely a specific spell though. It isn't "spell X causes problems". Everyone should be able to do cool stuff and for casters, their way to doing cool stuff is through their spells. And this is where I think you are right - its the number of these spells that is the issue. If each class only had access to one of these types of spell, or even just a couple, then it would be OK. These spells would be their cool character defining thing. Shield isn't a problem. Hypnotic pattern isn't a problem but both together on thae same character that has animate dead, polymorph and other similarly powerful tools is just good in too many different ways.

The issue with it being low level spells is just one of giving space. Having a disproportionate impact a couple of times per day is fine. Having enough spell slots and enough spells known to do relatively awesome things every fight doesn't speak well to the balance of spells.

So I don't quite agree with you - but I do think you have a point.

[Sigreid]

I mean, my answer on that would be 'amusing, but no, even if you're a cannibal, living people don't fit within the category of food and drink.'

You've got it all wrong, purify food and drink cast on a human would restore their virginity.

[Beelzebub1111]

I haven't banned anything in 5e, I don't think. It's all fine for me. I do make my players keep track of material components for spells though. no focus or pouch. you'd be suprised how well that balances the game

[Chronic]

I've banned a few spells such as animate objets, wish, silulacrum, create food or water or arcane eye. Some are for power reasons, others are more to tailor the feel of my games. For example arcane eye is gone and many other scouting or spying spells have been nerfed or given only to specific classes or subclasses. Scouts and stealthy characters are plentiful, they don't need to be outshined by a generic spell caster.
Wizard have been removed, too much work is required to balance them, it's way easier to rework the other spellcasters spell list and make sorcerers an int caster. Every sorcerer subclasses now have access to a list of additional spells.
Shield is now usable in light armor or without armor only, the former version has been renamed and is still available for the eldritch knight.
Overpowered damage spells such as fireball have been tuned down to bring then in line, and many, many, many other changes.

[Psyren]

Banned Simulacrum and Nerfed Conjure X (capped at 4 creatures.)

I'd ban Dream of the Blue Veil but nobody in my friend group knows it exists :smalltongue:

[Sherlockpwns]

Not enough talk about how broken animate objects is from the pure DPR perspective. It’s such a massive power spike that it hurts not to take it.

[Leon]

Does it qualify as a ban if the rule, is "no books I don't own"?

I'd not rate disallowing Unowned content as Banning. Banning is very much in that you could have it but your not allowed it for X reasons, if the whole subsetting isn't in play its a moot issue

[Zevox]

Our DM's custom world sort of soft-bans teleportation spells. Theoretically you can use them, however, they come with nasty side effects due to how they work in this world. Teleportation works by shunting you through the Abyss, which is an awful enough experience in itself that you'd suffer the effects of the Warlock "Hurl Through Hell" ability because of it, and carries the risk of catching demons in the process, bringing them back with you when you reappear in the material plane, or even leaving enough of an opening behind for them to pass through on their own.

Out of game, this is because he uses a modified version of Journey rules from a 5E Lord of the Rings book for travel, and didn't like the idea of spells, even such high-level ones, being able to bypass that entirely (or in part, for Dimension Door, which could allow bypassing individual events on the journey with ease). Misty Step is allowed to be the only exception, since it's so short-range it couldn't possibly bypass anything involved with that.

[Jervis]

You've got it all wrong, purify food and drink cast on a human would restore their virginity.

No that’s the Restore Virginity spell from 3.5

[KorvinStarmast]

If the players knew in advance that such things were a possibility, . Nope, we discovered how things didn't work as we encountered them. Annoying, it was.
to maintain setting integrity. No, don't try to make that kind of assertion if you weren't there. The world was my brother's world. Two of us were to sub in as DM, we would all three rotate as DM's, so that not just one person go stuck DMing. Did this set of changes change get discussed with the primary world builder? No. I am very diligent about doing that, getting stuff cleared up with the primary DM/World Builder.

"Why is there a devastating plague around, when every low level paladin and most clerics can simply cure it?"
The only paladin that existed was our PC. We ran into no others. This isn't the FR where PCs run about like kids at a carnival.

I think those are legitimate concerns- However, they should probably be clearly communicated. Something like "Hey, I want to run a campaign where curing diseases is going to be difficult, and some magical means won't work. Ho do you want your Paladin's Lay on Hands work if they can't cure dieseases?" might give the player an active stake in the design and the campaign as a whole). Nope, it took us about six or seven sessions to realize that the DM was trying to emulate the Walking Dead TV series rather than a game of D&D.

According to a one-time player at a small local Con, I nerfed Animate Dead hard and made his wizard "unplayable", because I instisted that travveling with a flock of undead minions might make him unpopular with the locals, You were right, the player was wrong. And at least you raised the issue.


You've got it all wrong, purify food and drink cast on a human would restore their virginity. I think that's a lizard folk axiom, isn't it? :smallbiggrin:

[Eldariel]

Not enough talk about how broken animate objects is from the pure DPR perspective. It’s such a massive power spike that it hurts not to take it.

Animate Objects is a level 5 spell that isn't really any better than Conjure Animals/Conjure Woodland Beings and has Concentration while Animate Dead/Tiny Servant don't. It's probably the least egregious of the "masses of low CR creatures" (aside from Summon Lesser Demons which is straight-up balanced by the fact that you can't really control anything about it) though it's of course still way better than anything else. But I don't think it's even the most broken level 5 spell as long as Wall of Force exists.

[Sception]

Animate Objects is a level 5 spell that isn't really any better than Conjure Animals/Conjure Woodland Beings and has Concentration while Animate Dead/Tiny Servant don't. It's probably the least egregious of the "masses of low CR creatures" (aside from Summon Lesser Demons which is straight-up balanced by the fact that you can't really control anything about it) though it's of course still way better than anything else. But I don't think it's even the most broken level 5 spell as long as Wall of Force exists.

As a 5th level spell it also shows up late enough that common damage resistances tend to knock a lot of the punch out of it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One additional change I'm making for upcoming campaigns (not changing the one in progress) is altering polymorph--instead of chosen form CR <= target level | CR, it's chosen form CR <= spell level.

[Sception]

Agreed. Assume that you have a moderately infectious disease (worthy of being called a plague). If there's 50 total points of lay on hands (distributed over 1+ paladins) in a town of 5000, that's 10 people per day that can be cured that way. And probably only a couple casters who can cast cure disease at all, and not very many times. So maybe 20 people/day can be cured. That's...nothing. And doesn't scale well at all, even if the clerics and paladins do nothing but that. Which is unlikely. Especially since some of the clerics might be clerics of the god of disease, who'd rather not cure it at all. And some the clerics of the god of "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". Who believe that surviving the disease on your own is a mark of worth. Etc.

Also, while there's no mechanics that I'm aware of for acquired immunity in 5e, from a narrative perspective diseases cured by magic rather than through natural immune systems may not confer the same resistance to re-infection. If so, then spellcasters and paladins could easily end up spending their limited resources on re-infections of the same handful of people every few days without making any meaningful progress against the wider spread of a disease.

This could even contribute to plague-fueled civil unrest if the common population hears of wealthy aristocrats being cured of a disease over and over again when that disease is killing their friends and families. "Did you hear the church sent a dedicated cleric to protect king Leopold from the plague? They say he's been cured of it 11 times already. 11 cures could have saved the entire Miller family, but now they're all dead, and the King's Soldiers burned down our village's only mill!" You know, the sort of thing that leads to torches & pitchforks.

[Asmotherion]

-I only allow 1 simulacrum in my games.
-Silvery Barbds is Banned.
-If I play a survival game, I also remove the nurishing part of Goodberry.

[x3n0n]

One additional change I'm making for upcoming campaigns (not changing the one in progress) is altering polymorph--instead of chosen form CR <= target level | CR, it's chosen form CR <= spell level.

"Instead" meaning that any target (including a rat/commoner/familiar) can get 'morphed to CR 4 at time of spell acquisition?
That's an interesting twist. I'd have to think about the ramifications a bit. :)

[PhoenixPhyre]

"Instead" meaning that any target (including a rat/commoner/familiar) can get 'morphed to CR 4 at time of spell acquisition?
That's an interesting twist. I'd have to think about the ramifications a bit. :)

Sure, you can do it. But they're not under your control at all and will act according to their previous predilections, modified by the new form's capabilities. The annoying thing is the constant "and now there's a giant ape". CR = level is a bad assumption period.

[x3n0n]

Sure, you can do it. But they're not under your control at all and will act according to their previous predilections, modified by the new form's capabilities. The annoying thing is the constant "and now there's a giant ape". CR = level is a bad assumption period.

Agreed about "CR \le target's character level" being horribly horribly wrong, and agreed that "CR \le spell/slot level" is closer to being reasonable.

If the polymorph target is a party member or other player-controlled entity, I'd expect it to still be player-controlled. Disagree?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Agreed about "CR \le target's character level" being horribly horribly wrong, and agreed that "CR \le spell/slot level" is closer to being reasonable.

If the polymorph target is a party member or other player-controlled entity, I'd expect it to still be player-controlled. Disagree?

Right. Target a PC, they can control it. I was talking about targeting, say, an allied commoner. Or random chicken. I have qualms (for entirely setting-based reasons) around polymorphing temporary spirit entities (such as familiars), but that's separate.

At most I'd say "CR = MIN(spell level, creature CR/level)". So a CR 0 can only go to CR 0, but a level 20 can go to CR 4 (assuming no upcast).

[sithlordnergal]

Right. Target a PC, they can control it. I was talking about targeting, say, an allied commoner. Or random chicken. I have qualms (for entirely setting-based reasons) around polymorphing temporary spirit entities (such as familiars), but that's separate.

At most I'd say "CR = MIN(spell level, creature CR/level)". So a CR 0 can only go to CR 0, but a level 20 can go to CR 4 (assuming no upcast).

That feels like a pretty harsh nerf for a spell that, while decent, isn't exactly on par with something like Banishment.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That feels like a pretty harsh nerf for a spell that, while decent, isn't exactly on par with something like Banishment.

I don't do relative balance. Banishment is great...but only very occasionally. Polymorph is broken and always has been, in every edition. So it's on my watch list. And I've had too many "ok, he's now a giant ape with a huge pool of extra HP and hard-hitting attacks, guess this encounter is over" times at lower levels.

Personally, if I had my utter way, polymorph, wildshape, and summoning would all use the Summon X style of "here's a fixed stat block. That's what you get." No monster book diving.

In my mind, the most appropriate use of polymorph is offensively. Turn the enemy into a turtle. That's fine. It's the cast on ally use that's borked at CR = level. Because the CR of a PC isn't anywhere near their level. It's roughly half of it to 2/3 of it, with variation.

Edit: also note that polymorph lets you turn into bigger things, sooner, than a moon-druid's wildshape does. By a lot--A level 7 druid can only do CR 2 creatures, with no flying ones. Polymorph lets you be up to CR 7 at initial level, which a moon druid can never get to (level 20 is CR 6). And doesn't even have to upcast to turn a level 20 into CR 20 (if there are such beasts).

[KorvinStarmast]

If the polymorph target is a party member or other player-controlled entity, I'd expect it to still be player-controlled. Disagree? That depends on how you run it at the table.
If you look at the spell description, the drop in INT score and the inability to use language constrains (in theory) the player from 'just being myself in the form of a T-Rex' but it takes DM/Player dialogue to arrive at a happy medium.


The target’s game statistics, including mental ability scores, are replaced by the statistics of the chosen beast. It retains its alignment and personality.
The creature is limited in the actions it can perform by the nature of its new form, and it can’t speak, cast spells, or take any other action that requires hands or speech.


So you, the PC, know that you are you but the INT score (beast level) should be reflected somehow.

For PhoenixPhyre:
The idea of CR = Spell level as a mod to the spell seems a not to sever nerf. Giant Scorpions are CR 3, Giant Crocodiles are CR 5 ... that would need some play testing to sort out a few of the bugs.

[Ortho]

I've nerfed Silvery Barbs. It's now a 2nd-level spell and exclusive to bards and Wild Magic sorcerers.

Silvery Barbs is bad because it's the only reaction spell that can be used offensively. There's never a reason to not cast it immediately after casting a powerful spell.

[Potato_Priest]

Polymorph

I like your fix!

Another one I've used before is that the teammate also has to make concentration checks to keep it up when taking damage. That's inconsistent with its hostile usages though.

[Bobthewizard]

I've nerfed Silvery Barbs. It's now a 2nd-level spell and exclusive to bards and Wild Magic sorcerers.

That is interesting. I find silvery barbs to be a much bigger boost for bards than it is for wizards and sorcerers. A sorcerer or wizard's reaction competes with shield, absorb elements, and counterspell which are all clutch spells that can really save you. Bards don't have those so can always use silvery barbs offensively and, except for lore bards, don't really need to worry about saving their reaction.

I agree that it should be a second level spell, though.

[Bardon]

I don't do relative balance. Banishment is great...but only very occasionally. Polymorph is broken and always has been, in every edition. So it's on my watch list. And I've had too many "ok, he's now a giant ape with a huge pool of extra HP and hard-hitting attacks, guess this encounter is over" times at lower levels.

Personally, if I had my utter way, polymorph, wildshape, and summoning would all use the Summon X style of "here's a fixed stat block. That's what you get." No monster book diving.

In my mind, the most appropriate use of polymorph is offensively. Turn the enemy into a turtle. That's fine. It's the cast on ally use that's borked at CR = level. Because the CR of a PC isn't anywhere near their level. It's roughly half of it to 2/3 of it, with variation.

Edit: also note that polymorph lets you turn into bigger things, sooner, than a moon-druid's wildshape does. By a lot--A level 7 druid can only do CR 2 creatures, with no flying ones. Polymorph lets you be up to CR 7 at initial level, which a moon druid can never get to (level 20 is CR 6). And doesn't even have to upcast to turn a level 20 into CR 20 (if there are such beasts).

I wholeheartedly agree on Polymorph as an offensive spell, though I'll admit my preferred option is to turn them into a killer whale. A horde of HP and decent AC so their friends can't revert them easily. They breathe air so no suffocation-reversion. They form decent walls and as long as you keep away from their mouths there's not much they can do to you. Especially fun for my sorcerer as he can Twin it.

[LudicSavant]

though I'll admit my preferred option is to turn them into a killer whale. A horde of HP and decent AC so their friends can't revert them easily. They breathe air so no suffocation-reversion. They form decent walls and as long as you keep away from their mouths there's not much they can do to you. Especially fun for my sorcerer as he can Twin it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RRsi5BZxQU

[strangebloke]

I've nerfed Silvery Barbs. It's now a 2nd-level spell and exclusive to bards and Wild Magic sorcerers.

Silvery Barbs is bad because it's the only reaction spell that can be used offensively. There's never a reason to not cast it immediately after casting a powerful spell.

You could make it 3rd level without issue. The effect is much better than the sorcerer's heighten metamagic, and heighten is worth taking.

Silvery Barbs is stupid.

[Ortho]

That is interesting. I find silvery barbs to be a much bigger boost for bards than it is for wizards and sorcerers. A sorcerer or wizard's reaction competes with shield, absorb elements, and counterspell which are all clutch spells that can really save you. Bards don't have those so can always use silvery barbs offensively and, except for lore bards, don't really need to worry about saving their reaction.

I agree that it should be a second level spell, though.

It's on the Bard spell list mostly because it's called Silvery Barbs. Presumably it's some kind of insult? The text isn't very clear.

Whatever it is, it punches waaaay too far above its weight class to remain a 1st-level spell.



You could make it 3rd level without issue. The effect is much better than the sorcerer's heighten metamagic, and heighten is worth taking.

Admittedly, I haven't actually played a game with my rule yet...the campaign I'm using it in starts later this month.



Silvery Barbs is stupid.

Quoted for truth.

[LudicSavant]

Silvery Barbs is stupid.

Quoted for truth.

I banned Silvery Barbs myself, not merely because it's powerful, but because it's also bland.

Like, take Animate Dead or Simulacrum. These things might be worth tweaking instead of outright removing, because they're D&D classics that enable certain kinds of stories or support certain character archetypes. Necromancers wanna Necromancy and all that. But Silvery Barbs? It's generic as @#$%. There's no concept or archetype I can create with Silvery Barbs that I couldn't make without it. IMHO it doesn't really add anything to the game other than a buff for characters who don't need it. Nobody's going to be like "Oh no, I can't make my character idea of 'magically distracting' another creature and encouraging another."

So out the window it went.

[KorvinStarmast]

except for lore bards, don't really need to worry about saving their reaction. Cutting Words just called, and would like to complain about this. (I used Cutting words a lot when I played a lore bard).

Silvery Barbs is stupid. Stupid or not, it's not allowed when I am DM.

I banned Silvery Barbs myself, not merely because it's powerful, but because it's also bland.

Like, take Animate Dead or Simulacrum. These things might be worth tweaking instead of outright removing, because they're D&D classics that enable certain kinds of stories or support certain character archetypes. Necromancers wanna Necromancy and all that. But Silvery Barbs? It's generic as @#$%. There's no concept or archetype I can create with Silvery Barbs that I couldn't make without it. IMHO it doesn't really add anything to the game other than a buff for characters who don't need it. Nobody's going to be like "Oh no, I can't make my character idea of 'magically distracting' another creature and encouraging another."

So out the window it went. *applause* What a beautiful illustration of something that is zero-value-added bloat.

[Bobthewizard]

Cutting Words just called, and would like to complain about this. (I used Cutting words a lot when I played a lore bard).

That's why I said "except lore bards". Yes, cutting words is a great use of a reaction. Other bards don't really have a use for theirs, though.

[Psyren]

I think Silvery Barbs is undercosted (it should be 2nd or maybe even 3rd level) but I don't mind the effect. My Arcane Tricksters certainly appreciate it :smallbiggrin:


There's never a reason to not cast it immediately after casting a powerful spell.

What if you're the counterspeller?

[KorvinStarmast]

That's why I said "except lore bards". Yes, cutting words is a great use of a reaction. Other bards don't really have a use for theirs, though. Aha, that didn't parse in my brain as I read that, so we are in massive agreement. :smallsmile:

[strangebloke]

Aha, that didn't parse in my brain as I read that, so we are in massive agreement. :smallsmile:

Well, lore bard is there for cutting down ability checks, damage, and attack rolls. It's very very good, and has some insidious applications like cutting down enemy initiative, or blunting a fireball.

Eloquence bard is the one that can cut down saves, and wouldn't you know it, it is also pretty amazing! The Lore bard is a 'fixer' sort of like a diviner wizard who can change the whole pace of the battle with a reaction, the eloquence bard is a blunt-force instrument who can break down even the most resilient of saves.

Silvery Barbs.... does both! And for no reason, it also gives advantage!

Hard agree on banning it.

[Ortho]

What if you're the counterspeller?

Then I can't cast Silvery Barbs, since I've used my reaction to counterspell instead.

[Psyren]

Then I can't cast Silvery Barbs, since I've used my reaction to counterspell instead.

If it's your turn, you may not have used counterspell yet. So you will be able to use Silvery Barbs after you cast something, but give up all your chances of counterspelling anything for the rest of the round, which may not be the most optimal tactic.

Basically I was providing an exception to "There's never a reason to not cast it immediately after casting a powerful spell."

[Captain Panda]

Short answer: No.

Longer answer: I guess if you consider it a nerf, Conjure Woodland Beings never spits out pixies. It's DM choice what appears, and while for the other summons my group (it's a 30something member West March) allows the druid to just pick, for Conjure Woodland Beings the DM picks and it's not pixies. That not really a nerf, just actually enforcing the intent.

Other than that, the bugbears that get lots of online whining generally aren't that big of a problem. Healing Spirit? Meh, we allow the pre-nerf version and I've seen it cast twice, goodberries predate it and are better. Silvery Barbs is wildly overrated by people who overvalue single target spells. Simulacrum is level 7. If you're running for a level 13+ party and want to start pruning the fun spells, just cap characters at level 11.

[Amnestic]

I think Silvery Barbs is undercosted (it should be 2nd or maybe even 3rd level) but I don't mind the effect. My Arcane Tricksters certainly appreciate it :smallbiggrin:



It continues to confuse me that all the other Strixhaven spells were 2nd level...except Barbs, even though Barbs does fit better at 2nd than 1st. Ah well, houserule to 'fix'...

[Keravath]

I understand why, but I also see where the Dungeon Master might come from - if you want to run a game where a plague plays a major role, it might feeel necessary to change some mechanisms from a world-building point of view to maintain setting integrity. "Why is there a devastating plague around, when every low level paladin and most clerics can simply cure it?" is a legitimate question. Likewise, if you want to have a Night of the living Dead scenario, an automatic "I win" button like turn undead might appear as less than ideal, because a) it greatly diminishes the contribution of other characters, b) removes any tactical planning of the PCs, because the solution is little too obvious and c) might be a little bit dull, if the threat isn't regarded as all that threatening.

I think those are legitimate concerns- However, they should probably be clearly communicated. Something like "Hey, I want to run a campaign where curing diseases is going to be difficult, and some magical means won't work. Ho do you want your Paladin's Lay on Hands work if they can't cure dieseases?" might give the player an active stake in the design and the campaign as a whole).

According to a one-time player at a small local Con, I nerfed Animate Dead hard and made his wizard "unplayable", because I instisted that travveling with a flock of undead minions might make him unpopular with the locals, you can't reanimate the same corpse twice after it had been destroyed, and, a freshly raised skeleton does not automatically gain a shortbow and a shortsword, no matter what it says in the Monser Manual. As far as I know, Animate Dead is the only spell I have nerfed, by applying some basic logic.

Invisibility might be another one, though, mostly because I ruled that the PCs could use a cloud of flour to reveal the position of an Invisble Stalker, which, logically should also be applied to invisible player characters. So far, this hasn't been an issue (the PCs rarely infiltrate the dungeon bakery), but it might.

You are absolutely right that certain character abilities will pretty much automatically counter certain threats.

Paladins and clerics healing, curing disease and raising the dead are world building elements. If you don't have a permanently healthy, disease free society of near immortals who only die of extreme old age ... then you need to explain why.

1) Perhaps paladins and clerics are so few that they can't make any real impact. However, a 5th level cleric can cure 5 diseases every day with LoH - which would be over 1500 people/year if they just walked around curing folks. 100 level 5 paladins and you are up to 150,000 people cured every year .. which would tend to prevent almost any disease from spreading or being any sort of real threat. The bottom line is that it doesn't take that many paladins/clerics to make most diseases ineffective.

2) Undead that resist or are immune to turn undead are also not uncommon - there are several in the monster manual along with magic items that will give undead advantage on saves against being turned. However, monsters and threats are entirely up to the DM. I don't see any issue with having a particular type of undead in a game (perhaps created by a special process) that are resistant or immune to turning. There are many possible in game explanations possible.

So, I don't see any issue with having a magical disease that is resistant to a paladins LoH or undead that can't be turned or have an advantage on turning. It would not be every disease, it wouldn't be every undead - but having some which become a major plot point due to the issues they present would seem to me to be fair game.

I think in the example given there may have been more going on than just these events to make the game a problem - or perhaps it was just how the DM chose to present these game elements by removing character abilities rather than creating exceptional challenges.

P.S. As far as the bag of flour goes - invisibility in 5e really doesn't get into any details of how interactions occur - I'd really like to see some suggestions on how to handle:
- flour or other airborne material
- do items picked up become invisible?
- if you put an item you pick up in an invisible pocket is it invisible?
etc

[LudicSavant]

I understand why, but I also see where the Dungeon Master might come from - if you want to run a game where a plague plays a major role, it might feeel necessary to change some mechanisms from a world-building point of view to maintain setting integrity. "Why is there a devastating plague around, when every low level paladin and most clerics can simply cure it?" is a legitimate question.

Here's a setting/campaign idea for you:

The ability for Clerics to remove disease did not always exist. With painstaking effort by history's heroes, the magical cure for each disease was found. One after the other, the sources of the spells were built and enshrined at holy sites protected by the gods. When a Cleric casts a spell to remove disease, they channel their power from one of these shrines.

If some villain were to destroy one of these holy temples, the cure would no longer work for each of the diseases enshrined therein.

[H_H_F_F]

Here's a setting/campaign idea for you:

The ability for Clerics to remove disease did not always exist. With painstaking effort by history's heroes, the magical cure for each disease was found. One after the other, the sources of the spells were built and enshrined at holy sites protected by the gods. When a Cleric casts a spell to remove disease, they channel their power from one of these shrines.

If some villain were to destroy one of these holy temples, the cure would no longer work for each of the diseases enshrined therein.

That's a cool idea, and a thematic way to nerf the spell - but it's still a nerf, which is what was argued for.

[LudicSavant]

That's a cool idea, and a thematic way to nerf the spell - but it's still a nerf

That was the idea, yes. Whatcha think? :smallsmile:

[Angelalex242]

Well...

100 5th level paladins vs., say, the Black Plague.

I'm sure the Paladins will blunt it, but I don't think they can stop something that spreads so fast.

...Figure the Black Plague is, I dunno, a DC 17 Con Save or die within...what was it, 3 days?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well...

100 5th level paladins vs., say, the Black Plague.

I'm sure the Paladins will blunt it, but I don't think they can stop something that spreads so fast.

...Figure the Black Plague is, I dunno, a DC 17 Con Save or die within...what was it, 3 days?

And being cured via magic may not give you immunity. So you can cure someone, but unless you can cure everyone at basically the same time... They'll just get reinfected.

[LudicSavant]

Well...

100 5th level paladins vs., say, the Black Plague.

I'm sure the Paladins will blunt it, but I don't think they can stop something that spreads so fast.

My thought is that even if Paladins (and other disease-curing spellcasters) are that vanishingly rare, it might prove more effective than one might expect. A cure doesn't need to actually be administered to a million people to stop a million people from getting sick. Especially if you have an all-purpose, 100% reliable magic cure ready to go the instant an outbreak is discovered.

And it's not just the cures. There's things like, say, the Detect Disease ritual to make it insanely easy to screen people (an epidemiologist's wet dream). Seriously, that ritual is insanely strong, it just straight up tells you exactly what kind of disease(s) anyone within a 30 foot radius of you has, for 10 minutes. Diagnosis would be incredibly rapid and accurate unless first level rituals are much harder to come by than they are in, well, pretty much any published D&D setting. And Paladins, Rangers, Druids, Clerics, Tomelocks, and people with the Ritual Caster feat all get it.

Also, one may or may not be concerned about whether those rare Paladins will be able to justify spending any of their resources on typical adventuring during Plague Campaign.

[strangebloke]

Adding to this, a huge issue in the Black Death is that people had no idea what was causing the disease to spread. All kinds of conspiracy theories abounded with all the usual scapegoats. Ridiculous ideas like "evil people poisoning the water supply" were common, as were the understandable-but-unhelpful cries of divine judgement. You had penitents going between cities dressed in filthy rags to try to repent... and usually spreading the plague as they went.

A relatively small group of people who can magically detect / cure the disease, and, ****, talk to the gods about the issue would pretty quickly offset these kinds of problem. People dealing with plagues IRL were often groping in the dark for solutions - even a hundred magical doctors could make massive improvements.

[RazorChain]

The player of the 5th level druid, in my game, read online about how he could utilize goodberry. So he would start to use all his spellslots before long rest on goodberry. He is playing a moon druid so he figured that he could just shapechange if something would disturb them during long rest. So sometimes he would have up to 90 goodberries.

After a while the Paladin figured that his magical armor was getting smaller, just didn't quite fit like it use to. He didn't get the hint and continued to eat dozens of goodberries every adventuring day. Then he almost didn't make it into his armor and he asked the wizard to identify it better because he thought the armor was cursed in some way. The wizard made a simple perception check and noticed that the Paladin was just getting fatter.

If each berry provides a nourishment to sustain a creature for one day then what does happen if you eat 40-50 of them?

[LudicSavant]

The player of the 5th level druid, in my game, read online about how he could utilize goodberry. So he would start to use all his spellslots before long rest on goodberry. He is playing a moon druid so he figured that he could just shapechange if something would disturb them during long rest. So sometimes he would have up to 90 goodberries.

After a while the Paladin figured that his magical armor was getting smaller, just didn't quite fit like it use to. He didn't get the hint and continued to eat dozens of goodberries every adventuring day. Then he almost didn't make it into his armor and he asked the wizard to identify it better because he thought the armor was cursed in some way. The wizard made a simple perception check and noticed that the Paladin was just getting fatter.

If each berry provides a nourishment to sustain a creature for one day then what does happen if you eat 40-50 of them?

You explode.

Myself, I just make unconsumed Goodberries lose their magic when the spell slot used to create them is refreshed (for most characters, this is "when you complete a long rest")

[SpanielBear]

So I brought up nerfing Cure Disease/Remove Curse earlier in the thread, and after seeing all the response to it it’s probably worth me being a bit more explicit about a) how and b) why we treat them that way in our group.

Firstly- this isn’t sprung on players mid-game. It’s something we go over at the start of each campaign, before anyone chooses characters or classes and as part of setting out world building. I absolutely agree with those who’ve called out nerfing abilities without warning as being bad form, that’s not a fair or fun way to go about things. If a spell did become a problem during gameplay, we’d have a discussion about that as a group or at the very least as DM to Player.

The idea behind the nerf as well isn’t to make the spells useless. Bog standard diseases get cured fine, and weaker curses are still removed. Against stronger versions however these are problems that generally are set up to allow the whole party to contribute to solving, they’re adventure hooks. In those occasions, the spells would do two things. Firstly, the fact they aren’t fully working would be given to the player as a clue there’s something more to this disease or curse, and that more effort than normal would be needed to resolve the problem. Secondly, the spells would work to mitigate the symptoms, reduce them a little- so they still are more useful than not having them at all because they buy the party time.

Again, all of this is said before a game starts, it’s not a DM “gotcha”.