The most "game changing" level spells [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Telok

2022-09-15, 05:10 PM

MrStabby

2022-09-15, 05:39 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2022-09-15, 05:56 PM

I kinda want to say polymorph and banishment. There's an issue with them, spamability. See, on my current warlock pc polymorph cost an invocation, is still cast normally with a slot, and is capped at 1/day. Its not a problem no matter what I do with it. Banishment though, at 11th level I could spam out three casts of two targets each. Intentionally limit my use of it to about once a day anyways so, like polymorph, it isn't an issue. But give a warlock polymorph on their usual list? Poly-spam problems.

Thing is, these are such prevalent and iconic magics across all fantasy & mythology that not including them in some manner is... it leaves a hole in the game. Once a day they're fine. Spammed they're an issue because they take just about anything out of the fight so you can work it over later.

There are multiple possible solutions. You could revert polymorph back to its AD&D form (breakable focus left behind and low probability of identity crisis), turn it into a weak stat buff line like PF, up it to 6th level (but its a bit weak then maybe?), or limit the forms some how. Banishment should probably be 6th level. You could keep the three targets or add disadvantage on the save for using an "inimical substance" on extraplanar critters being sent home.

Simraculum is fine if you just strip out its casting. Force cage is fine if you actually enforce & track the 1500gp per cast material component, fix the stupid half defined D&D size category vs actual size arguments, and the high end casters don't end up sitting on 20,000+gp they have nothing better to spend on than components.

Wish, I ain't touching. AD&D it was an expensive downtime ritual that harshed up the caster for a week plus more and could potentially kill them. These days I see people saying "cast any wizard spell once a day", which is a nice "master of magic" type ability but it isn't anything you'd call a wish.

Summons are an issue. To weak a criter or unweildy to cast and nobody takes them. To strong a critter or to easy (3.5e was definitely this, although psychic astral construct was about perfect balance for it) and its a problem. Plus you need a way for the DM to easily but fairly limit the stuff available or else it can swing between a "please dm screw me for casting this" to book diving for badly written/balanced monsters.

As for those particular ones--

I'd say the right fix for polymorph/true polymorph/shapechange is to do one of
* say the target CR = the spell level, not the character level/CR.
* Give a fixed list of critters you can transform into (for each spell/level). No more splat diving.

Similarly for the summoning spells, my preferred solution is just say "ok, the Conjure line doesn't exist. Use the Summon X line instead". If you insist on keeping them, giving them a fixed list like PF did would work. Cast at 3rd level? You get 2 Dire Wolves. Etc. And rework animate dead so you can't build up armies that way. Let NPCs have their necromantic rituals. But no more than 1 pet per PC please. And preferably 2 total per party just for speed of play sake.

Banishment is really just more MSF stuff. It's tactical crowd control. It could be tweaked, but doesn't really Change the Game.

Simulacrum needs either a total rework or just get dropped. But one easy patch is "no summoned, created or conjured creature or object can or will summon, create, or conjure another creature. No matter what." Applied to all such spells. As well as "if the sim takes wish stress, so do you."

Wish...yeah. Heck, I'd say that if you stripped out the unsafe uses and just left it as "cast any spell of 8th or lower as one action" it'd still be busted in many ways.

Wizards, in particular, need a rework. They're the root of the mess, since their whole thing is "I have a disconnected grab back of fancy tricks more powerful than anyone else's Big Thing."

JNAProductions

2022-09-15, 05:57 PM

My top ones are usually the non-combat spells.

Firstly the troublesome non combat spells that broaden the way that players interact with the world and let magic surpass more mundane abilities/skills.
1) Pass without trace, leomund's tiny hut, commune, wall of stone, fabricate.

Secondly those spells that totally shake up what a character can do an lets that character be played in a very different way.
2) Mage armor, Find Steed, conjure animals, polymorph, Wall of Force

Thirdly the strategic spells that let casters shape the world in ways that non casters can't and can totaly change the way a whole party takes on a campaign.
3) Hallow, Forbidance, druid grove, guards and wards, magic jar, transport via plants, windwalk, Teleportation Circle, Word of recall.

After level 6 spells the whole thing starts to get a bit screwy anyway and the choices get a lot broader.

Bolded the "zuh?" pick.

Mage Armor lets you go from AC 9-13 to 12-16. That's... Not a significant change.

Against a weak foe with +4 to-hit, they go from a 60% hit rate to a 45%. 25% damage reduction isn't bad-assuming you have a Dexterity of 16, though.
But against a decent foe, with, say, +7 to-hit... That's going from 75% to 60%. That's only a 20% reduction.
And it gets worse the more accurate your foes are/the worse your Dexterity is.

At levels where the AC boost is significant, the slot cost is too.
At levels where the slot cost is negligible, the AC boost isn't much to write home about.

Now, you CAN stack it up (Bladesong and Shield let you pump your AC to 26 withMage Armor by level 8, an AC that is impressive at any level) but that costs more resources.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-09-15, 05:59 PM

Bolded the "zuh?" pick.

Mage Armor lets you go from AC 9-13 to 12-16. That's... Not a significant change.

Against a weak foe with +4 to-hit, they go from a 60% hit rate to a 45%. 25% damage reduction isn't bad-assuming you have a Dexterity of 16, though.
But against a decent foe, with, say, +7 to-hit... That's going from 75% to 60%. That's only a 20% reduction.
And it gets worse the more accurate your foes are/the worse your Dexterity is.

At levels where the AC boost is significant, the slot cost is too.
At levels where the slot cost is negligible, the AC boost isn't much to write home about.

Now, you CAN stack it up (Bladesong and Shield let you pump your AC to 26 withMage Armor by level 8, an AC that is impressive at any level) but that costs more resources.

Yeah. Mage armor isn't an issue for me. I'd be looking at shield + cleric dips as the culprits for "my wizard's ac is too high" issue.

solidork

2022-09-15, 06:46 PM

The situation where I've felt this most strongly was when I had weeks of downtime on my Cleric and could suddenly use most of my spell slots on Sending and Scrying, plus Commune. I tracked a horde of Gnolls as they made their way through the High Forest, coordinated with half a dozen disparate groups to come together to oppose them. That's the most that I've felt the game had entered some "different mode" that had wildly different parameters about the kinds of things you wanted, or could, do.

Oh, and Teleport of course.

stoutstien

2022-09-15, 07:44 PM

Assuming the fact the spell is working as intended vs an overlooked combo (conjure woodland being and pixies) I'd say lv 5 is the spell level they start showing up in Ernest.
Antipathy/sympathy, awaken, clone, control weather/water, creation, dominate X, dream, earthquake (or nice city you got there..), fabricate, and so on.

Telok

2022-09-15, 08:11 PM

Wizards, in particular, need a rework. They're the root of the mess, since their whole thing is "I have a disconnected grab back of fancy tricks more powerful than anyone else's Big Thing."

I mildly disagree on banishment. There are a few interesting in and out of combat uses in nailing yourself or allies with it but mostly it's the trivializing a fight aspect. You typically yoink either the biggest bad (hack job save patchs aside) or usually cut the opposition numbers by half to a third. With the way combat is currently you know you just won the fight if you can keep concentration for three rounds. You aren't really playing your MSF game at that point, you're playing "put the caster in place to throw save or lose and then waste time dicing out a foregone conclusion". But I'll give you that its not as big as some other stuff.

Wizards being overly general harkens back to when D&D was just emerging from its fantasy wargaming roots. You had fighter heroes and blaster wizards, later you got theives & clerics. So all non-divine magic was wizard. And that, along with the "fighter" class, has stuck around longer than is useful. The best thing that could happen now (and I wish had happened with warlocks) is for their spell lists to derive entirely from the character's subclass. What happens now is a character is a wizard who happens to be a little wee bit better at, say necromancy, than other wizards. What it should be is the character should be a Necromancer with a few (less than half) general wizardry spells.

Thing is, other than a few effects nothing else can replicate, all the magic from scrying to building walls can be done mundanely. It would just take a bunch of checks or more time, and a lot of them screw everything up if they fail. So a lot of it I think is less "magic can" than the risk/effect metric between magic and mundane is screwed up. Of course since we'd be setting the internet on fire if we made casting the least bit risky we're left with... no... that's a different thread. Not here.

Honestly, the vast majority of effects would be fine if it weren't that they're spammable without any risks, drawbacks, or failures.

MrStabby

2022-09-15, 08:22 PM

Bolded the "zuh?" pick.

Mage Armor lets you go from AC 9-13 to 12-16. That's... Not a significant change.

Against a weak foe with +4 to-hit, they go from a 60% hit rate to a 45%. 25% damage reduction isn't bad-assuming you have a Dexterity of 16, though.
But against a decent foe, with, say, +7 to-hit... That's going from 75% to 60%. That's only a 20% reduction.
And it gets worse the more accurate your foes are/the worse your Dexterity is.

At levels where the AC boost is significant, the slot cost is too.
At levels where the slot cost is negligible, the AC boost isn't much to write home about.

Now, you CAN stack it up (Bladesong and Shield let you pump your AC to 26 withMage Armor by level 8, an AC that is impressive at any level) but that costs more resources.

I would say those extra points of AC actualy make a big difference in how the class is played. Sure, sometimes it doesn't make a big difference if you are facing a melee enemy or an enemy with a great to hit bonus, but when facing some CR1/2 archers or similar it makes a big difference between doing something and just hiding a lot of the time.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-09-15, 08:50 PM

I mildly disagree on banishment. There are a few interesting in and out of combat uses in nailing yourself or allies with it but mostly it's the trivializing a fight aspect. You typically yoink either the biggest bad (hack job save patchs aside) or usually cut the opposition numbers by half to a third. With the way combat is currently you know you just won the fight if you can keep concentration for three rounds. You aren't really playing your MSF game at that point, you're playing "put the caster in place to throw save or lose and then waste time dicing out a foregone conclusion". But I'll give you that its not as big as some other stuff.

Wizards being overly general harkens back to when D&D was just emerging from its fantasy wargaming roots. You had fighter heroes and blaster wizards, later you got theives & clerics. So all non-divine magic was wizard. And that, along with the "fighter" class, has stuck around longer than is useful. The best thing that could happen now (and I wish had happened with warlocks) is for their spell lists to derive entirely from the character's subclass. What happens now is a character is a wizard who happens to be a little wee bit better at, say necromancy, than other wizards. What it should be is the character should be a Necromancer with a few (less than half) general wizardry spells.

Thing is, other than a few effects nothing else can replicate, all the magic from scrying to building walls can be done mundanely. It would just take a bunch of checks or more time, and a lot of them screw everything up if they fail. So a lot of it I think is less "magic can" than the risk/effect metric between magic and mundane is screwed up. Of course since we'd be setting the internet on fire if we made casting the least bit risky we're left with... no... that's a different thread. Not here.

Honestly, the vast majority of effects would be fine if it weren't that they're spammable without any risks, drawbacks, or failures.

Personally, I've never had banishment trivialize a fight. It's been clutch a few times (keep the purple worm away so they could clean up the annoying others before turning attention to it), but it's basically never been an issue. I've seen the non-combat use more than the combat one, in fact. Also, it doesn't really change the nature of the game. You're still going places, kicking down doors, and murderizing people. Just more effectively/with less risk. So still MSF, just with a better gun. The game isn't now about strategic high-level manipulation (or any other such thing). Which is what I'm really going for.

As for wizards, yeah. I agree. Wizards are a legacy of the old way, hanging on mostly because they have a huge and rabid fan base that cries foul over even the slightest change that might hurt their generic power.

Personally, I'd like to see the game move more toward an class feature model, not a "buffet of choices" model. Because that likely doesn't make much sense outside my own head, let me explain. Currently, spell-casters (especially wizards, but all of them to some degree) are mostly made up and differentiated by the choices they make at the buffet called Spellcasting. Which is a gigantic smorgasbord of effects all labeled "magic". And none of them really depend on any of the others--when you get a new spell known, you can pick it from the entire available sub-set (available based on level and class only). Never learned a fire spell before but are level 5? Great. You can learn fireball just as well as anyone else can. At level 17, picking a 9th level spell or a 1st level spell has the same cost--1 spell pick. Etc. Instead, I'd prefer to move to something closer in principle (but not details) to the Hunter Ranger. At level 3, they get their pick of 3 offensive abilities. At level 7, they get their pick of 3 defensive abilities. At level 11, they get one of two aoe abilities. Etc. And each branch is a one-time pick--you can't pick a Defensive Tactics at level 15. That's a class feature model.

In a caster context, that might be something like as you level, you get your choice of a few magical, but not spell, things you can do. A Necromancer class might get something like "choose between being able to control more, smaller zombies or fewer, larger ones". Each class ends up with most of its power and distinctiveness coming from 3-6 Big Things they can do, things pretty specific to that class/subclass combination. Spells might be a side thing that gets shared between lots of classes, as might "maneuvers" or something similar. But they're not the Big Things. They're utility effects that almost anyone can learn, ancillary and weaker (relative to the Big Things) alternate combat effects or other such things. E.g. a Warmage might get fireball as a class ability. Other people might get other, smaller "aoe damage" effects, but the big boom stuff would be class features of the Warmage. Thus, if you want to make big booms, the game naturally funnels you to the Warmage class. Others can make smaller booms, but it costs them more of their resources to do so, while the Warmage can pump them out. At the cost of not getting certain other Big Things. And then give everyone Big Things.

Tanarii

2022-09-15, 09:52 PM

So still MSF, just with a better gun. The game isn't now about strategic high-level manipulation (or any other such thing). Which is what I'm really going for.In that case, IMO it's mostly about illusions, enchantments, divinations, and some kinds of hiding/mobility spells. Even low levels spells like Disguise Self, Suggestion, Invisibility. Heck even cantrips like Message can become invaluable.

They toned a lot of them down in this edition, but when you take some of these spells out of the adventuring site into an urban setting, especially intrigue, the strategy can change drastically.

Frogreaver

2022-09-16, 12:05 AM

1. Find Familiar/Healing Word
2. Misty Step
3. Plant Growth
4. Polymorph
5. Commune

Witty Username

2022-09-16, 12:42 AM

Telok

2022-09-16, 01:47 AM

In that case, IMO it's mostly about illusions, enchantments, divinations, and some kinds of hiding/mobility spells. Even low levels spells like Disguise Self, Suggestion, Invisibility. Heck even cantrips like Message can become invaluable.

Something I ran across that I liked was in a "magic as a skill" system where the various social charms, disguises illusions, invis, shield, etc., were just mostly paying out of your spells learned budget to replace the skill roll with your magic roll. So the shield spell was just a regular parry roll but using your casting skill instead of weaponry, with a bonus that you didn't have to lug the metal disk around. Invisibility was just a stealth roll using casting skill instead of the stealth skill. You were still invisible so you always got the roll in any but the most extreme circumstances, but it also didn't get you that wisdom-stealth check to predict where an ambush might be based on where you'd set it up if you were the ambusher. It was a nice difference from auto-success spells that DMs are continually tempted to screw with and it flowed quite well in play.

I could see something like that working in D&D. Invis stealths you and people have to make a save to spot you. Might need work, but at least it wouldn't be that stupid "everyone has sonar because you didn't click the 'hide' button" we get now.

Asmotherion

2022-09-16, 05:24 AM

3rd level spells are significantly more powerful than 2nd level Spells, and that's the point when a Caster stops being a Frail Thing, and starts becoming a Nuke in and out of combat.

Rukelnikov

2022-09-16, 09:56 AM

3rd level is probably the biggest bump, 9th is arguably bigger.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-09-16, 10:19 AM

Are we talking gamechanging as in dramatically changes the playstyle of the caster or gamechanging as in warps the game in untenable ways?
Like,
Fireball is gamechanging because it makes blaster a viable archetype.
Or,
Forcecage is gamechanging because it makes any single monster easy to trivial by way of kill box strategies.

Neither, really. I mean it literally -- A game that includes spell X has to be handled differently as far as the types of challenges presented and especially the types of adventures presented.

For example, 3e had scry-and-fry, which meant (at higher optimization levels) that once it came online a standard dungeon crawl either
1) needed special protections to prevent simply scrying in to the end goal, jumping in with teleport, then jumping out again and skipping the whole thing
2) couldn't be done effectively

OD&D literally changed the game at name level--the focus went from "individual heroics" to "managing territories". The expectation was that higher-level characters stopped actively adventuring much once they hit name level.

I'm asking about spells that force (or strongly encourage) the game to refocus above the individual encounter level up to the strategic/5D chess/reshape civilizations level.

My reason for asking is twofold--
1) I keep hearing that high level play is "so different" and casters are "so much more powerful" and that utility magic means that non-casters just can't even conceivably contribute to "actual" challenges at those levels.
2) but when I read the high-level spells, I go...wait. This is just a low level spell, but with bigger numbers. Except for a very few of them, most of which are only of that strategic scale when cheesed (wish/sim loops for instance).

Effectively, I'm asking "am I crazy? Or are high-level casters basically low-level casters but with bigger numbers?" (modulo some wizard cheese). Sure, they can stomp individual encounters. But they don't have any way of projecting force beyond their presence or really reshaping the world. There's no scaling--you can dominate one person, but even then you have to remain in close proximity and it can be trivially dispelled. And that's about as "civilization changing" as you get. There are some spells that work really well for NPCs or for PCs defending their own bases, but don't really do much otherwise. As well as plot-level spells (dream of the blue veil, for instance) that only work if the DM actively gives you the pieces. I'm chasing down an idea that most of the perceived caster power is some combination of
1) multiclassing/feats letting them avoid their weaknesses too easily
2) hangover from playstyles and DM'ing styles of previous editions (ie "magic or go away", letting spells do things well beyond their stated bounds and holding non-spells to a very tight reign)
3) a (relatively) few just outright badly written spells that cause easy cheese.

stoutstien

2022-09-16, 10:25 AM

Neither, really. I mean it literally -- A game that includes spell X has to be handled differently as far as the types of challenges presented and especially the types of adventures presented.

For example, 3e had scry-and-fry, which meant (at higher optimization levels) that once it came online a standard dungeon crawl either
1) needed special protections to prevent simply scrying in to the end goal, jumping in with teleport, then jumping out again and skipping the whole thing
2) couldn't be done effectively

OD&D literally changed the game at name level--the focus went from "individual heroics" to "managing territories". The expectation was that higher-level characters stopped actively adventuring much once they hit name level.

I'm asking about spells that force (or strongly encourage) the game to refocus above the individual encounter level up to the strategic/5D chess/reshape civilizations level.

My reason for asking is twofold--
1) I keep hearing that high level play is "so different" and casters are "so much more powerful" and that utility magic means that non-casters just can't even conceivably contribute to "actual" challenges at those levels.
2) but when I read the high-level spells, I go...wait. This is just a low level spell, but with bigger numbers. Except for a very few of them, most of which are only of that strategic scale when cheesed (wish/sim loops for instance).

Effectively, I'm asking "am I crazy? Or are high-level casters basically low-level casters but with bigger numbers?" (modulo some wizard cheese). Sure, they can stomp individual encounters. But they don't have any way of projecting force beyond their presence or really reshaping the world. There's no scaling--you can dominate one person, but even then you have to remain in close proximity and it can be trivially dispelled. And that's about as "civilization changing" as you get. There are some spells that work really well for NPCs or for PCs defending their own bases, but don't really do much otherwise. As well as plot-level spells (dream of the blue veil, for instance) that only work if the DM actively gives you the pieces. I'm chasing down an idea that most of the perceived caster power is some combination of
1) multiclassing/feats letting them avoid their weaknesses too easily
2) hangover from playstyles and DM'ing styles of previous editions (ie "magic or go away", letting spells do things well beyond their stated bounds and holding non-spells to a very tight reign)
3) a (relatively) few just outright badly written spells that cause easy cheese.

It said option 3 makes up for half of them. Option 1/2 split the difference.

KorvinStarmast

2022-09-16, 10:31 AM

Most of the game changing spells are MSF at Tier 1 or Tier 2, IMO.

1st level - Healing Word
2nd level - Pass Without Trace, Rope Trick
I can see how Healing Word is strong for its level, but I am not sure I agree with your 2d level choices. Why?

3rd level - Revivify, Conjure Animals, Leomund's Tiny Hut LtH being a ritual ups its power quite a bit. (I like the idea someone posted here about LtH having hit points such that it can be eventually overcome, but the devil is in the details.)

4th level - Polymorph It's very good, yes.

5th level - Commune / Commune with Nature / Contact Other Plane, Raise Dead, Rary's Telepathic Bond I guess I'm doing "commune with nature" wrong as a DM. Explain to me why it's so over the top?

6th - Magic Jar, Planar Ally MJ is a bit fiddly.

7th - Plane Shift, and Resurrection & Sequester for out of time hijinks Yes.

8th - Clone Earthquake can have outsized impacts.

9th - not gonna go there At level 9 stuff certainly bends things ...

PhoenixPhyre

2022-09-16, 10:50 AM

It said option 3 makes up for half of them. Option 1/2 split the difference.

To be clear, you're saying that half of the "imbalance" is due to a small number of spells, and the rest is split between "well of course magic can" thinking and "it's too easy to avoid drawbacks/weaknesses"?

In that case, it seems the appropriate place to start is by taking out the cheese. If I have to rewrite the entire game to get the non-wizards up to that level, including all the monsters and guidance and worlds, or take out a few admittedly borked spells (leaving plenty of power behind)...I know which I'll chose in a heartbeat.

RogueJK

2022-09-16, 10:59 AM

Necrosnoop110

2022-09-16, 11:05 AM

I can think of at least three categories of spells that push the game to higher levels of play, that make fundamentally significant changes to the game: moving, knowing, and compelling. Levels and power ranges vary. Also a lot of the "knowing" spells are insanely DM dependent and swing from utterly worthless "hints" to effectively having God whisper truths directly into your ear.

Moving (spells that move you, the party, or the enemy/things) e.g., Dimension Door, Fly, Gate, Plane Shift, Teleport
Knowing (spells that allow you to know things beyond your normal skills or basic physiology) e.g., Augury, Contact Other Plane, Divination, Scrying, Tongues
Compelling (spells that allow you to force others to do things) e.g., Charm Monster/Person, Dominate Monster/Person, Modify Memory, Suggestion, Zone Of Truth

PhoenixPhyre

2022-09-16, 11:14 AM

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Hypnotic Pattern yet.

It's the first true "save or suck" spell, with the target just removed from combat for up to 1 minute with no subsequent saving throw if they fail the first one. It's a game-changer for fights against lone opponents, or even small groups thanks to its generous size.

For fights against lone opponents...it breaks on damage. Meaning it's useless against solos. And unless everyone fails, the ones that succeed can break people out as an action. Yeah, it's effective at eating actions, but it's not as powerful as it's made out to be.

tokek

2022-09-16, 11:34 AM

RogueJK

2022-09-16, 11:35 AM

For fights against lone opponents...it breaks on damage. Meaning it's useless against solos.

Not at all.

Sure, if your very next action is "I attack the Incapacitated lone opponent", then casting Hypnotic Pattern didn't gain you much.

But there's a lot that your party can accomplish with 10 full rounds of additional buffing, readying, and other battlefield preparation while the lone opponent stands there and drools on themselves.

You can even physically move the incapacitated opponent during that minute, as long as you don't do damage or intentionally shake them out of their stupor.

Or alternately, it could allow you and your allies to escape from a fight if you're in over your head, with a 1 minute head start.

Rukelnikov

2022-09-16, 11:52 AM

I'm asking about spells that force (or strongly encourage) the game to refocus above the individual encounter level up to the strategic/5D chess/reshape civilizations level.

True Polymorph and True Resurrection can esily be reshape civilization level.

True Resurrection is somewhat limited by components, so its hard to raise an entire tribe slaughtered a century ago, but it still can bring back kings, heroes and villains of old.

True Polymorph means when my warlock is bored a new green dragonflight is born.

If you mean spells that notably change the way the party approaches stuff in general:

Find Familiar, LTH, Commune/Contact, Raise Dead, Legend Lore, Teleport, Plane Shift, Clone, Demiplane

Also bears notice the "strong" minons spells. Simulacrum, even without the chain abuse, is still overwhelmingly powerful. Planar Binding & Plannar Ally are very powerful too, and the PCs will usually just go for one, but nothing stops them from trying to bind multiple creatures (maybe their lack of hubris, but they'll get there eventually)

As an example of how the spells may take form in a "political" struggle. My Bladesinger had some stuff happen to him which yanked him away from his kingdom for a hundred years, when he came back, he found his firstborn son as ruler but about to die, after his death the kingdom was in a state of political struggle between two of his daughter, and the firstborn's firstborn. None knew my PC had returned though, and I intended to keep it that way.

One of the daughters found out about my PC living in the forest, and came looking for aid, he wasn't gonna turn her down, but it would have been unfair to advise only one party instead of the three. So, in order to be a "secret" advisor to every descendant, he used Dream to present himself as a spirit of an old warrior to his grandson(half elf), in order to help him train in combat, and offer military advise. Then made a Simulacrum of himself, which then TP'ed into a Silver Dragon, so it could use its change shape ability to change shape into various different spellcasters in order not to run out of spells, and sent him to find a place in the court of the other daughter.

Telok

2022-09-16, 12:08 PM

Neither, really. I mean it literally -- A game that includes spell X has to be handled differently as far as the types of challenges presented and especially the types of adventures presented.

In that case.

1) Movement modes sufficient to nix "its hard to get there" for the entire party. For flight & underwater/swimming this happens with enough merely uncommon magic items and mounts if the party wants to put in the effort, so I'm not sure any "fix spells" attempts will do anything in normal groups doing normal play and following existing magic item rules. So that mostly leaves strategic teleportation and player driven plane hopping (DM provided planar portals & mac guffins are just doors to themed dungeons with an environment effect tacked on, really, just node map it to see).
-> teleport/teleport circle/plane shift

2) Info gathering beyond the ken of sneaking about, library visits, interrogation, talking to people, and buying off sages. This is a sliding scale because stuff like "invisible familiar" is impossible or trivial to replace with a rogue depending on the DM and how they do the checks, same with "read the strange runes" and arcana/caster.
->commune/contact other plane

3) Coming back from the dead. Depending on how the afterlife is handled this can be amazing or basically just another form of hp/status healing.
-> "I chatted up Death while I was dead and its' a bif miffed about Mr. McEvil getting rezzed again."

4) Making buildings & safe spaces super fast and extremely reliable & safe. Mostly only because resting and resource reclamation are so tied into the game structure. This I feel depends more on DMing style. Inactive sandboxes and speed-of-plot stories are hit hard, as are settings with a dearth of dispelling casters or magic knowing enemies. But active sandboxes & timed adventures generally aren't.
->lots, but not the basic wall/stone shape spells

5) Breaking game play with minions. This is as much about kicking time-per-combat and encounter scaling in the balls as it is about bounded accuracy enabling 200 mooks (dirt farmers/skellies/whatever) with poison & crossbows to take out major dragons.
->undead spam/wall of meat/enough gold to hire mercenaries

6) Access to lots of extra spells & monster-only "op if pcs can at all" abilities. Interestingly, Dominate is about as big an issue as summons are here. WotC likes putting out monsters with stuff DMs go all twitchy at because they worry about balancing stuff and it breaks the resource drain assumptions. Really, outside sim, its almost more the monster building paradigm at issue giving "can't let players do this because balance" abilities everywhere.
->simraculum/planar ally/dominate

I personally feel that effects that are spammable/no-save and trivialize a fight fit here too. But there's some mild disagreement. I think zorping off the one big bad to trivially wipe out minions and set up for a 1 or 2 round kill perfect attack strat pushes the game into combat as war. Its not an issue for me, but DMs who (knowing or unknowing) want to run combat as sport get unhappy because it shuts down or drags out an entire category of encounters. It seems to hit module using DMs really hard too if they aren't ready to switch thing up on the fly.

stoutstien

2022-09-16, 12:52 PM

To be clear, you're saying that half of the "imbalance" is due to a small number of spells, and the rest is split between "well of course magic can" thinking and "it's too easy to avoid drawbacks/weaknesses"?

In that case, it seems the appropriate place to start is by taking out the cheese. If I have to rewrite the entire game to get the non-wizards up to that level, including all the monsters and guidance and worlds, or take out a few admittedly borked spells (leaving plenty of power behind)...I know which I'll chose in a heartbeat.

In a nutshell yes. I think the last count I had was 20 spells that were responsible for the vast amount of system inconsistencies or potential mayhem. If you were looking to maximize impact of system changes in a positive manner and you were to either remove or alter those spells it would have the largest return.

KorvinStarmast

2022-09-16, 02:43 PM

I forgot to add: teleport. :smallyuk:

Person_Man

2022-09-16, 02:45 PM

I don’t have a problem with spells that can win a combat. Spells have limited uses. If a player gets a lucky Fireball or whatever and ends combat quickly, thats fun for them. DM can always just add another combat, and aim for a mix of easy/CR appropriate/hard encounters to mix things up.

The problem is when a spell or collection of spells become so good that everything else pales in comparison in every encounter. Foresight is good example, because its an all day buff, and non-full casters don’t get anything remotely as powerful. The summon/animate/conjure spells also come to mind.

In general though, I’d observe that even with a player who cherry picks all of the most potent options, 5E still seems to work fine regardless of class/build choices, up to level 13ish. After that it still works fine all the way up to level 20 if you just talk to the players and ask them to try other spells if its making your game un-fun. Polymorph once in a while is fine. Polymorph every day is difficult to plan fun encounters around, unless everyone at the table is using similarly potent options.

MrStabby

2022-09-16, 03:01 PM

3rd level is probably the biggest bump, 9th is arguably bigger.
I feel 9th level spells is in a way bigger, because not every class gets something big at 17th level. At 5th level almost all classes get something pretty awesome.

I don’t have a problem with spells that can win a combat. Spells have limited uses. If a player gets a lucky Fireball or whatever and ends combat quickly, thats fun for them. DM can always just add another combat, and aim for a mix of easy/CR appropriate/hard encounters to mix things up.

The problem is when a spell or collection of spells become so good that everything else pales in comparison in every encounter. Foresight is good example, because its an all day buff, and non-full casters don’t get anything remotely as powerful. The summon/animate/conjure spells also come to mind.

In general though, I’d observe that even with a player who cherry picks all of the most potent options, 5E still seems to work fine regardless of class/build choices, up to level 13ish. After that it still works fine all the way up to level 20 if you just talk to the players and ask them to try other spells if its making your game un-fun. Polymorph once in a while is fine. Polymorph every day is difficult to plan fun encounters around, unless everyone at the table is using similarly potent options.

Yeah, winning combat occasionally through a spell is fine. Having some people be meaningless in combats is less fun. A spell that can end a combat after a couple of turns when players have thineed out numbers is good, or that buffs players... but one that just means people wait about whilst things are cleared up is really not a lot of fun.

The worst spells though are the ones that let combat be avoided. The pass without trace and teleport type spells that change the playstyle so that those classes that do well at the long, grinding days don't ge the chance to do that style of play they excel at.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-09-16, 03:07 PM

I've been mod on a westmarches server that has just hit the 9th level spells.

Simulacrum was a small headache
True Polymorph is a big headache - and the players have not yet worked out all of its crazy options.

True Polymorph really does break the game, or the game world. Creature to object lets you do the King Midas thing to invalidate the economy, there is really nothing RAW in the spell to stop it. It has a whole bunch of other difficult interactions with the game.

Yeah, TP is on my "it's crap" (pun intended) list for that and other reasons. All the polymorph and summon spells need rethinking. Object into creature has issues with souls (and splat diving) Creature into creature has issues with splat diving. Creature into object needs rework.

Witty Username

2022-09-16, 10:35 PM

I'm asking about spells that force (or strongly encourage) the game to refocus above the individual encounter level up to the strategic/5D chess/reshape civilizations level.

Ah, so, would animate dead fit that idea? Since any caster with access to it can be an improvised army?

I did have a city in my last game that had regulations on handling dead bodies and necromancy as part of its infrastructure because of it.

Naanomi

2022-09-16, 11:10 PM

I always find Teleport is the great game changer for the scope of an adventure

Person_Man

2022-09-17, 06:41 AM

The worst spells though are the ones that let combat be avoided. The pass without trace and teleport type spells that change the playstyle so that those classes that do well at the long, grinding days don't ge the chance to do that style of play they excel at.

Yes, there are some spells that eliminate the “hidden map game” which forms the basis of old school D&D. And if the rest of the party wants that, having one player break it with scry and die or similar spells is not fun.

But on the flip side, if everyone in the party is on board and builds around it, it can still be a fun game. It just takes a lot more work for the DM, because you have to make your boss encounters into puzzle boxes, filled with above CR enemies, novel tactics, traps, magical defenses, waves of enemies, etc. The PCs then have to use their magic options to solve encounters that are clearly too difficult. You can also add plot devices that can’t be solved by murdering them. NPCs who need to have their trust won over, villages dying of draught, McGuffins hidden by powerful magic that need to be found, etc. Also, once the PCs become sufficiently renowned and rich, you can have the occasional anti-party scry and teleport in on them when they least expect it, invade their homes, kidnap NPCs, etc. The same stuff we needed to do in earlier editions when players figured out how to play a Batman Wizard.

That’s why the “game breaking” spell options exist in D&D. There are players who want to play a different version of the game. And I’m fine with that. Though I’d prefer for them to be segregated to high level spells, and that non-casters be given similarly potent high level options. That way players could make more of a conscious choice about what tier to play in, ad opposed to having random new players stumbling across the game breaking options and their consequences.

Corran

2022-09-17, 07:32 AM

Generally, what spells are game changing will depend on the nature of your game. Zone of truth and speak with dead may become game chaning when your session is about, say, a murder mystery. Detect thoughts may be game changing whenever you have an NPC with hidden motives around. Contact other plane may be game changing when you are presented with riddles. In all these cases game changing simply means that the spells can offer a shortcut to what you want to achieve.

Similarly, single target debuffs like polymorph and the hold X spells will be game changing when you run lots of solo non legendary monsters, AoE's will be game changing when you run a large number of mooks (especially when they lack awareness and/or initiative), counterspell (and a few more) will be game changing when running mages with no adequate additional support or without them being able to use some counter tactics), etc etc.

For dungeoncrawling, anything that lets you use the environment to your advantage will be game changing, whether that will end up being using stone shape, transmute rock to mud, passwall or illusions to block or open paths, or using fly or spider climb to get to into/out of an advantageous/disadvantageous position, or teleports to get in or out fast. Anything that helps with scouting will also be important, because not only does it get you familiar with the layout so that you know where you want to attack, but also because it can tell you when you'd most want to attack. Spells that aid with scouting (or more generally give you knowledge about your enemy and the battlefield can be worked around by just having someone else do it in person, whether that will be a pc or an npc/familiar, but somtimes they mitigate the risk and offer better results overall). Do this part right and then you've got a ton of spells being transformed into game changers. Like a well placed web delaying a good amount of enemy reinforcements, a lighting bolt thrown down a long corridor or a fireball thrown into a busy messhall or sleeping quarters, etc.

Apart from miniomancy (the kind that lets you build armies during downtime, with emphasis on planar binding and true ploymorph), the trully game changing spells are the ones offering players things that your world was not meant to include (at least to a reasonable degree). Because progressing from the pattern of encounter A -> encounter B to a more strategic mindfull gameplay is mostly about roleplaying. Sure, you cannot roleplay yourself teleporting to the top floor of the tower to face the BBEG without going through all of its minions, but you can roleplay your attempt to find someone able and willing to offer you that help. Having a spell that does that means that you will succeed more often than you would without it, but the attempt at the gameplay is there. So the spell is only game changing when the game world is lacking NPCs willing to help you ahiceve that, or when lacking them all together.

While I am definitely forgetting some enchantment spell that someone may remind me about how gamechanging it is (and probably rightly so), I find most enchantments spells to be more unexpected than actually game changers. In the sense that they are game changing similarly to my earlier examples (so not really), and they can be trully game changing sometimes because it cn be difficult for the DM to answer 20 questions about their game world in an instant so that they can get the proper response to a first time occuring situation that involves some enchantment spell, but assuming not a purposefully low magic setting, the DM can figure out the place of such spells in the game world and run it henceforth in a way that will be consistent and in accordance to what they have decided about (the particular place of) their game world.

Zuras

2022-09-17, 10:13 AM

In your opinion, what are they? Specifically the ones that force the game to shift dramatically. Doing more damage or in a bigger area doesn't do that--sure, you can now hit a whole platoon instead of just a squad, but its still fundamentally just damage. These would be things that break out of the "Magical Special Forces[1]" game and make it so anyone stuck in the MSF game will struggle to keep up with.

[1] kick down the dungeon door, break things/people, take stuff. Effectively "in person raids on locations", the same sort of default gameplay through most of T1 and T2.

In my experience, Conjure Animals was the most game-changing spell I’ve seen tables get. Granted, the DM placed almost no restrictions on it, and even let the Druid player simply assign the creatures to obey other PCs, so it effectively gave everyone one or more CR 1/4 pets for an hour, in addition to solving all sorts of exploration problems with mass flight from giant owls.

In terms of changing the nature of the game, however—disguise self and detect thoughts are really big issues. One of the oddities of Adventurers League play is that when the party finds a magic item, in following sessions every PC who participated in the adventure has access to the item. This isn’t an issue in pick-up games with rotating groups, but in my regular weekly group, the week after the players picked up a Hat of Disguise or a Helm of Telepathy the game was radically different.

It wasn’t necessarily bad, but as DM I had to prep like it was a GURPS Mission:Impossible or psionics campaign instead of D&D.

Bobthewizard

2022-09-17, 11:05 AM

Without looking at the very highest level spells, here are some of my thoughts:

Overpowered at an encounter level, but not world changing:
Shield (when stacked on armor)
Suggestion (it works just fine in combat, and telling someone to "sit in the corner and don't attack us" is the same as banishment)
Hypnotic Pattern (no save while you disarm and disrobe them)
Counterspell (whole parties are set up to manage counterspell battles)
Conjure Animals (this one is the worst, unless the DM goes out of their way to nerf it so much that it's not even fun. Really, all of the multiple minion spells are problematic. The Tasha's ones are great. Use those.)
Wall of Force

Exploration:
Find familiar (no need for a party member to be a scout)
Goodberry/create food and water (completely eliminates survival challenges. RAW GB is a lot of healing)
Leomunds Tiny Hut (I don't mind this one because I think random encounters are boring)
Arcane eye (telling the DM to just give you the map)
Conjure Animals (better than a familiar)

Movement spells:
(I actually like these. They change how the party interacts with the world, but I think they scale well and let the DM present more complicated challenges as the party levels up)
Expeditious retreat -> misty step/levitate/spider climb -> fly -> dimension door -> scatter -> teleport -> plane shift
Conjure Animals (giant owls to carry the whole party)

Social/plot:
(These can make telling a story with a compelling plot difficult)
Disguise self or changelings on a high charisma character
Detect thoughts
Suggestion
Scrying (no hiding the BBEG)
Mass Suggestion (also see multiple minions above)

Tanarii

2022-09-17, 12:50 PM

Leomunds Tiny Hut (I don't mind this one because I think random encounters are boring)
This one is often considered groundbreaking for MSF purposes because it makes a Long Rest so much more feasible in hostile environments.

If your parties don't face a 15% per hour chance of a long-rest disrupting combat in a hostile adventuring location, agreed it's not particularly a big deal.

Similar for Rope Trick when it's 15% chance per 10 minutes in regards to a short rest.

KorvinStarmast

2022-09-17, 02:23 PM

Hypnotic Pattern (no save while you disarm and disrobe them)
Creatures immune to charm give less than two farts about HP. It does have its moments, though.

Counterspell (whole parties are set up to manage counterspell battles)
Useful but in a full adventure day you may miss that 3d or higher level spell slot later on.

Conjure Animals (this one is the worst
Dm and Player make a set of "these are the choices" ahead of time. Less of a problem

Wall of Force Does no damage. Enemies who can misty step, t port, DD, laugh at you.
Some of you really do think that the sky is falling.
But WoF is good.
Exploration:

Find familiar (no need for a party member to be a scout)
Familiars have 1 HP, fragile, die often. Your white room isn't the dungeons I have played in.

Arcane eye (telling the DM to just give you the map)
At the cost of a level 4 spell.

Conjure Animals (better than a familiar) Ends in an hour. Does mundane damage unless the caster is a Circle of Shepherd Druid. Lots of monsters are resistant or immune to mundane Pierce/Slash/Bludgeon damage.

Conjure Animals (giant owls to carry the whole party)
Giant Eagles are cooler. :smalltongue:

Bobthewizard

2022-09-17, 02:35 PM

Giant Eagles are cooler. :smalltongue:

Of course, but you only get 2 eagles. You can get 8 owls. All of the rest of your points are totally valid.

When I DM, the only ones that concern me are the social/plot ones I listed. I think those are disruptive to collaborative storytelling. Otherwise, I'm fine if the party uses magic to solve combat, exploration, or movement problems. If the martial players seem like they are falling behind, they get cool, interesting weapons and armor, and that usually keeps them happy. And I make sure there are enough problems that can be solved with pointy sticks. :smallsmile:

Pex

2022-09-17, 02:36 PM

This one is often considered groundbreaking for MSF purposes because it makes a Long Rest so much more feasible in hostile environments.

If your parties don't face a 15% per hour chance of a long-rest disrupting combat in a hostile adventuring location, agreed it's not particularly a big deal.

Similar for Rope Trick when it's 15% chance per 10 minutes in regards to a short rest.

I agree players should not be resting after every combat. By the same token DMs should not be interrupting every rest.

Tanarii

2022-09-17, 02:44 PM

I agree players should not be resting after every combat. By the same token DMs should not be interrupting every rest.
That's why I like random rolls. The dice decide if there is an interruption, and the players know the odds in advance and can judge the risks.

You should be a fan. After all, clearly it stops tyrannical DMing. :smalltongue:

5eNeedsDarksun

2022-09-17, 03:47 PM

I get that polymorph is strong, and it's definitely versatile, but I'm wondering about it being that 'game changing'. Certainly we've had instances where it's been great, but in our current campaign it just hasn't got as much combat use as I would have thought. In fact, in many adventuring days, despite a DM that is willing to throw in deadly encounters and kill sloppy characters, it doesn't get cast.

I'd say there are 2 basic limitations to the spell that limit it's use as a buff: 1) Casting it on yourself is generally not a good option due to a combo of poor AC and poor concentration saves. 2) Any remotely optimized character is generally going to do more damage/ be a more effective attacker in their regular form than polymorphed.

In our current group of 3 we have a ranged martial, an Wizard, and my character: a Paladin 2/ Swords Bard X. Both the Wizard and I have this spell. The ranged martial tends to be the least likely character to run out of HP and does significantly less damage polymorphed, so there's rarely a defensive or offensive benefit to casting this on him. My character is most likely to run low on HP, but casting it on myself is a crap shoot with concentration. So really the only combo that is usable somewhat regularly is the Wizard casting it on me. But, since it generally reduces my options and impact polymorph generally doesn't get cast at the outset of combat. Often we're into a tough combat and the Wizard has a concentration spell up, so there's a significant trade off when casting this spell.

Obviously this is one small party and we've had groups where Polymorph has had more use. I do think requiring one character's concentration and limiting another's abilities make this spell a little more situational than people sometimes give it credit for.

Brookshw

2022-09-17, 03:50 PM

I always find Teleport is the great game changer for the scope of an adventure

True. It also impacts the type of adventure that happens by writing out huge portions of the world map.

Pex

2022-09-17, 03:57 PM

That's why I like random rolls. The dice decide if there is an interruption, and the players know the odds in advance and can judge the risks.

You should be a fan. After all, clearly it stops tyrannical DMing. :smalltongue:

I don't care for random encounters. I'm aware a random encounter doesn't have to mean a combat, but I view them as interruptions with the most cynical view being the DM isn't liking how the players are playing so he needs to teach them a lesson.

But we're getting off topic. :smallbiggrin:

Tanarii

2022-09-17, 04:21 PM

I don't care for random encounters. I'm aware a random encounter doesn't have to mean a combat, but I view them as interruptions with the most cynical view being the DM isn't liking how the players are playing so he needs to teach them a lesson.
I don't even see how it's possible to arrive at that cynical view. Once the rate is determined and communicated, they're random, not under DM control. The DM can't possibly be using it to "teach a lesson", since they don't control the timing. If the DM was determining when the encounters happened or didn't happen, I can see arriving at that cynical view.

The actual purpose of a random encounter mechanic, when understood by both DMs and players, is to make time a meaningful resource that players can choose or not choose to spend.

Regardless and on topic (at least in regards to MSF game changing spells), if random encounters exist so that players have a choice to spend time or not spend time to long rest, ritually cast LTH makes a huge difference on that decision making process.

stoutstien

2022-09-17, 04:25 PM

I don't even see how it's possible to arrive at that cynical view. Once the rate is determined and communicated, they're random, not under DM control. The DM can't possibly be using it to "teach a lesson", since they don't control the timing.

The actual purpose of a random encounter mechanic, when understood by both DMs and players, is to make time a meaningful resource that players can choose or not choose to spend.

If the DM was determining when the encounters happened or didn't happen, I can see arriving at that cynical view.

I prefer the term "random event". Seems unimportant but players tend to have less of a knee jerk reaction to a table of possible stuff that happens when they doddle rather than view it as stick beating them forward.
This is in my mind just because early today I ran a session and one of the events was

"Why yes. Bears do in fact crap in the woods."

Pex

2022-09-17, 06:45 PM

I don't even see how it's possible to arrive at that cynical view. Once the rate is determined and communicated, they're random, not under DM control. The DM can't possibly be using it to "teach a lesson", since they don't control the timing. If the DM was determining when the encounters happened or didn't happen, I can see arriving at that cynical view.

The actual purpose of a random encounter mechanic, when understood by both DMs and players, is to make time a meaningful resource that players can choose or not choose to spend.

Regardless and on topic (at least in regards to MSF game changing spells), if random encounters exist so that players have a choice to spend time or not spend time to long rest, ritually cast LTH makes a huge difference on that decision making process.

It's weaponized when the DM says the party can rest there are no random dice rolls, but when the players decide to rest out come the dice. When the DM says the party can rest he doesn't care about who's on watch when. When the players decide to rest the DM asks for who is on watch when even if nothing does happen. It's a metagame scare tactic I don't care for.

sambojin

2022-09-17, 08:01 PM

While not a spell, I find it's the exact same time that a druid gets wildshape, ie:lvl2. Or maybe just after that, with their lvl2 spells coming online at lvl3.

It's not really "strategic" persay, it just adds a lot of options of how you can approach a huge range of situations. Want an instant familiar? Or to stealth by/into an area? Or need some jump or spiderclimb or fast movement? Or an instant steed? Or a bit of combat muscle/ free HP?

Yep, wildshape all your problems away. The fact that they can often use it for other stuff too (this isn't just a Moon thing), and get pretty reliable summons/ stealthers/ skill+er spells at lvl3, is usually where a big difference gets made in "party outlook of what a situation/ encounter could be". Still very small scale and tactical, but it changes party outlook even on what is useful, that it's worth a mention. By lvl3, most classes get a subclass with an ability or two. By lvl3 a druid has an entire toolkit, with some of it also being combat related.

Tanarii

2022-09-17, 08:15 PM

It's weaponized when the DM says the party can rest there are no random dice rolls, but when the players decide to rest out come the dice.
Well then, that's not random encounters then is it? That's still DM fiat.

Otoh in that case, LTH as a ritual could still be considered very impactful to MSF strategies, as it may change player decision making as to when they decide to rest.

tokek

2022-09-18, 03:24 AM

True. It also impacts the type of adventure that happens by writing out huge portions of the world map.

I think it has really streamlined our game. We all want to get in with the plot so the DM let my ranger spend some of his insane wealth in a Voyager Staff.

Now we can safely return to any previously visited location without worrying about the travel. We’ve done travel, we did loads of it in lower tier play. We now want a world spanning tier 3 experience without the tedious filler because random encounters can’t credibly threaten a 15th level party without re-writing the world building.

The DM still has tools to make us travel if he wants to but mostly it’s been a pure upgrade to our game. We get to zip around engaging with NPCs and then onto the next challenge.

Selion

2022-09-18, 08:00 AM

1st detect magic/find familiar/goodberry
2nd suggestion/pass without trace
3rd counterspell/revivify/fireball
4th polymorph/Deathward
5th wall of force/teleportation circle /raise dead
6th mass suggestion /contingency
7h force cage/ plane shift /simulacrum /teleport
8th clone
9th wish /true polymorph /true resurrection

Pex

2022-09-18, 09:30 AM

In my experience the most game changing spell has been Pass Without Trace. It essentially means the party stealths successfully where ever we want to go. That wasn't a bad thing for the game. It was a facilitator to get where we need to go and deal with whatever plot we were supposed to deal with that adventure. We don't bypass the dungeon to get to the treasure room and BBEG. It's used to get past the scenery guards or travel from point A to point B without having to deal with a random creature/monster encounter that has nothing to do with anything we care about but we just don't feel like fighting them. It could be used on the scout just so we know what we're dealing with. It doesn't make whatever we will deal with any easier except for knowing what to expect is easier than going in blind. There's still no time for spellcasters to change spells, for example, but it's nice to know there are 10 orcs there to face rather than not knowing how many nor what foes.

Brookshw

2022-09-18, 11:17 AM

I think it has really streamlined our game. We all want to get in with the plot so the DM let my ranger spend some of his insane wealth in a Voyager Staff.

Now we can safely return to any previously visited location without worrying about the travel. We’ve done travel, we did loads of it in lower tier play. We now want a world spanning tier 3 experience without the tedious filler because random encounters can’t credibly threaten a 15th level party without re-writing the world building.

The DM still has tools to make us travel if he wants to but mostly it’s been a pure upgrade to our game. We get to zip around engaging with NPCs and then onto the next challenge.

All true. Personally I'd rather use teleportation circles and just not bother playing out the tedious filler (e.g., you arrive at the town of X and, while traveling, taught several groups of bandits the error of their ways). Where I find the spell disappointing is more that it can skip meaningful filler, encounters with fleeing peasantry who might have information or foreshadowing, movements of small armies relevant to unexpected changes in the political climate or other large organizations, or occasionally opportunities to lay out new hooks, you get the idea. Limiting the parties opportunity to interact with the world is rarely good in my mind, especially as when they get higher lever we can just edit out the parts that aren't worth table time.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-09-18, 11:38 AM

I run travel heavy games (in the sense that the average party covers a lot of ground during the campaign) and I've never minded teleport and friends. At least at the strategic layer. Because it gives me an opportunity to build more places, because they can go further. In fact, the "main" area of the setting has a network of permanent teleport circles that don't need spells at all--they're more like (ok, almost exactly like) planet-bound Stargates. You can use them to connect to any other gate OR any other permanent teleport circle you know of. Sure, the organization that controls them charges a fee. But it's smaller for adventurers (since they make their money off of taxing merchants), only something like 50 gp/person/use. Which means that even by T2, they can teleport between most of the major cities without even expending resources.

My main party just used banishment on themselves to get home from another plane where they ended up. But, as they learned, banishment is not plane shift. It doesn't specify where in
your home plane you end up. I was kind enough to let them all appear in the same place (despite being serially banished), but I chose the location based on what would be the most entertaining (for me :smallbiggrin:) and move things along properly. Which happened to be 2000 miles away from where they were, with them on a very tight deadline. Forcing them to make decisions--
* do they go along with the NPC whose plans are risky and involve them getting into deep politics in a very screwed up realm, with the promise that if they win, they get an express ride home within days
* or do they take the safe, but much slower, route being smuggled out of the area, leaving them substantially out of position.

Of course, most of my games are more about what they're trying to do, not whether they will succeed. Effectively the "let's explore the setting" mindset. There are interesting things happening everywhere, and anywhere you go is an excuse for me to figure out what's really there. And if you choose to be boring, well, enjoy being bored. But please don't do that.

Naanomi

2022-09-18, 12:06 PM

Teleport removes the ability to isolate different threads of the game geographically. Need to arm this militia against the zombie apocalypse? Without Teleport you are scavenging weapons, training peasants, laying out barricades...

With teleport... Well we saw a cache of weapons in that cave on continent A four months ago, and there was a whole fountain of holy water in the temple on island C when we were level 2... And doesn't that paladin and his knights owe us a favor? Someone go snatch them for the front lines

sithlordnergal

2022-09-18, 01:26 PM

KorvinStarmast

2022-09-18, 01:51 PM

That's why I like random rolls. The dice decide if there is an interruption, and the players know the odds in advance and can judge the risks.

You should be a fan. After all, clearly it stops tyrannical DMing. :smalltongue: A very usable approach.

I don't even see how it's possible to arrive at that cynical view. Once the rate is determined and communicated, they're random, not under DM control. The DM can't possibly be using it to "teach a lesson", since they don't control the timing. Yeah. Some days/nights there are no random encounters. Other times, there are. The world does things regardless of what the PCs are doing, D&D isn't a video game. Procedural generation of that kind is useful.

The actual purpose of a random encounter mechanic, when understood by both DMs and players, is to make time a meaningful resource that players can choose or not choose to spend.
I wish more folks would grasp the point you are making here. +1

"Why yes. Bears do in fact crap in the woods." One of my favorite random encounters in the last year, as DM, was two young red dragons flying by. They decided to poop on the PCs as they broke their camp, but only one person of four missed the dex save and ended up with dragon poop hitting them. (d8 bludgeoning).

It's a metagame scare tactic I don't care for. Paranoia is a thing. That's how that post came across.

My main party just used banishment on themselves to get home from another plane where they ended up. But, as they learned, banishment is not plane shift. It doesn't specify where in your home plane you end up. I was kind enough to let them all appear in the same place (despite being serially banished) This is why rulings over rules is such a great approach. (Note: I am a player in this game). This choice took the players' choice and made the result meaningful. (And yes, we now have to figure out how to get back home and prevent a coup or a regicide; no, we don't have plane shift, we don't have teleport...we have to work a deal, role play even!, to get back home once we deal with an imperial court trying us on trumped up charges ...).

I'll be honest, I've yet to run into a world changing spell. Heck, the only spell I've ever applied any sort of restriction to is Simulacrum, and even then its the AL rules for Simulacrum. Apply those, and Simulacrum and perfectly fine. Everything listed? Non-issues as far as I'm concerned. Yep.

Naanomi

2022-09-18, 02:09 PM

5eNeedsDarksun

2022-09-18, 02:43 PM

I dont think 'world changing' is the same as 'an issue'... You can't run the same kind of adventures when parties can teleport across the globe as you could when they couldn't. It isn't broken, but it just shift gameplay significantly

Yeah, I generally agree with this after thinking about what 'game changing' is. Our group likes the exploration pillar, and ready access to a variety of teleports, particularly the longer distance ones, trivializes some of what we like about D&D. We've never found combat particularly slanted towards casters as we get into tier 3, so it would be hard to argue specific combat spells are particularly transformative.

I think my conclusion is that the real game changers are teleport type spells, and not (for us) in a good way.

sithlordnergal

2022-09-18, 03:08 PM

I dont think 'world changing' is the same as 'an issue'... You can't run the same kind of adventures when parties can teleport across the globe as you could when they couldn't. It isn't broken, but it just shift gameplay significantly

I mean, I play plenty of high level and high optimized games, I've never really run into that issue with teleportation spells. Teleportation Circle is extremely limited, you can only use it to go to teleportation circles who's sigils you know. Teleport is handy, but unless you're teleporting to a circle or special object, then there's always a chance that you teleport to the wrong destination. And if its a place you've only scryed on or heard about, you have almost a 75% chance of ending up in the wrong place.

The only spells I've found that are accurate for long distance teleportation are Plane Shift and Gate, which lets you specify a target destination without ever visiting it. But they both require you to cast the spell twice, since they cannot take you to a location on the same plane that you're currently on. Meaning you'll either have to take a Long Rest to regain your spell slots, which might not be possible due to doomsday clock things, or you'll be out two high level spell slots before you even begin the proper dungeon/encounter.

I find players will really only choose long distance teleportation if:

A) You're on such a strict timer that you can't possibly reach the destination in time via normal means. I'm talking "The dragon is attacking the city RIGHT NOW and we are halfway across the world" sort of time crunch

B) Its on a different plane of existence, which requires teleportation to reach anyway

or

C) If you're heading back to some stronghold with a teleportation circle after the adventure is complete in order to rest

PhoenixPhyre

2022-09-18, 03:29 PM

As for me, I'm working on an overhaul that makes strategic-level teleportation more common by moving it, plane shift, and teleport circle off of spell lists entirely and making them just "things anyone of an appropriate level can learn to do", balanced by something other than spell slots. So now I can just assume that a 13th level party will have access to it if they want, regardless of whether it's 4 rogues, 4 wizards, or whatever. Instead of having to have
* a sorcerer wizard or bard
* who decided to pick that spell as one they know
* and (in the case of the wizard) has prepared it today
* and has a spell slot available for it.

In return, it takes a minute to cast where you can't move and you can only cast it once every 8 hours (for teleport itself). Want back-to-back teleports? Better have a lot of people with the Incantation (which costs cash or quest rewards to get) or have an item like a Helm of Teleportation.

solidork

2022-09-18, 04:52 PM

And if its a place you've only scryed on or heard about, you have almost a 75% chance of ending up in the wrong place.

Places you can currently see count as "very familiar", so at our table actively Scrying on a place made it pretty accurate. It was a whole production to pull off for our party though - we had to swap out who was attuned to the Ring of Spell Storing since our teleporter (sorcerer) didn't have Scrying.

KorvinStarmast

2022-09-18, 05:13 PM

sithlordnergal

2022-09-18, 07:56 PM

Places you can currently see count as "very familiar", so at our table actively Scrying on a place made it pretty accurate. It was a whole production to pull off for our party though - we had to swap out who was attuned to the Ring of Spell Storing since our teleporter (sorcerer) didn't have Scrying.

You might wanna relook at Scrying and Teleportation then. To quote Scrying, "You can see and hear through the sensor as if you were there." If you're busy scrying something, you can see that area and hear what's going on around there, but you cannot see anyone or anything around your actual location.

Meanwhile Teleport states "This spell instantly transports you and up to eight willing Creatures of your choice that you can see within range, or a single object that you can see within range".

In order to Teleport anyone or anything, you have to be able to see them, and they have to be within 10 feet of you. You can't actually see them if you're scrying on somewhere else, and have to stop scrying the spot in order to cast Teleport on anyone other than yourself. At which point you fall into the "Viewed Once" category.

Amnestic

2022-09-19, 03:25 AM

You might wanna relook at Scrying and Teleportation then. To quote Scrying, "You can see and hear through the sensor as if you were there." If you're busy scrying something, you can see that area and hear what's going on around there, but you cannot see anyone or anything around your actual location.

Disagree. Scrying says you can see and hear as if you're actually there, but doesn't state you are effectively blinded/deafened otherwise like seeing through a familiar's senses does:

While your familiar is within 100 feet of you, you can communicate with it telepathically. Additionally, as an Action, you can see through your familiar's eyes and hear what it hears until the start of your next turn, gaining the benefits of any Special Senses that the familiar has. During this time, you are deaf and blind with regard to your own Senses.

From that difference in wording it's a perfectly fair inference that you can both see and hear via the scrying sensor and your own senses simultaneously. At the very least it shouldn't be taken as fact that you can't, and it should be clarified with the DM.

sithlordnergal

2022-09-19, 04:45 AM

Disagree. Scrying says you can see and hear as if you're actually there, but doesn't state you are effectively blinded/deafened otherwise like seeing through a familiar's senses does:

From that difference in wording it's a perfectly fair inference that you can both see and hear via the scrying sensor and your own senses simultaneously. At the very least it shouldn't be taken as fact that you can't, and it should be clarified with the DM.

I dunno...given no-one else can see through the sensor but you, and you're presumably scrying something far away, I don't think you'd be able to see your surroundings when scrying, as you're seeing things as if you were standing where the sensor is. Which does make it a lot riskier to scry on things, since you can't see or hear what's going on around you.

tokek

2022-09-19, 04:58 AM

I dont think 'world changing' is the same as 'an issue'... You can't run the same kind of adventures when parties can teleport across the globe as you could when they couldn't. It isn't broken, but it just shift gameplay significantly

Exactly this - but I've never felt the game should stay the same as you go up the levels so high tier parties bybassing mundane travel to focus on things that feel more like high level challenges.

The DM can still convey information incidentally. Ours has it relayed to us from our allies and from things we see when we arrive places - such as refugees from the war for example.

Amnestic

2022-09-19, 05:49 AM

I dunno...given no-one else can see through the sensor but you, and you're presumably scrying something far away, I don't think you'd be able to see your surroundings when scrying, as you're seeing things as if you were standing where the sensor is. Which does make it a lot riskier to scry on things, since you can't see or hear what's going on around you.

Yes, you can rule that way. But the spell doesn't say it does, like Find Familiar does. Since the focus is a crystal ball, a silver mirror, or a font of holy water I kinda assumed that the images/sounds the sensor was seeing/hearing would be projected onto/through that, even if only to you, as shown in this previous edition art:
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/7/75/Scrying_%28spell%29.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/350?cb=20220131025507

Selion

2022-09-19, 07:21 AM

I'll be honest, I've yet to run into a world changing spell. Heck, the only spell I've ever applied any sort of restriction to is Simulacrum, and even then its the AL rules for Simulacrum. Apply those, and Simulacrum and perfectly fine. Everything listed? Non-issues as far as I'm concerned.

World changing and game breaking are two different concepts.
While a good (a very good) DM could balance almost everything with wise encounter designs and world building, some spells project low fantasy toward a high fantasy setting.
The very existence of something like teleport, raise dead, disguise self and suggestion change the way the world works. Most high nobility palaces should be protected against scrying and teleportation, as well as in most courts there should be some occasional inspections with the use of true sight (better solution would be taming a lil beholder for the task <3 )
As an example, in pathfinder there is an assassin guild whose members use to plant needles inside the body of their victims, so that if they are eventually resurrected they would suffer terrible pain and injuries.

Naanomi

2022-09-19, 08:24 AM

KorvinStarmast

2022-09-19, 08:55 AM

Yes, you can rule that way. But the spell doesn't say it does, like Find Familiar does. Since the focus is a crystal ball, a silver mirror, or a font of holy water I kinda assumed that the images/sounds the sensor was seeing/hearing would be projected onto/through that, even if only to you, as shown in this previous edition art:
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/7/75/Scrying_%28spell%29.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/350?cb=20220131025507
I'm with Amnestic on this. We have tended to treat scrying the way Xykon ha (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0037.html)s, like you are watching TV or a movie screen. You are still aware of what is around you locally, just as when I am watching a football game I am still aware of my dog scratching himself or my wife asking me to do something productive rather than watch that. :smallyuk:

tokek

2022-09-19, 10:40 AM

I'm with Amnestic on this. We have tended to treat scrying the way Xykon ha (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0037.html)s, like you are watching TV or a movie screen. You are still aware of what is around you locally, just as when I am watching a football game I am still aware of my dog scratching himself or my wife asking me to do something productive rather than watch that. :smallyuk:

I have always seen it played as gazing into the material component - which is a crystal ball, mirror or font of holy water. I have never seen it played in a way that blinds the caster to their own surroundings.

LudicSavant

2022-09-19, 12:08 PM

Force cage is fine if you actually enforce & track the 1500gp per cast material component

Forcecage’s component isn’t “per cast” to begin with.

Tanarii

2022-09-19, 02:00 PM

I dunno...given no-one else can see through the sensor but you, and you're presumably scrying something far away, I don't think you'd be able to see your surroundings when scrying, as you're seeing things as if you were standing where the sensor is. Which does make it a lot riskier to scry on things, since you can't see or hear what's going on around you.
Agreed. You can't see something remotely while scrying and still see around you. Unless you want the information overlayed in your mind and confusing a all heck. And especially since arcane eye & scrying give 360 degree detection around the scrying point, which is already going to overwhelm the caster enough.

Amnestic

2022-09-19, 02:16 PM

Agreed. You can't see something remotely while scrying and still see around you. Unless you want the information overlayed in your mind and confusing a all heck. And especially since arcane eye & scrying give 360 degree detection around the scrying point, which is already going to overwhelm the caster enough.

Are there any other spells out there that blind and deafen the caster despite saying nothing about it?

Maybe Mirage Arcane - clearly crafting the audio, visual, olfactory and textile sensations of terrain would be overwhelming, so they should probably be blinded, deafened, and have their sense of smell removed during the casting.

sithlordnergal

2022-09-19, 02:20 PM

I'm with Amnestic on this. We have tended to treat scrying the way Xykon ha (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0037.html)s, like you are watching TV or a movie screen. You are still aware of what is around you locally, just as when I am watching a football game I am still aware of my dog scratching himself or my wife asking me to do something productive rather than watch that. :smallyuk:

Huh, I've always read, run, and played it as if you couldn't see your surroundings. Sure, you look like you're just staring into it, but your senses are basically where ever the sensor is. Less Xykon, and more like looking into the Palantiri in the Lord of the Rings movies, where people really aren't super aware of their surroundings.

Heh, might have been unintentionally nerfing scry n' die tactics.

sithlordnergal

2022-09-19, 02:23 PM

I don't think skipping travel is what can make teleport strong. It is gaining access to every plot point and special location you've ever put in your campaign. You can't make a secret pool that can resurrect people that the party quests for to raise the dead princess at level 3... At least not with a bunch of limitations... Unless you are prepared for the party to have free resurrections at will the moment they get teleport

I meeean, you'd better be prepared to have that spring used as much as possible if the party can access it at all. If you can reach it once via mundane level 3 travel, you can reach it again via mundane level 6 travel, and magical level 12 travel. Better to have it have a major cost then try to hide it.

Naanomi

2022-09-19, 02:33 PM

I meeean, you'd better be prepared to have that spring used as much as possible if the party can access it at all. If you can reach it once via mundane level 3 travel, you can reach it again via mundane level 6 travel, and magical level 12 travel. Better to have it have a major cost then try to hide it.
If the course of the adventure takes you a continent away, then it might as well have been single use... Until teleport gets you back with minimal opportunity cost and without the dangerous hike through wyvern infested mountains the first time you showed up

sithlordnergal

2022-09-19, 03:13 PM

If the course of the adventure takes you a continent away, then it might as well have been single use... Until teleport gets you back with minimal opportunity cost and without the dangerous hike through wyvern infested mountains the first time you showed up

Not really...unless you're have something to prevent the party from heading back to that country, like a strict timer that doesn't give them enough time to go back and forth, then there's really not a ton that would prevent them from going back. Especially since they should eventually be able to have enough gold to find passage back to that spring. I have had parties decide to just turn around and leave an entire country in order to restock something special that can only be bought in one place. XD

Naanomi

2022-09-19, 03:21 PM

Not really...unless you're have something to prevent the party from heading back to that country, like a strict timer that doesn't give them enough time to go back and forth, then there's really not a ton that would prevent them from going back. Especially since they should eventually be able to have enough gold to find passage back to that spring. I have had parties decide to just turn around and leave an entire country in order to restock something special that can only be bought in one place. XD
I've found that even without a real strict time limit, parties are loath to travel 8 months round trip (including paying for ship passage etc)away from the current place of focus for something

Again I'm not saying it is broken, just that it changes the way the game is played

sithlordnergal

2022-09-19, 03:34 PM

I've found that even without a real strict time limit, parties are loath to travel 8 months round trip (including paying for ship passage etc)away from the current place of focus for something

Again I'm not saying it is broken, just that it changes the way the game is played

Guess it depends on the party. I've had parties that have literally stopped everything in order to aid, save, or revive either a party member or an NPC they liked. Heck, I had one party decide to stop everything they were doing to try and find a way to revive the soul of a dead NPC they never met that was sealed in a bar of iron. They didn't know the NPC, they had no reason to help the NPC, they just found out the NPC was in agony, went "Screw it, our friend's been kidnapped by a vampire for about a month and a half, they can wait half a month longer" and researched how to release and ressurect some random NPC. Because they could. XwX

EDIT: I should note, they know the Vampire won't kill their friend cause their friend is too valuable. Hence why they didn't mind letting their friend wait for a month

Telok

2022-09-19, 07:38 PM

Forcecage’s component isn’t “per cast” to begin with.

Uh, "VSM(ruby dust worth 1500 gp)" is what I'm reading couple places. Is that wrong?

PhoenixPhyre

2022-09-19, 07:44 PM

Uh, "VSM(ruby dust worth 1500 gp)" is what I'm reading couple places. Is that wrong?

Normally, don't spells say "that the spell consumes" or something if it's not a static (ie 1 time) cost?

For example, here's the line for True Resurrection: "a sprinkle of holy water and diamonds worth at least 25,000 gp, which the spell consumes"

Witty Username

2022-09-19, 07:49 PM

Normally, don't spells say "that the spell consumes" or something if it's not a static (ie 1 time) cost?

For example, here's the line for True Resurrection: "a sprinkle of holy water and diamonds worth at least 25,000 gp, which the spell consumes"

Aspiring rogues, remember the biggest scores are high level casters.

Rukelnikov

2022-09-19, 08:10 PM

Aspiring rogues, remember the biggest scores are high level casters.

High leve characters i ngeneral, and that's been one of my gripes with dnd for a long time, but I don't really know how to adress it, beyond making magic stuff commonplace, and I don't wanna do that.

Tanarii

2022-09-19, 08:44 PM

Normally, don't spells say "that the spell consumes" or something if it's not a static (ie 1 time) cost?

For example, here's the line for True Resurrection: "a sprinkle of holy water and diamonds worth at least 25,000 gp, which the spell consumes"

Yes. A common error is assuming costly components are consumed, and sometimes correspondingly that ones with no cost are not consumed. Spells state if the component is consumed, cost or no cost.

Witty Username

2022-09-19, 08:46 PM

Which is why Summon Greater Demon is good rather than nearly useless.

LudicSavant

2022-09-19, 08:51 PM

Uh, "VSM(ruby dust worth 1500 gp)" is what I'm reading couple places. Is that wrong?

You can use the ruby dust as many times as you like.

The material component doesn't get used up unless the spell specifically says so.

Telok

2022-09-19, 11:21 PM

You can use the ruby dust as many times as you like.

The material component doesn't get used up unless the spell specifically says so.

Huh. Thats a weirdly subtle buff for casters. Is it called out specifically anywhere? I could see, given wotc editorial practices, different people writing from different drafts and nobody proofreading.

And I'm not talking about if it says the materials are consumed or not anywhere. I'm asking if there was any given reasoning for particular spells changing from every previous edition. The genstone dust has forever been consumed components across all editions until this.

Lucas Yew

2022-09-19, 11:45 PM

You can use the ruby dust as many times as you like.

The material component doesn't get used up unless the spell specifically says so.

Wow, I never realized this before. Force Cage definitely needs limitations, like getting a HP and AC statistics to be hacked away at to crack, or such.

sithlordnergal

2022-09-20, 12:01 AM

Wow, I never realized this before. Force Cage definitely needs limitations, like getting a HP and AC statistics to be hacked away at to crack, or such.

I mean, the limitation is that its a 7th level spell, and you can only contain 10 to 20ft. And at 20ft in diameter, you have .5 inch gaps to fire things through. Disintegrate also automatically destroys it, since Disintegrate states "If the target is a Huge or larger object or creation of force, this spell disintegrates a 10-foot-cube portion of it." I also can't find anything that would prevent Anti-Magic Fields from breaking it.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-09-20, 12:23 AM

I mean, the limitation is that its a 7th level spell, and you can only contain 10 to 20ft. And at 20ft in diameter, you have .5 inch gaps to fire things through. Disintegrate also automatically destroys it, since Disintegrate states "If the target is a Huge or larger object or creation of force, this spell disintegrates a 10-foot-cube portion of it." I also can't find anything that would prevent Anti-Magic Fields from breaking it.

So... Basically if you're a wizard, you're fine. Otherwise you're sol. Only 2 classes get either of those spells. And not many NPCs. Including a lot of Large or smaller ones.

So yes, I'd say "takes almost every Large or smaller monster out of the fight without a save and they can still be shot to death, all for a cheap cost" is slightly on the strong side. Even compared to many 8th level spells and a few 9ths. Oh, and basically wizard only. Oh, and not even concentration.

LudicSavant

2022-09-20, 12:30 AM

Huh. Thats a weirdly subtle buff for casters. Is it called out specifically anywhere?

Player's Handbook, page 203. The section that tells you what a material component is.

It's not a buff, and it's not subtle. Material components have always worked this way, since the day 5e was released.

I could see, given wotc editorial practices, different people writing from different drafts and nobody proofreading.

And I'm not talking about if it says the materials are consumed or not anywhere. I'm asking if there was any given reasoning for particular spells changing from every previous edition. The genstone dust has forever been consumed components across all editions until this.

You shouldn't assume that things in 5e work like they do in a previous edition to begin with.

In the words of Kane0, on the subject of teaching new players 5e (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=22708458&postcount=8):
"Golden Rule: Thou shalt not assume to know that which shares a name
Sneak attack works differently. Protection from Evil works differently. Critical hits work differently. Do not skim over things that look familiar because they are almost all different"

Telok

2022-09-20, 01:05 AM

Player's Handbook, page 203. The section that tells you what a material component is.

It's not a buff, and it's not subtle. Material components have always worked this way, since the day 5e was released.

Why are you assuming that something works like it does in a previous edition to begin with? That's a good way to be wrong frequently.

Dude, I explicitly said that wasn't what I was asking. Try again.

Having checked, there are three spells I found in 5e with powdered gems that don't consume. Force cage, forbiddance, and programmed image. All other spells with powdered gems consume in 5e, a dozen of them I saw. In previous editions those three spells also, like all the others with powdered gem components, consumed the powdered gems.

I doubt anyone said "hey force cage needs a little buff, lets make it not consume the powder thats a good buff". I'm seeing a pattern where all spells with powdered gems from od&d through 5e except these three consume the powder, and these three only because someone had to go through and tag each spell with new specific language and these didn't get the update. I'm calling it as missed editing/proofing. You all can argue about it but I see a pattern in both the history of the spells and 5e's... I'll be nice... less than stellar quality control. I've made my call, peace out.

Ok, for being a completionist I had to check 4e too. Couldn't find the programmed image spell, forbiddance had a 5kgp cost (same ol stuff), forcecage was a level 27 daily but no combat powers could ever have any cost under the 4e framework as I understand it. So I'm calling 4e a wash for its magic being so mechanically alien to everything before and after.

LudicSavant

2022-09-20, 01:58 AM

Dude, I explicitly said that wasn't what I was asking. Try again.

Having checked, there are three spells I found in 5e with powdered gems that don't consume. Force cage, forbiddance, and programmed image. All other spells with powdered gems consume in 5e, a dozen of them I saw. In previous editions those three spells also, like all the others with powdered gem components, consumed the powdered gems.

I doubt anyone said "hey force cage needs a little buff, lets make it not consume the powder thats a good buff". I'm seeing a pattern where all spells with powdered gems from od&d through 5e except these three consume the powder, and these three only because someone had to go through and tag each spell with new specific language and these didn't get the update. I'm calling it as missed editing/proofing. You all can argue about it but I see a pattern in both the history of the spells and 5e's... I'll be nice... less than stellar quality control. I've made my call, peace out.

Ok, for being a completionist I had to check 4e too. Couldn't find the programmed image spell, forbiddance had a 5kgp cost (same ol stuff), forcecage was a level 27 daily but no combat powers could ever have any cost under the 4e framework as I understand it. So I'm calling 4e a wash for its magic being so mechanically alien to everything before and after.

You're unlikely to find a public dev statement on the rationale for every tidbit of rule in 5e. But what I can tell you (again) is that generally speaking, it is not a safe assumption that X works a certain way (or was 'supposed to' work a certain way) just because it did in (insert different edition).

MrStabby

2022-09-20, 03:42 AM

Dude, I explicitly said that wasn't what I was asking. Try again.

Having checked, there are three spells I found in 5e with powdered gems that don't consume. Force cage, forbiddance, and programmed image. All other spells with powdered gems consume in 5e, a dozen of them I saw. In previous editions those three spells also, like all the others with powdered gem components, consumed the powdered gems.

I doubt anyone said "hey force cage needs a little buff, lets make it not consume the powder thats a good buff". I'm seeing a pattern where all spells with powdered gems from od&d through 5e except these three consume the powder, and these three only because someone had to go through and tag each spell with new specific language and these didn't get the update. I'm calling it as missed editing/proofing. You all can argue about it but I see a pattern in both the history of the spells and 5e's... I'll be nice... less than stellar quality control. I've made my call, peace out.

Ok, for being a completionist I had to check 4e too. Couldn't find the programmed image spell, forbiddance had a 5kgp cost (same ol stuff), forcecage was a level 27 daily but no combat powers could ever have any cost under the 4e framework as I understand it. So I'm calling 4e a wash for its magic being so mechanically alien to everything before and after.

Well i depends what you count as a "gem" - circle of death for example doesn't consume the black pearl and imprisonment doesn't use up gemsused to cast it but does prevent multiple simultanious uses.

KorvinStarmast

2022-09-20, 08:53 AM

I'm calling it as missed editing/proofing...less than stellar quality control. Most likely explanation, since they had more than one person working on various projects. (And IMO the consumption would have been the better idea). I do like Identify not consuming the pearl, though.

Witty Username

2022-09-20, 04:04 PM

Things to complain, in the surveys for new phb content if it is still there.

Person_Man

2022-09-20, 06:05 PM

Costly material components are a bad holdover from early editions. Magic users were intentionally much more powerful, but had lots of drawbacks; low hit points, lack of at-will abilities, crud to do at low levels, lack of armor and weapon proficiency, inability to use many magic items, higher xp cost to level up, resting requirements which were significantly longer, dealing with spell resistance which was really hard to beat, slow casting speeds which could be interrupted, various other ways you could prevent or counter spellcasting, and verbal, somatic, and material components, which gave the DM additional ways to stop or tax most spells. These balanced the game quite well, particularly in classic hidden map gameplay where gp = xp, you weren’t expected to clear every dungeon, and your goal was to maximize treasure and maybe accomplish some plot points before you used up all your spells and most of your hit points or died, which was much more common and expected.

Over time the metric ton of drawbacks were mostly but not entirely discarded, because people complained that they were difficult and not fun. This culminated in 3.5E where spellcasting was almost entirely candy with few drawbacks if you owned the right splat books and spent enough time on the forums. Which in turn led to the over correction of 4E (and its backlash) which balanced slmost everything and heavily taxed all of the really potent rituals. (Such that they were rarely used - which was probably the point). Followed by the return to form of 5E. Which has much more careful game design at low to mid levels (mostly fixing the main problem - at those levels). While still keeping some of the previous balancing factors - primarily for simulationist reasons - but also to give DMs a way to prevent or hold back certain spells if the really really want to. (Sorry kids - no diamonds in this town - you’re going to have to play through 30 hours of plot before you get to the city).

TLDR: Costly material components have been in every edition of D&D, and were kept in 5E for the sake of tradition and to let DMs tax of deny certain spells if they really want to.

Bardon

2022-09-22, 05:21 PM

For those GM's finding Banishment a troublesome issue, don't forget that material component requirement of "an item distasteful to the target".

Different creatures find different things distasteful, so this is an opportunity for your party to research if they want to Banish a BBEG and a big surprise when they try it with the wrong component: "Dung? I *ADORE* dung!" :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

Witty Username

2022-09-22, 05:35 PM

Most casters can replace the components of banishment with a Focus. That rule would only apply to rangers (only monster Slayer rangers at that).

Kane0

2022-09-22, 06:57 PM

5eNeedsDarksun

2022-09-22, 11:16 PM

Special mention for the categories of spells that just ruin certain types of game. Goodberry in a survival game, Detect X and Speak with Y in a mystery/intrigue game, flight and teleportation on a long and difficult journey, and so on.

Lesser Restoration is pretty much a 'don't worry about the pandemic' spell at level 3. If you have a Paly around then level 1. There are a lot of types of challenges/ games that can be undone by very low level abilities.
I suppose you can always rule that the teleports don't work in place X, speak with Y doesn't work on this particular creature, the cure doesn't work on disease Z, and Revivify.... At some point though, having to repeatedly do this at such low levels strains immersion and gets old fast. Too many of these spells/ abilities come on way too early.

LudicSavant

2022-09-22, 11:48 PM

Lesser Restoration is pretty much a 'don't worry about the pandemic' spell at level 3.

Not to mention Detect Disease, as a level 1 ritual! Accurate diagnosis of any disease, even one that might not be displaying symptoms? An epidemiologist's dream. It would completely change the world.

What makes it really extreme is how scalable it is. You could scan an assembled crowd in a matter of minutes, accurately identifying any health issues all of them might have. This puts modern diagnostic medicine completely to shame. And with good diagnosis, you get good control of diseases before they even become a widespread problem, able to use targeted preventative measures before you even have to worry about calling up the guy capable of casting Lesser Restoration.

stoutstien

2022-09-23, 04:36 AM

So... Basically if you're a wizard, you're fine. Otherwise you're sol. Only 2 classes get either of those spells. And not many NPCs. Including a lot of Large or smaller ones.

So yes, I'd say "takes almost every Large or smaller monster out of the fight without a save and they can still be shot to death, all for a cheap cost" is slightly on the strong side. Even compared to many 8th level spells and a few 9ths. Oh, and basically wizard only. Oh, and not even concentration.

Speaking of which have you had a chance to play test some of your suggested changed to those barrier type spell effects so they are breakable or at least temporarily weakened?

animorte

2022-09-23, 05:37 AM

Not to mention Detect Disease, as a level 1 ritual! Accurate diagnosis of any disease, even one that might not be displaying symptoms? An epidemiologist's dream. It would completely change the world.

What makes it really extreme is how scalable it is. You could scan an assembled crowd in a matter of minutes, accurately identifying any health issues all of them might have. This puts modern diagnostic medicine completely to shame.
What are you talking about? You almost literally just described the temperature-check-prior-to-entry. :smallbiggrin:

There are a lot of types of challenges/ games that can be undone by very low level abilities.... At some point though, having to repeatedly do this at such low levels strains immersion and gets old fast. Too many of these spells/ abilities come on way too early.
Low level spells can often be seriously underrated. This reminds me of a campaign some time ago. I don’t remember the premise of the world, but it was closer to a low magic setting than the average (homebrew of course):

There were absolutely no full casters allowed. This also meant that things like Blessed Warrior, Druidic Warrior, and Magic Initiate were unavailable because those classes did not exist. It was honestly one of the best experiences I’ve ever had with D&D. That is precisely the reason I’ve opted for this style of game at various points within these here threads.

Willie the Duck

2022-09-23, 07:59 AM

General points:
The most genuinely 'Game Changing' spells are indeed the ones that let you do new things like bring people back from the dead (and remove diseases, curses, etc.), get to (or readily to, or readily back to) new places, or learn things you otherwise wouldn't know. 'World Changing' would be any of these (just in general if you're raising/truth-checking/etc. movers and shakers, but moreso if it can become ubiquitous).

Scrying(&Fry), Conjure Animals, etc. -- a lot of spells like these work acceptably if the DM takes the most restrictive interpretation of how they work -- you can't see your friends to teleport them and the location through scrying (letting you teleport with category 'Very Familiar') at the same time, chance or the DM determines what animals you conjure, etc.; but do start to be disruptive if with more lenient interpretations. Completely regardless of which interpretation is best supported by RAW, I think it is unfortunate that so much hinges on that interpretation. Some of those spells could have been written better to obviate the need for that being the deciding factor as to whether the spell might run away with the game (or game balance, intra-group balance, etc.).

Material components -- given that no two groups seem to agree on how frequently one runs into the situation of high level characters with more money than ways to spend it, expensive material components is not nearly as good a balancing factor as it was when GP spent on equipment detracted from GP spent on training for level-up (up to name level, where it then got spent on castles and armies, at least in theory).

Force cage and force wall (and Leodmund's Hut)-- the decision to make such creations effectively indestructible and un-circumventable except for specific spells was a decision. One they easily could have done otherwise and made them less glaring as examples of things where the game plays differently with casters in the party. Let the Champion Fighter be able to bust force cage like a normal prison, let the high acrobatics rogue slip through the bars. Heck, let dispel magic (needing a level check unless they spend a 7th level slot on the dispel) take care of it. Let the enemies break into a Leodmund's hut like a real building (just as a defensible position, it's still worthwhile as a 3rd level spell, much less one you can cast as a ritual).

Anyways, on to the main points --

My reason for asking is twofold--
1) I keep hearing that high level play is "so different" and casters are "so much more powerful" and that utility magic means that non-casters just can't even conceivably contribute to "actual" challenges at those levels.
2) but when I read the high-level spells, I go...wait. This is just a low level spell, but with bigger numbers. Except for a very few of them, most of which are only of that strategic scale when cheesed (wish/sim loops for instance).

Effectively, I'm asking "am I crazy? Or are high-level casters basically low-level casters but with bigger numbers?" (modulo some wizard cheese). Sure, they can stomp individual encounters. But they don't have any way of projecting force beyond their presence or really reshaping the world. There's no scaling--you can dominate one person, but even then you have to remain in close proximity and it can be trivially dispelled. And that's about as "civilization changing" as you get. There are some spells that work really well for NPCs or for PCs defending their own bases, but don't really do much otherwise. As well as plot-level spells (dream of the blue veil, for instance) that only work if the DM actively gives you the pieces. I'm chasing down an idea that most of the perceived caster power is some combination of
1) multiclassing/feats letting them avoid their weaknesses too easily
2) hangover from playstyles and DM'ing styles of previous editions (ie "magic or go away", letting spells do things well beyond their stated bounds and holding non-spells to a very tight reign)
3) a (relatively) few just outright badly written spells that cause easy cheese.

Fundamentally, I do not think it is mostly just a hangover from previous editions, although some of the language used certainly hasn't changed to match 5e specifically (ex. 'It's hard to balance the guy who can run up and hit someone with a sword many times against someone who can create Earthquakes and Demiplanes' made more sense when those were actually good spells). It is, however, conflated with a whole bunch of other issues surrounding spellcasters, non-spellcasters, and gameplay in general (and since this is an aggregation of individual positions of massively multiple people, there's going to be a whole lot of individual variation).

Firstly, I think it is worth mentioning/repeating that there are a number of spells* which are just a little too overtuned, or take too big a chunk out of someone else's role -- Conjure Animals, Edritch Blast**, Forcecage, Goodberry, Healing Word, Insight, Pass without Trace, Polymorph, Shield*** -- either there are unintended consequences or they make you almost as good as what a ______ (other class) spends a huge amount of build capital doing or something like that. This is real, and isn't limited to just spells that completely change the game (Animate Dead probably fits, even though a party with it does the same things as a party without it, they just can take on more foes and the party fighters contribute a lessor proportion of the combat success). I think a lot of times 'the wizard just solved the boss-encounter' gets comingled with 'magic completely changes the game' in a way that feels like hyperbole predominantly because it is (but hyperbole is not always inappropriate, check rest of conversation).
*even leaving out things which generally get recognized as unintended rules Cheeze like Wish-Simulacrum loops
**with agonizing blast invocation
***over reasonable AC through various means

Secondly, I think the feats/dips to avoid vulnerabilities are a real issue. War Caster and Resilient:Con and a 1 level dip to get heavy(/medium&14Dex) armor and shield proficiency is really easy. As is (if you want to fight, rather than just survive) picking bladesinger, hexblade, valor/swords bard, or cha-hybrid. The later of which (barring next point) don't really compare with a full-on barbarian/fighter/paladin in laying down the smack, but they come close enough that them getting to do so, which also having a huge number of things to do out of combat, can be really frustrating.

Thirdly are the rest frequency issues. I think everyone knows the drill on this one so I don't need to go too in depth in the explanation -- At even 9th level, a full-caster can cast 14 (more if wizard, land druid, sorcerer who converts sorcery points, etc.) levelled spells between long rests, and groups have trouble getting in enough encounters per long rest to make that a restrictive limitation (one where they spend several rounds doing worse* at-wills than other classes to balance out the levelled spell rounds). This is one where I don't have quite so much sympathy, but at the same time do (it's complicated). On one hand, the game/devs foresaw this issue and put nice, clear, concise guidance in the DMG that I keep hearing no one reads with both rules** and suggestions on what to do when your play style doesn't match the default. On the other hand, people pick magic users so that they get to use magic, and thus balancing them against other character types by tightly constraining the magic use is (and always has been***) something that hasn't always worked well.
*and exactly how worse those at-wills are is still up for debate, see above point about bladesingers and so on.
** And I have certainly seen some 'but those are optional rules, so they don't count.'-kind of language thrown around, and I don't have sympathy with that notion.
*** even back in oD&D, there was discussion in Alarums and Excursions and such as to whether the 'powerful but limited use' model was the best option.

I think those basic issues people have with casters (and caster vs. other class balance) are (almost always) part of the discussion about high level magic, even when the specific topic of a discussion is about game-changing spells at certain tiers.

LudicSavant

2022-09-23, 01:15 PM

What are you talking about? You almost literally just described the temperature-check-prior-to-entry. :smallbiggrin:

No. A temperature check is not even remotely close to what that ritual accomplishes. It’s not even in the same damn galaxy.

A temperature check doesn’t give you the ability to perfectly accurately diagnose all ailments — even completely asymptomatic ones — of hundreds or potentially even thousands of people in a matter of minutes.

It would be difficult for anything to even become a pandemic in the first place if we had diagnostics this absurdly good.

This level of diagnostic accuracy would totally change the world.

RogueJK

2022-09-23, 01:20 PM

Most casters can replace the components of banishment with a Focus. That rule would only apply to rangers (only monster Slayer rangers at that).

It doesn't even apply to Rangers now... In TCoE, they gained the ability to use a druidic focus as a spellcasting focus for Ranger spells.

Amnestic

2022-09-23, 02:00 PM

No. A temperature check is not even remotely close to what that ritual accomplishes. It’s not even in the same damn galaxy.

A temperature check doesn’t give you the ability to perfectly accurately diagnose all ailments — even completely asymptomatic ones — of hundreds or potentially even thousands of people in a matter of minutes.

It would be difficult for anything to even become a pandemic in the first place if we had diagnostics this absurdly good.

This level of diagnostic accuracy would totally change the world.

While it's very good I would note that the spell only tells you what the disease's name is. It doesn't tell you its effects, how it spreads, or anything like that. That sorta stuff probably falls under an Int (Medicine) check, and for some diseases (if they're newly created ones) the check might be impossible. Not to get 'real' for a moment but it could take many months or years to work out how a disease actually spreads.

Not to mention gathering people to test could end up spreading it all on its own.

Still, hard to deny it's useful when disease spreading is in play.

KorvinStarmast

2022-09-23, 02:06 PM

Not to mention Detect Disease, as a level 1 ritual! Accurate diagnosis of any disease, even one that might not be displaying symptoms? An epidemiologist's dream. It would completely change the world. It's magic. The non spell way to do this is a medicine check with a DC based on how tricky a disease is, person by person.

This level of diagnostic accuracy would totally change the world. Right. It's magic. So the world has less of a problem of plagues than 14th century Europe, but there are plenty of other population thinners (necromancers, werewolves, cults that engage in human sacrifice, demon lords, mind flayers, skeletons walking around and killing things mindlessly) that the food resources are not overstressed.

And in a pinch, you can get some murderhoboes to cull the herd now and again. :smallyuk:

animorte

2022-09-23, 02:27 PM

No. A temperature check is not even remotely close to what that ritual accomplishes. It’s not even in the same damn galaxy.
First, I would like to apologize for not putting my statement in blue, as it was intended to be amusing.

Second, the technical descriptor below is what I was actually referring to.

You could scan an assembled crowd in a matter of minutes…

You see, I’m not completely ridiculous. Obviously the magic we’re referring to is exponentially better.

Person_Man

2022-09-23, 02:53 PM

Special mention for the categories of spells that just ruin certain types of game. Goodberry in a survival game, Detect X and Speak with Y in a mystery/intrigue game, flight and teleportation on a long and difficult journey, and so on.

I agree. These spells exist to give players and DMs an in-game way to ignore bookkeeping requirements they don’t like. But a better way would be to make the food, travel time, languages, and other simulationist stuff optional rules. Make part of game zero be a conversation about whether the players find such things fun or not. And if not, don’t use these rules. But if so, it just seems silly to have spells that basically bypass the rules you’ve chosen to play with.

LudicSavant

2022-09-23, 03:14 PM

While it's very good I would note that the spell only tells you what the disease's name is. It doesn't tell you its effects, how it spreads, or anything like that. That sorta stuff probably falls under an Int (Medicine) check, and for some diseases (if they're newly created ones) the check might be impossible. Not to get 'real' for a moment but it could take many months or years to work out how a disease actually spreads.

Not to mention gathering people to test could end up spreading it all on its own.

Even in the case of some newly-emergent disease of which you know nothing, study of said disease would progress far more rapidly since you'd be able to readily identify the point that 'not infected' transforms into 'infected.' And you wouldn't need to waste your time or muddle your data with false positives. Nor would your best-trained health care workers be in severe danger of succumbing to the disease (because they can cure a disease even if they don't know what it is). Moreover, general-purpose tools like quarantine would become much more efficient, right from the get-go (for example, among other things, you could just let anyone who passes a scan out of the quarantine zone, which in turn makes it far easier to enforce a quarantine on the remainder). Then you can just narrow down the hotspots for your Paladins or casters capable of level 2 spells to move in and cleanse things with Lesser Restoration.

Infectious disease would have a more uphill battle in such a world. And it's not just plagues that would get affected. Genuinely foolproof early diagnosis would be a huge deal for pretty much every field of medicine.

Of course in D&D-land, you'd just also have to be worried about a world of spawning undead (like Shadows) and lycanthropy. :smalltongue: