What spells are stronger than their level? Weaker?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Imagine if you could change spell levels. Including using fractional levels. That is, saying "this spell is worth more than most 3rd level spells, but not quite worth a 4th level slot. So call it a level 3.5 spell." Or "this spell isn't worth the slot it's in at all. It should be Xth level instead." Or vice versa.

What would be your top 5 spells to move? I'm especially interested in spells that are currently level 6+ and you think should be 5 or lower.

[Kane0]

Mord’s Sword comes to mind

Edit: quick perusal of the list.
Wall of thorns, wall of ice, investiture of X, tensers transformation, chain lightning, firestorm, incendiary cloud

[Beelzebub1111]

Silvery Barbs should be at least a fifth level. Minimum.

[J-H]

9
Weird could be a 7th level spell. Fear and 4d10 damage/rd, save at end of each turn.
7
Regenerate is pretty much a non-combat spell, but seems weaker than Resurrection to me
Whirlwind should be around 5th level. The area of effect is way too small.
As Kane0 pointed out, Mord's Sword should be 4th or 5th level, or get buffed.
6
Bones of the Earth could be 5th level.
Primordial Ward could be 5th level. It's Druid-only, so it will never get used because it's a single target defensive spell that takes Concentration on a chassis that depends on Concentration for affecting enemies.
5
Negative Energy Flood does less damage than Blight for one level higher, with the only advantage being that it can zombify whatever it kills (dragon, etc.) but not under the caster's control.

[Amnestic]

I'd make Barkskin a cantrip.

[Boverk]

I'd make Barkskin a cantrip.

Barkskin as Druid only Cantrip? sounds solid

[Skrum]

Silvery Barbs should be at least a fifth level. Minimum.

I get that there's a lot of silvery barbs hate but that is a WILD overcorrection. 2nd level is appropriate.

[Eldariel]

I get that there's a lot of silvery barbs hate but that is a WILD overcorrection. 2nd level is appropriate.

I've used 3rd level SB for about a year now and it's been used but not dominant so I'm pretty happy with it there. It's of course still really strong on high levels. I think it's a Counterspell-level ability: basically reads "recast save-based CC spell enemy saved against; an ally gains advantage on next check".

[Marcloure]

Grasping Vine is a 4th level spell that should've been a 1st or 2nd level spell tops.

[kazaryu]

9
Weird could be a 7th level spell. Fear and 4d10 damage/rd, save at end of each turn.
7
Regenerate is pretty much a non-combat spell, but seems weaker than Resurrection to me
Whirlwind should be around 5th level. The area of effect is way too small.
As Kane0 pointed out, Mord's Sword should be 4th or 5th level, or get buffed.
6
Bones of the Earth could be 5th level.
Primordial Ward could be 5th level. It's Druid-only, so it will never get used because it's a single target defensive spell that takes Concentration on a chassis that depends on Concentration for affecting enemies.
5
Negative Energy Flood does less damage than Blight for one level higher, with the only advantage being that it can zombify whatever it kills (dragon, etc.) but not under the caster's control.

i disagree about regenerate. i think its combat effect is powerful enough that it didn't have the 1 minute casting time (forcing you to be careful with its use) that it'd be pretty busted. the fact that it is automatic yoyo healing at the beginning of your turn is IMO quite potent. i mean its strong enough even if used sub optimally. but if you really play around it by say, cast it on a healer (i.e. yourself) and then stand back so that you're likely only able to get taken down by ranged moves, making it even harder to execute you before you get back to your turn...stand back up, and drop another heal. idk, it just feels really good at keeping a key PC alive for those tough fights.

[JackPhoenix]

I'd make Barkskin a cantrip.

So it's even worse? Cantrips known are generally more valuable than low-level spell slots, and Barkskin gains nothing from being able to be cast repeatedly. Level 1, sure, it's roughly comparable to Mage Armor (but even then it's worse), but cantrip? No way.

[Amnestic]

So it's even worse?

If you think a spell prepared and a 2nd level spell slot is worth less than one of the 2-4 cantrips you know as a druid then we simply will not agree on this.

Ultimately, you need one attack cantrip of your choice. Everything else on top of that is a bonus, whether you take druidcraft, shape water, mending, or another attack cantrip. Barkskin as a cantrip is superior to a number of druid options at 1st level, so...yeah, it's absolutely fine there.

Chances are that you won't use it that much regardless (due to its concentration cost, and druids are already concentration heavy) so having a decent concentration cantrip as an option for when you run out of spell slots during your early days is good - and you can always trade it out at a later level if it stops being so useful to you.

[JackPhoenix]

If you think a spell prepared and a 2nd level spell slot is worth less than one of the 2-4 cantrips you know as a druid then we simply will not agree on this.

I *know* a spell prepared and a 2nd level slot is worth less than one of your permanent cantrip choices. If nothing else, you can switch it out when you don't need it.


Ultimately, you need one attack cantrip of your choice. Everything else on top of that is a bonus, whether you take druidcraft, shape water, mending, or another attack cantrip. Barkskin as a cantrip is superior to a number of druid options at 1st level, so...yeah, it's absolutely fine there.

Chances are that you won't use it that much regardless (due to its concentration cost, and druids are already concentration heavy) so having a decent concentration cantrip as an option for when you run out of spell slots during your early days is good - and you can always trade it out at a later level if it stops being so useful to you.

Barkskin gives you the AC equivalent of hide armor, shield and dex 14. At best, it frees a hand from shield use... and what you're gonna use that hand for as a druid, anyway? The moment you get better equipment, or even find a piece of cover to hide behind, it's useless. If you won't use it much, it's a horrible choice for a cantrip. The entire point of cantrips is that they can be used repeatedly.

[Amnestic]

I *know* a spell prepared and a 2nd level slot is worth less than one of your permanent cantrip choices.

They're not permanent though, are they? You can swap them out at ASI level ups with Cantrip Versatility.



Barkskin gives you the AC equivalent of hide armor, shield and dex 14. At best, it frees a hand from shield use... and what you're gonna use that hand for as a druid, anyway? The moment you get better equipment, or even find a piece of cover to hide behind, it's useless. If you won't use it much, it's a horrible choice for a cantrip. The entire point of cantrips is that they can be used repeatedly.

Barkskin works in wild shape, 16 AC surpasses pretty much anything else you can ever get as a wildshaped animal - I believe the highest is 15 (Giant Scorpion, CR3), but most of them seem to hover around the 11-13 area even at higher CRs (Mammoth has 13), which maes barkskin a +3 to +5 AC boost for your average wild shape. That seems pretty decent for a moon druid, especially if they want to burn spell slots on healing up their animal form instead of casting spells.

Barkskin also works on other creatures - it is not Self-only. At 1st level that might mean an extra AC point for your squishy wizard (13 + 2 Dex) or an extra two for your rogue (11+3 Dex), or an extra +3 for your warlock's chainpact imp familiar. In the case of the wizard and the imp it could be a great many levels until they see their AC improve, if it ever does.

Is Concentration worth +2 AC? Shield of Faith indicates that yes, sometimes it is. Shield of Faith obviously has the advantage it just goes on top of everything else, but if their AC is 14 or below to start with, it all washes out, doesn't it?

[Dalinar]

Observation: some of the power of a spell is dependent on what list it's on. Aura of Vitality is probably the biggest example; as a PHB character, you need nine paladin levels to get it, but when Tasha's gave it to full casters (Druid, Cleric, and by extension of the latter Divine Soul Sorcerer), as well as introduced Metamagic Adept (giving those other casters access to Extended Spell, which doubles its value in some circumstances) it shot way up in power. Not only did it become accessible four levels earlier, but it also became usable by classes arguably less likely to have their concentration put at risk.

I could easily see the spell having been pushed up a level or two had it come out in that book.

Likewise Spike Growth is an incredibly strong spell against landbound creatures that has only gone up in value as things like Crusher and Telekinetic have been added to the game. I don't think it's quite third-level material, only because that's one of the biggest power jumps between any two adjacent spell levels, and the number of targets that can just ignore it starts to increase after a while.

But Spike Growth's power is also informed by two additional things: party composition and the fact that it's only on the Druid and Ranger lists. (Speaking of, I'm still confused why Web isn't on either of those lists. It's much more obvious why it would be a nature-y primal spell rather than something arcane.) If you have other people in the party that can take good advantage of its effects (either directly through shoves, or with powerful ranged attacks, or perhaps ways to disable flight, etc), its value goes up. If you have a bunch of melee that want to stand where you're aiming, it's much more situational (in that case it still works as a divide-and-conquer spell that you drop after a few rounds). Also, if you don't want to be a Druid or Ranger, or one of the handful of subclasses that gets access to it, tough luck.

If everyone had Spike Growth, I could see it getting pushed to third level.

Fireball, infamously, is intentionally an overtuned spell; but if only half-casters had access to it, it wouldn't be available at the levels it's most relevant. Not that I'm saying that should change (what self-respecting wizard can't light their enemies on fire?), but it's a consideration.

On the other end of the scale...

Jump should arguably be a cantrip. The number of situations it solves is rather limited and I'm not entirely certain what breaks if you just spam it on everyone whenever the situation calls.

I am not entirely convinced Borrowed Knowledge is worth a second-level slot, but it also might be too much at first level. Hard to say.

I'm not convinced Vampiric Touch is worth a third-level slot, either, but also, you have to be really careful with tuning a spell like that one. It honestly compares really badly to even Witch Bolt if you look at just the damage (1d12 for a first-level spell versus 3d6 at third with no range to boot), but if you get two or three of the attacks to connect, you have not only dealt a modest amount of damage, but you've healed yourself for like 15 as well. But also, unless you are highly specialized, what are you doing in melee as a sorcerer or wizard to begin with? Drop VT to second level, you will probably take more damage trying to use it than you will recover even if you hit every round.

Most of the Summon X spells are pretty strong in a way that adjusting their spell slot minimum requirement doesn't fix. Likewise Conjure Animals and its ilk; CA is a design nightmare that can't be fixed just by fiddling with the spell level and calling it a day.

[Skrum]

Aura of Vitality

I would more frame this problem as Aura of Vitality is actually just fine in comparison to the rest of the spells full casters get at 3rd, but since it was originally a half-caster spell, and then later full casters got access to it, there's a bit of robbery going on. There are several 3rd level spells I would put above Aura of Vitality without hesitation.

A little aside, the half casters need some kind of built in way to help with their concentration. Not only are the ranger and paladin far more likely to get hit in combat, neither of them have Con as a proficient save. It's pretty lame.



Borrowed Knowledge

Is terrible. In the levels most people play, it's +3 or maybe +4 to a skill, but you have to cast it ahead (as opposed to a reaction, like artificer's Flash of Genius). Further, making repeat checks of the same skill within an hour; like it's just not that common. So it's probably only applying to a single check. This spell is very weak and can easily be moved to 1st level



Vampiric Touch

Also weak, and can definitely be a 2nd level spell. Like you point out, there's no build or class that can really use this. It's far too weak of an effect to tempt a caster into melee combat. Frankly, even as a 2nd level spell, I don't see it getting much use. It still has all the same problems.

[Pex]

Aid

This should be a 1st level in my opinion. I'm not a fan of it now. However, time and time again I hear people praise it, so I'm giving it a shot on two characters I'm playing - a paladin who will multiclass bard and a Divine Soul sorcerer. For my paladin I'm purposely being more spell heavy than smites, though I have and will smite. Combined with Inspiring Leader I'm providing a great hit point buff. For my sorcerer I'll be trying the Extend Spell trick with it, see how it goes. It's a new campaign expected to end around 10/11th level, so I'll pick up Inspiring Leader at 4th level and accept staying at 16 CH for most of the game. It's also a personal experiment not having the 18. Personal bias Aid alone is not enough even using a higher level slot. I need the temporary hit points in addition to see worth.

[DracoKnight]

Aid

This should be a 1st level in my opinion. I'm not a fan of it now. However, time and time again I hear people praise it, so I'm giving it a shot on two characters I'm playing - a paladin who will multiclass bard and a Divine Soul sorcerer. For my paladin I'm purposely being more spell heavy than smites, though I have and will smite. Combined with Inspiring Leader I'm providing a great hit point buff. For my sorcerer I'll be trying the Extend Spell trick with it, see how it goes. It's a new campaign expected to end around 10/11th level, so I'll pick up Inspiring Leader at 4th level and accept staying at 16 CH for most of the game. It's also a personal experiment not having the 18. Personal bias Aid alone is not enough even using a higher level slot. I need the temporary hit points in addition to see worth.

The trick with Aid is that it can be used as a cheap Mass Healing Word. 3 of your party members went down? Pop Aid and now their Max HP and Current HP both increase by 5. It can turn an impending TPK into a victory. It’s actual HP, not Temp HP.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Observation: some of the power of a spell is dependent on what list it's on. Aura of Vitality is probably the biggest example; as a PHB character, you need nine paladin levels to get it, but when Tasha's gave it to full casters (Druid, Cleric, and by extension of the latter Divine Soul Sorcerer), as well as introduced Metamagic Adept (giving those other casters access to Extended Spell, which doubles its value in some circumstances) it shot way up in power. Not only did it become accessible four levels earlier, but it also became usable by classes arguably less likely to have their concentration put at risk.

I could easily see the spell having been pushed up a level or two had it come out in that book.

Likewise Spike Growth is an incredibly strong spell against landbound creatures that has only gone up in value as things like Crusher and Telekinetic have been added to the game. I don't think it's quite third-level material, only because that's one of the biggest power jumps between any two adjacent spell levels, and the number of targets that can just ignore it starts to increase after a while.

But Spike Growth's power is also informed by two additional things: party composition and the fact that it's only on the Druid and Ranger lists. (Speaking of, I'm still confused why Web isn't on either of those lists. It's much more obvious why it would be a nature-y primal spell rather than something arcane.) If you have other people in the party that can take good advantage of its effects (either directly through shoves, or with powerful ranged attacks, or perhaps ways to disable flight, etc), its value goes up. If you have a bunch of melee that want to stand where you're aiming, it's much more situational (in that case it still works as a divide-and-conquer spell that you drop after a few rounds). Also, if you don't want to be a Druid or Ranger, or one of the handful of subclasses that gets access to it, tough luck.

If everyone had Spike Growth, I could see it getting pushed to third level.

Fireball, infamously, is intentionally an overtuned spell; but if only half-casters had access to it, it wouldn't be available at the levels it's most relevant. Not that I'm saying that should change (what self-respecting wizard can't light their enemies on fire?), but it's a consideration.

…

Most of the Summon X spells are pretty strong in a way that adjusting their spell slot minimum requirement doesn't fix. Likewise Conjure Animals and its ilk; CA is a design nightmare that can't be fixed just by fiddling with the spell level and calling it a day.

I agree with most of this in general. As I see it, power depends on the level it comes at as well as the effect. Per spell list spell levels though…that way lies madness and cheese.

Some spells are fine how they are. Some are mis-costed but would be fine if adjusted. Others need a good scrub either to make sense (darkness, looking at you) or because their effect isn’t nicely costable at all. CA is on this latter list, as are several others like polymorph.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

The trick with Aid is that it can be used as a cheap Mass Healing Word. 3 of your party members went down? Pop Aid and now their Max HP and Current HP both increase by 5. It can turn an impending TPK into a victory. It’s actual HP, not Temp HP.

This and... it upcasts and can be used ahead of time. I used it on my Paly/ Swords Bard to pretty good effect; I think having it on a straight Paly is going to be tougher, as you have fewer, and lower level slots. You're just not going to want to burn them ahead of time when you don't directly see the results. Because of all of this I think it's tailor made for Paly/ Bards and Paly/ Sorcerers where eventually you have lots of slots and even at tables with lots of encounters you probably reach the point where you can have leftovers at the end of the day. I used it a bit on my Cleric, who had a magical thingamabob that allowed him to get back a 3rd level slot 1/day, but it always seemed a tougher choice when I considered using a higher level slot.

So, in some ways you need the right character to really make the spell shine, but I can't see this being on a list of spells that need to be lower level.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I'm always interested in what people write for 'weaker', as there's just a whole bunch of stuff I just never see used because it's fair to poor. So, what's really bad I have no idea.

Before I give my nomination for stronger I'll hop on the Silvery Barbs bandwagon, which I kind of have to since I bumped it to 2nd in my current campaign. I do kind of think it should be min 2nd then scale with the level of the spell impacted (if that's what it's used for) though .

That said, my nomination for stronger than it's level is Pass Without Trace. It's not until 3rd level that you get spells that can regularly dominate a variety of encounters, and given it's duration PWT can actually dominate (or avoid) a number of encounters per casting.

[Pex]

Likewise Spike Growth is an incredibly strong spell against landbound creatures that has only gone up in value as things like Crusher and Telekinetic have been added to the game. I don't think it's quite third-level material, only because that's one of the biggest power jumps between any two adjacent spell levels, and the number of targets that can just ignore it starts to increase after a while.

But Spike Growth's power is also informed by two additional things: party composition and the fact that it's only on the Druid and Ranger lists. (Speaking of, I'm still confused why Web isn't on either of those lists. It's much more obvious why it would be a nature-y primal spell rather than something arcane.) If you have other people in the party that can take good advantage of its effects (either directly through shoves, or with powerful ranged attacks, or perhaps ways to disable flight, etc), its value goes up. If you have a bunch of melee that want to stand where you're aiming, it's much more situational (in that case it still works as a divide-and-conquer spell that you drop after a few rounds). Also, if you don't want to be a Druid or Ranger, or one of the handful of subclasses that gets access to it, tough luck.

If everyone had Spike Growth, I could see it getting pushed to third level.



When a spell becomes awesome because PCs other than the caster can do things to make it awesome I call that a feature. That is PC teamwork. That is supposed to happen. That is the spell doing its job just fine. PCs are allowed to be awesome, including spellcasters.

[verbatim]

People have done a good job of hitting high level stuff that should be less, so I'm going to go the other way:


Fog Cloud run RAW (negates advantage disadvantage completely if at least one party is in the Fog Cloud, completely invalidates a Beholder fight) feels like it should probably be closer to 2 than 1
ditto for Shield
Silvery Barbs could go all the way up to 2.5 or 3 as mentioned earlier
I could see Mirror Image down to 1.5. It takes a turn to set up in a game where most fights don't last longer than 2-3 turns.
Find Traps down from 2nd level to Cantrip, mainly in that as written it kind of just sucks.
Cordon of Arrows down to first level. 4d6 where you have to preemptively place each one and each 1d6 is a separate 0 damage on save is just really underwhelming.
Rime's Binding Ice and Web up to 2.5. Very strong AoE shutdown and damage/potential for future damage to boot.
Sickening Radiance and Conjure Animals up to 5th.
Flame Arrows down to 2nd.

[Gignere]

People have done a good job of hitting high level stuff that should be less, so I'm going to go the other way:


Fog Cloud run RAW (negates advantage disadvantage completely if at least one party is in the Fog Cloud, completely invalidates a Beholder fight) feels like it should probably be closer to 2 than 1
ditto for Shield
Silvery Barbs could go all the way up to 2.5 or 3 as mentioned earlier
I could see Mirror Image down to 1.5. It takes a turn to set up in a game where most fights don't last longer than 2-3 turns.
Find Traps down from 2nd level to Cantrip, mainly in that as written it kind of just sucks.
Cordon of Arrows down to first level. 4d6 where you have to preemptively place each one and each 1d6 is a separate 0 damage on save is just really underwhelming.
Rime's Binding Ice and Web up to 2.5. Very strong AoE shutdown and damage/potential for future damage to boot.
Sickening Radiance and Conjure Animals up to 5th.
Flame Arrows down to 2nd.


They should completely replace Conjure X spells with the Summon X spells. No one should have more than a couple of minions running around at a time.

[Psyren]

For Silvery Barbs I would do 1st-level for just the reroll, and an upcast to 2nd level for the grant-advantage function. I'd also make charm-immune enemies unaffected by it since it relies on mental distraction. I think those changes would allow the base spell to stay at 1st level and still be useful without being OP.

[Monster Manuel]

If you won't use it much, it's a horrible choice for a cantrip. The entire point of cantrips is that they can be used repeatedly.

Completely agree. Cantrips and levelled spells serve 2 very different design goals in game, with the Cantrip being a core task that is done over and over, and should be useful throughout the caster's career. In a lot of cases a cantrip will be more effective than a low-level spell. We used to think (3e holdover) of cantrips as weak, level 0 spells, and that's really not the case in 5e. "Downgrading" a weak level 1 spell to a cantrip does not work, with their roles being so different...the only way I see to fix an underpowered first level spell is to fix the spell.


Find Traps down from 2nd level to Cantrip, mainly in that as written it kind of just sucks.

This is a good example: yes, Find Traps at 2nd level sucks. Moving it to 1st, as written, I would 100% agree with. But making it a cantrip means that casters are spamming this out of combat every time they enter a new room (and they SHOULD, that's what a cantrip is for). Which means that the caster automatically detects any traps, which makes the high-investigation skill character who is supposed to be good at finding traps entirely superfluous. In fact, it kind of makes traps entirely superfluous, because the assumption should be that with a caster in the party, they will automatically be detected. They become just so much difficult terrain. Not the case if it's a first-level spell, you only get a couple of shots at this per long rest. But Cantrips work differently, at-will usage puts this in a different category than if it was limited-use.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Personally, Find Traps is on my "needs to be rewritten because it doesn't work comfortably at any level" list. Too many caveats.

[Psyren]

Personally, Find Traps is on my "needs to be rewritten because it doesn't work comfortably at any level" list. Too many caveats.

It also doesn't actually find any traps! At best you get a heads up there's one nearby - which you likely already suspected when you cast the spell in the first place. This one is indeed on TM's list as well.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

People have done a good job of hitting high level stuff that should be less, so I'm going to go the other way:


Fog Cloud run RAW (negates advantage disadvantage completely if at least one party is in the Fog Cloud, completely invalidates a Beholder fight) feels like it should probably be closer to 2 than 1
ditto for Shield
Silvery Barbs could go all the way up to 2.5 or 3 as mentioned earlier
I could see Mirror Image down to 1.5. It takes a turn to set up in a game where most fights don't last longer than 2-3 turns.
Find Traps down from 2nd level to Cantrip, mainly in that as written it kind of just sucks.
Cordon of Arrows down to first level. 4d6 where you have to preemptively place each one and each 1d6 is a separate 0 damage on save is just really underwhelming.
Rime's Binding Ice and Web up to 2.5. Very strong AoE shutdown and damage/potential for future damage to boot.
Sickening Radiance and Conjure Animals up to 5th.
Flame Arrows down to 2nd.


Agreed on most of this. Can't really agree on Mirror Image, though I take the point. It's on a lot of lists at our table and doesn't get quite the use you'd think it would. On Str builds it's pretty crap too, as the ACs of the images are garbage, so they just fall apart often on attacks that wouldn't even hit you. However, when you're able to set it up ahead of time the fact that it's non-concentration means it's a great addition to whatever concentration spell you're casting. There's just not that many spells in 5e that can layer defense like this; basically, yes if you're short on time it's not the spell you're casting, but when you're not it's strong (and unique in it's application) enough that it's a solid 2.

[Oramac]

For Silvery Barbs I would do 1st-level for just the reroll, and an upcast to 2nd level for the grant-advantage function. I'd also make charm-immune enemies unaffected by it since it relies on mental distraction. I think those changes would allow the base spell to stay at 1st level and still be useful without being OP.

Though I haven't had any real issues with silvery barbs, I like this.

To the OP: since I haven't seen it mentioned, I just want to point out that the devs have explicitly stated that fireball is intentionally slightly OP for its level. Though, imo, not enough to justify it being a 4th level spell.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Though I haven't had any real issues with silvery barbs, I like this.

To the OP: since I haven't seen it mentioned, I just want to point out that the devs have explicitly stated that fireball is intentionally slightly OP for its level. Though, imo, not enough to justify it being a 4th level spell.

Yeah. It and lightning bolt are explicitly, intentionally under-costed. If you go by the DMG's guidance for damage effects, fireball is actually 5th level damage. Now there's a case to be made that the DMG table scales poorly/is pessimistic. But by their own guidelines, it should be a way higher level.

And I find that kind of design to be somewhat annoying. "Let's make something that deviates from our normal pattern for no other reason than it's iconic!". When most people that logic works on don't even have a good sense of what "good damage" is. I bet that if fireball did an equivalent amount of damage to a 3rd level slot (so more like 6d6), it'd still be taken. And still be quite useful.

[stoutstien]

Yeah. It and lightning bolt are explicitly, intentionally under-costed. If you go by the DMG's guidance for damage effects, fireball is actually 5th level damage. Now there's a case to be made that the DMG table scales poorly/is pessimistic. But by their own guidelines, it should be a way higher level.

And I find that kind of design to be somewhat annoying. "Let's make something that deviates from our normal pattern for no other reason than it's iconic!". When most people that logic works on don't even have a good sense of what "good damage" is. I bet that if fireball did an equivalent amount of damage to a 3rd level slot (so more like 6d6), it'd still be taken. And still be quite useful.

It's annoying but then it scaling poorly is an even bigger puzzle IMO. if they wanted them to be "iconic" they should have tapered off on the front and made upcasting worth while.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's annoying but then it scaling poorly is an even bigger puzzle IMO. if they wanted them to be "iconic" they should have tapered off on the front and made upcasting worth while.

I feel that way about upcasting generally. Many spells are super front-loaded so there's little reason to ever upcast them. Or don't upcast at all, even though they feel like they should be able to (duration, range, area, target count, etc).

Part of the reason I'm asking about this is I'm noodling through the design for a 5e-SRD-based game that does things like uses a modified spell-point system with no discrete spell levels and adds better upcasting options (while narrowing some of the high level spell choices). So you really can have a "3rd level spell" (in this model 8 Aether), a "3.5 level spell" (10 Aether), and one can upcast with +1d6/2 aether and another at +1d6/3 aether (depending on what else they do).

[Atranen]

It's annoying but then it scaling poorly is an even bigger puzzle IMO. if they wanted them to be "iconic" they should have tapered off on the front and made upcasting worth while.

Agree, this is one of by pet complaints with 5e. We get it, you cast fireball. Fireball is iconic because it's good to have a big AoE damage spell; it doesn't need the boost to be iconic. And giving it the boost just makes other spells feel worse and see less play.

[diplomancer]

Fireball could indeed easily be (2d6xSpell Level).

[kingcheesepants]

Completely agree. Cantrips and levelled spells serve 2 very different design goals in game, with the Cantrip being a core task that is done over and over, and should be useful throughout the caster's career. In a lot of cases a cantrip will be more effective than a low-level spell. We used to think (3e holdover) of cantrips as weak, level 0 spells, and that's really not the case in 5e. "Downgrading" a weak level 1 spell to a cantrip does not work, with their roles being so different...the only way I see to fix an underpowered first level spell is to fix the spell.



This is a good example: yes, Find Traps at 2nd level sucks. Moving it to 1st, as written, I would 100% agree with. But making it a cantrip means that casters are spamming this out of combat every time they enter a new room (and they SHOULD, that's what a cantrip is for). Which means that the caster automatically detects any traps, which makes the high-investigation skill character who is supposed to be good at finding traps entirely superfluous. In fact, it kind of makes traps entirely superfluous, because the assumption should be that with a caster in the party, they will automatically be detected. They become just so much difficult terrain. Not the case if it's a first-level spell, you only get a couple of shots at this per long rest. But Cantrips work differently, at-will usage puts this in a different category than if it was limited-use.
Since all Find Traps actually does is tell you whether or not there are traps to be found, it wouldn't actually step on the toes of the investigation characters. All it would do is speed up exploration by telling the party whether they should be looking or not. So I'd say this is a decent choice for a cantrip.


Fireball could indeed easily be (2d6xSpell Level).
I really like this, get fireball at level one and you've a nice ranged AoE spell that's not too strong in the damage department and scales so that it's relevant but not too OP for pretty much the whole game.

One that I haven't seen mentioned is Instant Summons. That's a ritual so the spell level is nearly irrelevant and the real cost of th spell is the 1000 gp per use. But still you get it so late in the game and it's such a niche spell. I've never taken it, though I might have at least copied a scroll of it just to have it had it been like level 1 or 2.

[Gignere]

I really like this, get fireball at level one and you've a nice ranged AoE spell that's not too strong in the damage department and scales so that it's relevant but not too OP for pretty much the whole game.

It would need to scale up and down in radius by spell level as well otherwise it would still be by far the best AoE at low levels, Level 1 spells just have small AoE.

[Atranen]

It would need to scale up and down in radius by spell level as well otherwise it would still be by far the best AoE at low levels, Level 1 spells just have small AoE.

Agreed, I like it starting as a 3rd level spell with 6d6 and scaling by 2d6 per level.

[stoutstien]

It would need to scale up and down in radius by spell level as well otherwise it would still be by far the best AoE at low levels, Level 1 spells just have small AoE.

Not to far off my homebrew where I combined redundant spells. Low damage fireball,burning palm/hand (bonus action now), scorching ray and pyrotechnics are all a single "mastery"

[Gignere]

Not to far off my homebrew where I combined redundant spells. Low damage fireball,burning palm/hand (bonus action now), scorching ray and pyrotechnics are all a single "mastery"

Years ago I made a home brew spell system where you cast say base spell fire and then applied augmentations to it. So fireball would basically be fire spell + range+ area + extra damage augmentations.

So imagine if everything was a basic spell and you just applied “metamagic” to make the desire effect.

[Chronos]

Too weak for their level:

0:
Blade Ward: The Dodge action has almost the same effect, and is available to anyone without a precious cantrip slot.

Encode Thoughts: What is this even for?

Infestation: A small damage die of the worst damage type, at short-ish range, and the rider is random and since it doesn't provoke opportunity attacks, is more likely to help enemies than to hurt them.

Primal Savagery: OK, a d10 isn't bad, and acid is a pretty reliable damage type, but it's also melee range with no rider.


1:
Bane: A spell whose primary use is to decrease enemy saves, and it has a save itself. And you have much better uses for your concentration.

Beast Bond: OK, so you give your animal companion advantage. Big deal.

Cause Fear: Without any riders, the Fear condition does very little. You could, instead, completely shut someone down for failing a 1st-level Wis save. The upcast doesn't help much, either, because by 3rd level, you have the real Fear spell, which is much better.

Chaos Bolt: The damage is too low, and it's too unreliable. A pity; if it were just a bit better, some folks would love the flavor.

Charm Person: Just doesn't do enough.

Compelled Duel: Everything is stacked against this spell: It has a save, it uses your concentration, it restricts you and your allies significantly (none of them can do anything to the target and you can't do anything to anyone else), and it doesn't even significantly affect them (they can still attack others, just at disadvantage). Remove all but any one of those restrictions, and make it a cantrip (if paladins had cantrips), and it'd be fine.

Cure Wounds: It's not bad, per se, but everyone has better options (Healing Word for clerics and bards, Goodberry for druids and rangers, Lay On Hands for paladins).

Witch Bolt: Enough has been said about this over the years. It sucks.


2:
Barkskin: 16 AC still isn't very much, and it's specially designed to stack with nothing, even the things that stack with everything. Plus concentration.

Crown of Madness: You might get one attack out of this spell. But then the target will just move out of range of any of their allies. And you can't even use it sneakily, to stage a betrayal, since it has an obvious visible effect ("Hey, why'd that iron crown appear on my lieutenant's head just before he attacked me?").

Enthrall: Any competent bard should be able to get this same effect without a spell slot.

Ray of Enfeeblement: It targets both AC and Con saves, both of which tend to be high on the only sorts of targets it works on at all. And then it still leaves them at half effectiveness. Unless they just decide to grapple at full effectiveness, which they're probably also good at.

Snilloc's Snowball Swarm: The range would make it a little overpowered for a first level spell (compare Burning Hands), but only a little.


3:
Bestow Curse: Concentration and short duration, and it doesn't even completely shut down the target. Even if it were 1st level, it compares unfavorably to Tasha's Hideous Laughter. Would be worth it if it didn't take concentration and lasted at least a day.

Conjure Barrage: OK, the area is decent, but it's still only 3d8 damage from a 3rd level spell. And it's only on a half-caster's list, so by the time you can cast it, there's a steep opportunity cost to using your action on something so weak (an 11th-level ranger can do more damage in an AoE (albeit a small one) with no spell at all).

Daylight: And the advantage of using this over a cantrip is...?

Feign Death: You can just do this with a Deception check, if you ever find yourself in the once-in-a-campaign situation where it's useful.

Magic Circle: The long casting time and being stationary removes almost all uses of this spell. It's supposed to be part of the process for Planar Binding, but the timing infamously doesn't work right there.


4:
Blight: Slightly more damage than Fireball, at one level higher, and only to a single target.


5:
Conjure Volley: Ranger-only again. OK, now we're looking at a 17th-level character spending their action, to do only 8d8 damage.

Dawn: It's like Moonbeam, but higher level, less damage per level, and it doesn't deal its damage until after the target has a chance to move out of it.

Mordenkainen's Hound: If you just want an alarm, there's a ritual for that. And the damage and immobility are too poor for anything else.

Phantasmal Killer: You need two saves before it does any damage at all, and even then, the damage is low.

Stoneskin: Too expensive to use regularly, and it doesn't do anything vs. magic.





6:
7:
Holy Word: What's worth using a 7th-level slot on, that has less than 50 (or 40 or 30 or 20) HP?

Mordenkainen's Sword: Compares poorly to both Bigby's Hand and Spiritual Weapon.


8:
Abi-Dazhim's Horrid Wilting: Does an average of 45 damage. A Fireball at this level does an average of 45.5, in a larger area.

Feeblemind: The creatures likely to fail their saves against this won't be seriously affected even if they do.

Glibness: OK, it was OP in 3rd edition, but this is WAY overcorrected. It's not that much better than the 2nd-level Enhance Ability. Especially since it's highly situational, and only on the list of spells-known casters.

Telepathy: There are spells that do the same thing already at lower levels.


9:
Astral Projection: Or you could just Plane Shift.

Weird: Phantasmal Killer was already bad. Just adding more targets is not enough to justify 5 levels higher.

[diplomancer]

Too weak for their level:

0:
Blade Ward: The Dodge action has almost the same effect, and is available to anyone without a precious cantrip slot.

Encode Thoughts: What is this even for?

Infestation: A small damage die of the worst damage type, at short-ish range, and the rider is random and since it doesn't provoke opportunity attacks, is more likely to help enemies than to hurt them.

Primal Savagery: OK, a d10 isn't bad, and acid is a pretty reliable damage type, but it's also melee range with no rider.


1:
Bane: A spell whose primary use is to decrease enemy saves, and it has a save itself. And you have much better uses for your concentration.

Beast Bond: OK, so you give your animal companion advantage. Big deal.

Cause Fear: Without any riders, the Fear condition does very little. You could, instead, completely shut someone down for failing a 1st-level Wis save. The upcast doesn't help much, either, because by 3rd level, you have the real Fear spell, which is much better.

Chaos Bolt: The damage is too low, and it's too unreliable. A pity; if it were just a bit better, some folks would love the flavor.

Charm Person: Just doesn't do enough.

Compelled Duel: Everything is stacked against this spell: It has a save, it uses your concentration, it restricts you and your allies significantly (none of them can do anything to the target and you can't do anything to anyone else), and it doesn't even significantly affect them (they can still attack others, just at disadvantage). Remove all but any one of those restrictions, and make it a cantrip (if paladins had cantrips), and it'd be fine.

Cure Wounds: It's not bad, per se, but everyone has better options (Healing Word for clerics and bards, Goodberry for druids and rangers, Lay On Hands for paladins).

Witch Bolt: Enough has been said about this over the years. It sucks.


2:
Barkskin: 16 AC still isn't very much, and it's specially designed to stack with nothing, even the things that stack with everything. Plus concentration.

Crown of Madness: You might get one attack out of this spell. But then the target will just move out of range of any of their allies. And you can't even use it sneakily, to stage a betrayal, since it has an obvious visible effect ("Hey, why'd that iron crown appear on my lieutenant's head just before he attacked me?").

Enthrall: Any competent bard should be able to get this same effect without a spell slot.

Ray of Enfeeblement: It targets both AC and Con saves, both of which tend to be high on the only sorts of targets it works on at all. And then it still leaves them at half effectiveness. Unless they just decide to grapple at full effectiveness, which they're probably also good at.

Snilloc's Snowball Swarm: The range would make it a little overpowered for a first level spell (compare Burning Hands), but only a little.


3:
Bestow Curse: Concentration and short duration, and it doesn't even completely shut down the target. Even if it were 1st level, it compares unfavorably to Tasha's Hideous Laughter. Would be worth it if it didn't take concentration and lasted at least a day.

Conjure Barrage: OK, the area is decent, but it's still only 3d8 damage from a 3rd level spell. And it's only on a half-caster's list, so by the time you can cast it, there's a steep opportunity cost to using your action on something so weak (an 11th-level ranger can do more damage in an AoE (albeit a small one) with no spell at all).

Daylight: And the advantage of using this over a cantrip is...?

Feign Death: You can just do this with a Deception check, if you ever find yourself in the once-in-a-campaign situation where it's useful.

Magic Circle: The long casting time and being stationary removes almost all uses of this spell. It's supposed to be part of the process for Planar Binding, but the timing infamously doesn't work right there.


4:
Blight: Slightly more damage than Fireball, at one level higher, and only to a single target.


5:
Conjure Volley: Ranger-only again. OK, now we're looking at a 17th-level character spending their action, to do only 8d8 damage.

Dawn: It's like Moonbeam, but higher level, less damage per level, and it doesn't deal its damage until after the target has a chance to move out of it.

Mordenkainen's Hound: If you just want an alarm, there's a ritual for that. And the damage and immobility are too poor for anything else.

Phantasmal Killer: You need two saves before it does any damage at all, and even then, the damage is low.

Stoneskin: Too expensive to use regularly, and it doesn't do anything vs. magic.





6:
7:
Holy Word: What's worth using a 7th-level slot on, that has less than 50 (or 40 or 30 or 20) HP?

Mordenkainen's Sword: Compares poorly to both Bigby's Hand and Spiritual Weapon.


8:
Abi-Dazhim's Horrid Wilting: Does an average of 45 damage. A Fireball at this level does an average of 45.5, in a larger area.

Feeblemind: The creatures likely to fail their saves against this won't be seriously affected even if they do.

Glibness: OK, it was OP in 3rd edition, but this is WAY overcorrected. It's not that much better than the 2nd-level Enhance Ability. Especially since it's highly situational, and only on the list of spells-known casters.

Telepathy: There are spells that do the same thing already at lower levels.


9:
Astral Projection: Or you could just Plane Shift.

Weird: Phantasmal Killer was already bad. Just adding more targets is not enough to justify 5 levels higher.

Divine Word affects creatures irrespective of their hit points. And those creatures tend to be the sort of creatures you face in higher tiers. As a Bonus Action, mass Banishment of fiends, feys or elementals without Concentration is not bad.

[Atranen]

Too weak for their level:

0:
Blade Ward: The Dodge action has almost the same effect, and is available to anyone without a precious cantrip slot.

Encode Thoughts: What is this even for?

Infestation: A small damage die of the worst damage type, at short-ish range, and the rider is random and since it doesn't provoke opportunity attacks, is more likely to help enemies than to hurt them.

Primal Savagery: OK, a d10 isn't bad, and acid is a pretty reliable damage type, but it's also melee range with no rider.


1:
Bane: A spell whose primary use is to decrease enemy saves, and it has a save itself. And you have much better uses for your concentration.

Beast Bond: OK, so you give your animal companion advantage. Big deal.

Cause Fear: Without any riders, the Fear condition does very little. You could, instead, completely shut someone down for failing a 1st-level Wis save. The upcast doesn't help much, either, because by 3rd level, you have the real Fear spell, which is much better.

Chaos Bolt: The damage is too low, and it's too unreliable. A pity; if it were just a bit better, some folks would love the flavor.

Charm Person: Just doesn't do enough.

Compelled Duel: Everything is stacked against this spell: It has a save, it uses your concentration, it restricts you and your allies significantly (none of them can do anything to the target and you can't do anything to anyone else), and it doesn't even significantly affect them (they can still attack others, just at disadvantage). Remove all but any one of those restrictions, and make it a cantrip (if paladins had cantrips), and it'd be fine.

Cure Wounds: It's not bad, per se, but everyone has better options (Healing Word for clerics and bards, Goodberry for druids and rangers, Lay On Hands for paladins).

Witch Bolt: Enough has been said about this over the years. It sucks.


2:
Barkskin: 16 AC still isn't very much, and it's specially designed to stack with nothing, even the things that stack with everything. Plus concentration.

Crown of Madness: You might get one attack out of this spell. But then the target will just move out of range of any of their allies. And you can't even use it sneakily, to stage a betrayal, since it has an obvious visible effect ("Hey, why'd that iron crown appear on my lieutenant's head just before he attacked me?").

Enthrall: Any competent bard should be able to get this same effect without a spell slot.

Ray of Enfeeblement: It targets both AC and Con saves, both of which tend to be high on the only sorts of targets it works on at all. And then it still leaves them at half effectiveness. Unless they just decide to grapple at full effectiveness, which they're probably also good at.

Snilloc's Snowball Swarm: The range would make it a little overpowered for a first level spell (compare Burning Hands), but only a little.


3:
Bestow Curse: Concentration and short duration, and it doesn't even completely shut down the target. Even if it were 1st level, it compares unfavorably to Tasha's Hideous Laughter. Would be worth it if it didn't take concentration and lasted at least a day.

Conjure Barrage: OK, the area is decent, but it's still only 3d8 damage from a 3rd level spell. And it's only on a half-caster's list, so by the time you can cast it, there's a steep opportunity cost to using your action on something so weak (an 11th-level ranger can do more damage in an AoE (albeit a small one) with no spell at all).

Daylight: And the advantage of using this over a cantrip is...?

Feign Death: You can just do this with a Deception check, if you ever find yourself in the once-in-a-campaign situation where it's useful.

Magic Circle: The long casting time and being stationary removes almost all uses of this spell. It's supposed to be part of the process for Planar Binding, but the timing infamously doesn't work right there.


4:
Blight: Slightly more damage than Fireball, at one level higher, and only to a single target.


5:
Conjure Volley: Ranger-only again. OK, now we're looking at a 17th-level character spending their action, to do only 8d8 damage.

Dawn: It's like Moonbeam, but higher level, less damage per level, and it doesn't deal its damage until after the target has a chance to move out of it.

Mordenkainen's Hound: If you just want an alarm, there's a ritual for that. And the damage and immobility are too poor for anything else.

Phantasmal Killer: You need two saves before it does any damage at all, and even then, the damage is low.

Stoneskin: Too expensive to use regularly, and it doesn't do anything vs. magic.





6:
7:
Holy Word: What's worth using a 7th-level slot on, that has less than 50 (or 40 or 30 or 20) HP?

Mordenkainen's Sword: Compares poorly to both Bigby's Hand and Spiritual Weapon.


8:
Abi-Dazhim's Horrid Wilting: Does an average of 45 damage. A Fireball at this level does an average of 45.5, in a larger area.

Feeblemind: The creatures likely to fail their saves against this won't be seriously affected even if they do.

Glibness: OK, it was OP in 3rd edition, but this is WAY overcorrected. It's not that much better than the 2nd-level Enhance Ability. Especially since it's highly situational, and only on the list of spells-known casters.

Telepathy: There are spells that do the same thing already at lower levels.


9:
Astral Projection: Or you could just Plane Shift.

Weird: Phantasmal Killer was already bad. Just adding more targets is not enough to justify 5 levels higher.

A really good list. I'll second:


Divine Word affects creatures irrespective of their hit points. And those creatures tend to be the sort of creatures you face in higher tiers. As a Bonus Action, mass Banishment of fiends, feys or elementals without Concentration is not bad.

The main point of divine word is the banishment effect (no concentration, affects many targets), not the hp effect. It's situational, but if you're up against fiends (pretty common at that level), it's a great spell.

[Pex]

Bane is not just for saving throws. It's also -1d4 to the enemy's attack rolls which happens more often than a need for a saving throw. It is effective and worth using. Personal anecdotal joy I had cast it on a hydra once, and the DM was so frustrated with -1d4 to all of the head attacks. Glorious.

[Gignere]

I think blade ward is good on EKs and Bladesinger. They can do the whole caster rage and face tank stuff for a bit while still attacking which you can’t do with dodge.

[MrStabby]

I think a lot of my list have been covered. A couple i didn't see mentioned:

1) Wall of force. This should be level 6 at least. Having this hit the game when there are just a few more fights tha won't be wrecked totally by it would be good.

2) Dust Devil. hematically I can see it being level 2, but if so it would need a big fix. As it is, its not really worth it for a level 1 spell.

[Psyren]

Wall of Force needs to be nerfed; they should take a page out of PF's book and let martials break it down, even if it takes a few rounds.

[J-H]

I think blade ward is good on EKs and Bladesinger. They can do the whole caster rage and face tank stuff for a bit while still attacking which you can’t do with dodge.

Blade Ward is also good with Armor of Agathys, if you are melee and moving closer to the enemy but can't reach them this turn. I used it some on my bladelock.

[Kane0]

Wall of Force needs to be nerfed; they should take a page out of PF's book and let martials break it down, even if it takes a few rounds.

Absolutely.

[Firest Kathon]

Years ago I made a home brew spell system where you cast say base spell fire and then applied augmentations to it. So fireball would basically be fire spell + range+ area + extra damage augmentations.

So imagine if everything was a basic spell and you just applied “metamagic” to make the desire effect.

Are you familiar with Pathfinder 1's Words of Power (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant-magic-rules/words-of-power/) variant? You created "spells" by combining an effect word (e.g. 2d6 fire damage) with a target word (single target(s) or shape, e.g. line or burst), then optionally added meta words (like metamagic feats) or additional effect words. I really liked playing a sorcerer with this system due to the flexibility, but unfortunately it lacked any support beyond the initial introduction in Ultimate Magic.

[J-H]

I'm certainly glad I didn't spend several hours writing up a similar concept I independently developed in my head a couple of months ago. What y'all are describing is basically the same thing.

[Chronos]

Hm, I guess I did miss the banishment effect on Divine Word. I've never had a character who could cast it, so I guess I never looked close enough at it.

[diplomancer]

Hm, I guess I did miss the banishment effect on Divine Word. I've never had a character who could cast it, so I guess I never looked close enough at it.

It's weirdly presented. The most powerful effect comes after the least powerful.

[kingcheesepants]

It would need to scale up and down in radius by spell level as well otherwise it would still be by far the best AoE at low levels, Level 1 spells just have small AoE.

Yeah that's true. Start at 10ft radius and increase by 5ft per spell level. So a level 3 fireball would be the standard 20 ft but 2d6 weaker a level 4 would be 1 d6 weaker but a little bigger a level 5 would be the same strength but 30 ft. I like that scaling a lot actually. Since the default fireball is a bit strong for its level, doesn't really scale so well, and it can't be used in tier 1 despite being such a classic spell. This handily solves all those problems. I'll try it out next time I run a game and see how it goes.

[Witty Username]

Well,
Shield for one, I personally think it shouldn't survive the jump in a system change. But if I were to spitball, 3rd level spell.

Weaker spells are pretty easy to point out:
-Anything outperformed by cantrips: vampiric touch, chromatic orb, etc.
- spells that are weaker versions of lesser level spells: circle of death and fireball, Mordenkienen's sword and flaming sphere, things like that
- spells that do not function at all, find traps comes to mind.
- spells that are overvalued as upgrades and include concentration: Alter self

Spells that are stronger than the norm tend to inform the playstyles of classes (and have a similar frontloaded nature to martial features). Like, I have heard it said that healing word would be good for a 2nd level spell. But it performs a nessasary function for the play of Cleric, Druid and Paladin. Fireball and hypnotic pattern are in a similar boat for wizard and sorcerer.

Given that, in addition to healing word, fireball and hypnotic pattern. I would add spirit guardians, conjure animals, pass without trace, plant growth, and spike growth.
--
A thing to keep in mind is that 4d6 is unusually strong for a 2nd level AoE spell, making fireball downscale even with a nerf is pretty easy to destabilize lower spell levels.

[Psyren]

Potential nerfs to shield I'd be okay with:

- Reduce AC bonus to +3 or even +2
- Lasts only the turn you cast it / applies to attacks from only one enemy
- Doesn't stack with actual shield/armor

Potential nerfs to shield I hope they don't do:

- Applies to single hit
- Must be used before enemy hits
- Raise the spell level to 2 or 3

I think the ones in the first group could tone it down while still having it be a valuable pick.

[Pex]

Well,
Shield for one, I personally think it shouldn't survive the jump in a system change. But if I were to spitball, 3rd level spell.

Weaker spells are pretty easy to point out:
-Anything outperformed by cantrips: vampiric touch, chromatic orb, etc.
- spells that are weaker versions of lesser level spells: circle of death and fireball, Mordenkienen's sword and flaming sphere, things like that
- spells that do not function at all, find traps comes to mind.
- spells that are overvalued as upgrades and include concentration: Alter self

Spells that are stronger than the norm tend to inform the playstyles of classes (and have a similar frontloaded nature to martial features). Like, I have heard it said that healing word would be good for a 2nd level spell. But it performs a nessasary function for the play of Cleric, Druid and Paladin. Fireball and hypnotic pattern are in a similar boat for wizard and sorcerer.

Given that, in addition to healing word, fireball and hypnotic pattern. I would add spirit guardians, conjure animals, pass without trace, plant growth, and spike growth.
--
A thing to keep in mind is that 4d6 is unusually strong for a 2nd level AoE spell, making fireball downscale even with a nerf is pretty easy to destabilize lower spell levels.

I think you're going overboard confusing effective spells with too powerful how dare they. Spells are allowed to be powerful doing neat things. If the monsters are frustrated by Spirit Guardians that's the spell doing its job, not a reason for the DM to cry for a nerf bat. Same with Healing Word, Hypnotic Pattern, Spike Growth, and other spells you mention.

I can maybe agree with Pass Without Trace because +10 is a big number. Granting Advantage might be enough of a change, but the DM shouldn't be rooting for PCs to fail the Stealth check and be disappointed when they don't.

[kingcheesepants]

A thing to keep in mind is that 4d6 is unusually strong for a 2nd level AoE spell, making fireball downscale even with a nerf is pretty easy to destabilize lower spell levels.

4d6 and 3d8 are extremely close. Only half a point different in average, same max only one point different minimum. So I guess the other notable 2nd level AoEs such as Shatter, Rime's Binding Ice, or an upcast Burning Hands or Thunderwave are also unusually strong. Actually are there any 2nd level AoE spells that don't do 4d6 or 3d8 damage?

Though a 15 ft radius ranged spell is kinda big compared to the others. So let's make it start with 5 and then go up 5 per level. While we're at it let's drop the range too. How about starting at 30 and jumping up 30 per level? That makes it literally the same as Shatter but fire and a dex save rather than thunder and con.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Well,
Shield for one, I personally think it shouldn't survive the jump in a system change. But if I were to spitball, 3rd level spell.

Weaker spells are pretty easy to point out:
-Anything outperformed by cantrips: vampiric touch, chromatic orb, etc.
- spells that are weaker versions of lesser level spells: circle of death and fireball, Mordenkienen's sword and flaming sphere, things like that
- spells that do not function at all, find traps comes to mind.
- spells that are overvalued as upgrades and include concentration: Alter self

Spells that are stronger than the norm tend to inform the playstyles of classes (and have a similar frontloaded nature to martial features). Like, I have heard it said that healing word would be good for a 2nd level spell. But it performs a nessasary function for the play of Cleric, Druid and Paladin. Fireball and hypnotic pattern are in a similar boat for wizard and sorcerer.

Given that, in addition to healing word, fireball and hypnotic pattern. I would add spirit guardians, conjure animals, pass without trace, plant growth, and spike growth.
--
A thing to keep in mind is that 4d6 is unusually strong for a 2nd level AoE spell, making fireball downscale even with a nerf is pretty easy to destabilize lower spell levels.

What's wrong with Alter Self? There are 3 options and 2 of them are good. Aquatic adaptation is great if you're in or around water. Change appearance is fabulous for infiltration and social play; the spell would be decent if this is all it got used for, which it could be in a lot of games. Natural Weapons is admittedly not good, but maybe it has a use if you're caught without weapons and spell focus.

[Witty Username]

What's wrong with Alter Self? There are 3 options and 2 of them are good. Aquatic adaptation is great if you're in or around water. Change appearance is fabulous for infiltration and social play; the spell would be decent if this is all it got used for, which it could be in a lot of games. Natural Weapons is admittedly not good, but maybe it has a use if you're caught without weapons and spell focus.

It costs concentration, which kneecaps basically every use for it. Which given disguise self is about as useful for the social aspects, and is a level lower while not costing concentration, it renders alter self very finicky to use.
If it didn't cost concentration, I would have no issues with it.

[diplomancer]

4d6 and 3d8 are extremely close. Only half a point different in average, same max only one point different minimum. So I guess the other notable 2nd level AoEs such as Shatter, Rime's Binding Ice, or an upcast Burning Hands or Thunderwave are also unusually strong. Actually are there any 2nd level AoE spells that don't do 4d6 or 3d8 damage?

Though a 15 ft radius ranged spell is kinda big compared to the others. So let's make it start with 5 and then go up 5 per level. While we're at it let's drop the range too. How about starting at 30 and jumping up 30 per level? That makes it literally the same as Shatter but fire and a dex save rather than thunder and con.

I really don't think this 2nd level fireball, even with 15' radius, is better than Rime's Binding Ice. It will usually affect the same number of creatures (at least according to DMG guidelines), damage is basically the same, but it has no rider (Rime's rider is very good).

On the other hand, you can cast it from a safer distance. So it's basically the safety of casting it from a distance vs. having a good rider. Sounds balanced.

They do target different saves, though. But I'm not sure if the general observation of "monsters have better Con saves than Dex saves" applies to Tier 1 monsters.

[Witty Username]

On the other hand, you can cast it from a safer distance. So it's basically the safety of casting it from a distance vs. having a good rider. Sounds balanced.

Situationally better than Rime's binding ice isn't necessarily a good balance point given how many scream power creep because of ice.

Fireball is already the best 3rd level blast spell, this change it would still be the best 3rd level blast spell, and arguably the best 1st and 2nd level blast spell.

[stoutstien]

Situationally better than Rime's binding ice isn't necessarily a good balance point given how many scream power creep because of ice.

Fireball is already the best 3rd level blast spell, this change it would still be the best 3rd level blast spell, and arguably the best 1st and 2nd level blast spell.

Honestly....meh. who cares if it it's the best low lv blasting spell? Those who want fireball *want* to be good at blasting and breaking it up under different spells that you need to compare lv to lv is pointless because once the math is done it's a false choice.

[diplomancer]

Situationally better than Rime's binding ice isn't necessarily a good balance point given how many scream power creep because of ice.

Fireball is already the best 3rd level blast spell, this change it would still be the best 3rd level blast spell, and arguably the best 1st and 2nd level blast spell.

Definitely not the best 1st level blast spell. 2d6 is pretty lame, you will very often not kill anybody (and when you cast a 1st level blast spell, you want good odds of killing your opponents with it). As to 3rd level blast spells; aren't there basically 2, Fireball and Lightning Bolt? Sure, they are too powerful for their level, but if you nerf them, wouldn't they still be the most powerful?

Just checked. They are the only two on PHB, but there are a few others in splatbooks. I'd say with the nerf they'd be better than Erupting Earth, and about on par with Tidal Wave and Pulse Wave.

I can see the argument that Rime's Binding Ice is power creep. But not allowing a 4d6 Fireball because "it's about as powerful as the most powerful 2nd level spell" feels to me like "crying over the spilled powercreep."

[Witty Username]

Honestly....meh. who cares if it it's the best low lv blasting spell? Those who want fireball *want* to be good at blasting and breaking it up under different spells that you need to compare lv to lv is pointless because once the math is done it's a false choice.

This is less about the removal of meaningful choice, and more about the raising of the ceiling. I am of the mind blasting in 5e is in a healthy spot (at least in the levels of play discussed), and buffing it is unnecessary.
--
@diplomancer
1st level the observation is more about radius and range, at 10ft radius, and 120ft range if I recall correctly, the only comparable 1st level spell would be ice knife which does have a higher single target damage but shorter range and I don't recall if is 5ft or 10ft radius. I am definitely open to being wrong in my assumptions on this.
--
This is also alot of effort to make Fireball fall into an arbitrary line that I don't find much value in. Taking the dmg guidelines for spells, we have a variety of spells that follow those guidelines, and very few see play regularly. Some of this is overtuned spells to those guidelines exist (like fireball) but alot of this is just blasting not keeping up with encounter expectations (As mentioned, fireball doesn't scale well into higher level play, and it is still overtuned in comparison to the higher level spells presented).

The problem to me seems to be the guidelines being insufficient, rather than fireball being too strong.

[Kane0]

Aside, i think cone of cold should sit beside fireball and lightning bolt as a 3rd level spell, adjusting damage and area to fit. Feels like they should be sibling spells, but CoC is wierdly higher up and im not sure why.

[Rukelnikov]

Aside, i think cone of cold should sit beside fireball and lightning bolt as a 3rd level spell, adjusting damage and area to fit. Feels like they should be sibling spells, but CoC is wierdly higher up and im not sure why.

As with many of these things, because of tradition, most of the iconic spells have had their level set since 2e or before.

[Psyren]

Aside, i think cone of cold should sit beside fireball and lightning bolt as a 3rd level spell, adjusting damage and area to fit. Feels like they should be sibling spells, but CoC is wierdly higher up and im not sure why.

If they did that they'd just need a different blasting spell at the higher level in CoC's place; upcasting increases a blasting spell's damage but it doesn't change their size, and a 60' cone is a much, much larger volume than a 20x20x20' sphere or a 120x5x5' line.

[Kane0]

Theres nothing stopping a spell from upcasting with area instead of damage, or hell even both

[stoutstien]

Strom of vengeance is a tough one. It's a good mass army annoyance but druids have plenty of those much sooner and are easier to place. Round 3 has the bulk of the damage but how often could you expect to have enough targets in the 3rd round?
It falls somewhere between 5-7.

[Rukelnikov]

Strom of vengeance is a tough one. It's a good mass army annoyance but druids have plenty of those much sooner and are easier to place. Round 3 has the bulk of the damage but how often could you expect to have enough targets in the 3rd round?
It falls somewhere between 5-7.

It really is a tough one, on one hand the area is pretty big, on the other the damage is terrible. Yes, the idea of the spell is to be an army buster, the problem I see though, is that its army killing potential is unlikely to kill CR 1 and above creatures, given that while big, the area isn't big enough to ensure most cretures will stay inside it for the full minute, and the 6 targeted bolts don't really add to its army killing power, 6 units are not an army. If we assume creatures under the storm run for their lives, and an avg speed of 30 ft, we can somewhat map the damage to the distance from the edge of the storm:

0-59 ft = 2d6 = 7 damage - Likely to kill about half CR 1/8 creatures, and very very few CR 1/4.
60-120 ft = 3d6 = 10.5 damage - Likely to kill most CR 1/8 creatures, very few CR 1/4 and very very few CR 1/2 and 1.
121-180 ft = 3d6 - The lightning bolts do no army damage, so same as above.
181-240 ft = 5d6 = 17.5 damage - Likely to kill almost every CR 1/8 creature, about half CR 1/4, some CR 1/2 and very few CR 1
241-270 ft = 6d6 = 21 damage - Likely to kill every CR 1/8 creature, most CR 1/4, half CR 1/2, and few CR 1
271-300 ft = 7d6 = 24.5 damage - Likely to kill every CR 1/8 and 1/4 creatures, most CR 1/2, and some CR 1
301-330 ft = 8d6 = 28 damage - Likely to kill almost every creature below CR 1, and about half CR 1
331-360 ft = 9d6 = 31.5 damage - Likely to kill almost every creature below CR 1, and about half CR 1

So yeah, in the 30 ft epicenter, its an ok army buster, and even in the 120 ft closest to the center its decent since it'll kill a good amount of low CR cretures, but past that? Its unlikely to even kill most creatures CR 1/4.

I think if the lightning bolts were moved to the final step, and every step 3 and forward came one round earlier it'd be better at what its trying to do which is dealing with hundreds of creatures.

[Psyren]

Theres nothing stopping a spell from upcasting with area instead of damage, or hell even both

I agree it's not totally infeasible (though it would play havoc with sorting and indexing) - but the fact is that spells aren't designed that way currently; area spells are fixed in 5e. I could see metamagic being able to do this one day, but upcasting, not so much.

[stoutstien]

I agree it's not totally infeasible (though it would play havoc with sorting and indexing) - but the fact is that spells aren't designed that way currently; area spells are fixed in 5e. I could see metamagic being able to do this one day, but upcasting, not so much.

There is fog cloud.

[Psyren]

There is fog cloud.

Point. Area damage spells then.

[stoutstien]

Point. Area damage spells then.

Fai, though *flat*cones and lines are pretty easy. It's the cube,spheres, and true cones that are tricky.

*I miss fan types area spells*

[Trask]

Don't know if it's been mentioned yet but I find Find Familiar to be way strong in certain campaigns (exploration heavy games). Especially in large dungeons.

[stoutstien]

Don't know if it's been mentioned yet but I find Find Familiar to be way strong in certain campaigns (exploration heavy games). Especially in large dungeons.

FF is class feature masquerading as a spell which is why there is so many alternative ways to achieve it. It solidly in the "remove it from spells" category.

[PhoenixPhyre]

FF is class feature masquerading as a spell which is why there is so many alternative ways to achieve it. It solidly in the "remove it from spells" category.

Agree. And this is a huge gripe I have with the playtest--they're leaning even further toward "no interesting class features, just features that grant spells". Which is mind-bogglingly stupid in so many ways, with tons of potential for breakage.

[stoutstien]

Agree. And this is a huge gripe I have with the playtest--they're leaning even further toward "no interesting class features, just features that grant spells". Which is mind-bogglingly stupid in so many ways, with tons of potential for breakage.

I bailed on it. It's direction is moving rapidly towards the point where it no longer holds any interest for me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I bailed on it. It's direction is moving rapidly towards the point where it no longer holds any interest for me.

Yeah. I'm at the "watching mostly with disinterest from a distance" stage myself. I'll kibitz in threads, but I don't do the surveys any more or do any detailed reading of the docs.

[Psyren]

Don't know if it's been mentioned yet but I find Find Familiar to be way strong in certain campaigns (exploration heavy games). Especially in large dungeons.


FF is class feature masquerading as a spell which is why there is so many alternative ways to achieve it. It solidly in the "remove it from spells" category.

I'm not getting this complaint. Familiars are a thing lots of people want for their characters, and while certainly useful, are far from overpowered. Making them a ritual spell is much more convenient than 3.5, 4e, and PF1 eventually just shrugging and making them a feat due to popular demand; same result, but much more in line with 5e's feat-light idiom.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not getting this complaint. Familiars are a thing lots of people want for their characters, and while certainly useful, are far from overpowered. Making them a ritual spell is much more convenient than 3.5, 4e, and PF1 eventually just shrugging and making them a feat due to popular demand; same result, but much more in line with 5e's feat-light idiom.

IMO, all familiars should be like the Familiar Variant monsters. Actual individual creatures the character makes a pact with, encountered during the adventure. Not disposable, anonymous, remote viewing devices.

[stoutstien]

I'm not getting this complaint. Familiars are a thing lots of people want for their characters, and while certainly useful, are far from overpowered. Making them a ritual spell is much more convenient than 3.5, 4e, and PF1 eventually just shrugging and making them a feat due to popular demand; same result, but much more in line with 5e's feat-light idiom.

I really don't have any complaints about its power. I dislike how it's gates by spell casting besides when it's not. The fact a lot of concepts want to have something along the FF line but need to be X class is my issue. Just like there should be an easy path for non summoned familiars for those who want to go that route as well.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

While FF is a good spell, I've never really got the Familiars are OP thing. They're mediocre scouts at best; by mid levels they're going to get caught out regularly if that's what they're being used for and give away the party. In combat they're good (particularly for Rogues), until they're dead, which is really easy to achieve. The fact it's a ritual spell is a big benefit when they're dying regularly, but that's more a broader issue with rituals. Even that is manageable given that neither the DM nor the rest of the party wants/ needs to stop play every time there's a Familiar death.

[Ionathus]

I bet that if fireball did an equivalent amount of damage to a 3rd level slot (so more like 6d6), it'd still be taken. And still be quite useful.

Yep. Fireball in particular was always going to be a favorite because there's nothing more iconic to arcane spellcasters than hurling an exploding ball of literal fire at your enemies.

[PhoenixPhyre]

While FF is a good spell, I've never really got the Familiars are OP thing. They're mediocre scouts at best; by mid levels they're going to get caught out regularly if that's what they're being used for and give away the party. In combat they're good (particularly for Rogues), until they're dead, which is really easy to achieve. The fact it's a ritual spell is a big benefit when they're dying regularly, but that's more a broader issue with rituals. Even that is manageable given that neither the DM nor the rest of the party wants/ needs to stop play every time there's a Familiar death.

They're "OP" (quotes intentional) when
* DMs give them a pass on being targeted, making them an infinite-advantage machine
* DMs handwave the chances of them getting caught

I'm less concerned with them being OP and more with any creature being treated as just a disposable parts of the character. I want familiars (and all pets) to have identity. To actually be NPCs, not just playing pieces. It keeps it much more grounded in the fiction and less game-focused.

[sithlordnergal]

They're "OP" (quotes intentional) when
* DMs give them a pass on being targeted, making them an infinite-advantage machine
* DMs handwave the chances of them getting caught

I'm less concerned with them being OP and more with any creature being treated as just a disposable parts of the character. I want familiars (and all pets) to have identity. To actually be NPCs, not just playing pieces. It keeps it much more grounded in the fiction and less game-focused.

Yeah, FF only becomes OP when your DM doesn't really kill them off. Though having a disposable scout is still really handy, especially with how the wording of the spell works. You can technically just dismiss then summon them on the other side of a door.

As for Familiars being treated as disposable? Eh, I feel that's down to personal preference. I personally like how disposable they are. It allows for a more evil character that doesn't care if their underlings die, because those underlings are forced to serve them due to the spell that's binding them regardless of their desires.

You can't really pull that off when a Familiar isn't disposable. And on the flip side, a character can do their best to protect their Familiar without ever changing the spell.

[Psyren]

IMO, all familiars should be like the Familiar Variant monsters. Actual individual creatures the character makes a pact with, encountered during the adventure. Not disposable, anonymous, remote viewing devices.

Sorry I'm not familiar (...no pun intended...); which monsters are those?

The issue here though is that no matter what they do WotC is going to make someone unhappy. There's no way for familiars to simultaneously be precious pets/family members you're loath to put in danger, and resilient (or "disposable" as you termed it) spirits whose impermanent loss doesn't sting. They can't have it both ways, so they have to choose one. I for one am glad they opted for the latter as the default, and tables who want familiar loss to be a true threat can do so on their own recognizance for the type of game they're playing.

As far as them being infinite-advantage machines - I agree, familiars who participate in combat should be fair game to be attacked, or at the very least included in area effects. I'm also of the opinion that they can't always hinder every kind of opponent automatically - sorry, your raven isn't going to distract a Tarrasque.


I really don't have any complaints about its power. I dislike how it's gates by spell casting besides when it's not. The fact a lot of concepts want to have something along the FF line but need to be X class is my issue. Just like there should be an easy path for non summoned familiars for those who want to go that route as well.

It's a 1st-level ritual though, the only way to make it easier to get would be making it a Trinket. Being automatically available to arcanists and druids is, to me, very on-brand.

[Trask]

While FF is a good spell, I've never really got the Familiars are OP thing. They're mediocre scouts at best; by mid levels they're going to get caught out regularly if that's what they're being used for and give away the party. In combat they're good (particularly for Rogues), until they're dead, which is really easy to achieve. The fact it's a ritual spell is a big benefit when they're dying regularly, but that's more a broader issue with rituals. Even that is manageable given that neither the DM nor the rest of the party wants/ needs to stop play every time there's a Familiar death.

IME they aren't mediocre scouts in many circumstances because a small animal is pretty naturalistic in many environments. A rat running around probably won't attract much notice in many environments. Yes you could just have enemies kill them, but that feels antagonistic to me; why would humanoids or zombies or whatever pay attention to a little creature like that? And Warlocks with invisible imps are even more powerful. Although part of the issue I see is the trivial cost. Which leads to my next point...


They're "OP" (quotes intentional) when
* DMs give them a pass on being targeted, making them an infinite-advantage machine
* DMs handwave the chances of them getting caught

I'm less concerned with them being OP and more with any creature being treated as just a disposable parts of the character. I want familiars (and all pets) to have identity. To actually be NPCs, not just playing pieces. It keeps it much more grounded in the fiction and less game-focused.

Agreed. Familiars are basically treated as mindless little animal slaves and their deaths mean nothing. The same is true for Found Steeds and even Tasha's Primal Companions. And to address a common counterargument...



As for Familiars being treated as disposable? Eh, I feel that's down to personal preference. I personally like how disposable they are. It allows for a more evil character that doesn't care if their underlings die, because those underlings are forced to serve them due to the spell that's binding them regardless of their desires.

You can't really pull that off when a Familiar isn't disposable. And on the flip side, a character can do their best to protect their Familiar without ever changing the spell.

An evil character might not care, but there's no good reason for ANY character to care. Its a re-summon able videogame minion like DOTA Beastmaster, that goes double for Found Steeds and Primal Companions. There's NO mechanics to enforce a reason to care, and it takes a rare kind of player to force himself to care about a minion whose' death is basically an inconvenience session after session of the game where treating them as the disposable pawns they truly are could buy them an advantage in combat or otherwise.

EDIT: I do not want to derail the thread, but this is why I actually have sympathy for alignment enforcing mechanics, because session after session of a long campaign, players and DM's become lax and everyone defaults to wargamer mode, especially as the campaign becomes harder. Those mechanics help remind us who our characters are. See the AD&D Paladin, game enforced Lawful Good, must tithe treasure to the poor, and if their steed dies it takes something like a year to bring back. That's probably way too harsh for 5e's design philosophy, but those mechanics do a good job of informing the player what kind of character a paladin is, and has the teeth to ensure that there are no "I do whatever the **** I want" Paladins running around.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Agreed. Familiars are basically treated as mindless little animal slaves and their deaths mean nothing. The same is true for Found Steeds and even Tasha's Primal Companions. And to address a common counterargument...



An evil character might not care, but there's no good reason for ANY character to care. Its a re-summon able videogame minion like DOTA Beastmaster, that goes double for Found Steeds and Primal Companions. There's NO mechanics to enforce a reason to care, and it takes a rare kind of player to force himself to care about a minion whose' death is basically an inconvenience session after session of the game where treating them as the disposable pawns they truly are could buy them an advantage in combat or otherwise.

EDIT: I do not want to derail the thread, but this is why I actually have sympathy for alignment enforcing mechanics, because session after session of a long campaign, players and DM's become lax and everyone defaults to wargamer mode, especially as the campaign becomes harder. Those mechanics help remind us who our characters are. See the AD&D Paladin, game enforced Lawful Good, must tithe treasure to the poor, and if their steed dies it takes something like a year to bring back. That's probably way too harsh for 5e's design philosophy, but those mechanics do a good job of informing the player what kind of character a paladin is, and has the teeth to ensure that there are no "I do whatever the **** I want" Paladins running around.

I agree with all of this.

As for enabling evil characters...no loss for me. I've discarded alignment entirely, but I personally, as a person and as a DM, don't want to play with people who have the "NPCs are disposable playing pieces" mentality. Plus the whole "enslaving a sentient creature to my total beck and call, even if it's tortured" thing. Call it personal preference, but...

And @Psyren--the things I'm thinking of are the `Variant Familiar` sidebars on stuff like the Gazer, Imp, Pseudodragon, etc stat blocks. Basically they're actual NPCs, played by the DM. They get to make the deals individually, aren't bound to total slavish obedience, and can leave if mistreated, and they don't come back if they die. No pocket dimension either. You want another character to play? You pay the price of having another character to play. It's like simulacrum (another spell I hate from a narrative AND game point of view). You get a "free" set of extra actions. You get to play two characters while everyone else only gets to play one.

[Pex]

They're "OP" (quotes intentional) when
* DMs give them a pass on being targeted, making them an infinite-advantage machine
* DMs handwave the chances of them getting caught

I'm less concerned with them being OP and more with any creature being treated as just a disposable parts of the character. I want familiars (and all pets) to have identity. To actually be NPCs, not just playing pieces. It keeps it much more grounded in the fiction and less game-focused.

Then blame the DM, not the spell.

[Psyren]

I agree with all of this.

As for enabling evil characters...no loss for me. I've discarded alignment entirely, but I personally, as a person and as a DM, don't want to play with people who have the "NPCs are disposable playing pieces" mentality. Plus the whole "enslaving a sentient creature to my total beck and call, even if it's tortured" thing. Call it personal preference, but...

And @Psyren--the things I'm thinking of are the `Variant Familiar` sidebars on stuff like the Gazer, Imp, Pseudodragon, etc stat blocks. Basically they're actual NPCs, played by the DM. They get to make the deals individually, aren't bound to total slavish obedience, and can leave if mistreated, and they don't come back if they die. No pocket dimension either. You want another character to play? You pay the price of having another character to play. It's like simulacrum (another spell I hate from a narrative AND game point of view). You get a "free" set of extra actions. You get to play two characters while everyone else only gets to play one.

I agree Simulacrum is (very) bad but I don't see that as a reason to make all familiars function like those sidebars. In fact, I would argue those sidebars function as a 5e update of Improved Familiar for non-chainlocks. You want a pseudodragon without being a chainlock, absolutely you have to go out and forge the connection with an actual pseudodragon. That doesn't mean the "raven/cat/frog spirit" option shouldn't also exist for the tables that don't want to deal with all that. Those more general/animal familiars are already balanced for their convenience by being a lot less capable - no speech, rudimentary intelligence, no attacks etc.


Then blame the DM, not the spell.

This too.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Then blame the DM, not the spell.

As I said, the spell's POWER is fine. It's the thematics and fiction of making it an anonymous playing piece that I dislike. And that's not on the DM at all.

[Psyren]

As I said, the spell's POWER is fine. It's the thematics and fiction of making it an anonymous playing piece that I dislike. And that's not on the DM at all.

Well I do like resilient, mutable familiars so... I guess we'll have to agree to disagree again.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

They're "OP" (quotes intentional) when
* DMs give them a pass on being targeted, making them an infinite-advantage machine
* DMs handwave the chances of them getting caught

I'm less concerned with them being OP and more with any creature being treated as just a disposable parts of the character. I want familiars (and all pets) to have identity. To actually be NPCs, not just playing pieces. It keeps it much more grounded in the fiction and less game-focused.

I do feel/ felt the same way about the disposable nature. What I'm working on getting my head around is the idea that the 'essence' of the familiar isn't gone when a material form is extinguished. If I can reconcile that, then I think I'll be ok with the idea that the material forms are disposable. Paly steed, etc is in the same boat.

[Aeson]

An evil character might not care, but there's no good reason for ANY character to care.
The player might need a mechanical incentive to care, but non-evil or at the very least good characters shouldn't, and on top of that "I don't want to lose that because it'll impose some penalty on me until I replace it / cost me X to replace it" is not exactly what I'd call a good reason for a non-evil character to be invested in the well-being of their familiar - that's the sort of relationship you have with something like your sword or your backpack, not the sort of relationship a non-evil character has with something that's effectively an intelligent pet or even, depending on the sort of fiction you have around it, a companion with human-level, though likely somewhat alien, intelligence.

Also, there technically already is a mechanical penalty for the loss of a familiar since you need an uninterrupted hour or so to cast Find Familiar and I don't think that "casting a ritual spell" counts as an activity "no more stenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds," especially since a long rest is explicitly interrupted by a period of spellcasting that lasts an hour or more.


why would humanoids or zombies or whatever pay attention to a little creature like that?
Undead in many settings are malevolent things that hate anything that lives, and if that's the case in the setting that you're in I don't think it'd be a stretch to have zombies or skeletons or whatnot killing anything that comes near when doing so doesn't explicitly contradict whatever instructions they might be under - especially since the sorts of commands that less-intelligent undead like zombies and skeletons are likely to be under are simple commands like "guard this area," which is basically permission for them to (try to) kill anything that comes near.

As for why something else might? Maybe they're hungry or bored, perhaps your familiar stands out from the local wildlife due to behavior or appearance, possibly they know about and are concerned by the possibility of being observed by familiar and so have a standing shoot-on-sight order for the sorts of creatures that could be familiars; there might even be superstitions associated with certain creature types that would lead brigands or whatever to behave aggressively towards an otherwise-innocuous creature, especially if there's some group of magicians who are said or known to commonly take such creatures as familiars (e.g. witches and black cats) or some kind of monster that at least reputedly takes that creature's form (e.g. vampires and bats). It could even be the case that someone or something specifically recognizes the familiar for what it is - something "sensing" that it's being watched and then detecting the observer and recognizing it for what it is even through magical disguise or invisibility isn't exactly uncommon in fiction, especially when both the observer and the observed are highly magical, though if that's the case you might want to precede the actual shooting of the familiar with something like "a robed man walking through the camp pauses in his stride, looks around as if searching for something, then turns and looks directly at your familiar, points, and begins shouting..." You could even use a predator that hunts the kind of thing that the familiar appears to be - there's probably things like hawks and foxes in the woods or cats and dogs in the town/castle/bandit camp that'd love to go after your rat- or pidgeon-familiar even if nothing else in the area shows any interest in it, or which could draw attention to it if they react strangely towards it (e.g. barking/growling/hissing at it instead of attacking or chasing it). It's not hard to come up with a plausible justification for denying free familiar-scouting to the party if you want to do so.

[Trask]

All that is plausible, but maybe a bit contrived. If the player's abilities are countered once or twice in a sensible context, its fine. What I really don't like though, on either side of the screen, is consistently countering their abilities if it doesn't feel plausible. And plausibility can be hard to adjudicate. Maybe its my own hangups as a DM, but whether or not a zombie lets a rat crawl by or pounces on it for dinner is hard to determine, I usually leave things like that up to the dice, I don't like to arbitrarily decide, or just say it doesn't happen if I don't feel its plausible. Combined with the fact that I tend to run large dungeons with a fair amount of "empty" (read: No combat) rooms and exploratory challenges, a mutable familiar who can double as a sensor for the caster means that almost every room begins with "I send my familiar in seeing through its senses". Its not unmanageable, but its a spell that DEFINITELY punches above its weight class IME.

IMO its just another symptom of how 5e (and maybe D&D in general) treats exploration activities as an afterthought when it comes to spells. Its made more of an issue with ritual casting.

[Pex]

As I said, the spell's POWER is fine. It's the thematics and fiction of making it an anonymous playing piece that I dislike. And that's not on the DM at all.

Yes, it is. As DM I do have enemies attack and kill a familiar that's using the Help action. I've had combats be instigated when a familiar was spotted by the bad guys being used for scouting. The spell is not free scrying and Advantage forever.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes, it is. As DM I do have enemies attack and kill a familiar that's using the Help action. I've had combats be instigated when a familiar was spotted by the bad guys being used for scouting. The spell is not free scrying and Advantage forever.

You're still talking about the power of the spell. Which I'm fine with. And what's in the power of the DM. So a DM who doesn't do those things I listed has a FF that's within the bounds of the normal power range (if at the high end).

I'm not fine with the idea of creating these throwaway creatures as permanent slaves and "chess pieces" as a valid character ability. Morally (enslaving another being to your will and subjecting them to torture isn't something that anyone but an evil character should even contemplate) and narratively (creating life ex nihilo has lots of metaphysical issues that have to be addressed and are not) and from a meta perspective (chess-piece characters conflict badly with the idea of role-play, the current design is 100% roll play and 0% role play) and from a game perspective (giving people ways to break the action economy needs special handling, and doing so cheaply is a big warning flag). And this is all higher-order stuff that isn't really in the hands of the DM except by pure fiat, which you hate.

[Witty Username]

Then blame the DM, not the spell.

It sounds like the problem is better described as, blame the player, not the spell.

Its the player that chooses to treat the familiar as a game piece rather than a creature with intelligence.

[sithlordnergal]

You're still talking about the power of the spell. Which I'm fine with. And what's in the power of the DM. So a DM who doesn't do those things I listed has a FF that's within the bounds of the normal power range (if at the high end).

I'm not fine with the idea of creating these throwaway creatures as permanent slaves and "chess pieces" as a valid character ability. Morally (enslaving another being to your will and subjecting them to torture isn't something that anyone but an evil character should even contemplate) and narratively (creating life ex nihilo has lots of metaphysical issues that have to be addressed and are not) and from a meta perspective (chess-piece characters conflict badly with the idea of role-play, the current design is 100% roll play and 0% role play) and from a game perspective (giving people ways to break the action economy needs special handling, and doing so cheaply is a big warning flag). And this is all higher-order stuff that isn't really in the hands of the DM except by pure fiat, which you hate.

To be fair, you're not actually creating life. You're capturing a nature spirit, giving it a corporeal form, and forcing it to serve you. Occasionally to the death. 8D as for the slavery bit, yeah that is an issue for Good aligned beings. Though to be fair, that'd apply to just about any summons. From Conjure elemental to Summon Greater Demon.

Personally, I really like the fact that its so easy to resummon, and that there are no real penalties when it died. I remember in 3.5 when you had penalties if your Familiar, Paladin Mount, or Animal Companion died. I generally ignored them because they simply weren't worth the risk. Too easy to kill and not enough benefits to waste your time with them. I actually make use of the companions in 5e now. Especially with the newer classes like Creation Bard, the Artificer, and Wild Fire Druid.

[Pex]

It sounds like the problem is better described as, blame the player, not the spell.

Its the player that chooses to treat the familiar as a game piece rather than a creature with intelligence.

Depending on point of view with the DM allowing it. Either way it's not the spell.


You're still talking about the power of the spell. Which I'm fine with. And what's in the power of the DM. So a DM who doesn't do those things I listed has a FF that's within the bounds of the normal power range (if at the high end).

I'm not fine with the idea of creating these throwaway creatures as permanent slaves and "chess pieces" as a valid character ability. Morally (enslaving another being to your will and subjecting them to torture isn't something that anyone but an evil character should even contemplate) and narratively (creating life ex nihilo has lots of metaphysical issues that have to be addressed and are not) and from a meta perspective (chess-piece characters conflict badly with the idea of role-play, the current design is 100% roll play and 0% role play) and from a game perspective (giving people ways to break the action economy needs special handling, and doing so cheaply is a big warning flag). And this is all higher-order stuff that isn't really in the hands of the DM except by pure fiat, which you hate.

You're complaining about how the spell is used. That's on the DM or player depending on point of view. That's still not the problem of the spell itself.

[Rukelnikov]

It sounds like the problem is better described as, blame the player, not the spell.

Its the player that chooses to treat the familiar as a game piece rather than a creature with intelligence.

But its also a bit on the spell. The spell facilitates treating it that way if the player is so inclined, or even if the player is completely new to the game.

In previous editions the death of a familiar was significantly detrimental to the person who had part of his soul bound to the creature.

In 2e, system shock save or die, on a save lose 1 permanent Constitution. I think that was a bit extreme, making it virtually impossible to bring to adventures past the very first levels.

3e had a penalty of 200 XP per character level (Fort for half), and you couldn't summon a new familiar for a year and a day. Much less punishing than permanently losing a point of Constitution, but hurts nonetheless, and you lose access to your familiar for a long time, perhaps too long*.

5e, the "penalty" is a short rest and 10 gp.

Losing a familiar was relaxed to such a degree that someone who's new to the game would read that spell and probably think "this is awesome, I can send it into danger with abandon, and it'll be fine soon after!", and they are right to think that way, because that's what the game is presenting them.

* I think whether it's too long or not depends on the kind of stories people want to tell with the system, a sandboxxy adventures where players have multiple characters and maybe some players coming and going regularly is usual, and time passes for characters in the world even if they are not being played, then 1 year and a day is ok. For a party driven game, its too long.

[Amnestic]

If you made losing a familiar deduct 5 points from your current and max HP (to a minimum of 1) until you complete a long rest, then that'd probably stop them being viewed as disposable.

5 chosen because a) nice easy number and b) assuming a Con of 10, a 1st level wizard would still naturally end up at 1. Still easy to "fix" since you just sleep it off, in keeping with 5e's general approach, but also a bit more on an oomph than an hour and 10gp.

It becomes less of a problem as you gain levels, but familiar scouting is also more likely to fail as you face higher level opponents with better detection/skills, and the party gains better scouting features of their own, so it evens out.

Chain warlocks could have a special clause to not take the damage (or tack it onto one of the existing Chainpact invocations, if you don't want them to get it 'free').

[Rukelnikov]

If you made losing a familiar deduct 5 points from your current and max HP (to a minimum of 1) until you complete a long rest, then that'd probably stop them being viewed as disposable.

5 chosen because a) nice easy number and b) assuming a Con of 10, a 1st level wizard would still naturally end up at 1. Still easy to "fix" since you just sleep it off, in keeping with 5e's general approach, but also a bit more on an oomph than an hour and 10gp.

It becomes less of a problem as you gain levels, but familiar scouting is also more likely to fail as you face higher level opponents with better detection/skills, and the party gains better scouting features of their own, so it evens out.

Chain warlocks could have a special clause to not take the damage (or tack it onto one of the existing Chainpact invocations, if you don't want them to get it 'free').

I like this idea, I'd go with lose PB HP from current and Max, since it seems more in tune with how the rest of the system works. I'd also add, and you can't resummon until you regain those HP.

[Theodoxus]

Do people get butthurt when their unseen servant dies, or is used as a slave? I don't see much substantive difference between "you summon a spirit" and "you create a force". Or maybe there's cognitive dissonance around the word 'spirit'.

Perhaps FF would be less controversial if spirit was replaced with force? Then it would be more akin to animate dead (not that AD uses the term 'force' either, but since force is kind of the 'universal' arcane energy, it's not hard to extrapolate).

At any rate, I have no problems with there being essentially three different ways to get familiars. They each have their pros and cons; each fulfills a different fantasy trope, and at least with FF and to a lesser extent, Pact of the Chain, being easily restored is a feature, not a bug. If you're going to cheese combat by using an owl every turn (yes, I've played a vhuman rogue with Magic Initiate - it IS cheese), then the DM is perfectly within their rights to have the monsters ready actions to kill the bugger after a couple of rounds - I always give the players a round or two of fun and then take out the irritation with prejudice.

If you're summoning your familiar behind every locked door, then yes, at some point, something is going to notice the rat/hawk/monkey suddenly appearing from nowhere and get curious/angry. Better to be a chainlock with an imp or quasit at that point - but the locked door suddenly opening on it's own is another bag of problems for the party...

[KorvinStarmast]

Grasping Vine is a 4th level spell that should've been a 1st or 2nd level spell tops. Yeah, I think it needs a re do.
Ice Storm at level 4 has, in play, been utterly underwhelming in my experience.


Observation: some of the power of a spell is dependent on what list it's on. Sits and gets popcorn to listen once again to the magical secrets complaints in re bards and find greater steed ...

I'm not convinced Vampiric Touch is worth a third-level slot I have yet to choose it, and yet to see anyone in any of the games I have played in choose it.

Likewise Conjure Animals and its ilk; CA is a design nightmare that can't be fixed just by fiddling with the spell level and calling it a day. If you want to monkey with the CR or number that's the way to address that.

0: Blade Ward: The Dodge action has almost the same effect, and is available to anyone without a precious cantrip slot. Feel similarly.

Primal Savagery: OK, a d10 isn't bad, and acid is a pretty reliable damage type, but it's also melee range with no rider. It does the same damage as EB (before AB) and scales as a cantrip. It is serviceable. Also a good way to deal with trolls at low level. :smallbiggrin:

1: Bane: A spell whose primary use is to decrease enemy saves, and it has a save itself. And you have much better uses for your concentration. It targets a Cha save, which don't get to be an issue (in terms of enemies with high CHA) until later tiers, and it also reduces attack roll of the enemy. I have used it at low level, up to about level 6, and was pleasantly surprised at how much it helped the party. But I don't like how fiddly it is: we came up with a "caster rolls a d4 when casting the spell and that's the subtraction for enemy rolls" for ease of play, rather than roll additional d4 for each instance. We tried it the other way and found it a little clunky.

Charm Person: Just doesn't do enough.
Massively concur. It's not the level, it's how the spell is written.

Cure Wounds: It's not bad, per se, but everyone has better options (Healing Word for clerics and bards, Goodberry for druids and rangers, Lay On Hands for paladins). This is a solid spell, and for a life cleric it's even better.

Crown of Madness: You might get one attack out of this spell. But then the target will just move out of range of any of their allies. And you can't even use it sneakily, to stage a betrayal, since it has an obvious visible effect ("Hey, why'd that iron crown appear on my lieutenant's head just before he attacked me?"). We are about to discover how well this works, since our AT just took it at level 11. I chose not to warn him about its drawbacks and my brother, the DM, has never seen it in play. It will be interesting to see how it plays out the first time the AT uses it.


3: Bestow Curse: Concentration and short duration, and it doesn't even completely shut down the target. Even if it were 1st level, it compares unfavorably to Tasha's Hideous Laughter. Would be worth it if it didn't take concentration and lasted at least a day.
It's fiddly as heck.

Daylight: And the advantage of using this over a cantrip is...? I have always wanted this to be sunlight, but I guess they reserve that for higher level spells.


5:
Conjure Volley: Ranger-only again. OK, now we're looking at a 17th-level character spending their action, to do only 8d8 damage. Yeah. Steelwind Strike is a better choice.


Dawn: It's like Moonbeam, but higher level, less damage per level, and it doesn't deal its damage until after the target has a chance to move out of it.
It is sunlight. Against some creatures, that maters.

Stoneskin: Too expensive to use regularly, and it doesn't do anything vs. magic.
I think it's meant to help you against swarms of mooks.


Feeblemind: The creatures likely to fail their saves against this won't be seriously affected even if they do. It is save or suck, and when it sucks, it sucks hard.

The main point of divine word is the banishment effect (no concentration, affects many targets), not the hp effect. It's situational, but if you're up against fiends (pretty common at that level), it's a great spell. Aye.


I think a lot of my list have been covered. A couple i didn't see mentioned:
1) Wall of force. This should be level 6 at least.
No. If you want to tweak it ...
Wall of Force needs to be nerfed; they should take a page out of PF's book and let martials break it down, even if it takes a few rounds. Give it some HP and AC so that it can be knocked down, but it takes time. But I say leave it as is.

Don't know if it's been mentioned yet but I find Find Familiar to be way strong in certain campaigns (exploration heavy games). Especially in large dungeons. It is tiresome to see people complaining about FF. :smallfurious: Leave Pact of the Chain alone, please!

FF is class feature masquerading as a spell Which class? Strong disagree. :smallfurious: Leave Pact of the Chain alone, please!

[diplomancer]

Yeah, I think it needs a re do.
Ice Storm at level 4 has, in play, been utterly underwhelming in my experience.

I'll always remember with fondness how my Ancients Paladin kept some hostile wereboars talking at a tavern while the Wizard's Delayed Blast Fireball powered up, followed by the Cleric's Flamestrike and my own Ice Storm. Yes, I was in the middle of the three blasts, but I'm an Ancients Paladin :D

DM was just saking his head, saying "you guys just dealt out more than one thousand hit points of damage in a turn"

[KorvinStarmast]

Sorry I'm not familiar (...no pun intended...); which monsters are those? In the MM, pseudodragon and Imp. Variant.


As far as them being infinite-advantage machines - I agree, familiars who participate in combat should be fair game to be attacked, or at the very least included in area effects. I'm also of the opinion that they can't always hinder every kind of opponent automatically - sorry, your raven isn't going to distract a Tarrasque. +1

Agreed. Familiars are basically treated as mindless little animal slaves and their deaths mean nothing. By whom? Are you projecting your issues on others here? At our table they have names and I summon the same one. Most of the time, my Familiar is taking a nap in the extra dimensional space, and comes out when I need an extra set of eyes. At our tables, if the familiar does its "offer advantage" schtick it often dies.

I find your rant about FF to be way out of line. (You are not the only one whose OTT position on FF I find objectionable). Which brings us to the problem of "it's the archer, not the arrow" in most cases.

Then blame the DM, not the spell. And the players for that matter.

s. As DM I do have enemies attack and kill a familiar that's using the Help action. I've had combats be instigated when a familiar was spotted by the bad guys being used for scouting. The spell is not free scrying and Advantage forever. Bingo.

I'm not fine with the idea of creating these throwaway creatures as permanent slaves and "chess pieces" That's a bit of hyperbole.

It sounds like the problem is better described as, blame the player, not the spell. Its the player that chooses to treat the familiar as a game piece rather than a creature with intelligence. Bingo.

If you made losing a familiar deduct 5 points from your current and max HP (to a minimum of 1) until you complete a long rest, then that'd probably stop them being viewed as disposable. There's a little bit of AD&D 1e in that idea ... :smallwink: Losing your familiar cost you HP as a Magic User ...


It becomes less of a problem as you gain levels, but familiar scouting is also more likely to fail as you face higher level opponents with better detection/skills, and the party gains better scouting features of their own, so it evens out. This is what we have found in practice.

Chain warlocks could have a special clause to not take the damage (or tack it onto one of the existing Chainpact invocations, if you don't want them to get it 'free'). As I noted above, the entire anti FF rant series is a direct assault on Pact of the Chain warlocks, and it needs to be called out as anti player. Which it is. :smallyuk:

I like this idea, I'd go with lose PB HP from current and Max, since it seems more in tune with how the rest of the system works. I'd also add, and you can't resummon until you regain those HP. Not a bad tweak if the players are not embracing the fiction.

Moving right along to homunculus ... I think that Create Homunculus is a bit over leveled at spell level 6.
Thoughts?

[Amnestic]

I will confess to struggling with Chainpact familiars as a DM.

Invisible tiny spiders (or invisible ravens) that can telepathically communicate in real time with their boss are very good scouting vehicles and are eminently replaceable if they are discovered and killed. What this means is that there is very little reason for the party not to deploy them as scouts, mapping out a great deal of foes without much risk. That is the smart play as an adventurer who wants to not be dead from being surprised by things.

What that means is that a lot of the time the party will be sat twiddling their thumbs as the DM relays information about future threats over, and over, and over again. It takes time when not a whole lot of playing is going on.

There certainly are counters to familiar scouting (traps, airtight doors, Hallow spells or the like) but deploying them constantly starts to seem contrived as well as punishing a player for...choosing a class feature, which is never great, but I don't really like the dynamic of the party sat on their hands waiting for the imp to report back. When constructing a goblin cave, even one that could challenge a tier 2 (or 3) party, it's totally reasonable that they wouldn't have anything to block an invisible spider from scouting the entire thing from top to bottom.

Potentially hot take: Chainpact shouldn't have used imps or quasits due to their shapechanger feature. I'd much rather they have familiars be more resilient and better in a fight. They can still scout in the same way wizard familiars can (visible animals), but the invisible shapechanging stuff I've never liked, and would rather jettison entirely.

Making chainpact familiars a middleground between familiar and 'Ranger Pet' would be my ideal. Investment of the Chain Master certainly helps with that, but it could go/have gone further.

[stoutstien]

I mean pack of the chain is a strong argument on why FF shouldn't just be a <spell>. If they weren't limited to using that as the base of the subclass they would have a ton more flexibility in it applicably.

[KorvinStarmast]

I mean pack of the chain is a strong argument on why FF shouldn't just be a <spell>. If they weren't limited to using that as the base of the subclass they would have a ton more flexibility in it applicably. There is nothing wrong with how it works, so no, it isn't. The Warlock has to make an opportunity cost kind of decision to choose pact of the chain. They forego certain invocations and options by so doing, and open up others.

I see what you are doing, though, which is very similar to "EB ought to be a warlock feature not a 0th level spell" and while that's an interesting alternate way to set up the game it isn't how 5e works.

Beyond that, the feat Magic Initiate offeris the option of Find Familiar to anyone willing to burn an ASI for a feat. This is a great way to customize any PC of any class - like a Fighter with a Falcon/Eagle familiar, for example.

I disagree with your premise that gatekeeping or stove-piping is a good idea.

[stoutstien]

There is nothing wrong with how it works, so no, it isn't. The Warlock has to make an opportunity cost kind of decision to choose pact of the chain. They forego certain invocations and options by so doing, and open up others.

I see what you are doing, though, which is very similar to "EB ought to be a warlock feature not a 0th level spell" and while that's an interesting alternate way to set up the game it isn't how 5e works.

Beyond that, the feat Magic Initiate offeris the option of Find Familiar to anyone willing to burn an ASI for a feat. This is a great way to customize any PC of any class - like a Fighter with a Falcon/Eagle familiar, for example.

I disagree with your premise that gatekeeping or stove-piping is a good idea.

It *is* gated. By spells like 90% of the other features which is how 5e works but doesn't make it a good design.

seeing how we are talking about hypothetical spell changes you might as well excise stuff like FF so it can be works into different subsystems so players aren't forced back into the "if you want something cool you better cast spells and set your behind the curve for your primary stat for something someone else got as an extra from being a spell caster."

[Rukelnikov]

Moving right along to homunculus ... I think that Create Homunculus is a bit over leveled at spell level 6.
Thoughts?

I've never had an Homunculus, but reading its stats, I think its better than any of the regular familiars, and comparable to Pact Familiars, it can't go invisible, but it has a sidegrade on VotCM, it can't speak, but you don't need to spend your action to see thru its senses, nor are you deafened or blinded to your surroindings, you just have another flying set of eyes and ears. I got a lot of milage out of my pact familiar being able to speak (my Imp literally bought me out of Hell), but I think one could also get a lot of mileage out of a permanent second set of eyes.

I think this is a weird spell, it covers a pretty similar narrative concept to Find Familiar, but its deemed an 11th level theme, while Find Familiar is considered a 1st level theme. The Homunculus is a Construct while the familiar is not, so the divide is Create vs Bind. I think narratively its comparable to Awaken, so I don't think it should go below 5th, system wise, 6th level spells are a big jump on spell impact and I think that might be the right place for this spell.

A one time investment of 1000 gp is not prohibitive at those levels, at least it never has been for me across all editions I've played, so I don't think the cost is a very important factor, and I think that's the kind of elements that make magic feel more magical, "I have this dagger because I use it for the ritual to make homunculi", of course its flavor, it could be a blood gem instead of a dagger, or whatever, but I have this rare object for a very specific magical purpose.

So, while I think level and cost are ok, the HP transference is good in theme but mechanically is just too punishing, in any heavy adventuring scenario* giving from your HP to your Homunculi just seems like a really bad trade, it's not a combatant, so prioritizing its survivability over yours at a 1 to 1 rate seems a really hefty price for a somewhat minor gain. If it improved its combat capabilities beyond just HP, it'd be a different spell, it'd be a combatant, scaling its utility capabilities by sacrificing HD sound a bit more complex than what 5e seems comfortable doing most of the time. So, idk how to marry the theme of spending their own lifeforce to empower their scout puppet with the mechanics of HP and a theme-wise non combatant pet.

*During long periods of downtime I could understand it a lil more "I'll spend the next year studying in my warded tower and will only experience the outside world thru my homunculi, so I'll give it as much HP as I can every day, its more likely something happens to it than to me.". And even in most of those scenarios its just to have a general idea of how durable it is, ie where it can "reasonably" venture.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It *is* gated. By spells like 90% of the other features which is how 5e works but doesn't make it a good design.

seeing how we are talking about hypothetical spell changes you might as well excise stuff like FF so it can be works into different subsystems so players aren't forced back into the "if you want something cool you better cast spells and set your behind the curve for your primary stat for something someone else got as an extra from being a spell caster."

Yeah. And this (the latter quoted part) is a design style I dislike.

[stoutstien]

Back on the farm..

PW: heal mass heal are both well over budget in T4. Safe to bring them down to lv 7-7.5 heck heal should be brought down and scaled for lv 3. If fireball is iconic so is heal.

Antipathy/sympathy- easily can go up to lv 9.

Swift quiver- lv 3 tops

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Back on the farm..

PW: heal mass heal are both well over budget in T4. Safe to bring them down to lv 7-7.5 heck heal should be brought down and scaled for lv 3. If fireball is iconic so is heal.

Antipathy/sympathy- easily can go up to lv 9.

Swift quiver- lv 3 tops

Agreed on swift quiver. Given that a level 3 D. Smite adds 4 dice of damage (or 5, 8 or 10) with 100% success and doesn't use a BA or concentration Swift Quiver ought to be at least comparable to that. You'd have to hit regularly and keep concentration up for a while to do that even at level 3. SQ is probably better in a featless game where it's a lot harder to get a regular BA; in a game with feats it's likely only +1 attack.

[Eldariel]

Agreed on swift quiver. Given that a level 3 D. Smite adds 4 dice of damage (or 5, 8 or 10) with 100% success and doesn't use a BA or concentration Swift Quiver ought to be at least comparable to that. You'd have to hit regularly and keep concentration up for a while to do that even at level 3. SQ is probably better in a featless game where it's a lot harder to get a regular BA; in a game with feats it's likely only +1 attack.

Worse, it's +1 attack only on subsequent turns as it costs bonus action to cast and only has 1 minute duration (making any sort of precasting highly inconvenient unless you get an action exactly before the fight starts). Unless you get to precast it, on turns it's: -1 attack, +0 attacks, +1 attacks, meaning it's net positive only on turn 3, and even there only for one attack. It really just should give you two attacks when you cast it in addition to its normal effects (or just add those attacks to the normal attack action), like many of the more modern design buff options.

[stoutstien]

Worse, it's +1 attack only on subsequent turns as it costs bonus action to cast and only has 1 minute duration (making any sort of precasting highly inconvenient unless you get an action exactly before the fight starts). Unless you get to precast it, on turns it's: -1 attack, +0 attacks, +1 attacks, meaning it's net positive only on turn 3, and even there only for one attack. It really just should give you two attacks when you cast it in addition to its normal effects (or just add those attacks to the normal attack action), like many of the more modern design buff options.
It does have the small niche of attacks that are not the attack action. Preferably this would also be a non spell thing that rangers would get it something but as a 3rd lv spell it has some space at least.

[Chronos]

Find Familiar is definitely one of the better first-level spells, but I don't think it's unbalancing. And due to being a ritual, and lasting indefinitely, its balance point wouldn't be changed much by increasing its level (the only effects of a level change would be excluding it from 1st and 2nd level characters, and from Magic Initiate, neither of which I think would be a net positive for the game). I think it's fine as it is, or at most slightly increase the component cost to make it a little less expendable.

Create Homonculus isn't, by itself, all that much better than a familiar, but the key is that it isn't by itself. Anyone who would be using a homonculus already has a familiar, so the value of a homonculus is in having a second familiar. So it's OK if its level is on the overcosted side, because you're never choosing between a familiar and a homonculus; you're choosing between having one or having both.

[stoutstien]

Side ponder while reading some of my WIP

So I regards to *small* at-will AOE spells they tend to be over over stated compared to cantrips. For the most part they are too expensive to upcasting as there is an inverse relationship between the situations where they are useful and the targets. Generally you see more *targets that wide but light damage is needed* rather than similar number of targets that have HP/save increases that make the investment worth it. You have bigger groups of *mobbing* NPCs rather than slightly heartier ones.

For example at-will burning hands being cast at a similar scaling to cantrips (lv 1 slot 5-11) is only marginally better than say acid splash. If you have any form of cantrips enhancement it's almost a wash.

Working from an assumption that damage is something everyone should do rather than a niche I question the damage: spell level ratio in the DMG and spells in general.

[Witty Username]

PW: heal mass heal are both well over budget in T4. Safe to bring them down to lv 7-7.5 heck heal should be brought down and scaled for lv 3. If fireball is iconic so is heal.


Heal already has the iconic bump, it is twice as powerful as the next best healing spell when cast at the same level.

As for mass heal, I take it meteor swarm should also be brought down to 7th level?

I do agree that healing could use a 3rd level spell worth a damm, ever since the healing spirit nerfs there isn't really any usable healing spells between cure wounds/healing word and heal.

[Rukelnikov]

Heal already has the iconic bump, it is twice as powerful as the next best healing spell when cast at the same level.

As for mass heal, I take it meteor swarm should also be brought down to 7th level?

I do agree that healing could use a 3rd level spell worth a damm, ever since the healing spirit nerfs there isn't really any usable healing spells between cure wounds/healing word and heal.

Mass Healing Word can heal multiple people for a single bonus action.

[Witty Username]

Mass Healing Word can heal multiple people for a single bonus action.

For like 12 hp if I remember right, I don't have my book with me (3d4 + mod?), heal can take one character to more or less full health (not quite for the d10 people but 70 is still alot). Mass healing word is useful in a specific situation of needing to top off several people at the same time, but the amount of healing isn't all that useful in of itself.

[stoutstien]

For like 12 hp if I remember right, I don't have my book with me (3d4 + mod?), heal can take one character to more or less full health (not quite for the d10 people but 70 is still alot). Mass healing word is useful in a specific situation of needing to top off several people at the same time, but the amount of healing isn't all that useful in of itself.

This issue is it's seatbelt spell and by nature those need to be a tad over tuned to make up for that fact or they need to be unique (feather falls). At a 6th slot and a spell know it hardly sees play over a lower lv alternative that will be "good enough"for status removal/ HP recovery.

[Rukelnikov]

For like 12 hp if I remember right, I don't have my book with me (3d4 + mod?), heal can take one character to more or less full health (not quite for the d10 people but 70 is still alot). Mass healing word is useful in a specific situation of needing to top off several people at the same time, but the amount of healing isn't all that useful in of itself.

The amount of healing is low yeah, but its enough to bring people back in combat if they are at 0, if it brings 2 people back in combat instead of the 1 that a regular healing word would bring, then I think a 3rd lvl slot is a fair trade.

[Dork_Forge]

Besides the outright stated outliers, some off the top of my head:

- Healing Word is too much, BA + extreme range is not balanced by a d4, it should have been a 2nd level or been nerfed. This would also lessen the yoyo mentality that some 5e tables develop and make certain features feel more special.

- Pass without Trace is both too high a bonus and too cheap, though I've seen it still fail a +10 is ridiculously strong in bounded accuracy, especially for something so easily busted open as the skill system. Change it to a +5, maybe make it 3rd level.

- Revivify should be a 4th level spell, 5th character level is super early to be reversing death in a game where dying isn't easy to begin with.

- Polymorph is just plain stupid as written, it needs to be majorly nerfed or bumped in level.

- Tiny Hut and Rope Trick are very questionable at their level given their potential at many tables to be autorests, among other things. Either bump or scrub them, then at least Cat Nap would be interesting.

- Spells included in non mainstream splat are so all over the place they're commonly either too much or too little. Just scrub the lot of them.

[sithlordnergal]

For like 12 hp if I remember right, I don't have my book with me (3d4 + mod?), heal can take one character to more or less full health (not quite for the d10 people but 70 is still alot). Mass healing word is useful in a specific situation of needing to top off several people at the same time, but the amount of healing isn't all that useful in of itself.

Its worse than that. Mass Healing Word heals 1d4+Wis Mod, and targets 6 creatures. The only real use for this spell is when **** has fully hit the fan, your entire party is downed, and you need to pick everyone up. Outside of that, its not worth casting.

That said, there are at least two decent healing spells for 3rd level:

First is Aura of Vitality, which is a solid 2d6 as a Bonus Action for 1 minute. Not a ton of healing, but the Bonus Action and minute long duration are what helps it stand out. You won't get a lot of HP with it, but its better than spamming Healing Word to pick up the frontline.

Second is Beacon of Hope. Its not a healing spell per say, but I'd count it as a healing spell because of its second effect. Sure, the advantage on Wisdom and Death Saves is nice, but maximizing ALL healing, no matter the source, is AMAZING.

[Dork_Forge]

Its worse than that. Mass Healing Word heals 1d4+Wis Mod, and targets 6 creatures. The only real use for this spell is when **** has fully hit the fan, your entire party is downed, and you need to pick everyone up. Outside of that, its not worth casting.

MHW isn't that bad, especially if you're actually built to be a healer. Life Clerics and Alchemists are basically doing 1d4+8/10, which is a solid chunk of HP for the entire team. Moreso since in play it can have greater knock on effects, that HP stacking with resistances, temp HP, heals like Second Wind etc.

All while leaving the action free for cantrips, weapons, potions, and magic items.

Agree Aura of Vitality is a solid spell, after using optional spells from Tashas I wouldnt let it get away from Paladins/Artificers again though. It's just far too cheap for a full caster and was clearly never designed for one outside of edge cases.

[JNAProductions]

- Revivify should be a 4th level spell, 5th character level is super early to be reversing death in a game where dying isn't easy to begin with.

Revivify has a one minute timer. And doesn't restore any missing body parts. And still has the expensive material component.

You're attacked by a pack of Dire Wolves at level 5, one PC gets downed? Better hope the wolves don't drag 'em away to be eaten, or it'll be past the time limit.
You're up against the BBEG's goon squad, and they know you have Revivify? An action or less and their head is severed, leaving it useless.

Even in games where you ban resurrections ENTIRELY, I think you should keep Revivify. Its time limit is that tight.

[Dork_Forge]

Revivify has a one minute timer. And doesn't restore any missing body parts. And still has the expensive material component.

You're attacked by a pack of Dire Wolves at level 5, one PC gets downed? Better hope the wolves don't drag 'em away to be eaten, or it'll be past the time limit.
You're up against the BBEG's goon squad, and they know you have Revivify? An action or less and their head is severed, leaving it useless.

Even in games where you ban resurrections ENTIRELY, I think you should keep Revivify. Its time limit is that tight.

I'm well aware of how to deal with Revivify, that doesn't change my opinion that 5th level is too early for it and a 3rd level slot is increasingly too cheap for it.

And if you make a habit of actively dealing with things in a way that they revable, then that can easily come across very negatively to players. After all, dismemberment may be intuitive, but it isn't actually spelled out as a consequence in the PHB and i can only think of the lingering injuries table for it.

And let's be real, a minute is ten rounds, that's more than ample time in most circumstances and if it isn't? Gentle Repose exists.

[JNAProductions]

I'm well aware of how to deal with Revivify, that doesn't change my opinion that 5th level is too early for it and a 3rd level slot is increasingly too cheap for it.

And if you make a habit of actively dealing with things in a way that they revable, then that can easily come across very negatively to players. After all, dismemberment may be intuitive, but it isn't actually spelled out as a consequence in the PHB and i can only think of the lingering injuries table for it.

And let's be real, a minute is ten rounds, that's more than ample time in most circumstances and if it isn't? Gentle Repose exists.

Sure-and how many players actually spend a spell prepared/known on it?

Ultimately, this is a matter of opinion. I think that it’s fine as-is, and a net benefit to the game. You don’t, and that’s okay. Especially since I don’t believe we’ve ever plyed together :P

[diplomancer]

You're up against the BBEG's goon squad, and they know you have Revivify? An action or less and their head is severed, leaving it useless.


There's no such action in the game, nor should it be that easily achievable in the middle of the mayhem of combat.

[Dork_Forge]

Sure-and how many players actually spend a spell prepared/known on it?

Ultimately, this is a matter of opinion. I think that it’s fine as-is, and a net benefit to the game. You don’t, and that’s okay. Especially since I don’t believe we’ve ever plyed together :P

In my experience? Every PC that is capable of learning/preparing it does so. In a game that recently ended it was a Stars Druid, in an ongoing game the Paladin not only always prepares it, by makes sure to have one ready in his ring of spell storing, reserves a spell slot for it, and everyone carries their own diamonds to be rez'd with. In another ongoing game I fully expect the Cleric to have it prep'd when available. When you think about it, a single spell prepared/known is a minute cost to pay for potentially reversing character death.

Though I will say your first reply sounded like I was advocating for it to be nerfed or removed, I like Revivify and think it's good for the game, I would just prefer it bumped one spell level. I think that would do wonders for preserving the feel of earlier levels where death is a real possibility, but like everything in this thread, it's all personal preference.

[sithlordnergal]

In my experience? Every PC that is capable of learning/preparing it does so. In a game that recently ended it was a Stars Druid, in an ongoing game the Paladin not only always prepares it, by makes sure to have one ready in his ring of spell storing, reserves a spell slot for it, and everyone carries their own diamonds to be rez'd with. In another ongoing game I fully expect the Cleric to have it prep'd when available. When you think about it, a single spell prepared/known is a minute cost to pay for potentially reversing character death.

Though I will say your first reply sounded like I was advocating for it to be nerfed or removed, I like Revivify and think it's good for the game, I would just prefer it bumped one spell level. I think that would do wonders for preserving the feel of earlier levels where death is a real possibility, but like everything in this thread, it's all personal preference.

I've never actually run into anyone who uses it. Hell, most players I know opt to make new characters over bringing them back from the dead. Either due to their own choice, or because the party is unwilling to pay to bring them back XD

[Dork_Forge]

I've never actually run into anyone who uses it. Hell, most players I know opt to make new characters over bringing them back from the dead. Either due to their own choice, or because the party is unwilling to pay to bring them back XD

I can see that style of play, my players tend to be invested in their PCs and the party in the inter-PC dynamics. As for paying, my tables normally have a system where they each get a cut for personal use, but also leave some for the 'party loot.' A pot that most often gets spent on Rev diamonds, ingredients for whomever to craft healing potions, or expenses that quests incur, not personal expenditure. It probably helps that we play on Roll20 and I give them a handout they can all see to manage that stuff together easier.

[JNAProductions]

There's no such action in the game, nor should it be that easily achievable in the middle of the mayhem of combat.

So, you can attack and do large damage to living beings… but corpses are indestructible?
That seems odd.

[diplomancer]

So, you can attack and do large damage to living beings… but corpses are indestructible?
That seems odd.

Look at it the other way around. If you can do it to a corpse just by declaring it, what stops you from doing it to a living being? As a matter of fact, it takes a Legendary weapon and a critical hit to do so... so yes, if the BBEG are all wielding Vorpal swords I'd be willing to let them do it automatically with just an attack; otherwise, no.

If cutting someone's head off was that easy, the Guillotine would never have been invented.

[JNAProductions]

Look at it the other way around. If you can do it to a corpse just by declaring it, what stops you from doing it to a living being? As a matter of fact, it takes a Legendary weapon and a critical hit to do so... so yes, if the BBEG are all wielding Vorpal swords I'd be willing to let them do it automatically with just an attack; otherwise, no.

If cutting someone's head off was that easy, the Guillotine would never have been invented.

It takes a legendary weapon to do that to an animate, fighting, resisting foe.
Not an inanimate corpse.

[Dork_Forge]

It takes a legendary weapon to do that to an animate, fighting, resisting foe.
Not an inanimate corpse.

Realistically, the only way dismemberment of a corpse like you describe works is treating the corpse as an object and assigning the relevant AC and HP required to achieve severing the head. So can it be done, if the DM wants it to, but it's not as simple as 'I use an action to decapitate the body.'

Nevermind the social implications of a DM using this against a party more than once or twice.

[sithlordnergal]

I can see that style of play, my players tend to be invested in their PCs and the party in the inter-PC dynamics. As for paying, my tables normally have a system where they each get a cut for personal use, but also leave some for the 'party loot.' A pot that most often gets spent on Rev diamonds, ingredients for whomever to craft healing potions, or expenses that quests incur, not personal expenditure. It probably helps that we play on Roll20 and I give them a handout they can all see to manage that stuff together easier.

Oh, my players, and myself, get invested as well. We've just never been invested enough to bring them back from the dead. My groups also do the personal use/party pot. But few times have we ever been willing to spend money from the pot to pay for a Revivify diamond. XD

EDIT: Its actually kinda funny...I play in one game where the DM constantly hints at buying gems for Revivify And gives ample opportunity to do so. None of us have taken up those offers/chances. I've had a character die in his campaign and he basically had an NPC right there that could have cast Revivify, right then and there. Heavily hinted towards it and everything. I turned down the offer, as did the other players XD

[JNAProductions]

Realistically, the only way dismemberment of a corpse like you describe works is treating the corpse as an object and assigning the relevant AC and HP required to achieve severing the head. So can it be done, if the DM wants it to, but it's not as simple as 'I use an action to decapitate the body.'

Nevermind the social implications of a DM using this against a party more than once or twice.

Yeah-the main thing preventing it is twofold.

One-IC:
Most people can’t cast any kind of resurrection spell, so wasting an attack on dismemberment is worthless.

Two-OOC:
The game is meant to be fun, and most people wouldn’t find that fun in a typical game.

[Theodoxus]

Oh, my players, and myself, get invested as well. We've just never been invested enough to bring them back from the dead. My groups also do the personal use/party pot. But few times have we ever been willing to spend money from the pot to pay for a Revivify diamond. XD

EDIT: Its actually kinda funny...I play in one game where the DM constantly hints at buying gems for Revivify And gives ample opportunity to do so. None of us have taken up those offers/chances. I've had a character die in his campaign and he basically had an NPC right there that could have cast Revivify, right then and there. Heavily hinted towards it and everything. I turned down the offer, as did the other players XD

My players are the exact opposite. They HATE when a party member dies, because they hate the loss of camaraderie they've built up between characters. When Bob dies and is replaced by Sven who knows nothing of the plot, the drives, the inside jokes... it kills the mood.

I've moved away from single party dungeon delving and world building exploits to episodic guild runs that have guildmasters manipulating their underlings to keep the overplot moving, but each session can swap out PCs to make the game run a little smoother. Each player has a pool of characters to choose from, all with the same general guild knowledge and drives. The players get their Impossible Mission, then figure out which characters would make the most logical party and go from there. If one dies, they can call back to the guild to send another member out who has at least a rudimentary knowledge of what's going on, and as the PCs level, mixing and matching characters, they all learn how each other works and what quirks they all have.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I can see that style of play, my players tend to be invested in their PCs and the party in the inter-PC dynamics. As for paying, my tables normally have a system where they each get a cut for personal use, but also leave some for the 'party loot.' A pot that most often gets spent on Rev diamonds, ingredients for whomever to craft healing potions, or expenses that quests incur, not personal expenditure. It probably helps that we play on Roll20 and I give them a handout they can all see to manage that stuff together easier.

FWIW, revivify is really really high on all of my parties' priority list. To the point that they usually find a way to get multiple people with it. And I've only killed-killed like....4? 5? characters over my entire career as a DM. Dropped tons more to zero, but only hard-killed a few. They get quite attached to their characters.

[KorvinStarmast]

- Revivify should be a 4th level spell, No, it should remain level 3. If the players start at level 1, by level 5 they are beginning to get into their characters. It's a decent safety valve for one of those bad dice/bad luck evenings.


- Polymorph is just plain stupid as written, it needs to be majorly nerfed or bumped in level. In the 15 minute work day, sure, but the previous suggestions to go with "Level / 2 is max CR" probably takes care of most of that whinging.
And it's a FUN spell. :smallwink:

- Spells included in non mainstream splat Are not allowed at my table. It's tough enough working with some of the wonky stuff that got at least something of a scrub ...

Even in games where you ban resurrections ENTIRELY, I think you should keep Revivify. Its time limit is that tight. Aye.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In the 15 minute work day, sure, but the previous suggestions to go with "Level / 2 is max CR" probably takes care of most of that whinging.
And it's a FUN spell. :smallwink:

I think it's easier (and just about the same) to just go with "Max CR = spell level". That makes it upcast well, while keeping it roughly ~level/2 max if you keep upcasting it. Only cantrips should scale their effects with the caster, not the spell slot used IMO.

[Dork_Forge]

No, it should remain level 3. If the players start at level 1, by level 5 they are beginning to get into their characters. It's a decent safety valve for one of those bad dice/bad luck evenings.

Personally, I like to start at 3rd level, 1 and 2 are far to volatile and unsatisfying in too many ways, though starting at one only really adds 2-3 sessions onto this.

Though how I approach games is probably a factor, if Revivify isn't available it doesn't mean you have no avenue of Rez, you just need to work harder for it. Example:

Running WD: Dragonheist the Bard died at... I think 4th level? It was pretty early on and they stared at 3rd. That just meant that they had a side mission, the player took control of an NPC helper and the remaining PCs hatched a plan to steal his body from the city guard's morgue and the paid to have him revived. He then had that debt over his head to the party and it lead to a fun teasing dynamic. In a game with no access to NPC/item Rez then I'd probably change my mind on Revivify, I've just seen it spammed by PCs so much since it's so cheap resource wise. With it as a safety net they tend to... develop this more reckless approach and then prioritise the safety of the Revivify caster instead of learning to just not die so much (when it's possible to be avoided).

Note: I don't actually change any of the spells I've mentioned in game, they are what they are and I deal with it as a DM. They're just not how I would have designed them.


In the 15 minute work day, sure, but the previous suggestions to go with "Level / 2 is max CR" probably takes care of most of that whinging.
And it's a FUN spell. :smallwink:

Not so much 15 minute work days so much as when you get to higher levels (both tables I get it used in frequently were around 11 and currently 15), a 4th level slot is not really a 'big' resource anymore, so you can get pretty far into a hard day when a sudden Giant Ape or T-Rex shaped blob of hit points suddenly appears. Whereas, I don't personally feel like 5th level spells ever get cheap or mid for most casters (Warlocks are an obvious exception, and my homebrew tweaks do give them better access to Polymorph if a player was inclined). Bump it a couple levels and the statblocks become a bit less distruptive and it feels more of a risk no matter what the level of play. But yeah, tweaking the CR formula to be less potent would probably also work.


Are not allowed at my table. It's tough enough working with some of the wonky stuff that got at least something of a scrub ...

It was really illustrative to me when Strixhaven came out, I had to write a review piece for it so I spent longer than normal reading it and it was clear that it just didn't line up with 5E. The fact that Silvery Bards gets tossed around by certain folk as 'must have' despite being in a pretty obscure setting book highlights how busted it is.

I would hope it would get better, but they stopped designing 5E products when they started on Tashas. They've just been sandboxing OneD&D as a big playtest since then, so balance and coherent design are long gone.


I think it's easier (and just about the same) to just go with "Max CR = spell level". That makes it upcast well, while keeping it roughly ~level/2 max if you keep upcasting it. Only cantrips should scale their effects with the caster, not the spell slot used IMO.

I like this change and support the reasoning behind it.

[MoiMagnus]

My players are the exact opposite. They HATE when a party member dies, because they hate the loss of camaraderie they've built up between characters. When Bob dies and is replaced by Sven who knows nothing of the plot, the drives, the inside jokes... it kills the mood.



The first thing the GM does when we have a death is to go through the recuring NPCs (including unnamed unmentioned NPCs that would logically have interacted with the PCs) to find what NPC could be transformed into a PC. If the player agrees, they get to rebuild the character and we handwave the differences.

[Kane0]

The first thing the GM does when we have a death is to go through the recuring NPCs (including unnamed unmentioned NPCs that would logically have interacted with the PCs) to find what NPC could be transformed into a PC. If the player agrees, they get to rebuild the character and we handwave the differences.

Happened with us too, rogue died and the tagalong npc became the fighter. We also had another tagalong that fell in combat and found out that our sidekicks dont get death saves

[diplomancer]

It takes a legendary weapon to do that to an animate, fighting, resisting foe.
Not an inanimate corpse.
Which is why I would not require a natural 20 in the first place for the decapitation. Just the vorpal sword. Or setting up a Guillotine, of course.


Realistically, the only way dismemberment of a corpse like you describe works is treating the corpse as an object and assigning the relevant AC and HP required to achieve severing the head. So can it be done, if the DM wants it to, but it's not as simple as 'I use an action to decapitate the body.'

Yes, that would work, but just debating what it should be would grind the game to a stop. Is the corpse in armor? How sharp is the blade? Can you get a good position? "Haven't you heard of
botched executions?" And why are they even trying to do this when there are live people actually able and trying to kill them?

Killing blows after the person hits 0 HP to avoid yo-yo healing? Legit, makes sense, and already has well codified rules. Wasting attacks on a completely dead enemy in the middle of the battle? Not so much.


Nevermind the social implications of a DM using this against a party more than once or twice.
If he did that to my character, and I was enjoying that character and would have liked to have him revivified, I would just bring back the same exact character, with one letter changed in the name. Might switch out the dump stats, instead of 10 Str and 8 Cha, I might have 8 Str and 10 Cha instead.

Yes, silly, but no more silly than the DM move. He'll eventually realise it makes more sense to charge 300GP, one prepared spell, and a 3rd level slot for the privilege of maintaining the same character, since we already have the ability of doing that for free (with the only "cost" being verisimilitude... but that already went out the window when the DM had goons wasting their turn attacking my dead character in the middle of a battle for their lives).

[Goobahfish]

IMO, all familiars should be like the Familiar Variant monsters. Actual individual creatures the character makes a pact with, encountered during the adventure. Not disposable, anonymous, remote viewing devices.


I really don't have any complaints about its power. I dislike how it's gates by spell casting besides when it's not. The fact a lot of concepts want to have something along the FF line but need to be X class is my issue. Just like there should be an easy path for non summoned familiars for those who want to go that route as well.


Yeah, FF only becomes OP when your DM doesn't really kill them off. Though having a disposable scout is still really handy, especially with how the wording of the spell works. You can technically just dismiss then summon them on the other side of a door.

As for Familiars being treated as disposable? Eh, I feel that's down to personal preference. I personally like how disposable they are. It allows for a more evil character that doesn't care if their underlings die, because those underlings are forced to serve them due to the spell that's binding them regardless of their desires.

So this thread of conversation interested me, especially in the context of this thread. It is pretty obvious that FF has a weird relationship to 'level 1 spell'. It certainly feels like is punches above its weight here. What is really weird is that it doesn't really up-cast in any meaningful sense. Yes familiars are frail, but they are toying with the action economy in dangerous ways.

My main objection to FF comes from a metaphysical question. What is the familiar? I think the answer to this question is super important to 'what should this spell do, should this be a spell or class feature' question.

I ask, is the familiar an independent entity? Is it an enslaved 'independent' entity? Is it an extension of the caster's own psyche? The answer to this question really has mechanical implications that WOTC has completely shied away from in their 'cake and eat it too' attitude to game design. If, for example it is an independent entity (whether enslaved or not), it shouldn't be a class feature, let alone a spell. Why cannot joe the peasant make a deal with a magical fey raven or become friends with it? Why is it on some lists and not others? Why can't a bard have a magical singing toad with little-to-no hassle? It feels like a 'campaign event/reward' turned into a class feature (one of the things that bothers me about the entire warlock class).

On the other end of the spectrum, why is it when you 'zombie-foot-pole' your familiar into the death-grindy machine, if it is actually part of you, shouldn't there be a consequence? Like... I dunno, you suffer 1 psychic damage when it dies? It would be enough to stop using it as a 'zombie-foot-pole' for springing traps without some remorse?

---

The rest of this thread does contain examples of some spells which break energy conservation (i.e., simulacrum shenanigans etc.) and I think that is more of a problem of the limits of what magic should and shouldn't be able to do (i.e., breaking energy conservation is not something magic should be able to do).

I also think spells like fireball should be nerfed. Making fireball feel 'special' makes everything else (especially level 2 spells) feel lame. You can't have one without the other.

[stoutstien]

So this thread of conversation interested me, especially in the context of this thread. It is pretty obvious that FF has a weird relationship to 'level 1 spell'. It certainly feels like is punches above its weight here. What is really weird is that it doesn't really up-cast in any meaningful sense. Yes familiars are frail, but they are toying with the action economy in dangerous ways.

My main objection to FF comes from a metaphysical question. What is the familiar? I think the answer to this question is super important to 'what should this spell do, should this be a spell or class feature' question.

I ask, is the familiar an independent entity? Is it an enslaved 'independent' entity? Is it an extension of the caster's own psyche? The answer to this question really has mechanical implications that WOTC has completely shied away from in their 'cake and eat it too' attitude to game design. If, for example it is an independent entity (whether enslaved or not), it shouldn't be a class feature, let alone a spell. Why cannot joe the peasant make a deal with a magical fey raven or become friends with it? Why is it on some lists and not others? Why can't a bard have a magical singing toad with little-to-no hassle? It feels like a 'campaign event/reward' turned into a class feature (one of the things that bothers me about the entire warlock class).

On the other end of the spectrum, why is it when you 'zombie-foot-pole' your familiar into the death-grindy machine, if it is actually part of you, shouldn't there be a consequence? Like... I dunno, you suffer 1 psychic damage when it dies? It would be enough to stop using it as a 'zombie-foot-pole' for springing traps without some remorse?

---

The rest of this thread does contain examples of some spells which break energy conservation (i.e., simulacrum shenanigans etc.) and I think that is more of a problem of the limits of what magic should and shouldn't be able to do (i.e., breaking energy conservation is not something magic should be able to do).

I also think spells like fireball should be nerfed. Making fireball feel 'special' makes everything else (especially level 2 spells) feel lame. You can't have one without the other.

This how you end up at an odd place where the artificer homunculus is strangely the more flavorful and balanced version even if by nature it's a star blob you can put on any object. The action economy limitations are wonky but it prevent "extra actions" and it has better survivability but can't be used as a disposable bag of HP to overcome challenges. They are also intelligent enough to be role-played effectively.

[Rukelnikov]

The rest of this thread does contain examples of some spells which break energy conservation (i.e., simulacrum shenanigans etc.) and I think that is more of a problem of the limits of what magic should and shouldn't be able to do (i.e., breaking energy conservation is not something magic should be able to do).

If magic can't break energy conservation then there's entire schools that get thrown out the window, like Conjuration and Evocation, and pretty most of other schools too, visible or audible illusion? Breaks conservation too, enchantments and divinations are probably the only ones with a sizable ammount of spells remaining, also most Undead wouldn't be a thing, since they can spend energy without ever consuming anything to generate it from, and many more such examples.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If magic can't break energy conservation then there's entire schools that get thrown out the window, like Conjuration and Evocation, and pretty most of other schools too, visible or audible illusion? Breaks conservation too, enchantments and divinations are probably the only ones with a sizable ammount of spells remaining, also most Undead wouldn't be a thing, since they can spend energy without ever consuming anything to generate it from, and many more such examples.

Yeah. Breaking conservation laws is basically the entire nature of magic. It's why having d&D magic and real world physics at the same time doesn't work--having magic means your laws of nature only hold when they feel like it. Which doesn't match our realty at all.

I prefer to just reformulate the fictional laws of nature to accommodate magic. Much more self consistent that way.

[Goobahfish]

This how you end up at an odd place where the artificer homunculus is strangely the more flavorful and balanced version even if by nature it's a star blob you can put on any object. The action economy limitations are wonky but it prevent "extra actions" and it has better survivability but can't be used as a disposable bag of HP to overcome challenges. They are also intelligent enough to be role-played effectively.

Yeah, the homunculus has the main advantage of being a narrow narrative tool. It is a constructed 'thing' and its 'heart' represents a potential weakpoint which the caster wouldn't want to waste. I think I'd prefer if find familiar was something more akin to homunculus.


If magic can't break energy conservation then there's entire schools that get thrown out the window, like Conjuration and Evocation, and pretty most of other schools too, visible or audible illusion? Breaks conservation too, enchantments and divinations are probably the only ones with a sizable ammount of spells remaining, also most Undead wouldn't be a thing, since they can spend energy without ever consuming anything to generate it from, and many more such examples.

I'm not sure I follow exactly? How is evocation a break in energy conservation? I has always envisioned that the 'power that drives' fireball is whatever energy source the 'spell slot represents'. With cantrips it is a bit more nebulous because technically a fighter can swing a sword every 6 seconds for 16 hours apparently without issue so casting firebolt similarly is restricted weakly. But then you need a humanoid thing which is presumably the source of the 'power'.

What I am talking about is where you 'conjure into being' a thing with no obvious time-frame limit which can infinitely generate energy. I think a permanent unseen servant would be a minimal interpretation of this. Now I cast a second infinite unseen servant that can take instructions etc etc... when I say break energy conservation, what I am really talking about is:
"does magic allow the creation of a perpetual motion machine?"

If the answer is yes, you don't have a viable metaphysics. Whether this is an undead horde or some loophole in find familiar, that is where the game tends to break down.

If the answer is no, most of the problems can be solved using dials to buff or nerf various numbers until the energy transfer function is within acceptable limits. I.e., fireball only does 6D6 rather than 8D6. Spells like Wish on the other hand (while fun) are essentially game-breaking but only fixed by DM-fiat and 'be careful what you wish for shenanigans'. Other spells like Simulacrum are similarly broken conceptually but have less 'DM-fiat' baked into the text.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not sure I follow exactly? How is evocation a break in energy conservation? I has always envisioned that the 'power that drives' fireball is whatever energy source the 'spell slot represents'. With cantrips it is a bit more nebulous because technically a fighter can swing a sword every 6 seconds for 16 hours apparently without issue so casting firebolt similarly is restricted weakly. But then you need a humanoid thing which is presumably the source of the 'power'.


The amount of power you need for a fireball is huge. Enough so that if you tried to calculate the stored potential energy of a wizard who cast nothing but fireballs, it would be nuclear bomb levels. Just in his spell slots. And fireball is one of the better ones for that.

Heck, take the Transmutation wizards Minor Alchemy feature. You convert wood into gold. Uh oh, you just released enough nuclear radiation to kill a town. Or required inputs equivalent to several nuclear bombs. Your choice.

Magic and conservation laws just don't play nice. None of them. With any significant magic. Instant communications break other laws, but are mostly conservation-ok. Everything else? Utter havoc as far as conservation goes.

[Goobahfish]

The amount of power you need for a fireball is huge. Enough so that if you tried to calculate the stored potential energy of a wizard who cast nothing but fireballs, it would be nuclear bomb levels. Just in his spell slots. And fireball is one of the better ones for that.

Heck, take the Transmutation wizards Minor Alchemy feature. You convert wood into gold. Uh oh, you just released enough nuclear radiation to kill a town. Or required inputs equivalent to several nuclear bombs. Your choice.

Magic and conservation laws just don't play nice. None of them. With any significant magic. Instant communications break other laws, but are mostly conservation-ok. Everything else? Utter havoc as far as conservation goes.

Yeah, but those aren't exactly conservation issues more of conversion issues. Clearly turning lead into gold would require a bucket load of energy to accomplish (assuming real-world physics) but it is still just a conversion issue. You need to find a power source... somewhere and ironically if you are using nuclear energy as a potential source, you could, I suppose convert some of the hydrogen in the air into fusion to power your crazy transmutation.

Likewise with instant communication, perhaps you are folding space or some-such. The spells that really stick in my craw are the ones which break information conservation (like... find traps... how does the spell know it is a... trap as opposed to a precariously placed statuette).

However, I do get your point. When I was designing my RPG, I had these very questions of magic. I.e., like what is the limit from an energy perspective. Any spell which lets you fiddle with weather or earthquakes seems pretty crazy as a conversion factor. Other things like alchemy could be hand-waved as 'materials aren't the same in this universe and changing elemental composition is energy-cheap'. But an earthquake. That is a lot of energy right there and there really isn't a good way of of handwaving it. If you can magic that much energy, why not just cast earthquake, concentrated in a person instead and liquefy them etc.

The actual best example of course is 'mind control magic'. Like... spells like dream (I put things in your head) can't have a normal physical explanation. That would require you to speak 'brain speak' and subtly manipulate brain bits. If you could do that, just suppress their breathing/heart-beat brain cells (much easier than inducing delusions). I.e., kill enemy is of lower complexity than 'induce vivid and meaningful hallucination' so would have to be a lower-level spell. So for this stuff to work, you need some kind of mental-space physics.

It is more out of this 'don't break conservation' that spells like FF make me side more with you in that they should be more role-playing events like befriending a gazer rather than mere 'class features'.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, but those aren't exactly conservation issues more of conversion issues. Clearly turning lead into gold would require a bucket load of energy to accomplish (assuming real-world physics) but it is still just a conversion issue. You need to find a power source... somewhere and ironically if you are using nuclear energy as a potential source, you could, I suppose convert some of the hydrogen in the air into fusion to power your crazy transmutation.

Likewise with instant communication, perhaps you are folding space or some-such. The spells that really stick in my craw are the ones which break information conservation (like... find traps... how does the spell know it is a... trap as opposed to a precariously placed statuette).

However, I do get your point. When I was designing my RPG, I had these very questions of magic. I.e., like what is the limit from an energy perspective. Any spell which lets you fiddle with weather or earthquakes seems pretty crazy as a conversion factor. Other things like alchemy could be hand-waved as 'materials aren't the same in this universe and changing elemental composition is energy-cheap'. But an earthquake. That is a lot of energy right there and there really isn't a good way of of handwaving it. If you can magic that much energy, why not just cast earthquake, concentrated in a person instead and liquefy them etc.

The actual best example of course is 'mind control magic'. Like... spells like dream (I put things in your head) can't have a normal physical explanation. That would require you to speak 'brain speak' and subtly manipulate brain bits. If you could do that, just suppress their breathing/heart-beat brain cells (much easier than inducing delusions). I.e., kill enemy is of lower complexity than 'induce vivid and meaningful hallucination' so would have to be a lower-level spell. So for this stuff to work, you need some kind of mental-space physics.

It is more out of this 'don't break conservation' that spells like FF make me side more with you in that they should be more role-playing events like befriending a gazer rather than mere 'class features'.

I did read a fantasy series once (I forget exactly which one) where the magic system worked by literal matter-energy conversions. As in "you cast from your mass". Wizards in that system not only eat like elephants, they bulk up tremendously. But one good extended spell duel might mean they go from being 300 lbs down to skin and bones at 110. Numbers pulled ex nihilo.

The issues are actually bigger than just conservation of mass/energy. The whole nature of magic doesn't jibe with modern understandings of the universe at the metaphysical layer. And not just magic, the rest of the D&D metaphysics is violently at odds with real-world scientific understandings of things, irreconcilably so. But yeah. There's a lot of issues with causally throwing around big spells at the worldbuilding (even just the "what are the laws of nature" part, let alone the social or historical parts). And FF is in an odd space in this. Metaphysically and morally a mess, but (in the absence of bad enabling behavior) not that overpowered as a spell. Which puts it firmly in the "maybe this shouldn't be a spell at all" zone for me, personally.

True polymorph's object->creature form has these same problems in spades. And personally I'm moving toward nixing that one entirely. And entirely for metaphysical reasons.

[Theodoxus]

I think I solved that 'kill with brain manipulation' spells magic, though I suppose a super intelligent hacker could accomplish it - so I'll need to think about that aspect.

But, basically, the magic of my homebrew is based on nanites, since the world is based on a far in the future post-apoc Earth that a traveling god found and reconstituted in their own image. But humano-centric nanites still existed in a mostly dormant state. When new life emerged and Sol was re-invigorated, the nanites started replicating. When the new inhabitants explored their new to them world, they eventually found remnants of human tech, including data pads that could write Spells that influenced the nanites. But the nanites had a been coded with a strict 'do not harm' subroutine. They were originally built to heal, not harm. So while Spells could be written that would amplify energy or change one type into another, the nanites couldn't actually be made to directly harm internal organs.

Thousands of years later, as the inhabitants explored the bleeding edge of nanite capabilities (not that they knew they were micromachines manipulating energy and such), they unleashed arcane, divine, and primal energies. These energies corrupted some of the nanites, allowing them to harness the nascent energies flooding the planet. This massively expanded the capabilities of Spells, but that Do Not Harm mandate still exists.

I doubt the new race will ever be so tech savvy as to discover it is nanites that are doing magic - Spells are just codes that the Spellcasters either have learned to modify from the original programs found millennia ago (your typical Wizard) or nanites that infused themselves at birth into the child and give them a limited ability to manifest their desires as Spells (your typical Sorcerer). But many a dedicated scholar, an artificer perhaps, will create Eyes of Minute Seeing and "discover" the nanites, allowing for actual hacking of the system and a new explosion of magical power will race across the planet.

[Goobahfish]

True polymorph's object->creature form has these same problems in spades. And personally I'm moving toward nixing that one entirely. And entirely for metaphysical reasons.

Yeah, that really bothers me in Harry Potter where polymorphing animals into things and back is (aside from having horror vibes) is some low-level easy thing for noob-wizards.

Turning a pot into a rabbit sounds cute and all, but for true polymorph we've got a 'to create life' thing going on (which again... horror vibes).

What about about turning statue into a person... let's say called bob... who remembers... well... the spell doesn't really say what, but presumably can I just implant all kinds of bogus memories or is the content of bob's inner world some confection of the DM...

And we're making one of these abominations every day? You could even imagine a campaign setting where there is an entire race of polymorphed rocks who have developed strict rules around magic... I mean... can they have children? What happens if you cast dispel magic on the child of a cauldron and a normie?? <involuntary shudders>


I think I solved that 'kill with brain manipulation' spells magic, though I suppose a super intelligent hacker could accomplish it - so I'll need to think about that aspect.

But, basically, the magic of my homebrew is based on nanites <snip> But many a dedicated scholar, an artificer perhaps, will create Eyes of Minute Seeing and "discover" the nanites, allowing for actual hacking of the system and a new explosion of magical power will race across the planet.

That is very cool, kind of a 'but it was tech all along'. This will generally require some adjustments via 'easy for nanites' vs 'hard for nanites'. The explicit 'do no harm' is also narratively interesting. What harm is... is kind of subjective?

My favourite example is invisible... until you attack.
PC: Can I open a door and stay invisible?
DM: Sure
PC: What if the door is trapped?
DM: I don't see why not
PC: What if I twisted the trap mechanism a while ago so it misses me and hits someone else.
DM: ...
PC: I'm just turning a knob.
DM: Fine
PC: What if my door is actually a crossbow, I just call it a trapped door which I am 'opening'.
DM: This is why we can't have nice things.

[Kane0]

That is very cool, kind of a 'but it was tech all along'. This will generally require some adjustments via 'easy for nanites' vs 'hard for nanites'. The explicit 'do no harm' is also narratively interesting. What harm is... is kind of subjective?

My favourite example is invisible... until you attack.
PC: Can I open a door and stay invisible?
DM: Sure
PC: What if the door is trapped?
DM: I don't see why not
PC: What if I twisted the trap mechanism a while ago so it misses me and hits someone else.
DM: ...
PC: I'm just turning a knob.
DM: Fine
PC: What if my door is actually a crossbow, I just call it a trapped door which I am 'opening'.
DM: This is why we can't have nice things.

DM: Magic can determine intent, and the invisibility spell judges you dishonourable and unworthy.

[KorvinStarmast]

Personally, I like to start at 3rd level, 1 and 2 are far to volatile and unsatisfying in too many ways, though starting at one only really adds 2-3 sessions onto this. I prefer 3 also, but I have been in a lot of groups in 5e who want to start at 1.

Not so much 15 minute work days so much as when you get to higher levels (both tables I get it used in frequently were around 11 and currently 15), a 4th level slot is not really a 'big' resource anymore, so you can get pretty far into a hard day when a sudden Giant Ape or T-Rex shaped blob of hit points suddenly appears. It's a matter of taste ... our group loves it when T Rex or Mini King Kong shows up for one of the battles. Also, King Kong can carry the party on his back as he climbs up tall things ... utility for the win. :smallsmile:

It was really illustrative to me when Strixhaven came out, ... stopped designing 5E products when they started on Tashas. They've just been sandboxing OneD&D as a big playtest since then, so balance and coherent design are long gone.
Well said.

The amount of power you need for a fireball is huge. It's a modest sized Fuel Air Explosive. 20' radius.

Magic and conservation laws just don't play nice. Indeed. Earth Air Fire Water Spirit is metaphysics D&D/SF/Swords and Sorcery style.

I did read a fantasy series once (I forget exactly which one) where the magic system worked by literal matter-energy conversions. As in "you cast from your mass". Wizards in that system not only eat like elephants, they bulk up tremendously. But one good extended spell duel might mean they go from being 300 lbs down to skin and bones at 110. Numbers pulled ex nihilo. Robin Hobb did that in her Soldier's Son books, and she did it a little bit in the first Farseer books.
Also, glad I slipped that Young Silver Dragon in before you shut the door. :smallyuk: I think that love story could use some treatment ... :smallwink:

PC: What if my door is actually a crossbow, I just call it a trapped door which I am 'opening'.
DM: This is why we can't have nice things. I might have stopped the conversation sooner than that, but nice example. :smallcool: