Limiting Spells

[Yechezkiel]

Is it fair to prohibit named spells (i.e. Tenser's, Melf's, Tasha's, Leomund's, Evard's, Otiluke's, Rary's, Mordenkainen's, Bigby's, Drawmij's, Otto's) in a homebrew setting? The idea is those people never existed and weren't a part of the history.

Would this hurt an arcane caster's progression too much? Are any of this necessary at certain points? I hope to put in plenty of other named spells and players would be free to research similarly functioning spells.


I'm also wondering if Ray of Enfeeblement, Touch of Idiocy, Scorching Ray, Rope Trick, Fly, Feeblemind, and Overland Flight are too powerful. They're either no save, stat crippling or allow the caster to ignore 90% of the danger in encounters.

I've only run a few games, none long term, so I'm trying to get things together for a campaign.

[Ulzgoroth]

You might consider simply renaming the named spells instead of removing them. Sure, there was no Tenser to invent the Floating Disk, but that doesn't have to mean no one ever did.

[Black Mage]

In the SRD, all the spells made by Tenser, Melf, and all of them were renamed to be generic spells. They are no different in effect, but can be adapted to any campaign setting without having to add those people to the history.

[TheOOB]

Keep in mind that all those spells where made by greyhawk characters, yet they are still used in forgotten realsm, dragonlance, eberron, ravenloft, ect. The spells themselves don't have anything to do with the mages who made them, thats just for flavor.

I don't see any of the spells you mentioned being too powerful, ray of enfeeblement is powerful, but not crippling (it still requires a ranged touch attack which can be difficult for wizards to hit with at low levels), scorching ray is a good damage spell, but damage spells suck for wizards, rope trick is useful, but extreamly limited in application, feeblemind isn't any worse then any other save or lose spell, except that it doesn't make warrior types lose, and flight and overland flight are important to the game, by the time you can become airborn for a long period of time, everyone can become airborn for a long period of time. By level 15 virtuall all encounters should be in three dimensions.

EDIT: Heres some spells that should be banned, or at least altered, alter self, polymorph, polymorph any object, shapechange, gate, and forcecage. I'm sure there is more, but any one of those spells can easily ruin your game.

[EagleWiz]

Actualy Mordenkins Disjunction needs to GO but other then that just take away the Mordakins/Tashas/Bigbsys/Whoevers part from the spell

[Nebo_]

Just rename them to something that does fit in your world.

[Penguinsushi]

Is it fair to prohibit named spells (i.e. Tenser's, Melf's, Tasha's, Leomund's, Evard's, Otiluke's, Rary's, Mordenkainen's, Bigby's, Drawmij's, Otto's) in a homebrew setting? The idea is those people never existed and weren't a part of the history.

I'm also wondering if Ray of Enfeeblement, Touch of Idiocy, Scorching Ray, Rope Trick, Fly, Feeblemind, and Overland Flight are too powerful. They're either no save, stat crippling or allow the caster to ignore 90% of the danger in encounters.

Fair? As the gm/dm, you can do pretty much whatever you want. If you think certain spells/classes/whatever are too powerful or don't fit with your world, you are absolutely entitled to ban them. Think carefully about what you decide to do (and the ramifications it will have), but in the end it's your call. Just make sure you tell your players beforehand - as it may affect what they decide to play.

For instance, in my games, I have banned wish/miracle spells, spells that bring people back to life and all teleportation and planeshift spells (except dimension door) because I believe they let the PC's accomplish things too easily (at higher levels). (These spells do exist, but only as special abilities, SLA's, epic level spells and deity level powers.) To date, I've not seen this causing any serious drawbacks, and it makes for an interesting game since travel time and character death become a lot more important...

~PS

[Flawless]

There's no real reason to get rid of any of them just because of their name. Disjunction might be a good choice to ban, though.

[Matthew]

One of the odd things about D&D 3.x is that it doesn't mention the old (A)D&D 2.x idea that the Dungeon Master should feel free to prohibit or remove any Spell he feels too powerful from the game. I think it must be to do with the Spell Lists and 'balance' (what little there is). So, I would recommend the any unreasonable Spell you remove should be replaced by a reasonable one.