Do you have banned/nerfed spells?

[Jervis]

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

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

[H_H_F_F]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[P. G. Macer]

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

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

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

[H_H_F_F]

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

That could be an interesting thread by itself.

[DracoKnight]

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

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

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

[Yakmala]

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

[Xihirli]

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

[PhoenixPhyre]

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

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

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

And I apply it to tiny hut as well.

[sithlordnergal]

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

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

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

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

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

Saying you're glad you're not at my table is irrelevant and inflammatory, so I'll ask you to avoid that kind of language in future discussions with me, if that's alright with you.

Given that I have had an experience at table with that nerf - and it sucked hard, and I was getting exasperated with the 'campaign' before it ended due to RL changes in various schedules of various people - I have grounds to not want to put up with a petty nerf like that.
I tend to look at this in the way that sithlordnergal looks at it:

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

Since you got upset by that turn of phrase, I can easily find a different way to express my view of your next poor idea - unless this is the last idea you share that I find to be a poor one.

[Keravath]

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

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

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

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

[H_H_F_F]

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

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

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

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

[Dame_Mechanus]

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

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

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

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

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

[Sigreid]

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

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

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

[Black Jester]

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

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

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

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

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

[H_H_F_F]

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

Oh, 100%. That wouldn't be a bad experience for anyone, though.

[KirbyDerby]

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

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

[kazaryu]

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

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

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

How about you?

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

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

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

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

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

[kazaryu]

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

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

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

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

[H_H_F_F]

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

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

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

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

[Sigreid]

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

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

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

[Jervis]

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

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

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

[meandean]

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

[kazaryu]

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

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

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

[Jervis]

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

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

[MrStabby]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My approach to this has been to allow a strength check in place of an attack. I didn't want to favour the damage focussed characters over the sword and shield ones and I felt strength as a stat was one that could do with a bit of a boost.




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

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

[5eNeedsDarksun]

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

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

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

How about you?

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

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

[Jervis]

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

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

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

[PhoenixPhyre]

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

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

[Angelalex242]

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