How Many Houserules Does 5E Need?

[TentacleSurpris]

First of all, the Scarecrow was looking for a brain, let's keep the reference straight shall we.

Second, at least in my experience, "roll a d20 and let the DM decide" was true also in 3.5, considering that knowing skills DC is obvious metagaming, whoever tried was quickly showed the door.

ANd the scarecrow was constructed from what base material? I put it to you that the term "strawman" refers to scarecrows and that it is a legitimate alternate term. The expression "strawman" came about because a scarecrow made of straw is easier to knock down than an actual person. Also easier to light on fire, trust me.

[2D8HP]

If you truly find 5e "broken" then this solution may work for you:

Then 5e actually came out, and every person I've met in person who has played it has liked it, which made me realize a) there's definitely something wrong with these people and b) we need to set up "AD&D re-education camps" (it's for their own good, really).

But always keep in mind that:

Don't forget that other RPGs are all ridiculous Magical Tea Party storytelling garbage with obviously broken rules played by mental defectives.

And that:

Well, that's only for systems that are more rules-light than the one you play. Systems that are more rules-heavy than yours are not real RPG's, they're simulators for obsessive nerds who'd rather use spreadsheets than roleplay.

Keep the dice rollin'

[RickAllison]

ANd the scarecrow was constructed from what base material? I put it to you that the term "strawman" refers to scarecrows and that it is a legitimate alternate term. The expression "strawman" came about because a scarecrow made of straw is easier to knock down than an actual person. Also easier to light on fire, trust me.

His point still stands, the strawman/scarecrow is looking for a brain, not a heart.

[SharkForce]

i'll add one:

the DM will need to decide exactly how they think planar binding is supposed to work, because RAW it cannot work as described.





on the true polymorph plus banishment combo: out of curiosity, how are you concentrating on two spells at a time, and if you can get an enemy to fail two saving throws so readily, what makes you think this is the worst thing you could have done? i mean, hold person (or monster, as appropriate) for two full rounds (ie two failed saves) on a monster worth spending your level 9 spell slot on (never mind also spending another spell slot afterwards) would see that enemy turned into a thin red paste in just about any group i've seen (free autocrits and autohits for all! come and get it!). with fewer spell slots of lower level, no less. why is this combination of spells even being discussed? you want to burn extra resources on pointlessly overkilling someone? uh... well, ok, i guess. if that's what you really want.

[Grod_The_Giant]

5e is a pretty open ended skeleton of a game. It needs tons of house rules, it's designed around accepting tons of house rules and easily balancing them.

I've noticed that 5e is inconsistently rules light. If you look at combat and magic, it's pretty well-defined. Your spell can do X and no more, you have these Y options in a fight, your special move requires so many resources to do Z effect. And there are a few more places where they wrote rules to a decent depth, though they hid most of those in the DMG.

But then everything else, including most common noncombat stuff, was written to a completely different standard. There's barely any guidance as to how skills work for most purposes, much less mechanics. Which isn't necessarily an issue, but it is totally unlike the rest of the game. So you get dissonance. Suddenly the DM goes from being a referee to a designer; from interpreting rules to having to make their own.

[Regitnui]

Well, combat is a lot less freeform than interaction. Say a burly guy walks up to you in a bar with a smile on his face and offers to buy all of you a drink. What next?

Compare to the following situation: a burly guy corners you in the alley outside, a knife in his hand and an evil glint in his eye? What next?

One of those situations has a lot less possible outcomes than the other. The one with less situations can be ruled on and defined more easily. Combat in D&D really only goes one way; reduce their HP to 0 before they do the same to you. How? Class features.

I will here formally propose the Zeroth Rule of Gaming: No rule in any game shall be interpreted in a way that breaks the game if it is possible to interpret that rule in a way that does not.

Can I sig this?

[Orion3T]

I've noticed that 5e is inconsistently rules light. If you look at combat and magic, it's pretty well-defined. Your spell can do X and no more, you have these Y options in a fight, your special move requires so many resources to do Z effect. And there are a few more places where they wrote rules to a decent depth, though they hid most of those in the DMG.

But then everything else, including most common noncombat stuff, was written to a completely different standard. There's barely any guidance as to how skills work for most purposes, much less mechanics. Which isn't necessarily an issue, but it is totally unlike the rest of the game. So you get dissonance. Suddenly the DM goes from being a referee to a designer; from interpreting rules to having to make their own.

The way I see it is this - the combat stuff is well defined and generally specific. I believe they see that as an absolute necessity for combat, and I'm inclined to agree.

However along with those well defined rules comes a lot of limitations. Characters have abilities some of which have a thematic flair, but for things like Legolas-style climbing on enemies antics, somersaulting over them, swinging on chandeliers and so on.

So they either go down the route of making up rules for all of those situations, or they come up with something more flexible. They went with the latter.

Sticking with purely physical skills for now, players can literally tell the DM any crazy idea that comes into their mind and the DM can always find a way to allow it unless it would literally break the physics of the world they have created. If they want to somersault over the orc and stab it in the back the DM can allow it - they make an Acrobatics check to see how well they execute the move. A good result earns it pays off and they get advantage (maybe sneak attack as well?), a medium result means it works but no advantage gained and a bad enough result means they land on their ass and fall prone.

Having granted that flexibility the system simply extends that to outside combat, after all in real life skills are not limited to things that only happen when fighting or not fighting, skills are transferable.

So there's a well-defined framework which players can stick with for a simple game, making it easily accessible. Then the skill system allows them to add flair, creativity and imagination to fill in pretty much any gap in the framework. The only difficulty is for the DM to decide what is possible and if possible how difficult it will be, but by and large the players will know when asking to do something that it will either be allowed, disallowed, or result in a simple skill check to see how well it works.

Some players would no doubt have liked more narrowly defined skills. Really for physical stuff there is Strength (probably Athletics) and Dexterity (probably Acrobatics) which keeps it simple but there is considerable crossover. A jump could arguably be either athletics or acrobatics, for example. Or a combination of both.

Personally I think this works extremely well though. Sure, it's simple. But I like that there's really no wrong answer for our game, and we have no problem with players asking how difficult something is likely to be. If I think they could tell, I tell them (sometimes by describing relevant features, sometime . If not, I tell them they won't know unless they try it.

I don't think any of this is 'house ruling' though; it's the system being used as described in the PHB and DM guide, which are quite clear that the DM can allow checks on things which players want to do but are not specifically allowed by other rules.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Well, combat is a lot less freeform than interaction. Say a burly guy walks up to you in a bar with a smile on his face and offers to buy all of you a drink. What next?

Compare to the following situation: a burly guy corners you in the alley outside, a knife in his hand and an evil glint in his eye? What next?

One of those situations has a lot less possible outcomes than the other. The one with less situations can be ruled on and defined more easily. Combat in D&D really only goes one way; reduce their HP to 0 before they do the same to you. How? Class features.

I've watched enough action movies to think of a whole bunch of violent responses. And I can think of plenty of class abilities to deal with socializing. Expend one Connection Point to create a point of common history. Make an Insight check to determine the target's motive for the last statement they made. And go so.

I can also abstract combat, which, as you point out, is much more direct. Make a Fight check and deal 1 damage per point you beat your opponent's AC. Why complicate things when there's really only one outcome?

[mgshamster]

I've noticed that 5e is inconsistently rules light. If you look at combat and magic, it's pretty well-defined. Your spell can do X and no more, you have these Y options in a fight, your special move requires so many resources to do Z effect. And there are a few more places where they wrote rules to a decent depth, though they hid most of those in the DMG.

But then everything else, including most common noncombat stuff, was written to a completely different standard. There's barely any guidance as to how skills work for most purposes, much less mechanics. Which isn't necessarily an issue, but it is totally unlike the rest of the game. So you get dissonance. Suddenly the DM goes from being a referee to a designer; from interpreting rules to having to make their own.

This brings up a potentially interesting question:

How are combat spells compared to non-combat spells; when it comes to how well the rules are defined?

I wonder if that same kind of demarcation exists in the magic rules.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Well the first thing that come to mind about out of combat spells is the new Ritual tag. Being able to cast certain beneficial spells, but not use your spell slots is a huge thing... meaning they basically want you to use your limited spell slots primarily in combat. The hard limit on level 6-9 spells is also a huge limit, meaning most casters can do 3 super powerful things/day at their highest levels, and be efficient enough with the remainder of their lower level stuff, or partial casters can augment their abilities several time per day in combat, or contribute to the overall party objective (healing, self buffing, increase skill rolls, etc...)

[BayardSPSR]

Well, combat is a lot less freeform than interaction. Say a burly guy walks up to you in a bar with a smile on his face and offers to buy all of you a drink. What next?

Compare to the following situation: a burly guy corners you in the alley outside, a knife in his hand and an evil glint in his eye? What next?

One of those situations has a lot less possible outcomes than the other. The one with less situations can be ruled on and defined more easily. Combat in D&D really only goes one way; reduce their HP to 0 before they do the same to you. How? Class features.

Both of those situations seem like they have a lot of possible outcomes (including, for each, the other one) - it's only the HP abstraction that turns combat into a race to zero.

[Estrillian]

How are combat spells compared to non-combat spells; when it comes to how well the rules are defined?

My opinion on that is that they forgot that there were non-combat spells. Seriously practically every spell is basically about combat, just like almost every class feature. Sure there are spells that you can use out of combat but they were all clearly designed with a "combat is where the mechanics bite" sort of mindset.

It is a weird holdover from 4E, I think, which is quite dissonant with what they say in the PHB intro about the pillars of adventuring. They set up this idea that Investigation, Social Interaction and Combat are equally important, and then don't bother with Social or Investigative spells at all (except for a handful of Detect spells and charm) ... in just the same way that class abilities that don't apply to combat are few and far between (or just treated as ribbons).

The lack of rituals is a good pointer to this. If rituals are the non-combat spell superstars then you might expect 2/3 of spells to be rituals. Certainly you'd expect 2/3 of spells to be non-combat, but it is nothing like that, and even more so when you look at the spells added in Princes of the Apocalypse (for example). There are only so many spells that do XdX damage that we need.

[mgshamster]

My opinion on that is that they forgot that there were non-combat spells. Seriously practically every spell is basically about combat, just like almost every class feature. Sure there are spells that you can use out of combat but they were all clearly designed with a "combat is where the mechanics bite" sort of mindset.

It is a weird holdover from 4E, I think, which is quite dissonant with what they say in the PHB intro about the pillars of adventuring. They set up this idea that Investigation, Social Interaction and Combat are equally important, and then don't bother with Social or Investigative spells at all (except for a handful of Detect spells and charm) ... in just the same way that class abilities that don't apply to combat are few and far between (or just treated as ribbons).

The lack of rituals is a good pointer to this. If rituals are the non-combat spell superstars then you might expect 2/3 of spells to be rituals. Certainly you'd expect 2/3 of spells to be non-combat, but it is nothing like that, and even more so when you look at the spells added in Princes of the Apocalypse (for example). There are only so many spells that do XdX damage that we need.

I really would imagine that there would be more non-combat spells than combat spells, simply due to the fact that most magic users would come up with spells to make their daily life easier. And I doubt that most magic users have a daily life involving combat.

If I get time tonight, I'm going to go through some spell lists and see what the ratios are.

[jas61292]

My opinion on that is that they forgot that there were non-combat spells. Seriously practically every spell is basically about combat, just like almost every class feature. Sure there are spells that you can use out of combat but they were all clearly designed with a "combat is where the mechanics bite" sort of mindset.

It is a weird holdover from 4E, I think, which is quite dissonant with what they say in the PHB intro about the pillars of adventuring. They set up this idea that Investigation, Social Interaction and Combat are equally important, and then don't bother with Social or Investigative spells at all (except for a handful of Detect spells and charm) ... in just the same way that class abilities that don't apply to combat are few and far between (or just treated as ribbons).

The lack of rituals is a good pointer to this. If rituals are the non-combat spell superstars then you might expect 2/3 of spells to be rituals. Certainly you'd expect 2/3 of spells to be non-combat, but it is nothing like that, and even more so when you look at the spells added in Princes of the Apocalypse (for example). There are only so many spells that do XdX damage that we need.

While I don't think its as bad as you make it out to be, I do actually think that it is probably a good thing that most magic focuses on combat. As you mentioned, most class abilities are about combat. If magic users got equal amounts of stuff for social interaction and exploration as combat, but everyone else only got combat stuff, that would make things more unbalanced. This is especially true with rituals, which, while cool, are somewhat unbalancing by giving ritual casters strong out of combat abilities without requiring any usage of resources. In moderation it works fine, but if there is too much, you start moving more towards the balance issues of 3.5, where the power of casters was not simply in that spells were strong in combat, but also that they were so strong out of combat that combat only happened on their terms.

[JoeJ]

Can I sig this?

Go right ahead.

[JoeJ]

RAW they gain all the statistics of the new form. One of the statistics is that it is not native to the plain they are on. You can house rule however you want, but it does require a house rule. 2 high level spell slots that can be cast once a day.

So what? With two spell slots you can turn your enemy into a demon and banish them. Big deal. With one spell slot you could have turned them into a brick and made them part of your doorstep.

[Shaofoo]

While I don't think its as bad as you make it out to be, I do actually think that it is probably a good thing that most magic focuses on combat. As you mentioned, most class abilities are about combat. If magic users got equal amounts of stuff for social interaction and exploration as combat, but everyone else only got combat stuff, that would make things more unbalanced. This is especially true with rituals, which, while cool, are somewhat unbalancing by giving ritual casters strong out of combat abilities without requiring any usage of resources. In moderation it works fine, but if there is too much, you start moving more towards the balance issues of 3.5, where the power of casters was not simply in that spells were strong in combat, but also that they were so strong out of combat that combat only happened on their terms.

Do note that Rituals are accessible to all that want it via a feat and if your Int or Wis is 13 or higher. If you want to cast rituals there is an option regardless of class.

[jas61292]

Do note that Rituals are accessible to all that want it via a feat and if your Int or Wis is 13 or higher. If you want to cast rituals there is an option regardless of class.

While true, that requires more investment than classes that get it naturally, which would be a problem if they were too much better than other non-combat options.

Also, its important to not that feats are an optional rule. In the base game, such abilities are restricted to only those classes that have them as a feature. Which, again, makes it a major issue if rituals are the go to option out of combat.

That said, I really don't think that is the case at the moment. But it does make me wary about any future products putting out more ritual spells.

[2D8HP]

From the
Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die, thread I pulled

This is why I use the following houserule in my games: "Eldritch Blast scales with class level instead of character level."

Seems like a good rule if you want to limit Warlock level dips.
Since I am already on record that "house rules are part of the game", I thought I would drop it into this house rule thread.
I also suggest turning this thread into one where we suggest and critique house rules that others may use.

[NewDM]

It is a weird holdover from 4E, I think, which is quite dissonant with what they say in the PHB intro about the pillars of adventuring. They set up this idea that Investigation, Social Interaction and Combat are equally important, and then don't bother with Social or Investigative spells at all (except for a handful of Detect spells and charm) ... in just the same way that class abilities that don't apply to combat are few and far between (or just treated as ribbons).

{Scrubbed}

In 4E you gained a utility spell that you could choose a social or exploration ability every 3 levels or so. In addition to that, you also had hundreds of ritual spells that took from 1 minute to 1 day to cast and did all of the out of combat stuff that previous editions required from spell slots. Then there were magic items that allowed you to cast rituals with a standard action.

{Scrubbed}

[mgshamster]

Are we counting variant rules as house rules?

[charcoalninja]

5E needs some basic house rules to rein in high level magic just like all non 4E editions if the game. There is nothing balanced about the Wizard character getting another Wizard as a class feature (Simulacrum) that he then transforms into a Dragon. Fighter gets a 4th attack, Wizard gets a Dragon that when defeated turns into a wizard with 7th level+ spells that he can make over and over again.

[NewDM]

5E needs some basic house rules to rein in high level magic just like all non 4E editions if the game. There is nothing balanced about the Wizard character getting another Wizard as a class feature (Simulacrum) that he then transforms into a Dragon. Fighter gets a 4th attack, Wizard gets a Dragon that when defeated turns into a wizard with 7th level+ spells that he can make over and over again.

Exactly. I agree completely.

For those that say they don't need house rules for 5E. They either don't care about balance at all (as in they can RP checkers) or they've never played high enough to run into the caster/DM arms race. They probably don't enforce Exhaustion for Frenzy either, or they have a weird Barbarian that gets heat exhaustion and can't move by the end of each day that then takes almost a week to recover.

[JoeJ]

If I get time tonight, I'm going to go through some spell lists and see what the ratios are.

I already did that. I divided all the spells in the PHB, EEPC, and SCAG into those that are only useful in combat (barring niche situations), those that are only useful out of combat (barring niche situations), and those that can be useful both in and out of combat. There's some subjectivity, largely in how creatively the spell descriptions are interpreted. Still, for what it's worth, here are my lists:

Spoiler: Combat Only Spells

Show

PHB Cantrips:
Acid Splash, Blade Ward, Chill Touch, Eldritch Blast, Poison Spray, Ray of Frost, Sacred Flame, Shillelagh, Shocking Grasp, Thorn Whip, True Strike, Vicious Mockery

EEPC Cantrips:
Frostbite, Magic Stone, Thunderclap

SCAG Cantrips:
Booming Blade, Green-Flame Blade, Lightning Lure, Sword Burst

PHB Level 1+ Spells:
Antilife Shell, Armor of Agathys, Arms of Hadar, Aura of Life, Aura of Purity, Bane, Banishing Smite, Banishment, Barkskin, Beacon of Hope, Bestow Curse, Blade Barrier, Bless, Blight, Blinding Smite, Blindness/Darkness, Blur, Branding Smite, Burning Hands, Call Lightning, Chain Lightning, Chromatic Orb, Circle of Death, Circle of Power, Cloud of Daggers, Cloudkill, Color Spray, Compelled Duel, Compulsion, Cone of Cold, Confusion, Conjure Barrage, Conjure Volley, Contagion, Cordon of Arrows, Counterspell, Crown of Madness, Crusader’s Mantle, Darkness, Death Ward, Delayed Blast Fireball, Destruction Wave, Dispel Evil and Good, Dissonant Whispers, Divine Favor, Divine Word, Earthquake, Elemental Weapon, Ensnaring Strike, Entangle, Evard’s Black Tentacles, Eyebite, False Life, Fear, Feeblemind, Finger of Death, Fire Shield, Fire Storm, Fireball, Flame Blade, Flame Strike, Flaming Sphere, Flesh to Stone, Fog Cloud, Forcecage, Foresight, Globe of Invulnerability, Grasping Vine, Grease, Guardian of Faith, Guiding Bolt, Hail of Thorns, Harm, Haste, Heat Metal, Hellish Rebuke, Heroism, Hex, Hold Monster, Hold Person, Holy Aura, Hunger of Hadar, Hunter’s Mark, Ice Storm, Imprisonment, Incendiary Cloud, Inflict Wounds, Insect Plague, Lightning Arrow, Lightning Bolt, Mage Armor, Magic Missile, Maze, Melf’s Acid Arrow, Meteor Swarm, Mirror Image, Moonbeam, Mordenkainen’s Sword, Otiluke’s Freezing Sphere, Otiluke’s Resilient Sphere, Otto’s Irresistible Dance, Phantasmal Killer, Power Word Kill, Power Word Stun, Prismatic Spray, Prismatic Wall, Protection from Evil and Good, Ray of Enfeeblement, Ray of Sickness, Sanctuary, Scorching Ray, Searing Smite, Shatter, Shield, Shield of Faith, Sleep, Sleet Storm, Slow, Spike Growth, Spirit Guardian, Spiritual Weapon, Staggering Smite, Stinking Cloud, Stoneskin, Storm of Vengeance, Sunbeam, Sunburst, Swift Quiver, Tasha’s Hideous Laughter, Thunderous Smite, Thunderwave, Tsunami, Vampiric Touch, Wall of Fire, Wall of Ice, Wall of Thorns, Warding Bond, Web, Weird, Wind Wall, Witch Bolt, Wrathful Smite

EEPC Level 1+ Spells:
Abi-Dalzim’s Horrid Wilting, Absorb Elements, Aganazzar’s Scorcher, Dust Devil, Earth Tremor, Earthbind, Elemental Bane, Erupting Earth, Flame Arrows, Ice Knife, Immolation, Investiture of Flame, Investiture of Ice, Maelstrom, Maximilian’s Earthen Grasp, Melf’s Minute Meteors, Primordial Ward, Pyrotechnics, Snilloc’s Snowball Storm, Storm Sphere, Tidal Wave, Vitriolic Sphere, Wall of Sand, Wall of Water, Warding Wind, Watery Sphere, Whirlwind

Spoiler: Non-Combat Only Spells

Show

PHB Cantrips:
Dancing Lights, Druidcraft, Friends, Guidance, Light, Mage Hand, Mending, Message, Minor Illusion, Prestidigitation, Thaumaturgy

EEPC Cantrips:
Shape Water

PHB Level 1+ Spells:
Alarm, Animal Messenger, Antipathy/Sympathy, Arcane Eye, Arcane Lock, Astral Projection, Augury, Awaken, Beast Sense, Clairvoyance, Clone, Commune, Commune with Nature, Comprehend Languages, Contact Other Plane, Continual Flame, Control Weather, Create Food and Water, Create or Destroy Water, Creation, Demiplane, Detect Evil and Good, Detect Magic, Detect Poison and Disease, Detect Thoughts, Disguise Self, Divination, Drawmij’s Instant Summons, Dream, Etherealness, Fabricate, Feign Death, Find the Path, Find Traps, Forbiddance, Gaseous Form, Gate, Geas, Gentle Repose, Glibness, Glyph of Warding, Guards and Wards, Hallow, Hallucinatory Terrain, Identify, Illusory Script, Knock, Legend Lore, Leomund’s Secret Chest, Leomund’s Tiny Hut, Locate Animals or Plants, Locate Creature, Locate Object, Magic Circle, Magic Mouth, Meld into Stone, Mirage Arcane, Modify Memory, Mordenkainen’s Magnificent Mansion, Mordenkainen’s Private Sanctum, Move Earth, Nondetection, Nystul’s Magic Aura, Pass Without Trace, Passwall, Phantom Steed, Planar Binding, Prayer of Healing, Project Image, Purify Food and Drink, Raise Dead, Regenerate, Reincarnate, Remove Curse, Resurrection, Rope Trick, Scrying, See Invisibility, Seeming, Sending, Sequester, Speak with Animals, Speak with Dead, Stone Shape, Symbol, Telepathy, Teleport, Teleportation Circle, Tenser’s Floating Disk, Tongues, Transport via Plants, Tree Stride, True Resurrection, Unseen Servant, Water Breathing, Water Walk, Wind Walk, Word of Recall, Zone of Truth

EEPC Level 1+ Spells:
Skywrite

Spoiler: Multi-Use Spells

Show

PHB Cantrips:
Fire Bolt, Produce Flame, Resistance, Spare the Dying

EEPC Cantrips:
Control Flames, Create Bonfire, Gust, Mold Earth

PHB Level 1+ Spells:
Aid, Alter Self, Animal Friendship, Animal Shapes, Animate Dead, Animate Objects, Antimagic Field, Arcane Gate, Aura of Vitality, Bigby’s Hand, Blink, Calm Emotions, Charm Person, Command, Conjure Animals, Conjure Celestial, Conjure Elemental, Conjure Fey, Conjure Minor Elementals, Conjure Woodland Beings, Contingency, Control Water, Create Undead, Cure Wounds, Darkvision, Daylight, Dimension Door, Disintegrate, Dispel Magic, Dominate Beast, Dominate Monster, Dominate Person, Enhance Ability, Enlarge/Reduce, Enthrall, Expeditious Retreat, Faerie Fire, Feather Fall, Find Familiar, Find Steed, Fly, Freedom of Movement, Giant Insect, Greater Invisibility, Goodberry, Greater Restoration, Gust of Wind, Heal, Healing Word, Heroes’ Feast, Hypnotic Pattern, Invisibility, Jump, Lesser Restoration, Levitate, Longstrider, Magic Jar, Major Image, Mass Cure Wounds, Mass Heal, Mass Healing Word, Mass Suggestion, Mind Blank, Mislead, Misty Step Mordenkainen’s Faithful Hound, Phantasmal Force, Planar Ally, Plane Shift, Plant Growth, Polymorph, Power Word Heal, Programmed Illusion, Protection from Energy, Protection from Poison, Rary’s Telepathic Bond, Reverse Gravity, Revivify, Shapechange, Silence, Silent Image, Simulacrum, Speak with Plants, Spider Climb, Suggestion, Telekinesis, Time Stop, True Polymorph, True Seeing, Wall of Force, Wall of Stone, Wish

EEPC Level 1+ Spells:
Beast Bond, Bones of the Earth, Catapult, Control Winds, Investiture of Stone, Investiture of Wind, Transmute Rock

So for the numbers:

PHB Cantrips: 12 Combat, 11 Non-Combat, 4 Multi-Use
PHB Level 1+ Spells: 143 Combat, 99 Non-Combat, 92 Multi-Use
EEPC Cantrips: 3 Combat, 1 Non-Combat, 4 Multi-Use
EEPC Level 1+ Spells: 27 Combat, 1 Non-Combat, 7 Multi-Use
SCAG Cantrips: 4 Combat, 0 Non-Combat, 0 Multi-Use

[Shaofoo]

5E needs some basic house rules to rein in high level magic just like all non 4E editions if the game. There is nothing balanced about the Wizard character getting another Wizard as a class feature (Simulacrum) that he then transforms into a Dragon. Fighter gets a 4th attack, Wizard gets a Dragon that when defeated turns into a wizard with 7th level+ spells that he can make over and over again.

Small caveat, Simulacrum requires an expensive material component that is consumed that at no point are you guaranteed to get. By RAW all spells with expensive material components are useless because there is no way to get any and there is no way to circumvent it except with Wish (and that risks you never to cast Wish again plus the debuffs) or True Polymorph (which unlike Wish is up to the DM how much value the item you get); both level 9 spells so you need to be a Wizard 17 to get access to your own material components without DM intervention.

But yes I agree that Simulacrum is a horrible spell and one where I make a point to ban on the spot if I get the chance. I think if you eliminate the problem spell then things become much more balanced. (Plus it is better to ban than trying to play around with restricting ruby dust).

[JoeJ]

But yes I agree that Simulacrum is a horrible spell and one where I make a point to ban on the spot if I get the chance. I think if you eliminate the problem spell then things become much more balanced. (Plus it is better to ban than trying to play around with restricting ruby dust).

I don't have a problem with Simulacrum; it's Wish that I ban. (Or at least, remove from all PC spell lists. To get one you have to acquire a magic ring, or negotiate with a djinni, or something equally epic.)

[charcoalninja]

Yes, as I said, house rule high level magic just like every edition ever (save 4e).

Edit: no problem with Sim means you don't care about balance, and that's fine, but people should recognize what's going on.

[jas61292]

Small caveat, Simulacrum requires an expensive material component that is consumed that at no point are you guaranteed to get. By RAW all spells with expensive material components are useless because there is no way to get any and there is no way to circumvent it except with Wish (and that risks you never to cast Wish again plus the debuffs) or True Polymorph (which unlike Wish is up to the DM how much value the item you get); both level 9 spells so you need to be a Wizard 17 to get access to your own material components without DM intervention.

But yes I agree that Simulacrum is a horrible spell and one where I make a point to ban on the spot if I get the chance. I think if you eliminate the problem spell then things become much more balanced. (Plus it is better to ban than trying to play around with restricting ruby dust).

Yeah, Simulacrum is a very poorly designed spell that I typically would not allow (at least not if I thought the players were trying to abuse it), but ultimately I don't think it is truly broken, due to its component limitation.

Wish, on the other hand, is stupidly broken. Not only is it not fun to play with mechanically, but I also find that it makes no sense. Why is the ultimate arcane power to wish something happens? Shouldn't the culmination of all your studies and training give you abilities to make things happen? Sure, mechanically, its no different, but the fluff of the spell has never sat well with me. Personally, regardless of the edition, I have never allowed wish to be available as a player spell, and saved it exclusively for the likes of special magic items or genies.

But yeah, I totally agree that there are some problem spells, and simply eliminating them makes things more balanced.

[Shaofoo]

I don't have a problem with Simulacrum; it's Wish that I ban. (Or at least, remove from all PC spell lists. To get one you have to acquire a magic ring, or negotiate with a djinni, or something equally epic.)

Well it might get out of hand with the free items and casting spells without material components but I feel more comfortable with Wish since people know you can't just ask for anything lest monkey paw ruin your life, and potential repeat castings of a specific spell without a material component could also bring about the monkey paw on them as well.

Of course outside sources of Wish are free of monkey paw (for the most part.)

[NewDM]

Small caveat, Simulacrum requires an expensive material component that is consumed that at no point are you guaranteed to get. By RAW all spells with expensive material components are useless because there is no way to get any and there is no way to circumvent it except with Wish (and that risks you never to cast Wish again plus the debuffs) or True Polymorph (which unlike Wish is up to the DM how much value the item you get); both level 9 spells so you need to be a Wizard 17 to get access to your own material components without DM intervention.

But yes I agree that Simulacrum is a horrible spell and one where I make a point to ban on the spot if I get the chance. I think if you eliminate the problem spell then things become much more balanced. (Plus it is better to ban than trying to play around with restricting ruby dust).

Simulacrum is 7th level and therefore doesn't cause wish to have a chance of failing or any negative side effects. It also bypasses the material and somatic components. So you can create 1 simulacra a day with no cost that can in turn create 2 more copies of you (not them), which each can create 2 more copies of you. To infinity.

Even by the strictest most locked down reading you have about 3 Simulacra each 1/2 the level of the last, who you then tell to tell their created simulacra to obey you as if you were them.