[ABJURATION] Killing the Sacred Cows

[Wulf Ratbane]

Multi-choice poll.

We're going to kill off a few sacred cows.

In this multi-choice poll, my vote means, "In the grim calculus of game design, I have determined that spellcasters don't need this spell. It might be neat. It might be a sacred cow. But it is not necessary. Its function is too obscure; or more likely, its function could be folded into another spell. I could design a new spell to take its place, and its status as a sacred cow just isn't enough to save it."

Your vote might mean something different, or you might arrive at it through a different process, but the end result is that your vote is a vote to kill the spell.

They are listed in order of ascending spell level, so if you decide to save (for example) Endure Elements, but you think that, having saved Endure Elements, you could now vote to kill Resist Energy and Protection from Energy, that's fine. I'll interpret your lowest level "SAVE!" vote to automatically infer higher level, more powerful versions (heightened, if you prefer).

Conversely, and perhaps a better way of looking at it, is that NOT checking the spell says to me, "I couldn't imagine D&D without this specific spell, by specific name and function and location in the spell list as it exists currently."

Please don't take that as an invitation to check all the spells. I assume you guys are willing to tinker with the spell list by virtue of being here.

[Henry]

My thoughts: Resistance is too pansy to survive, even as a cantrip. the "hide from" spells really could go into a variable spell. same thing with the "break enchantment, remove curse," etc. -- they could as easily be shades of Dispel Magic.

Lesser Globe and Globe of Invuln. Could be one spell - heck, if Resist energy has diffferent effect levels based on caster level, why not Globe of Invuln.?

Endure elements - a totally gutted version of resist energy. After they took out the ER5 from it, I wondered why they even kept it, or why they didn't make it a 0-level spell? Fold into another (1st level) version of Resist energy, and make it like (level 1, it's ER 3, Level 5 it's resist energy, level 9 it's like protection from Energy, level 13 it's liek energy Immunity, etc.)

Undetect align - too weak. Fold into nondetection.

Repel Vermin - what the hell? Never noticed that stupid spell before!

The rest of them I could stand to keep; they each do somethng

[Wulf Ratbane]

Yeah, I must have edited that post a dozen times. That's never stopped me from trying to clarify myself one more time before...

Henry's got the gist of it, but this is what I mean:

After voting in this poll, if you opened a hypothetical 4th edition of D&D to make a spellcaster, you wouldn't say, "Where the hell is _______?" or "How am I supposed to make a spellcaster without _______?" for anything you voted to kill.

Clear as mud?

[Wulf Ratbane]

Ugh. I wish I had included the option to record people's votes, it would make feedback so much easier. Stupid, stupid. Next time.

Henry-- why did you vote to kill Remove Curse? That one surprised me.

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

My votes:
Hide from animals: WTF? This spell is only useful against legitimately dangerous animals (T-Rex, etc) that never see play.
Hide from Undead: Meh, in my experience this spell is either too good or useless.
Firetrap: Why? Explosive Runes is better. This seems more like a metamagic effect or an Item creation feat. (Like "Craft Magic Trap")
Finally, Atonement: I don't mind the spell's effects, but I think it should be rolled into a larger spell.

The others I see as having cool uses in more than 1 specific situation.

[Cheiromancer]

Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane

After voting in this poll, if you opened a hypothetical 4th edition of D&D to make a spellcaster, you wouldn't say, "Where the hell is _______?" or "How am I supposed to make a spellcaster without _______?" for anything you voted to kill.

Very helpful! I went and checked off all the spells, and then went through and unchecked all the ones that would inspire a "what the hell?" reaction.

So I might have voted to kill a few spells whose absence I would regret later. But when I voted I gave precedence to alarm, protection from blah, remove fear, arcane lock, resist energy, dispel magic, magic circle against blah, nondetection, protection from energy, remove curse, dimensional anchor, freedom of movement, stoneskin, atonement, break enchantment and dismissal.

Although now that I think about it, I would probably miss protection from arrows. And something along the lines of glyph of warding or explosive runes.

And then there is the whole issue about spells like break enchantment, remove curse and atonement, which exist to deal with specific "gotcha" type effects, but are not generally useful. The spells that deal with disease, blindness and poison are in that category too. If 4th edition rationalized this mess I might not object.

And if 4th edition handled absolutes differently (spells like freedom of movement and mind blank), well, that could be good, too.

[FireLance]

Alarm, Hold Portal, Arcane Lock, Explosive Runes, Fire Trap, Glyph of Warding: I see these more as obstacles for the PCs to overcome instead of spells that they would use very often (barring the occasional "protect this place" adventure). They belong more in a book of challenges (it's unfortunate that D&D separates monsters out into the MM while keeping traps in the DMG instead of having a consolidated book of challenges, but that's another thread) instead of taking up space in the PH.

Obscure Object, Nondetection, Mage's Private Sanctum: Again, I think these spells are mostly used against the PCs, to foil their divinations (except during the occasional hide/sneak/disguise scenario), and should be considered obstacles or challenges (and thus, not in the PH).

Endure Elements: Really only an issue when PCs adventure in very hot or very cold environments. It belongs more in an environmental supplement, or in the DMG (giving the DM the option to introduce it, or not, as he chooses, before he sends the PCs into such an environment) than in the PH.

Protection from Chaos/Evil/Good/Law, Undetectable Alignment, Magic Circle Against Chaos/Evil/Good/Law, Atonement, Dispel Chaos/Evil/Good/Law: This list includes some classic spells, but I'm starting to think that all alignment-based effects should not be in the core rules because of all the arguments they cause. I'd still want them in the core rulebook, but perhaps in a separate chapter or an optional appendix so that it will be easier for those who don't like alignment to ignore it.

Resistance, Shield: These spells need to scale better, like shield of faith. Of course, resistance will need to be made higher level. (In fact, I think most cantrips should be killed and replaced with at-will or quick-recharge magical effects, but that's another thread again.)

Hide from Animals, Hide from Undead, Sanctuary: These function very much like invisibility, and should be folded into that spell (and the Illusion school).

Entropic Shield: This could be folded into blur (and the Illusion school).

Remove Fear: I'd be in favor of a more generic status-removing spell, like resurgence (Complete Divine, Spell Compendium).

Antiplant Shell, Repel Vermin: Can be folded into a generic barrier against creature type spell.

Protection from Arrows, Stoneskin: Again, I'd be in favor of a more generic spell to provide different types of DR. A further beef with protection from arrows is that it is somehow able to distinguish between melee and ranged attacks (and only protects against the latter).

Dispel Magic, Remove Curse, Break Enchantment: Can be folded into a generic "undo magic" effect.

Protection from Energy: Effectively, you get temporary hit points against energy attacks. Not really necessary since resist energy fills the niche of protection against energy damage, and there already are spells that grant temporary hit points (such as false life).

Dimensional Anchor, Dismissal: Keep it here or send it away? I'm fine with what the spells do, but in terms of flavor, they sound more like Conjuration to me.

[Wulf Ratbane]

So far FireLance is most in line with my own thoughts, in that he's envisioning the larger picture where effects are folded into larger spells.

Also guys, if you could post me some feedback on the poll format, that would help a lot.

I will definitely be changing the next poll to show your votes-- that way I can single you out for ridicu-- I mean, then I can ask pointed questions about individual votes.

And for the record, I have not voted in this poll. I'll vote in the next one when my votes are on record for folks to see.

After I get some feedback on the poll format I'll put another one up.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Cheiromancer

And then there is the whole issue about spells like break enchantment, remove curse and atonement, which exist to deal with specific "gotcha" type effects, but are not generally useful.

Remove curse would be more useful if 4e, like AE, added [curse] to the list of spell descriptors. I think it's appropriate.

Break Enchantment is just a big brother to remove curse, and I don't think atonement is necessary at all. As a spell, it trivializes what should be a roleplaying solution.

[Henry]

Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane

Remove curse would be more useful if 4e, like AE, added [curse] to the list of spell descriptors. I think it's appropriate.

Break Enchantment is just a big brother to remove curse, and I don't think atonement is necessary at all. As a spell, it trivializes what should be a roleplaying solution.

I think you just answered why I would have removed it, too. It's another flavor of "break bad mojo", in my opinion. In the old days, Dispel magic damn near worked on everything; why not again, just with different requirements depending on the severity of the mojo?

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Henry

I think you just answered why I would have removed it, too. It's another flavor of "break bad mojo", in my opinion. In the old days, Dispel magic damn near worked on everything; why not again, just with different requirements depending on the severity of the mojo?

There's something to be said for a counterspell that is restritcted to, and more powerful, when applied to a specific type of spell.

[GlassJaw]

I haven't voted yet but after going through the spell list in the poll, I am shocked at how many spells I would cut or are would roll into another spell effect.

I also found myself using the criteria of whether I've ever seen a player take or cast that spell. I was shocked at how many spells just don't get used at the table.

I've talked to Wulf about this before and I'm defininitely in favor of making spells/spell effects into talent chains (heck, I would make every ability in the game, magical or not, into talent chains).

If a caster knows Protection from , why couldn't he use more "power" to increase its range? Why should it be treated as a completely different spell?

[GlassJaw]

Another idea that I thought of while I was scanning the list:

If the consensus is that there are redundant spell effects, the decision would have to be how to group them. I don't think this decision is that cut and dry either.

For example, would you group spells by "intent" or by "type". Let me define what I mean:

Intent - what are you trying to do? What effect are you trying to creater? Your intent could be protection or defense. Spells in the protection tree could be anything from protection from evil to resist energy to stoneskin.

Type - Instead of being grouped by intent or effect, spells are grouped by what they actually are: elemental, force, alignment, etc (there still may be some overlap in intent however (ex. dispel or divination spells).) For example, the Fire Type would include spells like Fireball, Fire Trap, and Resist Energy (fire).

You might even be able to let the player choose their own spell groupings. That way you could have elemental specialists as well as spell school specialists or another concept the player may have.

[GlassJaw]

I'm know I'm violating forum etiquette but I'm going to post one more time.

As of right now, I'm not going to vote in the poll. The more I think about it, the more I come up with reasons to keep or kill every spell on the list.

I think a better poll or discussion is to determine what different spell effects/types/groupings exist. Once you have that, you can start plugging spells into the different categories. It's also entirely possibly for spells to exist in multiple categories.

Here's what I mean:

Fire: fireball, scorching ray, fire trap, resist energy (fire)
Protection: resist energy, shield, protection from , protection from arrows
Knowledge: detection spells, divination, scrying, identify
Movement: fly, levitation, dimension door, teleport, spider climb?
Air: fly, levitate, fog cloud (water?), gust of wind
Traps: arcane lock, fire trap, glyph of warding

[Graf]

I was voting based on: giving a player this sort of choice isn't fun.
Since most Abjuration spells do something specific and useful it's a hard area to get rid of stuff from.

Example: You can add Remove Curse into Dispel Magic but what does that really do for you? Most PCs aren't preparing the spell unless someone is cursed. So they don't normally wander around with it prepared.
If you do go that route then curses (like Lycanthropy) just get easier to get rid of. That takes a tool out of the DM's story toolbox.

Resistance just needs to go. So (imho) do hold portal (because you -can- take it, but it's so variably useful that you're always wishing you had some other spell prepared). Stuff like that.

The trap spells are underpowered and useless for pcs, but they provide a degree of story utility so I don't see them as being troublesome. And making them more powerful would be like giving people grenades... which isn't in the spirit of most DnD games anyway.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by GlassJaw

I think a better poll or discussion is to determine what different spell effects/types/groupings exist. Once you have that, you can start plugging spells into the different categories. It's also entirely possibly for spells to exist in multiple categories.

I've already done this groundwork. What this poll tells me is what spells can't be folded into larger umbrellas because of their 'sacred' status; and of course if there are any groupings I have overlooked.

If the poll fails to return this useful information, it's because you guys are too willing to tinker.

I have to say I am shocked at the hate for Resistance. As a 0-level abjuration spell-- especially in a design where 0-level spells might be cast for free-- I think it's useful. It's certainly "just right" in terms of power and effect, in my opinion.

EDIT: Even more surprising is the love for Alarm. This is a perfect example of a spell that doesn't fit neatly into any category (it's probably a relative of Glyph of Warding, but Monte's Minor Ward is vastly superior, imo), and which has a very specific use (cast at the end of the adventuring day, when no more excitement is to be had...).

[GlassJaw]

Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane

What this poll tells me is what spells can't be folded into larger umbrellas because of their 'sacred' status; and of course if there are any groupings I have overlooked.

Sacredness shouldn't get in the way of good game design IMO.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by GlassJaw

Sacredness shouldn't get in the way of good game design IMO.

Of course it should. The brand has value; and a significant (although as yet indeterminate) portion of brand value and brand awareness is built solidly on several sacred cows.

The trick is to determine how far you can flex it.

But there is a limit.

[Henry]

Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane

EDIT: Even more surprising is the love for Alarm. This is a perfect example of a spell that doesn't fit neatly into any category (it's probably a relative of Glyph of Warding, but Monte's Minor Ward is vastly superior, imo), and which has a very specific use (cast at the end of the adventuring day, when no more excitement is to be had...).

I kept Alarm precisely BECAUSE there is no other to fold it into - maybe glyph of warding, but it's not a clear lineage. I'd almost fold it into a general "guards and wards" type of spell, where it was the very first power level of the incantation you got - later goes up to obfuscations (illusions) to guard with, to minor damage, all the way to the full "forbiddance/guards and wards" kind of package.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Henry

I kept Alarm precisely BECAUSE there is no other to fold it into - maybe glyph of warding, but it's not a clear lineage. I'd almost fold it into a general "guards and wards" type of spell, where it was the very first power level of the incantation you got - later goes up to obfuscations (illusions) to guard with, to minor damage, all the way to the full "forbiddance/guards and wards" kind of package.

I like Abjuration spells that trigger lesser effects from other schools (some damage from Evocation, visual or auditory glamer from Illusion, curses from Necromancy, etc.).

It's the "magical trap" aspect that makes it an Abjuration; the only "level limiting" effect is how powerful the trap is.

So yes-- Alarm, Glyph of Warding, Explosive Runes: all variations on the theme.