D&D 5E Spells: the Good, the Bad, and the Downright Orcish Grandmother

[Hawk Diesel]

It's Con because you're resisting the effects of lightning coursing through your body.

I see and understand your reasoning, but requiring and a player to use an action in order to make a Constitution save bucks with the traditional format of 5e. Saving throws are always reflexive and don't require the player to use an action, while ability checks do require an action.

I would either change the wording to be the target creature makes a Con save at the end of each turn, or the target can attempt to escape using an action to make athletics or Acrobatics check.

I wouldn't recommend allowing an action to make a constitution ability check, since no one will have proficiency in a constitution check, and at most you'll have Bards and Champions with half proficiency.

 

[Gadget]

Yes, but Hex is also one of the signature spells of the Warlock (yes, you can get Hex without being a Warlock, but that requires a feat). So that right there puts it on par with a 2nd-3rd level spell for any other class. So if the additional Hex Damage is roughly equal to the halved weapon damage, affecting multiple abilities check types would put it into 3rd level range. At least, that's how I see it.

Well, in my book, a first level spell is a first level spell. The fact that it is exclusive to the Warlock (unless you take a feat, a one level dip, or Magical Secrets) may be a factor, but all the advantages Hex has over RoE more than make up for it. One I did not mention is that with Hex, you can change the target of the spell if/when the first target drops to zero HP, which is pretty significant. I guess my experience may be different, but I don't see ability checks come into play near as much as other more frequent checks, so I weight a bonus/penalty to attacks, damage, and saves higher than a bonus/penalty to ability checks. Maybe that's why I like the newer Witch Bolt so much, as it brings ability checks into play more. As such, I see my suggested modifications comparing well to 1st level Bane (up to three targets, penalty to attacks and saves) and 3rd level Bestow Curse (penalty to one ability check, penalty to attacks against the caster, chance to do nothing each turn, and bonus to damage against the target by the caster); or even the 2nd level Heat Metal (which can cause disadvantage to all attacks and ability checks in addition to damage). Granted, two of those are not on the wizard spell list, but have somewhat close effects to measure.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I'm glad you brought up similar spells that could be used as benchmarks to guide us on what level your suggested change would place Ray of Enfeeblement. I think Bestow Curse is probably the most appropriate spell. Bestow Curse has a range of touch and concentration. Unlike Ray of Enfeeblement, it only allows an initial save. While it offers many options, one of those options is to disadvantage a single ability score for saving throws and ability checks related to that score. I think you have misread Bestow Curse, because it does not apply all of those effects to the target. Just one of those effects of your choice. So while the change you suggested to Ray of Enfeeblement would require concentration and not have the flexibility of options, it would have an effect much greater than any of the effects of Bestow Curse, a 3rd level spell.

Also in comparison to heat metal, it is a much more situational spell in that it requires you to target creatures that wear armor to achieve that level of effect, whereas Ray of Enfeeblement can apply to any creature. Putting them on the same level of power would make Heat Metal much less relevant as an option.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

I see and understand your reasoning, but requiring and a player to use an action in order to make a Constitution save bucks with the traditional format of 5e. Saving throws are always reflexive and don't require the player to use an action, while ability checks do require an action.

That was a brain fart. I had always intended it as a Constitution check against the spellcaster's DC, not a saving throw. Just not paying attention and tired.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Has anyone mention the garbage spells that happen to be rituals? Most of the ritual spells are situational, but some are just plain bad.

Meld into Stone - Probably the worst ritual spell ever. Its like Ranger's Hide in Plain Sight, but worse because you can't see whats going on around you, and can't hear well too while in the stone. At least you are guaranteed to win a hide-and-seek game.

Not even close. Allows one to take a long rest from nearly complete safety; to scout safely with Beast Sense; to set up ambushes. To escape from a large number of possible dangers while used in non-ritual form (which needs to be prepared anyway, since only wizards have wizard-ritual-casting).

Feign Death - When would you ever need this spell? Should be a level 1 spell too.

Resistance to damage and suppression of disease and poison make this a potential companion-saving spell. Though I've never seen it used and don't imagine ever personally using it, except potentially through found spellbooks in conjunction with wizard-ritual-casting.

Find Traps - Lets be honest. You will only use it when you suspect there are traps nearby, and what does the spell do? Confirm your suspicions. Or not. Because of the 'within line of sight' part. I don't think you need reminding that most traps are hidden from sight, that's why they are called traps. The most common one being a trap triggered by opening a door. Of course the trap is going to be behind the door, right?

Provides information regarding what type of danger the trap poses, which is highly useful.

 

[Immoralkickass]

Not even close. Allows one to take a long rest from nearly complete safety; to scout safely with Beast Sense; to set up ambushes. To escape from a large number of possible dangers while used in non-ritual form (which needs to be prepared anyway, since only wizards have wizard-ritual-casting).

Resistance to damage and suppression of disease and poison make this a potential companion-saving spell. Though I've never seen it used and don't imagine ever personally using it, except potentially through found spellbooks in conjunction with wizard-ritual-casting.

Provides information regarding what type of danger the trap poses, which is highly useful.

Ambush? Not a bad idea, but seems to be quite resource intensive since it uses a level 2 and level 3 slot, and also situational. You would need a willing beast, and some stone surfaces. I imagine there would be more efficient ways for setting ambushes, like invisibility or a good stealth score, for example.

For Feign Death, suppression of disease and poison is not bad, but it doesn't solve the problem and you eventually have to find a way to remove it. Which makes it poor for a level 3 spell, because level 2 Protection from Poison is more suited for that. Or just get a level 1 paladin and use Lay on Hands to remove it.

I don't agree with your bit on Find Traps. The spell is not going to detect the trap at all if the trap is hidden from sight, which most traps are. What type of trap is not that important, the location of the trap is. I don't see how is it useful if I know a trap will spit fire instead of sharp blades at me, I want to avoid it all the same.
But the stupidest part about this spell is, if the trap is within sight, a successful perception check would detect it.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

That was a brain fart. I had always intended it as a Constitution check against the spellcaster's DC, not a saving throw. Just not paying attention and tired.

I don't know if a constitution check would be appropriate though. I mean, it totally fits with your idea of trying to overcome the lightning energy coursing through your muscles. But at the same time, you literally cannot have a creature, NPC, or whatever have proficiency in a Constitution check, at least not by RAW. The best you can do is if you are a Champion Fighter with Remarkable Athlete or a Bard with Jack of All Trades, which would only give you half proficiency in that ability check. This means that you are guaranteed to be hitting a creature with a check they are technically weak in (weak = non-proficient) AND forcing them to lose an action to even attempt to break out. That seems like too high of a cost for a 1st level spell.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

I don't know if a constitution check would be appropriate though. I mean, it totally fits with your idea of trying to overcome the lightning energy coursing through your muscles. But at the same time, you literally cannot have a creature, NPC, or whatever have proficiency in a Constitution check, at least not by RAW. The best you can do is if you are a Champion Fighter with Remarkable Athlete or a Bard with Jack of All Trades, which would only give you half proficiency in that ability check. This means that you are guaranteed to be hitting a creature with a check they are technically weak in (weak = non-proficient) AND forcing them to lose an action to even attempt to break out. That seems like too high of a cost for a 1st level spell.

There's no such thing as proficiency in any ability. You can have proficiency in skills and saving throws, but not abilities. An ability check only includes proficiency bonus if there is an associated skill that the character is proficient in and, by RAW, you can absolutely use different abilities if you wish. It's right there on p. 175 of the PHB under Variant: Skills with Different Abilities.

Regardless, just because there's no associated skill to the check or, by default, to Constitution, doesn't make it a bad thing. Most saving throws are Dexterity. Is it a bad thing that most classes don't have proficiency in Dex saves? Most grappling contests require a Dexterity (Acrobatics) or Strength (Athletics) check. Is it a bad thing if you don't choose proficiency in either of those skills?

While it makes it, on balance, a bit more powerful against PC's, you also have to consider that spells don't get used against PC's very often. Only the drow mage, of all the monsters in the MM, and the morkoth and yuan-ti nightmare speaker from Volo's, has it on their spell list. Spells get used against monsters the overwhelming majority of the time. And against monsters, a skill proficiency really isn't a significant consideration for balance.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I see and understand your reasoning, but requiring and a player to use an action in order to make a Constitution save bucks with the traditional format of 5e. Saving throws are always reflexive and don't require the player to use an action, while ability checks do require an action.

That generalization doesn't hold actually. Three counterexamples come to mind:

(1) Initiative is an ability check (Dex) but doesn't take an action.

(2) Resisting grappling is an ability check (Dex (Acrobatics) or Str (Athletics)) but doesn't take an action.

(3) Overcoming Otto's Irresistible Dance is a saving throw (Wisdom) but requires an action:

A dancing creature must use all its movement to dance without leaving its space and has disadvantage on Dexterity saving throws and attack rolls. While the target is affected by this spell, other creatures have advantage on attack rolls against it. As an action, a dancing creature makes a Wisdom saving throw to regain control of itself. On a successful save, the spell ends.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

That generalization doesn't hold actually. Three counterexamples come to mind:

(1) Initiative is an ability check (Dex) but doesn't take an action.

Fair point, but I would argue initiative is a special rule that falls outside of normal use of what an ability check is supposed to be.

(2) Resisting grappling is an ability check (Dex (Acrobatics) or Str (Athletics)) but doesn't take an action.

I would also argue opposed checks are different. An easy comparison would be attack rolls vs AC. The Attacker uses and action, while the defender is technically taking 10 on a passive AC check. Defenders don't require an action to defend themselves unless they take the Dodge action.

(3) Overcoming Otto's Irresistible Dance is a saving throw (Wisdom) but requires an action:

This is probably the best counter example to my argument, especially as it deals specifically with use of saving throws as actions in spells. I was actually going to ask if there were examples of:

A) Saving throws requiring an action on the part of the target, or

B) Spells requiring ability checks not tied to a skill to resist the spell.

I truly could not think of any examples from the PHB, but I assumed if they existed they were likely to be uncommon.