Pickles JG
First Post
My friend Richard playing 3.5 had consecutive weeks where he was stunned for several rounds, ie most of the evening by a mind flayer, petrified by a basilisk & paralysed (IIRC Hold person). It was not interesting.
D&D 5E Let's list the "broken" spells
My friend Richard playing 3.5 had consecutive weeks where he was stunned for several rounds, ie most of the evening by a mind flayer, petrified by a basilisk & paralysed (IIRC Hold person). It was not interesting.
Rod Staffwand
aka Ermlaspur Flormbator
For polymorphing, I'd place the form restriction at CR = spell level. If you cast polymorph using a 4th level slot you can choose up to a CR4 creature. If you use a 6th level slot you can choose a CR6 creature, etc.
For broken spells, I'd add:
Gate: Has troubling (and far-reaching) combat and assassination applications and generally vague wording.
[EDIT: Formatting]
For broken spells, I'd add:
Gate: Has troubling (and far-reaching) combat and assassination applications and generally vague wording.
[EDIT: Formatting]
With the exception of polymorph (a 4th level spell) and possibly wall of Force (5th level) I think we're focusing way too much on high level spells.
High level spells are almost inherently "game breaking" by nature and require a high level of DM adjudication and thought. As importantly, they won't come up that often, certainly not immediately.
I'm more concerned with problematic low level spells. Sleep, for example, can cause problems for a party very early if the DM is not careful.
Another spell, I've seen derail a situation fast is inflict wounds. 1st level spell - 3d10 damage. It will take down ANY first level character on an average roll.
At GenCon, the BBEG took down the party cleric (from full HP of 11 to 100% dead) with a particularly good roll, the DM actually crit, but it didn't matter, standard damage killed the character. I've heard the same story with other parties in the same scenario.
Guiding bolt is also troubling. 1st level, 4d6 damage, an excellent secondary effect (grants advantage) AND it's ranged. 1st level characters are pretty frail for this kind of spell.
That said, the monsters seem to be set up for these spells, higher HPs and lower ACs etc.
If the DM rules that a wall of force blocks line of sight/line of effect for spells, then it does indeed make a monster essentially unkillable for the duration. Forcecage, however, does not, if you cast the barred version. Most monsters either lack ranged attacks or have relatively short range limits--e.g., a red dragon's breath weapon only extends 90 feet. Stand outside that range and you can nickel and dime the monster to death with arrows. Even if you have to attack with disadvantage, you'll grind it down long before the spell ends.
Does forcecage consume its material component? If it doesn't specifically say the component is consumed during casting, it's not. So that 1,500 gp is a one-time investment, not a cost per casting.
ZombieRoboNinja
First Post
There really isn't a viable workaround for some of these, and others would require you to drastically limit the sorts of encounters you create. Regardless, they can almost all be fixed with some simple house rules, which is IMO typically a better solution than just giving every ogre and umber hulk a wand of dispel magic or whatever.
Astrosicebear
First Post
I'm sure Mike Mearls and team check forums like these, the WOTC forums, twitter questions, etc. It is surprising that some of the spells seem to have slipped past (I can forgive vagueness in Forcecage/Wall of Force, but not the abuse potential of Poly).
Rest assured errata will be issued based on feedback. And its this kind of feedback that probably was sitting on their desks as the PHB was sent off to print... just a lack of time for higher level play balance.
I, for one, welcome the vagueness. I can rule anything in my game to my pleasure, and my player's chagrin, but i'd rather have interpretation than boring spells. In my opinion more open-ended wording leads to spell use innovation, instead of stagnation.
Rest assured errata will be issued based on feedback. And its this kind of feedback that probably was sitting on their desks as the PHB was sent off to print... just a lack of time for higher level play balance.
I, for one, welcome the vagueness. I can rule anything in my game to my pleasure, and my player's chagrin, but i'd rather have interpretation than boring spells. In my opinion more open-ended wording leads to spell use innovation, instead of stagnation.
After playing more, I'm starting to change my mind on polymorph. Concentration is really tough unless you take War Caster AND Resilient (Con). Even with War Caster any degree of focus fire and you can't maintain the polymorphed beast form for more than 2-3 rounds (on average). The druid has a lower CR but doesn't have to worry about concentration. I'm no longer seeing at a prime offender in the overpowered spell category.
Exactly, I would much rather have vague spells that are short, concise and open ended enough to inspire creativity than long, carefully delineated spells with every corner case stamped out to ensure pure mathematical balance. There is a referee at the table, unless your group are young or not well adjusted I don't see why 'no you can't use that power in that way because it would obviously break the game' would not satisfy them.
But 'Break The Game' and 'Make the PCs powerful' are not the same thing. If a spell makes all encounters trivial then that is a big problem. If it makes a encounter trivial that is the players winning at D&D, using their resources well to overcome obstacles. Give them some chances to kick-butt now and then and other times challenge them hard. It's fun.
That said, Mearls mentioned that they plan on putting out errata in updates to the Basic files, I am certain a raft of minor things missed in the PHB before printing will be included, more likely to be from issues found in actual games, Encounters, Living world than in theorycrafting on boards because those actually effect play.
Similar Threads
