D&D 5E Let's list the "broken" spells

keterys said:

Until the DMG comes out (and explains how diseases work), I'd suggest against using contagion (as a PC or monster). That gives plenty of time for an FAQ to clarify, or to find out that it's not an in-combat spell but more of a plot spell, because there are no combat effects until an incubation time (3 saves, or even an hour or whatever) elapses.

Click to expand...

The spell description is not vague:

-- "On a hit you afflict the creature with a disease of your choice."

Each disease consists of an effect or list of effects. Being afflicted with it is equivalent to being subject to those effects.

-- "After succeeding on three of these saving throws, the creature recovers from the disease."

If the effects had not yet begun while the saving throws were being made, there would be nothing to recover from.

Keep in mind that this is a 5th-level spell, and it only affects a single creature. Three rounds of guaranteed debuff (not even damage!) is not so much to ask from a 5th level spell. Further, you must succeed on an attack roll, which means you're going to miss sometimes, particularly if the target has a high AC.

Yes, slimy doom is a potent effect, but it's not much worse than hold person, which is only 2nd level (and can scale up to target more foes, whereas contagion cannot). In fact, plenty of spells of 5th level and lower can immediately take an enemy out of the fight if they land: dominate person, telekinesis, wall of stone, banishment, polymorph ... the list goes on.

MoutonRustique said:

The way I read silence means that around 6th or 7th level, you cannot make a significant fight against a level 1000 wizard if there is a cleric in the party w/o special considerations that are in place specifically to neuter the cleric.

That, I interpret as broken in the sense of not being able to play w/o contingency plans specifically in place to counter said spell.

Other way around, around 6th or 7th level, if the party attacks a bunch of cleric types, it means that the party casters can do nothing of value w/o assistance of their non-caster party members (which can be a good thing, depending on situation.) This I interpret as of great concern - anything that can lockout a player type is a serious consideration...

I don't understand how I'm reading this wrong, but, from my understanding, with the typical combat length of 5e, having access to 2-3 silence spells fundamentally changes how the game plays...

Click to expand...

I've never understood this particular interpretation of "broken". Let's pretend, for a moment, that Silence works the way you suggest it does. Your Cleric has found it to be a particularly useful spell against incidental enemy spellcasters. It's a valid tactic, I mean, what is the spell for if not to screw up enemy spellcasters? Let your Cleric have her victories.

Enter Big Bad. He's a scary powerful wizard. Your Cleric, trained to cast Silence to deal with spellcasters, does exactly that.

Then, your Big Bad counters it. Shrugs it off completely.

Cue terrified looks from the party.

He's your Big Bad. By definition, your party's typical tactics should be next to pointless against him. He's seen it all before, and he's unimpressed. That's what makes him terrifying; the party shouldn't be able to just brute force him. If he can be defeated in the same way as any other encounter, then he's not a Big Bad, he's just another encounter.

No power or spell exists to easily counter this supposedly "broken" (or anything else that supposedly breaks BBEG encounters)? You're the DM, and he's an immensely powerful figure who exists in the same world as these very powers. Invent one. You can bet your Big Bad would've done so already.

Your Big Bad didn't get to where he is today without having a crapton of contingencies.

Wall of Force says "Nothing can physically pass through the wall." (emphasis added)

It doesn't have any special spell-blocking abilities -- it's an indestructible sheet of glass. That certainly blocks a fireball, but does a sheet of glass block, say, Charm Person? I'm not sure.

With 4E line if effect rules it would, but it's not clear to me that 5E works that way. The spellcasting rules say that you can't target through total cover, but the definition of total cover is also that you're "completely concealed by an obstacle."

It's also notable that similar spells (Leomund's Tiny Hut, Forcecage) explicitly say they block spells, while Wall of Force uses the qualifier that it blocks physical things.

Joe Liker said:

Yes, slimy doom is a potent effect, but it's not much worse than hold person, which is only 2nd level (and can scale up to target more foes, whereas contagion cannot). In fact, plenty of spells of 5th level and lower can immediately take an enemy out of the fight if they land: dominate person, telekinesis, wall of stone, banishment, polymorph ... the list goes on.

Click to expand...

Contagion is unique and broken only in that it (effectively) bypasses legendary resistance. It breaks the encounter design of a single legendary creature versus the party, which is clearly something 5E is trying to support.

Against non-legendary creatures it's powerful -- maybe stronger than its level warrants -- but not broken.

Dausuul said:

Don't have my PHB in front of me, but my recollection is that the spell takes effect instantly. The saving throws are to determine whether you shake off the effect, or whether you're stuck with it for the next week.

The stun effect is a result of choosing Slimy Doom. When you have an entire party unloading on the target, it's pretty well guaranteed to take at least 1 damage every round. (The fact that Slimy Doom also imposes disadvantage on your saving throws against Slimy Doom is just adding insult to injury. Or, in this case, injury to more injury.)

Against a monster that's part of a larger encounter, contagion is reasonably balanced. The issue is that it's a legend-killer; use it against a single solo monster and that monster is hosed. Legendary resistance is supposed to prevent such shenanigans, but in this case it fails because the spell doesn't grant an initial save and you have to make three saves to get rid of it.

Click to expand...

The way I think that I'm going to handle the gradual effects will be based on the saving throw status.

1) No effect until the first save is failed.

2) Effect can be active or inactive for a given round depending on the result of the last saving throw.

So if the target fails it's first save then it is affected by the spell. On the next turn the target succeeds on a save and is NOT affected for that turn. On the following turn the target fails it's second save and is again under the effects.

The cycle continues until three saves are made or failed. This allows some effect before 3 rounds to take place without automatically shutting down an opponent who is MAKING succussful saves every round.

Thoughts?

ExploderWizard said:

The way I think that I'm going to handle the gradual effects will be based on the saving throw status.

1) No effect until the first save is failed.

2) Effect can be active or inactive for a given round depending on the result of the last saving throw.

So if the target fails it's first save then it is affected by the spell. On the next turn the target succeeds on a save and is NOT affected for that turn. On the following turn the target fails it's second save and is again under the effects.

The cycle continues until three saves are made or failed. This allows some effect before 3 rounds to take place without automatically shutting down an opponent who is MAKING succussful saves every round.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Ask yourself:

"As a player would my wizard ever cast this spell with these limitations given all the other 5th level (and lower, empowered) options available to me?" It sounds like you would need to succeed on a touch attack roll, then have the target fail on several saves in a row, otherwise you have wasted a spell slot and an action. Unless it was for roleplay reasons I don't think many would ever use that spell. I guess I would wait on fixing the bug until we know that it is actually a bug an how significant it is, or the cure may be worse than the sickness.

If Wall of Force says "nothing physical" can get through it...and we all agree, stuff like Fireballs and Lightning Bolts are no go. How does the magic from the spell to Charm Person get to the person to be charmed? JUst because you can't "see" it doesn't mean it's not a physical effect. IF you consider your "arcane magic" (or any magic for that matter) to be like a "radiation" inherent to the world/of the cosmos...then it should, most definitely, be blocked. Whether you see a spell flaring out of the spellcaster's hands or a simple momentary ripple in the air or nothing at all. It goes to how you fluff/flavor magic and it's existence in your world...if you're so inclined, as opposed to just making it a nigh invulnerable forcefield for a limited time (as is its intent).

I think the more cogent question is...How does Wall of Force work against a Medusa [or any other "gaze" attack]? Again, it's in how you fluff it. Is the Medusa, effectively, firing invisible beams of "turn you stony-ness" that change the person? Or is the locked gaze all that's required and it's some kind of "outside [the game] reality" that transforms you? Given the traditional fact that most gaze attacks extend into the ethereal plane, I'm inclined to say, quite literally, the gaze can [trans-dimensionally] get "around" a Wall of Force.

I would let a vampire or dryad be able to charm someone with their gaze through a WoF. I would not let a spellcaster simply cast Charm Person.

But that's just a cursory assessment of how it might work in play...and I'm only on coffee #1.

Joe Liker said:

The spell description is not vague:

-- "On a hit you afflict the creature with a disease of your choice."

Click to expand...

Right. So, if right now I were afflicted with ebola, that would _really suck_... in several days. Diseases are a particular type of affliction that has an incubation period that allows spreading of that disease before the host suffers the most dire of the ill effects.

Unfortunately, we don't yet have information on how diseases work in 5e. I can say that the term "contract a disease" in 4e meant you were currently not suffering any ill effects from it. I can say that in 3e, the term "infected with a disease" had no mechanical problems until a day or so later, and that the contagion spell specifically required a clause that it bypassed the incubation period... but still did very little until some number of days passed.

Unfortunately, prior editions predate the internet so I can't point you to how things worked in other editions, except to note that there is both precedent, real life logic, and actual game logic behind what I said.

Obviously, do what you like in your own games, but when one path is clearly the better for the game, and the other isn't, is there really any harm in waiting a couple months before using one argued about spell?

drjones said:

Ask yourself:

"As a player would my wizard ever cast this spell with these limitations given all the other 5th level (and lower, empowered) options available to me?" It sounds like you would need to succeed on a touch attack roll, then have the target fail on several saves in a row, otherwise you have wasted a spell slot and an action. Unless it was for roleplay reasons I don't think many would ever use that spell. I guess I would wait on fixing the bug until we know that it is actually a bug an how significant it is, or the cure may be worse than the sickness.

Click to expand...

Ask yourself:

" As a player am I only choosing this spell as a cheesy stunlock because some strict RAW interpretation says I can?"

If the answer is no then it is still a decent spell.

Contagion much more has the look of a "plot" spell, rather than a combat spell. Something done ahead of time on someone or snuck onto someone. I certainly hope it has a week duration for a reason, not because its effects are intended to resolve within 3 rounds or less.

Either way, it's _incredibly_ easy to avoid using it, so doing so is by far the easier route than using a particular interpretation to defeat dragons and such.