D&D 5E 5e "Anyspell," Would You Allow the Enclosed Spell?

[Snarf Zagyg]

As an FYI Wish already allows casting a, say, 10 min csting time spell, as an action.

Also? Wish is a ninth level spell and the ultimate spell in the game.

So there is "anyspell," already. It's just level-gated.

 

[Inanity]

As a note: in this context i hear alot the following:

Dominant Preference Principle:
IF X is such that any player would choose X above any other feature option then X is too powerful of a feature option (where X is some specific feature or option your character can gain or choose but does not necessarily get; for ease lets say X cannot be a class).

To be CLEAR: this is a theory that makes a connection BETWEEN PLAYER PSYCHOLOGY AND POWER OF FEATURES (it does not look at the mechanical benefits of said features to determine power level, not necessarily at least). As such, it is a horrible methodology.

We can discuss this further if anyone is interested;maybe ill make a thread about variantions/explications/ and clarifications of principles like this...

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

As a note: in this context i hear alot the following:

Dominant Preference Principle:
IF X is such that any player would choose X above any other feature option then X is too powerful of a feature option (where X is some specific feature or option your character can gain or choose but does not necessarily get; for ease lets say X cannot be a class).

To be CLEAR: this is a theory that makes a connection BETWEEN PLAYER PSYCHOLOGY AND POWER OF FEATURES (it does not look at the mechanical benefits of said features to determine power level, not necessarily at least). As such, it is a horrible methodology.

We can discuss this further if anyone is interested;maybe ill make a thread about variantions/explications/ and clarifications of principles like this...

Assuming a game provides options, I think that the choice of "any player" to choose one option above all others is definitive evidence that there are no meaningful options; the rest is just wordplay.

 

[Inanity]

Assuming a game provides options, I think that the choice of "any player" to choose one option above all others is definitive evidence that there are no meaningful options; the rest is just wordplay.

Well THAT condition IS NOT SATISFIED for any spell or choice as a matter of fact so the principle is moot. But, in general, and as I formulated it above, it was about what players would choose And, so if ALL PLAYERS would choose, say [insert mechanically weak SPELL; Friends, idk] that would mean Friends is too powerful!Social and other reasons could influence player choice, so it will be difficult to forge a connection between too powerful and always chosen. I am not saying that it cant be a good indicator or guideline but as a general theory it is almost (and yet hiddenly) obviously false (and also REAL WORLD PLAYERS dont satisfy the condition anyways)

 

[Inanity]

Then it should be a class feature, not a spell.

Huh? Stares blanky... (and yes i have heard thi s and wondered about the reasons people give for it; suffice t o say I am not impressed by the reasons)

EDIT: but seriously, I want to makeit a spell because it seems to be in the vein of 5e and alo i want it to be accessible to many classes.

EDIT: and sorry for the snark mainly in a good/joking mood today not intending to be mean)

 

[BluejayJunior]

I want to make sure I'm understanding how this works.
You are using your reaction + action to cast any spell on your spell list (under the level that anyspell was cast) even if it wasn't prepared.

It seems pretty powerful. It's essentially a workaround to preparing spells. Feels like it should be a high level class feature rather than a 2nd level spell. By 3rd level, you can get around not preparing a spell or casting a spell that you don't even know.
I would at least remove the part about upcasting the spell. It already allows you to cast a spell you don't know or have prepared, it should at least have the downside of spending a higher spell slot to cast it without any additional benefit.

 

[Li Shenron]

Would you allow this spell into your game?

No way.

Spellcasters are already a lot more versatile than non-spellcasters, so unless you're talking about allowing this spell in a game where everyone is a spellcaster and has access to this spell, this would be just an insult in the face of other players.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Well THAT condition IS NOT SATISFIED for any spell or choice as a matter of fact so the principle is moot. But, in general, and as I formulated it above, it was about what players would choose And, so if ALL PLAYERS would choose, say [insert mechanically weak SPELL; Friends, idk] that would mean Friends is too powerful!Social and other reasons could influence player choice, so it will be difficult to forge a connection between too powerful and always chosen. I am not saying that it cant be a good indicator or guideline but as a general theory it is almost (and yet hiddenly) obviously false (and also REAL WORLD PLAYERS dont satisfy the condition anyways)

I appreciate your input. But that's just wordplay. If you are looking for some objective definition of "too powerful," then you're welcome to it.

If everyone makes the same choice, thus making it such that choice is meaningless, then that is "too powerful." Use whatever heuristic you want to use. In an alternate dimension of everyone choosing Friends (or Witchbolt, or whatever) then yes, that spell is too powerful. Since we don't live in that dimension, we don't have to worry about it.

I don't want to dissuade you from having fun. If someone said, "I have this great finesse weapon that is one-handed and does 2d6 damage," I would say that it is OP in comparison to the current design goals of D&D. But maybe they have a good reason for its inclusion (such as wanting more powerful martials) or maybe they just like it. Not my circus, not my monkeys.

I thin that this type of spell will be unbalancing, but there are worse things in life.

 

[Inanity]

I appreciate your input. But that's just wordplay. If you are looking for some objective definition of "too powerful," then you're welcome to it.

If everyone makes the same choice, thus making it such that choice is meaningless, then that is "too powerful." Use whatever heuristic you want to use. In an alternate dimension of everyone choosing Friends (or Witchbolt, or whatever) then yes, that spell is too powerful. Since we don't live in that dimension, we don't have to worry about it.

I don't want to dissuade you from having fun. If someone said, "I have this great finesse weapon that is one-handed and does 2d6 damage," I would say that it is OP in comparison to the current design goals of D&D. But maybe they have a good reason for its inclusion (such as wanting more powerful martials) or maybe they just like it. Not my circus, not my monkeys.

I thin that this type of spell will be unbalancing, but there are worse things in life.

I respect your opinion, but as far as I am concerned the PRINCIPLE IS LITERALLY FALSE (and you are engaged in wordplay). Further, I am making a claim about the GENERAL connection between the psychological states of players and the mechanical power of a feature; IT WILL BE HARD TO AaRGUE FOR THIS GENERAL connection; how would one do it?

You misunderstand the terms of the debate in that:
I DO NOT NEED TO offer an objective definition of "too powerful" IT IS YOU THAT NEED TO!!!

Your the one making the connection! I.e. your saying something is t powerful BECAUSE CHOSEN... now, you chould offer a CIRCULAR definition of "always chosen" that just mens (would be chosen by a rational player BECASUE TOO POWERFUL) but... and this is all in th e spirit of inquiry and not meanness (but we must be wary in what we say and hat we mean; give me a clear non-obviously false statement of the connection between a set of psychoogical preference states and the mechanical power benefit of a set of rules then and ill surely consider it...

EDIT: "Yours" is used impersonally, I dont know what the quaoted author thinks...

 

[Inanity]

If everyone makes the same choice, thus making it such that choice is meaningless, then that is "too powerful."

As a note: sliding between "alwasy chosen" "meaningless" and"too powerful" is slieght of hand at best, seriously... In fact, I imagine if it was meaningless then it couldnt be too powerful nor alwasy chosen (who would choose a feature that is meaningless to them? and how could a meaningless rule be powerful?; you were using "meaningless" metaphorically but that is MY POINT these sattements ae literal falsehoods or at best unsupported rabble)>