D&D 5E What, if anything, bothers you about certain casters/spells at your table?

[Burnside]

I don't have issues with any of the spells... I only have issues with my players and their decisions on which spells they choose to take.

Is Fireball "overpowered" compared to other 3rd level spells? Yeah, maybe, but that doesn't bother me. What bothers me though is the player who says they want to play a Necromancer in theming and background... and yet throws nothing but Fireballs during combat because it's the "best" 3rd level spell. To me, if you want to play a necromancer, play a necromancer! I will be helping you out to be the most interesting and best necromancer ever! But I won't if you just default toa metagame idea of "I want to make sure we win at all the combats!" more than playing a thematically consistent character. That's the easiest way for me to just shrug my shoulders and lose interest in your character's progression through the campaign. I'm fine with you playing your character that way and won't stop you... I just won't be all that enthused about trying to spotlight your PC at various points in the story because there's nothing to hold onto.

I think there is a very specific issue with the necromancer wizard just not being a very good/flavorful "necromancer."

I am starting a campaign now with a player who wants to play a necromancer character, and looking at the options, the Undead patron warlock, the College of Spirits bard, the Shadow sorcerer, and, in a weird way, the Circle of Spores druid all do a better job at "feeling" like a necromancer than the necromancer wizard does.

 

[Minigiant]

In 5E isn't this is ONLY an "issue" with wizards?

Artificers, clerics, and druids still need to prepare ritual spells (and thus not prepare something else) in order to cast them. Bards always have all their spells prepared, but still have to sacrifice knowing another spell in order to have a ritual spell. Sorcerers, rangers, paladins, and most warlocks aren't ritual casters at all.

IMO, Wizards should be able to ritual cast unprepared ritual spells from their spell books as it's part of what makes them unique; I have never know it to be game-breaking in any way.

The issue is with just rituals. The spells were designed for a lot more restrictive system.

Full casters have Cantrips
Bards and sorcerers have more prepared spells.
3 full casters being able to switch spells every day.
Feats letting you snag low level spells.
Spell slots stating with multiclassing
And more importantly having every caster being spontaneous casters.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I think there is a very specific issue with the necromancer wizard just not being a very good/flavorful "necromancer."

I am starting a campaign now with a player who wants to play a necromancer character, and looking at the options, the Undead patron warlock, the College of Spirits bard, the Shadow sorcerer, and, in a weird way, the Circle of Spores druid all do a better job at "feeling" like a necromancer than the necromancer wizard does.

it's not just about the necromancer specifically though, it's about all the themed and specialised casting subclasses that don't give sufficient incentive or justification to lean into your specialisation, or the spells to actually perform it.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't have issues with any of the spells... I only have issues with my players and their decisions on which spells they choose to take.

Is Fireball "overpowered" compared to other 3rd level spells? Yeah, maybe, but that doesn't bother me. What bothers me though is the player who says they want to play a Necromancer in theming and background... and yet throws nothing but Fireballs during combat because it's the "best" 3rd level spell. To me, if you want to play a necromancer, play a necromancer! Use necromancy skill in all kinds of interesting and cool ways! You do so, I will be helping you out as the DM to be the most interesting and best necromancer ever!

But I won't usually do that if you just default to a metagame idea of "I want to make sure we win at all the combats!" by just throwing Fireballs and Lightning Bolts more than playing a thematically consistent character. That's the easiest way for me to just shrug my shoulders and lose interest in your character's progression through the campaign. I'm fine with you playing your character that way and won't stop you... I just won't be all that enthused about trying to spotlight your PC at various points in the story because there's nothing to hold onto.

Well isn't the problem then that there isn't a Necroball spell?

 

[Ondath]

Animate Objects is a big annoyance to me, mostly because it grinds the game to a hold because its most optimal version is animating 8 tiny objects. I think the Level Up version of the spell went too far in the other direction though and made the spell too weak.

 

[James Gasik]

Maybe not "Necroball", but yes, if you were going to attempt to play a School of Necromancy Wizard and use nothing but Necromancy spells, you'd run into a problem very quickly because many of those Necromancy spells are terrible.

3rd level spells, and you have Animate Dead that gives you a crummy CR 1/4 creature that eats up your bonus action, Bestow Curse, a touch range save or suck that requires concentration (max 10 rounds), Feign Death (how is this a level 3 spell?!), Life Transference, which asks a d6 HD class to take 4d8 damage to heal an ally (who probably has more hit points) twice that amount, Speak with Dead that probably won't work against anyone you'd want to speak with, Spirit Shroud that only works against foes who are way too close to you, Summon Undead that costs 300 gp a shot and only has at most 30 hit points, Vampiric Touch which requires concentration, is touch range, and lets you do 3d6 damage a turn to a single target, in exchange for a trickle of hit points that won't matter after something hits you a few times, and...uh....that's it.

Just about any non-Necromancy spell of 3rd level would be better than this dreck!

 

[Krachek]

Animate Objects is a big annoyance to me, mostly because it grinds the game to a hold because its most optimal version is animating 8 tiny objects. I think the Level Up version of the spell went too far in the other direction though and made the spell too weak.

They seem to have understand that one creature or effect is enough for conjuration and summons spells. Tasha summons and the new conjure spells seen will help.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Well isn't the problem then that there isn't a Necroball spell?

Yes and no. My players know me well enough that I am always willing and able to adjust the mechanics of the various things in the game if we all feel there is something lacking or underpowered or whatnot for whatever theming they want to go with. So having a necromantic spell that is on par power-wise to Fireball does not bother me out of hand-- and if a player was to ask about it, I'd certainly work with them on it.

But at the same time, just doing a standard energy swap rather than upping the power of another spell that is actually necromantic is kinda lame in my opinion. If the spell effect and how it works is the same as every other 'ball' spell ever cast in all our previous campaigns (except that this one is 'necrotic' rather than 'fire')... from my narrative-loving perspective it falls flat. It's like that player who seemingly plays a 'rogue' every campaign no matter what class they actually select. It's fine that they do... but it doesn't exactly set my world on fire.

I mean to me, all eight wizard schools should feel and play differently at the table, otherwise what's the point? So playing a 'necromancer' that feels no different than an 'evoker' other than every spell effect is "black and purple" rather than "red" or "blue" or "white" is meh to me. But as this is strictly a 'Me' issue and not a 'Player' issue... I don't make a big deal about it. I let them play what they want... but always appreciate it when they try something original or different. And if that means coming up with a whole new advancement system for the animal companion of the player who wishes to play a Beastmaster Ranger? I'm all for it!

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think there is a very specific issue with the necromancer wizard just not being a very good/flavorful "necromancer."

I am starting a campaign now with a player who wants to play a necromancer character, and looking at the options, the Undead patron warlock, the College of Spirits bard, the Shadow sorcerer, and, in a weird way, the Circle of Spores druid all do a better job at "feeling" like a necromancer than the necromancer wizard does.

This is certainly a case where I would most likely create a specialized and pre-defined Necromancer spell list for them to use, and would have no problem incorporating a few cleric or druid necromantic spells into it if they made sense.

 

[Minigiant]

Yes and no. My players know me well enough that I am always willing and able to adjust the mechanics of the various things in the game if we all feel there is something lacking or underpowered or whatnot for whatever theming they want to go with. So having a necromantic spell that is on par power-wise to Fireball does not bother me out of hand-- and if a player was to ask about it, I'd certainly work with them on it.

But at the same time, just doing a standard energy swap rather than upping the power of another spell that is actually necromantic is kinda lame in my opinion. If the spell effect and how it works is the same as every other 'ball' spell ever cast in all our previous campaigns (except that this one is 'necrotic' rather than 'fire')... from my narrative-loving perspective it falls flat. It's like that player who seemingly plays a 'rogue' every campaign no matter what class they actually select. It's fine that they do... but it doesn't exactly set my world on fire.

Well I'm not saying every school should be the same.

But if 3rd level is a formative and important level for spells, each school should have an important overpowered 3rd level combat spell of their flavor.
Vampiric touch should be stronger.