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

[Inanity]

You are, of course, free to run your game as you please, but I think you've seen universal agreement against the idea of allowing this spell - if that doesn't tell you that it's not good, then I don't know what evidence you would accept.

10-20 people half od which dont understand the spell and WHO HAVENT EVEN RAN the spell in any campaign... hardly compelling evidence (and also I have changed it somewhat)

 

[Inanity]

Inanity what is your wizard doing with their reaction so often? I mean, shield is good and all but you're really not supposed be be getting attacked every turn.

Well making optiamal use of ones actions is where its at (especially at hiher level play)... if your fighting other casters its just good practice to svae your reaction for counterspell or sheild but there are other notable usages (like some teleport moves). I mean if your expendig your rection on your turn every turn to cast anyspell the enemy lich will decimate you most likely (counterspell your anyspell and your screwed)... he attacks you DONT CASTT ANYSPELL IN COMBAT AGAIN!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Well making optiamal use of ones actions is where its at (especially at hiher level play)... if your fighting other casters...

Not to belabor the same point others have raised repeatedly, but you do remember that this spell will be used outside of combat?

In fact, the most unbalancing thing about this spell is that it completely destroy resource management in terms of utility spells.

And while your "reaction tax" isn't allowed in the action economy, even if you were to use it, it's a meaningless restriction outside of combat.

 

[Inanity]

Not to belabor the same point others have raised repeatedly, but you do remember that this spell will be used outside of combat?

In fact, the most unbalancing thing about this spell is that it completely destroy resource management in terms of utility spells.

And while your "reaction tax" isn't allowed in the action economy, even if you were to use it, it's a meaningless restriction outside of combat.

what exactly are you worried about? A wizard getting access to well, a utility spell, without having to smoosh and booze the local archmage?? I dont really see the BIG GLARING problem with being able to cast anyspell (as if players wanted they would anyway, i mean clerics know anyspell so outside combat usually moot what you are saying; wizards can access anyspell fairly easy... you must be worried about sorcs/bards? There is an above discussion that is good imo...

EDIT: merel saying its a problem is not providing a reason (but it this way I UNDERSTAND the potential issue but have yet to get given any good reason to believe its a big issue; the outside ombat utility thing)

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

EDIT: merel saying its a problem is not providing a reason (but it this way I UNDERSTAND the potential issue but have yet to get given any good reason to believe its a big issue; the outside ombat utility thing)

I will point out that you started by asking if people would allow this in their game.

You have heard, emphatically, that people would not.

You also repeatedly ask that people explain, over and over again, the same things to you that have already been explained. Concepts like the action economy, design principles in 5e, spell comparators, and use of this outside of combat.

It seems clear that you do not wish to have feedback; you only want people to agree with you that your homebrew spell is awesome and acceptable.

That is not going to happen.

So I will again say that I am not being paid to rain on your parade (although you can pay me for that, if you like). If this is fun for you, introduce it into your game. Have fun.

Playing and having fun is always better than arguing. Unless arguing is your fun.

 

[Kurotowa]

what exactly are you worried about? A wizard getting access to well, a utility spell, without having to smoosh and booze the local archmage??

The problem is that spells are powerful, and the right spell at the right time is very powerful. The right utility spell can completely trivialize an obstacle. The right combat spell to exploit a weakness or counter an ability can turn a close fight into a one sided stomp.

There are two limitations on casters to balance the strength of spells. The first is that casters have a limited number of spell slots to cast with, and the second is that they have to commit to a smaller list of known or prepared spells. Put together this means they don't always have the right spell for the right situation; maybe they've spent their high level slots and can't Fireball that mob of goblins, or maybe they just don't have Water Breathing prepared because they didn't think they'd have to go into flooded tunnels today. This is what makes spell selection interesting for the players and balanced against the non-casters.

But with Anyspell, half that restriction is just wiped away entirely. Now a caster has the entire compendium of possible spells at their fingertips at all times. Need a rare damage type attack spell? You've got it. Need a highly specialized utility spell? You've got it. Normally it would eat up a valuable spell slot to prepare those spells, forcing the player to choose between them and more widely useful spells, but now they have them both.

That's why everyone is universally saying this is a bad idea. Limited spell choice is a key pillar of caster balance in D&D. This one spell completely removes it, and at no cost to the PC.

 

[Inanity]

It's not steep outside combat (and even in combat it would only be steep if you need to use shield or counter spell that round - which certainly isn't every round).

Prepare all of your combat spells as you normally would. Then prepare Anyspell for your miscellaneous utility needs. Utility spells tend to be specialized. They're very useful for the situations they're designed for but useless outside that. This effectively removes that balance by giving you access to all of those situational spells for a very low cost (one level slot higher). Particularly at higher levels, that slot cost is virtually negligible but the utility value remains astronomical.

yeah.. thats what rituals have done anyways... also, i find that a perk not a bad thing about the spell (no need to have the party runigng back to town to rest so the cleric can prepare X).. I mean the spell is INTENDED to be useful but not powerful really... you are saying its too useful so you shouldnt allow it... I dont see that tbh.. Also requiring a feat to attain this spell, which i suggested in the opening, is a steep cost i mean feats do useful and awesome things guys... I am tring to be fair to thespell... I have an attachment to it of course, sinc I made it (I made it for a reason want something like it in my ampaign world) but I am not overly attached as to not see reason... yo all havent really provided the most compelling reasons...

but I was treating rections like 3.5e swift or immediate actions (able to be PAID as a COST for X) and I realize that I dont want to add some adhoc trigger just to keep the reaction mechanic (I see why 56e DID NOT make them like this; PRECISELY SO YOU CANT TRIGGER THEM YOURSELF; like bonus actions)... luckily it is easy enough to make the spell an action and get a similar result... or even a free action....

 

[jaelis]

Well @Inanity it seems like you know what you want, seems like the thing to do is playtest it and let us know how it goes.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

EDIT: merel saying its a problem is not providing a reason (but it this way I UNDERSTAND the potential issue but have yet to get given any good reason to believe its a big issue; the outside ombat utility thing)

People have explained in detail, dude.

In 5E, one of the big limitations on the power of casters is that they can only Prepare or Memorize or have ready a certain number of spells. This is a major limiting factor. They have to guess what spells they will need for that day (or, with Sorcerers, for the rest of their career, barring a few change-ups).

Very often you will guess wrong, meaning they are limited in power/flexibility.

This is a very much bigger limitation than the number of spell slots they have. Particularly at higher levels. Your spell completely negates that limitation. Even at two levels down, like I was saying, it would be a really good spell, because even being able to cast any cantrip you want is pretty great, because there are situations where any given cantrip just solves the problem.

At one level down? It's insane.

Even ignoring combat, basically every situation where a spell might have been useful, you can just cast that spell, and at a low cost. Literally every problem the PCs encounter will get solved by magic. If that's what you want, if you want skills to not matter, differences between what spells PCs prepare to not matter, and every problem to be solved by just casting going through the PHB and casting Anyspell, great, but that's what'll happen.

yeah.. thats what rituals have done anyways...

Dude. Count how many spells are rituals. See what spells are rituals. Notice how they're lower-powered spells which have very specific applications and there are very few of them.

If you had "Anyritual" as a spell, which let you cast any ritual-castable lower-level spell, even ones you didn't have prepared, as as a spell, then I don't think people would be telling you how broken it was. But you want to be able to cast literally any spell on their spell list (including ones they don't know), and there are loads of spells which aren't rituals for a reason.

 

[Inanity]

Look... Nobody can tell you not to do this in your game. That's where you get to have fun doing anything you like.

But conversely, if you ask people "Would you allow this" and you get pretty much universal "No", including from people who usually disagree with each other... maybe you should just accept that this idea may be your fun, but it isn't fun for most of us, and no matter what justifications you bring about, it's going to remain something that we think of as broken and overpowered. There is simply no way that I and many of the people here would allow something generic like this.

So. I strongly suggest that you either accept that you don't need any justifications to enjoy this in your own games, or you try to think about what limitations you could place on the idea to have it be something that people in general would accept. If the former, you look to have got the answer to the question you opened this thread for. If the latter... well, there are things we could discuss.

dont understand why these threads are always so hostile... a universal no for different none unified reasons some of whihc I dont really find probles at all but perks... I of course dont need a justification I dont wat the spell to BE COMBAT WISE O... and I dont think it is.... I dont care about its utlity thats why i designed it... Some people poited out some real combat robelms thatI changed (a cleri 5/wiz5 with level 4 splls nay I didnt want that)...I aprecite all of yourposts and this has discussion greatly helped ME! Although feeing somewhat attacked is an odd feeling ina situation like this (and not necessarily by the quoted author... more so these kind of contexts devolve into some weird passive agggressive hostility, in which at times I do as well so no blame casting)...