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

[jaelis]

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)...

When you post something for critiques, you're bound to get criticism. Some you'll find useful and and some you won't. But it's never helpful to argue back and say your critics are wrong. You won't generate any heat if you just say "I can see why you might think that, but I expect that particular issue won't be an problem at my table. Any other thoughts?" You can just keep repeating that and no one will have any cause to argue.

 

[Inanity]

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.

Well take, and i am aware of its potential to make an encounter DIFFERENT ( would say not TRIVIALIZE an encounter... I am the DM; I dnt exactly see a player making insteresting use of some of the spells available a triavalization of an encounter... and I build the encounters... and enemies have this spell... and also, I dont think the idea to make it require a feat has been taken seriously that is a REAL COST and feats are GOOD... I dont really think it is as drastic as "Now the caster has the complete compendium of possilbe spells at their fngertips at all times:" in fact anyspell does not do THAT!

EDIT: think about it; would awizard or cleric even take this feat (I say yes but its not the dead obvious seletion; ike counterspell isfor spells)? And it fills a good role for the sorc...

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

EDIT: think about it; would awizard or cleric even take this feat?

Yes, a wizard would take this feat. In fact, a wizard should take this if it was two feats; they should just pick variant human and take it at 4th level.

It's that good.

If you're going to homebrew, start by deciding .... what problem are you solving?

And you haven't done that. As far as I can tell, this is just ... cool to you. And there's nothing wrong with cool! Cool is awesome! But there is no reason to include it ... it doesn't fix anything.

So, after understanding the why, you then have to think about the bigger issues:
1. Does it work in a way that is congruent with 5e's rules, such as the action economy?

Your spell doesn't fit within 5e's rules. It doesn't have a trigger, like counterspell. There is no way to just have a "reaction tax" on a spell. In addition, it is very much blinkered to have an action / reaction / (maybe action). And you can't just say free action (as you did before). Best to use the standard "action" and work from there.


2. Is it similar to some other power/ability/spell, so I can judge how powerful it is?

Let me give you an easy example of this. Let's say I think that Bastard Swords are cool. So I created a new Bastard Sword that had the following properties:
Damage 2-16, finesse, one-handed

Now, given that the closest comparator is the rapier, everyone would immediately say that this homebrew is overpowered; in effect, I am increasing the max damage for a finesse weapon from d8 to 2d8.

Now, your closest comparator in the 5e PHB is Wish. Wish is a 9th level spell. According to the PHB, "Wish is the mightiest spell a mortal creature can cast." And what does it do? What your spell does ...
"The basic use of this spell is to duplicate any other spell of 8th level or lower."
That's right; you have created a second level wish spell.

For a Wizard, you have moved Wish from 17th level access to 3rd level access.


3. Understand how homebrew fits into the design ethos of your game.

The two issues which people have noted are:
a. As it is, spellcasters are generally privileged over martial characters in 5e. As such, any ability that gives them even more power should be viewed as possibly unbalancing. Especially when you are dealing with a spell that is, effectively a form of metamagic.
b. The need to pick and choose spells (resource management) is one of the few constraints on spellcasters in 5e. Obliterating that distinction needs to be done very carefully.


Finally, after these considerations, it helps to see what other people have done. For example, a quick search on this forum which I just did turned up the following:

D&D 5E - Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer

Okay, so bear with me here. I'm working on a 5e-appropriate conversion of Rary's mnemonic enhancer that works within the 5e magic system. Here's my first draft: Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer 4th-level transmutation (wizard) Casting Time: 10 minutes Range: Self Components: V, S, M (a piece of...

www.enworld.org

That was a homebrew attempt at Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer; compare it to your homebew.


I don't think you are going to get much positive feedback, because you are far too invested in your idea to see the evident issues. So I really suggest you just play it. If it works for you, great.

 

[Inanity]

Yes, a wizard would take this feat. In fact, a wizard should take this if it was two feats; they should just pick variant human and take it at 4th level.

It's that good.

If you're going to homebrew, start by deciding .... what problem are you solving?

And you haven't done that. As far as I can tell, this is just ... cool to you. And there's nothing wrong with cool! Cool is awesome! But there is no reason to include it ... it doesn't fix anything.

So, after understanding the why, you then have to think about the bigger issues:
1. Does it work in a way that is congruent with 5e's rules, such as the action economy?

Your spell doesn't fit within 5e's rules. It doesn't have a trigger, like counterspell. There is no way to just have a "reaction tax" on a spell. In addition, it is very much blinkered to have an action / reaction / (maybe action). And you can't just say free action (as you did before). Best to use the standard "action" and work from there.


2. Is it similar to some other power/ability/spell, so I can judge how powerful it is?

Let me give you an easy example of this. Let's say I think that Bastard Swords are cool. So I created a new Bastard Sword that had the following properties:
Damage 2-16, finesse, one-handed

Now, given that the closest comparator is the rapier, everyone would immediately say that this homebrew is overpowered; in effect, I am increasing the max damage for a finesse weapon from d8 to 2d8.

Now, your closest comparator in the 5e PHB is Wish. Wish is a 9th level spell. According to the PHB, "Wish is the mightiest spell a mortal creature can cast." And what does it do? What your spell does ...
"The basic use of this spell is to duplicate any other spell of 8th level or lower."
That's right; you have created a second level wish spell.

For a Wizard, you have moved Wish from 17th level access to 3rd level access.


3. Understand how homebrew fits into the design ethos of your game.

The two issues which people have noted are:
a. As it is, spellcasters are generally privileged over martial characters in 5e. As such, any ability that gives them even more power should be viewed as possibly unbalancing. Especially when you are dealing with a spell that is, effectively a form of metamagic.
b. The need to pick and choose spells (resource management) is one of the few constraints on spellcasters in 5e. Obliterating that distinction needs to be done very carefully.


Finally, after these considerations, it helps to see what other people have done. For example, a quick search on this forum which I just did turned up the following:

D&D 5E - Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer

Okay, so bear with me here. I'm working on a 5e-appropriate conversion of Rary's mnemonic enhancer that works within the 5e magic system. Here's my first draft: Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer 4th-level transmutation (wizard) Casting Time: 10 minutes Range: Self Components: V, S, M (a piece of...

www.enworld.org

That was a homebrew attempt at Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer; compare it to your homebew.


I don't think you are going to get much positive feedback, because you are far too invested in your idea to see the evident issues. So I really suggest you just play it. If it works for you, great.

Just cuious: do you think counterspell is so good that any caster would and should take it even if it required twofeats? because I dont fnd tis spell any MORE powerful than couterspell.... I DO think counterrspell is that good , maybe not anyspell if your not a sorc... EIDT: that is I guess a reason for counterspell NOT requiring a feat...

 

[Inanity]

2. Is it similar to some other power/ability/spell, so I can judge how powerful it is?

Let me give you an easy example of this. Let's say I think that Bastard Swords are cool. So I created a new Bastard Sword that had the following properties:
Damage 2-16, finesse, one-handed

Now, given that the closest comparator is the rapier, everyone would immediately say that this homebrew is overpowered; in effect, I am increasing the max damage for a finesse weapon from d8 to 2d8.

Now, your closest comparator in the 5e PHB is Wish. Wish is a 9th level spell. According to the PHB, "Wish is the mightiest spell a mortal creature can cast." And what does it do? What your spell does ...
"The basic use of this spell is to duplicate any other spell of 8th level or lower."
That's right; you have created a second level wish spell.

For a Wizard, you have moved Wish from 17th level access to 3rd level access.


3. Understand how homebrew fits into the design ethos of your game.

The two issues which people have noted are:
a. As it is, spellcasters are generally privileged over martial characters in 5e. As such, any ability that gives them even more power should be viewed as possibly unbalancing. Especially when you are dealing with a spell that is, effectively a form of metamagic.
b. The need to pick and choose spells (resource management) is one of the few constraints on spellcasters in 5e. Obliterating that distinction needs to be done very carefully.


Finally, after these considerations, it helps to see what other people have done. For example, a quick search on this forum which I just did turned up the following:

D&D 5E - Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer

Okay, so bear with me here. I'm working on a 5e-appropriate conversion of Rary's mnemonic enhancer that works within the 5e magic system. Here's my first draft: Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer 4th-level transmutation (wizard) Casting Time: 10 minutes Range: Self Components: V, S, M (a piece of...

www.enworld.org

That was a homebrew attempt at Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer; compare it to your homebew.


I don't think you are going to get much positive feedback, because you are far too invested in your idea to see the evident issues. So I really suggest you just play it. If it works for you, great.

I thank yor for the response. I dont knw if you were saying the Pneumonic enhancer was supposed to be compre to mine and shown that mine was by contrast waaay to out of line and powerful... But these spells serve different but releted functions; anyspell doesnt give you extra spell slots! That spell is WAAY more powerful than MINE! (in combo with simulacra etc.) But again I dont know exactly why you showed me that spell in particular (maybe to llustrate, if not insultingly, what it mean s to comapre spells)

 

[Inanity]

I don't think you are going to get much positive feedback, because you are far too invested in your idea to see the evident issues. So I really suggest you just play it. If it works for you, great.

yeah and I get the feeling most replies at this point havent (very carefully at least) read thewhole thread (understandably). But it has been helpful to me and thanks you all...

 

[ccooke]

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)...

Okay, look. I've disagreed with you, and I have tried to do so with constructive criticism. You seem to only see an attack there.

You asked us for our opinion of your homebrew idea. We have given it to you. Honest opinions do not have to be attacks, and I hope you understand that none of my responses to you have been an attack.

The problem here is that you want a particular concept, and the people you have shown this concept to do not want that. That doesn't make either side wrong. But in a spirit of constructive debate, it behooves you to either step out of the discussion - accept that people don't like the thing you like, and that's okay - or to try to work with them to see if there is a version that they will like. It's entirely your choice. It's not worth getting stressed about and, as I've said before, there is nothing wrong with you liking the thing you want.

But as it stands, you don't want to talk about a version of this concept that is interesting to most of us, and you don't seem to want to accept that we don't like it, and we're just as entitled to our opinion as you are.

I'm out of here. I suggest anyone else who disagrees exit the thread gracefully, too, because I don't see any good result from it continuing as-is. If there are people who do like @Inanity 's idea, please continue.

(And hey, everyone feel free to ignore me, I'm just spouting my own opinion here, as usual)

 

[Fanaelialae]

I've been giving this some thought, and here's what I think a reasonable implementation might be:

Minor Wish
3rd level
Parameters: the same as the spell it is duplicating
Allows you to duplicate a cantrip or 1st level spell from your spell list.

Limited Wish
6th level
Parameters: the same as the spell it is duplicating
Allows you to duplicate any spell up to 4th level from your spell list.

This breaks it up into two spells (three if you count Wish) which don't have inherent scaling. That's intentional.

Minor Wish allows you to cast any 1st level spell for a 3rd level slot. That seems reasonable to me in terms of versatility.

Limited Wish allows you to go up to 4th level, but since it costs a 6th level slot it will be quite limited in terms of how many times you can use it per day. Again, this seems balanced against its versatility.

It also addresses the issue of picking through books, since Minor Wish only allows access to spells up to 1st level, which is a much shorter list than every spell on your spell list. Limited Wish is significantly limited in terms of number of uses per day.

 

[Inanity]

I've been giving this some thought, and here's what I think a reasonable implementation might be:

Minor Wish
3rd level
Parameters: the same as the spell it is duplicating
Allows you to duplicate a cantrip or 1st level spell from your spell list.

Limited Wish
6th level
Parameters: the same as the spell it is duplicating
Allows you to duplicate any spell up to 4th level from your spell list.

This breaks it up into two spells (three if you count Wish) which don't have inherent scaling. That's intentional.

Minor Wish allows you to cast any 1st level spell for a 3rd level slot. That seems reasonable to me in terms of versatility.

Limited Wish allows you to go up to 4th level, but since it costs a 6th level slot it will be quite limited in terms of how many times you can use it per day. Again, this seems balanced against its versatility.

It also addresses the issue of picking through books, since Minor Wish only allows access to spells up to 1st level, which is a much shorter list than every spell on your spell list. Limited Wish is significantly limited in terms of number of uses per day.

it is nice and simply worded, tempered in power (2 level lower is reaonable), and you must get 2 spells known (a cost to a sorc that is there but not too much of a cost)... I like it...

 

[jaelis]

I’d let limited wish work off any spell list, like wish does. And I’d let it eliminate long casting times like wish, and maybe components up to 100 gp.

Minor wish I think would be ok to duplicate 2nd level spells that are standard action to cast and no expensive components. Your spell list only though.