Advice: Overpowered Abilities

[77IM]

Would giving enemies access to the unbalanced spell demonstrate how unfun it is?

 

[Mort]

Last session, I allowed a spell from Xanathar's that seems overpowered. While I tend to be a DM who likes to say yes to his players, I can detect that this one will upset the balance of the game. (I didn't do my due diligence and research that the spell has an OP reputation before the game, because I tend to err on the side of allowing official, published content.)

How do other DM's deal with these situations? Forbid the spell? Make changes to the spell to bring the power level to a reasonable level? increase the difficulty of encounters?

Where is the imbalance? I worry a lot less about overpowered against outside forces than I do about overpowered relative to the rest of the party. If an ability allows the pc and therefore the group some extra oomph against the antagonists, I give it a long look and decide if it's really causing any problems. If an ability is constantly overshadowing other party members - then it's likely a problem.

As for how to deal with it. fixing if possible (lessening an effect or a bonus etc.) banning if it's ridiculous (I always make sure to talk to the group and also have a discussion as to what should replace the banned ability/item etc. - I'm not into penalizing the player here!)

 

[aco175]

I always ask myself "Compared to what". This spell does sound powerful, like sprint guardians which I see gets a lot of words over. I generally say that if they are must have spells, then they are overpowered, but some may be like that since they are core to the class- like warlocks and eldritch blast.

I try and jusge the spells by how often they are used and how much I need to modify the monster actions. When spirit guardians was first used and all the monsters died before they could attack the cleric, I changed the next attack to all run away, then to all use ranged weapons on him. Now it only gets used every 10 encounters or so. Have not used healing spirit, but I also find healing is easier to take than big damage spells that take some of the fun out of the encounter. I try and give the player the satisfaction of using the cool spell or item, but also allow all the players to have something without being in the back seat to one of the others.

 

[Cascade]

Last session, I allowed a spell from Xanathar's that seems overpowered. While I tend to be a DM who likes to say yes to his players, I can detect that this one will upset the balance of the game. (I didn't do my due diligence and research that the spell has an OP reputation before the game, because I tend to err on the side of allowing official, published content.)

How do other DM's deal with these situations? Forbid the spell? Make changes to the spell to bring the power level to a reasonable level? increase the difficulty of encounters?

You're the judge.
Ideally the PCs should succeed and your job is to make it fun.
You control everything behind the screen.
Hit points, mobs, damage...

If the players like to be refreshed after every encounter, make each encounter that much more interesting.

Its not a video game.

 

[abirdcall]

You're the judge.
Ideally the PCs should succeed and your job is to make it fun.
You control everything behind the screen.
Hit points, mobs, damage...

If the players like to be refreshed after every encounter, make each encounter that much more interesting.

Its not a video game.

The DM's job is not to make it fun. That's everyone's job.

If 1 spell fundamentally changes the game then it is reasonable to say that the spell is overpowered. Some spells are designed that way to give D&D a certain flavour. Fly, teleport, plane shift, etc.

Some aren't. Some tables don't want a level 2 spell to give each party member 35hp. Just because WotC published it in a book doesn't mean that a table's game needs to adapt to it.

Like you said, 'it's not a video game'. People aren't bound by what is published.

 

[Cascade]

The DM's job is not to make it fun. That's everyone's job.

If 1 spell fundamentally changes the game then it is reasonable to say that the spell is overpowered. Some spells are designed that way to give D&D a certain flavour. Fly, teleport, plane shift, etc.

Some aren't. Some tables don't want a level 2 spell to give each party member 35hp. Just because WotC published it in a book doesn't mean that a table's game needs to adapt to it.

Like you said, 'it's not a video game'. People aren't bound by what is published.

We'll have to agree to disagree...
I've been at plenty of tables with bad judges and it's incredibly hard to have a good time even with a known group of fun players with a bad judge.
One or two bad players can be countered with a good judge and the table has fun.

but aside from that, apart from a few level 9 spells, I have never experienced a spell completely ruining a game or campaign that a judge can't work around...this is all about imagination. A good judge just doesn't read from a book or a tablet and regurgitation the adventure; he/she embellishes, adds or subtracts and draws the players in. What does it matter if the players have 35 more hp...so do the monsters. They fly; pull them into aerial combats. One player has the "I win button", separate him from the group and see what happens.

And there is a fine line....a good story teller DM doesn't overburden the players with constant counters, be subtle and let some players shine. Just keep a note who is shining and make sure everyone gets an equal chance.

As a judge, step away from the rules on your end but keep them in line with the players.

 

[iserith]

We'll have to agree to disagree...
I've been at plenty of tables with bad judges and it's incredibly hard to have a good time even with a known group of fun players with a bad judge.
One or two bad players can be countered with a good judge and the table has fun.

I imagine "everyone" in this context means both players and DM.

 

[Keravath]

It is completely up to the DM and the players to decide if particular content is "too" effective, doesn't have the right flavour for their campaign, offends their reality sensitivities or for any other reason whatsoever.

That said, I can't say I've really come across any particular content up about level 10 that is so game changing or OP that it is a problem that would require banning ... and some of the stuff that does seem quite powerful also seems to be generally accepted.

For example, a great weapon master/polearm master with 3 attacks at 5th level each potentially doing an extra +10 damage, similar ranged builds using crossbow expert/sharpshooter .. these are very powerful builds but I rarely see DMs banning them. On the other hand, healing spirit, whose only redeeming feature is that it does quite a lot of out of combat healing for a second level spell is consider OP and gets banned by some?

Paladin/sorcerer smite builds.
Sorerer/Warlock eldritch blast builds.

Some of these seem far more OP in terms of synergies in their capabilities than an individual spell.

Some folks seem to think polymorph can be OP when a front line is transformed into a T-rex.

DMs already manage encounters to make for a fun, enjoyable (but sometimes tense) game. None of these aspects of 5e are really so "OP" as to require banning or even modification (on the other hand, if the features don't fit your campaign or table playstyle then by all means remove them after discussion with the players).

On the other hand, why ban one spell? I haven't found a single spell that is in any way really overpowered. Healing Spirit (if that is the spell being discussed) is far from OP. The only "problem" with it is that it is typically more effective than other out of combat healing options and the possibility of letting everyone in a party receive 10d6 of healing (or 10d6+40 in the case of a life cleric multiclass) can be useful. However, what that usually translates into is that the base line of the next encounter is likely to be a bit more difficult that it would be if the party had not used the spell to restore hit points. The only DM who finds this spell OP is the kind of DM who has everything written down (including all monster hit points) at the beginning of the session ... and changes nothing as the play progresses. This is also the sort of DM who has regular TPKs when a streak of bad luck by the player characters results in failed saves and misses or high rolls by the DM results in a bunch of crits). A DM can never know whether the party will have full, half, or just a few hit points after one encounter going into the next. The only thing healing spirit might do is reduce the need for hit dice and/or short rests ... especially in a long rest dependent party. Short rest classes will want to take the short rests anyway to restore resources.

 

[jgsugden]

In 1E, the spells were incredibly unbalanced. And yet, we had a huge amount of fun.

The balance in 5E is MUCH better. When people thrown their hands up in the air and cry foul over a healing spell, you know you have a good system.

I weaken nothing in 5E. There are a few things that I have effectively upgraded by releasing more powerful alternatives, but there is nothing I restrict, reduce, limit or hamper. Oh, and I do not have flank provide advantage - but my games seem to be working pretty darn well.

 

[abirdcall]

We'll have to agree to disagree...
I've been at plenty of tables with bad judges and it's incredibly hard to have a good time even with a known group of fun players with a bad judge.
One or two bad players can be countered with a good judge and the table has fun.

Yeah, I think we have entirely different views on the game.

I guess I could see your point of view if the DM was being paid by the players.

But even then all the players would likely be on the same page about things. I wouldn't play at a table with '1 or 2 bad players' that need to be countered. Life is too short. I want to play a fun game where I socialize with people, not fight with them.

but aside from that, apart from a few level 9 spells, I have never experienced a spell completely ruining a game or campaign that a judge can't work around...this is all about imagination. A good judge just doesn't read from a book or a tablet and regurgitation the adventure; he/she embellishes, adds or subtracts and draws the players in. What does it matter if the players have 35 more hp...so do the monsters. They fly; pull them into aerial combats. One player has the "I win button", separate him from the group and see what happens.

Okay you shouldn't tell people who are good or bad 'judges'.

And why is this 'imagination' and complicated work arounds easier than just not allowing the spell? It's so much simpler and easier to just not have the spell. I don't get it.

I get this is how you like to play and that's fine but remember that other people may play differently. I would wager that 95% of tables don't have your mindset.