Banning Fly, Improved Invisibility, Dimension Door, and Teleport

[Storyteller01]

I'm DMing the Savage Tide adventure path, and have banned the party arcanist from taking Fly, Improved Invisibility, Dimension Door, and Teleport.

I don't think it will break the game, but you may have to adjust time tables. Certain 'quick hops' won't be anymore. Give them more time to get there.

Also remeber that if they spells aren't available, magic items with similar effects most likely won't be either. Adjust your treasure or increase their minimum creation level.

Expect much complaining.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

It seems to me that wanting players to be challenged by things like raging rivers, cliffs, etal, indicates that you don't actually want to be playing D&D - at least not the high levels. After a certain point, those things are not challanges and it would be silly if they were. The "those spells haven't been researched" ruling is a little sureal too.

12th level wizard standing on one side of the flooded river with the bridge out: "Wow, if only I wasn't the first wizard in all of Greyhawk to be put in a position where flying for more than a round would be useful! Somone else who had ever been in this sort of position in the last millenia might have researched a spell afterwards that I could have learned!"

Challanges scale in D&D. Things that were challanging at first level are a nice cakewalk at higher levels. Arbitrarily picking a physical challange and making it always a challange is just picking on a class by removing their high level chance to shine, and doing it when using someone else's module is asking for trouble.

 

[The Souljourner]

I say go for it. As others have said, any adventure that *requires* teleport (and doesn't provide it), is broken. What if you don't have a mage? What if he doesn't know teleport? Same goes for fly, though there are a lot more substitutions for that spell. It's hard to *require* improved invis, if the basic one is still around. Requiring DD is just like teleport - shows a badly designed module.

I actually like the idea of making people be a little more creative when overcoming more mundane obstacles, like a raging river. Heck, my cleric used to keep water walk memorized all the time because we kept having to cross rivers. The horses got used to it after a while

-Nate

 

[rgard]

I'm DMing the Savage Tide adventure path, and have banned the party arcanist from taking Fly, Improved Invisibility, Dimension Door, and Teleport.

Why? In my opinion, those spells spoil the game by killing the drama of challenges like cliffs, raging rivers, stealth, and long-distance travel.

Where's the fun when the party can just pop away from the enemy, rest and rearm, and return at their leisure? The cliche of a flying, Improved Invis wizard is just that: a boring cliche. So in my continuity of Greyhawk, those four spells haven't been researched*.

What I'm wondering now, however, is if my denying those spells will break the game. D&D assumes that certain magic or abilities are available. Is the lack of those spells a sure-fire recipe for PC death? Or can a party survive without them?

-z

* regular Invisibility, swift Fly (1 rd duration), Jump, spiderclimb, shapechange spells that grant wings, and so on are all still available. I suppose this reveals that my beef is with those specific spells, not the party's ability to enact their effects.

Hi Z, You are the DM so it's your call what is available to the arcane casters. That said, I wouldn't have as much fun playing in a campaign that partially neutered the arcane casters.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Nail]

Challanges scale in D&D.

Word.

 

[shilsen]

Challanges scale in D&D. Things that were challanging at first level are a nice cakewalk at higher levels. Arbitrarily picking a physical challange and making it always a challange is just picking on a class by removing their high level chance to shine, and doing it when using someone else's module is asking for trouble.

Good point. I'd be even more concerned about the fact that the OP doesn't seem to have thought through his aims, since removing the four spells he mentioned won't really achieve what he says he wants to. Polymorph and Air Walk can cover for Fly. Wind Walk, Phantom Steed, Shadow Walk, Transport Via Plants, Word of Recall, etc. can cover for Teleport. And so on. So it's not like he's even achieving what he intends to do, but is simply making it impossible for the arcanist to achieve it with precisely those spells.

 

[el-remmen]

Shouldn't this be in House Rules?

Anyway, I say, go for it, but you can't stop there. . . As others have mentioned, there are a bunch more spells you will have to ban or tweak to ensure that you get the effect you are looking for.

As for environmental/physical challenges in D&D, I would rather they scale as well as opposed to being no problem whatsoever - which is to say, I would rather have crossing that flooded river be easier at higher levels than no challenge at all - and I would like to have the option as a DM of making such a challenge appear easy, but not be so.

EDIT: Oh, and here is a list of changes to spells I have made in my games.

 

[hong]

In addition to what el-remmen said, it would certainly be nice if skills like Climb, Jump and Balance didn't become obsolete after ~10th level....

 

[charlesatan]

In addition to what el-remmen said, it would certainly be nice if skills like Climb, Jump and Balance didn't become obsolete after ~10th level....

What, no pimping Iron Heroes?

Although I think Balance wouldn't necessarily become obsolete (unless everyone in the party is flying).

And Leap Attack needs Jump.

 

[matthewajg]

The DM in my campaign has banned the teleport spell, made fly manueverability average and eliminated negative levels and spells/effects that cause level drain. This has not severely affected the game, asn has in fact made the challenges more interesting. I am in full support of tweaking rules, eliminating spells or class features all in the effort to enhance game-play.