Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 7874293" data-attributes="member: 93670">ahem....  WotC does listen to the community & occasionally makes changes, adds things, or releases/modifies UA content, in addition to regularly releasing the ALPG/ALBR/etc.  Lets widen the discussion back to the spells pretty unanimously condemned <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMqE-xerANk" target="_blank">Cook & Book</a>, Tiny Hut, & <a href="https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells?filter-class=0&filter-search=banish&filter-verbal=&filter-somatic=&filter-material=&filter-concentration=&filter-ritual=&filter-sub-class=" target="_blank">go away incapacitated for a spawnkill in 10 rounds</a>[ATTACH=full]116807[/ATTACH]That alone negates the vast majority of your 4 points & is something that you keep ignoring bot in this thread and the one it forked off of.   In AL many of the group/gm trust dynamics go away entirely with tables full of people who mostly don't know each other.  Someone also mentioned Teleport circle because it comes with two free teleport sigil sequences known, those are "determined by the dm" , but that might as well say "by the player" in an AL game.  The problem with all of these spells is not so much figuring out a way to counter or modify them so they aren't broken as the damage done to the game in doing so & the fact that there are kinds of games where the GM "can't implement new rules"; that fact keeps going over the heads of a lot pf people that keep simply saying "well just do x.."In my game cook & book is a total nonissue, but the result is common magic items that protect against it & nearly every set of magic metal armor having the braindead obvious protective enchantment built in.... It's worse that I need to regularly include one or both of those or it becomes obvious that I'm just laying down plot armor on NPCs to thwart what should have been the entirely predictable result of the cook & book.  Someone else's game  might just ban the spell or do things like say the spell ends if the target moves more than 60 feet from where they got hit by it, eliminate the ability to dash & use Bonus actions to deal 20d8 of fire damage with it by making it use an action rather than bonus action.... The fact remains that in 3.5 you had lots of DoT/Bleed type effects & even then the damage was much lower on the <a href="https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/heatMetal.htm" target="_blank">3.5 heat metal</a>.<a href="https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/banishment.htm" target="_blank">The 3.5Banish</a> was similar in that it was limited to extraplanar creatures only & lacked an insane "returns to be spawnkilled after 10  rounds  of being incapacitated after you finish the big threat's allies & buff/recover yourselves".What is so galling about all of these spells is how absurdly predictable their abuses should have been that making them deliberately broken is easier to believe than the idea of WotC being that bad at sanity checking.  Yea they are very unlikely to release a 5.5 because of these kinds of issues, but a simple "we made this UA during lunch at the bar" that gives alternate versions of various problem spells is not impossible to imagine & would allow a GM to simply say "we are using <a href="https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/class-feature-variants" target="_blank">these</a> this game" rather than hearing "Man, you have a lot of house rules..." once they start adding house rules of their own in addition to fixing things that are by all appearances broken by design.</blockquote>

Verification