Game Breaker Spells - What are they?

[S'mon]

I found that in 3e, where spellcasters get a lot more slots at mid level, the area effect spells like Fireball in conjunction with Fly became game-breaking as a mid-level Sorcerer can easily destroy an army, which changes the nature of the campaign world and makes armies obsolete. In 1e/2e an M-U with a fireball wand and Fly could do the same. I think the game could do with much less flight magic (reduce durations, require concentration) and much less artillery magic, which is a legacy of D&D's wargame roots. I like Fireball but I'd boost it up to 6th level and eliminate most of the other area-damage and battlefield-control spells.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I like the idea of using the condition track as a base, but hong might have a good objection against that. Though I am not certain that tracking hitpoints and condition track for each monster is that much worse than tracking hitpoints alone.

But without a condition track:
Save or "Suck" spells could probably work like that:
If you are above a certain hp threshold (maybe spell level x 10 hit points), you are stunned for one round as your body is torn by the magical effect (but resists) and take 5 points of damage per spell level. If you are below, you actually die/are transformed. A successful save might still deal the 5 points of damage per level.

Instead of death or transformation one could also use the slow transformation - there should be a notable penalty (like maybe being slowed/sickened till the end, but no full paralysis or stun effect), but there can also be a way to counter the effect.
The D&D 3.x Death Ward is a nice spell, but its duration is so short that it can rarely be caused preventive. In a scenario where you "slowly die", the spell could be cast after the effect and stop it.

 

[Someone]

Most of the 'omg, it's broken' stuff (polymorph, summoning, death effects, confusion, etc) should stay. It's cool and cinematic, and if you remove it, you get Runescape style magic. Maybe not with the overpriced, annoying rune system, but the 'oog. Me mage. Me shoot lights. Oog.'

Turning yourself into a monster, or an enemy into a toad, is a staple of fantasy that should stay in D&D no matter what. What I, and I suspect many others say is that the "mega-buff" aspect of the polymorph line should go. The PHBII Shapechanging druid is IMO a good start.

 

[Nebulous]

A decent, strong fate/hero point system would actually go a long way to dealing with some of these issues. By "strong" I mean not just +2 or +4 to a roll, like Eberron's action points; I mean automatically succeeding on a save, or surviving an attack that takes you to negative hp, etc. Naturally this isn't something that should happen every encounter,* but it would go a long way to mitigating the randomness of save-or-lose effects.

* Or maybe it is?

Agreed. This is what i use now in my campaigns and it works well. The player's aren't real used to it yet, so it would help if the rules were smoothly integrated into the core. SWSE does a good job with the Fate/Hero points i think.

 

[wayne62682]

Turning yourself into a monster, or an enemy into a toad, is a staple of fantasy that should stay in D&D no matter what. What I, and I suspect many others say is that the "mega-buff" aspect of the polymorph line should go. The PHBII Shapechanging druid is IMO a good start.

Exactly. It's not so much the spell, its how open-ended they are that leads to the abuse. I would be happy with Polymorph if it gave you restrictions on what you could choose - be like Summon XXX spells where there's a list of creatures at different power levels, instead of letting the player choose anything their heart desires. Most of the abusive use of Polymorph comes from choosing some oddball, out-in-left-field creature with either massive stat buffs or some killer at-will ability.

 

[Glyfair]

Teleport. If you just put back the 1e chance of deadly failure, the problem Goes Away after the first wizard becomes one with the rock below her intended arrival point. If people want to keep using it despite the risk, let 'em...

I'm not a big fan of the early D&D approach of allowing unbalancing things to exist and "balancing" them by counter with unbalance in another area.

Teleport is very powerful, but if you are unlucky you die!.

High level wizards are much more powerful than any other class, but at low level they were horrible.

Non-humans get big advantages for less than 10th level, but it's balanced because they stop progressing at a certain level.

That said, teleport's big problem is that it is world changing, and not so much that it is game breaking (along with other spells like fly, raise dead, wish).

Save-or-die, in general. Not a problem if kept to a dull roar i.e. only used against by BBEG's in climactic encounters.

Actually, I'll argue that's why they are bad. Nothing is more anti-climatic than approaching the guy you've been working towards for months, casting a single spell and then having him miss his save and be finished.

Occasionally it will work and have the right drama. Most of the time it will be "that's what we've been working towards for the past several months in the game"?

Scry (Reflecting Pool and the ilk). Not a game-breaker if the target has a decent chance of noticing the scrying...and excellent when used wisely by the opposition!

Again, not necessarily game breaking, but world changing.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Seems like a good distinction. My original post does in fact address both types, and I think others did also.
So we have to types of "problem spells*":
- Game Breaking
- World Changing
*) or maybe: Some (many? at least the poster?) perceive them as problems.

If someone wants to, it might be a good idea to start a thread to distinguish between the two types, but as it doesn't always seem that clear, I think this thread will suffice.

 

[Merlion]

Many of the spells described as "world changing" tecnically arent. At least not automatically. because they've already existed in the world, and the world has most likely compensated. Teleport, other travel spells etc.

They can still mess with a DMs plots, but part of the proccess becomes figuring out which possible foils/countermeasures are in place

 

[zachKS]

Spells that "break" the rules:
Discern Lies/Zone of Truth:
The game breaker aspect is that suddenly, all the ranks invested in Bluff or Sense Motive are useless. Just use the spell to make the first one unimportant and the second one not required.

This is simply a matter of wording. You can answer any question truthfully, by not answering with a lot of truthful information that doesn't really answer the question; if such a question were to actually be asked, in such case as an answer can be given if possible.

Teleport:
Suddenly, the group doesn't have to travel to a place (no more wilderness encounters for you - which might not be that bad). But the most important game breaking element is the combination with "Scry" - suddenly you can get to your enemy anytime you want.

I never understood the trouble with scry. There are simple spells that can make things un-scryable? To me, this is a perfect way to set traps for your party, it lets you set up an ambush where they thought they were being smart.

Speak with Dead:
Just ask the victim who it was. Solves most murder mysteries, unless you always have a story that ensures that the murderer wasn't seen by the victim, or the murderer was disguised or controlled by someone else. (Meaning the case is a bit more contrived than usual.)

See the zone of truth response.

Save or Die spells*:
Suddenly, all the hit points you might have had become meaningless. The classical safety net is gone. A single roll decides whether you get to live or die, and you don't really have a way to defend yourself against it.
Possible Fix: See Disintegrate and Harm (deal massive damage), or Power Word spells (only targets with X HPs or less are affected)
*) There is also the category of Save or "Suck" - depending on the degree of "suckness", you can put them in this group, too. Save or -4 to an ability, Save or 50% miss chance are fine, in my view, but Save or become a frog or Save or be paralyzed for the rest of the encounter are not.

These are good spells, and not unbalancing at all. In general, no character should be invincible, and with all the cheese added to characters today, they are nearly so. It's a spell of luck, and no more unpleasant than attacks of opportunity which can be equally deadly with the same amount of luck. Besides, with resurrection and true resurrection, what difference does it make?

Dominate Person/Monster:
Even better than Save or Die spells: Save or get the enemy of your friends. Instead of taking just out one enemy, the caster just also "summoned" an ally.
On the other hand, the spell has great flavour element and is a typical fantasy trope:
Possible Fix: See Save or Die Spells, and also make it harder to use within combat (either the "ally" will have a very easy time to resist commands, or it just takes longer.)

Nothing a creative DM couldn't cope with.

Magic Circle vs Evil:
The +2 to AC and saves is fine. The immunity to charm and compulsion effects not so much. Essentially, you completely negate the ability of many characters and monsters.
Possible Fix: Reduce the benefit (and in turn ensure that compulsions and charms aren't getting to strong, see Dominate Person/Monster)

Again, one simply has to draw them out of the circle. Either they do something agressive to negate it, they sit back doing nothing but buffing, or they move the circle onto an npc, or they watch their party die. All of these limit what the player can do bringing balance.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I just don't see why they should remove of change spells that aren't a problem or only a problem for only some people.

What if they are a problem for the tens of thousands of people who play RPGA Living campaigns?