D&D 5E Let's list the "broken" spells

[yakuba]

The way I read silence means that around 6th or 7th level, you cannot make a significant fight against a level 1000 wizard if there is a cleric in the party w/o special considerations that are in place specifically to neuter the cleric.

That, I interpret as broken in the sense of not being able to play w/o contingency plans specifically in place to counter said spell.

Other way around, around 6th or 7th level, if the party attacks a bunch of cleric types, it means that the party casters can do nothing of value w/o assistance of their non-caster party members (which can be a good thing, depending on situation.) This I interpret as of great concern - anything that can lockout a player type is a serious consideration...

I don't understand how I'm reading this wrong, but, from my understanding, with the typical combat length of 5e, having access to 2-3 silence spells fundamentally changes how the game plays...

This spell can be directly countered by Counterspell (as it is cast), or Mislead can be used as means to facilitate escape. For the mildly higher level wizard Contingency is an even better form of escape. And of course Move and Dash can also be used to escape.

Every now and then, a party will have one or more of its members neutered, by various means. This not a serious consideration. If it occurs too often at a particular table, then it can be a concern.

 

[Dausuul]

The way I read silence means that around 6th or 7th level, you cannot make a significant fight against a level 1000 wizard if there is a cleric in the party w/o special considerations that are in place specifically to neuter the cleric.

I'm not seeing how this works. To me, it looks as if the fight goes like this:

Cleric's turn: Cleric casts silence centered on enemy wizard.
Enemy wizard's turn: Enemy wizard moves 21 feet in any direction, then casts any spell she darned well feels like.

If you're fighting in a space so confined that the enemy wizard has no escape route, or you have enough clerics to blanket the entire battlefield simultaneously, then yes, you can shut the wizard down, but under most circumstances the wizard can just saunter away. I suppose you could ready silence to cast in response to the wizard casting a spell... but then you risk having your concentration disrupted if someone whacks you before the wizard's turn, and the wizard still has the counterspell option.

 

[steeldragons]

I've thought for a very long (since 1e) time that Silence should come with an automatic penalty to everyone's AC, if not attack rolls. Being in an area that is devoid of sound, completely and totally, can [should] be very disorienting. There's no sound when you hit an enemy or their shield or their weapon. There's no hearing the neighboring enemy coming up beside you or behind you. Equilibrium would be severely impaired. That movement out of the corner of your eye that you whirl around and swing at....turns out that was your buddy the paladin coming up behind you to watch your back...who is not bleeding out on the floor from your attack. All Dex. bonuses should be negated immediately.

Couple of fights with that in effect and I think clerics (on both sides) will be thinking twice before flinging Silences all over the battlefield.

 

[Mistwell]

The way I read silence means that around 6th or 7th level, you cannot make a significant fight against a level 1000 wizard if there is a cleric in the party w/o special considerations that are in place specifically to neuter the cleric.

That, I interpret as broken in the sense of not being able to play w/o contingency plans specifically in place to counter said spell.

Other way around, around 6th or 7th level, if the party attacks a bunch of cleric types, it means that the party casters can do nothing of value w/o assistance of their non-caster party members (which can be a good thing, depending on situation.) This I interpret as of great concern - anything that can lockout a player type is a serious consideration...

I don't understand how I'm reading this wrong, but, from my understanding, with the typical combat length of 5e, having access to 2-3 silence spells fundamentally changes how the game plays...

It seems like a particularly weak spell to me these days. You step out of the radius of the silence spell, and that's it you're done. You cannot cast it on a creature anymore from what I can tell.

 

[pemerton]

Well, for what it's worth, Mearls just said on Twitter here and here that you can't cast spells through a Wall of Force.

The spell description says that nothing may pass through the wall, doesn't it? So the interpretive question is whether or not magic is a thing. I think it would be better writing if the spells said "nothing, not even magic, may pass through the wall". But in the absence of better writing Mearls' clarification seems pretty sensible. Is there any reason not to interpret in favour of balance rather than broken-ness?

For me, the real issue with spells like Wall of Force, anti-magic, silence etc is that in a game in which magic and casting plays such a large part, anti-magic effects have a very swingy effect. In my personal experience they are not all that satisfying in play. (Much like 3E's notorious sneak-attack immunities.)

 

[Shadowdweller00]

It seems like a particularly weak spell to me these days. You step out of the radius of the silence spell, and that's it you're done. You cannot cast it on a creature anymore from what I can tell.

It really is not. Just requires a bit of strategy and/or teamwork: For example, have the party Fighter grapple the enemy spellcaster.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

The spell description says that nothing may pass through the wall, doesn't it? So the interpretive question is whether or not magic is a thing. I think it would be better writing if the spells said "nothing, not even magic, may pass through the wall". But in the absence of better writing Mearls' clarification seems pretty sensible. Is there any reason not to interpret in favour of balance rather than broken-ness?

Not really an issue here to be honest. The rules under targeting magic (p.204) flat-out state that you need a clear path to the target - that is, you cannot target something with total cover.

 

[pemerton]

Not really an issue here to be honest. The rules under targeting magic (p.204) flat-out state that you need a clear path to the target - that is, you cannot target something with total cover.

I guess a point of possible confusion is that, from memory, the word "cover" appears nowhere in the Wall of Force description. (If my memory is faulty, and in fact it does, then I and many other posters just suck!)

 

[Joe Liker]

I guess a point of possible confusion is that, from memory, the word "cover" appears nowhere in the Wall of Force description. (If my memory is faulty, and in fact it does, then I and many other posters just suck!)

The spell doesn't need to say that the wall is cover. It already says that nothing can pass through, which is, quite literally, the definition of cover.

There is no exhaustive list of things that do or do not count as cover. That would be completely insane. A thing is cover if it can block attacks, and the DM decides how much cover it provides.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Even if the wall does provide total cover and you can't cast anything through it (which is still very unclear, I assume they would have used the word "cover" had they intended for the spell to provide it), wall of force and forcecage are still problematic. They let you remove a foe from the battle with almost complete certainty, and in that regard, they're superior to the 8th level spell, maze. They're also better in that they have many other defensive and utility applications that maze does not. A 5th level spell shouldn't be better than an 8th level spell.