Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Empirate" data-source="post: 6243236" data-attributes="member: 78958">You are perilously close to committing the Oberoni Fallacy there, [MENTION=63245]Evenglare[/MENTION]. "The game ain't broke, coz you can play it by different rules" doesn't convince me.Some spells (items, feats, class/race abilities...) in the game AS WRITTEN are problematic. Not because it's hard to figure out and adjudicate how they work, or because it's hard to imagine them working the way they're intended, or because they're hard to include in a given campaign. But because they upset game balance on such a fundamental level that it may ruin your game at least for one session, before everybody sits down together and figures out a gentlemen's agreement or a fitting nerf or a generally agreed-upon ban.On the topic of spells: The fact of the matter is still that there are spells that are simply, inarguably powerful, with no mitigating factors in their wording, in RP considerations, in components etc. Just picking out some problem spells from the PHB, starting with the letter G, for example's sake: Gate, Glibness, Glitterdust, Grease. All four of them are extremely powerful for their level: Glibness has campain-ruining potential, Grease and Glitterdust can trivialize whole encounters with one casting, Gate can do both.None of them requires difficult to get or expensive components, unless butter is for some reason extremely rare in your world. Gate eats up 1,000 XP, but that's not much of a balancing factor for what the spell does. None of them is easily RP-restricted, as in e.g. "that's too evil for me to use". None of them has any ambiguous wording, either.So once these four spells have been identified as problematic, sure, you can get out ye olde banhammer. Or you can implement some houserules to make them more in line with what other spells of their levels can do. BUT you can also play the game and accept that there are bad options, there are good options, and there are some options that border on being broken.Now I consider none of the four mentioned spells to be broken, so I allow them in my game. I'm aware that these spells exist, I'm aware that they're good, and so are my players. Consequently, they've become part of our common understanding of how the game works. I've thought about toning down Glitterdust at one point, but I couldn't see it making the game significantly more fun to play, so I'm saving myself the hassle. Instead, I've accepted that Glitterdust is really, really good and moved on.Long story short: what spells are (too) good is mostly a matter of expectation and preference on the DM's and players' part. However, it's also a matter of creativity and circumstance. If you expect or want exciting overland travel at 17th level, banning/heavily restricting Teleport (along with Master Earth, Windwalk, Overland Flight...) is really your only option. Given this goal, I'd ban them too. But if you want a murder mystery to be mysterious at 6th level, you have more options than outright banning Speak With Dead: as a DM, you can expect your PCs to use it. Maybe the murderer's identity isn't the issue, it's the finding of him that's difficult. Heck, you can even make the spell part of the actual mystery: maybe the murderer used a disguise because he actually counted on SWD being used, thus implying an innocent in the murder.If possible, when applying the ban-/nerfhammer, do it judiciously, and don't go by knee-jerk. Moreover, think long and hard how you can use a spell perceived as problematic to enhance your game, instead of only seeing it as negative.</blockquote>

Verification