Spells that could be improved / better designed

[RotGrub]

I think you are simply better off starting a new thread in that case, RotGrub.

This thread isn't about changing 5th edition's paradigm. It is about identifying and propping up the individual spells that are distinctively below average. You come across as trying to change the subject. This thread wasn't started to discuss the posible faults of 5E spellcasting in general - only those of individual spells.

Quite frankly, with language like "return to being normal" as if 5th edition wasn't normal, might I suggest you've accidentally stumbled into the wrong forum entirely?

I'm not changing the paradigm, IMO that is 5e's paradigm.

My point is that all you need to do to correct these spells is revert them to their AD&D incarnations. 5th edition did just that for many of the spells, but in some cases it seems the designers became a bit too worried about overbalance. Of course, if you consider that a few of the 5e designers were the same ones who created 4e, it's not surprising.

With that said, I do think that most of 5th edition is "normal" (at least compared to the previous edition), but there are still minor areas that need to be corrected.

 

[Corwin]

You make it out to be a perfectly acceptable solution that there are some severely underpowered spells in the PHB.

"Severely underpowered." When someone considers your entire premise flawed, its not really very constructive to recast their opinion to match your own. That's poor form.

This is the thread for those of us who aren't content with this state of affairs.

There are ways to open private threads for you and your friends to discuss things. But this is a public thread. Where people can discuss openly about the subject matter presented. Please stop trying to squelch dissenting opinion in a public discussion. People who do that can sometimes come across as censoring, or even worse, atychiphobic.

Please stop relativizing. Yes, every person has found some spells they do not like. Yes, sometimes, that spell turns out to be okay after all. This does in no way change the fact that sometimes the spell really is badly designed and could be improved.

In your opinion. At your table. Within the confines of your particular playstyle. Sure. I agree.

Please do not change the subject. You are derailing the thread, which isn't about presenting the PHB in a fair and balanced light, but to put the spotlight on those (few) spells we all can agree on have definite design deficiences.

No I am not. I am trying to get a sense of where G.W is coming from by identifying their tendencies and preferences. Which can provide insight into why they find certain spells weak or bad. Since you've injected yourself into our conversation, I'll ask the same of you. What are some of your favorite spells and why?

Out of curiosity, and also to put the discussion back on track; what are some of your candidates for unconditionally weak spells that you would like to see improved, Corwin?

Why do I get the sense I should answer with a variation of, "I never beat my wife."?

Like everyone else, of course there are spells I find less appealing to my playstyle. But unlike some, I do not discount that others may enjoy them and find plenty of use for them. Because I don't subscribe to OneTrueWayism.

 

[Kryx]

Like everyone else, of course there are spells I find less appealing to my playstyle. But unlike some, I do not discount that others may enjoy them and find plenty of use for them. Because I don't subscribe to OneTrueWayism.

This is one of the largest, and purposefully insulting, strawmen that I've seen in a while. Congrats.

 

[CapnZapp]

What are some of your favorite spells and why?

Take it to another thread. This thread is about "Spells that could be improved / better designed"

In this thread we discuss solutions based on the assumption there are some universally bad spells in the PHB. An assumption that hews very close to irrefutable fact, but again: the thread isn't called "are there any spells that aren't perfect?" so further discussion of that question will have to be had elsewhere.

Now; are you going to make a contribution or not? (And no, demanding that I offer examples that goes counter to the thread's purpose does not count)

 

[One_Shots]

Is this too powerful for Witch Bolt?

Cast as an action, it automatically hits for 1d12 lightning damage. For every round after that, the caster can maintain concentration on it and automatically cause 1d12 lightning damage as a bonus action, provided that the target hasn't broken line of sight or moved beyond 30 feet of the caster.

This damage can be increased by 1d12, both on the initial hit and subsequent rounds thereafter, when cast as a 3rd level spell. Further increases come when using a 5th-level spell slot, a 7th-level spell slot and finally causing a maximum of 5d12 lightning damage on the initial hit and subsequent turns thereafter when using a 9th-level spell slot.

That is still severely limited by the line of sight and distance conditions but the damage makes the spell worthwhile casting and maintaining concentration on. It's especially nice for something like a bladesinger or eldritch knight or pact blade warlock who can cause damage with it up close while attacking with the other hand. And it's not out of balance with other similar options like Flaming Sphere.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

"Severely underpowered." When someone considers your entire premise flawed, its not really very constructive to recast their opinion to match your own. That's poor form.


There are ways to open private threads for you and your friends to discuss things. But this is a public thread. Where people can discuss openly about the subject matter presented. Please stop trying to squelch dissenting opinion in a public discussion. People who do that can sometimes come across as censoring, or even worse, atychiphobic.

If you find the premise flawed, why are you even Reading the thread? Just because you can post in every Public thread doesn't mean you should. You're coming across as somewhat rude by trying to derail the thread because you disagree With the subject.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sorcerers, I don't know if you noticed, but Corwin gave my last post in our exchange a laugh point. So I'd give it a rest if I were you, since Corwin apparently did.

Cheers

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I will not rest untill my foes are vanquished!

Just kidding Let's get back to the spells, specifically "find traps". I think the main reason why this spell is underwhelming is that it rarely provides you With any actionable information. The default assumption when exploring a Dungeon should be that any step you take could trigger a trap that will wipe the party, so wise adventurers will always proceed With the utmost care. Knowing rather than assuming a trap is present doesn't really allow you to do anything different. If the spell tells you there aren't any traps, that just lets you relax a bit for the NeXT 120 feet untill you have to start being careful again.

The only practical use case I can see for the spell is when you want to cross an area fast and don't really have time to search for traps, then knowing that there are no traps will be very helpful, and knowing that there's a Deadly trap could make you reevaluate the situation. This is a very situational use though, it's not going to come up on most Dungeon crawls.

I think the spell would be fine if it could pin-point the location of any traps in range. That won't obviate the need for a rogue or other Professional trap searcher while exploring a Dungeon, since you don't get enough spell slots to cast it every 120 feet, and traps might Block Your path even if you know about them. But it would make the spell quite useful in cases where you don't have time or opportunity to search for traps, such as when you have combat in a room full of traps.

 

[Corwin]

If you find the premise flawed, why are you even Reading the thread?

Yikes. Please take a moment to consider what you are really asking here. And what it is you are really saying by asking such a question.

Just because you can post in every Public thread doesn't mean you should. You're coming across as somewhat rude by trying to derail the thread because you disagree With the subject.

You consider offering alternative mindsets, dissenting opinions, and questioning premises inappropriate in a public forum? I recommend avoiding such communities then. It's just going to frustrate you to no end.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

I've been thinking of the possibility of using more granular durations to better fine tune balance of spells. As it is now there are no spells that have last between one round and one minute. I think we could do some cool things if we broke this practice.

For instance true strike. What if the spell did the same thing it does now but with a duration of 3 rounds, concentration. You spend one action to cast and you actually get some payoff to make that one round worth it. And with taking up concentration it wouldn't be optimal to spam it at every opportunity since it blocks you from setting up other spells.

Another example would be colour spray. Currently it lasts 1 round, but what if we change it to be somewhere between 3 and 5 rounds. Or maybe even variable like 1d4+1 rounds.