Spells that could be improved / better designed

[Kryx]

A 2nd level spell to give immunity to b/p/s damage? Wow, I think that's my queue to leave..

 

[RotGrub]

Note:

By "previous editions" RotGrub means 2nd edition/AD&D.

Well, I'd be ok with resistance of 10 because at least some attacks would be completely ignored. On the other hand, I think having fixed points for resistance over complicates the game and makes some creatures vulnerable when they shouldn't be.

With that said, I like the simple resistance mechanic of 5e, but Stoneskin doesn't call for resistance it calls for immunity.

 

[RotGrub]

A 2nd level spell to give immunity to b/p/s damage? Wow, I think that's my queue to leave..

No, it would be 4th if it granted immunity. 2nd level for only granting resistance.

 

[Corwin]

I get that some people want certain spells to be kicked up a notch (for any number of personal reasons and/or opinions). But my issue with initiating a process like this, that of identifying and bolstering spells identified as "weak", is that once done there will be a new set of spells to take their place in the freshly vacated lowest tiers of the power spectrum. Do those then get improvements or re-writes of their own? And so on? Any list of spells greater than one will have weaker and stronger spells. There is no avoiding that.

 

[Gadget]

Just a clarification on Timestop, it is a spell that allows you to put up a wall, singular. Since all the wall spells (other than Prismatic Wall) are concentration, you will most likely just be putting up one wall, or one illusion (with the possible addition of Mirror Image, one of the few non-concentration applicable illusion spells), quaff a potion or two, move, and check your text messages. I mean, yes, it lets you break the action economy, that's the point of the spell. But it does so in such a limited way, that unless you are just completely blind sided with your pants down, it is probably not worth it.

 

[Jester David]

I don't know. That's kind of like saying that healing spells remove hit point attrition impact. It still costs a resource, and it still has to be spread over the whole party. I just think the cost of removing an exhaustion level is too high in the game. Coupled with that, there are a lot of optional rules out there that utilize the exhaustion levels in various ways (wound levels spring to mind), and this would be a nice way to interact with them.

When you bring in environmental hazards, not everyone is going to fail. In practice, only one or two party members is likely to fail their save. This reduces the expected cost greatly, from "long rest" to "single spell, cast anytime".
Look at diseases. When was the last time diseases played a heavy role in the game? I've tried and as long as you can just fire off a lesser restoration for no cost, they're pretty effortless to eliminate.

While the spell slot cost is high, before resting it becomes easier as the party can just burn through any extra spell slots. (I had a druid that used all their extra spell slots casting good berry before each long rest). At high levels those 2nd level slots are pretty easy to sacrifice, especially when travelling overland (when you're going to encounter those hazards most often) so it becomes pretty easy to justify the cost.
Heck, it becomes a pretty easy way not to worry about food or water, since you can just blast through a couple spells (to say nothing of the aasimar).

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Conjure Animals
Conjure Celestial
Conjure Elemental
Conjure Fey
Conjure Minor Elementals
Conjure Woodland Beings

These should be using bonus actions to command the summoned creatures on the caster's turn. The command can still be "Move over there and attack that target!" Also, they shouldn't summon groups. These break the action economy over the knee, and make combat significantly longer.

I would have preferred the "conjure lots of critters" spells to give you one swarm instead--gives you X damage per enemy in the swarm's space, Y additional effect, and size is based on the level of the spell--for mass combat (which I believe is the reason for the spells existence), you just cast it at 8th or above to get a huge swarm. Admittedly that makes conjure animals not so different from insect plague, but the other "conjure lots of critters" spells would be different.

I think the conjure single critter spells are mostly all right. It wouldn't have hurt my feelings to make conjure celestial scale similar to the other spells (or at least go up to CR 6 with a 9th level spell), but since they are giving celestials a lot of utility abilities, it is more of a utility spell then a combat one.

 

[Xeviat]

I'm finally getting back here. I was making a few NPCs today in a converted game. 3E spellcasters convert to 5E rather easily. Ray of Enfeeblement caught my eye. They moved it from 1st to 2nd level. It's a concentration spell, with an attack roll and they get a constitution save to end the effect at the end of each turn. The effect, by the way, is dealing half damage with weapon attacks that use Strength.

Or, you could cast Hold Person (if it's a person, that is). Hold person has a saving throw (wisdom), is concentration, and they can make a new wisdom save at the end of each turn.

Against a humanoid, why would you use ray of enfeeblement? I suppose against a big beast, it's useful. Is Hold Person simply too low level? It compares very well against other spells of its level: Blindness/Deafness (you can still attack while blind, just at a penalty) being an easy one to compare.

 

[Kryx]

Agreed on the conjure smaller creatures. I did some math a while ago that used the XP system to calculate how many and 6 of the lowest CR is good according to XP, but still a bit OP imo.

Hold person is definitely too low level. I merge it with hold monster, personally. In PF hold person was 3rd and hole monster was 5th for Wizard/Sorc. I never really like splitting it up by type and maintaining that seems archaic.

Ray of enfeeblement is not good.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

…once done there will be a new set of spells to take their place in the freshly vacated lowest tiers of the power spectrum.

here is a difference between "weak" and "useless". For an example of the latter, look at detect traps.