Spells that could be improved / better designed

[RotGrub]

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.

IMO, the level of a spell is also part of tradition. Hold Person is without question a cleric spell. Sure, wizards had Hold Person, but it was rarely memorized because the priest would usually have at least one memorized anyway. No sane wizard would memorize hold person over a fireball / lightning bolt anyway.

IMO, 2nd level is the correct level for hold person. I'd just want to hit more creatures and remove the concentration mechanic.

 

[Thateous]

I wish Goodberry scaled. Hey you want to waste a 5th level slot on Goodberry? Must have been a slow day. Ten 5hp restoring Goodberries for you.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Kryx]

I purposefully left out Investiture of Stone as it's a 6th level spell that duplicates Stoneskin and adds some other minor enhancements.

I agree that Stoneskin should not have a component cost.

 

[Kryx]

IMO, 2nd level is the correct level for hold person. I'd just want to hit more creatures and remove the concentration mechanic.

Please compare hold creature to other hard CC spells. Now remove concentration and allow multiple creatures to be hit and compare again.

Both options are way out of line for their expected level.

For example Blindness/Deafness effectively causes the target to have disadvantage on attacks and all attacks to have advantage against it.
Hold person prevents the creature from moving, taking actions, fails any opposing Strength and Dexterity saving throws, all attacks have advantage against it, and all hits are criticals.


These spells aren't even close, man... I don't mean to be rude, but your balance complaints are pretty far off from where 5e is designed to be... You'd have to rebalance every spell to fit the new, much more powerful, paradigm that you've suggested throughout this thread.

 

[Giant2005]

Please compare hold creature to other hard CC spells. Now remove concentration and allow multiple creatures to be hit and compare again.

Both options are way out of line for their expected level.

For example Blindness/Deafness effectively causes the target to have disadvantage on attacks and all attacks to have advantage against it.
Hold person prevents the creature from moving, taking actions, fails any opposing Strength and Dexterity saving throws, all attacks have advantage against it, and all hits are criticals.


These spells aren't even close, man... I don't mean to be rude, but your balance complaints are pretty far off from where 5e is designed to be... You'd have to rebalance every spell to fit the new, much more powerful, paradigm that you've suggested throughout this thread.

The difference is Concentration. Blindness/Deafness is one of the few debuff spells (perhaps the only one) that can be cast while you are concentrating on something else. That makes it one of the most useful spells in the game and personally, I think it is ahead of Hold Person for that very reason.
Although I agree with your overall point - buffing Hold Person is crazy.

 

[RotGrub]

Please compare hold creature to other hard CC spells. Now remove concentration and allow multiple creatures to be hit and compare again.

Both options are way out of line for their expected level.

For example Blindness/Deafness effectively causes the target to have disadvantage on attacks and all attacks to have advantage against it.
Hold person prevents the creature from moving, taking actions, fails any opposing Strength and Dexterity saving throws, all attacks have advantage against it, and all hits are criticals.


These spells aren't even close, man... I don't mean to be rude, but your balance complaints are pretty far off from where 5e is designed to be... You'd have to rebalance every spell to fit the new, much more powerful, paradigm that you've suggested throughout this thread.

I'm not making any complaints about balance. I actually couldn't care less for the kind of overbalance you subscribe to. I'd just rather see several spells revert to their original form.

 

[Kryx]

The difference is Concentration. Blindness/Deafness is one of the few debuff spells (perhaps the only one) that can be cast while you are concentrating on something else. That makes it one of the most useful spells in the game and personally, I think it is ahead of Hold Person for that very reason.
Although I agree with your overall point - buffing Hold Person is crazy.

True, there is that major difference. That slipped my mind. That does make that spell really rather strong, probably the best CC spell at the lower levels. Though I'd have to examine them all to determine that.

My question on Hold Person/Hold Monster: I assume the levels were done for nostalgic sake, but if humanoids are 2nd level and monsters are 5th level that implies to me that the power is incredibly strong. I'd be happier seeing a single spell that can hold all creatures at some level - likely 3rd, 4th, or 5th depending on the CC spells analysis that would need to be done.

I'd just rather see several spells revert to their original form.

You're asking for incredibly strong spells to become even more incredibly strong. The OP asked how spells that were weak could be improved, not how we could restore some nostalgia to already powerful spells, making them very overpowered.

 

[RotGrub]

You're asking for incredibly strong spells to become even more incredibly strong. The OP asked how spells that were weak could be improved, not how we could restore some nostalgia to already powerful spells, making them very overpowered.

No, I'm asking for spells to return to being normal again. These spells were not issues in previous editions. My advice to the OP is not to worry about overbalance and simply modify them. Look at what previous editions did with those spells and have fun.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I dunno. IMO, if you are playing a 5e conversion of Tomb of Horrors, for example, and you can't find any use for that spell, you should probably ebay your D&D books and go play Chutes & Ladders(TM).

So, give us an example of a useful casting of the spell.

All I can see is:

Player: I cast find traps.
GM: There are one or more traps within 120ft of you, they are of severity level "deadly".
Player: ?

 

[CapnZapp]

No, I'm asking for spells to return to being normal again. These spells were not issues in previous editions. My advice to the OP is not to worry about overbalance and simply modify them. Look at what previous editions did with those spells and have fun.

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?