Spells that could be improved / better designed

[Xeviat]

Hold Person was a problematic spell always. Heck, that it became my go to fear round spell in all the Baldur's Gate games, and the number of 3E characters I saw get chewed up over it, no, it was a problematic spell. Concentration and a save every round makes it doable, but I still think a 2nd level spell for taking someone out of combat for an average of 2 rounds is pretty good as is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Blue]

I like a lot of what you have, such as Truestriek adn Witch Bolt being underpowered. But there are some points I disagree.

Lesser Restoration - Next level you will literally be able to bring someone back from being (mostly) dead with revivify, but this one can't remove a single exhaustion level? Whats that you say, barbarians would be all over this as a way to remove one of the drawbacks of raging? Eh, says I, you're spending a 2nd level spell slot to do it. Besides, it lets environmental hazards come into play more if you so desire, so game on!

At higher levels this would becomes too common as a 2nd level slot is not a high cost.

Barksin - Probably one of the most poorly written spells in the book, it really does not match the fiction very well and does not make a lot of sense. Either let it stack with everything but armor (maybe lower the AC granted if you feel it is too much), or maybe have it remove the Dex bonus to AC due to your skin getting all Bark-like, thereby making it a trade off to use the spell.

This destroys the beauty and elegance of the spell. It's for druids, who can shape change. While the wording can absolutely be improved, it's a simple "take your normal AC or 16". It makes shifting to animal forms easy without having to do calculations. Adding a shield? That goes on the "normal AC" side of the equation, and you get to pick again your normal AC or 16.

Contagion - So, the devs realized that they gave out a stun-lock-the-legendary-creature with one of the possible diseases inflicted with this spell and their answer was too...make the spell do nothing until the caster succeeds on a melee spell attack and the target fails three saves before succeeding on three.

Regardless if the spell is over or under powered, the devs have been very careful to stick to strictly what is written in their Sage Advice, and only make changes in Errata. And they have made changes in errata. So it's pretty clear that the original intent and writing (even if poorly executed) were for three saves then disease. If you think that's weak, then suggest changes, but please stop assigning motives to devs to justify changes.

 

[Corwin]

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: ?

Well, for one, your interpretation of the spell seems to be the biggest roadblock to you finding any value. You're reading does not seem to jibe with that of some of us. The trap will be within line of sight, not just 120' of you. It does not say you do not learn the number of traps detected. Not to mention, you left out that it identifies the general nature of the traps (which is kind of a big deal, arguably the biggest clue, since it affords the player the opportunity to use deductive reasoning and investigation to learn more). So perhaps you don't know the spell as well as you think you do?

And if you don't think a rogue can find useful applications from a casting of this spell, then again there are other kinds of games out there.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

The trap will be within line of sight, not just 120' of you.

Which I said in my previous post. For brevity, I didn't repeat it.

It does not say you do not learn the number of traps detected.

It doesn't say you do, which means you don't. Spells say what they do, no more.

Not to mention, you left out that it identifies the general nature of the traps

It gives you the "general nature of the danger posed". From the DMG, this is "setback", "dangerous" or "deadly".

If you are telling your players "pit trap", "magical glyph", and so on, then don't let me stop you, but if you are using house rules for a spell then you shouldn't really comment on a thread about how underpowered and/or useless it is.

…a rogue can find useful applications from a casting of this spell, …

[Citation required]

 

[CapnZapp]

Hold Person was a problematic spell always. Heck, that it became my go to fear round spell in all the Baldur's Gate games, and the number of 3E characters I saw get chewed up over it, no, it was a problematic spell. Concentration and a save every round makes it doable, but I still think a 2nd level spell for taking someone out of combat for an average of 2 rounds is pretty good as is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hold Person is a poor spell.

At low level, when you first get it.

When a casting of Hold Person represents using up one of your highest levelled spell slots, it simply is too unreliable to be a great spell. At this time, your spell save DC isn't great, and every NPC has a decent chance of saving.

At mid- to high levels, it's a great spell.

Now spending a second level spell slot is cheap for you. Not only is it no longer one of your precious high level slots, you have plenty of 2nd level slots. More importantly, your spell save DC is reaching towards DC 17 or even higher, so the absolute majority of NPCs will find it a very difficult save to make indeed.

Essentially, the spell is much more reliable, and even if it still fails to hold a person for long, it's no biggie - since you have so many more low-level slots to use.

In short: any suggestion Hold Person is weak and needs to be improved is premature. You need to look at it from the perspective of a level 11 or level 17 caster to truly appreciate it

And that goes for all low-level save to suck spells. They're not meant for you who just got them. They're meant for the pros that have had access to them for more than half their career...

 

[Kryx]

It's great even at low level. Even at 3rd level if you face a bully of the town (humanoid) you have a 60% chance of disabling it and allowing your allies to blow it up with huge damage. You can do it twice. If your goal is to kill that person I can't think of a more effective option.

You could make the same argument against all CC spells - that they are a risk. That is indeed true, but the payoff is amazing. That's true for hold person, blindness, banishment, etc.

 

[Nebulous]

I'm just going to lurk mostly on this thread too. As DM I'm not quite as familiar with spells as the PCs are, unless I get into some spellcasting NPCs which happens occasionally, more and more now that they're 10th level. I do have some problems with some spells in 5e, but you guys have pointed out some inconsistencies that had never occurred to me, and it seems like MANY of the spells in the game could be tweaked to be better.

One simple thing I'd like to add is increase the options of a spell when you cast it at higher level, maybe not just more damage, but an additional bonus, so it essentially becomes a new spell stacked on the existing spell.

Also, I'm really on the fence about how Dispel magic and Counterspell works.

 

[Corwin]

*A bunch of stuff*

I totally get it. You don't like the spell. That's okay. Every single person who has read through the PHB has found some spells they do not like. That's normal. Out of curiosity, what are some of you favorite spells in the PHB?

[Citation required]

I have no idea what this even means.

 

[Leatherhead]

It kind of bugs me how Mage Hand doesn't scale with level. I feel like it should lift more weight over time.

 

[CapnZapp]

Every single person who has read through the PHB has found some spells they do not like. That's normal.

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

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

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.

Out of curiosity, what are some of you favorite spells in the PHB?

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.

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?