D&D (2024) Spells. What needs adjusted?

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
My personal top tier:

  • Leomund's Tiny Hut: Very different than what this spell was originally designed for, and is weirdly abusive if you run it RAW.
  • Counterspell: Very anti-fun spell, could use some adjustment (Level-ups change to it is a solid tweak).
  • Hypnotic Pattern: Too good and too good an area for 3rd level.
  • Any AC boosting spell that's concentration (like barkskin or shield of faith). Concentration should not exist for these spells.
  • Mordenkainen's Sword: A unforgivably weak spell, needs a major boost.
  • Weird: 9th level?.....riiiiight.
  • Circle of Death: Needs more oomph to be a damage spell of this high a level.
  • Find Traps: The spell that doesn't actually help you find traps.
You know, I thought this about Leomund's Tiny Hut myself, but actually, reading it again recently, I realized the 2e version is in some ways worse.
2023-04-04_142019.jpg

While you can attack into the sphere, you can't see what's going on in there, and that would imply total concealment. Further, the spell specifically states "up to seven other man-sized individuals...can freely pass into and out of the hut", which also implies that no one else can enter it either. Finally, the spell has a casting time of 3 segments, basically 1 action in modern parlance, which makes it viable in combat without shenanigans.

The only real difference is that 2e uses even more "natural language" than 5e, and doesn't specifically call out these things (like leaving "sphere of force" undefined, for example). I'm not saying that this is how the spell should work, but I can now see how we ended up with the current version.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Stalker0

Legend
You know, I thought this about Leomund's Tiny Hut myself, but actually, reading it again recently, I realized the 2e version is in some ways worse.
View attachment 281040
While you can attack into the sphere, you can't see what's going on in there, and that would imply total concealment. Further, the spell specifically states "up to seven other man-sized individuals...can freely pass into and out of the hut", which also implies that no one else can enter it either. Finally, the spell has a casting time of 3 segments, basically 1 action in modern parlance, which makes it viable in combat without shenanigans.

The only real difference is that 2e uses even more "natural language" than 5e, and doesn't specifically call out these things (like leaving "sphere of force" undefined, for example). I'm not saying that this is how the spell should work, but I can now see how we ended up with the current version.
We need to read a little closer though…the key clause: can freely pass into and out of the hut without harming it, but if the spellcaster removes themself, the hut dissipates.

There is nothing that says others can’t move through the sphere, just that their motion doesn’t “harm it” (ie the hut).

So actually the sphere could be interpreted as even more frail, that an enemy moving through it disrupts it or damages it in some way. Or you could assume it’s mainly to note that the spellcasters movement is the only movement of importance. But it’s a stretch to say the hit bares the movement of other creatures.
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
We need to read a little closer though…the key clause: can freely pass into and out of the hut without harming it, but if the spellcaster removes themself, the hut dissipates.

There is nothing that says others can’t move through the sphere, just that their motion doesn’t “harm it” (ie the hut).

So actually the sphere could be interpreted as even more frail, that an enemy moving through it disrupts it or damages it in some way. Or you could assume it’s mainly to note that the spellcasters movement is the only movement of importance. But it’s a stretch to say the hit bares the movement of other creatures.
I don't think it's any more a stretch than saying the opposite, since it never says "oh if someone enters the globe it's destroyed" and the spell specifies who can enter and leave it. Now I'm going to be honest, never once back in the day did I think the spell make a barrier that warded things out, but looking back now, I can see how that assumption could have been made.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
I don't think it's any more a stretch than saying the opposite, since it never says "oh if someone enters the globe it's destroyed" and the spell specifies who can enter and leave it. Now I'm going to be honest, never once back in the day did I think the spell make a barrier that warded things out, but looking back now, I can see how that assumption could have been made.
We need to read a little closer though…the key clause: can freely pass into and out of the hut without harming it, but if the spellcaster removes themself, the hut dissipates.

There is nothing that says others can’t move through the sphere, just that their motion doesn’t “harm it” (ie the hut).

So actually the sphere could be interpreted as even more frail, that an enemy moving through it disrupts it or damages it in some way. Or you could assume it’s mainly to note that the spellcasters movement is the only movement of importance. But it’s a stretch to say the hit bares the movement of other creatures.
I think you are both overlooking the life expectancy of a 2e wizard in close proximity to monsters. It doesn't really matter if monsters can harm tiny hut or not in actual play. The very first thing the caster is likely to do is run for their life if monsters charged into their tiny hut. A bard might fare a little better, but with 1 third level slot at bard7 I don't expect tiny hut was often a choice spell for the player of such a PC

edit: There's also how rests worked across editions
 

Gadget

Adventurer
I think that summoning spells will be modified more along the lines of Tasha's, so I'm not overly concerned with those. They've already shown they want to nerf some other spells, such as spiritual weapon, and redo some others, Barkskin, Aid, etc.

Spells like Simulacrum, Forcecage, Forbiddance, & Wall of Force could stand to be toned down. Perhaps Animate Objects as well. Spirit Guardians and Hypnotic Pattern are probably is a bit over tuned.

However, there are far more spells that need to be clarified and bumped up a bit. There are spells at every spell level that really need a pick me up and are too numerous to mention. Someone up thread said that damage over time spells are too powerful, but Acid Arrow, Vampiric Touch, Witch Bolt, Immolation, Enervation and probably a few others beg to differ. In fact, most necromancy spells that are damage dealing could use some help. It would be alright if they did less damage than Evocation spells if there was some rider like "can't recover hp until end of next turn" or some minor debuff. Crown of Madness needs a rewrite to simplify and give a better benefit. Flame Arrows & Flesh To Stone probably don't need concentration.

I remain doubtful if they are going to keep the whole Good/Evil line of spells as they are. They can be useful against some particular narrow types of creatures, but there are a lot of creatures that largely fill the same role and are not affected by them. I wonder why the Banishment spell was no re-written along those lines (probably because it does not have Evil/Good in its name), as that would make the spell powerful in it's niche, but not universally so as it is now.
 
Last edited:


Larrin

Entropic Good
Acid Arrow. There are worse spells, spells more in need of fixing, but this one is personal. I tried. I tried real hard. I cast it. More than once. It never was the right choice. There was never a situation where it wasn't the wrong choice. When it hit and did full damage, I still felt as bad as I did when it missed. Why does this spell only bring sadness to the caster? Melf, who hurt you?
 




Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top