D&D (2024) What spells should be dropped?

[Yaarel]

But why. We all can agree each table runs things their own way. And we can all agree that each player plays a little different from the next. So why then, does the spell list have to "useful" or "powerful" based off one table or player's needs?

Some spells are obviously terrible.

I have never personally witnessed anyone prepping Hallucinatory Terrain. Actually I have never even heard of someone doing that.

Spells need to be useful and powerful − as appropriate for the level − because D&D is a combat game and spell slots are a scarce resource.

Spell design must be efficient.



Being eclectic and eccentric works best in a different design space.

Make rituals a separate design space. Rituals dont require spell slots.

Rituals can be anything and do anything. But even then, it is important that the power of a rituals be appropriate to the level of its performer, for the sake of gaming balance.

Rituals are like random magic items. It is ok if some magic items are quirky or nonuseful.

 

[Yaarel]

Oh I do love everything about this idea and have long wanted to implement this kind of two tier magic system - let spellcasters spam cantrips and low tier stuff but make high tier spells dangerous and complex rituals needing time to craft the runic circles, chant the ancient invocations and pour the blood sacrifice (or not)

If rituals are separate design space. Then yeah, a ritual can have ANY kind of requirement. Be cast during the peak 10 minutes of a full moon. Must eat a white rose and a red rose during the ritual. Be concentrating while visualizing a specific symbol. Anything!

All of the reallife folkbelief magic, which is mostly these kinds of rituals, becomes doable in D&D as rituals.

A Skill Check is a solid mechanic to handle the success of these rituals − and opens up the possibility of a critical failure when things go awry.

 

[Gorck]

Some spells are obviously terrible.

I have never personally witnessed anyone prepping Hallucinatory Terrain. Actually I have never even heard of someone doing that.

I was just reading the description of Hallucinatory Terrain for the first time in years. It says you can effect natural terrain in a 150 foot cube. Assuming you only make it 1 foot thick, then the remaining dimensions are about a 10’ X 15’ square. It then goes on to say “Thus, open fields or a road can be made to resemble a swamp, hill, crevasse, or some other difficult or impassable terrain. A pond can be made to seem like a grassy meadow, a precipice like a gentle slope, or a rock-strewn gully like a wide and smooth road.” Do they not know how small a 150’ square is? That’s 2 squares by 3 squares on a gaming mat!

 

[Yaarel]

I was just reading the description of Hallucinatory Terrain for the first time in years. It says you can effect natural terrain in a 150 foot cube. Assuming you only make it 1 foot thick, then the remaining dimensions are about a 10’ X 15’ square. It then goes on to say “Thus, open fields or a road can be made to resemble a swamp, hill, crevasse, or some other difficult or impassable terrain. A pond can be made to seem like a grassy meadow, a precipice like a gentle slope, or a rock-strewn gully like a wide and smooth road.” Do they not know how small a 150’ square is? That’s 2 squares by 3 squares on a gaming mat!

Heh. I assume the Hallucinatory Terrain description meant a cube that is 150 feet on each side. But yeah, that is poorly worded. That is hilarious.

Generally, a "cube" seems a less helpful way to describe this kind of far-range spell effect.

 

[Gorck]

Heh. I assume the Hallucinatory Terrain description meant a cube that is 150 feet on each side. But yeah, that is poorly worded. That is hilarious.

Generally, a "cube" seems a less helpful way to describe this kind of far-range spell effect.

Yeah, 150 feet per side would make more sense, but it can be easily misunderstood as I just did.

 

[Yaarel]

Yeah, 150 feet per side would make more sense, but it can be easily misunderstood as I just did.

I would probably describe this as: the terrain all around you within 300 feet appears as if .... This point of origin remains stationary, even after you move away from it

 

[Micah Sweet]

I was just reading the description of Hallucinatory Terrain for the first time in years. It says you can effect natural terrain in a 150 foot cube. Assuming you only make it 1 foot thick, then the remaining dimensions are about a 10’ X 15’ square. It then goes on to say “Thus, open fields or a road can be made to resemble a swamp, hill, crevasse, or some other difficult or impassable terrain. A pond can be made to seem like a grassy meadow, a precipice like a gentle slope, or a rock-strewn gully like a wide and smooth road.” Do they not know how small a 150’ square is? That’s 2 squares by 3 squares on a gaming mat!

I'm sure they meant 150' on a side, and that's how I'd adjudicate it.

 

[Scott Christian]

Some spells are obviously terrible.

I have never personally witnessed anyone prepping Hallucinatory Terrain. Actually I have never even heard of someone doing that.

Spells need to be useful and powerful − as appropriate for the level − because D&D is a combat game and spell slots are a scarce resource.

Spell design must be efficient.

I mean, not to be that guy, but I doubt Hallucinatory Terrain has never been used. It's a ridiculous thing to say. You haven't seen it. Okay. That is your experience. But there may be many players out there that do use it because it fits the theme of their character. It fits their table's theme or their character's theme.
I swear it feels like everything argued about in D&D is always over a player wanting something removed that limits their character or something added that helps their character. Like the concept of strengths and weaknesses, the the thematic notions of themes and one shots, doesn't exist for these players.

Being eclectic and eccentric works best in a different design space.

Make rituals a separate design space. Rituals dont require spell slots.

Rituals can be anything and do anything. But even then, it is important that the power of a rituals be appropriate to the level of its performer, for the sake of gaming balance.

Rituals are like random magic items. It is ok if some magic items are quirky or nonuseful.

Of course rituals (for the players) should follow a power balance. But why can't you just have a 2nd level spell that is a bit better than another 2nd level spell? We all know Cloud of Daggers is better than Thunderclap. But my wizard took Thunderclap because he was themed as a sailor, and all his spells were weather based. We all know Tasha's Mind Whip is better than Melf's Acid Arrow, but maybe the lore tells us Tasha was just better at coming up with damage spells? We all know Flaming Sphere is better than Dust Devil, yet Dust Devil has a cool unquantifiable effect if placed in the right circumstance.
My point is - none of this is quantifiable. Damage might be, but when you add in range, effects, and most of all circumstances and table/player preference, no one is able to say this spell should stay and this should go.

 

[Scott Christian]

I was just reading the description of Hallucinatory Terrain for the first time in years. It says you can effect natural terrain in a 150 foot cube. Assuming you only make it 1 foot thick, then the remaining dimensions are about a 10’ X 15’ square. It then goes on to say “Thus, open fields or a road can be made to resemble a swamp, hill, crevasse, or some other difficult or impassable terrain. A pond can be made to seem like a grassy meadow, a precipice like a gentle slope, or a rock-strewn gully like a wide and smooth road.” Do they not know how small a 150’ square is? That’s 2 squares by 3 squares on a gaming mat!

I think they meant 150' on each side. And it is an incredible spell! I mean, you might have a DM that just overides the monsters'/opponents' psychology, and then it becomes not very useful. But kiting a hill giant off a very steep cliff sounds really powerful to me. And heaven forbid you have another caster in the midst that also uses illusions. Goodness, talk about a mind twist!

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I have seen H

I mean, not to be that guy, but I doubt Hallucinatory Terrain has never been used. It's a ridiculous thing to say. You haven't seen it. Okay. That is your experience. But there may be many players out there that do use it because it fits the theme of their character. It fits their table's theme or their character's theme.
I swear it feels like everything argued about in D&D is always over a player wanting something removed that limits their character or something added that helps their character. Like the concept of strengths and weaknesses, the the thematic notions of themes and one shots, doesn't exist for these players.

Of course rituals (for the players) should follow a power balance. But why can't you just have a 2nd level spell that is a bit better than another 2nd level spell? We all know Cloud of Daggers is better than Thunderclap. But my wizard took Thunderclap because he was themed as a sailor, and all his spells were weather based. We all know Tasha's Mind Whip is better than Melf's Acid Arrow, but maybe the lore tells us Tasha was just better at coming up with damage spells? We all know Flaming Sphere is better than Dust Devil, yet Dust Devil has a cool unquantifiable effect if placed in the right circumstance.
My point is - none of this is quantifiable. Damage might be, but when you add in range, effects, and most of all circumstances and table/player preference, no one is able to say this spell should stay and this should go.

It has been used on Critical Role in the first campaign