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

[UngainlyTitan]

The more I am reading this thread the less I favour dropping spells.

 

[Yaarel]

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. ...

To make certain spells clearly better than other spells in the same slot, literally punishes the PLAYERS who prefer the flavor of a less privileged spell.

All spells in the same slot MUST be balanced with regard to power and usefulness − for the sake of the robustness of the mechanical gaming engine and for the sake of the viable diversity of flavor preferences.

This need for the comparable power and usefulness of spells especially applies to higher level gameplay, when there are fewer spells to choose from, as well as more consequential spell effects.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To make certain spells clearly better than other spells in the same slot, literally punishes the PLAYERS who prefer the flavor of a less privileged spell.

All spells in the same slot MUST be balanced with regard to power and usefulness − for the sake of the robustness of the mechanical gaming engine especially at the higher levels and for the sake of the viable diversity of flavor preferences.

You can only balance to a point, and before you reach that point many players are going to start calling out the "sameness" of the effects. It happened in 4e, and it can happen again.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

To make certain spells clearly better than other spells in the same slot, literally punishes the PLAYERS who prefer the flavor of a less privileged spell.

All spells in the same slot MUST be balanced with regard to power and usefulness − for the sake of the robustness of the mechanical gaming engine and for the sake of the viable diversity of flavor preferences.

This need for the comparable power and usefulness of spells especially applies to higher level gameplay, when there are fewer spells to choose from, as well as more consequential spell effects.

And the D&D team says they are keeping spells at the same levels (and monsters at the same CRs), but will be tweaking those rules objects to more accurately reflect their power level rating. I'm actually very excited to explore the spells packet when that comes out.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And the D&D team says they are keeping spells at the same levels (and monsters at the same CRs), but will be tweaking those rules objects to more accurately reflect their power level rating. I'm actually very excited to explore the spells packet when that comes out.

I'm expecting to see mostly nerfs. That's usually what "tweaking" means. It's the game equivalent of how "we're changing our prices" almost always means, "we're raising our prices".

 

[Yaarel]

I'm actually very excited to explore the spells packet when that comes out.

Me too. I look forward to how designers present the 2024 spells.

The designers are aware of the problems. Way back in 2014, they did a great job at removing all of the overpowered spells. There are only a few spells that turned out to actually be "broken", like Forcecage that many Fighter players rightly complain about being unfair. Maybe a few other spells are situationally broken, but they are happily rare.

Unfortunately, the designers left all the underpowered spells in place. And these are what require attention in 2024.

And the D&D team says they are keeping spells at the same levels (and monsters at the same CRs), but will be tweaking those rules objects to more accurately reflect their power level rating.

I am fine with that. If they intend to doublecheck and tweak every spell, to ensure it is competitive with the other spells in the same slot, that is great for the 5e game engine.

That would mean much rewriting. But it is rewriting that needs to be done anyway.

Since most problematic spells are underpowered, rewriting them means buffing their usefulness and effectiveness to become competitive in the given spell slot.


Compare the feats in the Players Handbook. They are all over the place, where some are clearly better than others. In my view, the "powerful" feats like Polearm Mastery and Greatweapon Mastery are what all feats should look like, because these are the few that are worth trading an Ability Improvement for. All the other feats are subpar and need a fix.

But by the time of Xanathars, the designers gained a feel for how the 5e game engine functions in the wild. The feats in Xanathars are more reliable in terms of power and usefulness compared to each other.

And by the time of Tashas, the feat design space is precisely excellent.

With this knowledge from experience, the designers need to revisit all of the feats in the 2014 Players Handbook and revamp them to make them comparably powerful and useful to each other.


The designers likewise need to revamp all of the official spells, especially the ones in the 2014 Players Handbook that are all over the place.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think there is some confusion over exactly how large hallucinatory terrain is.Coincidentally there are storage units to put that into terms people can neatly wrap their brain around.

Spoiler: it does this much

We offer a variety of 10’ x 15’ storage units at The East Lake Self-Storage. This unit is 15 feet long and 10 feet wide, giving you 150 square feet of space. It is about the size of a standard one car garage, living room, or spare bedroom, and can hold furnishings from a two-bedroom apartment including a refrigerator, washer and dryer, some boxes, and small items. You can use a 10’ x 15’ storage unit to store large pieces of furniture, different sizes of mattresses, sports equipment, appliances, seasonal items, and anything else you don’t want to keep in your home.
source

Hallucinatory terrain is a 4th level nonritual spell ten minute casting time with a 2 hr duration. That spell would still be barely useful even as an action and a much lower slot because it's barely more than what a ton of players think silent image does. Both of those spells rely extremely heavily on the GM expanding their capabilities to a functional level.

 

[Scott Christian]

To make certain spells clearly better than other spells in the same slot, literally punishes the PLAYERS who prefer the flavor of a less privileged spell.

That is what I am trying to tell you - it literally only punishes a player that feels the need to keep up with the Jonse's and wants their character to always produce optimized damage at all times. Forget flair. Forget lore. Forget theme. Forget table styles. Forget player styles. Nope: "This doesn't do as much damage as that other player, therefore, it's broke."

All spells in the same slot MUST be balanced with regard to power and usefulness − for the sake of the robustness of the mechanical gaming engine and for the sake of the viable diversity of flavor preferences.

There is no balance. You keep trying to pretend that there is - there isn't. There is a balance at the tables, and that must be the mean at which you try to write a rulebook. I mean, why would anyone choose a light hammer (range, light, d4 damage) over a handaxe (range, light, d6 damage), especially when both are simple melee weapons? I will tell you why. Because they have a dwarf that is a smithy who likes to show off he is a smithy. Then, when the fact that the guard realizes he is a smithy and invites him into the guard tower because the hammers started the initial conversation - well, all I can say is quantify that. Put it into your equation along with range, components, casting time, duration, and number of affected opponents and area, and then quantify it. You can't.

It is myopic to think that damage is the be-all & end-all of a spell (or weapon or armor or species ability or feat).

 

[James Gasik]

Ok Hallucinatory Terrain, I don't get. In 3.5 it was a 30' cube per level so you'd get 7 of these when you could first cast it. I know WotC decided Caster Level was some kind of sin ("How dare you get more mileage out of low level spell slots at higher level!") but even if it's really a 150 x 150 x 150 cube, it still sucks because it's not shapeable! Add to this the fact that anyone entering the area can pretty much instantly know it's an illusion, it's sharply limited in it's utility.

Can you make use of this spell? Probably, but given that even the best uses (masking dangerous or deadly terrain) are only marginally effective (you can make that lake of lava look like a clear pond, but it's still going to be hot, and there will see be sulfurous fumes), there's no way this is a 4th-level spell effect. And you can't even upcast it!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I do miss the way 4e handled implements, where finding an enchanted Orb, Wand, etc. was something a caster could look forward to.

I miss having at least the implement proficiencies.