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

[Micah Sweet]

Looks to my 1048-page, 4-volume set of the 2e Wizard spell compendium, filled with hundreds of spells that maybe one player ever has cast once.

I mean, sure. If you want magic to be able to solve any problem, that is a thing you can do. But why have spells? Just replace every spell with Wish?

Now that's a hyperbolic statement, and if I was serious, I'd feel bad for even typing it. I don't think that's what you want. Likely, you think it makes sense for the world to be full of many thousands of spells, as it makes the setting seem more real, and it adds to the lore of the setting. Interesting spells can be sought after or found by players and even if they aren't particularly useful in adventuring, not all wizards are adventurers. So perhaps someone does have a spell that, say, conjures a comfortable easy chair out of thin air so the caster always has a good place to rest their aching bones.

But do these sorts of spells need to be in the Player's Handbook? Should they be offered to players who are expected to be adventurers as equivalent options to things that do impact what they are expected to be using?

And of course, can the game or it's setting handle all these applications of magic? Is it ok to think about a group of Wizards starting an industrial revolution by conjuring walls of iron and using fabricate? Or making a dozen simulacrums of craftsmen for their assembly lines?

Should a DM have to worry about ever giving Wizards downtime for fear of what they could do with their spell slots when there isn't an impending apocalypse or deadly trek into the wilderness?

Would the resulting world even look like the "classic" D&D setting? If magic can, in fact, do everything, would Wizards become a ruling class of elites and everyone who doesn't have magic be considered a second-class citizen?

Or would the people rise up, overthrow the Wizards, and outlaw their craft, all but ensuring their removal as a viable player option?

While unlimited magic can be great fun for a story, I don't know that it's great fun for a game where not everyone is expected to be a magician.

Those all sound like interesting questions to address when worldbuilding and in game. And for the record, that four volume set is one of the absolute best supplements ever released for an RPG as far as I'm concerned. Ditto Aurora's Whole Realms Guide, for the same reasons.

 

[Yaarel]

You have already boxed in what an encounter is.

Look at official 5e adventures.

In the aggregate, one can see precisely what kinds of encounters players are likely to encounter, and what kinds are less frequent.

The usefulness of a particular feature measures accordingly.



If a DM chooses to depart from official adventure expectations, then it is up to the DM to homebrew spell lists that are more suitable for the unusual campaign setting.

 

[Yaarel]

Not so much as drop but consolidate Control Flames, Gust, Mold Earth, and Shape Water into one cantrip. Shape Element. These cantrips pretty much do the same thing, they allow you to creatively manipulate one of the four elements to perform some minor, but useful effect.

I like the flavor of separate elements.

That said, there are a few Fire cantrips that should consolidate into a single cantrip.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Look at official 5e adventures.

In the aggregate, one can see precisely what kinds of encounters players are likely to encounter, and what kinds are less frequent.

The usefulness of a particular feature measures accordingly.



If a DM chooses to depart from official adventure expectations, then it is up to the DM to homebrew spell lists that are more suitable for the unusual campaign setting.

Or just put it all in there and let players decide what they think would be useful, based on a solid session 0.

 

[Yaarel]

Or just put it all in there and let players decide what they think would be useful, based on a solid session 0.

The Players Handbook needs to supply setting-agnostic options. The only expectations are medieval-esque and magic exists. It defaults to the most frequent kinds of encounters in official adventures.

Anything that refers to an unusual setting, belongs in a separate Setting Guide for that setting.

If a DM homebrews a setting, it is the job of the DM to create a setting guide for players to use. The DMs Guide will offer useful advice for popular setting genres.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The Players Handbook needs to supply setting-agnostic options. The only expectations are medieval-esque and magic exists. It defaults to the most frequent kinds of encounters in official adventures.

Anything that refers to an unusual setting, belongs in a separate Setting Guide for that setting.

If a DM homebrews a setting, it is the job of the DM to create a setting guide for players to use. The DMs Guide will offer useful advice for popular setting genres.

So what do you think deserves to be in a setting-agnostic PH then?

 

[mamba]

Yes. Just getting to rest like the game expects you to is a win button.

the game also has random encounters, so it does not expect you to always have 8 uninterrupted hours

 

[Yaarel]

So what do you think deserves to be in a setting-agnostic PH then?

For starters, the spells that are useful in combat belong in a setting-agnostic PH. Even social spells like Charm and exploration spells like Fly have dual-use and are also effective during combat encounters.

If ritual splits away from spell and becomes its own separate design space, then ritual can be all kinds of unusual. Rituals dont compete for precious spell slots. Like magic items, the DM has wide latitude over which rituals are available. Rituals dont need to be useful, because if one happens to be in a situation where a ritual becomes useful, one can perform it for free without the cost of missing out on other opportunities. Also rituals can be highly flavorful and specific to a setting genre or a specific trope. Put rituals in their own list, in their own design space.

 

[Scott Christian]

Look at official 5e adventures.

In the aggregate, one can see precisely what kinds of encounters players are likely to encounter, and what kinds are less frequent.

The usefulness of a particular feature measures accordingly.



If a DM chooses to depart from official adventure expectations, then it is up to the DM to homebrew spell lists that are more suitable for the unusual campaign setting.

Ok. Let's look at the official adventures. Seems like some of them have many options open to non-combat. But the aggregate? You are correct: Roleplay, explore, fight is the common chronological loop. Yet, for some tables, even when completing official adventures, they still only fight once an adventuring day. Other tables the DM pushes them to do more. So the more frequent and less frequent a spell is, becomes a whole lot less relevant to those that only fight once a day. Take this, and add to it, the sheer number of spells a wizard gets, and you are looking at something that might appear wasteful, but isn't. In fact, it's not even a ripple in the wastefulness category. It's the fighter that uses their second wind when they didn't need to. No one will remember they did that. What they will remember is when they were the only one standing and used their second wind to stay alive and kill the bad guy. A wizard at 8th level has 15 types of second wind. Choosing one wrong one for several sessions won't mean a thing in the big picture. But, the one time it works, it will mean something. Leave their other 14 choices to things that work more often.

 

[tetrasodium]

And are you going to answer my questions or just try to find a fallacy that fits? (News flash, every argument ever made about complicated matters contains fallacies.)

Not getting the answer that you wanted doesn't make the question unanswered. You will find the answer to that question in the section of the quoted post that you chose to omit when you quoted me in order to claim it went unanswered... "It's obvious when the GM is providing life support to a concept that fails too hard by itself. The player will chafe if the support given isn't exactly as desired & other players will start to notice the favoritism that goes with that support." Overlooking & omitting that answer while calling for an answer leads into a deeper exploration of the answer too.

Everyone else at the table has a character (or world to run) too, it's not fair for them to be expected to set that aside to create jobs for aquaman just so they can sit back with their own character or world in the hopes that aquaman steps up to the hook or is prepared for the specific job at the time it comes up. Spells & character abilities should not depend on everyone else doing that to make them useful. Teamwork & reciprocity are important elements of TTRPGs but it's not either if one side of that team is being carried aquaman style

I've truly grown weary of trying to work with 5e players who think of themselves as the author of a story and will call for but only bite the hook they asked for if the entire adventure revolves around "MY character['s story exactly as imagined]." Far too often it's just an ever growing trail of dead plot threads I'm forced to deal with & work around.