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

[Scott Christian]

For those that insist on removing spells, I spoke with a few other DMs. We all agreed - any cantrip that causes damage should be removed. That is definitely our table's take on things.

Now, we would buff the 1st-9th level damage spells a bit. And add in some useful reactionary defense spells casters could use as cantrips: a minor mirror image, a minor stoneskin, a minor spell shield, a minor misty step. Whatever fits the flair of the class best.

There you have it. Spring cleaning is done.

 

[Yaarel]

Look again at how terrible Hallucinatory Terrain is as a spell:

"
You make natural terrain in a 150-foot cube in range look, sound, and smell like some other sort of natural terrain. 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. Manufactured structures, equipment, and creatures within the area aren’t changed in appearance.

The tactile characteristics of the terrain are unchanged, so creatures entering the area are likely to see through the illusion. If the difference isn’t obvious by touch, a creature carefully examining the illusion can attempt an Intelligence (Investigation) check against your spell save DC to disbelieve it. A creature who discerns the illusion for what it is, sees it as a vague image superimposed on the terrain.

"

Any "manufactured structure" cannot be concealed by the hallucination.

(A road isnt "natural terrain", so it is confusing to use as an example. Maybe it means ancient trail treaded down by foot.)

Creatures can recognize the real terrain by touch, effectively instantly ending the spell.



This is a horrible, horrible, spell. I wouldnt waste a slot 1 on it, never mind a slot 4 on it.



But if this is a magic-item-like "ritual" that anyone can try cast, then whatever, fine.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

That game sounds much more mechanical than I'd like to see, and less inspiring, particularly as I firmly believe the ritual in its own space idea is a no-go for WotC (who I presume are the people who you would want making this book).

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

I'm confused. The question is, are you, as a DM, going to tell the player not to take the spell? Are you going to coerce them into taking a different spell?
This apparent friction between players and DM is a rare gem in every D&D session I have ever played or seen with my own eyes.

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

Listen, I get what you are saying. But one spell out of dozens, one scene out of dozens, one DM choice out of hundreds during a small part of the story arc does not make for an aquaman situation. It makes for a diverse and variety of encounters.

The fact that a different spell (because that is what we are talking about) would have been better more times than this one that was useful only once or twice doesn't make it a worse spell. And the fact that it was useful once or twice doesn't make it an aquaman fallacy.

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.

And we are in complete agreement here. I myself have not encountered this. But I have seen it. The tailoring of a story needs to happen naturally, in my humble opinion. Sometimes it happens, and sometimes it doesn't. I think there are many types of adventures to run, and character arc adventures can be fun. But I find the players enjoy the story more if their character bonds, flaws, and creativity are part of a living and breathing setting instead of the other way around.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm confused. The question is, are you, as a DM, going to tell the player not to take the spell? Are you going to coerce them into taking a different spell?
This apparent friction between players and DM is a rare gem in every D&D session I have ever played or seen with my own eyes.

Listen, I get what you are saying. But one spell out of dozens, one scene out of dozens, one DM choice out of hundreds during a small part of the story arc does not make for an aquaman situation. It makes for a diverse and variety of encounters.

The fact that a different spell (because that is what we are talking about) would have been better more times than this one that was useful only once or twice doesn't make it a worse spell. And the fact that it was useful once or twice doesn't make it an aquaman fallacy.

And we are in complete agreement here. I myself have not encountered this. But I have seen it. The tailoring of a story needs to happen naturally, in my humble opinion. Sometimes it happens, and sometimes it doesn't. I think there are many types of adventures to run, and character arc adventures can be fun. But I find the players enjoy the story more if their character bonds, flaws, and creativity are part of a living and breathing setting instead of the other way around.

I'm burned out on putting in effort doing that with 5e players & think a bit of my blackflag review nicely answers why while demonstrating with an old post that it's not just an answer of convenience For whatever reason 5e players no longer seem to care about building up their spellbook or interacting with their GM on the topic of doing so. It's incredibly frustrating to face both "nope that is not the spell I wanted so screw your trash loot, I refuse to consider it" sandwiched alongside "I'll decide & [not] get back to you if I feel like I need to" leaving me as a GM both directionless and unable to engage a player in a topic that needs discussion. This little box does a great job of giving GMs in that situation a club they can use to justify their efforts" one-d&d needs more boxes like that one in the PBF packet and less useless spells like hallucinatory terrain that depend on the GM to make them useful.

 

[Scott Christian]

I'm burned out on putting in effort doing that with 5e players & think a bit of my blackflag review nicely answers why while demonstrating with an old post that it's not just an answer of convenience For whatever reason 5e players no longer seem to care about building up their spellbook or interacting with their GM on the topic of doing so. It's incredibly frustrating to face both "nope that is not the spell I wanted so screw your trash loot, I refuse to consider it" sandwiched alongside "I'll decide & [not] get back to you if I feel like I need to" leaving me as a GM both directionless and unable to engage a player in a topic that needs discussion. This little box does a great job of giving GMs in that situation a club they can use to justify their efforts" one-d&d needs more boxes like that one in the PBF packet and less useless spells like hallucinatory terrain that depend on the GM to make them useful.

Fair enough. I get your point. I just don't agree with it.

 

[Cruentus]

I'm confused. The question is, are you, as a DM, going to tell the player not to take the spell? Are you going to coerce them into taking a different spell?
This apparent friction between players and DM is a rare gem in every D&D session I have ever played or seen with my own eyes.

As a DM, I,

1) don’t like systems where the Wizard gets to ‘just get’ new spells at their next level. Especially after like two days of “adventuring” out in the wild, where they are supposedly ‘experimenting’ and ‘studying’ and just, voila, know two new spells at level two. I’m fine with wizards picking their spells at chargen, or if they’re really into their character, working with them on their mentor, and they select from a subset of that wizard’s spells to start. After all, finding the lore and spells is part of what a Wizard is (or used to be) about.

2) don’t care one whit what spell the Wizard might choose at their next level - assuming I am running 5e straight from the books. As long as they are selecting from the list of ‘campaign approved’ spells, or have cleared the “new, obscure spell from some other source” with me, take whatever you want, according to those rules.

However, the table I Dm and play at would definitely weigh in on what spell the Wizard took. Wizards usually get all kinds of advice from the other players, since if the wizard is taking useless spells, the party will be in a lurch potentially as a result, or have one less ‘contributing’ member. We have a very hard line between our min/maxers in the group, and the Rp’ers, and they don’t overlap.

We went through our DM/player friction phase 30 years ago when it was assumed the DM (and the world) was out to kill you and the party had to do everything within the rules to survive. Nowadays, it’s more laid back, but the tenor of the game (harsh and gritty all the way to superhero) is decided before we play. My small group has decided on the former, harsh and gritty, using Basic/OSE.

 

[James Gasik]

I'm reminded of what happened when I got my copy of Forgotten Realms Adventures, a hardcover I still prize to this day. The book was full of interesting art objects, setting specific gems and coins, and all sorts of neat things you don't see in modern sourcebooks.

And of course, new spells! Along with the ability to randomly generate spells, ideal for new players. But when I started using it, I found my players were getting Quimby's Enchanting Gourmet and Nulathoe's Ninemen just as often as standbys like sleep, magic missile, and fireball.

Sure, you can find uses for Spendelarde's Chaser as it's the rare Wizard spell that can help deal with status ailments, but my players were not only not casting these spells, they chafed at filling up their limited amount of spells known with them! I'd still add those spells to random spellbooks found, of course, but I stopped strictly policing what spells players got (as Gygax intended) because it obviously wasn't fun for them, the same way finding a +2 Bohemian Ear Spoon at level 4 isn't very much fun for a Fighter who won't get proficiency in the darned thing for 2 more levels; sure, they can use it at a -2 penalty and it's still better than a non-magic weapon, but it would have cost me nothing to let them find a bastard sword +2 instead (assuming that was their weapon of choice).

Ultimately, what this boils down to is how you feel about spellcasters in your game. If you think they're out of bounds, trimming down their spells is a great start.

If you feel they're not new player friendly? Second verse, same as the first.

I'd like to see more space in the PHB devoted to other classes, and less "there's a spell for that" solutions to all problems.

But even if you feel there's no issue with spellcasters and want them to be more robust, surely you can feel that the other classes deserve more options themselves? Because the more I play 5e, the more I feel like more players should have spells than less.

It didn't use to be this way; back in 2e, magic items could give you plenty of non-spell answers to problems, regardless of class. But these days, I feel like I'd be lucky to find a magical backscratcher, let alone a Bag of Tricks or a Robe of Useful Items.

 

[Scott Christian]

1) don’t like systems where the Wizard gets to ‘just get’ new spells at their next level. Especially after like two days of “adventuring” out in the wild, where they are supposedly ‘experimenting’ and ‘studying’ and just, voila, know two new spells at level two. I’m fine with wizards picking their spells at chargen, or if they’re really into their character, working with them on their mentor, and they select from a subset of that wizard’s spells to start. After all, finding the lore and spells is part of what a Wizard is (or used to be) about.

I've always liked this method too. It is fun for the character to develop their spells based on the context of the story and what they are exploring. But, I have also had players explain it like this: The mysteries of magic unfold themselves in the unlikeliest of circumstances. So it may be in the middle of a battle, or in the middle of casting another spell, or in the middle of the night that they have a revelation on how to tweak one spell and make it another or are inspired on how to cast something different. And, who am I (other than the DM) to say no. Especially in a setting like D&D, where magic is sooooooo prevalent.
I have found a unique compromise. I make new spells and have them find the scroll or book. This way it relates to the setting and the context of the story. So these get added to their spellbook, but they are not necessarily ones they have to take.

However, the table I Dm and play at would definitely weigh in on what spell the Wizard took. Wizards usually get all kinds of advice from the other players, since if the wizard is taking useless spells, the party will be in a lurch potentially as a result, or have one less ‘contributing’ member. We have a very hard line between our min/maxers in the group, and the Rp’ers, and they don’t overlap.

That sounds challenging. You must be doing a good job as a DM to balance between the two. Can I ask a question? Are the players vocal about what the wizard should take or do they just try to persuade? I imagine if I was playing a harsh and gritty campaign, I'd want PCs that were useful too.

 

[Cruentus]

I've always liked this method too. It is fun for the character to develop their spells based on the context of the story and what they are exploring. But, I have also had players explain it like this: The mysteries of magic unfold themselves in the unlikeliest of circumstances. So it may be in the middle of a battle, or in the middle of casting another spell, or in the middle of the night that they have a revelation on how to tweak one spell and make it another or are inspired on how to cast something different. And, who am I (other than the DM) to say no. Especially in a setting like D&D, where magic is sooooooo prevalent.
I have found a unique compromise. I make new spells and have them find the scroll or book. This way it relates to the setting and the context of the story. So these get added to their spellbook, but they are not necessarily ones they have to take.

That sounds challenging. You must be doing a good job as a DM to balance between the two. Can I ask a question? Are the players vocal about what the wizard should take or do they just try to persuade? I imagine if I was playing a harsh and gritty campaign, I'd want PCs that were useful too.

Usually it’s one or two players who are vocal about it. “You should take X or Y“, based on what is going on in the campaign, what they have already encountered, etc. The reaction of the Wizard usually depends on how experienced they are with the class - sometimes they’ll be like “okay, I’ll take fireball.” Rather than Tiny Servant or something. If the Wizard knows what they want to do, or is going for theme or something, they’ll push back and say “It’s my character, I’ll pick what I want.” Which I fully endorse.

Ultimately, I’m doing the best I can, and its easier as I get older (playing with the same group for 40+ years, cause I pretty much know all about how they’re going to approach something), but it still is tough when the optimiser(s) start to skew the game - which I had in 5e, and have a lot less of in OSE.

Regarding your comment about tweaking spells and inspiration, I could subscribe to that if the magic system used something like the old Ad&d “Path Magic” system from Dragon Mag 216. In it, you selected “Paths” which followed one from the other. Like the Lesser Fire Magic path where you started with fire burst, then could learn flaming sphere, then fireball, and so on. That, to me, would make “naturally” learning spells make more logical sense (as much as magic in a game is logical

For spells, though, I wonder if DDB has data on what spells at what levels make character sheets. They do it for species, class, subclass, etc. That might be interesting to see if there is anything that is “never” taken. Those wold be the ones to target to drop, or add into supplementary material.