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

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Perhaps those players just need a little help with their spell choices, if they want it.

You know who's best positioned to offer that help?

WotC, when they assemble a new PHB.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You know who's best positioned to offer that help?

WotC, when they assemble a new PHB.

Nah, I think its the DM.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

The true core of D&D spells are plenty weird. But a lot of the secondary tertiary spells are simply not nearly as good and are definitely trap options.

I play with a lot of new players and multiple times, I've seen people come to the table having picked terrible spells just because their names sounded good and reading all of the choices for cantrips and first level spells was too much for them.

That is why the spells need a new development pass as part of the OneD&D playtest. To make them less of a trap option. We're literally in the only time where this effort can happen for the next 10 years. Let's see how the designers do!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The true core of D&D spells are plenty weird. But a lot of the secondary tertiary spells are simply not nearly as good and are definitely trap options.

I play with a lot of new players and multiple times, I've seen people come to the table having picked terrible spells just because their names sounded good and reading all of the choices for cantrips and first level spells was too much for them.

Well, that’s what suggested spells in class descriptions are for.

The players I’ve introduced have been the type who picked wizard as their first D&D character exactly because they wanted to learn to swim in the deep end.

And I just don’t think that wizards first spells should be 100% broadly useful battle spells. Not only that, pretty much every low level spell is useful in its context, barring a few that need to be rewritten anyway.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

And I just don’t think that wizards first spells should be 100% broadly useful battle spells.

I would never suggest that.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Nah, I think its the DM.

Nah, we’re not gonna leave behind groups who are all new to the game.

The books absolutely should do a lot of the work in letting new players know what is broadly useful and what is situational, and encouraging a mix of the two.

Where @Whizbang Dustyboots and I differ is just on whether exclusion of oddball spells contributes meaningfully to that assistance, and if so, whether it’s worth the loss in having the oddity of those spells front and center, rather than tucked away in a supplement.

 

[shadowoflameth]

Let's do a bit if spring cleaning. What spells should just be removed from the game?

Either because they are too niche, or overshadowed by other spells, or disrupt play too much, could just be an upcast version of another spell, the merged spell list made a duplicate, or some other reason.

Like removing conjure animals (8 stat blocks slows the game down way too much), and just keeping summon beasts. But what other ones?

Some spells need an edit like Conjure (anything) for the sake of play and pace. I don't think any need to be outright removed from availability, better to make spells that are useless and that few if any games ever see in use get help. Find Traps, True Strike, and so on.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nah, we’re not gonna leave behind groups who are all new to the game.

The books absolutely should do a lot of the work in letting new players know what is broadly useful and what is situational, and encouraging a mix of the two.

Where @Whizbang Dustyboots and I differ is just on whether exclusion of oddball spells contributes meaningfully to that assistance, and if so, whether it’s worth the loss in having the oddity of those spells front and center, rather than tucked away in a supplement.

I think the book should be useful to both types (after all, I assume WotC wants experienced players to buy their stuff too). I do feel, however, that learning to DM should be focused in the starter sets, or a product created for that purpose. The type of content that is in the DMG now is what I think should be there, just organized more efficiently. Same with the PH.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think the book should be useful to both types (after all, I assume WotC wants experienced players to buy their stuff too). I do feel, however, that learning to DM should be focused in the starter sets, or a product created for that purpose. The type of content that is in the DMG now is what I think should be there, just organized more efficiently. Same with the PH.

Yeah I honestly don’t know that I even think it still makes sense to have 3 core books.

Like, what is the point of having the MM and DMG as separate books, and having a bunch of stuff players will often want to know in the DMG?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah I honestly don’t know that I even think it still makes sense to have 3 core books.

Like, what is the point of having the MM and DMG as separate books, and having a bunch of stuff players will often want to know in the DMG?

Maybe not, but you know there will be three book regardless.