Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Have it share your spell slots. So if it casts a third level spell, you just lost a third level spell slot.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D (2024) What spells should be dropped?
- Thread starter mellored
- Start date
Gorck
Prince of Dorkness
I'm actually dreading this. For me, there's just something different about having a physical book in my hands, perusing through it. It's certainly easier to flip back and forth between pages than it is on a computer document. And the design, artwork, and layout are all more appealing. The "sources" on DnD Beyond are much too bland for my liking.
But, OTH, having sources on a laptop or smartphone is a lot lighter! And it's more accesible at, say, the lunchroom at my work or in a long line at the grocery store.
But, as has been mentioned, this is probably off topic for this thread.
kilpatds
Explorer
Yep. For real. Maximized Meteor Swarm one-rounded the BBEG in a tier 4 AL Epic adventure, and that doesn't even strike me as an even that noteworthy. In the T4 AL Epics I've run, I swear the median table is "4 mages and a paladin to fix their saves"
Incenjucar
Legend
I would hope that a core consideration would be to ensure an effective and interesting play experience for anyone who went for a pure specialty build from level 1 to 20.
Clint_L
Legend
Setting aside the hyperbole, if your DM sets up a BBEG encounter that can be beat in one round by the most predictable level 9 spell aside from wish, then that's on them.
And if a DM can't absolutely wreck a party of 4 mages and a paladin with one hand tied behind their back, again, that's on them.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Whereas I’ve never seen a group composition like that, and if I did, they’d die. Not because I’d nerf them or target all their weaknesses or whatever, but because that’s a glaringly vulnerable party.
Sure as hell no BBEG would be susceptible to dying by from a successful save against a purely damaging spell, and have no way to further mitigate damage.
If they failed the save, then they either didn’t have legendary saves which is bad design for a high level adventure, or those had been depleted in which case no one character “one rounded” the BBEG.
I can’t find maximize spell in 5e, do you mean Empowered?
kilpatds
Explorer
Save? Against a party of wizards? (ie: wizard two was a diviner). And no, didn't have absorb elements per the adventure.
It was a few years ago (before covid), so I'm fuzzy on many of the details now. I don't recall if they. nominally[*] died even with a legendary save, or didn't have legendary saves left.
No, I think it means overchannel (or something similar). Overchannel shouldn't have worked, because 9th level spell is not a 5th level spell, so I'm not sure what they did at this point, but it was O(250 damage) to a BBEG-"Wizard" that only had 200hp
[*] IIRC I fudged things at that point, but again ... it's been years, I'm unclear on the details now.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Okay, so either a poorly designed adventure, or a very different set of events than “one-rounded by one wizard”. Or both.
I’m not sure there is any way a PC should have been able to auto-max the damage on a 9th level spell, but yeah a wizard with no damage mitigation is a poorly designed ugh level BBEG. I’m pretty sure my assassin rogue, Battlemaster/lore bard, champion fighter, and Artillerist, could merc that guy in a round, too.
Yaarel
🇮🇱He-Mage
Earlier I mentioned separating "rituals" from "spells" as separate design spaces.
In the 2014 Players Handbook, the official rituals are seldom worth wasting a spell slot on. But they often have fun flavor that is an important part of the D&D experience − so lean into this. Put them in a separate list. That way, they remain in the game, but no longer require newbies to have game mastery to know which spells are good choices and which spells are terrible to prepare.
Let any character try to cast a ritual, by making an ability (skill) check. A Fighter can try to do a ritual too. Some might be good at it. (Compare the "Men of Letters" in Supernatural series.) Normal people sometimes know a ritual.
Maybe the class feature or feat "Ritual Caster" allows them to use a spell slot as a short cut, to bypass the lengthy time requirement or costly gp component. Other characters are normally "ritual performers", rather than "casters".
The format for a ritual is similar what a spell is. But instead of a spell description that says, for example:
ALARM
1st-level Abjuration (Ritual)
Casting Time: 1 minute
...
Have it say:
ALARM
Class level 1 Abjuration (Survival)
Ritual Performance: 1 minute
...
Rituals default a typical "10 minutes" to perform, but can specify a different amount of time for the listed ritual. Some rituals can take an hour to perform. An elaborate or unique ritual might say "see below", such as a ritual that takes a week of activities, or has the requirement to perform while certain planets are in conjunction. Many religious rituals are ... "rituals".
Relatedly, it annoys me when when spells have a "costly" component. Magic isnt about spending money − that would make it feel mundane, the opposite of magic. Spell components also significantly interfere with innate spellcasting, and methods of spells that are specific to a class, such as a Bard using an instrument as spellcasting focus.
But if rituals are a completely separate design space, and (normally) have nothing to do with spell slots or innate spellcasting, then it feels ok if some rituals require the expense of money, since that would be part of the "whatever" requirements that a particular happens to demand. Moreover, as "rituals" the performance can lean into how to perform the ritual as part of the flavor, without interfering with the flavor of a class that is casting a spell. While the spell descriptions do well to remove "Spell Components: V, S, M", the separate ritual design space probably does well to mention "Ritual Components: V, S, M, G", where G means "gold pieces", a costly component.
Treat rituals as magic items, pretty much like Scrolls and Wondrous Items that are "manuals" of instructions.
Most of the spells in the Players Handbook that have the ritual tag are unworthy of preparing for a spell slot. So separate these rituals to be a separate list of rituals.
If there is a lengthy ritual to Summon Yugoloth, let anyone try to perform it − see what happens! Make the ability (Religion) check and hope for success. (In this case, I would like to see a separate Necromancy skill that handles Undead, Fiend, and Aberration.) A ritual description should also mention what happens if the ritual fails ... or fails horribly.
In the 2014 Players Handbook, the official rituals are seldom worth wasting a spell slot on. But they often have fun flavor that is an important part of the D&D experience − so lean into this. Put them in a separate list. That way, they remain in the game, but no longer require newbies to have game mastery to know which spells are good choices and which spells are terrible to prepare.
Let any character try to cast a ritual, by making an ability (skill) check. A Fighter can try to do a ritual too. Some might be good at it. (Compare the "Men of Letters" in Supernatural series.) Normal people sometimes know a ritual.
Maybe the class feature or feat "Ritual Caster" allows them to use a spell slot as a short cut, to bypass the lengthy time requirement or costly gp component. Other characters are normally "ritual performers", rather than "casters".
The format for a ritual is similar what a spell is. But instead of a spell description that says, for example:
ALARM
1st-level Abjuration (Ritual)
Casting Time: 1 minute
...
Have it say:
ALARM
Class level 1 Abjuration (Survival)
Ritual Performance: 1 minute
...
Rituals default a typical "10 minutes" to perform, but can specify a different amount of time for the listed ritual. Some rituals can take an hour to perform. An elaborate or unique ritual might say "see below", such as a ritual that takes a week of activities, or has the requirement to perform while certain planets are in conjunction. Many religious rituals are ... "rituals".
Relatedly, it annoys me when when spells have a "costly" component. Magic isnt about spending money − that would make it feel mundane, the opposite of magic. Spell components also significantly interfere with innate spellcasting, and methods of spells that are specific to a class, such as a Bard using an instrument as spellcasting focus.
But if rituals are a completely separate design space, and (normally) have nothing to do with spell slots or innate spellcasting, then it feels ok if some rituals require the expense of money, since that would be part of the "whatever" requirements that a particular happens to demand. Moreover, as "rituals" the performance can lean into how to perform the ritual as part of the flavor, without interfering with the flavor of a class that is casting a spell. While the spell descriptions do well to remove "Spell Components: V, S, M", the separate ritual design space probably does well to mention "Ritual Components: V, S, M, G", where G means "gold pieces", a costly component.
Treat rituals as magic items, pretty much like Scrolls and Wondrous Items that are "manuals" of instructions.
Most of the spells in the Players Handbook that have the ritual tag are unworthy of preparing for a spell slot. So separate these rituals to be a separate list of rituals.
If there is a lengthy ritual to Summon Yugoloth, let anyone try to perform it − see what happens! Make the ability (Religion) check and hope for success. (In this case, I would like to see a separate Necromancy skill that handles Undead, Fiend, and Aberration.) A ritual description should also mention what happens if the ritual fails ... or fails horribly.
Last edited:
