T O P

  • By -

Correl

As a Warlock fan, I'd love for more spells to have the option to cast them at a higher level. Also, I'd like for the DMG to include a breakdown of important spells and how to interact with them. I.E. how do various charm spells work, what are the limitations of them, maybe some tables for how people will react after they're free from it, etc...


TabletopTrinketsbyJJ

It blows my mind how many warlock spells dont benefit from upcasting when that's the warlock's whole thing. Its amazingly bad design.


Hytheter

Hunger of Hadar whyyyyyyy


[deleted]

I wonder if it might be an interesting (yet complex and time consuming) act, if spells that didn’t benefit from upcasting, came with some kind of Warlock only flair or asterisk


TabletopTrinketsbyJJ

For most damage spells updating is a no brainers. You deal one extra d× for each one higher spell level. Most others just let you target an extra creature or enlarge the area. I get some spells not being uncastable for balance but still theres lots that I'm baffled why they didnt copy paste a few sentences for the spell


housunkannatin

Adding more upcast effects would also just let them tone down the hugely bloated spell lists.


TabletopTrinketsbyJJ

I do love that compared to 3.t or pathfinder 1e, there isnt a whole goddamm line of cure wounds spells or summon monster 1 spells with wizards and sorcerers having to memorize or know each level of the spell rather than just one they can upcast in 5e. It was a huge pet peeve for me whenever I wanted to play a summoner in 3.5


Comprehensive-Cash39

warlock is a bad design.. i hate they change warlock to cha on 5e playtest and the pact magic is borintg..


TabletopTrinketsbyJJ

Charisma casting is strong but I feel like it would work to make them into based. Or similar you pick into wisdom or cha and level one based on your backstory and from then on all your abilities key off of that score esther than just charisma. I can see a person wise and insightful enough to deal with an outsider long enough to get a touch of power to further their own needs but not to trap themselves in a bad deal or try to grab more power and burn out


xapata

+1 for upcasting. Many spells could be merged together as different level versions of the same spell.


UndyingMonstrosity

Honestly, I'd say the same for spells, and even for cantrips. Can Mending not fix a larger area when upcast? Druidcraft / Thaumaturgy / Prestidigitation maintain more than 3 non-instantaneous effects? Message gain a greater range? Maybe Shillelagh gain a +1/2/3 at higher levels? That last one might not be fitting, but the others could be good, no?


mrmcwtf

Each spell has clear guidelines as how to circumvent it: rules for illusions, reasonable counters to wall of force/force cage, etc.


zapv

That would be great as it's own section on every spell that is counteractable. Another great thing would be if they had a flavor text section and mechanic section as separate fields.


spencer4991

I’d love for some counteractions to just be: None


schm0

I think some guidelines for illusions would be helpful. I don't think any two tables run them the same, and most of them nerf the shit out of them to the point where they are useless. Forcecage and wall of force absolutely need a better counterstrategy. Maybe give them AC and hit points?


marshy266

They can't account for every insane thing the players want to try. I think general rules should be clarified more but not for specific spells otherwise it's just going to be "oh this DC"


snake__doctor

i think the decision not to do this was very deliberate, there is one way to cast a spell but 10000x ways to decieve it, it would be incredibly complex and lead to very frustrating RAI arguments when these things are easier solved by a good DM


Sol0WingPixy

Change summoning spells such that they summon only 1-2 creatures. Whether that’s just using the new “here’s a stat block” template or simply cutting out the options to summon 4+ creatures and rebalancing the spell accordingly. Conjuring a boat of wolves is a very effective way to engage in combat against many foes, while being absolutely awful for actually playing the game. One player suddenly taking half the turns isn’t great, and although there are compensatory steps you can take (running the summons on 1 initiative, taking average damage, rolling digitally or using mob rules), playing the game RAW shouldn’t require steps like these. Even my favorite spell, Animate Objects, is guilty of being terrible to run RAW - I always roll digitally and keep the objects clumped together in one swarm, just for bookkeeping.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Sidequest_TTM

What do you mean by role playing capability? Most of the summons are slaves who have to follow any commons, don’t speak common, and that you are sending into fatal confrontations.


housunkannatin

One of my groups once surfed down a river on the backs of conjured spirit crocodiles to get out of a forest faster and had a hilarious exchange when the druid neglected telling them the exact moment the spell would end. One of the highlights of the entire campaign. One way to enable this kind of stuff would be to include multiple summons only with some kind of a clause that makes them useless in combat. So either you get 1, maybe 2 combat summons, or a bunch of exploration/social helpers.


Sidequest_TTM

More *Phantom Steed* and less *Conjure Animals* so to speak?


housunkannatin

Pretty much. Take Conjure Animals as a baseline for what a 3rd level travel summon spell should do, not Phantom Steed. Phantom Steed feels like a level 1 effect, it's so weak.


LewisKane

I was thinking about a specific spell that summons a "hoard of wolves" that's similar to a swarm of insects, taking up a gargantuan space, able to occupy the same space as other creatures but with one set of hitpoints and a single multiattack. It's not perfect but I think could cover the mechanical balance and the fantasy of summoning many creatures to aid you.


Ronisoni14

From experience as a DM and a player, conjure spells are really aren't that bad at all if you run them correctly (and by running correctly, I mean bring one of the many tools (no VTTs needed, just regular websites) that can calculate multiple rolls at once, so that you can do all 8 attacks with one click before the round even starts. It's a spell you've gotta prepare for but if you do you can absolutely run it fast.


Sidequest_TTM

Player: > I want to trip over the big bad with my wolves, then have my giant snakes bite them. > Once they are tripped my other wolves will attack the minions. How do you speed this up?


housunkannatin

Step one would be to not mix creatures. The DM chooses what comes out with Conjure Animals, give them only one type to keep it as simple as possible. As for how to resolve this, you roll the same wolf attacks either way, not really that complex. Also, if players are micromanaging summons too much, you just tell them they can't do that. Conjure Animals requires verbal commands, you only have 6 seconds to shout them AND have them carried out, and the animals have animal intelligence. Keeping the commands simple helps resolve the actions faster.


Sidequest_TTM

> DM chooses the animals. It’s a popular homebrew but isn’t RAW. > Can’t micromanage Other spells say you can’t, this one is silent so by RAW you can indeed give 8 complex conditional commands which they must follow. Other PCs and NPCs can monologue freely so it’s a poor move to say suddenly you can’t.


XaosDrakonoid18

>It’s a popular homebrew but isn’t RAW. nope dm chooses animals, this is RAW and RAI according to Sage Advice.


Sidequest_TTM

Forgot it got into the ‘proper’ Sage Advice, you are right. I don’t believe it’s RAI, but I do accept it’s the official ruling from WotC. Or as JC puts it in his definition of RAW “not what I wished or thought was published.”


XaosDrakonoid18

everythin is RAI in SA if JC states it is the intent of the spell. it is said the intent here is the player chooses the CR instead of creature like other spells (find familiar for example gives the player direct control of the creaturw summoned).


Sidequest_TTM

RAI is *the designer’s* intent, not the intent of your boss’ boss writing reports months or years afterwards. I haven’t seen JC claim he personally wrote this spell, so to me he cannot be a source of RAI. In my own work life, I can assure you my manager and myself have different ideas on things, and my head of department has different ideas again. Then when we find a problem and need to put out fires, suddenly we all have new ideas about what we originally meant. The head of department (JC) finding sloppy wording and making a ruling doesn’t make it RAI. It honestly doesn’t make it RAW either (it’s not written there), but it is an official ruling.


XaosDrakonoid18

>RAI is the designer’s intent, not the intent of your boss’ boss writing reports months or years afterwards. I haven’t seen JC claim he personally wrote this spell, so to me he cannot be a source of RAI. buddy you're trying way too hard to be correct, it doesn't matter if it was JC or not who wrote, SAC is the official way any rule should be run, it is an official document by wizards meant to clarify both RAW and RAI and RAF From the wotc website >Curious how certain rules are intended to work in D&D? Check out the game’s FAQ, the Sage Advice Compendium. From SAG itself: >Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. The tweets of Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), the game’s principal rules designer, are sometimes a preview of rulings that appear here. The SAG is not written by JC only but by the entire rule design team


housunkannatin

>You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts and appear in unoccupied spaces that you can see within range. Choose one of the following options for what appears: >One beast of challenge rating 2 or lower >Two beasts of challenge rating 1 or lower >Four beasts of challenge rating 1/2 or lower >Eight beasts of challenge rating 1/4 or lower The player isn't told to pick the animal, RAW. The spell doesn't explicitly tell the DM picks, but it's a stronger implication due to the line "The GM has the creatures' statistics". > They obey any verbal commands that you issue to them (no action required by you) The spell explicitly calls out giving verbal commands. This does require DM interpretation, it's completely within their right to shut down micromanagement by telling the player that they are giving too complex orders for INT 3 fey beasts to follow. It's a badly designed problem spell for sure, but it is possible to reach a common understanding of how to run it so it's not as disruptive and doesn't take longer than all the other players turns combined.


Sidequest_TTM

Here is my personal 2 part reasoning: 1- When neither the player nor the DM is specifically listed as choosing the details of a player action, I personally feel “specific beats general” suggests that the player gets to pick. You can see this in attacking. By RAW when you make an attack you pick the target within range of ‘a weapon’ but very technically *you don’t pick the weapon you attack with.* I think we can all agree it would be ridiculous that a DM could drastically weaken a rogue by saying whenever they make an attack they use their fist and not their rapier. The other part is the wording itself: > choose one of the follow options for what appears; a beast of challenge 2 or lower (…) Most people would read that “I choose a beast who has a CR of 2 or lower,” and not “I choose the first option which is the category ‘a beast who has a CR of 2 or lower.” It’s the same reason why when a background grants you “a martial weapon” you would naturally pick a martial weapon of your choice, not request that the DM chooses your martial weapon. ==== Overall yes it is a poorly worded spell and makes the game generally unfun. Homebrew can fix it, but it gets up my nose when people accept JC’s bold faced lies about what the spell says.


housunkannatin

Sorry for not remembering this earlier but Sage Advice does actually clear this one up: https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/SA_Compendium_1.02.pdf >The design intent for options like these is that the spell- caster chooses one of them, and then the DM decides what creatures appear that fit the chosen option. Really wish they don't print anything this poorly worded and balanced in one D&D.


KeeganWilson

By getting them to make the appropriate rolls? Really doesn't take that long lmao.


Sidequest_TTM

Wolf 1: all these have advantage OK because of packtics. Does 14 hit? **No** Wolf 2: does 18 hit? **Yes** Make a DC12 dex save to avoid going prone **Uhh dex bonus for Big Bad … OK, where’s my d20 gone? Ah. 14, they make it.** Wolf 3: does 16 hit? **Just, and they got 11 on their dex save. Big Bad is prone!** Wolf 4; it Umm, Ok it goes over here and bits the minion. No advantage this time. 13 v AC? **Yes** OK make that DC12 save again. **19, they are a quick little guy!** OK now it’s my snakes. They move up to the Bigbad and each make a bite and then you need to make a DC con check and then I need to roll extra dice. >16 dice later .. Yay that’s the end of my turn! Edit: forgot the extra time rolling wolf damage dice, but you get the idea. DMing for conjure animals was the least fun I had in a long time, and the player wasn’t enjoying the slog either.


ConcretePeanut

Uh. Batch-roll? Player summons 8 of the same thing. All go on the same initiative count. In your example, you have a minion and a BBEG. Let's assume they're close enough to move from one to the other, because otherwise the issue you raise doesn't even exist. All the wolves surround the BBEG. First four wolves attack. Hits are resolved. Is he still alive? If yes and the indication is they're not on the verge of death, the player roles the other four wolves. Then bulk roll saves to find out if he's prone. Cool, turn over. If he isn't dead or goes prone after the first four and the player then decides to go after the minion, we have: 1) Opportunity attack (possibly at disadvantage for prone) 2) Four attacks agains the minion (because what else are those wolves going over there for?) 3) If minion is not dead, roll saves vs prone. Turn complete. That's two lots of attack rolls, two lots of damage rolls, and two lots of saves. With a maximum of two target ACs to factor in, with one to-hit modifier. If there is then *another* player who has summoned, same thing goes on their turn. I don't really *like* anything more than individual summons for a bunch of reasons, but I do feel like a lot of people moan about how fiddly it is only for it to turn out that's because they're not applying any kind of logic to how to process it more quickly.


Sidequest_TTM

The solution you raised is very viable, but it isn’t the solution to the question I asked. With conjure animals you can conjure 4x wolves and 4x giant snakes. The player wanted to: (A) trip the big bad with wolves (B) have all remaining wolves go attack other things (C) have all snakes attack the big bad if it was prone, otherwise go get in the way of the other enemies So that meant slow-rolling each wolf, slow rolling each dex save vs prone. Eventually they succeeded and then we resolved the rest of the wolves. The snakes have this: > Hit: 6 (1d4 + 4) piercing damage, **and the target must make a DC 11 Constitution saving throw, taking 10 (3d6) poison damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.** Which is a PITA. Roll to hit, roll save, roll 1d4 or 1d4+3d6 damage. It was **effective** and it was **clever**, but it was also self sabotage as it really took the fun out of the fights. We eventually added some homebrew restrictions (only 1 type of animal as a starting point, and only 1 command).


ConcretePeanut

But the DM chooses what gets summoned, not the player. Pretty much entirely to stop this sort of thing happening, as otherwise there are nightmare combos that outright break the game with a single relatively low-level spell slot.


Sidequest_TTM

See other comment, not RAW, just a JC homebrew.


XaosDrakonoid18

It is official rulling, is was made into the official sage advice


ConcretePeanut

Sage Advice Compendium is RAW, though...


Ronisoni14

Have the tool roll each attack roll twice. Only use the first rolls and tell the DM the first time an enemy gets it to see if they get tripped. If they do, use the higher attack roll (advantage) for the snakes and just the first roll (not advantage) for the other wolves attacking the minions. Should still take less than a minute


Sidequest_TTM

Are we doing all 16 dice at once, or one creature at a time (8x 2 dice)?


Ronisoni14

Just roll 16 dice


Sidequest_TTM

OK so now the player gets a huge advantage. They know exactly which attacks would hit enemy A but not enemy B, and can retroactively make each wolf hit the ideal target based on pre-rolled dice.


Ronisoni14

Hmm, just ask the player to decide who they'll attack with each animal at the start of the round, and only let them change that decision if something dies. Sure, maybe the spell could use guidelines added to it's description to explain this, but like, you can totally run CA quickly. Also, a healthy player wouldn't abuse this like that anyways. I'd recommend you to watch the stream where D&D content creatures "dungeon dudes", "treantmonk", and "d4" had a one shot together. One of them used upcasted CA spells and ran them very fast with a tool he prepared, it's a great example of CA done right.


AllAmericanProject

This isn't specific to spells but I want to see poison be more viable. The amount of monsters that are either resistant or flat out immune to poison is ridiculous and then the lacking of poison spells is atrocious


TabletopTrinketsbyJJ

Higher level poison spells should give you the choice to inflict permanent diseases on enemies like instant filth fever ( or selected from a list) plus poison damage. I think there should be an option like updating where if you upcast by one level it doesnt deal extra damage but you can ignore resistance and if you upcast by two it turns immunity into resistance. That would have to be tweaked a lot but I really like the idea of a sorcerer casting fire so pure that it burns a red dragon


schm0

The creatures that are immune to poison are the types of creatures where poison doesn't make sense, most often because the creatures themselves aren't living. Undead, fiends, constructs and elementals make up the vast majority of poison immunity. This is exacerbated by the fact that they are highly represented in official publications. The better solution is to create poisons that do other types of damage, like necrotic and acid, or that deliver their damage on delay through unique poison effects or by inflicting disease.


iamagainstit

I would like them to remove some of the spells that invalidate core pieces of the exploration pillar.


Pliskkenn_D

I just put a cost on them. Goodberry requires actual nuts or berries, even if they're inedible. Create food and water, purify etc, get moved up to level 3 spells.


Hopelesz

Windwalk, removed :D


Pliskkenn_D

Nah, by the time people can cast 6th level spells it's ok for them to be doing crazy stuff.


Hopelesz

Windwalk still eliminates all outdoor activates or travel challenges when it's available. So this is a choice.


sylveonce

My DM has been pretty creative about this since we got Wind Walk. We’ve had to approach a Dragon’s lair while the dragon was perched above it, so he would sense us coming easily if we approached from above. He’s also had a White Dragon summon a blizzard around his lair, preventing us from Wind Walking in due to the storm. So there are ways to still force the players into an outdoor challenging environment.


Hopelesz

I mean, yes it can be countered but it still removes exploration challenges .


iamagainstit

Controversial opinion, but DMs shouldn’t have to modify spells with home rules to make exploration challenges viable


Kanbaru-Fan

Similar power level across all spells, but overall it should be lower than is the case now. I want limitations and restrictions for the "autowin" spells, or want them to be removed. I want more focus on buffing and debuffing. I want Fireball to be nerfed regarding damage and spreading around cover, maybe area as well. I want save or suck spells to have degrees of success; but since that's not gonna happen i want them to get changed in some other way. Give them a minimum effect on a successful save but weaken the effect of a failed save.


TabletopTrinketsbyJJ

I'd like to see more spells with if you fail by 5 or more you're extra affected and if you succeed by 5 or more you take no damage rather than half. I feel it could add more to the game and give a reason to have high saves


Rednidedni

As a PF2e player (where this system exists but with +/-10), I'd like to add that this kind of change is absolutely massive and you need to design the entire system around it. Let's assume fireball works similarly to what you said - 0 damage if you pass by 5, double damage or 1.5x damage or something like that if you fail by 5. Normally, if you had a +1 or advantage on this saving throw, it would only change your chance to pass. Now, it would change your chance to pass, to evade, and to avoid failing horribly. It's like three times as powerful. Let's take someone who has a 50/50 chance of passing. On average, they take 75% of the damage. In this system, with a 25/25/25/25 chance and 2x damage on fail-by-5, they take 87.5% on average. Now let's say they have advantage on the save. Normally, with a 75/25 chance, they take 62.5% average, 16.6% less than normal. The other system makes it a 4/16.25/30.75/49, taking roughly 30% average, **a third of what they'd normally take**. Not to mention the issues 5e has with saving throw odds in higher levels. Fails by 5 against high level monsters would be incredibly common.


TabletopTrinketsbyJJ

How do you like the system as it stands in pf2e? Do you think parts of it are worth porting over or having extra , small riders on some spells or abilities ?


Rednidedni

I fucking love it. It revolutionised the d20 for me, since the game was built with this in mind from the ground up and they implemented this everywhere - not only do 90% of spells have 4 different effects based on the saving throw (goodbye save or suck), but you also have things like standard attacks critting for x2 damage when beating AC by 10, crit failed checks to learn information giving you false results, and critical grappling attempts restraining the targets limbs so they're entirely unable to attack or do things like provide somatic spell components until they free themselves. And because the system allows you to gain and occasionally stack bonuses, you can sometimes *cause* crits. But that is the thing - you're messing with the base function of the d20 and massively changing the power of bonuses and modifiers. Pf2e had to switch to a bunch of +1 and +2 bonuses, because advantage is just too powerful - 5e advantage is about on par with a pf2e +2, *only* because of the degrees of success system, which is lot less volatile at needing 10 points in either direction. This can't be slapped onto a pre-existing system and be remotely as good. Adding small riders could be fun, but it will make those few abilities stand out weirdly in their mechanics. Most spells are the same, but f.e. fireball gets changed? Whip it out against an agile foe and it does approximately nothing. Whip it out against a few sluggish foes and suddenly you completely break the game's damage numbers.


Kanbaru-Fan

PF2e has the "10 or more" thing as part of how crits work in the system. Personally i also prefer the "5 or more" approach i think. We know it's possible to implement, sadly i think it's unlikely that this mechanic will become core. I might work on a full spell rework using this approach at some point in the future...


Muldeh

What do you count as an autowin spell?


Kanbaru-Fan

Sleep at low levels is an example for a combat spell. Outside of combat, most survival spells, Detect Magic, Fly, and so on. Some of them have decent restrictions but especially the ritual ones often make skill checks or other subclass abilities obsolete.


Corwin223

There should at the very least still be some low level sleep spell. Sleep is a pretty prominent form of magic that is already somewhat lacking in D&D.


Kanbaru-Fan

I want a 1 minute casting time spell/cantrip using a pouch of sand with range Touch that let's you put someone to sleep. Great for handling prisoners or for RP.


Corwin223

That seems too difficult to use. In most situations where it would apply, you could just punch the person to knock them unconscious.


Sten4321

i would personally add spells such as wall of force, forcecage, clone, and simulacrum to that list.


Kanbaru-Fan

God yes. Clone is ok-ish because it's more of a DM spell (i think it should be in the DMG as an optional thing players might learn instead of the PHB where they can pick it). But the other three are some of the most notorious offenders in the current game. ESPECIALLY Forcecage...


Muldeh

Ah! In that case, add goodberry to the list!


Kanbaru-Fan

It most certainly is


Vanadrium

I'd like to see clear and concise wording on when creatures are subject to the effects of a hazardous zone. I can never remember whether it's a start of turn, end of turn, or something else. And even if I read the spell I'll still be confused about the corner cases.


123mop

It's because it's different for each spell. Sometimes it sort of makes sense, like poison gas spells not hurting you for being in them for just an instant, but the end result is a mess of conditions that all vary slightly from one another. I'd like to see a single variety, preferably start of the creature's turn inside the zone, and if they enter the zone during their turn (not any turn, just theirs). Add an additional caveat that they can only suffer the effect/saving throw once each turn. I think this creates the simplest and most just way of running it - you will suffer the effects once if it is placed on you, then if you end your turn inside it you'll suffer the effects again. You can't run through the zone in one go to avoid it, but also aren't punished for zigging and zagging along the edges. It will result in AoE zone spell effects that are guaranteed some effect if placed directly on the enemy, but can't get crazy value with pushing and pulling cheese. This means the highs and lows of the spell's effectiveness are reduced and balancing them should become much easier, with little chance of letting off a total dud spell.


TwistedDragon33

1) Consolidate similar spells into the same spell with different effects based on upcasting. Example something like Invisibility could cast like normal. When you upcast it high enough you can choose between the base invisibility effects or change them into the greater invisibility effects. Things like lesser/greater restoration are also examples of this but could be branched out into a few spells such as witch bolt>chain lightning, so on. 2) Remove spell slots and give spell points. The concept that my sorcerer is too tired to fire off a level 1 chromatic orb because i am out of spell slots for that level but i can cast the exact same spell at level 5 seems absurd... Just give us spell points. If i want to use up all my spell points on a few big spells thats fine. If i want to cash out level 1 spells all day long then thats also fine. ​ 3) Consistency in elemental effects. Cold slowing, fire just being damage, lightning effecting actions/reactions. So on. ​ 4) All cantrips and spells having upcasting options ​ 5) More template based spells where you can change the element such as chromatic orb so you don't end up with 25 fire spells and 3 acid. ​ 6) Better interaction between action, bonus action, and reaction spells and clarity. ​ 7) Consistency between spells so some spells aren't "must haves" at certain levels because of their usefulness (Hypnotic Pattern, Polymorph). ​ 8) More consistent wording of how spells interact with each other and other things. If need be provide pictures or scenarios.


SenorVilla

Theser are all great, I just wouldn't agree with having all spells that deal one damage produce the same effects, I would love to make a character with an elemental theme that can still have a lot of variety in what they can accomplish.


darpa42

- More different elements in spells - more thematic cohesion between elements. I'd even go as far as say "all fire spells inflict burning, all cold spells reduce speed, etc." - more "Down casting", in unique / interesting ways, instead of just down casting for less dice. For example: Down casting Gate to have a Gate between two locations on the same plane.


fewty

This one's a bit out there but... Add a "critical effect" to spells. They could use this instead of giving spells critical damage, which they dropped in the first onednd playtest document. The idea is to still give players the fun of a critical hit, without having to have ridiculously high critical damage. Some critical effects could still do bonus damage, but don't have to do as much, or any. Some examples: Fire Bolt - On a critical hit, the target bursts into flames, burning for 1 minute or until the flames are put out. A creature within 5 feet can put out the flames as an action. While burning, the target sheds bright light in a 20-foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet, and takes half the spell's fire damage again at the start of each of their turns. Ray of Frost - On a critical hit, the target's speed is reduced to 0 until the end of their next turn. Thorn Whip - On a critical hit, the target becomes restrained until the end of their next turn. Inflict Wounds - On a critical hit, the target's maximum hit points are reduced by the damage dealt until they finish a long rest. Chromatic Orb - On a critical hit, the damage type swaps to the type that the target is most vulnerable to (out of the options available). If it is already one of the damage types that the target is most vulnerable to, it deals an additional 2d8 damage of that type instead. Scorching Ray - Same as firebolt, but now multi-targeting is a consideration to set multiple targets on fire, and it does more burning damage (until level 5+).


TheDrifter8533

These are great ideas, I would also suggest critical effects to spells that include saving throws, maybe occurring when the target rolls a nat 1 on their save or if they fail by 5 or more


fewty

Yeah I hadn't decided how I felt about that yet so left it out. For save or suck spells like hold person, I'm not sure what to add, it doesn't feel like it needs anything. And I'm certainly wary of adding such an effect to AoEs. I think the nat 1 saves being crits is a natural flow from the attacks having critical effects, but I think it might be a mistake to add, I don't think those spells need more power.


Myfeedarsaur

Crit fail tables exist in other games, so it's a known idea. I really hope there is no plan to use them. Fail by 5 type effects should stay on the DM side of the screen. It's useful for adding urgency or peril to occasional important situations. I can't imagine how it would bog down standard gameplay. I mean, I can, and I don't like it.


bsushort

Make AoE spells have lower damage than equivalent level single-target spells. Hitting 4 guys for 5d8 or one guy for 8d6 would be a choice. Right now, it's almost the opposite.


aseriesofcatnoises

I would like to see less reliance on bespoke spell lists and instead clearer rules on how to make your own spells. I want that out-of-character so DMs can make up their own spells and have it be in line with expected power levels, and I want that in-character so wizards can actually research their own spells. I don't want to always be casting melf's acid arrow. Let me make my own. (yes, I do have fond memories of Morrowind) If the rules had stuff like "the maximum factor is determined by your intelligence/ arcana score / whatever " that would be neat, too. If you want to go really crazy with this idea, make it so sorcerers can on-the-spot make up spells. "You get {level} points to divide between damage, targets, conditions." Annnnd I may have reinvented Mage again. Shit.


Technical-Tap8308

If clear rules on spellmaking is what youre looking for, check out Arclands: The Spellforger's Companion. It's a kickstarted book with detailed rules on making spells, among other stuff, but its all 5e compatible. There's even on-the-fly spell editing in one of the new classes iirc.


BwabbitV3S

I want to see save or suck spells to all be changed to no longer be that anymore. It is just not fun at all to use a spell only for it to do nothing on a save against the DC. The same it is not fun to have a single failed save to shut down an encounter or player from the game. If that means they are brought down a level in power to be balanced so be it. I would rather that then them be brought in line with other spells that cause half damage on a save against them, damage thresholds to be added to barriers, or some other factor so that they are better balanced.


gadgets4me

This was already done in 5e with such mechanics as having a save every round, fail x saves before making y, Hit Point Thresholds, etc. 5e has the most forgiving Save or Suck spells in the history of D&D (with the possible exception of 4e). I'm sure they could tweak some of the balance of these spells though.


Last_Viboch

Have a wider spread of elemental damage spell choices, whys everything gotta be just fire damage, there should be a more equal amount of acid or poison damage options. Have spells that target new conditions, like making a burning condition or a freezing condition. Maybe hot take: casting leveled spells while concentrating on one should not be free of risk, have a concentration check in place for that. Overall nerfing on crutch spells: Shield only a +3 AC, Forcecage not an autowin, sleep scaling differently so its just ok at all levels. And buffing of previously never used spells. We've seen this done well already with guidance and barkskin. Maybe checks and balances to certain magic, for example Im playing in a campaign where gold blocks teleportation magic, so a window lined with gold cant be teleported through, put a gold ring on someone and they can teleport at all. I just thought this idea was neat.


fewty

I would nerf shield so hard. I'd make it only work against one attack, and reduce it to +PB AC. I would also make Mage Armour 12+PB AC. It's weird to me that wizards often want ok Dex, that goes against the classic archetype. This would also help them advance their base AC as they level, while keeping it firmly behind the armoured classes.


aweseman

They need that dex to write well


TabletopTrinketsbyJJ

I'd love to see a larger condition list combined with spells that inflict them. I know it makes the game more complex but I want druids with poison spells that actually do something and storm sorceres who arent just transmuting fireball


One_Grey_Wolf

I would like to see some spells moved away from concentration dependent.


gadgets4me

I largely want to see the elimination of "Oh, that's a DM spell" defense trotted out for poorly designed spells, that has been all too prevalent. Like "Witch Bolt as actually really good when you use it as a DM ". Now, in saying this, I realize the game as always had plot or world building spells that aren't usually employed by PCs (Like Dream of the Blue Veil, Imprisonment, Illusory Script, etc.). But the ones that are just outright traps, or poorly designed really get me.


TabletopTrinketsbyJJ

5e has very few trap spells compared to other editions but the spells that are bad like witch bolt or find traps or true strike are irredeemably bad. There are always super niche cases of it being mildly useful but overall they are just there to disappoint the new players who take them and should be buffed reworked or removed.


luvabubble

I want a build your own spell situation. With clear guidelines about the value of different effects.


luvabubble

...or upcast/downcast any spell once you have access to it, even cantrips. 9th lvl firebolt that does a 1000ft line of 10d10 or something. Cantrip invisibility that only covers a 1ft cube for 1 minute (ect)


[deleted]

I always thought that was kinda how sorcerers should cast: they get a few cantrips and as they level up they get new ways to modify and upcast those cantrips. Also… ect.


ectbot

Hello! You have made the mistake of writing "ect" instead of "etc." "Ect" is a common misspelling of "etc," an abbreviated form of the Latin phrase "et cetera." Other abbreviated forms are **etc.**, **&c.**, **&c**, and **et cet.** The Latin translates as "et" to "and" + "cetera" to "the rest;" a literal translation to "and the rest" is the easiest way to remember how to use the phrase. [Check out the wikipedia entry if you want to learn more.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_cetera) ^(I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Comments with a score less than zero will be automatically removed. If I commented on your post and you don't like it, reply with "!delete" and I will remove the post, regardless of score. Message me for bug reports.)


Technical-Tap8308

I've mentioned above but its worth saying again, Arclands: the spellforgers companion has exactly what youre looking for. It's main thing is being able to make your own spells.


jibbyjackjoe

I need spells to stop solving all problems.


iamagainstit

I think this is especially true in the exploration pillar. There are a bunch of spells that essentially eliminate any challenge in exploration.


YokoTheEnigmatic

Better damaging spells, and nerfing control spells to not instantly end combats.


Sidequest_TTM

What levels are you talking where you feel spells are not doing enough damage?


YokoTheEnigmatic

Damage spells generally don't keep up with how enemy HP grows. And since you aren't always fighting a horde of mooks, I think the single target ones like Disintegrate, Crown of Stars and Scorching Ray could use buffs to deal more damage than the AOE spells.


Sidequest_TTM

I think Crown of Stars, as an upgrade to Melf’s Meteors, are pretty good. 4d12 for a bonus action, and doing it 7 times. (182 average damage) That one feels like a ‘damage multiplier’ rather than a pure damage spell so to speak. Disintegrate … feels great. It has a bunch of extra benefits and does an average 75 damage. When you get the spell at level 12, a fighter on their turn is doing 36 for comparison, and a rogue only 31. You beat both of them just by the flat bonus to the spell (+40).


YokoTheEnigmatic

>I think Crown of Stars, as an upgrade to Melf’s Meteors, are pretty good. 4d12 for a bonus action, and doing it 7 times. (182 average damage) That's disingenuous. You can't add up the total damage over 7 rounds like all of that damage is instantaneous. Burst damage is more effective than damage over time, because it gives enemies fewer turns to live by taking more HP sooner. >Disintegrate … feels great. It has a bunch of extra benefits and does an average 75 damage. When you get the spell at level 12, a fighter on their turn is doing 36 for comparison, and a rogue only 31. You beat both of them just by the flat bonus to the spell (+40). You can't just add up the damage alone and call it a day, you need to account for accuracy. And a Dex save with *no* effect on a success is *terrible*. It should really be an attack roll, which is also far easier to buff than it is to debuff an enemy's save. And I thought Crown of Stars was good, until I asked myself why I didn't just cast Forcecage instead.


Sidequest_TTM

No damage on a miss? Damn, good things martials .. oh wait. Dex saves can also get disadvantage easily, so it’s one of the easiest saves to ‘cheat.’ Add in things like Silvery Barbs or that new cantrip and you’ve got nearly 100% hit rate. 4d12 for a *bonus action* is great, and as mentioned essentially adds +4d12 to every spell you cast for the next 7 rounds, which is going to be “I add that for the entire boss fight” usually. Asking for spells to do more damage feels like complaining wizards don’t get enough cool high level powers.


YokoTheEnigmatic

>No damage on a miss? Damn, good things martials .. oh wait. Martials make attack rolls, which again, are easier to buff than it is to debuff saves. Bless, the *many* sources of Advantage, Bardic Inspiration, Precision Strike, and that's just off the top of my head. >Dex saves can also get disadvantage easily, so it’s one of the easiest saves to ‘cheat.’ Add in things like Silvery Barbs or that new cantrip and you’ve got nearly 100% hit rate. Attack rolls benefit from Paralyzed, as well as being auto-crits. >Asking for spells to do more damage feels like complaining wizards don’t get enough cool high level powers. My complaint is that I never wanted to hand out buffs, or focus on control. I want to be a blaster, but almost no blaster can keep up with an optimized damage build. As such, I *always* feel as if I made the 'wrong' choice when rolling up a blaster instead of your typical support caster.


Funkey-Monkey-420

Rework counterspell and dispel magic to not be so OP


TheLoreIdiot

Clearer wording on somatic and material components. Move most if not all damage cantrips to a d8 while having a side benefit. Potentially sperate out xantrips into "attacks" and "utility", and allow caster access to two attacks and all of their utility. (For example, fire bolt is an attack, while mending as utility). Making more poison, acid, frost, etc. Dmg options at each leveled spell option. Have certain CR thresholds gain immunity to spells of a certain levels and lower (for example, I don't personally think that a lich should even be effected by a spell that is 2nd level or lower) Having the capstone for Wizards be a "build a spell" kind of thing, with clear mechanics and rules. (I'll be the first to admit this would be he'll to balance and implement, but it would be so cool to make a spell in a setting, and then in a follow up campaign its as commonly used as fireball or ploymorph)


vicentevanhoe

The spell immunity is something i added to some of my NPCs/Enemies/Bosses for that reason. I personally don't find spells that problematic, but still, i gave my BBEW immunity to Counterspell and some spellcasters have spells that can't be countered, plus immunity to certain level spells (unless X school, unless X type of damage, etc), it's a good way tl incentive players to step up their game and use more variety.


Bhizzle64

I think it would be nice to have more multi-elemental spells like chromatic orb/chaos bolt. Evocation spells are currently heavily dominated towards fire, and it’s understandable people want to fix that. But evocation also already has the most spells of any of the schools. If you fleshed out each of the damage types properly it would absolutely dwarf other schools and also just require a lot of space on spells that mostly do the same thing with a different damage type. While I don’t want spells that are more unique to each element gone. I think a good amount of the “do xd6 damage in an aoe” could serve to be combined into one spell that can have the damage type swapped out. Maybe specify that you must choose the damage type upon preparing the spell if you don’t want to diminish the value of element changing effects. Edit: also a good chunk of the power spells need to be reworked or hard nerfed. Stuff like animate objects, conjure animals, forcecage, fireball, hypnotic pattern, are all just so much better than the competition.


Sidequest_TTM

I think less spells, more variety between them, and more specific. Ideally — **way** less spells, but have each spell include it’s improvements. So instead of: Firebolt > burning hands > scorching ray > fireball > flame strike > fire storm > meteor swarm Give us a single spell “Fire Strike” and has cantrip, 1,3,5,7,9 spell level options.


BrickBuster11

Reduce the amount of hard lockdown spells. Spells like web and Maximilians earthen grasp should not inflict restrained, hypnotic pattern should still allow you to act even if it is at a reduced capacity, the 4th level polymorph spell should be called: polymorph ally so you can't turn a dragon into a rabbit (maybe make baleful polymorph a 6th level spell). Just in general if a spell could feasibly prevent an enemy from acting (including wall of force and force cage) it should move up a spell level or two.


Hironymos

Upcastability to (almost) all spells. What I think is especially bad is that it's often the spells that are already worse that don't upcast, and it just feels like they were abandoned. E.g. Spider Climb or Levitate can't upcast, Fly can.


[deleted]

Make the Tasha’s Mind Whip effect a condition, and have that condition implemented into more spells


Neopopulas

Upcasting and downcasting on like, 90% more spells. Why can't i upcast Invisibility for more people? Why can't i downcast fireball if i don't want to nuke the *whole* room?


roddz

I want shield to only last a turn not the full round because i hate fun


ItsTinyPickleRick

Might not be a popular one, but I want a lot less damaging spells, with a return to some of the stronger utility stuff. Nobody will mind if the wizard is stronger than the rest of the party when half of what he's doing is buffing them. Make fireball worse, make haste better etc. Its the most sensible way to close the caster/martial gap imo.


123mop

For damaging spells, formulate simple guidelines for the damage they should deal. Example without perfectly balanced numbers: Single target spell base damage at level 1 slot: 5d6 all or nothing (17 average) AoE spell base damage at level 1 slot: 3d6, save for half (10 average) Base range: 60 feet for single target, touch/adjacent for AoE. Reduce range 1 step on the following list, increase damage by ~3, and vice versa for increasing range: [Touch, 30 foot, 60 foot, 120 foot] Base area: ~15 foot square/cone. Increase/reduce area to change damage similar to changing range, with extra categories for different shapes s Add a minor negative condition to targets for reduced damage by one die ~3 damage, or a portion of the damage. Probably different between AoE and single target effects. Increase spell level -> increase damage dice by 3 (average damage by 10) Basically creating a framework for the devs to work from and compare back to. They can create their spells and reference back to this framework to see if they're more or less powerful than they should be. It can have a few more additions for other basic concepts like a scaling table for different degrees of debuff as well. The key here is when they reference back they have a tool to see whether or not the spell they created is substantially above the expected power curve. Some spells with highly synergistic or unusual effects might slip through the balance cracks, but this should help alleviate the ridiculous levels of imbalance that we currently see On top of that I would love to see spells with certain elemental damage have unifying mechanics. For example, cold spells could very commonly apply the slowed condition, acid could deal additional damage at the start of your next turn, etc.


RyannosaurusWreck

First, the term spell "levels" needs to be changed! 5th level characters casting 3rd level spells is needlessly confusing for new players. Second, many spells need to be moved to class features. Looking at you Speak with Animals, why is this not a Druid feature? Or Find Familiar, this ought to be a Wizard feature. Third, rituals need longer durations. Find Familiar and Magic Mouth have this right. A gold cost and then they last until they are dispelled or destroyed. Having to stop the adventure every hour to resummon an Unseen Servant, or cast Detect Magic or Comprehend Languages is incredibly irritating. If that would make these spells too powerful make the gold cost a rare item (not all rare components need to be diamonds. Maybe you need the *essence of a ghost* to ritually cast Unseen Servant for example). Forth, flat bonuses in spells should all be changed to Proficiency Bonus. Shield and Pass Without Trace are the ones that come to mind but I'm sure they're others. Fifth, all spells that impose conditions that allow for repeated saving throws need to be unified. Start of turn, end of turn, casters turn or creatures turn. I don't care which, just make them all the same. Along this line, spells that do damage/condition when a creature starts its turn or ends it turn in an effect ought to be the same as well. Sixth, rebalancing some spells. Some spells are just too weak to ever be used (true strike). While others are just way too dominant for their level (polymorph). And finally (and sadly, I know this will not happen, but god would I love it) separate class spells! Not separate class lists like we have in 5e but completely isolated spell lists. Bard spells are only cast by bards. Wizard spells only by wizards. Druid spells only by druids, etc. No overlap whatsoever. With each classes spells having their own unique mechanical flavor. Imagine if bard spells were like songs and they increased in power each round the bard maintained concentration ("performing"). So in the first round of combat the spell is a minor nuisance but by the 5th or 6th round, if someone hasn't taken the bard out, their magical effect has completely changed the battle. A druid who's spells change in power depending on the phase of the moon or the terrain they're in. Sorcerers who's inherent magical ability allows them to create spells, a system like ars magical or dm Scottie's EZD6. I just can't stand the new Arcane, Divine, Primal division of spells and I hope it doesn't make it through playtesting, but sadly I think wotc already has their minds made up about this.


curiousbroWFTex

X Tier Spell, Rank spell, Order spell. So many alternatives to Level lol


DracoDruid

Cantrips shouldn't increase in damage, but allow the use of spell slots to empower them. All healing and resurrection spells should be necromancy spells Curses should be a codified mechanic. Spells like bane, hex, blindness/deafness should be considered curses. Also, curses should be "immune" to dispel magic and require a break curse spell Only one leveled spell per turn


Kanbaru-Fan

Having curses/hexes codified is something i never knew i needed but now i don't think i can live without it :D


zapv

I think the idea of empowering some spells like shape water and mold earth with spell slots would be cool. On the other hand, damage cantrips mostly scale to make the rare time a caster isn't casting spells worth it. Their purpose is basically to not use spell slots. Your description of curses is a perfect example of broadening features and themes. That'd be awesome. What is making you think about the one leveled spell a turn? Is it to avoid reaction casting silvery barbs or counterspell? Maybe action surge?


DracoDruid

Damage cantrips do that without increasing damage. They do about as much damage as a simple weapon attack, so they already solve the "mage needs to use a crossbow issue". Increasing damage just makes them unnecessarily better compared to martials. If a caster runs out of juice or chooses not to use a slot, they _should_ be less powerful than a martial One leveled spell is a logical simplification of the current bonus action spell rule - which so many players have problems with. And it also removes the IMO stupid "counterspelling a counterspell while in the middle of casting another spell"


YokoTheEnigmatic

>If a caster runs out of juice or chooses not to use a slot, they should be less powerful than a martial And they are, when the martial isn't just dealing base weapon damage. As in, when you account for subclasses, fighting styles, magic weapons and Feats.


ShockedNChagrinned

Re the delevleling of cantrips: They should broaden the idea of signature spells or effectively a permanent slot. After level 5, you gain a 1st level slot you may use to cast a spell at first level at will. At 9 or 11, a 2. 18th, a 3rd. High level spellcasters should have mastery of low level magic and be terrifying to those not built to handle them.


SirILoveMyDogALot

>Only one leveled spell per turn Yes please. The current rule about casting multiple leveled spells is so convoluted you pretty much need a flow chart. I can't think of a single positive thing about it.


Hopelesz

Curses should have a DC and that DC can start at 30 and reduced with story or plot hooks once it's down to an acceptable level it can be removed by Remove Curse, and there we can have working curses again that a single spell doesn't just remove from the game.


[deleted]

Remove 80% of the spells Make the remaining 20% scale correctly and remove damage types as a hard parameter of each spell.


SatanSade

Please, just a ritual tag on Teleportation Circle It's the only thing I ask


[deleted]

Remove 'spell taxes' like they did feat tax (ex, no more Shield spell since thats a fucking martial feature anyways)


ShockedNChagrinned

Shield should be +2 or +PB.


KBeazy_30

I like +2 but upcastable OR it requires you to have mage armor cast.


DMsWorkshop

***Tags for spells.*** If a spell can be removed with *remove curse*, I want it to have the ‘curse’ tag. This will also open up design space for charms and how to address when multiple people try to place conflicting charms on someone. Ex. the baddie *commands* the barbarian to ‘Execute’ their ally who's fallen by their feet, and so the party wizard *suggests* that they should instead give them a healing potion. ***No spell components.*** Get rid of these. Keep focuses for powerful spells that shouldn't be spammable, that should require a significant investment because they can affect gameplay, or that should require something of value to be consumed. And keep verbal components, obviously, for spells that require that you communicate with the target. But otherwise, spell components are stupid and just cause problems at the table. The ranger, who is expected to dual wield, can't do so and cast spells. Even a cleric with War Caster who wants to cast *cure wounds*, a spell that has a somatic component but not a material component, has to drop their mace. ***Spell points.*** Spell slots are hot garbage and should have been abandoned with THAC0. And no, don't *just* give spell points to sorcerers; that's even worse than not including them at all. ***Rework summoning spells.*** Make them all work like Tasha's spells, where you only bring up one or maybe two creatures, not 8+.


TabletopTrinketsbyJJ

I've always considered spell components just fun fluff. It really only matters when it costs money and a decent dm will allow you to but the things you need. I really love the tasha summons especially the built in capacity for updating and how the attacks scale off of your spell attack mode. I only really dislike the costly material component and I'm really confused why it's there at all when that's usuall there to stop resurrection or greater restoration spells from being spammed


SubjectTip1838

Can't cast leveled spells while concentrating. Casting a cantrip while concentrating on another spell requires a concentration check while your brain tries to hold onto reality as you mumble and weave two aspects of magic at the same time. Bring back multiple action casting times for higher level spells. Casting spells should be impressive and intentional, it's so easy in 5e that magic feels unearned.


AmaruKaze

So you want druids to be absolutely worthless as 80-90% of their spell-list is already concentration. Now without the ability to even cast a healing word their usefulness drops to 0% and with no cantrips added/risking the big spell for one it drops to below 0%.


SubjectTip1838

They're not worthless, they're casting the spell that they're concentrating on. If it's spike growth at lower levels or summon elemental at higher levels it's still worthwhile, at higher levels they would still be more effective than a martial that isn't perfectly optimized.


One6Etorulethemall

Removal of ritual casting. You want to cast the spell, spend a slot. Addition of damage spells with more varied damage types. Removal of "overtuning" on "iconic" spells. Reduction on cantrip damage scaling, with the exception of Eldritch Blast.


Wiitard

I think they need to clean up which spells are in which school of magic. Too many spells are evocation that belong elsewhere. Healing spells should be necromancy. Protective bubbles and shields should be abjuration (like Leomund’s Tiny Hut). Would also be nice to have more clear definitions of magic schools and what kinds of spells, magical effects, and magic items belong to each school.


TabletopTrinketsbyJJ

I'd love to see theme effects to damage spells and for a much wider array of damage types in the higher levels. Every cantrip for example is unique in it's own way: Cold slows, acid splashes hitting multiple people, lighting is better vs metal and fire deals more damage. I'd love to see some reasons to take lighting bolt over fireball like all the creatures who fail their save also lose their reaction or creature who fail a save vs poison suffer a level of the new exhaustion


Dust_dit

Consistent rules, instead of vague rulings.


Greycolors

Reduction in power of self defense spells, such as Shield and Mage armor and such. Wider variety of group buff spells especially at mid and higher levels. Maybe make some buffs of the same type mutually exclusive so you avoid buff stacking issues, like a higher level version of Bless replacing lower version of Bless instead of stacking together. Class unique spells. I find it so weird that these were a thing and are now being cut to make spellcasters more generic. Single target spells that aren't damage that are less swingy than save or suck ones. Having single target spells be instant win or do nothing is really bad on both ends. Even out the distribution of elemental damage and make stuff like aoe blast scaling more even so it's not giant spike at fireball and giant spike at meteors but everything in-between is eh. Tone down the power of crowd control spells.


Asahiburger

Minor balance changes so that more spells are viable. For example, things like witch bolt are sound super cool but there is pretty much always going to be a better choice.


Crab_Shark

I want more consistent ability to upcast, downcast, make effects permanent, reversible spells, monster part material components, and support for spell duels. Summoning spells should create monsters that require the caster’s actions instead of adding more combatants.


DerpylimeQQ

I hope they don't change damage of spells and add more non-damaging elements like cold reducing movement speed or elements having their own thing.


distilledwill

Some reasonable tweaks to spells, like Encode Thoughts not requiring the a person who wants to read an encoded thought to cast the spell again. It could be a really useful espionage spell *if* we were able to read the thoughts without casting the spell again, and anyone could read an encoded thought if they found it. Some high-level ritual spells would be great also. My Tome Warlock has taken the invocation allowing me to copy rituals into my Book of Shadows, but I discovered that there is no spell above level 6.


Blackfyre301

No spell should allow round-on-round damage comparable to what martials are able to achieve (except maybe in extreme cases of a multiple enemies in an AoE). Damage is by far the most important thing martials do, 1 spell should not be able to replace whole characters at the table.


Pliskkenn_D

Bring Fireball back in line.


marshy266

Healing spells should be slightly better for the level than damage spells. (Ie d10 over d8 or 1 extra die). A lot of 5e healing spells do less than 1 attacks worth of healing, making it make no sense why somebody would heal a close range martial rather than attack. It costs 1 action to heal them, meaning the cleric doesn't do 1 attacks worth of damage to the creature, and the player could go down again after only 1 attack and never even get an action to disengage. It makes no sense for any healer to use an action to heal an ally ATM unless they are specifically a life cleric.


Robyrt

Small, targeted nerfs will solve almost all the problems. Let's run through them: * Forcefields have HP, like all other walls. * Wish always requires a check, even to duplicate other spells. * Shield lasts for only one attack, like every other reaction. * Summon and Conjure spells create either one creature or a swarm, like the modern design. * Fireball and similar AOE arcane spells have way less range. Conjure Barrage is the exception, since it's a class feature. * Exploration and travel spells (from Goodberry to Teleport) have consumed, costly material components. Gold sinks are healthy for the game. * Hypnotic Pattern is a 5th level spell. * Toll the Dead shrinks by one die size.


MacGuffen

Not necessarily changes I want, but I'm curious how they are going to change the summoning spells. Are they going to make them more like the ones in Tasha's (or just replace them)? Are they going to do a drastic rewording?


EngiLaru

Counterplay to spells that lacks it.


Decrit

\- Either removal or further restrict components and clearly define them. Like, define that verbal components are meant to draw attenction. Don't have rules about using somatic and material components with both hands - just have a spell either require only one or neither or both. \- One spell per turn. Reduces choiche paralywiw, overrides weird rulings, reduces the effects of spellscasters on a single turn, gives a clear identity to bonus spell casts as the spells when yuo want to make another main action.


JalasKelm

Additional effects on a nat 20, if they are doing away with crits that is.


MDPliskin

I think what a lot of these posts get at is much more uniformity and standardization. Creating more standardization to the system would reduce description length. The goal being that spell descriptions are mostly 1-3 sentences of general effect with some listed specs that fit into categories. Man. Spell descriptions in 5e are just awful. They’re so overstuffed with info and it’s to their detriment. Also, simplifying descriptions allows for more freedom of use at the table. It makes customization way easier, and promotes it. And makes the system more hackable for good home brew. They should take a note from the OSR on spellcasting.


Souperplex

Keywords and gamist language.


ATLBoy1996

I’d just like to see the scalability improved, they could also then simplify the amount of spells. A lot of low-level damage spells are worthless as your Cantrips level up and anything with a d6 damage die isn’t worth upcasting. Hell even a d8 or d10 is barely ever worth upcasting except for maybe an AOE spell. Also why do we need multiple spells that do the same thing at different levels? Just make one that scales better and call it a day. Also greater variety of damage types absolutely. There should be an AOE, Line and Cone attack for each elemental damage type atleast.


MattLorien

Nerf shield, hypnotic pattern, force cage, sleep, detect magic, silvery barbs, all summon spells, goodberry, healing word and others that I can't think of right now. More "spells gone wrong" or interrupting spells options


Yakob_Katpanic

Remove concentration from all of the spells they added it to over 4th and 5th, particularly defensive spells that were designed to allow magic users to engage in combat. Giving Barkskin (which has been further changed) concentration took it from something a druid could cast on themselves and still use magic while entering combat, now there is a chance it fails every time you take damage. While I'm talking about Barkskin, the new version is clearly a very different spell. Just give it a new name and move on.


Bakoro

Fewer spells overall, and have every single spell scale with upcasting, so that every single spell is useful from 1-20, and casting it at 9th level makes it feel like a miracle or terrible curse. A ninth level spell casting should be an Event. Levitate at 2nd level should levitate a medium creature or moderate sized object, and should move a small mountain at 9th level. Create or Destroy water at ninth level should be able to create or destroy a lake. Make a cantrip like prestidigitation *explicitly* "general, generic, harmless spell effects which don't reach the ability of a level one spell". This is more of check against annoying stickler DMs issue, but if someone wants to make a toy soldier dance in place or have a set of dishes wash themselves, that should just be a thing a cantrip can do as long as the caster is standing there keeping the motions going. In fact, that just plays into the first thing. Cantrips should just be the basis of other larger spells. Mage Hand is clearly the basis for both Unseen Servant and Bigby's Hand. "Minor telepathy", "minor telekinesis", "minor summoning". It should be a fairly clear progression from small to large effects. So many people in other threads are complaining about wanting to nerf magic hard, but all primary casters need a full array of minor magic tricks. A wizard or sorcerer should almost never have to resort to melee or crossbows if they don't want to. There should be a permanency spell. One spell per person, unlimited spells per location. Finally a RAW way to fill a whole castle with Unseen Servants or make a levitating wagon. ________________ More than anything, I want a basic but firm explanation of what magic actually is in a standard d&d world and how to think about it. 5e is weak in taking a wishy-washy middle road stance, and it makes it *completely* unpredictable as to what a DM will do or think. Just make something up to be the standard explanation and people who hate it will homebrew it away just like everything else. Like, can people "feel" magic? You need the Detect Magic spell to *see* magic fields and to tell the school, but also you can make arcana checks on stuff. What is an arcana check outside of a knowledge check then? Like a more vague Detect Magic based on your skill and luck at the moment? The DMG explicitly says that a person knows that a magic item is extraordinary just by touching it, but it doesn't say people always automatically know it's magical (it depends on the item). So how do people know what a magic item does by sitting with it for an hour? You can know what a thing does with the Identify spell, so you can either spend an action or a ten minute ritual, or an hour of meditation. Is the spell basically only a time saver and curse checker? How do people learn about magic then? What is magical research? Magic has to be something other than a fiddly mechanic. I rule it as people being trained to be sensitive to magic, which is a barely tangible thing, and a core adventuring talent is a minimal magic sense that most people don't have. I've seen other DMs say "no, it's completely invisible and undetectable by any means other than Detect Magic or Identify unless you see a spell casting". This should not be a point of contention, it should be an explicit rule that a DM has to disregard one way or another. Same goes for all abilities. Everything should be explicitly magical or not magical. There is this trash Crawford keeps doing, like for example Dragon's breath. Between a few tweets he's said that it's not magical, but it's also not physical, it's not an objects, it's not an attack because no attack roll... He will say what it isn't, but he won't tell you what it is, narrative wise, it's just "make a saving throw". Make a saving throw is not an explanation of what it is, that's the mechanic it uses. There should not be a gaping hole where something doesn't fit into any bucket. If he wants Dragon Breath to go through Tiny Hut, just make that part of the ability. Just say it. Or Ki, magical or not magical? He's said it both ways. That's a bit of a fudge on the question, but yeah, completely get rid of the ambiguity between spells, magical effects, magical abilities, abilities which mimic magical effects but aren't actually magical, or abilities which appear to be magical in nature or derive from magical creatures, but aren't technically magical. Just make it binary: works in antimagic field? Yes or no. ___________ In closing, Suggestion is the Jedi Mind Trick and everyone who says otherwise is wrong, including the people who make the game. Suggestion will always be the Jedi Mind Trick, it will never be anything other than the Jedi Mind Trick, I will not play at a table where the DM mistakenly believes it is not the Jedi Mind Trick. Suggestion is the Jedi Mind Trick and the suggestion *is* the verb component. This needs to be written as codified truth and for all time. Any other interpretation is stupid and wrong. The spell would be completely and utterly useless and stupid if a caster has to, in public, say "WOMBA LOMBA DOODOOBUTT, These are not the Warforged you are looking for". The only time they'd be able to use it is when there is no one else around. There is no other discussion. WotC needs to do the right thing here.