Why I Don't Ban Spells (With One Exception...) | Worldbreaking

[@SupergeekMike]

Do you ban any spells in your games? Thank you so much to the Luminous Lore Kickstarter for sponsoring this video! Check out the Kickstarter now: www.kickstarter.com/projects/luminousages/luminous-lore-5e-guide?ref=2yypd6

[@thunderflare59]

I mostly work around the spells. I want to know what my players are running so encounters fit their power level.

[@Lurklen]

I'd been thinking about banning silvery barbs, but instead I just go with a stricter interpretation of the requirement for casting it "1 reaction, which you take when a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself succeeds on an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw." I essentially say that you have to actually see them succeed on the saving throw or ability check or attack, as I don't actually *have* to tell a player when that occurs. Dm's usually do, but their character shouldn't know these things if they are not _visible_ to the character, even if the creature is. (How do you _know_ the creature succeeded vs your charm person spell? Or that the creature succeeded on its perception/deception/arcana check? Etc.) It sounds harsh, but personally I find the language of the spell's requirement really annoying, because it requires a character to be close enough to see a creature succeed on mechanics that ostensibly don't exist for them, but not actually see that mechanic, and the dm to tell the player of something their character wouldn't in a way that's a little weird in action at the table. This change means the spell is good for obvious physical things, like undoing a crit, or someone beating some kind of visible physical save like dex or strength, but less useful for less obvious things like wisdom or charisma that the character shouldn't be aware of. I didn't outright ban it, because I don't mind a spell being able to undo something through distraction, but it also felt like for a 1st level spell it was working outside its power to just undo saves and checks with no limitation. (I mind less for attacks, because a lot of enemies get a ton of those, and missing one is a good save for a PC, but doesn't hurt the creature overmuch. A failed save however, especially of certain types, can totally undo an encounter.) But otherwise, I don't ban anything. (I do mod other stuff, like good berry, I make it cause a save or non-casters of it (or druids and rangers) so that it requires a save, or you fall into delirium and get hooked on it. So it's useful in an emergency, but there's a risk it might make some people less useful.)

[@HorizonOfHope]

CORRECTION: Conjure spells do NOT say the DM pick, it says they have the stats. Some spells, like find familiar, tell you to find the stats in the PHB. Conjure spells are just telling you who has the stats, not who chooses them. In fact, it says “choose one of the following...”

[@Lurklen]

@@HorizonOfHope It says "choose one of the following options for what appears." and in conjure animals for example it lists the following: *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 Those are what you get to choose. There's no mention of choosing specific creatures. The DM has the statistics for creatures that meet those requirements. So you don't choose which creature, cause you don't have the stats. You tell the DM "I want one beast of Cr 2 (or lower)" then they have the stats for that and give you a beast of Cr 2. Otherwise it would tell you to consult the MM for those creatures. Find familiar lists the animals for you to choose from, they could have done the same, or created a list for you to consult if they wanted you to choose, but instead you choose from those options. It's pretty clear. (Whether that's a good way to do it or not is debatable.)

[@PjotrV1971]

@@HorizonOfHope Yes, but that strictly only says the player chooses the CR/number of creatures. The spell descriptions do not give any definite word on who decides the exact creature summoned.

[@fakjbf3129]

In a game where “Disguise Self” exists it’s crazy how many players would innately trust a victim who says they were murdered by the butler when they cast “Speak With Dead”.

[@yogsothoth7594]

Also there are a lot of more mundane ways that a corpse would be unable to correctly answer the question. 1) "I was poisoned, I don't know who slipped it into my wine but" [insert some less direct information which narrows down the suspects to a manageable number but doesn't instantly reveal the killer] 2) As you kneel to touch the corpse you see a hole in the neck roll a medicine or investigation check, [on a success] you see that there's a lack of blood around the wound suggesting a post mortem mutilation and the cut is placed around the voice box, looking inside the mouth and you'd also see the tongue has been removed. (spell literally says the creature needs to have a map but i think a reasonable DM ruling is that they also need to have the other equipment for speaking to) this doesn't instantly spoil that element of the mystery, does still let players use mechanical skills, and gives them important information that the killer is probably someone with the education in medical and magical matters to understand both that a spell like speak with dead exists and enough medical knowledge to precisely disable the ability of the corpse to speak. 3) "I didn't recognise my killer but...." give a description of some elements of appearance and description, the players have to at least do the work of matching it to the pictures and/or descriptions i gave. Although maybe not this one as the time I did this once and repeated the a certain detail on the boots with a living witness, both victims they used speak with dead on and use the same line specifically when they met that character both before the murder and later on after the speak with dead and players never caught on and actually ended up helping the killer.

[@burgernthemomrailer]

True. Just wait 2 more levels to learn Divination.

[@FuzzyKayna]

Also that's assuming it WANTS to tell you. Maybe they were a rival or enemy or they died as part of some scheme. The caster gets five questions but the corpse could lie or refuse to answer. It's not compelled to be truthful or cooperative.

[@Kardfogu]

Yup, being able to deal with powerful spells is a DM skill that nobody mentions. There are many solutions, but to one powerful player tool, the DM can always with an equally powerful, but opposing player tool. Which requires the DM to expect what tools their players will use, but the more you play the better you get at it and even if you fail to counter a tool, it's good. It's actually fine if your players managed to take a shortcut, outsmart you or just cheeze something you prepped. They will explode with happiness when they manage to find just the right way to solve that problem way too early, it will be an accomplishment they will remember fondly.

[@aurtosebaelheim5942]

@@Kardfogu I agree, but I think it's at least partially the DMG's responsibility to highlight world-altering spells so that new DM's aren't constantly blindsided by them. Just simple stuff like "if you need to hide a magic item, putting it in a lead-lined container will block most low-level magical detection", "the following means can be used to detect an invisible creature if you suspect one is present: ..." or "if you want to make something truly secret and mysterious, the following steps will protect it from all but the highest-level divinations". Make sure to include the disclaimer that overusing these tools can be frustrating to players and to remind players that even if a spell is 'countered' it still provides some utility (ie: an enemy has to waste an action to throw flour to negate a player's invisibility). PF1e's Gamemastery Guide has the "Villain's escape kit" section, which highlights a bunch of spells that can be used to evacuate a plot-important character, which I think is a generally helpful resource to include.

[@SnowHermit89]

I think people also forget spells like Guidance have Verbal and Somatic components. A lot of times my players would want to cast Guidance in situations where randomly casting a spell during an encounter or intense situation might prove problematic/difficult. IE: Trying to lie to or convince a guard/king of something. Ultimately, I don't mind the spell and don't actively ban anything in my games, but reminding players that casting spells aren't automatically stealthy might be a good way to go.

[@parttimed.m.1111]

I agree, the components of a spell overall get "glossed over" by players. Annoying, but happens

[@jamerandmunc3619]

I use this approach too

[@Lycaon1765]

This bothers me so much, especially when I'm another player and someone else does this and the DM just lets it slide right in front of if the NPC 😂 😭 mUh iMmErSiOn gone

[@TheLogicMouse]

Much like Elan, "Sneak, sneak sneak past the stupid goblins!"

[@chrisblake4198]

True enough, but it's also not a matter of a caster making a sonorous intonation loud enough to cut through conversation either. In particular Guidance is most often a Cleric spell, and hearing someone murmur 'Oh God Help them' may be a little weird but not unheard of, even in the real world. Ever hang out with overtly religious folk? Things like 'I'm praying for you' or 'Jesus watch over you' are pretty commonplace, same with making the sign of the cross or touching a rosary. It's just in the DnD world, those things convey literal holy power. Yeah, it might make someone more suspicious but unless they're completely paranoid it's not going to seem that odd. Even in a world where everyone knows about magic, that just means it's impossible to tell between when it's a spell and when it's just someone saying it.

[@NicolaeHolley]

You can have curses that require Remove Curse with a higher level spell slot, rather than just "cannot be removed by remove curse", so it can afflict your characters for a few levels or until they go find a powerful allied high priest.

[@Team_Orchid]

Pathfinder 1st Ed does something similar to this. Some curses just need Remove Curse, others need Break Enchantment or Heal (1st Ed Heal is a big deal) and the big stuff might even need Wish or Miracle.

[@floofzykitty5072]

Fun fact: The curse of Euryale from The Deck of Many Things specifies that it can only be removed by the power of a god or the Wish spell, meaning that Remove Curse does not work on it.

[@harrisjones2190]

yeah I tend to treat remove curse as written for most cursed items (ie it allows the cursed creature to unattune from or relinquish the item), but for other curses I treat it like counterspell/dispel magic. That is, have the caster roll a check with their spellcasting ability modifier against a DC based on the curse's power, or auto-succeed if it was cast at a high enough level

[@garwynrosser8907]

Do something similar to what bg2 did. Casting a high level healing spell causes the tired or fatigue condition if it's not cast as a ritual spell.

[@xolotltolox7626]

They should really just call it "remove lesser curse"

[@flandomaltrizian4603]

34:10 You put up the spell card for True Resurrection, not Transport via Plants. That said, you can technically use True Resurrection to fast travel if you kill a party member, go somewhere, and then True Resurrect them to the new location. I should find a way to use that at some point

[@RottenRogerDM]

Sounds like an 80s movie involving a spell caster and dragon.

[@seeker38]

True Res costs 25000gp of diamonds. That's a pricey teleport.

[@RottenRogerDM]

@@seeker38 Lucy in the sky with diamonds. You can travel in style or not at all.

[@egorignatiev2090]

True resurrect also could work as a time machine. Just imagine a legend about it used that way: An elf and a human fell in love, but their relationship were not meant to let them die together holding each other. The human decided to give their whole world (and die multiple times in the process, depending on how long elves live in particular setting) to have a chance to grow old together. Many years the elf has to live with that knowledge, resurrecting their loved one once every 200 years for a brief moment, and then killing them. All of that just for the elf once they grow old enough resurrect their loved one for the last time (about 50 years before they expect to die, I imagine). Or maybe the elf resurrects their loved one once every 100-200 years for 10-20 years, to be able to spend time with them.

[@andyenglish4303]

@@RottenRogerDM plus the new body forms butt naked with no equipment or weapons.

[@KilroyJTF2]

I think the biggest problem with guidance is that it only lasts for one minute. It makes players see it as a reactionary spell that can only be used for one roll especially in exploration. If it had a longer duration even like 10 minutes I think it would help player cast it before hand like when they enter a new room in a dungeon and they start to search it.

[@bye1551]

Weird that the fix is actually to buff it lol

[@xolotltolox7626]

But...guidance can explicitly be only used for one roll

[@Koranthus]

@@bye1551 its an increase but it doesn't really make the spell more powerful it just means you don't have to follow your Rogue around the room he is perceiving/investigating/picking locks and casting Guidance every 60 seconds

[@RS3isRealscape]

I think they way they handles Speak with Dead in the latest DND movie was hillarious as others ask questions to the caster and the corpse answers them directly wasting a question

[@VelociraptorsOfSkyrim]

Honestly, I've always seen Speak with Dead handled in similar ways. 😂

[@Holycrapitschad]

I love seeing the spell run like that because so often players dont plan out what they’re going to ask and what should be 5 pretty simple questions turns into a round table discussion about what they should ask and takes 30 minutes while a corpse is just floating in suspended animation waiting for them to make up their minds

[@RS3isRealscape]

@@Holycrapitschad see also spell duration which runs out as they argue about what to ask the corpse the spell specifically says it works once per corpse opportunity lost

[@Holycrapitschad]

@@RS3isRealscape this is also an option but I’d prefer to not give a hard time limit to my players just because of the logistics of the game in action. Sometimes they decide to cast the spell without really thinking about the questions beforehand and I’d much rather nitpick them about what constitutes a question so they have to self correct and act in character than say “oops time’s up guys better luck never”. If they’re taking way too long sure but that would be a last resort for me

[@heaiiyasha]

My rule with Guidance is Guidance is an action. So if you're discussing an action you are going to do and want to help, you can precast Guidance on someone. But if you say you're doing something, you can't cast Guidance as a reaction to panic help them get better.

[@Jarliks2012]

I run it that It also means that you can't take the help action- which gives them advantage and is arguably better for their roll. So its a way to have 3 party members work together on something- and if 3 people are all working together their odds should be pretty good I think, so it makes sense to me.

[@jtrimble18]

I play with a bunch of forgetful folks, so letting them have it as a reaction let's them feel more helpful.

[@bluegolisano7768]

...so you're running it rules as written?

[@raymondharnack4160]

I just made it a reaction when a ally is making a skill check,

[@burgernthemomrailer]

Punishing your players for the minute difference of “I would like to make a skill check” vs. “I make a skill check”. Lovely.

[@gorzillaau7761]

I like a middle ground for remove curse is that you have to understand the nature of the curse for it to work so the party has to put in some work to discovering the story behind the curse. Powerful curses could then also require specific components to remove as you mentioned. Maybe it straight up works on weaker curses though so you can still shoot your monk occasionally.

[@gorzillaau7761]

I will often talk to the cursed player to see if they are having fun with the curse before I decide how difficult it is to remove as well. I don't want to destroy their fun just because I thought I came up with an interesting story.

[@acehasgreed]

I don't outright ban them, but if I ever play with a Shepherd druid I ask them to either take the single summon spells or limit them to the 1 or 2 options for summoning instead of all 8. I had a Shepherd druid who would take even longer every time she wanted to cast Conjure Animals but would always end up just going 8 wolves and every time I asked her to please keep track of their initiative to take the load off of myself, but every time she always pushed the burden of tracking their turns onto me.

[@fandangosan]

i hate running games for druids, seems like everyone who wants to play a druid can't seem to keep track of their stat blocks and initiative lol

[@millerjames908]

I require the player to give me a copy every creature they want to summon. And the creature goes after the player

[@stm7810]

if she doesn't track the turns skip them. I don't respect that behaviour and will treat it as the character zoning out as much as the player is.

[@suburbanindie]

Baldur's Gate treats all 8 wolves as having the same initiative

[@nobleradical2158]

Give ‘em all the same initiative

[@simonboyle4459]

For inspiration on speak with dead, try Pushing Daisies, they ask a man who killed him, he said his wife, he tasted something off in the coffee she made him, he went back to being dead, they then learned he was a polygamist.

[@harpoonlobotomy]

Pushing Daisies has a bunch of examples of how speaking with the dead can complicate matters instead of simplifying them, hah. Good shot.

[@foolbrightw6589]

For me and my group, we do talk about certain spells that can cause an issue, so we dont get everyone just casting summon spells with silverybarbs support. But the most important thing is if there are problems with spells, change them to make them fit your group. Playiny in a campaign that is heavy on survival? Make goodberry consume its material component. A horror campaign through the realms of ravenloft? Make identity not reveal the curses on the item and loot you find so the surprise is still there. The most important thing is that this should be communicated and agreed with everyone involved for improving the health of your game.

[@Lycaon1765]

Identify already doesn't reveal curses. Sorry for the nitpick just wanted to point that out 😂

[@dion8895]

I have long said that Goodberry is completely fixed if it consumes its material component.

[@zedbee2736]

The fix we've made to Silvery Barbs in the groups that I play with is to make it reduce a roll by 1d4 and allow another character to add 1d4 to their next roll. That brings it more in line with things like Bless or Bane, it's a good "oh this needs *just* a bit less to miss let's try it", and even when it doesn't succeed you still get that crispy +1d4 to your next roll. It definitely brings it down to a 1st Level spell.

[@SuperSpartan3000]

Problem with that is because you are rolling a D20, you can actually roll higher, so you are taking a chance that the NPC might critical an attack.

[@Zev0]

​@SuperSpartan3000 what? They just made it so its not dis/adv and instead +/- 1d4

[@Lurklen]

I just made it so yo have to actually *see* the success, not just the creature. So if the success on the check or save isn't somehow instantly visible to your character, it doesn't trigger the spell's reaction. So, it will work on strength and dex saves, possibly con saves, but is unlikely to work on int/cha/wis saves/checks. I like your 1d4 thing though, I think it's cleaner, plus it should stack with other +d4 spells. So I might try that too.

[@SomethingWellesian]

I really like this.

[@Zixor_]

I like this but I’d probably also limit SB to only being triggered by successful attack rolls or ability checks to make it less universally useful. Even with these restrictions, it’s still a level 1 spell that, in the right situations, can turn an enemy’s hit into a miss and an allies miss into a hit so it’s pretty nice.

[@MagileineTopDeckToFullField]

Ah yes, my favorite transportation spell, True Resurrection. Our table has a small check to Counterspell, where you don't have the Meet it to Beat it feature, the cast always requires the DC roll, upcasting doesn't provide any benefit.

[@Wolfpaxrunning]

​@@TheGreatDanishI hate DMs with this mindset, you already have ask the tools at your disposal, and the ability to bend or break rules at will, but instead choose to be petty about a powerful, but not broken, spell. It's a very simple spell to deal with as a dm, without trying to scare your players from using their kits.

[@Nebukanezzer]

That method of counterspell would make for a very different kind of setting. Wizards would be much more weary of each other, and Lore Bards would be preferred in courts, able to debuff magic attack rolls, buff saving throws, or have better counterspells with peerless talent and glibness. It's like Frieren, where humans spent 80 years dissecting and innovating on Zoltraak, but you are playing in a setting before Wizards figured out True Counterspell. It has potential to be interesting! As long as you don't just treat everything the same.

[@aj.hardwick]

So i tend to run Remove Curse in a very similar way to how i see a lot of people run revival spells; it requires input from the players and is not just a "spell slot spent, consquences of my actions gone." Usually this is in the form of "welp i got lycanthropy, ill probably need something involved with werewolves to remove said curse as a compnent of my spell." I will likely be adding the "Remove Curse tells you how to remove it" thing to this formula, as its actually had soemtimes to give the players information on what kinds of things would help remove curses that are less simple than lycnsthropy or vampirism.

[@Dremen]

You could use Remove Curse sort of like Revivify for Curses. It can remove a curse if it's cast within a certain time frame, sort of like a setting in period. If the players don't know they have lycanthropy, and don't find out until the first full moon after they contract it, it will be far too late for remove curse to work. But the next time they fight a werewolf, they'll know to treat that bite fast.

[@TheAwsomeKing77]

9:06 a few aspects about comprehend language that dms should consider before outright banning number one the spell does not decode codes or secret messages meaning you can set an entire adventure around finding a cipher number 2 you must touch a page for a minute to read it meaning dms can keep things from being translated by adding some time sensitivity or preventing the text from being touched

[@RottenRogerDM]

Or evil DM. COntACT Poison on the page. Or Glyph of warding goes BOOM first. Or other evil stuff.

[@GhostiwiththeMosti]

I’d say guidance has to be stated before the player rolls after a roll has been asked for. Allows a chance for them to give guidance and helps prevent pre rolling

[@notDionysis]

I dont ban any spells, because i find it sort of lazy on my end as a GM however, there are some limitations i enforce, typically on things i claim to be game breaking, like the technical infinite simulacrum loop.

[@BroKenYaKnow]

Infinite simulacrum only works if you don’t read the spell. It no “technically works”

[@humblehonchkrow1609]

@@BroKenYaKnow Pretty sure they are referring to the situation of "my simulacrum casts simulacrum on me, rinse repeat for the new simulacrum." In that case, each of your simulacrums only has 1 simulacrum spell active, so they don't fade unless you interpret your simulacrums casting a spell as an extension of "you" that is casting it, but that opens up a lot of other questions for the spell. Pretty simple to fix though.

[@BroKenYaKnow]

@@humblehonchkrow1609 There's no situation in which you have a simulacrum that has the spell slot to cast simulacrum at 8th lvl. They only get the spell slots you have at casting simulacrum, which uses your 8th lvl spell. Meaning your simulacrum has no 8th lvl spells. And if they used a 9th lvl, the most you can have is 2 simulacrum that way. They can't recover spell slots. They turn into a normal dude after using them all. This is reddit misinformation again, reddit likes to not read spells and make nonsense up.

[@humblehonchkrow1609]

@@BroKenYaKnow For simplicity sake, lets assume a 15th level character with a level 8 and 7 slot as I think that is the earliest point when I think it is doable: Say I use a 7th level slot to cast simulacrum (call it simulacrum 1). My simulacrum and me now both still have an 8th level slot but no 7th level. Simulacrum 1 uses that 8th level slot to cast simulacrum on me creating simulacrum 2. Simulacrum 2 copies MY slots as I am the target of the spell not simulacrum 1's slots (who expended both their 7th and 8th). Since I still have an 8th, then simulacrum 2 also still has their 8th as they are a copy of me and there is nothing stopping simulacrum 2 from repeating the process. To be clear, its not like I want this to work. I just fail to see why it doesn't work the way it is written.

[@BroKenYaKnow]

@@humblehonchkrow1609 I was mistake on the fact that this is a 7th lvl spell and not a 8th lvl spell and the fact that it is a touch range, not a self range. This is indeed a wack spell that clearly wasn't thought out. If it were 8th lvl, this cheese at least won't be possible until lvl 20. You're god at that point anyway. Though I feel it is notable that the material components cost 1,500gp of ruby dust, a resource the dm directly has control of the scarcity of.

[@Keovar]

I made Guidance and Resistance reactions, so they fit with the way players want to use them. I made True Strike a bonus action, so it has a reason to exist. All three spells add a d4 to a d20 roll of the appropriate type. Changing True Strike to +1d4 instead of granting advantage was necessary to prevent it from becoming a must-have for every rogue, and requiring a multiclass.

[@FuzzyKayna]

I like this solution for Guidance and Resistance. And it means there has to be a triggering action so you can't spam it without cause. But I really like making True Strike a bonus action. It makes it actually worth using and 5e could really use more bonus action spells anyway.

[@AtelierGod]

True strike could’ve been acquired through at least 2 feats, Magic initiate, and Aberrant Dragonmark, so multiclassing wouldn’t necessarily be necessary, however it’s on the wizard spell list so Arcane Tricksters would be able to take it innately so it which is often considered the strongest most versatile of rogues would just become even stronger.

[@Keovar]

@@AtelierGod - Yes, there are other ways to get True Strike, but the point was that if an option is too good, it sets up an illusion-of-choice situation. (And I wouldn't allow Aberrant 'marks in a setting that doesn't have the equivalent of the 12 'marked houses to hunt you. Those 'marks make you a pariah in the way that being a half-orc or tiefling used to, so no one cares that 12 multinational corporations want you dead.)

[@xolotltolox7626]

​@@AtelierGodrogues already have a binus action that gives them advantage

[@AtelierGod]

@@xolotltolox7626 at the cost of their speed, true strike if like the UA would not cost their movement speed and would increase the damage the rogue could do.

[@goldenstripes9285]

Speaking as a player, I have issues with the way some DM's deal with remove curse by making it into a non-spell. Curses are already something that doesn't come up very often, at least in the games I play, so it kind sucks that the one time you get to use the one spell to help, you're effectively told "no, go fuck yourself." Like, I was in a game where my rogue had a sentient cursed magic sword. It was really strong, but it also actively wanted to eat her soul when she would die. But I couldn't get rid of it even if I wanted to because the DM straight up told me "no, remove curse doesn't work." And that's been the case pretty much every time I see curses come up in games. I personally like how Pathfinder does it, in that it's a check against the cruse's dc to get rid of it. The more powerful the curse, the higher the DC to counteract it. It feels more fair so players have a chance against it even if it would be difficult and the DM doesn't get cheated out of their plot hook they came up with. That would be a more balance way to fixing it instead of making it into a useless spell.

[@Woodclaw]

Speaking from the other side of the fence, precisely because curse are rare and often debilitating, I dislike how easy it is to remove them. For context, when I GMed "Curse of Strahd", one of the PCs and a child were bit by a werewolf. I rolled to see how much time they had before the next full moon (roughly two weeks). An allied NPC had a Remove Curse scroll, so there was the problem of what to do... until the paladin remembered that he had Remove Curse. So, a potentially debilitating curse, that could have cause much grief and moral quandaries was solved with just an action after the next long rest. My take is that Remove Curse is a badly designed spell, because it remove challenges at a pretty negligeble cost.

[@PjotrV1971]

I like that, giving it a Counterspell/Dispel like check. But it does put some load ono the GM to set a DC if it's not immediately obvious.

[@Daemonworks]

Sitting on top of he fence, curses and similar things can be great, if you've got an interesting curse and a person who's invested in the roleplay opportunities it can give them, but they can also be a boring or stupid aggravation, or even the sort of thing that entirely wrecks the fun of a character for it's player, if there's a bad match between the curse's effects and what the player does and does not enjoy roleplaying.

[@taragnor]

Remove curse and some of the other status removal spells (like raise dead) tend to be very anti-drama. Typically curses in fiction are removable in some way via an escape clause. You can remove your werewolf curse by killing the werewolf that bit you, or some kind of original werewolf that started the chain. Other curses involve something like the kiss of a princess or true love and so forth. These create interesting situations in play. Not all D&D curses have these, and I think if it's just a generic curse with no escape clause, remove curse should just get rid of it. The condition itself isn't interesting so its means of removal can be just a spell. But if there is one, the spell should just help but not remove those qualifications. For remove curse I prefer revising it to: "If the curse in question has no escape clause, you remove it. If there is an escape clause, remove curse tells you what it is and points you to the nearest source of something that can remove it (The werewolf that bit you, or the nearest princess, etc)."

[@FuzzyKayna]

I'm in a game where the DM has homebrewed a "blood" magic mechanic that gets used in some situations. Remove curse works fine to rid you of cursed magical items but if the curse is ON YOU like Lycanthropy it takes a blood sacrifice to boost the spell. Just how much depends on how powerful the curse is. My wizard has been using their own blood for this sort of thing and it's always a risk that it might take too much. If you want to take the darker route you can use something/someone else's blood.

[@Zixor_]

24:41 The advice to have Conjure Animals conjure a mix of different animal types would tune down the spell’s power but keep in mind that also means there are even more creature stat blocks in play! Probably better to keep all conjured animals the same type but add a random element to what animals get conjured.

[@EvanFarshadow]

My go-to fix for Counterspell, which i apply to everyone, both player and NPC: i remove and meld it into the Dispel Magic spell, and you can ready Dispel Magic to Counterspell. That way Counterspell wars are a thing of the past and the action economy unfairness (spending only your reaction to deny essentially your opponent's entire turn) is solved

[@Archeantus_]

Depending on my prep, I've actually had cyphered a message/handout for the characters. If they have the comprehend languages, I'd give them a key to break it, and they'd still have to long hand translate it. Or it gives them a word for word translation, but not the metaphorical meanings if it's hidden behind that.

[@sk8rdman]

Simple solution to Counterspell: make it 4th level. It still only counters 3rd and lower level spells, so you need to spend a higher level slot than the opponent to guarantee it works, which seems fine given the action economy advantage it gives. Also, 3rd level is already ripe with very powerful spells, and it's nice to have more good options for your 4th level pick.

[@aoibhinquinn7310]

My current DM bans all resurrection except Revivify, bc she wants the characters to be able to trust in-character that once we've killed someone, they're dead.

[@sjhsoccer]

The problem with curses is exactly the same problem I have with disease. The 2014PHB has some really cool and flavorful diseases in it with incubation periods, symptoms, mechanical effects and cures. The problem is, like most disease, they begin shoeing symptoms long before they start harming you, and every class and their dog gets access to lesser restoration which solves the problem immediately, making that rare flower you have 4 days to find before you go blind irrelevant to the disease.

[@dividendjohnson4327]

Anyone interested in finding ways to make mysteries that work around Speak with Dead in their games should check out the show "Pushing Daisies." That's basically the main character's whole deal; he can touch something dead and bring it to life, and then touch them again to return them to rest. He uses that power to make pies with eternally fresh fruit, but another main character convinces him to use that ability to interview the recently deceased to help solve their own murders.

[@harpoonlobotomy]

Man, I need to watch Pushing Daisies again.

[@kmratliff]

Haven't gotten all the way through the video, you may touch on this later but I wanted to get it written out while I was thinking about it. As a DM, I make a couple of assumptions with my players in session 0. First, when it comes to the world they live in, the characters are smarter than the players. So I would allow things like some over the table talk about situations where an experienced adventurer might know something that the player would not, or that they'd know the basics of tracking, forest craft, singing, conversation with nobles, etc. BUT there are many situations where the players are smarter than the characters, so at the same time I would prevent the character from acting on information the PLAYER knows. Things like "I botched that roll, I need one of the others to take over something I specialize in". This applies to spells like guidance because they often try to use it as a REACTION when something is currently happening, rather than beforehand. The other thing I do is remind characters of the way the spell is written, especially if they try to abuse it. Comprehend languages: you must touch the surface the writing is on, so you can't read the archway above a door if you can't reach it (or have someone give you a boost) and it takes a minute to cast. Silvery Barbs is a great example of this: RAW, the spell belongs to the Silverquill school of Strixhaven, and if you aren't a student there, you have no way to know the spell. If the spell has a verbal component, they can't cast it in the middle of a social scenario without being noticed, questioned, and potentially stopped. All that said, I also bend every one of the above rules if the rule of cool wins out, or if I see the player is demoralized by the action (not the character) and is genuinely not enjoying the game. Because this is a game first and foremost, and if everyone isn't having fun, what is the point. The only rule I enforce 100% of the time is this: COMMUNICATE with me. Tell me what you are wanting out of the game, what you are planning and need some compromise or help on, and how we as a group can make this a fun environment for everyone. Sometimes that means reflavoring a game mechanic, and sometimes that means outright ignoring certain rules. Cause it's our game, in that moment. And the game is made up, and the rules don't matter. :)

[@snakebitcat]

The bit about Counterspell reminded me of a campaign that had been one of the best I was ever in, until the GM decided to make the boss of the campaign and all of the monsters backing him up totally immune to magic. I was playing a character whose offensive abilities were all based on spellcasting, so while the other players were getting moments of being absolute badasses, I was barely making a dent on anything. I spent most of the fight mentally checked out, and doing 2-20 hit points of damage to monsters that had hundreds of hp. It went from being one of the best campaigns to one of the absolute worst in a single session.

[@TidusDowthelas]

A rarer occurrence is Countering a Counterspell with Counterspell as a set reaction from your reaction or another spellcaster in the party's reaction. It's hilarious but shocking to see the party/gamemaster's reactions.

[@UnkillableMrStake]

I remember when silvery barbs came bursting onto the scene I also remember the immediate backlash and hatred that it got. Frankly speaking Mike, I think your way of handling it is the best. Don't outright ban it but give it a cost and make it difficult to acquire

[@Subject_Keter]

I like how the understand langauge spell has the perfect answer baked in "Just make important documents a Cyhper or half of the words" 😂

[@abcrasshadow9341]

What if remove curse worked to give you leads / rules for breaking it, and maybe it helps with one ingredient so the players get 1 agency (they get to choose which ingredient they dont want to get), 2 the spell helps clear the curse (it provides the clear conditions and 1 ingredient of the players choice) and 3 the dm still get to make removing the curse harder and more interesting.

[@ChocolardiacArrest]

While I agree that guidance needs to be said before the roll this causes a major issue in actual play. Let's say the rogue and DM and keyed in and going back and forth on the rogue investigating a chest for traps and lockpicking it. There usually is NOT a break or breath where a priest/druid can casually say "and I cast guidance" because the second the DM says "roll investigation" the rogue is going to immediately roll their dice. This causes the guidance caster to have to yelp out "I CAST GUIDANCE" before the DM finishes saying "roll investigation" because they need to say it before the roll happens but there was no way to say it beforehand without interrupting and speaking over either them DM or rogue. Online you can at least type in the chat and pray the DM and rogue read it before they roll.

[@joseangelriarola3810]

In Mage the Ascension/Awakening players effectively start with Wish as an unlimited spell and it is never a problem. The world just needs to be internally consistent. Like in our world we have smartphones and they are normally either not allowed when sitting in a exam or exams are setup so they require a smartphone.

[@hem9483]

i dont ban anything, i explicitly make my enemy spellcasters learn from the spells the party defaults towards, and plan their tactics around it. You need to actually be able to SEE two enemies at once for say, silvery barbs to function, which means keeping the enemies seperated out of LOS of the party caster. tactics, i have found, are more fun for the players to try to overcome with all their fancy tricks, rather than taking their tricks away for "fairness"

[@BroKenYaKnow]

See, I love this in theory. But it’s really really hard to make it not feel like punishing the party for playing the game. I have this problem in my game with a cleric with a racial fly speed. Nets and arrows fix this very easy to still put a level of risk in. But when the cleric wants to cast spirit guardians and fly above them…. Everyone’s going to target that. This often just feels like punishing the play for using a good spell

[@blazichaos7181]

@@BroKenYaKnow I mean in your defence, the player is using spirit guardian and going right near the enemies (just above instead of next). It shouldnt be free to just do that, it would be like if the enemies ignored a non-flying version of this situation. And thats simply the cost of such a good spell, small range, easy to retaliate.

[@BroKenYaKnow]

@@blazichaos7181 true, and honestly I never hear my players get upset about the situation or my dming. I just really want them to do cool powerful stuff, but I’m not going to make the enemy stupid to let them. Weird balance trying to let them feel powerful and have fun while also challenging them. I’ve started just giving them an idea of the difficulty of a fight (within the game) with NPCs and whatnot. If it’s a surprise, ambush, or underprepared fight- then it’s not going to be as bad as the bandit fight they got to fully devise a plan for and initiate on their terms. The worse fight they had was when I used nets to ground the cleric so the ground people could hit them. Definitely didn’t seem to have fun with that one, but it did have a story reason behind it

[@hem9483]

@BroKenYaKnow i: don't allow racial flying speed because fly is usually only accessible at 5th level for 10 minutes at a time, with concentration. free flight at level 1 with no concentration is overpowered and you cannot balance around unless you want the player with flight to always be the most important party member at all times

[@hem9483]

@@BroKenYaKnow It's also just realistic that enemies would focus fire on the flying glowing party member capable of burning them to a crisp if they get close enough

[@Dalenthas]

I love that your suggestions about Remove Curse were basically the same thing I suggested in your Discord while we were waiting for the video to go up 😅.

[@normative]

I think it’s perfectly valid to decide a certain kind of magic doesn’t fit the flavor of the world you’re trying to create, but it has always seemed bizarre to me to hear DMs claiming any spell is *mechanically* “broken”. You control the entire world! If a spell is making certain challenges trivial for the party, you have plenary discretion to devise different challenges that require a novel approach.

[@maxrbmc]

1) I feel like the discussion around Silvery Barbs ignores the fact that it does in fact take your reaction. No more Shield, no more Opportunity Attacks for you 2) I think a DM that wants to ban resurrection or Remove Curse wants to play a different game than I want to

[@christurner5791]

I don't mind Guidance at all. My biggest pet peeve is people forget it's vocal and somatic. So people cast it for persuasion checks in front of NPC's and get surprised when the NPC notices the spell... But for locks and stuff yeah. It's by no means a quiet or stealthy spell so I think it's fair honestly.

[@Kestrel990]

In a game I was in we needed to find out a mystery murderer, cast speak with dead, dead person gives incredibly vague answers, I cast detect thoughts and immediately find the killer anyway

[@priestessaranel]

Our GM gives a wish if someone rolls 3 natural 20's in a row (including NPCs/villians)... it's come up several times and it's always hilarious. He puts some restrictions on it so it doesn't break the game, and just the knowledge that NPCs/villians get the same benefit makes said restrictions feel eminently fair.

[@dhavaram8064]

For spells that raise the dead, I like requiring the the spell caster and the character being raised to make a constitution saving throw with a DC of 10 + the level of the spell to raise them. If the character being rezzed fails, they lose a point of Constitution (semi-permanently: they can do a quest to restore the point somehow if they are ever successfully rezzed) and the spell fails. If the character being rezzed fails, the caster rolls at disadvantage. In either case, if the caster fails their roll, they lose a point of Constitution (again, semi-permanently) but the spell still may succeed in bringing the target back from the dead, depending on the target's roll. Reincarnation does not require any of these rolls. It just works, and I use an extended list of possible species/races/subraces that they may come back as.

[@dhavaram8064]

BTW, I require the spell caster to roll to keep from losing Constitution because it makes it a risk for them. That way NPC clerics arent going to just raise every peasant or unknown adventurer that is brought to them. They only risk it for important people or people they find important.

[@EnchanterAntlee]

Guidance for me is pretty simple, you have to cast it before the roll is made. You can apply it to any roll, but only if you call it out before the player rolls. BG3 is the one that helped me realize it, as that’s how it works within the game.

[@thothrax5621]

I tend to distill my thoughts on Guidance to one simple phrase: "Guidance is not a Reaction spell". Falling off a cliff? No you can't use Guidance because the Athletics check to catch yourself is a Reaction, you literally don't have time. Checking to see if you know something? No you can't use Guidance, because checks like that are just things I have you roll outside of the normal turn structure. Beyond stuff like that I don't worry about it that much.

[@jarredsteward9067]

I've had a lot of fun working around remove curse. There's a lot of ways to circumvent it while still giving your players the easy out for curses sometimes. One of the ways around remove curse is having the curse say that the player must attempt to conceal the curse. It gives a fun roleplay opportunity to the player and means the party won't just hit them with remove curse before the curse can do anything. You can also do the voodoo doll method. Instead of an item the player is carrying being cursed, have an object somewhere that has like a lock of the PC's hair or something in it that's projecting the curse onto them. Fun one with that is that you can have remove curse act as a temporary remedy that only alleviates the symptoms for a time while the players search for the object. You can also use one and done curses. An item that when you attune to it, it vaporizes all spell scroll the PC is carrying for example. The final way I've worked around remove curse is just curses that are tougher to remove. Say a curse that you have to make a spellcasting ability check to remove. That can make curses last a long time, especially if you set the dc arbitrarily high like DC 25.

[@zug-zug]

I've changed Silvery Barbs to be 2nd level. It still gets used, but not as much. I also don't tell people more information when hit, other than "you are hit". I started this a long time ago due to the Shield spell. When I give damage I'll inform them if it was a crit with the description of the damage but it is too late to use a "when hit" reaction. They could still use a "when taking damage" reaction of course. This way these reactions are not only used when most effective. I also like the narrative, especially with Shield of the attack sometimes blowing through their hasty defense.

[@gameraven13]

There are enough abilities that are used in responses to crits like the Grave Cleric's Sentinel at Death's Door, so I'd at least let them know the crit. I agree on the not telling them the number rolled though (unless it's comically high, I have to keep up the DM meme of "does a 28 hit?" against someone with like 17 or less AC) as it adds to the making an important choice factor. But yeah my typical levels of info are "welp that was a nat 1" "that'll miss" "that'll hit" and "oooh ok nat 20" when enemies are rolling to hit. Granted, I guess if no one has abilities where the crit is actually important, a simple hit/miss is fine, but idk. I personally think it just feels bad to be like "it hit" "ok no reactions" "alright well that was a crit so."

[@zug-zug]

@@gameraven13 Yeah if there is a mechanical reason to tell them I will, but I view reactions are reflexes, they don't have time to carefully analyze cost/benefits. So they get the minimum information. Of course for the example you gave, since I do inform there is a crit when damage is relayed, it would work fine. I've never had a player play a Grave Cleric though, so no experience there. ;) I also combine everything together if there is no reason to keep them separate. Depends on the party. I'm not trying to penalize people, I'm trying to immerse them and help them stop treating everything like a wargame

[@luketfer]

Funnily enough thats explicitly how the Shield spell is suppose to work...which works great inperson behind a DM screen but a lot of online DMs roll in the open to show they're being fair/its just their playstyle. The DM rolls, tells you that your character has been hit, you say you use shield and announce your new AC, DM checks the roll and says whether it still hits or not is how the shield spell is MEANT to be used.

[@Nebukanezzer]

I think Frieren is some good inspiration here. When the humans fought against the Zoltraak spell, they had no defense at all, but in 80 years, the cornerstone of defensive magic was the counter to it. Furthermore, many wizards started using physical objects as barriers instead. There is an evolution to it. If you want to change the way magic feels, you can play before certain fundamental innovations were made - Identify takes an Arcana check now, Counterspell always requires a skill check or you need to upcast it more than usual. Obviously describe this beforehand.

[@AtelierGod]

One way I could see counter spell being limited in its uses would be to make it so that yes you do interrupt the casting of a spell but the afflicted retains its action so it can cast another leveled spell since it didn’t cast a spell with its first spell due to counter spell but due to the lose in time you must cast a spell of a lower level than the spell slot you tried to use.

[@schwarzerritter5724]

Comparing Comprehend Languages to translation apps is a great metaphor. Because the translation will be flawed. The translation app will translate things wrong or at least miss details someone who actually speaks the language will pick up on.

[@DistortedSemance]

For Remove Curse, I really like the idea that much of the more powerful curses would be created specifically to be antagonistic to anyone trying to break it, like a built-in magical trap. So it might be designed to respond to an attempted break by doubling down the effect, spreading the effect to the curse breaker, alerting the original caster that the curse has been broken, any number of nasty triggered effects. The only way to evade this is by carefully studying the curse over downtime and succeeding on a spellcasting check to disable the failsafes...but if you don't have that kind of time, you might have to just cross your fingers and hope for the best.

[@thothrax5621]

My solution for the Resurrection spells is pretty simple, you can only get brought back once. I've toyed with exceptions to that, the one I've settled on is you can only be brought back once by the standard Resurrection spells, and once by Reincarnation. This applies to using Wish to recreate any of the Resurrection spells, however if you use the version of Wish that can risk you losing the ability to cast Wish ever again, that one can work on you as many times as you want, because the price for that is risking losing the spell, and let's be honest, Wish should usually just work. And yes I've really thought through the logistics of this. "Oh why would you ever use the higher level, more expensive spells if your revivify takes the one do-over anyways?" Simple, the advantage of the higher level spells is that since you don't have to use them immediately, you don't need to keep them always prepared like Revivify, thus you can have another combat or utility spell to hopefully prevent death in the first place. And as you use the even higher spells you can over come more difficult situations, like disintegration, it's all already built in. As for flavor/in game reasoning for this? Well you know that diamond all the standard Res spells use? Yeah well the somatic component for casting those spells is cutting out the heart and replacing it with the diamond a-la the Briarhearts from Skyrim. And no amount of healing will ever fully repair the wound. Boom, you can't be Res'd again because you only had the one heart, and it's a permanent reminder of what happened. Even if you later use your one use of Reincarnation, your body still has the wound and the diamond for the heart. For easy mode version of these rules, each level of Res spell can be used once each. So you get one Revivify, one Raise Dead, one Resurrection, etc. The higher level spells can be used in place of the lower level ones, but not the other way around. (i.e. you could theoretically be True Res'd 4 times, and then never be able to be Res'd again with any spell, but you'd only ever get one Revivify)

[@ContagiousRepublic]

I designed a BBEG who could only lose its super legendary resistances to broken spells, abilities, or items that had NOT been used before. The super legendary resistance would rewrite the universe's history for the item, spell, or ability to have never existed (but as such casting costs are not lost, so if you had to sacrifice a lover that is undone). Cue players having their to-do list be "MAKE THE MOST BROKEN ITEMS, SPELLS OR ABILITIES EVER AT ANY COST". Happy times...

[@hypernova5249]

I think giving remove curse a level would be interesting. Like if your curse has a level, you need to up-cast remove curse to the equivalent level in order to break it.

[@morphinpink]

guidance is such a non issue lol. people are so dramatic.

[@janstefanisin320]

It's not issue, but it Is stupid imo. It's like permanent 1d4 i forget about everytime, but I hate it even in BG3 where the game remember it for me. I feel bad for having that bonus at all times. It doesnt feel good imo. Like I feel like I am getting away with something.

[@xolotltolox7626]

Guidances is hilariously broken, as soon as anyone on the party had it, you can assume every skill check is made with +1d4 It is way too strong as a cantrip and has no worthwhile limitations like "a creature can benefit from this only once oer hour" It is an absolutely stupid spell

[@stevefilms1997]

@@janstefanisin320how tf you dealing with bards then.

[@janstefanisin320]

@@stevefilms1997 don't you get only [your charisma modifier] bardic inspiration per long rest? You cannot spam it definitely, I didn't have a bard at table in last two campaigns, but I probably will make it reaction for next bard at my table

[@Blackwoodcwc]

A version of Remove Curse that I've considered is change it to "suppress curse". Make it suppress all effects of a curse for 24 hours. You could even make it a ritual spell. 24 hour suppression is long enough get past temporary issues, while not giving you a complete answer for something like curing lycanthropy. If you make it a ritual then it is even something that doesn't have mechanical issues during the adventure but is always looming over your head because it is there waiting if you ever can't cast the spell for a day. It can even be the trigger to some adventure when the old priest of the town who has been suppressing the orphan's lycanthropy suddenly dies due to a normal accident and the party has to look into a decade old town mystery to find the werewolf and either kill it or take on the job of somehow curing them.

[@ascapedgoat8462]

I think a safer solution for Remove Curse would be to demand material components and set conditions for it to work on certain curses. Curses that demand this involvement would mostly include Vampirism, Lycanthropy, or anything that a Hag could give you. I.E., save those kinds of curses for entities who actually have some status. If you used remove curse on a cursed magic item, would simply give you the chance to unattune and leave it for the next sad sap to pick it up.

[@knnoko2712]

A Counterspell alternative that I know of is casting the exact same spell as reaction into the original one, causing them to cancel each other out. Kinda of requires the enemies to have that exact spell, while revealing part of their arsenal as part of the couterspelling.

[@Natt_Skapa]

I like the in-character investigation created by banning short rest identifying and the identify spell. I have a ring that has four abilities that trigger based on random words so the player is incentivised to talk in character more. I had an axe that could be charged up by killing monsters so my player had two options keep charging it up and suffer the consequences or stop charging it up. Simple choice, but big impact. I have an amulet that was used by an npc so the player knew some of what it could already do before testing it out. You would be surprised how creative players can be when testing magic items.

[@shaunchapman887]

We had two new players join our group, and one of their characters' entire reason for adventuring was to get the cures on her removed. My character was a druid, and the other original player was a claric...

[@BordrKing]

With remove curse i like to add that the spell is the prefix for the cure, not the "active ingredient". Players are free to have remove curse but there is also a ritual aspect. For example, to cure lycanthropy you need wolfsbane and silver in order to force the target to transform, then you fight them down until they are weak and THEN you cast it. It won't work unless they are incensed by wolfsbane, primed by silver, and in a weakened state on the brink of death

[@_-___________]

I like to imagine that there is a cleric of good feels out there somewhere that is always casting guidance every 6 seconds. Everyone hates him, but they are all lucky.

[@seansimons1257]

idea for spell fixes: comprehend languages: perhaps comprehend languages isn't perfect (especially for ancient or alien languages) for example it might translate words literally, and the players would still have to find the context behind the word choice. like imagine how someone who doesn't know English phrases would take "this injury has been a thorn in my side" maybe they'd take it literally and assume the injury is literally from a thorn in your side speak with dead: honestly there are tons of ways to hide info from speak with dead 1. the dead person hate's the party and refuses to tell the truth 2. the answers are cryptic or obfuscating 3. the answers are misleading or inconclusive 4. the dead person has a secret and will lie to protect it 5. the dead person simply doesn't know the answer to your question 6. the dead person was mistaken in life and shares false information 7. the dead person only spoke a little-known language (in which case you'd also need a way to speak that language) 8. the corpse had its mouth damaged to the point where it can't speak 9. the speak with dead spell was already cast on it in the last 10 days remove curse: alter it maybe in one of the following ways: 1. it only suppresses the curse, not removes it 2. it has to be upcast to match the severity of the curse 3. it's actually just the final step of removing a curse, for example to cure lycanthropy you need a creature to ingest a wolfbane which temporarily suppresses the curse, and if you target them with remove curse while lycanthropy is suppressed, they are cured

[@MrGeldhart]

Best way to deal with Silvery Barbs is to have the occasional NPC cast it when it would be funny as hell.

[@Kian30398]

My big rule with Counterspell is that a player or NPC MUST be able to understand that the person in question is casting. A player I had was within 60 feet during a level 20 one shot and the enemy used power word kill but they couldn't tell what spell was being used due to the distance and so they asked "can I counterspell" and I simply told them no.

[@Stormthirst]

Leomund's Tiny Hut is no longer a Ritual spell in my games. It's not banning the spell, but it does make the players think about keeping a 3rd level spell slot free for the nights.

[@gagglegames]

Just enjoying seeing The Game Master's Book Ofs in the background, those books are amazing.

[@lukesorensen2912]

Treantmonk has a great couple videos highlighting spells he loves as a DM but hates as a player and vice versa. Great advice and good observations.

[@ramuk1933]

7:08 My campaign has a lot of languages that my players wouldn't have any way to speak, so Comprehend Languages is very useful to them, in addition to magic items(?) that give them extra languages.

[@futurehistoryarchaeologist4480]

I think putting a time limit on speak with dead is a good compromise if you absolutely want to edit the spell to maintain mystery plots. The show Pushing Daisies is an excellent example to look at for this. The detective only has one minute to ask questions and while the victim not knowing who killed them does happen, they frequently are stuck with incomplete information or answers that raise more questions than they solve. Even something as seemingly simple as "my wife killed me" proves to be insufficient when they find out the victim is a polygamist.

[@kayn9651]

For identification, I like to break it down two ways. For more common magic items, players who are skilled in magic may simply recognize that they do certain things, or they're the kind of items that you put on and you get a sensation that tells you what the weapon does. - It's a sword with a wicked blade and runes etched into it that look like blood flows through them, that spell out "Devourer" in infernal, well it's probably a sword with a life-draining property. Or you put on the ring and feel smarter. Then for more rare and powerful items that are like treasures of times past or powerful relics, legendary items, they may need to trace that item's history. - Is it an elven blade? Then we should bring it to an elder elf who may remember a poem or have a book that details the history of that blade. - Is it an amulet carved of stone with a large diamond set in it? Perhaps try bringing it to a dwarf or something. Or a pair of huge gauntlets, perhaps visit a library to study books about the lore of giants. This would also be there to allow them to find out "this item of legend is told to bear a curse", or it could just be a belt of giant's strength that the players recognize immediately, but implement a rule that requires them to learn HOW the belt is activated or attuned to, so they can't just be like "I equip it, even if my character has no idea what it does". - Maybe to activate its latent powers, one needs to climb a mountain wearing nothing but said belt. - Or a magical elven sword only accepts you as its master if you perform a ceremony of marriage under the light of a full moon, to symbolize the marriage between blade and swordsman. - Or a crown of intellect needing a spell to be cast for its magic to function. - Or a prestigious looking robe which's magic only activates when it is draped upon your body by another person, as it was meant to be the vestment of a prestigious archmage. - Or a magical ring that only works when worn on a Mage Hand, that makes that spell more powerful. That way finding a magic item is also a quest, and you can hand them out at earlier levels for players to be excited about them, and look forward to unlocking this item's powers. - Hand someone a Vorpal Blade at level 1, it was in the tomb of some warrior in a crypt they explored at level 3, but until they unlock the blade's power at a later point in the campaign, it simply functions as a +1 longsword that deals critical damage with advantage or with a bonus 1d4 of damage.

[@Veelofar]

Something I enjoy doing with Comprehend Languages is having it work just like you said, like a translation app. And the programmers of it (an ancient morally dubious empire that are responsible for many of the artifacts in the world) wouldn’t have every single language in it. Most are in there, but there are three groups of exceptions. 1. Ancient languages that were forgotten before that empire came into power 2. A language from beyond the normal bounds of the setting 3. The language of the nobles of that particular empire, since they didn’t want the lower class to listen in on them. The spell is still useful at all times, because even if it doesn’t give them what the language is, it tells them it is either massively ancient or from beyond the stars. It always gives information of some kind.

[@AMRosa10]

Having just gone through the situations where four of the 5th level characters in our party were Cursed by a Rakshasa, and none of the Priests in the city we were in knew how to remove the curse and we were tapped out of healing potions, it took 2 long rests and our Cleric burning through both of his 3rd level spell slots to "cure" all of us, and entering into the next combat encounter without two of us or the Cleric being able to take their next long rest, it would have really been bad if Remove Curse had also been banned.

[@Audey]

For Remove Curse I think the best solution is for Bestow Curse to be expanded into an effect that might be a part of various monster attacks. Make it another condition like poisoned or charmed. THAT is the kind of curse that Remove Curse removes. Big curses though? Like vampirism or lycanthropy or maybe even some cursed weapon effects? Those require a big major ritual with special ingredients and maybe the help of a particularly skilled NPC (whose whereabouts might be unknown)

[@HorizonOfHope]

CORRECTION: Conjure spells do NOT say the DM pick, it says they have the stats. Some spells, like find familiar, tell you to find the stats in the PHB. Conjure spells are just telling you who has the stats, not who chooses them. In fact, it says “choose one of the following...”

[@MyKokohead]

For remove curse, I make it to where it works like dispel magic where it only removes curses of a certain level. Higher level spell slots are needed for stronger curses.

[@raak1010]

Good video. Always interesting to listen to takes about House Rules. On a different note: One thing I've noticed being done A LOT in these videos and I've begun noticing and really pay attention after your PHB covers reviews. You use the crutch "We''ll talk about this later/We'll get there soon/We'll get back to this" constantly. In the PHB review it was a funny bit. But it did lampshade how frequently this literary device is used in general.

[@CrazyTasteyPi]

On the issue of Remove Curse, it's worth mentioning, since apparently 5e hasn't examined this, but it was elaborated on in 3.5. Namely in the supplementary, Book of Vile Darkness (yes it's an actual game Manuel in 3.5) where it made it clear that Remove Curse only works on "weak curses". Namely, anything Bestow Curse is capable of doing, but there are significantly more powerful curses that a simple casting of a spell won't get rid of. Examples were things like a Dying Curse, that involves afflicting someone with a curse powered by the rage that could be in someone's dying breaths. A hex woven by a hag or a full coven that is so intricate and empowered by fell magics that it can't be lifted by a mere wave of the hand, and other such situations where truly "Dire Curses" would require more than a PC to just cast a spell to end it... if it could be ended at all. Keeping this in mind, and how such curses follow how we understand these types of magics to work in folk lore, can go a long way to not actually needing to modify how Remove Curse works, let alone banning the spell out right.

[@Tcrumpen]

With the exception of silvery barbs and og healing spirit a lot of these reasons could be put down to "DM didn't worldbuild enough"

[@KoptaKam]

My Solution to the remove curse spell was to change it from Remove curse to Reveal Curse. The spell now gives you all the information on what the curse is doing to you and it also gives you the method for removing the curse. An example was a sword that forced the user to relentlessly pursue the last enemy that damaged you. The reveal curse spell informed the player that they would need to find the murderer of the weapons original owner to take vengeance, and only then would the curse be lifted

[@zeldablizzard]

A half-formed idea has just occurred to me: Treat Remove Curse like Matt Mercer treats resurrections - with a challenge. You need the spell to attempt the cursebreaking, but you'll also need other components (material or specific actions) based on what the curse's effects are (for lycanthropy, maybe the blood of the werewolf that turned you adds to your bonus, maybe a curse that afflicted a tomb robber can be resisted by surrendering worldly possessions of their own) I'd maybe allow Remove Curse to break attunement to a cursed item, once the rest of the party figures out why the confederate player is so defensive over their new weapon.

[@tofastninj9747]

Silvery barbs is only good when used against crits and single target saving throws. The fact is that there is also other 1st level spells that are just as powerful and can shut down attacks as a reaction(shield and absorb elements), and if silvery barbs is nerfed then it won't be worth the cost of both the reaction and the spell slot.

[@yarion4774]

Shield is usually used by low AC spellcasters. Yes, a spellcaster can get crazy high AC but usually, it puts them around 20. that also means that any attack can pivot. Shield still gives any combatant choice how to interact with this new barrier past the first attack. Absorb Elements only works on elemental damage. No radiant, necrotic, psychic or force damage. Also it only gives a creature resistance to the damage dealt. You still deal damage. Silvery Barbs can be used against ANY d20 roll the enemy succeeds at (within the spells range and vision limitation). It is very luck based, as the enemy can simply roll better but as you said against crits it's especially juicy. Especially at high levels that doesn't matter anymore, really, which is when SB and Shield both lose their power rapidly. The thing with single target saves... You can cast a high level spell like Mind Prison or Disintegrate on an enemy, they succeed and you cast Silvery barbs at first lvl. Now they have to reroll. Isn't that basically the same as casting the high level spell again? As far as I remember, the only other thing in the game that does something similar at similar resource intensity is Portent. And even then you can only use that twice while SB can be cast at lvl 1.

[@Valbu]

As a player my DMs never banned any spell. Sometimes they have changed something to the effects. (Revive are often more complicated than using a spell slot, consume some shiny rocks and nothing more.) As a DM I never ban any spells. After the first change in the UA, I’ve tried Guidance as a reaction fore a one shot and, at my table, the change of the casting time solved some problems (and created some others, lol). And for counterspell my rules are “not in every combat” and “the same amount of caster that can counterspells the party have” (+1 if the encounter is very hard and make sense to have this bunch of spellcasters).

[@luttara644]

I'm like halfway through, but for vampirism and lycanthropy, I sorta went with the notion that while remove curse removes the curse from the player, it hasn't removed the thing in the body that is causing the curse(usually a disease or something). I don't tell the players that the root cause is still in effect, only that they have, at least for that moment, assuaged the curse. So the need for blood subsides and maybe they can eat. Or, something I thought would be neat, they cast it on a werewolf while transformed, and the transformation ends as it's a symptom of the curse, but the next time it would be activated(full moon), they transform because the curse returns. This way there's a functional use to remove curse, but it's not a cure-all. It can also be a way to keep a vampire in check, or disable a werewolf while they try to solve the issue at hand. Functionally, depending on what causes the curse to appear, can make a curse persistent if the root cause isn't excised, much like how cursed magic items curse someone again if they use it, if the item itself is still cursed.

[@blacklisted756]

How i'd deal with Silvery barbs is simple, the spell says "when a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself makes an attack, ability check, or saving throw" meaning that as long as the PC does not have line of sight of the enemy, they simply can't use it, its only really OP because there are a lot of DMs and Players unwilling to use the line of sight mechanics of D&D (outside of the obvious stuff) which is fine, but it often does end up making some of these spells like Silvery Barbs a little more powerful than they were meant to be

[@tauronmitronion377]

I would rule that for Speak with Dead, the creature's mouth must be intact enough to physically produce words. That means no casting it on a skeleton, they gotta have lips and a tongue. So if you have a killer that's worthy of a mystery, they may well know to cut out the tongues of their victims.

[@uberculex]

I think the problem with this is it creates a bit of useless spell syndrome. I think it's better just to tell your players not to take it.

[@spiralvex2686]

The answer I've always used is that widely known, widely abused cheese goes both ways. If the players establish that they're going to spam guidance I have NPCs in the world do the same. You're trying to convince the king of some lie and the party cleric guidances you? The king's bishop also guidances him. Enemy wizards stack packing silvery barbs etc. The minute the players begin to escalate things, and use spells in ways that become well known tales, word spreads and people in the world sliwly but surely follow the example. This works well for my table as my parties always try to stay at the cutting edge of tricks and strategies to shake things up.

[@GeekMasterGames]

For Bestow Curse: For more permanent curses that should have a more effective impact, you suppress the curse temporarily, but not long.

[@simonburling3762]

On Goodberry, I have an optional rule that removes the food part of the spell.

Spells I banned or changed: 1. Comprehend Languages (and any other spell or feature that works with languages) - only works on living languages. It's still useful, but doesn't raise questions like "why is this ancient, dead language of a civilization that disappeared 10 000 years ago not completely understood?" 2. Goodberry and Create Food - again, not only to enable some survival gameplay, but also for worldbuilding. (Goodberry is only partially banned, it still heals but doesn't nourish.) The worldbuilding part is that with airships around, if there wasn't _some_ limit on their range, there wouldn't be any unexplored continents. Columbus' expedition wasn't considered a folly because 15th century people thought the Earth was flat, it was considered a folly because he thought the Earth was much smaller than the - more-or-less correct - consensus of the day, so if he had tried to cross from Portugal to India westward then he and his crew would have starved to death (if America hadn't been in the way). If Earth had clerics who could cast Create Food, this wouldn't have been a concern. 3. Remove Curse - only works on most curses if it is cast within 24 hours. Beyond that, it is only one component, and usually requires a ritual with other components. As for the limitations of Speak with Dead, one only has to play Ace Attorney: Spirit of Justice to see the limitations. In that game, the core of the "justice" system of Kura'in is spirit channeling: the victims final memories are summoned into a scrying pool, and it is then accepted as evidence. However, before the arrival of our hero Phoenix, this sent thousands of innocents to the gallows because they exterminated their lawyers, and nobody was there to cross-examine them. A lot of the time the victim's memories were unreliable, or straight-up misinterpreted. (And of course if you're running a murder mystery and a player has Speak with Dead, just make sure that the victim was poisoned or stabbed in the back.)

[@BigKlingy]

Glad I wasn't the only one to think of SoJ for Speak With Dead's limitations. But Ace Attorney has done that since the first game. A spirit medium was consulted on a case because the police were desperate and had no leads. The victim was wrong about who killed him. This ruined several people's lives, including the medium's and her family.

[@AtelierGod]

Comprehend languages can also be limited by how it translates, perhaps it translates a language to you but because of the sentence structure and word choice it rings like poetry that’s all out of order making it incomprehensible to anyone who doesn’t understand it.

@@AtelierGod Yes, I could have gone the Tamarian way. Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra. But I specifically said that in the lore of this setting those spells and abilities (Eye of the Rune Keeper, for example) piggyback on the collective subconscious of living people and outsource the translation to their brains, so they need at least a dozen or so native speakers of the given language to work. (It also has some additional restrictions brought about by it, e.g. if you're psychically isolated from others such as being in a demiplane or a time loop, the spell will stop working unless there are others in that dimension with you. And it doesn't work across planes either, so if you're on, e.g., the Plane of Air, the spell might fail to translate Dwarvish unless there's a Dwarven diplomatic delegation visiting the Djinns.)

[@Olfan]

I allow casting summoning spells anytime but at a cost. Needing ingredients to cast certain spells isn't new, so my summons cost a special potion prepared in a ritual which only works for the caster who prepared it. Since you can't meditate, chant or dance for hours while in combat, the preparation takes place in camp before sleep. It also costs ingredients like a bottle, a handful of matter from the home plane of the beings to be summoned, a fluid (oil, holy water, brandy, …) and powdered money-sinks like pearls or lesser gems, the more and bigger creatures in the summon, the greater the quantity. This makes for a number of effects: a) the DM doesn't get each and every encounter trampled by raptors while b) summons stay a viable option, but c) the casters now have to manage their sleep. d) High-level characters who already have everything find a use for all their money outside of inns - their livers will be happy. Weighing whether to lose half a night's sleep and be unfocused and grumpy the next day, or preparing only a little goop every night and saving it up becomes a tactical mini-game for the players. A character relying on summons will quickly burn a hole in the party's purse, crave coffee, be irritable and may even fumble spells. Someone powdering and meditating just a little every night may fill up their bottle only slowly but be well rested and able to unleash a powerful summon when the need is dire.

[@TechtonixZi]

The way I do Comprehend languages is sometimes the language pre-dates the spells effect and doesn't work properly, or in the case of my players trying to translate a HORRIBLY cursed tomb to try and figure some things out, they take psychic and necrotic damage when the spell ends and they gain a level of exhaustion from using it because the strain was so great on their body it actually hurt them.

[@sk8rdman]

In AD&D (2nd edition) Identify was a MUCH more costly and difficult spell to cast. It took 8 uninterrupted hours to cast. For each property or feature of an item the wizard had to roll a % which scaled with their level to a maximum of 90%, with a 5% chance of them getting false information. They could also only do this for a number of properties equal to their wizard level. On a failed check, the wizard could not try again until they had leveled up at least once. The actual information given with a successful check was usually vague. For example, "the sword gives a bonus to attack and damage" rather than, "It's a +2 sword", or "the wand has only a faint amount of magical charge" rather than, "the wand has 4 charges left". And then on top of all of that, the wizard would lose 8 points of Constitution (which might knock him unconscious), and would require 24 hours of rest to recover. The material costs were pretty cool though. They didn't just list a 100gp pearl and an owl feather. Instead they described how you had to steep the feather in wine with the pearl added, and that the wine had to be drunk by the caster. And if you used a luckstone instead of a pearl, then the properties of the item could be learned exactly. (It's unclear if the pearl or luckstone were consumed by the spell, but it would appear so). This is not to say that DM's should adopt this version of the spell in its entirety, but it could inspire some ideas for how you might modify it if you wanted to rebalance it. One simple idea I've used is to say that the 1st level version of the spell only identifies the properties of Common and Uncommon rarity items. For rarer items you need to use a higher level slot, 3rd for rare, 5th for very rare, 7th for legendary, and 9th for artifacts. This means that the spell still is useful, but also that if the party finds some powerful item that you want to retain some mystery, they might not have the level to cast it, and might need to just experiment with it or try to convince a high level wizard to identify it for them. Increasing the casting time and/or inflicting exhaustion could also be applied if you want to restrict the spell to a downtime activity, rather than the sort of thing the players cast immediately on every item they find, removing any mystery or opportunity to experiment.

[@greenprobe]

Suggestion: There is a religious order that detests the unwanted spells. Any casting involving them is immediately detected by the order who will send their agents to eliminate you. At first you'll only face bounty hunters that happen to be in the area but with each day more powerful members of the order will reach your position up to a small army. Casting the spell basically puts a timer on the group to finish the quest before GTA 5-star mode kicks in.

[@elle.mack.wednesday]

I’m currently running a curse heavy campaign, and the way I’ve run remove curse is basically the same as a dispel magic. Assign the curse a dc that would equate it roughly to a level of spell and have the players roll. Of course, some of the curses have been put on them by a god so the dc goes beyond 19, but it’s been a way to provide hope of removing a curse while keeping it away from just the remove curse spell. I also had an NPC they went to say that if they gave him a few months he could come up with a ritual to make the remove curse more precise. Cause there was also a backstory curse that was involved and if that one was broken the character would instantly die (by the player’s orders) so that character was hesitant to let the remove curse happen. But yea. Just treat it like a dispel and assign spell levels to the curses! It works!

[@AtelierGod]

Charm creature spells and abilities does have limitations, for example you could give your boss advantage on charm effects letting your enchantment focused players realize it won’t be easy to deal with them, and if they do succeed they simply won’t be targeted as the charmed creature believes everything you do to the other party is to benefit it.

[@justinedwards5047]

I think a good way of dealing with the larger groups of conjured creatures and avoiding forever turns is to just let all the players pilot 1 or 2 of the conjured creatures. The rest of the party is generally a lot less annoyed when the spell gives them an extra wolf they get to deal damage with in addition to their own character than when the druid and their critters basically get 6 turns on a row.

[@kylestreet7641]

You know what's funny is that our Silverquill bard in our Strixhaven game has never once cast Silvery Barbs

[@SCI-FIWIZARDMAN]

I think cursed in D&D are meant to be more of a ‘common’ affliction than they are in conventional media. Similar to how being poisoned in the game can be easily cured by swigging an antitoxin or via a simple casting of Lesser Resoration (a 2nd-tier spell), curses are meant to be common enough that most can be remedied by a casting of Remove Curse. I imagine curses as a sort of “status” that can be inflicted by certain monsters, or by magical traps, kinda like in video games. These kinds of curses aren’t necessarily crippling or wholly life-changing, they just tend to be temporary debuffs and minor/major inconveniences. Like being cursed with Blindness/Deafness, reduced Intelligence, etc. But then, there are also extremely powerful curses that go well beyond simple debuffs and can’t be magically removed by a wave of the Cleric’s hand. THESE are cursed like lycanthropy, a banshee’s lament, a haunted house, etc.