These types of spells are hurting Dungeons and Dragons

[@fguati]

I think if the spell is high enough level and not ritual they are USUALLY not a problem. It just means that after a certain level, certain types of challanges are no longer an issue for characters, which is kind of cool, it creates a feeling of power progression. Create food and water for example is a 3rd level spell, which means that is not accessible until 5th level and not cheap until at least 7th level. Not that big of an issue IMHO

[@InsightCheck]

Totally reasonable perspective!

[@destinpatterson1644]

Except that Purify Food and Drink is a 1st level ritual and does more or less the same thing. The only explanation would be if you're in a desert, and then you'd just have to recycle what comes out. And Goodberry's berries stick around for 24 hours, so you can just cast it before a long rest and eat them in the morning and not spell slots are lost in case you need them

[@WolforNuva]

This reminds me of the Dwarf Kingdom arc in Overlord, a series written heavily inspired by D&D. In order to get from one Dwarf city to the other, the main character Ainz has to go through what could have easily been a full adventure, but the main character just has a spell for everything that trivializes the trip. It's played for a gag there, but if that was a real game the DM would not be happy.

[@InsightCheck]

That's actually pretty hilarious just to play off as a gag, I got a good laugh!

[@An_Ian]

The best part in the anime was watching the dwarf lose his shit and his power.

[@HorizonOfHope]

It’s also why, to be honest, I prefer inventory management to everyone getting a bag of holding. It’s fun seeing characters need to choose and value what they carry.

[@Mr_Maiq_The_Liar]

find the path also requires an item from that location and the only way around that restriction is wish, so it actually falls into a "works in only such specific and neiche situations that it's a tool available to solve hyper specific problems as opposed to invalidating an entire valid aspect gameplay through a single spell tax"

[@johngleeman8347]

Goodberry covering a single meal would make a world of difference. Still helps, but it comes at a real cost. Draining the druid/ranger's spell slots makes them feel helpful and keeps the party keenly aware that without them, they'd be in big trouble.

[@mischake]

The thing i think most of these spells have in common, is that they take a challenge in the game that most players might only enjoy through the first few levels of the game and later on no longer want to worry about. When Lost the tv show started we worried about the food situation for the characters on the island, but as the show went on it became less of a concern as more out there problems arose. Still, these systems still matter. Is it nice to cheaply be able to skip the busy work? Yes. But it shouldn't be free. Players should absolutely come to at least sometimes regret pressing the skip button. When? When they really could have used that spell slot but it's spent already. Which leads me to believe that the one thing they should never be able to do is easily set up a long rest in a place that's supposed to be unsafe. So taking away that tent spell would do a lot, allowing the DM to throw a challenge at them that they could have magically overcome, but they can't cast that spell anymore.

[@Rodrigo_Vega]

Some of these should probably be something like class features. Rangers could have access to "Find Food/Water" in which they just automatically succeed at finding reasonable sources of food and water, and rogues should have something like "Stealth Leader" that allows them to detect and guide the rest of the party how to move stealthly through an area in order to avoid the inevitably low roll someone will get when _everyone_ is forced to roll. I think it really sucks when a spell entirely overshadows mundane skills or even one of the core gimmicks of a class.

[@NuclearPoweredGinger]

If create food and water only made enough for about your standard adventuring party I think it’d be fine. You gain access to it at level 5, the start of Tier 2 play, which should be about the point where most adventures shouldn’t have struggles surviving mundane wilderness. The fact a level 1 spell can provide enough food for 10 creatures per casting though? That’s balls. *No* level one spell should be able to entirely bypass a subsystem like that.

[@InsightCheck]

Yeah Goodberry is disproportionately effective if your campaign considers food and water in any way at all.

[@michaelnelson8618]

All you have to do is nerf it. Halve the yield or quarter the shelf life. No rocket science

[@NuclearPoweredGinger]

@@michaelnelson8618 DMs shouldn’t have to go through and nerf low level spells so things like survival and stealth actually take effort. It’s not rocket science.

[@michaelnelson8618]

@@NuclearPoweredGinger lazy

[@Eemi_Seppala]

@@michaelnelson8618 you mean the designers right? There's a reason 5e is often compared to newer Bethesda games.

[@LiteraryDM]

I knew that the amount created with Create Food and Water always sounded like a lot. Never really thought about how much exactly. Then the visual of the jugs came up, and that is just wild to think about.

[@InsightCheck]

Hahaha honestly same. I had never really considered it until I was writing the script and was like "hold up, how much actually is that??"

[@JJV7243]

Most of these spells could have their crazy rider effects (food from good berry, insane amounts of water, etc) simply tied to an upcast of a 4th level spell or greater. This way they can still be awesome, just only accessible at higher levels.

[@InsightCheck]

Not a bad solution. Just have upcasting options that allows their crazy effects much later on.

[@MatthewDragonHammer]

I have a hard time viewing any spell higher than 3rd level as problematic, simply because of how seldom they actually get used. Most campaigns end before 10th lvl, so only full spellcasters really get a chance to use even 3rd lvl spells, much less 5+. (This is why spells like Simulacrum and Wish just don’t bother me.)

[@gahfwa3541]

One of the reasons most campaigns don't go to higher levels is because of problematic spells like these. Spells just keep getting better and more broken

[@ArtsAndTactics]

Its a game where you can summon demons and fey spirits, throw exploding balls of fire and call down storms of ice. It would seem silly if yiu couldnt feed and house yourself. It adds to the fantasy of using magic and it creates another kind of tension in resource management both in spell slots and in what spells to prepare.

[@elgatochurro]

they ruin the difficulty of surviving, or a simple locked door. thats why 5e lacks overland anything... and why the ranger suffers

[@ArtsAndTactics]

@@elgatochurro Ever sit in your tiny hut, munching on goodberries while listening to the snarls of orcs and hows or wargs in the surrounding hills, waiting for your spell to end? How good a rest do you get while you consider what awaits you when you emerge? Do you get the benefit of a true full rest? At th very least that could make every member of the party roll a will save. There are ways to include awesome spells that give players a sense of agency without nullifying the work of the DM. The ranger can even shine with Pass Without Trace, favored terrain and favored foe in that same scenario. I have had some pretty cool overland adventures with mid level casters. Just having a discussion here, not trying to be rude. I'm also probably a teenie bit biased because I like playing arcane casters. I like being the guy they party relies on to hut up.

[@davidsantos1299]

@elgatochurro If we are fighting epic creatures, the dangers of walking through nature shouldn't be mundane, they should be magical and epic. Like maybe the atmosphere in this jungle is toxic and magical as well. And unless we were playing a hexcrawl game, I wouldn't want to worry about getting lost everytime I travel, but if I go into a fey forest then the forest itself might keep changing and I actively have to keep finding my way. An epic Ranger should be able to follow the magical leylines blessed by the spirits.

[@elgatochurro]

@@davidsantos1299 do you expect EVERYTHING you come across to be epic? Even the ants on the ground? The point of roleplay is to experience life as someone else, the point is wilderness is that it's not safe and tame for you

[@davidsantos1299]

@@elgatochurro That's a silly question. Quality roleplay has nothing to do with tracking resources. If you wanna create an interesting chapter in which the heroes have to survive in the wilderness, and they are epic heroes, that go into epic places, the dangerous wilderness shouldn't be just a normal forest, but something no actual human being would survive in, because even without any monsters, the forest itself is alien and complex.

[@almitrahopkins1873]

Pass Without Trace didn’t include a Stealth bonus in earlier editions, so it was intentionally broken when it moved into 5e.

[@saymyname2618]

How was it back then? I started playing on 5e.

[@almitrahopkins1873]

@@saymyname2618 You left no tracks. That was it. It worked just like a druid's Trackless Step class feature. There were other spells that gave the stealth bonuses, like Camouflage in AD&D 2nd. A stealthy druid took effort, but they were easy to achieve through multiple spells and magic items. 3e made that slightly easier, because druids could take Stealth as a cross-class skill and making magic items was tied to feats, rather than the level you could cast Permanence in AD&D 2nd. That meant a 3rd level druid could make a Robe of Blending or a Cloak of Elvenkind, instead of a 13th level druid. (Permanence was a 7th level spell.) Most older players think of 5e as the "training wheels" edition of D&D. As a DM, I can TPK a 5th level party with 4 goblins, a 3rd level goblin rogue and 3 wolves in 3e or Pathfinder 1st, which can't be done at all in 5e or Pathfinder 2nd.

[@saymyname2618]

@@almitrahopkins1873 I see, thanks for taking the time to write all this. The more I know about 5e and its systems the more I realize how differrent it is from the idea I had when I started playing it. When we hear about D&D in movies and shows we are shown the old versions of the game, that were harder and more deadly, it was pretty much like playing tabletop Dark Souls. But nowadays characters are more like superheros and can do a lot of stuff, which is not bad at all, it's just different but somethings are kinda ridiculous, +10 stealth to the whole party is one of those in my opinion.

[@almitrahopkins1873]

@@saymyname2618 An average goblin had a +4 racial, +4 size, +3 class skill and a +1 from Dex to Stealth without any skill ranks in Pathfinder 1st. That's a +13 with a single skill rank and average stats. Yeah, older editions were a lot less forgiving, assuming the DM knew what they were doing. My players used to dread when "goblin tracks" popped up as a random encounter. I even played goblins regularly as a player, so they knew just how lethal a goblin encounter could be.

[@Paws42]

Another potential fix to Goodberry and Create Food and Water is to give them consumable material costs: Goodberry could require a plant worth 5 - 10 GP. Which means that the DM can limit how often the players can cast it, based on the supply at the market, or how easy it is to forage Create Food and Water could require an amount of unspoilt food and a gallon of potable water (2 lbs and 1 gallon respectively) plus some holy water On the note of Goodberry, I think instead of entirely removing the food aspect of it, I'd suggest making it so if someone eats 10 goodberries within a day, they'll be fed for that day. Which will give the player the choice between using them for out of combat healing to the entire group or to feed one PC for the cost of a spell slot (which is pretty costly at lower level when survival games work the best anyway)

[@josephpurdy8390]

1e create food and water. Its a 3rd level spell, and you first gain access to it at 5th level. That means you can create enough to feed, and satisfy thirst for 15 people, or pack animals. A casting of the 1st level spell create water/purify water will be needed later in the same day. Pass without Trace in 1e did just that. No stealth bonus. It only removed the evidence that you passed through the area. Goodberry didn't exist in the 1e PHB. Druid didn't get the create food and water spell. Druid only got purify water. Clerics got purify food and drink, create water, create food and drink.

[@ZarHakkar]

The issue IMO is that 5e isn't granular enough in aspects other than combat. Goodberry and Create Food and Water both provide extremely bland nourishment. If something like rest (lodging, food, and drink) quality actually had a mechanical effect on the game, these spells and other choices would suddenly get a lot more interesting. For example, while traveling you could get the druid to cast goodberry or the cleric to cast create food and water, but maybe that's not as good as the ranger or outlander taking time out of their day to hunt some small game and pass it off to a character with cook's utensils to actually prepare a decent and moralizing meal. This more relegates goodberry to an emergency survival food of last resort, and create food and water as a way to say, stave off a non-adventuring populace from starving after their homes or harvest were destroyed by some disaster.

[@wrlrdqueek]

I think the point of Pass Without Trace is so the whole party can stealth, from the rogue with their +15 to the fighter with their -4 w/ disadvantage. Without the spell, some party compositions just don't have stealth as an option, no matter how many resources one player has pumped into it.

[@InsightCheck]

Yeah, I get that! I guess from where I sit I think that's ok? I'm ok with certain party members maybe not being able to be as effective in certain situations versus others. I still think it can exist but perhaps it's just too potent? I'm honestly not sure! I think part of it also comes down to how your group runs group wide checks and whether the DM considers half or more passing as a group success or if they run them individually.

[@wrlrdqueek]

@@InsightCheck You do have a point there. I've only played with one group that used the group check rule. It does negate that problem somewhat.

[@afterhours8463]

The problem with Pass Without Trace is that it completely nullifies Rogue's investment into stealth. The rogue should be able to use their stealth as a advantage of their class. The fighter and caster didn't build for stealth, therefore they shouldn't benefit too much that mechanic. The same way Rogues can't benefit from spells without the Arcane Trickster subclass. Also, its bonus is extremely high. In a game that is built around not stacking numerical bonuses, +10 is absurd. I would just get rid of the spell tbh. Let the Rogue be the only one good at Stealth.

[@wrlrdqueek]

@@afterhours8463 If you're going to do that then you really need to double down on the rogue's ability. Back in 3.5, WotC published an article on their website with proposed rules for allowing characters with very high stealth skills to use their ability to compensate for other party members.

[@afterhours8463]

@wrlrdqueek Considering the weakness of the current Rogue, that doesn't sound like a terrible thing...

[@paulfelix5849]

As a forever DM for almost 47 years, I can hardly agree more. Heroe's Feast comes to mind as another of these spells. A meal so huge that it can feed a dozen people, take them a full hour to consume, cures poison and diseases, provides immunity to poison and the frightened condition, and... each diner gets an increase in their max HP of 2d10 and that many more points on their current HP. And *all* those benefits last for 24 hours. 6th level, yes, but still ridiculous.

[@michaelondic5884]

the 1000 gp cost material component that is consumed in the casting I think should limit the use of the spell to at least just the boss battles, and not as a daily spell that the party would use.

[@paulfelix5849]

@@michaelondic5884 I don't really disagree, but that's heavily dependant on the game being played. The caster would have to be 11th lvl or higher to get it, sure. But, at that level (and higher) the party should have a fair amount of disposable income... unless the game is being run resource lean (including $). Otherwise it's merely a choice of how to use a precious spell slot which, given the benefits, might appeal to the group. The more well funded and well equipped the group is, the less of an issue the choice becomes.

[@MrMuddyWheels]

I disagree with the find/locate spells being a problem since they are most useless. I agree that goodberry and create food and water and tiny hut are a problem but are easy to fix

[@tqbrowne]

I was just thinking this. People tend to defend this by saying that it shows off the character build to have all of this utility but my response to that is that it tends to homogenize everything and creates too much redundancy in the party.

[@KaelinGoff]

We redid PWT for our table - For the duration only the caster needs to make stealth rolls provided they lead the party. (paraphrased) Its still powerful, allows for the skill investment of the sneaky boi to matter, cuts down on amount of dice rolled, and still provides tension in sneaky bits. I wanted to specifically preserve the fantasy of a character able to lead their companions through an area and giving them a mechanical bonus, and also providing a target for things like inspiration and guidance so the whole team gets in on the action. When they use PWT, they ARE usually successful, but overall has a better feel since the characters get to fulfill their rolls instead of JUST the spell doing all the heavy mechanical lifting. The food spells are interesting, because the ONLY times you care about the food they provide, they also invalidate the type of game you're wanting to have. When we run a survival game: Our goodberry fix is exactly what you mention, it just doesn't provide food. Create food and water was harder. - we wouldn't consider this for all types of games, so we went with an alteration to the spell : Find food and water - Know the direction, distance, and type of nearest food & water, can concentrate to continue tracking. I wanted something that would deliver on the foraging play that this type of game would promise, while having the option to make food and water contested as well. When the gnolls have set up camp around the only water source, well, now we have DRAMA.

[@InsightCheck]

Your adjustments to make it "Find Food and Water" is actually really interesting and can set up for some really amazing elements. Great suggestion.

[@DyrianLightbringer]

Not only does create food and water ruin a wilderness survival playstyle, it also has the potential to destroy economies, since people with access to this spell could put farmers out of work. What's the point in farming, when a group of mid-level clerics can provide food for the entire town every day... for free? Pass without trace could be fixed by implementing the 3.5 version of the spell. In 3.5, PWT only preventing the affected creatures from being tracked.

[@AtesSu2006.]

Since players are defined as very rare people, I don't think what you say will happen.

[@DyrianLightbringer]

@@AtesSu2006. Players, sure, but most campaign settings assume that there are higher-level NPCs than the players. Otherwise, how do you pay the temple for a resurrect, if there's no cleric who can cast it? Where do the magic items come from if there aren't NPCs making them? Who maintains order in the kingdom if the PCs are the most powerful beings in the realm and can defeat any NPCs who try to detain them for breaking the law or going against the king's decree? At that point, the only thing holding the campaign's economy together is the will of the GM.

[@AtesSu2006.]

@@DyrianLightbringer I just mentioned the design of the game?

[@DyrianLightbringer]

@@AtesSu2006. You said that since players are very rare people, there's no risk of breaking an economy with magic as I described. My response is that I never implied the players would do it. I'm saying that because such a spell exists, in a world where there are sufficient spellcasters to use such a spell, then there's a threat to economic stability. Technically, any magic that can create something from nothing, or transform something worthless into something useful, threatens to break a world's economy. This has nothing to do with the players and everything to do with the game's design and the world-building of GMs.

[@AtesSu2006.]

@@DyrianLightbringer I have no idea what to answer.

[@An_Ian]

5:30 a gallon is what Americans use to store our milk I know Canadians use bags but surely you know what our containers look like from films and TV. 1-4 gallons would be plenty for a once a day spell. With 30 we can have everyone drink as much H2O as we'd like and still have enuth for a PC to take a bath

[@InsightCheck]

We do use bags in my part of Canada :) I can sorta picture a Fallon container but it doesn’t really mean much to me. Like if you just say “100 gallons” I know that’s A LOT but I struggle to conceptualize that whereas I don’t with 100 litres. It’s all just familiarity and what you’re used to I guess!

[@Dream-Reaver]

An easy fix for good berry and create food and water is have the party find actual berries so you can cast the spell on them. Create food and water is more transport food and water but the party may not want to eat or drink it or it was taken from angry creatures that will kill to get it back.

[@Hektols]

I 3rd Ed Good Berry required you to cast it on real berries and it didn't give 10 magical berries.

[@slydoorkeeper4783]

Yeah, that goodberry fix is just like the older version like 3.x/pathfinder. It also wasn't a guarantee 10 berries. Still helpful, just not as bonkers as 5e's version.

[@jasongemmell5387]

Our home-brew fix to tiny hut was surprisingly effective. Make it a concentration spell. Everyone enjoy their 8 hours? Awesome, but since the bard was concentrating for the whole 8hrs they didn't rest, so no spell slots back, no heal, and because he's been awake more than 24hrs, we're adding exhaustion.

[@Elkay_J]

This was one of the biggest issues with the original phb ranger. If survival is ever a question, it just simply succeeds. Entirely Removing the mechanics that youre probably playing the ranger for. You just simply "cant" get lost, and you simply find food. It would be like playing a fighter and having an ability that says you just Win combats when you fight. Great, but now i dont get to play the mechanics that i want to play with this class.

[@garethhamilton1252]

None of the spells you mention is necessarily a problem and can sometimes be a great boon to the game. Take Create Food and Water or Goodberry for example. If you have a group of players who have no interest in playing a resource management game the fact that this spell allows you to bypass these mechanics is great. The DM can say 'just mark off a level 3/2 spell slot and we can move straight on to the next day/encounter' (or not bother with overland travel at all which is what often happens. "After 5 days of uneventful travel you arrive at your destination." If you have a group of players who like the survival game then I question why they would take the spell in the first place, denying themselves an aspect of the game they enjoy? The problem arises when the DM wants to put the players through the wring mill of survival mechanics but the players want nothing to do with it. In this case the spell is not the issue it's the mismatch between what the DM wants and what the Players want. Pass Without Trace allows players to successfully sneak past encounters more often than not. Great! Players love doing this sort of thing and as a DM you do not need to fret about it. An encounter bypassed can always be an encounter that can come and bite them in the back later on. Also if every player is required to make a stealth check and just one PC failure equals group failure then the spell loses a lot of its potency (I'm thinking PCs in their heavy armour who invariably also have a low dexterity score. We all know the player who clanks along failing their stealth checks on a regular basis) And don't forget in order to hide from someone you need cover. Using PWoT to creep across a courtyard to the keep is not going to work if just a single guard is looking into the courtyard. Yes its a powerful spell, but not a problem spell I don't think. Leomund's Tiny Hut is not an automatic long rest if the DM does not want it to be. Dispel Magic takes down the hut. If the players are abusing it to take long rest after long rest then just throw at them an encounter with a group of creatures that has a shaman, or wizard with dispel magic. Smart players will quickly come to learn that a Leomund's Tiny Hut cannot be relied upon. Also remember you only get 1 long rest per 24 hours. Put the PCs under time pressure and there is no problem with the spell. If you want to talk problem spells then I would like to hear your take the save or suck spells. The spells that can win an encounter with a single failed save. They lead to what I call the legendary Resistance problem in which players don't cast these spells because it just uses up one of the creatures legendary resistances, but if you don't give the creature legendary resistances what might have been an exciting and dynamic climactic battle becomes a disappointing anticlimax. I don't have an answer to this.

[@alexmiller1800]

I have a few ideas for fixing some of the spells mentioned here: - Goodberry: remove the “provides enough sustenance for one day line”. Maybe have it count as 1 meal, but even then actually hunting for food in dnd is so rare I do not want to discourage it anymore. - Pass Without Trace: the flat +10 bonus becomes “a bonus equal to your spellcasting ability modifier”. For most games it’ll cap at +5 without costing a higher level slot. - Leomund’s Tiny Hut - Remove the ritual tag entirely, make the hut tough but destructible with an AC and hitpoints, and honestly, I’d consider making this a 4th level spell even with the nerfs. The spell is just way too good and similar spells like Rope Trick and Galder’s Tower are completely outclassed by Tiny Hut despite costing nearly the same. I think Magnificent Mansion is fine because it is 7th level, but Tiny Hut deserves a hard nerf. I would also consider reworking Leomund’s Tiny Hut as a powerful defensive illusion that conceals sources of light within it’s range and grants creatures and objects in it invisibility to all creatures outside the Tiny Hut. Enemies can pass through the spell, but it is very difficult to spot and allows for solid ambushes. In this case I’d leave it a 3rd level spell, but still remove the Ritual tag. You want something defensible, take Galder’s Tower. The drawback is that it is not subtle. You want subtlety, take Leomund’s Tiny Hut, but be aware that if you get caught, your Tiny Hut won’t protect very much. And if you want a safer rest at night, you need to spend spell slots to get it.

[@Blackwoodcwc]

Two that you missed: Comprehend Languages (& the similar invocation), and Remove Curse. They both negate traditional story elements "deciphering the ancient writings" and "how do we break this curse" respectively. For the former, it would probably be okay if it required someone present to already know the language (so you can read current stuff, but can't decipher ancient mysteries), and for the latter it'd be better if it only suppressed the curse for a time (say 24 hours). Then the party could be at (nearly) full strength while trying to solve the curse, yet still have motivation to do so.

[@InsightCheck]

Great mentions! I did actually consider Comprehend Languages but opted to not include it since at least it doesn’t let you speak the language back but it’s certainly in the category! Remove Curse is a perfect example as well and this has actually undone many interesting story elements of games I have run so I’m shocked I forgot about it hahaha. Having it suppress the effects is a nice suggestion!

[@Blackwoodcwc]

I don't think the listening part of Comprehend Languages is an issue, and thus also don't think Tongues is an issue. In communication, both sides can try to make themselves understood, and can be interactive. Removing a language barrier just changes how the problem is approached, while instant translation of ancient texts removes certain kinds of mysteries and research, thus constraining what kinds of stories can be told.

[@ghoulthebraineater]

Comprehend Languages isn't a problem if you read the description. It says it gives a literal translation. It's basically Google translate with the same limitations. Metaphors, puns, jokes, riddles and other things of that nature may translate poorly and be just as confusing as not understanding the original language.

[@ZarHakkar]

Both issues resulting from 5e being less granular than it could have been. Spells like Goodberry, Create Food and Water, Remove Curse, Comprehend Languages are catch-alls, with the responsibility of adding nuance left entirely up the DM.

[@Cosmic_K13]

I guess you could classify these as "convenience" spells. They are all spells that remove the nessesity to roll for something, which i am not opposed to. Notice how all the spells you mentioned are all survival utility spells. Their combined existence somehow both invalidates and justifies the ranger's existance. On one hand, i get why some don't like these spells, but on the other hand, being able to say no to dms who try to kill their players environmentally is great. Nothing you can do for extreme weather, but safety and survival will always be covered so long as these spells exist.

[@gryllodea]

Leomund's Tiny Hut has a floor in a sense that you can't enter it from the bottom, but it doesn't create a physical froor underneath the party so with efficient excavation tools you can dig it all out and characters will have to fall out as a result. I agree with other stuff though, I think these spells should only be allowed if your players really don't want to spend time gathering food and whatnot.

[@flikersprigs5641]

I wouldn't make tuny hut destructable, just make it an actual hut, with walls and a door. It doesn't make the spell useless as its still comfortable on the inside and the door functions as a choke point but it keeps the spell from being a hemispheric nope button.

[@thiagoknofel8982]

Quick Fix: goodberry and creating food and water could feed ONE person when using slot level 3 (in the case of goodberry, 30 fruits count as a meal for a day), plus ONE PERSON FOR EACH SLOT ABOVE LEVEL 3 (or plus two, if you prefer). Maintains the fantasy of conjuring food, but in a way that only powerful conjurers can do

[@stichman34]

Honestly, the food and water conversation has been done, but the tiny hut? That big dome of black/pink/gray/brown w/e that's now sitting in the middle of the corridor for 8 whole hours? No way that you're getting away with that in a bbeg lair. As a DM the first time my players used it was in an "abandoned" cult hideout, they'd spent a while tracking it down, it was dark when they descended and figured they'd take out what they could, then rest in the hut and take them out after they're rested. The problem was, it's a lair. Cultists lived there, patrols exist and warned the bbeg to escape. The rest? Set up some traps and left a small guard to ambush them. The players knew they were spotted, but had to either finish their rest, or watch them escape. It was a truely difficult choice, knowing they'd messed up like this.. but it made them smarter about their rests. Hut is still useful from the wilderness, and brainless (NOT HIVEMINDS!!) because aside a curious bear or such, things will leave the glowing alone, but smart creatures will ambush. After this prescedent was set for my table, the players turned it on me in their next encounter! They chased him down to the underdark, and said "we're close, we should rest." Set up the hut, I start describing them being discovered again.. only to have them leap out on the curious patrol and destroy them in surprise! Players used the hut in a unique way, with creatures acting in reasonable ways. They didn't get their rest, but took out a lot of minions while having pretty safe access to short rests. Maybe the problem is giving players access to rests too frequent? since 6-8 encounters is supposed to be an adventuring day, being able to sneak in a full safe long rest in after the third gives players access to too much resources.. tl;dr Hut's not that much of a problem, the protection it provides is real nice but it's super obvious in guarded lairs. Giving it an AC and health feel against the spirit of it, since rope trick is a similar spell but 1 level lower for short rests only, and is undetectable.

[@Bendem47]

LevelUP 5e has addressed many of these potentially problematic spells. I had also revised many of these spells for my gaming group. For example, Pass Without Trace offers a +5 stealth bonus, which increases to +10 using a 4th level slot or higher. (I also give many enemy guards the Alert or Observant feat)...

[@carsonm7292]

I ban Tiny Hut in Curse of Strahd. It's a horror game, people. A core pillar of the horror genre is that safe locations should be rare. Even places that feel safe should still be vulnerable if the villain wants to get you there. Tiny hut just voids all of that, which is just so frustrating because D&D already doesn't do horror as a genre well at all since it's basically a superhero game. If you roll a random encounter at night for a party with tiny hut it either takes a lot of labor designing an encounter that is actually interesting to engage with (read: draws them out of the hut somehow), or the encounter is just super awkward and lame as they dip in and out of the hut while the wizard sits and does nothing. The only real caveat is if the party has horses or something that can be attacked that the party has to rush out to protect.

[@michaelnelson8618]

Make an ethereal type enemy like a phase spider that can sneak into your hut. Most of the time if you're this mad about a spell you just need to be more creative. The DM is totally in charge of what happens, so dry those tears and summon those Alkilith. Those fellas love doors :)

[@nojusticenetwork9309]

Tiny Hut? I love that spell. If you're running Curse of Strahd and players have this spell. They are under a false sense of security thinking nothing can stop them from resting them suddenly it's dispelled or a player fails a save (likely the caster) and are compelled to leave the hut. The hit is a stop gap measure at best.

[@carsonm7292]

@@nojusticenetwork9309 I would rather them have no sense of security at all when they are in the wilderness than a false one. You are never supposed to FEEL safe in the horror genre.

[@carsonm7292]

@@michaelnelson8618 I run between 5 and 9 games every week. I do not want to spend a disproportionate amount of time combing through monster bestiaries for monsters that can affect characters inside a tiny hut and then contriving some reason for them to be there all the time. The night hags in the module are the obvious anti-tiny hut tool. But that's not the point. Tiny hut makes you feel like you are safe, whether you actually are or not. You should never feel safe in Barovia. It's antithetical to the horror genre. Your take is noted but I'm going stay "mad" about it, as you apparently have assumed that I am, thanks.

[@michaelnelson8618]

@@carsonm7292 it's your opinion that horror should always exclude safety. having safety sometimes and then having it ripped away can provide good contrast.

[@DBArtsCreators]

Goodberry could simply give advantage on saving throws made to go without food or water, with the healing being instead turned into a source of 1d4 temporary health.

[@MarkCsigs]

You didn't mention any of the worst offenders in my mind: Zone of Truth, Comprehend Languages, Identify ... any spell that removes mystery and investigation from the game.

[@JJV7243]

Did you forget zone of truth? Makes running a mystery campaign a tad challenging.

[@InsightCheck]

There's tons of other spells that fall into the same category and I think it's part of what continues to push the martial/caster divide even further. Why RP something when the caster can just work around the challenge?

[@projekcja]

For me the worst offender of such spells is the spell Comprehend Languages (1st lvl ritual) and 3rd lvl tongues - because of them, the dnd world has no place for a language barrier. The decisions on which languages your character knows are rendered unimportant. No matter if you're meeting a far isolated tribe or a trans-dimensional creature, you can just talk to them with no issue. You can even read any ancient text of any extinct language.... The sheer disrespect this spell has towards the vast space of languages that can exists is terrible. No need to find someone to work as an interpreter for you, and no place for such an interpreter to conceal some information. No place for trying non-verbal communication with creatures that know any language at all...

[@InsightCheck]

Comprehend Languages is another one I did consider for this video as well. It's only saving grace was that it doesn't let you speak back in the language but it can certainly nullify many challenges as well.

[@ghoulthebraineater]

Comprehend Language isn't a problem if you run it right. The spell says you understand the literal meaning. Things like riddles, puns, metaphors, jokes or slang would translate poorly. An easy way to represent this is to use Google translate. Run the text a couple times to get some weird literal translations.

[@DorsonKieffer]

All of those spells are balanced out if the DM uses the Gritty Realism optional rule in the DMG.

[@InsightCheck]

Sure, I suppose you're not wrong. But nearly everything can be resolved by using alternate rules whether homebrew or first party but that's not really the point. The point is to discuss the game using the "stock" rules and go from there. Gritty realism imposes a dramatic change to the game that would certainly be overkill for a situation such as what I'm describing.

[@DorsonKieffer]

@@InsightCheck Good point but gritty realism is a stock rule. It's just optional. Just like feats and multi-classing.

[@DorsonKieffer]

@@InsightCheck Also, I thought that I was discussing how to solve the problem by using stock rules. I apologize if there was some misunderstanding. The optional rules in the DMG and PHB (like feats for example) are all stock rules, correct?

[@InsightCheck]

No need to apologize at all, I totally get where you were coming from :). For me, I tend to operate under the assumption that "stock" or "base" rules are what exists in the PHB. The DMG includes plenty of variants that most people don't even know exist, some better than others! Gritty Realism and other things like it that tackle the underlying problem, that being the adventuring day, are great ways to approach a solution!

[@elgatochurro]

"If you use special rules"

[@hikarihitomi7706]

Leomunds Tiny Hut blocks creatures in 5e? That's a massive buff. In 3.5, the spell merely makes the area more comfortable and less noticeable but does not block enemies nor spells.

[@Tomeroche]

I don't think fixing Find Traps to match it's name would really create this problem tho. The spell, if it just found and located traps in an area would still not disarm them and many traps that are actually important and not just filler are set up in ways where you either can't avoid them or you wouldn't be expecting them in the area. All a Fixed find traps would do is skip the initial Perception check, because otherwise you're just using a spell slot to get a yes or no answer to a multiple choice question, it's ultimately unhelpful since if you are casting a spell to see if you need to make a perception check instead of making a perception check to see if you need to cast the spell to get more info. Heck, the way it's set up the spell giving a positive result is less helpful than if it gives a negative, because you have to already suspect traps before you use it so it's only real use would be to confirm if a place is actually trap free. Like, imagine there was a spell called "Confirm Corpse", you'd only take it if you think there's going to be undead in the area. Then it turns out the spell doesn't tell you if something is undead, just if there's a non-corpse in line of sight. Now imagine if that same spell could be replicated by doing a perception check to see if a body was moving. You'd only take this spell if you already know there's going to be a lot of corpses that aren't corpses but the way it works makes it so it gives none of the information you need to actually make use of that confirmation so you'd still need to do the same skill checks if you'd not bothered casting it and were just suspicious. Still, Find Traps, even if fixed could do with a bit more interesting mechanics. It'd be kind of neat if they made a creative way it finds traps. For example imagine if after casting it you see foot steps that go along a path which split off and a bunch of them just abruptly cut off or end in bloodstains so you know there's a trap triggered there.

[@njfernandes87]

I believe pass without trace is kind of necessary. Our DM makes group stealth checks when the party is trying to be stealthy by majority. If 2 of us pass, we're good, only 1 and it's a fail, because our paladin in full plate is guaranteed to fail. For some DMs noone can fail or the party is discovered. A challenge is only fun if it's doable, and that spell in particular simply gives our paladin a chance to pass

[@emjtucson]

You should try expedition style play. It’s the difference between casually strolling through a dungeon (modern D&D) and exploring a dungeon having to make hard choices (original D&D).

[@lexslate2476]

The spells described are not that big a problem. The food and water spells are manageable, just make the player do a caster level check when they cast it and tell them the desert's under a curse. The hut? Send a monster that can dispel, or have a creature notice the hut, recognize it for what it is, and prepare an ambush for when it goes down. You have options.

[@saymyname2618]

My solution for Leomund's Tiny Hut was the same, I don't see why this thing needs to be indestructible, it's just like a nuclear shelter, you could have 100 wizards blasting it with Sunburn for hours and nothing would happen.

[@billylin8800]

tiny hut i think could be bumped to being a 5th level spell and a new 3rd level spell made that's basically just the weather/environmental hazard protection bubble part of tiny hut, it wouldn't provide any protection from enemies entering it other than it camoflages itself into the environment (noticable with a prerception check=caster's spell DC) and just let galder's tower exist as the 3rd level 'house' spell, plus bump rope trick up to 3rd too

[@michaelondic5884]

I don't love tiny hut, but it can be dispel magic can remove it. In a world where the monsters know tiny hut exists it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that an encounter capable of challenging a 5th level party would have a caster able to cast 3rd level spells.

[@michaelcribbin]

If I’m playing a cleric the last thing I want to do when I hit level 5 is waste one of my precious 3rd level spells on creating food and water. The rest of the party has already spent the previous 4 levels wandering Chult and relying on rations and foraging, if they think they can slack off now they can bugger off because I’m using that slot for spirit guardians.

[@ryanadshead4809]

A lot of these spells have limitations on them if you read through them. Pass without trace doesnt work if there is not enough cover or obscurement. Leomunds hut, the PC's could get ambushed once its gone or maybe the bad guys just take all theor good stuff and leave. Spells are meant to help solve problems so when used then great but there are definitely some that just erase a huge chunk of the game eg.(create food and water) At the start of a campaign we fo over some spells that we alter if they would otherwise eliminate the challenge that story.

[@DeltaDemon1]

Goodberry is not a problem because it requires fresh berries (freshly picked) and because it can easily be reduced in power if warranted. Remember, the rules are merely suggestions.

[@DndUnoptimized]

Just want to start by saying I always enjoy your content, thanks for making it! While these spells aren't the biggest offenders, they do end up completely solving problems. And it's usually a problem that a martial class has abilities that help solve, but gets out classed by a lowish level spell. Conjure animals is getting reworked, hopefully other outliers like shield, animate objects, etc. get reworked too, but it would be great if these kind of things got fixed. Tiny hut is just silly how good it is, especially if you have a combat going on while it's up.

[@InsightCheck]

Thank you for the kind words! :) I actually also thought about the implications to martial classes as well but didn’t want to make this video about that but this absolutely has an effect on that! Why let another character try to hopefully do something when you can just instantly solve it with magic? It just furthers the divide. I’m glad you picked up on that too!

[@DndUnoptimized]

​@@InsightCheck anytime my fellow Canadian! Best of luck to you in your goal for 5k subs

[@crimfan]

I am setting up a campaign and ban hammered several of these because of how much they undermine aspects of the game. Things that cease to be a challenge cease to appear or tempt DMs into things like DC inflation.

[@indigoblacksteel1176]

I agree with you on a lot of this. Frankly, though, my group almost never takes a lot of these spells that many groups thinks are must-haves. I admit to taking Goodberry for Tomb of Annihilation specifically for the hex crawl exhaustion piece, but we rarely take or use Pass without Trace, Leomund's Tiny Hut, and a lot of the other ones mentioned. I'm not sure if we feel like they suck out the fun, or if we just prefer loading up on damaging spells vs utility, but they just never get taken in our campaign. I think than anything above 3rd level probably isn't all that problematic unless it's a ritual. And the easy fix for those is to remove the Ritual tag.

[@jeffadov4906]

The thing is people tend to turn to daddy WoTC to fix all their in game problems instead of fully assuming the roll of DM and fixing it for their campaign. Some campaigns are made to challenge on exploration, if those spells are too cheap then you can always homebrew them. Some campaigns it doesn’t feel right to be so uptight with inventory management. Those spells are great in the right setting and shouldn’t be changed for everyone. A good DM fixes things for their own game and my groups have never been mad at me for changing things that felt would ruin the theme of our campaigns.

[@andyreichert499]

I think many of these spells should be allowed or removed from the game to change the focus of the game. Is survival a key aspect? If so, don’t allow the spells that trivialize survival. If you want to focus on other things, then inworld explanations for why other concerns are brushed aside are fine.

[@airdragon11studios]

The way spells are in dnd i feel that so many need a fix or tweak because of tiers of play. I try to think of magic items and rarity in class lvls. (My version magic items can be found earlier) 1-4 common/uncommon 5-8 rare 9-12 very rare 13-16 legendary 17-20 artifacts and boons I like magic items coming earlier than normal because they can be super fun and help martials a ton. I do ban or limit some items. (My nerf for Goodberry is it doesnt stop your hunger or thirst in powerful climates or magical areas like domain of dread or a dragons desert. For normal travel it helps handwave tracking food/water but on adventures i want it to matter boom a reason why it doesn't work fully)

[@colinflack4517]

Great video! Ive also found many of these spells problematic and my hopes that they would be adressed in the 2024 revisions have been crushed. Most videos ive seen on this topic focus only or mostly on combat focused spells. My table used to use spells like this all the time, to the point where casters were complaining that they felt like they HAD to take certain spells to be useful, and that isnt fun. For goodberry specifically i rule that it consumes its components. So the caster at least has to roll survival to find the berries in the first place. I also play in a setting where magic is dangerous and you need to roll to cast anything so that solves a lot of outlier spells as they become unreliable. While that certainly isnt how most people play, I feel that having the chance to fail balances these spells quite well. I also rule that barriers of force, ie wall of force, tiny hut, forcecage, etc... can be destroyed. They have an AC and HP as you mentioned in your video. These spells still get used all the time but instead of taking away from encounters they add to them. I hadn't thought of pass without trace or the finding spells being outliers, thats definitely something I'll have to consider. Maybe for the locate spells you should just know the general direction and distance rather than an exact location? Im not sure how effective or fun that would be I'll have to playtest it.

[@laurichi42]

I understand the concerns of the video and it’s true that for example Goodberry is just too good of a spell, but at the same time I really like Pass Without Trace because in my table my DM makes us all do a stealth check, that includes the paladin or the fighter in full plate, and if a single person fail the check, everyone fails 😢 so it ends up being impossible to sneak at something as a group, so we either would have to split the party or just give up sneaking completely, and with that we have at least a chance to succeed as a group, and it’s more fun to us. Still, great video. Never realised that create food and water could be so powerful, the same with tiny hut, none of us ever used them.

[@ironkrieg3368]

In regards to your recent One D&D Playtest, how do you feel about the Monk Fly ability? Based on the way the fights went, it would seem to be so OP and so required for effective fighting that it would fit as just to overtuned. You seemed quite surprised as to the effect it had on the encounters. What do you think?

[@InsightCheck]

It had honestly been so long since I read the subclass that I forgot that it could even do it. As aware as I was of the general idea of their builds I also didn’t want to know the ins and outs. In regard to the feature itself it feels extremely powerful but is also gated behind a very high level requirement (I want to say 14?). At that point you can kind of get away with insane and broken things. There’s other ways of getting a fly speed by 14th level. Maybe this is a bit too good to be baked into a subclass but it feels for pretty on brand for the Monk to me. So I guess I feel a bit conflicted on it. I like it conceptually but feel as though it could probably be toned down a bit.

[@armphidiic2609]

Modeling more spells off of Find Traps just makes more spells no one will ever use. The game's resource management is incredibly central so the decision to use a spell slot should have a commiserate reward. The changes suggested to Locate Creature and Locate Object would make them useless. One of the most mocked abilities for Rangers among my gaming groups is the one that let's them know a type of creature is within 5 miles for a spell slot. No distance or direction just, "something is out there somewhere." If players are looking for a creature or object, they probably know it's in the area already unless they're the paranoid types that check everywhere they go.

[@DeltaDemon1]

Create Food and Water is not a problem because it's a 3rd level spell and because it can easily be reduced in power if warranted. Remember, the rules are merely suggestions.

[@tdg4352]

If u make a hut I’m glyphing the door

[@МаратГабдуллин-б5ф]

Those spells are what makes D&D a D&D and not yet another generic fantasy game with hard magic system. If magic was a thing- those are the type of spells that people would actually create. Someting that solve real problems and not another 50 versions of aoe damage debuffs and walkable distance teleports. If you scroll through AD&D spells- all of them meningfull in-universe powers, not some DMs plot tools. Spell to speed up horse, spell to spawn turtle soup, spell to ram door or gate, spell to befriend a cat- all have story behing and make sense in medival fantasy. And now compare it with new spells- here generic aoe damage ring but please pretend there are animal spirit doing that damage. And if you want to play a survival game- use system that was made for those types of games. High fantasy D&D is not one of those.

[@BramLastname]

Tiny hut and pass without trace are two that I find most annoying, Like did the party really need to be able to pass through the wall of Tiny Hut? Did the hut really need an impenetrable floor? Does the roll even matter if the arcane trickster has pass without trace? I don't like skill floors and no downside spells. In fact I'd rather have pass without trace say "When you fail a stealth check you can choose to reroll it with advantage, but must use the new result." Because at least it does something more interesting than just increasing the number.

[@Erik-um1zn]

I agree on Tiny Hut and Goodberry. Create Food & Water is not so egregious as it is a third level spell and rarely used; you still have to move all that food & Water or stay around it. I would be in favor of replacing the wording of Tiny Hut with the Galdor's Tower wording, as that spell seems to be more in line with what Tiny Hut is supposed to do (unlikely to happen though). Pass Without a Trace could just affect the caster, maybe with one more person per added spell level; that should increase the cost and not make it an instant sneak for the party. The Find and Locate spells need better definitions and are doing things that magic is supposed to do: I don't buy the whole "undermine core elements of the game" argument.

[@truix5386]

There are 2 trains of thought that I think of whenever discussion about these things comes up. The first train is: WoTC clearly does not know what the design goal of 5E is even supposed to be. It tries to appeal to all people, by trying to be all things, but is nothing at all. They do not know how to balance their game at all, and it feels as if they aren't even trying to do that. You can fix sharpshooter, and great weapon master, but at the end of the day there are 600 other things that are still broken, and would take ages to playtest and fix to get them to the point, where it doesn't drive the DM mad doing the designers job of tryng to fix them. Which leads me to train 2. Train 2 is: All of the nerfs in 1D&D aren't nerfs, as its backwards compatible with all the old stuff anyways (calling bullshit on this, but let's just concede that this is the case for the sake of conversation) I can take old broken stuff from 5E, and new broken stuff from 5.5, and have a character build much more powerful than another player using only 5E stuff, or another player using stuff only from 5.5 It's been ages since I've even looked at One D&D, but just from looking at the 1st playtest, I could tell the new edition was not aimed at me. That, and the OGL debacle made me nope the fuck out of One D&D for good. I do not have the energy to DM for superheroes that become gods by level 5. That being said: If you're calling for nerfs for spells that would allow for a more survival/exploration/dungeon crawler feel: Congrats, you're screaming into the void. Combat will always be thought of first, and exploration... Never. If you want to play a proper hexcrawl, OSE has you covered. The system is always going to fight against you, play one that wont.

[@ericpeterson8732]

Personally I think most groups are over-reliant on dark vision. Whether by race, feature, or spell, dark vision is bad for the game. First, it turns D&D into Call of Duty or Seal Team Six. Second, everyone does it wrong. Darkvision does not allow you to see completely in the dark. It allows you to see in dim light as if it was bright light, but it only allows you to see as well as dim light in total darkness. Dim light imposes disadvantage on all perception checks. But I can't recall if the tables I've played at have actually imposed it. They treat dark vision as just seeing in the dark.

[@okeytay4]

Not sure if this makes a difference to you or not, but allowing these spells as they stand makes more sense than changing them or removing them entirely. Hear me out. With such a clear goal by many players to play at least close to rules as written, not giving them the option to bypass mechanics that they don't find enjoyable is not player friendly. Nerfing the spells or removing them entirely just reduces the tedium only slightly for those players or shifts it somewhere else. Rather than advocating against ways to bypass these mechanics, rather advocate for improving the mechanics themselves so they are less likely to be tedious. Someone somewhere will still always hate any given mechanic, but allowing those people the option to bypass the things they don't like so that they can continue enjoying other things is ideal. You could even go so far as making encentives for engaging with mechanics that can be bypassed rather than bypassing them as long as they incentives aren't so good that they're basically a requirement.

[@InsightCheck]

I actually very much agree with your sentiment here. I probably wasn't as clear as I wanted to be in the video but I do believe that the underlying issues I'm describing in the video are less to do with the spells themselves and more to do with core mechanics of the game itself. You're certainly correct that no matter what, in a game played by millions of people someone somewhere will dislike any part of the game, it's inevitable. Designing the game in a way that provides aid in overcoming challenges without dismissing them entirely seems like a more interesting approach.

[@alfonsovallejo2665]

It always bother me that there are spells that literally say: FUCK YOU to the DM.

[@Feralhyena]

Not feeling you on some of these spells, because most of the classes with access to these are either beholden to Long Rest spell recovery, or have to cast the spell as a ritual. and while it is quite true that in certain kinds of campaign/adventure, immediate access to spells that trivialize the thematic elements of the adventure threaten the challenge, nothing is set in stone. Antimagic is a known quantity, and throwing in things like dead magic zones or Chaos Surges as facts of your setting make the spells cited in this video less attractive as necessary investments. The extremes of some spells send mixed messages about what the developers intend the prevalence of magic to be in the base setting, tho.

[@Heath68]

You know im a little shocked he didn't bring up xone of truth ad one of the problem spells. I honestly straight up van it from my games cause it is it just challenge breaking spe, aka lime awhi done it mystery since you can just ask all the suspects if they did it yes or no but also world breaking cause at a level 2 spell i have a hard time thinking of a good reason guards and such would use it on most crimes and any suspected spy would be outed easily by any lord who knows a 3rd level cleric.

[@InsightCheck]

Zone of Truth does also fall into this category too.

[@harrysarso]

When you talked about mechanics inspiering design definitely remind my of an idee i have been playing with off a character with high dex and str now that feels like dumb decision. But if you implement the rule that for attacks can use str, dex or str+dex minus 2, now a high dex high str caharacter seems viable the math works out high dex or str 16, first level = +3 High dex and str first level 16, 14 = +3 +2= 5 -2 = +3 Im now looking at revamping armor so dex could still be usefull to high str char if they want togo into that direction , or not and become a fortress, with things like high str give extra speed , heavy armor reduce speed but boost ac or give bonus to resist being moved , ect

[@TheMarceloAbner]

Funny how those spells change to "broken" for "probably fine and really useful" if you're playing with gritty realism of some other variant if you're not getting all spells every day. This is the main problem. Not the spells. We need to change the single day adventure mindset or we would need to change a lot of features and spells. Or we just accept those aspects of the game are unimportant (what I don't they this is right too).

[@InsightCheck]

I 10000% agree that the concept of the adventuring day absolutely needs to be revisited. It is something underpinning many of the core issues with the game, or at least the way its designed and balanced. Someone else mentioned Gritty Realism and like I said to them, sure, it can definitely solve it but it's not really the point as that is a large overcorrection to "solve" this kind of issue. It's a step toward revising the adventuring day though so I am here for that :)

[@TheMarceloAbner]

@@InsightCheck One thing I think is problematic too, is how much those spells were weighted with old edition spellcasting rules, and how much those are in 5e. On 3e, if you want create water everyday, this costed you a spell know, and a spell prepared, and this preparation limits you at the point you literally just can't cast a extra fireball that day. This alone turn the preparation a lot hard and meaningful. In 5e, you has so much spell preparation slots, you really don't care if one is for goodberry or not that day. The adventure day of old editions was different too, but the spells was just "translated wrong" in 5e.

[@alechs]

i'm probably just straight up banning locate object or creature spells. the first time the paladin in my campaign used locate object to find the clothes of the person they needed was fine. the fifth time, it's just exhausting. it's honestly laughable how few conditions cause locate creature (4th) or locate object (2nd) to fail, when find the path (6th level) can't tell you the way towards anything that moves. divination is such a weird spell school because on one hand, you have Augury and Divination, which are fairly unreliable with Divination even consuming materials and on the other hand it's full of spells that just give perfect information and just annihilates any chance of mystery occuring unless you're explicitly prepared for it (with a lead sheet or Nondetection for Locate Object), which will make the player feel like you're targetting them.

[@almitrahopkins1873]

A gallon is roughly 4 liters.

[@jeffadov4906]

While i agree that there as some problem spells in 5e i think we should be careful about the changes we want to make official. Yes the spells you mention tend to trivalize certain encounters but let me provide clear example where they fail and why i believe DMs should put more thoughts into what kind of game they want to play, what encounters they want the players to face and how they can resolve those encounters. if you are playing a game where those spells are available, you can find ways to let your players sometimes get away with it solving the encounter, and some ways in which those spells will only minorly help them. Here are my example for the very spells you mentionned: - create food and water & goodberry: i played in a campaign where some bad guys attacked an oasis town (in a desert) where the party was. the bad guys had many spellcasters capable of casting meteor swarm, hoards of warriors, and the entire town was being overruned. the party was level 12 and had no way to face them, that wasn't the point of the encounter. whe had to flee while saving as many of the townfolk as we could. whe managed to escape with some hundreds of people and where now trudging through the desert, with no food, no water, and hundreds of mouth to feed. immediately those spells became a god send but even then and as the only healer player of the party with access to these spells i had to ration usage of my spell slots for other encounters in the deserts to help heal and save my party as well as the civilians we were escorting to a safe place. In this situation the spells helped yes, but often had to managed with one level of exhaustion through the desert because of the many mouths to feed, just so we had enough healing or other utility spells in case we were attacked, and that is without accounting the effect of extreme heat, sandstorm and other hazards, the same invaders on our tails. my point is the spell helped but the challenge was made so that those spells would not trivalize it and that campaign was very enjoyable. - tiny hut: while i agree the spell gives very good defense for a long rest, first it's very easy to get rid of (Dispel magic), secondly you can easily have enemies camp around the spot, laying ambush for when the party finishes the rest (obviously you shouldn't do that everytime but when it makes sense, when they have intelligent enemies, it's not a problem). Matt Mercer in campaign 2 had his bad guy dispel the hut and even "magnificent mansion" on the party once for example and it made sense. the enemy was smart and had the means to get rid of it. and let's talk about Dispel magic, it a spell as cheap to use as tiny hut, 3rd level, available to "every" spellcasting classes! and it makes sense, in a world where magic is very prevalent, such a spell would be quite common too. so your bad guys should have scrolls of dispel magic at least if they don't have it inately. but again be careful not to use it everytime, it's ok to reward players for their choice of spells. - pass without trace: first the benefit only works as long as you stay within 30ft of the caster at all time, that is one big limitation for multiple people usage. then it doesn't make people become invisible, your party even with that spell will not be able to cross a well lit space without cover undetected! next creature with tremorsense will also have ways to detect them and lastly as you mentionned yourself, it's still a dice roll and there are plenty of campaigns streamed or published on the internet where we see it not working because of low rolls. All in all my point is a DM exists to handle the problems you are mentionning. not every every spell or feature should be designed to please everyone, in every campaign or even encounter. the DM should know what problem are important for him to challenge the players on and then create encounters to make that challenge even with the existence of those spells, or simply let the players know in session 0 that the spell isn't available. and you can homebrew spell for your own campaign as you want but i would be careful with changing things for everyone just because you are facing issues in how to adapt those for your campaign.

[@Batoziac]

ur channel is blowin up

[@InsightCheck]

We can hope so!

[@iolair1973]

I don't think Tiny Hut is that safe... It has no bottom so unless on a stone floor, burrowing creatures could attack, and any spellcaster with the Mold Earth Cantrip could undermine it.

[@InsightCheck]

It does have a floor! 9:06 It uses the hemisphere in its range and Jeremy Crawford confirmed that it does indeed have a floor.

[@iolair1973]

​@@InsightCheckMeh. I think most DMs could reasonably interpret it differently; IMHO JC's Sage Advice has a lot of bad calls. There are other ways to get at it anyway by intelligent attackers. (Dispel Magic? Burying it? Locking the room they camp in and setting a guard?)... doing so once or twice would probably be enough to stop parties from taking it for granted. But personally I think being able to rest in peace isn't game-breaking.

[@jerrybeard8995]

I don't know of any games or people that play in a game where you want to spend time worrying about food and water. I know I don't, and in our game we carry plenty of food and water with them and no-one in our party has either good berry or create food and water. (and no class that can get pass without a trace not including the limiting factor that everyone would have to stay close to really use it) And we have yet to use tiny hut.(but you will have to rip it from my chars. cold dead hands lol) but it could be bad since they can wait in ambush if its used, so it could get everyone killed as it is, so its fine. most games I've been in don't want to worry about food or ammo, although the dm will want you not to abuse the ammo aspect.

[@marcos2492]

Hey, I just wanna say I really enjoy your content! I dont always agree but thats ok, I like that you always seem up for (respectfully) debate, fo you have a discord server or something where we can have these discussions and/or hang out?

[@InsightCheck]

I’m absolutely always up for respectful discussion! That’s why I created this channel, not to be “right” but to just have a place to share my thoughts and discuss with others! I currently don’t have a Discord but I am looking to do a lot of new things for the channel and I think that could be a lot of fun!

[@mkdynasty272]

I think that since they 'neudered' combos involving Goodberry w/ Life Cleric, it's an ok spell. Pass without Trace can be depicted in various scenarios as an ok spell. Each of them are fine, but are only problematic due to people placing them in various optimal builds across numerous tables

[@InsightCheck]

I don't think these spells are destroying the game or anything, like I said but they definitely have an impact on it and others like them! Their prevalence is certainly one element of their power that's for sure!

[@mkdynasty272]

@@InsightCheck absolutely! And certain spells that do need further clarification for us all in order to be used well deserve that clarification text

[@JJV7243]

I'd just make goodberries "free meals" an option if upcast to 4th level.

[@lukedavis307]

And admittedly, in old editions where hirelings were a near requirement, ten people is about one party

[@g00se99]

Just like in video games, a majority do not enjoy tracking food or ammunition. I respect anyone who feels different but my dnd tables hate it.

[@InsightCheck]

Oh it's truly terrible haha.

[@hy_nano7114]

With regards to pass without trace, I agree it's a bit too powerful, but it does have one weakness: VSM components. I think a lot of utility spells become absurdly OP if VSM components aren't strictly enforced by the DM. Also rules-as-intended Verbal components can't be whispered. I personally have made its bonus twice the level the spell has been cast at, but I may change it to what one commenter said where the caster makes the stealth check for everyone in the party.

[@InsightCheck]

VSM elements certainly play a part here! Great point.

[@manuelgarcia-si4cs]

its magic dude, they actually translate as rule breakers in any rpg, if you dont like them TAKE THEM OUT yourself

[@whitleypedia]

5th edition is not well designed

[@DeltaDemon1]

If rituals are free, then the problem is not with the spell but with the rituals mechanics. I submit to you that Cantrips, which are free, are horribly OP since casting them is a no brainer. It ruins the game as spells MUST have a cost (other than using up an action) and Cantrips don't. Cantrips ruin a bunch of situations for non-Wizard players making it a bad mechanic.

[@Tomcollective]

D&D has a lot of vestigal design leftover from it's early days. The game would be better off if it could finally cut some of these things.

[@Tupadre97]

i disagree with the argument against goodberyy/create food and water. foraging for food isn't even remotely interesting and only really boils down to rolling like one survival check to see if you found food or just buying it. its not interesting at all but actually having to spend limited resources like spell slots that only come back on a long rest is. also there's the fact that spells like goodberry, create food and water, lesser restoration, magic mouth, etc add a lot to the world building and lore of the world and make it far more interesting than some generic medieval fantasy which dnd really isn't even one of in the first place. i'd rather have that then just rolling some boring ass survival check or playing some mini game to hunt down my food. that shit is lame as hell.

[@anarchistarchivist]

Funny the spells were much more balanced previously. Blame the way the system evolved. Catering to powergaming will have results like that. Maybe not every spell should increase in power by slot used.

[@tdg4352]

Notice almost all are druid spells

[@shotgunridersweden]

So,that was half a video talking about not what you want to talk about. Which is a shame as the point you finally brought up were good

[@GrimHeaperThe]

PHB go brrrrrr

[@TwinSteel]

🥳❤️👍🏿

[@SofaKingDead]

This is the classic problem of D&D 5 ed not being the game designed for every type of story you want to tell or experiences you want to have. Please try other games designed to give that experience. You will enjoy D&D alot more if you stop trying to make it the game it is clearly not designed to be.

[@InsightCheck]

I absolutely love and thoroughly enjoy D&D! This is just an open discussion about how they've included mechanics in the game that undermine core assumptions of their game and the impact that has on its design. I'm not trying to make it anything other than what it is. I have no alterations to these spells at my table because, as I said, this is just a discussion about design. It's food for thought, if nothing else. Sure, there are things I would like to see different, but everyone has those things. D&D suits me and my table wonderfully for the types of games that we play, that doesn't mean we can't talk about it though!

[@SofaKingDead]

@@InsightCheck Everyone loves D&D. I play 5ed twice or more a week, I believe you love it as well. I get this is a design discussion we are having. The issue is D&D is very much a game about ordinary hero rasing to the power to challenge the gods, it has been since the Early stages of the game. Can magic eliminate entire playstyles from the game at higher levels? Yes. That is the point. That is the design. A first level adventurer shouldn't have the same problems as 7th level. Revivify is 3rd level spell that can bring the dead back to life, in any other context besides d&d the person who could do that would be worshiped like God or at least a saint. Every 5 th level cleric, artificer, and some druids sorcerers and warlocks can do this if they chose to. The problem is not loving D&D, it being willing to let be what it is designed to be and trying other things for other experiences. With how most things are 5ed clones anyway you won't have to travel far and you would be doing more for the hobby as a whole.

[@xenostar6482]

first

[@InsightCheck]

Nailed it :)