Spells that you would typically ban from a campaign?

[Maelphaxerazz]

In a slightly different approach from the others in the thread, I ban all spells that give a bonus on attacks, saves, AC, and/or checks of any sort, and all spells that grant temporary hit points, and spells that grant damage reduction, and the negative (debuff) versions of the same, unless that effect (whether bonus/penalty or temp HP or DR) is paired with some other, more interesting/unique effect. In other words, boring spells are not allowed.

The reasoning behind this is that magic in one of the best things about D&D 3.x, and to use it for something less than exciting is just such a waste. Fiddling with the numbers wastes time, and banning them prevents the instinct to use those spells just because they are effective rather than because they are actually fun to play with. The group does not miss them, and the use of magic stays exciting.

We also ban a few other spells, like Knock and Divine Power and Celerity and similar spells. But the bulk of banned spells are banned only because the are not interesting enough.

[faeryn]

In a slightly different approach from the others in the thread, I ban all spells that give a bonus on attacks, saves, AC, and/or checks of any sort, and all spells that grant temporary hit points, and spells that grant damage reduction, and the negative (debuff) versions of the same, unless that effect (whether bonus/penalty or temp HP or DR) is paired with some other, more interesting/unique effect. In other words, boring spells are not allowed.

The reasoning behind this is that magic in one of the best things about D&D 3.x, and to use it for something less than exciting is just such a waste. Fiddling with the numbers wastes time, and banning them prevents the instinct to use those spells just because they are effective rather than because they are actually fun to play with. The group does not miss them, and the use of magic stays exciting.

We also ban a few other spells, like Knock and Divine Power and Celerity and similar spells. But the bulk of banned spells are banned only because the are not interesting enough.

Your ban list would have kept us from becomming so excessivly over powered in my last campaign that we wer impossible to hit and took hardly any damage when we were hit...

Personally I'd rather take the approach of banning as it comes up... require players to run newly learned spells by you andd if there is potential for abuse lay down the rules and give them a chance to pick a different spell... However I would put some spells on an "unlearnable" list... such as Wish... It's better to restrict than to ban...

[linklord231]

I ban the Polymorph line (usually implementing some fix or another if someone really wants to specialize in that kind of magic), the Planar Binding line (including Gate and other open-ended summoning effects), and enforce "quest" components on spells like Simulacrum or Plane Shift that have components that don't have a gold-equivalent price, but shouldn't be available in every spell component pouch.  I require that all summoned creatures have to be statted out before play, so that they don't slow down the game.  I also heavily modify Wish and Miracle, and rule that the XP cost for most spells cannot be bypassed. 

I've been lucky so far, in that no one I've played with has tried to use Celerity or Power Word: Pain or Shivering Touch or other spells that auto-win a majority of encounters.  I'm fine with insta-win spells, but I don't like spells that insta-win everything.  It makes the game too same-y. 

In a slightly different approach from the others in the thread, I ban all spells that give a bonus on attacks, saves, AC, and/or checks of any sort, and all spells that grant temporary hit points, and spells that grant damage reduction, and the negative (debuff) versions of the same, unless that effect (whether bonus/penalty or temp HP or DR) is paired with some other, more interesting/unique effect. In other words, boring spells are not allowed.

The reasoning behind this is that magic in one of the best things about D&D 3.x, and to use it for something less than exciting is just such a waste. Fiddling with the numbers wastes time, and banning them prevents the instinct to use those spells just because they are effective rather than because they are actually fun to play with. The group does not miss them, and the use of magic stays exciting.

We also ban a few other spells, like Knock and Divine Power and Celerity and similar spells. But the bulk of banned spells are banned only because the are not interesting enough.

Does this function at mid-high levels?  In every game I've played in, the party starts to rely on spells Magic Vestment and Greater Magic Weapon just to be able to compete with the creatures they're fighting. 

[Unbeliever]

@Maelphaxerazz

This doesn't really solve the spells > everything else problem.  While buffing spells are out, things like Solid Fog and the panoply of battlefield control spells are still in. 

That being said, I'm glad it's working at your games.  I can see the appeal of limiting the list (there are just so many) and perhaps dealing with the problem that buffing, especially if the party has time to prep, can skew game balance.  It feels too restrictive to me, but naturally ymmv.

[Amechra]

@Maelphaxerazz

This doesn't really solve the spells > everything else problem.  While buffing spells are out, things like Solid Fog and the panoply of battlefield control spells are still in. 

That being said, I'm glad it's working at your games.  I can see the appeal of limiting the list (there are just so many) and perhaps dealing with the problem that buffing, especially if the party has time to prep, can skew game balance.  It feels too restrictive to me, but naturally ymmv.

I think that's mostly the point - they did say that they want magic to be exciting. It's the same impulse that has people hatin' on the Magic Christmas tree; why waste time learning spells that just add numbers when you could be getting spells that have cool special effects built into them?

Fixing "spells are better than everything" didn't seem to be in their docket. However, banning most buffs means that you can actually cut down spellcaster's spells per day without it being too painful... I would think.

[faeryn]

Having used this before... I know how powerful it can be.... so... I'd probably ban Hunter's Eye...

Infact... (digs out character sheet)

Magic Convalecense - can result in an absurd amount of healing or force the DM to not use spellcasters...
Heroics, Mirror Move - free choice feats from spells... far to easy to abuse...
Death Ward, Ray Deflection - both of these completly shut down a large number of monsters and abilities... don't let your players use them, there are less abusive alternatives...
Guards & Wards - a good spell for DM use, but should be BANNED from player use... the range and effect of this spell can essentually allow a player to turn your dungeon into their own personal funhouse and turn all your traps against the original inhabitants...

[Kaelik]

Magic Convalecense - can result in an absurd amount of healing or force the DM to not use spellcasters...
Heroics, Mirror Move - free choice feats from spells... far to easy to abuse...
Death Ward, Ray Deflection - both of these completly shut down a large number of monsters and abilities... don't let your players use them, there are less abusive alternatives...
Guards & Wards - a good spell for DM use, but should be BANNED from player use... the range and effect of this spell can essentually allow a player to turn your dungeon into their own personal funhouse and turn all your traps against the original inhabitants...

Why not just play OD&D so you can wave your DM penis at the players without having them use any of that filthy player agency to put your pants back on? Maybe they don't want to die when they know certain types of enemies are ahead, so they prepare and cast deathward to not die. That is hardly a problem, that is the game working as intended.

[Necrosnoop110]

I have never banned spells before. But I can tell you the three classes of spells I don't like the spirit of. 

(1) Spells that grant casters the ability to cast more than the standard allotment of spells per turn.

(2) Spells that wipe out in one fell swoop an entire class of effects by granting unbeatable immunity.

(3) Spells that grant casters the ability to replicate an another class's features (often times even better than they can do them).

[RelentlessImp]

(1) Spells that grant casters the ability to cast more than the standard allotment of spells per turn.

I guess you dislike Quicken Spell, too. Nevermind that typically when you're casting "more than the standard allotment of spells per turn", you're blasting, and blasting needs the fucking help.

(2) Spells that wipe out in one fell swoop an entire class of effects by granting unbeatable immunity.

Oh no, the party doesn't have to roll over and take it up the ass from a DM's Finger of Death by casting Death Ward. There are so many instant death effects at high level that not rolling with some form of protection against them leads to TPKs.

(3) Spells that grant casters the ability to replicate an another class's features (often times even better than they can do them).

The Druid's animal companion is a better fighter than the Fighter. The problem there is that Fighter is a shitty class, not that there exist alternatives.

EDIT: Here's a spell that's a bigger problem than any of you have listed yet: silence. This humble 2nd level spell provides immunity to all spells with Verbal Components, gives no saving throw (when cast on an object - there's a flagstone, there's a pebble...) and shuts down the biggest Clerical fuck-you spells in existence (Blasphemy/Dictum), cuts out Bard musics, and generally destroys basically any balance when used correctly. So before you go blaming things like death ward and arcane fusion and celerity, why don't you take a step back and look at the bigger picture?

[Necrosnoop110]

(1) Spells that grant casters the ability to cast more than the standard allotment of spells per turn.

I guess you dislike Quicken Spell, too. Nevermind that typically when you're casting "more than the standard allotment of spells per turn", you're blasting, and blasting needs the fucking help.

Standard allotment can mean more than one spell per turn. Blasting needs help yes. Giving casters yet more ways to get more spells cast in a general sense is not the solution I would pick. One standard and one immediate/swift is plenty. If you optimize you can cast a ridiculous amount of spells per round. 

(2) Spells that wipe out in one fell swoop an entire class of effects by granting unbeatable immunity.

Oh no, the party doesn't have to roll over and take it up the ass from a DM's Finger of Death by casting Death Ward. There are so many instant death effects at high level that not rolling with some form of protection against them leads to TPKs.

Mine is a general position. I don't like it when entire classes of actions can be stopped full stop without chance of error. My personal tastes would be one of opposed rolls or chances of some kind. I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be counters to spells and effects. 

(3) Spells that grant casters the ability to replicate an another class's features (often times even better than they can do them).

The Druid's animal companion is a better fighter than the Fighter. The problem there is that Fighter is a shitty class, not that there exist alternatives.

We are talking about spells here. Yes the druid is unbalanced (strongly) compared to other classes in general, yes the fighter is unbalanced (weakly) in comparison to the other classes. I like the idea of D&D being a team sport. I like the idea of classes (or at least archetypes) being indispensable. I hate that CoDzilla and Friends^TM can fulfill every role and better than the specialists who are supposed to be the best at what they do. Spells allow those who have access to them to be all things for all situations. I personally do not like this or at least do not consider it ideal. 

EDIT: Here's a spell that's a bigger problem than any of you have listed yet: silence. This humble 2nd level spell provides immunity to all spells with Verbal Components, gives no saving throw (when cast on an object - there's a flagstone, there's a pebble...) and shuts down the biggest Clerical fuck-you spells in existence (Blasphemy/Dictum), cuts out Bard musics, and generally destroys basically any balance when used correctly. So before you go blaming things like death ward and arcane fusion and celerity, why don't you take a step back and look at the bigger picture?

My complaint of spells wiping out whole classes of effects in one fell swoop is totally getting at that problem you have with the silence spell. My whole post was aimed at the bigger picture. I've never actually banned any spells at my table I just don't personally like spells that either replicates what others can do and better than what they are supposed to be good at and spells that shut down whole classes of options. At least in a theoretical sense. Call me crazy 
 

[RelentlessImp]

Mine is a general position. I don't like it when entire classes of actions can be stopped full stop without chance of error.

I guess you like your BBEGs getting scry & died, then.

I hate that CoDzilla and Friends^TM can fulfill every role and better than the specialists who are supposed to be the best at what they do. Spells allow those who have access to them to be all things for all situations. I personally do not like this or at least do not consider it ideal.

Okay, here's something you're not getting. D&D is a resource-based game. If the Druid and his animal companion devote resources to being a better Fighter than the Fighter, this is not a bad thing, because that's less resources they're using to fucking wipe the opposition off the map in a more efficient way. "Hit it with a stick", no matter how you swing it, in the editions this subforum covers, is not a valid life choice past the point where they're doing that as a matter of course if they so desire it. Your games where the "specialists" swing their sticks as a meaningful contribution to an adventure stops, or at least should, around seventh fucking level. And before that, hey, everything's fine, the game works well enough, and your complaint would cease to exist, so I can only imagine you're talking about higher levels where hitting it with a stick is the least valuable option, at which point you should stop having those characters feel like they're good enough to adventure at those levels. At the point where Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit becomes a problem, BMX Bandit needs to roll a real character, or actually devote his resources to being useful  - Shock Troop Leap Attackers and Uberchargers are semi-valid life choices because they're still removing the opposition, but only one per round. Flask Rogues are valid life choices at those levels, because TWF Sneak Attacks with Rings of Blinking do the job just as well and they have utility in the form of UMD and skills people mostly stopped caring about a few levels ago.

My complaint of spells wiping out whole classes of effects in one fell swoop is totally getting at that problem you have with the silence spell. My whole post was aimed at the bigger picture. I've never actually banned any spells at my table I just don't personally like spells that either replicates what others can do and better than what they are supposed to be good at and spells that shut down whole classes of options. At least in a theoretical sense. Call me crazy 

Hold up there, Suzie. I don't have a problem with the silence spell. My players get to have agency. I just don't play my opposition like dumbasses when they move into the 9+ level range. Seriously, everything the players can do, the DM can do, and often better. This is not saying "Screw your players", but rather saying play your opposition like they have a fucking brain, and most of this stops being a goddamned problem.

[Kaelik]

Mine is a general position. I don't like it when entire classes of actions can be stopped full stop without chance of error. My personal tastes would be one of opposed rolls or chances of some kind. I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be counters to spells and effects.

Then you are committed to the idea of no death ward and your players not being able to prepare for the Finger of Death gangbang because you hate player agency. You can't have a counter to a spell or effect that doesn't make it full stop with no chance of error. If fatigue doesn't prevent chargers full stop, the Kelgore's Grave Mist is not longer a counter to pounce closet troll monsters. If Death Ward doesn't stop finger of death full stop, then when the PCs figure out in advance that they are going to have to fight like 15 slaads, they have no way of protecting themselves against what is coming.

I like the idea of classes (or at least archetypes) being indispensable. I hate that CoDzilla and Friends^TM can fulfill every role and better than the specialists who are supposed to be the best at what they do. Spells allow those who have access to them to be all things for all situations. I personally do not like this or at least do not consider it ideal.

Then you are committed to a terrible way to play the game. If one you have four players, and one of the wants to play a Wizard, and the other three also want to play a Wizard, then they should all be able to play Wizards. If you need a Fighter because you can't win combats against equal level opposition without one, and you need a Cleric, because you can't live through those fights without one, and you need a Rogue, or else the DM will pepper you will bullshit traps to punish you for not having a Rogue, then you are committing to the idea that sometimes only one of the 4 people playing the game is allowed to have fun. That is fucking terrible. If on the other hand, all classes can be equally as good in combat, and all classes can provide various types of utility, such that any party is likely to be able to bypass any challenge, then you have a game in which all four players can have fun at the same time.

[Daedroth]

In my personal views, the worst offenders are spells that contribute to Rocket Tag, that include:
- Save or Die
- Save or Lose
- Don't save, just die
- Action economy abusers
- Spells based on unbalanced defenses (Shivering Touch)

This also includes class features (I'm looking at you PF ¬¬). But of course, fixing rocket tag is imposible so i have to rely on gentleman agreement. And there are the problem of unbetable inmunity to entire characters (Death Ward is not a problem, inmunity to Sneak Attack is).
Death Ward is not a problem because a character that relies on them surely has other ways of contributing to the encounter anyway. Is probably a Necromancer type and Necromancers have a lot more to do than just death effects.
Inmunity to Sneak attack is like Inmunity to Magic in that probably would nullify a party member (Rogues and Blasters) that will be frustrated.

[Kaelik]

In my personal views, the worst offenders are spells that contribute to Rocket Tag, that include:

"Rocket Tag" is a good thing. The idea that everyone should have to grind against HP declaring attacks over and over again for the game to be fun is super fucking confusing, because I have never met a person who actually enjoyed that.

Inmunity to Sneak attack is like Inmunity to Magic in that probably would nullify a party member (Rogues and Blasters) that will be frustrated.

You can just build a rogue that bypasses pretty much all immunity to SA. Your probably need spellcraft and knowledges on someone else to tell you what you are facing and because the 3.5 knowledge rules are so very bad, you probably need to metagame stupid little things, but you can easily do it.

[Daedroth]

"Rocket Tag" is a good thing. The idea that everyone should have to grind against HP declaring attacks over and over again for the game to be fun is super fucking confusing, because I have never met a person who actually enjoyed that.

I think that our concept of rocket tag differs, theres an entire world between "1-round battles" and "declaring over and over"

You can just build a rogue that bypasses pretty much all immunity to SA. Your probably need spellcraft and knowledges on someone else to tell you what you are facing and because the 3.5 knowledge rules are so very bad, you probably need to metagame stupid little things, but you can easily do it.

Luckily. But of course, that require some system enginery that the majority of actual players doesn't have, we optimizers are not that common. 

[Kaelik]

I think that our concept of rocket tag differs, theres an entire world between "1-round battles" and "declaring over and over"

If you are having one round battles, then you aren't having one round battles and you are lying.

[Daedroth]

I think that our concept of rocket tag differs, theres an entire world between "1-round battles" and "declaring over and over"

If you are having one round battles, then you aren't having one round battles and you are lying.

"If you are A, then you aren't A" I don't follow you...

[Libertad]

I should point out that Kaelik is a Gaming Den poster whose shtick includes phrasing things in a hostile manner to engage in Internet slapfights, so keep that in mind he's trying to bait you, regardless of the merits of his claims or lack thereof in the future.  It's something I've seen happen many times when he and other posters from that forum go onto other message boards.

[Kaelik]

"If you are A, then you aren't A" I don't follow you...

It is literally impossible for you to be playing D&D against CR appropriate monsters played with even a modicum of intelligence and having only one round fights, so if your claim is that this is how D&D plays for you, you are lying.

[Lokiyn]

It really depends on the type of campaign, the players, the dm and a host of other factors. But you could really sum it up as, "Avoid spells that give something for nothing"

Basically avoid any spells that either grant a player more actions than his fellows (multiple summons, celerity, etc) or grant them access to a resource for free that others would have to pay a significant amount (major/minor creation, some conjuration spells) or long term (+8 hr) buffs. Or allow them to do things in significantly less time if that's a limit you need (long range teleports, Fabricate, etc)

Now i'll admit that a lot of these spells are the ones that can be the most fun; but as a dm if your game format requires long epic journeys and quests to find the last worker of "x" to build widget "C" you might want to quietly muffle the spells that invalidate the core concept of the game. On the other hand not every style of play is supported at every level, so that is also an issue that might be more relevant to "trite-ness"