Spells that you would typically ban from a campaign?

[stanprollyright]

I don't like banning things, nor do I like DMs who like banning things.  Most of the stuff I'd ban are for story reasons, and other than that just say no to abusive tricks without actually banning the components.  Gentlemen's Agreements are the best way to deal with these things IMO.

As both DM and player I dislike Wish/Miracle, high level Divinations, and long-range teleports when used to disrupt or bypass parts of the story, but I'm fine with those magics existing in the game world.  Encountering a genie or getting a item with a few Wishes should be a plot point instead of a player tool, where there is a specific thing that needs to be wished for, and maybe when it's all over you get a wish or two left over for a future resurrection or an airship or whatever.  Same with divination: it's the DM's job to make the information he wants PCs to have available, and it's his prerogative to keep information from them.  That information may come in the form of an encounter with a blind oracle and a crystal ball, but I frown on players using it themselves to gain extra information.  Some DMs hate divinations, some DMs are exceeding clever with them so they're nearly useless at best and actively harmful or misleading at worst, and some DMs don't know how to deal with them and will end up giving away too much.  As a player I usually take the approach that if the DM wants us to use divination he'll throw an oracle or scrying pool at us.

By the time long-range teleporting becomes possible most parties have reliable long-term flight, so it's functionally the same to handwave the journey and say that nothing interesting happened on the way, but the DM has the option to disrupt the journey if he wants.  Portals and items that teleport you to a specific place are plot points.  Short-range teleportation is a cool tactical move.

[Kaelik]

While I'm not going to try and defend his view that color spray has an extended range based on sight... I do have to correct you on this... there are no claims that it says "and" if the rule had said "and" then patterns would ONLY affect those who met both conditions inside the range AND can see it... the rules stating "or" does allow for the interpretation that a pattern spell can and does affect a target who is outside of the range but can see the pattern,  but of course the pattern must have an effect outlined for such viewers. Color spray does explicitly specify that it affects targets inside the cone, which does mean that the specific instance of color spray only affects those who are in range, but other patterns that do not make such explicit specifications would indeed affect both those in range and those who can see it.

While there is certainly a lot of vagueness how "and" and "or" are used in language, my main contention is specifically that he is refusing to see how "or" applies to sets, in this case that are made of multiple spells. If it said that it effected those who see it and are in the effect for a single spell, that would be unequivocally be a statement about what was required for that spell only, but since it applies to a set of spells, it would be describing the ways all spells effect people, and the and would therefore indicate that both stipulations apply to all spells. While it might or might not mean that each spell needs to cover both effects, it would at least mean that both parts applied to every spell. And based on the fact that he is both falsely claiming that it says "and" where it says "or" and that he is fallaciously claiming that Color Spray effects anyone within line of sight, it seems likely that he believes the application to all spell by the word and would negate my criticism.

But because it says "Spells of type X effect things that X or Y" in describing a set of spells, it is describing that spells within the school have their effect by either one or the other means. Just like how evocation saying "Evocation spells manipulate energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end" doesn't mean that every evocation spell does both those things, and just like abjuration saying "They create physical or magical barriers" doesn't mean that every abjuration spell does both. While the same sentence with "and" in place of "or" could be seen as meaning what it means now, that some spells do each thing, it could also be seen as an affirmative statement about what all spells do.

Ultimately, the depressing thing for me about this whole thing is that in a months time he will be repeating his same bad argument about Color Spray based on deceptively leaving off the relevant end of the sentence in his quote, his own refusal to understand the way conjunctions work when describing sets. And he'll probably do it in service to his continued arguments that all fights are solved instantly in a single round with no thought, and that if the DM provides a challenge that requires any amount of thought or effort and doesn't get beat in a single round the DM is being mean.

[Unbeliever]

The biggest issue I really see with spellcasting that leads to a need to ban certain spells is Permanancy/Persist abuse... It's far too easy to get excessive amounts of power from permanancy & persisted spell effects.
Past that there are various cheese tactics involving normally fairly benign spells that result in PCs having far more power than they should ever have at their level. Using my previous campaign experiance as an example... before we even reached level 20 we were able to boost our individual abilities to the point that we were equivilant to CR30+ each...

I feel like this is highly non-obvious. 

Here's the question:  what's more powerful your uberbuffed whatever or the committed god (battlefield control/debuff committed caster) wizard?  I think, at best, it's a toss-up.  Realistically it's probably the god caster. 

And, if you're really right, then it's Persistent Spell and Permanency, two abilities that come with big game balance flags already, that are the real issue rather than any set of spells.

Overall, I have a great hesitation to go in and do serious game rebalancing.  The impulse to go through and carefully fix 3E D&D so that spells don't throw anything out of whack given all the build and archetype options shades very quickly into "just play a different game."  There's nothing wrong with that, use the right tool for the right job.  Part of this is also driven by my desire not to egregiously prune concepts.  Summoning might be problematic game balance-wise (although I think it's manageable, but that's a separate topic).  But, a D&D game where a classic archetype like summoning isn't supported strikes me as a poor instance of D&D.*

*And, yes, I'm sure somebody can find a counterexample, but you get the spirit of this comment.

[Masakan]

Nice to see some replies but a lot of the solutions seem a little excessive.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

Ew this thread deteriorated into trolling, like the moment I /threaded it.

Have fun abusing your players by throwing CR 5 monsters at them

Is ... is that tough? You can still get XP from a CR7 vs PL1...

It's hard to make a list of always ban X, in part because what makes one campaign "trite" is necessary in another.

Wait, so considering draconic polymorph, you're telling me that there exists a campaign where PCs need shapechange in a campaign that wouldn't otherwise have it?

The impulse to go through and carefully fix 3E D&D so that spells don't throw anything out of whack given all the build and archetype options shades very quickly into "just play a different game."

I don't find 3.5e minus thoughtbottle or ice assassin to suddenly be some twilight zone non-DnD game. It's much more like what DnD was supposed to be.

The biggest issue I really see with spellcasting that leads to a need to ban certain spells is Permanancy/Persist abuse... It's far too easy to get excessive amounts of power from permanancy & persisted spell effects.

Uh. No. Believe me. I've looked through every long-duration / permanenciable / persistable spell. People forget that the first category is usually less than stellar, the second category leaves you SoL with a lucky dispel and the third category: only works for a small group of spells due to simultaneous metamagic ordering & the intense amount of resources it takes to have more than a handful.

I've been on the leading edge of each of those three categories. You're free to disagree but I require a sacrifice of advancement in one of those categoryies first (a method to more easily persist or find additional permaneciable spells or complete my long duration buff thread, etc)

[Lokiyn]

It's hard to make a list of always ban X, in part because what makes one campaign "trite" is necessary in another.

Wait, so considering draconic polymorph, you're telling me that there exists a campaign where PCs need shapechange in a campaign that wouldn't otherwise have it?

Yes? No? Maybe?

I'm not going to say that there never was nor will be such a campaign, off the top of my head a game where the players are the only humans in a world of monsters and they  have to figure out what happened, or a game where the players have to sneak into the millennium conclave of dragonkind where they are currently debating the "mammal problem", might fit the bill. I'm just saying that until you establish what you want your setting to be, and where you want the campaign to go, its hard to make a specific list of banned things based on the original posters criteria of "triteness" since what makes one game trite can be important in another. And yes, you could say that there are things that 95+% of games could do without, i don't think anyone would argue that point, on the other hand you can't necessarily say that someone will never have a campaign in that remaining 5% or so.

[Unbeliever]

The impulse to go through and carefully fix 3E D&D so that spells don't throw anything out of whack given all the build and archetype options shades very quickly into "just play a different game."

I don't find 3.5e minus thoughtbottle or ice assassin to suddenly be some twilight zone non-DnD game. It's much more like what DnD was supposed to be.

I feel compelled to defend myself by pointing out that >1 posts in this thread suggested banning nearly all buffing and debuffing spells.  This was in response to a line of suggestions that were far more elaborate than excising a niche spell and a single magic item. 

Run that sentence again while banning Haste, Stoneskin, and Bless and see if you still disagree with me.  It's fine if you do, but that was the context of my original comment, i.e., house rules so that you couldn't fit the banned spells on an index card.

[Amechra]

The impulse to go through and carefully fix 3E D&D so that spells don't throw anything out of whack given all the build and archetype options shades very quickly into "just play a different game."

I don't find 3.5e minus thoughtbottle or ice assassin to suddenly be some twilight zone non-DnD game. It's much more like what DnD was supposed to be.

I feel compelled to defend myself by pointing out that >1 posts in this thread suggested banning nearly all buffing and debuffing spells.  This was in response to a line of suggestions that were far more elaborate than excising a niche spell and a single magic item. 

Run that sentence again while banning Haste, Stoneskin, and Bless and see if you still disagree with me.  It's fine if you do, but that was the context of my original comment, i.e., house rules so that you couldn't fit the banned spells on an index card.

Honestly? One of my favorite OSR-type experiments cuts the entire spell-list down to 6 spells at 1st level, and 3 at each level thereafter (up to 4th level - after that, the votes he was using to determine the most "iconic" spells ran out.)

1st Level
Charm Person, Feather Fall, Light, Magic Missile, Shield, Sleep

2nd Level
Detect Thoughts, Invisibility, Web.

3rd Level
Dispel Magic, Fireball, Fly

4th Level
Charm Monster, Dimension Door, Polymorph

...

I'd honestly say that I wouldn't shed a tear if the Wizard's spell list was reduced to just the above, with the option for finding scrolls of crazy stuff squirrelled away in a dungeon somewhere.

[stanprollyright]

Honestly? One of my favorite OSR-type experiments cuts the entire spell-list down to 6 spells at 1st level, and 3 at each level thereafter (up to 4th level - after that, the votes he was using to determine the most "iconic" spells ran out.)

1st Level
Charm Person, Feather Fall, Light, Magic Missile, Shield, Sleep

2nd Level
Detect Thoughts, Invisibility, Web.

3rd Level
Dispel Magic, Fireball, Fly

4th Level
Charm Monster, Dimension Door, Polymorph

...

I'd honestly say that I wouldn't shed a tear if the Wizard's spell list was reduced to just the above, with the option for finding scrolls of crazy stuff squirrelled away in a dungeon somewhere.

I would shed many tears for the loss of Grease.  Glitterdust, Silent Image, and Scorching Ray too.  I get your point though.  I personally limit myself to the PHB whenever playing a prepared caster.  With spontaneous casters I will scour books for the best options because that's all I get, but I never have more than one or two spells/level that aren't core.

[Maelphaxerazz]

(click to show/hide)

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.

The short answer is "Yes, it functions at mid-high level." The medium answer adds "...because in the past we had magic items up the wazoo and in the present we house-rule monster ACs and attack bonuses."

The long answer is that Magic Vestment and Greater Magic Weapon and similar spells are tied to the default magic item system. I don't think they are even intended to be good, just stopgap measures in case your magic items get disjoined or destroyed or stolen. In other words, the reason you feel you need Greater Magic Weapon to get yourself a +4 weapon at level 16 is that the designers wrote the monsters with the assumption that you would have a +4 weapon at level 16.

And that's terrible. WotC commented on the annoyance of assumed "plusses" in magic items in DragMag while 4e was in development, but then they went and did it again anyway, because somehow +[number] magic swords are the most D&D thing ever. It really restricts DM planning, because if you do not give the PCs enough treasure the party casters become the absolute lifeline of the party.

My group is experimenting with removing the boring bonuses from magic items just like we did from the spell list, but it is a lot of work (too many monsters) so we just eyeball the numbers for now. If you reduce monster attack bonuses and AC and WBL according to the amount of enhancement bonuses taken out of the game, the chance to hit comes out even, and then you don't need to worry about treasure OR about boring (but effective) equipment-enhancing buff spells. It is probably worth a handbook to give an alternative WBL and alternative monster numbers chart, to strip +number items from the math (likely with -X per CR rather than modifying individual monster statblocks). But I don't have the time to do that, so if anyone else wants to, feel free.

This doesn't really solve the spells > everything else problem.

No, it does not. I think spells are so tied to this game that solving the spells > everything else problem is not worth trying. We use slightly buffed and generic-ized versions of Tome of Battle classes for the fighter-types and somewhat altered/nerfed full-caster classes, and our skilled-types have full BAB and extra class features, but for the most part we just accept that this is a game of Magic: the Gathering with dice and roleplaying.

However, banning most buffs means that you can actually cut down spellcaster's spells per day without it being too painful... I would think.

That it does. In our games, full spellcasters either cast two less spells per spell level (if they are open-list prepared spellcasters, like the Wizard and the Archivist) or cast one less spell per spell level and have one less spell known (if they are spontaneous spellcasters like the Sorcerer). Clerics and Druids are in the latter category, because we use the spontaneous divine casters variant in Unearthed Arcana. That does not actually bring "balance", but for our games it is good enough.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

@unbeliever okay so you disagree with those trying to ban buffs. I love buffs something fierce. Very few are broken (cough cough friendly fire cough cough)

you could say that there are things that 95+% of games could do without, i don't think anyone would argue that point

Good enough for me.

[Unbeliever]

Maelph, if you get the chance, would you post or PM your house rules?

[LudicSavant]

Some spells I ban and frequently see banned:

 Venomfire, Streamers, Consumptive Field (both versions), Shivering Touch, Celerity (all of the versions), Wings of Cover, Ice Assassin, Power Word: Pain, Gate, Simulacrum, Guidance of the Avatar.

[Manic Oppressive]

Not technically a spell, but I usually ban Iron Heart Surge.

I COULD just say no to stupid tricks with it, (It's not like most of them are even RAW) but that maneuver always, ALWAYS results in arguments. It's just too poorly written, and it's not worth the drama.

[Satori]

Celerity is often considered broken due to the ability to interrupt someone's turn.
Say an enemy was a wizard and nobody realized it until they started casting a spell.
You use Celerity and use another spell to cause that DC 10 + damage dealt concentration check or they fail their spell, or knowing wizard hit points possibly just kill him.
Combine it with one of the few ways to negate the dazed condition so you don't lose you next turn and you can make someone have a very bad day.
This is just a basic example, I am sure others could come up with far crazier ways to abuse Celerity.

Celerity, basically, can mean that you never lose initiative. That's kinda OP if your casters are also speccing for save-or-die / save-or-suck, where that one action can easily mean a PC dying / the battle swinging into a TPK. (or, on the other hand, making any and all encounters a piece of cake)

Nitpick, but although I agree that the celerity line is borked, auto-winning Initiative isn't one of them. That's because it still takes an Immediate action to activate, and you can't use Immediate actions if you're flatfooted. And you're automatically flatfooted if you lose initiative until it's your normal turn to act.

Cunning fixes that nicely.  You can get it through a WoL.