She says she won't play mind control and alter self.
This is the list:
Charm person
Command
Crown of Madness
Gift of Gab
Suggestion
Enemies Abound
Fast Friends
Confusion
Dominate Beast
*Polymorph (against an unwilling creature)
Dominate Person
Dream
Geas
Modify Memory
Flesh to Stone
Mass Suggestion
Antipathy\Sympathy
Dominate Monster
Feeblemind
Mass Polymorph (against an unwilling creature)
Time Ravage
True Polymorph (against an unwilling creature)
So I assume enchantment wizard is off the table, or anyone who wants to rely on enchantment. Casters will have less versatility. The ban was in mid campaign, so it made the seductive lore bard to change class to arcane trickster, and due to party composition, the cleric into a scribes wizard.
I don't even use those spells often for my casters, and you can certainly still maintain a decent caster (even Bard) without them.
However, DMs who pull this shit are not ones I wanna play with. Either discuss it at Session 0 or just don't do it as there's no justifiable reason to. So, bye.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
That is a pretty extreme change to bring about in the middle of a campaign though. One wonders how far the party were trying to push the enchantment line.
Not necessarily all that far to be honest. They're nearly all spells that mess with the agency of the target, and if someone is particularly concerned about that, then there may not have been a prompt from the party at all - they might have just come across one of the spells, didn't like it, then preempted the others. Or perhaps the DM doesn't care but it was a complaint by one of the players.
I don't even use those spells often for my casters, and you can certainly still maintain a decent caster (even Bard) without them.
However, DMs who pull this shit are not ones I wanna play with. Either discuss it at Session 0 or just don't do it as there's no justifiable reason to. So, bye.
Eh...I half agree. I'm not a fan of arbitrary restrictions or the "I don't want to play as this character, and now I'm DM and have the power, I'm going to stop you from playing them as well", and will walk away from games like that.
On the other hand, we don't know the motivations here. It's a reasonable guess that it's due to the fact that nearly all of them impact agency, which some could find uncomfortable. If the DM is new or a new player complained, then it's understandable. The DM does seem reasonable in so much that they're allowing changes in character to compensate for their sudden ruling. It just depends on why it's being made and why now, were there any prior warnings, etc.
It really depends who on how you play your casters. I've been playing casters for a year and a half, and I think I've only chosen to learn three of those, and used two, once each. If you banned them from my campaigns...I probably wouldn't have even noticed. You'd have to lean more into damage, indirect control (like creating walls, terrain, etc), and other aspects of casting.
The question is what perspective are you asking from? Are you a caster and struggling to adapt? We'd need to know what class you are to help you. It's a broad topico we need to narrow down what perspective you want the answers from.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Yikes. I would probably not want to play with that DM. That said, I don't think it really affects spellcasters too much. Sure there are some good out-of-combat control spells (the mental manipulation stuff like charm and friends and such) in that list but they're situational at best and a couple of good face characters will probably be just as good if not better.
I wonder if the DM just dislikes the idea of one being able to subvert another's free will or something. Perhaps a conversation asking for the reason behind it should be had? Or perhaps someone at the table, even the DM themselves, had an issue with something that was going on? I dunno, we don't know your table's dynamic or really have any meaningful context.
I think they're like the complete antithesis to myself. I lean into my players' shenanigans because I want them to have fun. I mean, one of my players asked me to vet their build idea prior to the start of our Netherdeep campaign and let them know if I thought it was too strong and I was like "Nope, I absolutely love it. It's a well thought out character build concept." The idea? A combination of Peace Cleric and Eloquence Bard making good use of a combination of Bless, Bardic Inspiration, and Emboldening Bond to buff the everloving heck out of the party's rolls.
I m not going to judge as we do not know the full story.
I am all for the the same rules applying to NPCs a the players. While the issue of player agency spells should have been covered at session 0 it is easily missed. If the players are using spells like command then it should be able to be cast on them. (As a DM I would limit player mind control to a single combat, I would not use feeblemind on a PC unless the party has access to greater restoration or heal).
If the players had been using "mind control" spells but then objected to the same spells being cast on them, it would be sensible tfor te DM to call an OOC discussion on the matter giving the players the choice whether to ban such spells from the game or allow them to be used by both PCs and NPCs (if if they choose the later allow the Players to change their PCs accordingly. That could be what happened here.
I am surprised at the amount of change to the PCs, if the seductive lore bard was too reliant on magic I could see rather than being less effective at seduction (because they can not enhance their charisma with magic) them wanting to change their character though lore bard to arcane trickster is quite a change. What I really con't understand is if a charisma based caster with healing is replaced with a dex / int based PC without healing why they felt a need for party composition reasons to replace a Wis based caster with healing into an Int based caster without healing. If it was Wizard to Cleric I could sort of understand it though the game works fine with unbalanced parties, I have been in one campaign with a Paladin, Bard, Warlock and Cleric (where funnily enough the cleric often spoke for the party).
I wonder if the DM just dislikes the idea of one being able to subvert another's free will or something.
DM says she doesn't feel comfortable to roleplay mind control. And she doesn't want to affect the party with mind control. One of the players also wanted the spells to be removed, and mentioned that she will quit if we try to negotiate on it. I am mercy monk, so I'm out of this problem anyways, but still it's weird and concerning for future campaigns.
DM says she doesn't feel comfortable to roleplay mind control. And she doesn't want to affect the party with mind control. One of the players also wanted the spells to be removed, and mentioned that she will quit if we try to negotiate on it. I am mercy monk, so I'm out of this problem anyways, but still it's weird and concerning for future campaigns.
Got'cha, I had a sneaking suspicion based on the nature of the majority of the spells that it was something along those lines. Probably should have been something discussed during Session Zero but, benefit of the doubt and all, I assume it was an unforeseen scenario that (might have) come up during a session.
Some of the spells listed confuse me, though; Confusion, Crown of Madness, Feeblemind, Enemies Abound, Time Ravage (Critical Role), and all of the Polymorphs against unwilling creatures, I don't understand since none are "mind control". Confusion simply forces a die roll which dictates what actions the creature can take on its turn, Crown of Madness lets the caster dictate a target for the creature to attack, Feeblemind reduces a target's Int/Cha to 1, Enemies Abound forces a target to attack targets at random be they friend or foe, Time Ravage ages a target to 30 days until natural death but is also a 9th-level spell and unlikely to see use in game, and Polymorphing an enemy in combat is an amazing save-or-suck shut down spell but allows the target to retain its personality.
Having the charmed condition as a rider for a spell doesn't do anything more than disallowing attacks against/harming the charmer and gives advantage to social ability checks so even that condition being part of the spell doesn't push it under the "mind control" umbrella.
That said, I'm not the DM or the other player so I don't know their rationale. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think it causes a huge problem even for an Enchanter Wizard since there are plenty of other spells one could use instead that are just as effective, if not more. It just limits the spells that allow one to directly control social interactions, is all.
I wonder if the DM just dislikes the idea of one being able to subvert another's free will or something.
DM says she doesn't feel comfortable to roleplay mind control. And she doesn't want to affect the party with mind control. One of the players also wanted the spells to be removed, and mentioned that she will quit if we try to negotiate on it. I am mercy monk, so I'm out of this problem anyways, but still it's weird and concerning for future campaigns.
The motivation is reasonable. I wouldn't want them removed from the game as a whole, but I can see why they don't like the idea of them.
The two things that concern me are:
1. Why wasn't this discussed before? I mean, it's plausible that they're all new and it's only come up now, but if they've ever played before, they should have known about it. This really should have come up in the very first session - before people have committed to the characters they're playing. It's kind of understandable if they didn't know about these spells beforehand, but it's really not acceptable if they knew and are only now bringing up these qualms.
2. Is this indicative of how the DM handles things? Bans are a tool to be used, but if bans are their first tool of choice... that's going to be a frustrating campaign.
I'm all for working together with the DM for the good of the table. That requires compromise all round. However, you have a lot of hours and effort you're committing to this campaign and it needs to be fun for you as well. This may not be a major issue for you...but you have to consider how the DM will handle issues in the future.
I've walked away from one campaign...and it was over an issue like this. It wasn't the only reason, but it was the one that made the decision to leave click into place. I used a spell, he decided that it didn't work the way it does as described and basically made it pointless and wasted one of my only two spell slots for the session...as a Wizard. Why? Because he didn't like that I'd overcome his obstacle so easily. Luckily, I'd passed the check and it didn't tangible affect the result, but it told me what the DM was like and that I could look forward to similar capricious rulings, which I find really unfun. I could invest substantial amounts of resources to plans into plans that work according RAW only to find that the on-the-spot rulings stop them in their tracks...literally because my plans would have worked. That was going to really frustrate and upset me...so I walked.
I can understand the motivation, and might even rule similarly in that situation (although, depending on what couldn't be negotiated, I may kick the offended player - as I said, the game requires compromise by all, talking about adjusting spells so they're acceptable should be on the table and refusal on that just spells bad omens). You have to judge whether this is a one-off or how the DM deals with every issue. Are they going to be making mid-campaign bans in future? This really should be a one-time-only thing. It should also be a triggering a session 0 where every concern is brought up and dealt with. There are serious problems at that table and they need to be dealt with.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Some of the spells listed confuse me, though; Confusion, Crown of Madness, Feeblemind, Enemies Abound, Time Ravage (Critical Role), and all of the Polymorphs against unwilling creatures, I don't understand since none are "mind control"
Basically DM says everything that affects characters unwillingly, mind control, changing appearance etc...
Some of the spells listed confuse me, though; Confusion, Crown of Madness, Feeblemind, Enemies Abound, Time Ravage (Critical Role), and all of the Polymorphs against unwilling creatures, I don't understand since none are "mind control"
Basically DM says everything that affects characters unwillingly, mind control, changing appearance etc...
Illusions can make it look like they were affected unwillingly, are those going to get banned down the line, too? And harming someone in combat is affecting them unwillingly as well. And what about spells that summon creatures? I think you're right to be cautious, and you should take a look at how gameplay progresses now that this rule is in place. The current list of spells is work-aroundable, but if more get added to it, it could get trickier. Since you're playing a monk, you've got time to figure out if this is going to be an issue for you, and to do some experimental builds and see if you think the DM (or the other player) would have a problem with them.
Before responding to the actual thread itself--which only asks what might change for spellcasters and does not ask for commentary on the validity of the ban--I did want to take a moment to respond to all the folks who are having a vitriolic response to this decision. I am putting the below under a spoiler since it contains some rather difficult realities about how these spells might effect some people.
This is a situation that demands a modicum of basic human empathy, not jumping to "I would quit" or similar unsympathetic nonsense. These spells all have a common thread--they involve one individual forcing their will upon another. It should be fairly obvious why that might be a problem for some players. For those who miss the obvious, this kind of subjugation of one person's will for another has strong connotations of sexual trauma--not exactly the kind of thing one might want to relive when playing their fantasy game.
If a DM bans these spells and these spells alone, there is probably a reason for it--it is very likely that they or one of the players have a history of trauma which is specifically raised by these kinds of spells and they or the player do not want to have something which reminds them of their trauma within their game.
That also could be why the DM is not giving a clear explanation for why they went through and "randomly" banned the spells--if they do not want to talk about their motivation or do not want to out another player's motivation, they might not give you the explanation as they do not want to talk about the reasons why.
So, frankly, do not stress too much about their motivations. Perhaps it could be bad DMing as some on this thread have suggested, but it also very, very likely a decision made due to past trauma by someone in your party (and it might even be trauma by one of the players other than the two who spoke up about the spells). This very narrow situation for control magic is one where a decent human being should probably not question the bans and just exhibit an understanding that there might be a valid reason you are not in a position to know.
------
As for how these bans will influence spellcasters, as you note, they will decrease spellcaster versatility, but, frankly, it should not be that big of a deal and could make the game better.
Most parties are going to have a face character--someone who can talk to others and try to solve roleplaying challenges through diplomacy, fast talking, or threat. These spells often render Cha characters a tad impotent--by allowing a magic user to just "hey, suggestion/gaes/fast friends/etc." an enemy, it can bypass entire dialogues and make the Charisma character feel like their investment into certain stats was a waste of time as the magic user can just solve the problem with spells. Requiring the party to work together to make up for one another's weaknesses and solve problems by utilizing the individual best for the job (rather than simply "oh look, the swiss army knife of magic spells solves this problem!" occurring all the time) can make for more dynamic gameplay less likely to result in one individual taking over the table.
Now, sure, it also means there are certain subclasses that will be made worse with the bans--but there are plenty of subclass options that it is not really all that hard to choose something different. This really only is going to influence a player who wanted to be a mind mage and, if you are in a group where these spells are banned, perhaps that was not the right type of character to bring into the group in the first place (see above).
So, all told, I do not think this will end up being that big of a deal. It makes things worse for the magic users--but in a way that they can embrace and lean into for additional challenge--and it makes things better for some of the non-magic users at the table.
It certainly would affect spells choice for some spellcasters but there is many other spell schools to choose from to largely make up for it. Whatever the DM's reasons to have such restrictions in his or her campaign, i always prefer to see them as a challenge than limitations, wether it's race, class, feat spells, magic items or any other ban in place.
sounds to me like the DM is caving to the wants of the player who says if you even try to negotiate, she's out. I imagine there's more to the story, perhaps the bard trying something skeezy that pushed things over the edge. I'm generally not in favor of allowing players to get away with holding a table hostage (give me what I want or I am out) but I suspect there's more to the story.
I say that feeling a bit hypocritical, because there are a lot of choices that I will personally dip out over, but I don't hold a table hostage over it. My table knows what will cause me to dip up front, and that it's a personal choice not some moral highground. Things like chaos sorcs ruin my fun, and I believe my fun should not be held hostage to someone else's so I just choose to dip with no hard feelings.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Y'all, this wasn't ever about the validity of the decision, the level of maturity/professionalism/skill of the DM, or anything like that. It was never about whether the list was internally consistent, justifiable, or even fair. You brought that in, OP never asked for it. The question wasn't about what you think you would do, if your DM did this. Full stop, it just wasn't. And guess what, it definitely wasn't about whether OP's DM is a victim of sexual violence! For crying out loud. You're actually making me want to cry, here. Imagine if the thread was picking apart YOUR behavior and trying to figure out whether you've been abused. It's actually vile.
The decision does not need to be justified to anyone, and least of all to us here.
OP asked about what will happen to casters (and presumably whether casters are still worth playing with this house rule). Let's talk about that.
If anything, I think Wizard players would have a nicer time because they don't have to deal with quite so many spells that utterly fail to affect certain categories of creatures. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone frustrated because we just keep on fighting things that are immune to their favorite spells. It's also irritating to have to reference every charming spell to check exactly which guys are immune to it, because they're not consistent across spells. You additionally lose the ones with awkward casting times like Geas and Modify Memory, which is another pain point because some players just don't read it and thus think the spell is worth taking when for them it's not, and others do understand it but can't easily find the opportunity to cast the darn things in a normal session. These are all positive changes through subtraction, in my estimation.
But absolutely you're right that the School of Enchantment Wizard is gonna feel pretty bad. As Caerwyn said, I would think such a character would be self-evidently a bad fit for the group anyway. I don't think any other options are particularly worse. None of these spells are must-haves by any means. Mass Suggestion is probably the spiciest one to lose, but it's fine.
it absolutely need to be justified to the players.
Furthermore, the OP never asked what happens. He stated what happened: The lore bard was force changed to an arcane trickster rogue, and the cleric had to change to wizard for some arcane reason. The OP stated something utterly messed up that the DM decided on a whim that had serious impacts for the table. Come down out of your ivory tower for a bit and read what was actually stated.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
No, it didn't. If one person says "I'd really rather we don't do this," and the "this" in question is literally a game, the other person should simply say "okay."
Even ignoring the fact that this intersects with extremely common trauma, there's just no need to dig deeper. What will be gained by doing so? They'd put the DM on the defensive, and illustrate that they don't trust the DM.
And furthermore, it WAS justified to the players. OP told us, the DM said she's uncomfortable with the spells and another player is as well. The fact that the justification doesn't satisfy strangers on the internet could not possibly matter less.
If someone's got such a profound issue with specific spells that it results in two other players having to completely rebuild their characters in the middle of the campaign, they should have either brought it up in Session Zero or dropped out of the game. People deserve to feel safe and comfortable while playing D&D, of course, but if doing so would be disruptive to everyone else then maybe that group really isn't the one for them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I don't even use those spells often for my casters, and you can certainly still maintain a decent caster (even Bard) without them.
However, DMs who pull this shit are not ones I wanna play with. Either discuss it at Session 0 or just don't do it as there's no justifiable reason to. So, bye.
The Dungeon Master has every right to ban the amount of spells they did so long as their was warning (Especially given the nature of some of the things banned), but I personally would not play in a group like that if I felt like I was barred from playing the character I wanted to play with the spells I wanted to use.
I will say that I agree that this should have been a Session Zero conversation; The fact that it wasn't is something of a small warning sign for potential trouble in the future.
To the OP, I don’t see much issues beyond what you listed. I don’t see it making casters generally be bad, just some specific caster types not working. But now you’ve got notice, so you should be able to work around it.
To the larger discussion. Yes, ideally it should have come up at session 0, but as has been said many times, it’s never too late have a session 0. So that’s what they did here. If you’re doing something, and you realize (or think or decide) it’s wrong (or it’s wrong for your table, at least), you should stop doing it. Stopping doing a bad thing is really, always the right choice. And so this table decided the best thing for them was to ban these spells. They are not asking you to ban them, they are not asking them to be removed from the PHB. They just don’t want to use them. It seems that characters which were affected were allowed to be rebuilt, which is about the most fair way to do it. Whether or not any of us here agree with it or like it or would do it is irrelevant. It’s a house rule for one group. As choiroffire is saying, let’s not debate if we like the way another group is having fun. We don’t get a say in that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
She says she won't play mind control and alter self.
This is the list:
Charm person
Command
Crown of Madness
Gift of Gab
Suggestion
Enemies Abound
Fast Friends
Confusion
Dominate Beast
*Polymorph (against an unwilling creature)
Dominate Person
Dream
Geas
Modify Memory
Flesh to Stone
Mass Suggestion
Antipathy\Sympathy
Dominate Monster
Feeblemind
Mass Polymorph (against an unwilling creature)
Time Ravage
True Polymorph (against an unwilling creature)
So I assume enchantment wizard is off the table, or anyone who wants to rely on enchantment. Casters will have less versatility. The ban was in mid campaign, so it made the seductive lore bard to change class to arcane trickster, and due to party composition, the cleric into a scribes wizard.
I'd have stopped playing and walked out.
I don't even use those spells often for my casters, and you can certainly still maintain a decent caster (even Bard) without them.
However, DMs who pull this shit are not ones I wanna play with. Either discuss it at Session 0 or just don't do it as there's no justifiable reason to. So, bye.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Not necessarily all that far to be honest. They're nearly all spells that mess with the agency of the target, and if someone is particularly concerned about that, then there may not have been a prompt from the party at all - they might have just come across one of the spells, didn't like it, then preempted the others. Or perhaps the DM doesn't care but it was a complaint by one of the players.
Eh...I half agree. I'm not a fan of arbitrary restrictions or the "I don't want to play as this character, and now I'm DM and have the power, I'm going to stop you from playing them as well", and will walk away from games like that.
On the other hand, we don't know the motivations here. It's a reasonable guess that it's due to the fact that nearly all of them impact agency, which some could find uncomfortable. If the DM is new or a new player complained, then it's understandable. The DM does seem reasonable in so much that they're allowing changes in character to compensate for their sudden ruling. It just depends on why it's being made and why now, were there any prior warnings, etc.
__________________________________________________
Back on topic:
It really depends who on how you play your casters. I've been playing casters for a year and a half, and I think I've only chosen to learn three of those, and used two, once each. If you banned them from my campaigns...I probably wouldn't have even noticed. You'd have to lean more into damage, indirect control (like creating walls, terrain, etc), and other aspects of casting.
The question is what perspective are you asking from? Are you a caster and struggling to adapt? We'd need to know what class you are to help you. It's a broad topico we need to narrow down what perspective you want the answers from.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Yikes. I would probably not want to play with that DM. That said, I don't think it really affects spellcasters too much. Sure there are some good out-of-combat control spells (the mental manipulation stuff like charm and friends and such) in that list but they're situational at best and a couple of good face characters will probably be just as good if not better.
I wonder if the DM just dislikes the idea of one being able to subvert another's free will or something. Perhaps a conversation asking for the reason behind it should be had? Or perhaps someone at the table, even the DM themselves, had an issue with something that was going on? I dunno, we don't know your table's dynamic or really have any meaningful context.
I think they're like the complete antithesis to myself. I lean into my players' shenanigans because I want them to have fun. I mean, one of my players asked me to vet their build idea prior to the start of our Netherdeep campaign and let them know if I thought it was too strong and I was like "Nope, I absolutely love it. It's a well thought out character build concept." The idea? A combination of Peace Cleric and Eloquence Bard making good use of a combination of Bless, Bardic Inspiration, and Emboldening Bond to buff the everloving heck out of the party's rolls.
I m not going to judge as we do not know the full story.
I am all for the the same rules applying to NPCs a the players. While the issue of player agency spells should have been covered at session 0 it is easily missed. If the players are using spells like command then it should be able to be cast on them. (As a DM I would limit player mind control to a single combat, I would not use feeblemind on a PC unless the party has access to greater restoration or heal).
If the players had been using "mind control" spells but then objected to the same spells being cast on them, it would be sensible tfor te DM to call an OOC discussion on the matter giving the players the choice whether to ban such spells from the game or allow them to be used by both PCs and NPCs (if if they choose the later allow the Players to change their PCs accordingly. That could be what happened here.
I am surprised at the amount of change to the PCs, if the seductive lore bard was too reliant on magic I could see rather than being less effective at seduction (because they can not enhance their charisma with magic) them wanting to change their character though lore bard to arcane trickster is quite a change. What I really con't understand is if a charisma based caster with healing is replaced with a dex / int based PC without healing why they felt a need for party composition reasons to replace a Wis based caster with healing into an Int based caster without healing. If it was Wizard to Cleric I could sort of understand it though the game works fine with unbalanced parties, I have been in one campaign with a Paladin, Bard, Warlock and Cleric (where funnily enough the cleric often spoke for the party).
DM says she doesn't feel comfortable to roleplay mind control. And she doesn't want to affect the party with mind control. One of the players also wanted the spells to be removed, and mentioned that she will quit if we try to negotiate on it. I am mercy monk, so I'm out of this problem anyways, but still it's weird and concerning for future campaigns.
Some of the spells listed confuse me, though; Confusion, Crown of Madness, Feeblemind, Enemies Abound, Time Ravage (Critical Role), and all of the Polymorphs against unwilling creatures, I don't understand since none are "mind control". Confusion simply forces a die roll which dictates what actions the creature can take on its turn, Crown of Madness lets the caster dictate a target for the creature to attack, Feeblemind reduces a target's Int/Cha to 1, Enemies Abound forces a target to attack targets at random be they friend or foe, Time Ravage ages a target to 30 days until natural death but is also a 9th-level spell and unlikely to see use in game, and Polymorphing an enemy in combat is an amazing save-or-suck shut down spell but allows the target to retain its personality.
Having the charmed condition as a rider for a spell doesn't do anything more than disallowing attacks against/harming the charmer and gives advantage to social ability checks so even that condition being part of the spell doesn't push it under the "mind control" umbrella.
That said, I'm not the DM or the other player so I don't know their rationale. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think it causes a huge problem even for an Enchanter Wizard since there are plenty of other spells one could use instead that are just as effective, if not more. It just limits the spells that allow one to directly control social interactions, is all.
The motivation is reasonable. I wouldn't want them removed from the game as a whole, but I can see why they don't like the idea of them.
The two things that concern me are:
1. Why wasn't this discussed before? I mean, it's plausible that they're all new and it's only come up now, but if they've ever played before, they should have known about it. This really should have come up in the very first session - before people have committed to the characters they're playing. It's kind of understandable if they didn't know about these spells beforehand, but it's really not acceptable if they knew and are only now bringing up these qualms.
2. Is this indicative of how the DM handles things? Bans are a tool to be used, but if bans are their first tool of choice... that's going to be a frustrating campaign.
I'm all for working together with the DM for the good of the table. That requires compromise all round. However, you have a lot of hours and effort you're committing to this campaign and it needs to be fun for you as well. This may not be a major issue for you...but you have to consider how the DM will handle issues in the future.
I've walked away from one campaign...and it was over an issue like this. It wasn't the only reason, but it was the one that made the decision to leave click into place. I used a spell, he decided that it didn't work the way it does as described and basically made it pointless and wasted one of my only two spell slots for the session...as a Wizard. Why? Because he didn't like that I'd overcome his obstacle so easily. Luckily, I'd passed the check and it didn't tangible affect the result, but it told me what the DM was like and that I could look forward to similar capricious rulings, which I find really unfun. I could invest substantial amounts of resources to plans into plans that work according RAW only to find that the on-the-spot rulings stop them in their tracks...literally because my plans would have worked. That was going to really frustrate and upset me...so I walked.
I can understand the motivation, and might even rule similarly in that situation (although, depending on what couldn't be negotiated, I may kick the offended player - as I said, the game requires compromise by all, talking about adjusting spells so they're acceptable should be on the table and refusal on that just spells bad omens). You have to judge whether this is a one-off or how the DM deals with every issue. Are they going to be making mid-campaign bans in future? This really should be a one-time-only thing. It should also be a triggering a session 0 where every concern is brought up and dealt with. There are serious problems at that table and they need to be dealt with.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Basically DM says everything that affects characters unwillingly, mind control, changing appearance etc...
The DM randomally went through all the spells one day, and she decided that. She didn't think of that at the beginning.
Illusions can make it look like they were affected unwillingly, are those going to get banned down the line, too? And harming someone in combat is affecting them unwillingly as well. And what about spells that summon creatures? I think you're right to be cautious, and you should take a look at how gameplay progresses now that this rule is in place. The current list of spells is work-aroundable, but if more get added to it, it could get trickier. Since you're playing a monk, you've got time to figure out if this is going to be an issue for you, and to do some experimental builds and see if you think the DM (or the other player) would have a problem with them.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
Before responding to the actual thread itself--which only asks what might change for spellcasters and does not ask for commentary on the validity of the ban--I did want to take a moment to respond to all the folks who are having a vitriolic response to this decision. I am putting the below under a spoiler since it contains some rather difficult realities about how these spells might effect some people.
This is a situation that demands a modicum of basic human empathy, not jumping to "I would quit" or similar unsympathetic nonsense. These spells all have a common thread--they involve one individual forcing their will upon another. It should be fairly obvious why that might be a problem for some players. For those who miss the obvious, this kind of subjugation of one person's will for another has strong connotations of sexual trauma--not exactly the kind of thing one might want to relive when playing their fantasy game.
If a DM bans these spells and these spells alone, there is probably a reason for it--it is very likely that they or one of the players have a history of trauma which is specifically raised by these kinds of spells and they or the player do not want to have something which reminds them of their trauma within their game.
That also could be why the DM is not giving a clear explanation for why they went through and "randomly" banned the spells--if they do not want to talk about their motivation or do not want to out another player's motivation, they might not give you the explanation as they do not want to talk about the reasons why.
So, frankly, do not stress too much about their motivations. Perhaps it could be bad DMing as some on this thread have suggested, but it also very, very likely a decision made due to past trauma by someone in your party (and it might even be trauma by one of the players other than the two who spoke up about the spells). This very narrow situation for control magic is one where a decent human being should probably not question the bans and just exhibit an understanding that there might be a valid reason you are not in a position to know.
------
As for how these bans will influence spellcasters, as you note, they will decrease spellcaster versatility, but, frankly, it should not be that big of a deal and could make the game better.
Most parties are going to have a face character--someone who can talk to others and try to solve roleplaying challenges through diplomacy, fast talking, or threat. These spells often render Cha characters a tad impotent--by allowing a magic user to just "hey, suggestion/gaes/fast friends/etc." an enemy, it can bypass entire dialogues and make the Charisma character feel like their investment into certain stats was a waste of time as the magic user can just solve the problem with spells. Requiring the party to work together to make up for one another's weaknesses and solve problems by utilizing the individual best for the job (rather than simply "oh look, the swiss army knife of magic spells solves this problem!" occurring all the time) can make for more dynamic gameplay less likely to result in one individual taking over the table.
Now, sure, it also means there are certain subclasses that will be made worse with the bans--but there are plenty of subclass options that it is not really all that hard to choose something different. This really only is going to influence a player who wanted to be a mind mage and, if you are in a group where these spells are banned, perhaps that was not the right type of character to bring into the group in the first place (see above).
So, all told, I do not think this will end up being that big of a deal. It makes things worse for the magic users--but in a way that they can embrace and lean into for additional challenge--and it makes things better for some of the non-magic users at the table.
It certainly would affect spells choice for some spellcasters but there is many other spell schools to choose from to largely make up for it. Whatever the DM's reasons to have such restrictions in his or her campaign, i always prefer to see them as a challenge than limitations, wether it's race, class, feat spells, magic items or any other ban in place.
sounds to me like the DM is caving to the wants of the player who says if you even try to negotiate, she's out. I imagine there's more to the story, perhaps the bard trying something skeezy that pushed things over the edge. I'm generally not in favor of allowing players to get away with holding a table hostage (give me what I want or I am out) but I suspect there's more to the story.
I say that feeling a bit hypocritical, because there are a lot of choices that I will personally dip out over, but I don't hold a table hostage over it. My table knows what will cause me to dip up front, and that it's a personal choice not some moral highground. Things like chaos sorcs ruin my fun, and I believe my fun should not be held hostage to someone else's so I just choose to dip with no hard feelings.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Y'all, this wasn't ever about the validity of the decision, the level of maturity/professionalism/skill of the DM, or anything like that. It was never about whether the list was internally consistent, justifiable, or even fair. You brought that in, OP never asked for it. The question wasn't about what you think you would do, if your DM did this. Full stop, it just wasn't. And guess what, it definitely wasn't about whether OP's DM is a victim of sexual violence! For crying out loud. You're actually making me want to cry, here. Imagine if the thread was picking apart YOUR behavior and trying to figure out whether you've been abused. It's actually vile.
The decision does not need to be justified to anyone, and least of all to us here.
OP asked about what will happen to casters (and presumably whether casters are still worth playing with this house rule). Let's talk about that.
If anything, I think Wizard players would have a nicer time because they don't have to deal with quite so many spells that utterly fail to affect certain categories of creatures. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone frustrated because we just keep on fighting things that are immune to their favorite spells. It's also irritating to have to reference every charming spell to check exactly which guys are immune to it, because they're not consistent across spells. You additionally lose the ones with awkward casting times like Geas and Modify Memory, which is another pain point because some players just don't read it and thus think the spell is worth taking when for them it's not, and others do understand it but can't easily find the opportunity to cast the darn things in a normal session. These are all positive changes through subtraction, in my estimation.
But absolutely you're right that the School of Enchantment Wizard is gonna feel pretty bad. As Caerwyn said, I would think such a character would be self-evidently a bad fit for the group anyway. I don't think any other options are particularly worse. None of these spells are must-haves by any means. Mass Suggestion is probably the spiciest one to lose, but it's fine.
it absolutely need to be justified to the players.
Furthermore, the OP never asked what happens. He stated what happened: The lore bard was force changed to an arcane trickster rogue, and the cleric had to change to wizard for some arcane reason. The OP stated something utterly messed up that the DM decided on a whim that had serious impacts for the table. Come down out of your ivory tower for a bit and read what was actually stated.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
No, it didn't. If one person says "I'd really rather we don't do this," and the "this" in question is literally a game, the other person should simply say "okay."
Even ignoring the fact that this intersects with extremely common trauma, there's just no need to dig deeper. What will be gained by doing so? They'd put the DM on the defensive, and illustrate that they don't trust the DM.
And furthermore, it WAS justified to the players. OP told us, the DM said she's uncomfortable with the spells and another player is as well. The fact that the justification doesn't satisfy strangers on the internet could not possibly matter less.
If someone's got such a profound issue with specific spells that it results in two other players having to completely rebuild their characters in the middle of the campaign, they should have either brought it up in Session Zero or dropped out of the game. People deserve to feel safe and comfortable while playing D&D, of course, but if doing so would be disruptive to everyone else then maybe that group really isn't the one for them.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The Dungeon Master has every right to ban the amount of spells they did so long as their was warning (Especially given the nature of some of the things banned), but I personally would not play in a group like that if I felt like I was barred from playing the character I wanted to play with the spells I wanted to use.
I will say that I agree that this should have been a Session Zero conversation; The fact that it wasn't is something of a small warning sign for potential trouble in the future.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.To the OP, I don’t see much issues beyond what you listed. I don’t see it making casters generally be bad, just some specific caster types not working. But now you’ve got notice, so you should be able to work around it.
To the larger discussion. Yes, ideally it should have come up at session 0, but as has been said many times, it’s never too late have a session 0. So that’s what they did here. If you’re doing something, and you realize (or think or decide) it’s wrong (or it’s wrong for your table, at least), you should stop doing it. Stopping doing a bad thing is really, always the right choice. And so this table decided the best thing for them was to ban these spells. They are not asking you to ban them, they are not asking them to be removed from the PHB. They just don’t want to use them. It seems that characters which were affected were allowed to be rebuilt, which is about the most fair way to do it.
Whether or not any of us here agree with it or like it or would do it is irrelevant. It’s a house rule for one group. As choiroffire is saying, let’s not debate if we like the way another group is having fun. We don’t get a say in that.