It should have happen during session zero no doubt but as Skfma said the DM didn't feel comfortable with mind-affecting spells midway during campaign and her and one of the players wanted the spells removed and is asking how is it affecting spellcasters, not wether any of us would play in such campaign or walk away. No one here was invested in such campaign and while it's easy to make blanket statement about what one can accept or not, it's another to pass judgement do i'd avoid doing so.
Honestly I'm surprised this doesn't come up more often. Mind control and memory alteration are things we - as humans in the real world - would generally think of as incredibly evil acts, even if used on bad guys for good reasons. Definitely if someone were walking around using mind control to get shopping discounts we'd want to put them away in a little box for quite a while.
I've run into player discomfort with the idea, and although we didn't ban such spells we agreed that using them on sapient beings was evil (in the context of the campaign, which was 2nd Edition, an evil PC soon became an NPC). Even though the campaign was underway, it wasn't an issue at all in gameplay: The wizard changed a few spells in his books and we all got on with our fictional lives.
NB: Our evil-charms spell list was a lot narrower and didn't include polymorph- or confusion-type spells or flesh to stone - the last of which frankly baffles me. Between that, different editions, different tables, your mileage may vary. All I can say is that a similar thing wasn't an issue a long time ago for a bunch of misfit teenaged guys.
It definitely comes up. Every table I've played at has had to grapple with the same questions: Why are we justified using methods for which we condemn others? How is the fact that we're unaccountably powerful anything less than a horror? And of course, why do we call this a heroic fantasy game when its mechanics incentivize us to show no mercy, use underhanded tactics, and kill children?
Would you cure an insane being with a mind altering spell? If not why would you feel justified in letting them continue with their confused or dangerous life?
By the way I do understand the dislike or fear of mind control spells but who would not expect those type of spells in a game full of magic? This sounds like a player with a very acute (and real ) fear of being personally altered or compelled against their will.
As for the effect on the game. The AT would have to have a very real change to its spell list since removing enchantment spells takes half of their spells away. What were they replaced with? Since most of the mental control spells are very limited and in fact reveal who the caster is I do not see their game power being to great or by any way replaced. In almost every case the spell effect will be or soon can be reversed.
And yes the removal of so many spells in the MIDDLE of a campaign will have great effects all over the world.
You might want to skip that DM, they are taking their own issues and exporting them to game. Those spells are used to help bypass encounters and roleplay. When you take out charm person, when you absolutely need to get to the truth of the matter, well now its gone. You gonna have to trust them and that insight roll was good enough. Polymorph against an enemy is used all the time to help trivialize an encounter, and yes it can suck for the DM but its part of the game. You might want to mention to your DM about the disguise kit and see if that will trigger them. Are changelings going to be banned, because that could be triggering. And oh, mimics and dopplegangers should be removed. You could try to change her mind on it by showing how much of the game is in.
If you can't change their mind, I'd go elsewhere unless you want to play D&D with some kind of hard handicap on roleplaying and combat.
This was a thorny issue and I can see points on both sides, but the degree to which the DM simply dropped the hammer is a bit of a flag, imo. Stuff doesn't always come up in Session 0 or a group doesn't hold one and the DM needs to react down the line, I get it. But a ban list that extensive as fait accompli does at least suggest any aspect of the game is subject to being axed at short notice. If nothing else, I'd suggest the group needs to have a chat and work out what other hard lines people have now rather than have builds disrupted like this again down the line.
Please note, the decision to remove these spells don't just impact the spellcaster abilities of the characters. A player character's class and ancestry can grant them access to similar spell features or defensives against these spells; thus making their character build less effective in the game.
Take the Bard for example. Their 6th level ability of Countercharm becomes less impactful. And depending on their campaign build, they may feel that bardic inspiration is not as impactful if there will be less INT/WIS checks. On paper, it might not seem that big because the party will still face STR and DEX checks, but can we all guarantee the Barbarian won't see the Bard as being less effective because the Barbarian easily succeeds on STR and DEX challenges and sees the inspiration as being non-essential? The point is, even if only a 15% reduction to the players' abilities to have impact in the game, it is still a reduction and that can lead to a player questioning if they can continue as the character.
Making a significant rule change like this during a campaign, it is only fair to allow all players to redesign their characters so they feel they can be impactful under the current game rulesets.
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.
One of my characters got do I aged once, it sucked, but it was only temporary and it’s just part of the game. I fail to see what the big deal is. I’m more concerned with that player who took the game hostage and demanded the spells get banned or they walk. What are they gonna demand next?
And as others have pointed out, half the illusion spells are technically a form of mind control, so what about them? And 80% of the spell list affects “unwilling” creatures, mostly with damage. So what about them? This is a slippery slope, and I wouldn’t want to be on it. What if they decide they don’t like any spells based on fire next because getting burned to death is a horrible way to go and that idea triggers them? Then what?
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.
Honestly, the bolded part is what I take the greatest issue with. While this banning of spells is a bit heavy handed and sudden, and can be a bit unfair (especially if other players were using them to some extend for their characters and are being affected by this sudden ban), many people feel uncomfortable by mind controlling or mind alternating effects and may not really even know that fact until actually experiencing it in play. The DM is only human too and should be able to express when something genuinely makes them uncomfortable and be able to work towards making the game more fun for the players AND themselves.
However, D&D (and TTRPGs in general) are group games and everyone should be able to express themselves and negotiate with the rest on what they want out of the game and work towards that ideal play space for the game. The fact that one player is basically saying that not only is no conversation about this sudden change needed, but that if any conversation actually occurs to try and find a compromise or even discuss with the others why they might want to keeps this spells or even express their frustrations...that she will quit the game, comes off as rather rude and showing a lack or care or cooperation with the rest of the party. And if the DM chose to do as this player said without any other consideration, it comes off like that this player and what they want matters more to the rest of the group and would personally make me uncomfortable being at that table even if I was in full agreement with the ban at the end.
We don't have all the information, but from the information presented, that is the big red flag for me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Much like the “this is wrong on its face” crowd are displaying a staggering lack of empathy and off-topic proselytising, so too are the “this should have been done in session zero” folks.
One of the big problems with Session Zero - or more accurately one of the big problems with many of its proponents - is that it is often used as an excuse to justify keeping elements that make folks uncomfortable in the game or vilify those who might realise something they didn’t know in the middle of a campaign. Saying “why didn’t they bring it up in session zero” or other statements which boil down to “this is their fault they didn’t raise it in session zero” shows an incredible lack of understanding of how humans function.
No one ever has perfect knowledge of what might set them off - particularly at the way beginning of a campaign when everything is hypothetical and folks are prone to overestimating the thickness of their skin. Often, it is only through actual play, and the realisation “oh, huh, this makes me profoundly uncomfortable” do those kinds of things come out. A player shouldn’t be vilified for their post-session zero self-realisations—especially on a topic that may very likely be associated with specific trauma (or may not, it’s not really other players’ place to judge, and it takes a certain kind of jerk to say “oh, I see you are uncomfortable, but I don’t care unless you can justify why).
I know a lot of this is off topic for the underlying question OP raised, but I feel the lack of empathy - to an extent that almost borders on cruelty - displayed on this thread does merit a response.
And, to be clear, I am not looking for this to start any discussion - this post is responding to tangential, off-topic posting and I would not want to further derail this thread. Nor will I be responding to anyone who responds to this - it needed to be said once, but not more than that. I would request that, rather than derail the thread, if you are inclined to defend yourself, you instead use the time you would spend posting on self-reflection.
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."
This is really the heart of it for me. I will always prioritize the experience, safety, and fun of my real players over anything based in the game. If I have to roll up a whole new character? That's fine.
Now if the restriction was something like "magic is satanic so I'm banning all magic," then we'd maybe need to have a conversation about playing a different game. But the game is fine without the spells OP listed, and honestly might be a bit easier to DM because many of those are basically instant win buttons in some situations.
We do not know the context here, though. It may well be that the "Seduction Bard" was actually the bigger problem. Still should have been sorted out in Session 0, though.
That character description rang more alarm bells for me than anything else in the post, but then again I have had bad experiences with a specific type of player many times over the years, so I may be biased.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
The concerns aren't invalid, but the immediate clamp down on any discussion of the issue is a bit of a flag. I can't make any hard judgements based solely on this portion of the story, but honestly if the DM and player have such strong issues with a significant component of the game experience, you kinda need to stop and ask if people actually want to go forward with the campaign. Just forcing a spell ban and class change without discussion seems like it has the potential to build up bad feelings down the line.
Good news! Friends isn't on the list! Enchantment Wizard is saved!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
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.
For all we know, whatever happened could have occurred well after the game started.
I think this thread should be locked tbh. The original question was answered and now it's devolved into pseudo-arguments only
100% agree. The discourse™ that continues to occur here is not only dishearteningly inconsiderate but also irrelevant to the question. I think it's safe to say it's run its course, and that a lock would leave everyone looking better than if the thread is left alone.
Here's my last thought on the actual topic. Arcane Tricksters will get a very minor, nearly invisible buff that feels like a nerf -- because generally speaking, their best spells don't use a saving throw. Take out all their enchantment spells, and they're forced to take other, on average better, spells. (Because they're MAD, their DC will usually be below that of the rest of their party, meaning that appropriately challenging saving throw bonuses against, say, the friendly Cleric will be too high for the Rogue to reliably exploit.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It should have happen during session zero no doubt but as Skfma said the DM didn't feel comfortable with mind-affecting spells midway during campaign and her and one of the players wanted the spells removed and is asking how is it affecting spellcasters, not wether any of us would play in such campaign or walk away. No one here was invested in such campaign and while it's easy to make blanket statement about what one can accept or not, it's another to pass judgement do i'd avoid doing so.
Honestly I'm surprised this doesn't come up more often. Mind control and memory alteration are things we - as humans in the real world - would generally think of as incredibly evil acts, even if used on bad guys for good reasons. Definitely if someone were walking around using mind control to get shopping discounts we'd want to put them away in a little box for quite a while.
I've run into player discomfort with the idea, and although we didn't ban such spells we agreed that using them on sapient beings was evil (in the context of the campaign, which was 2nd Edition, an evil PC soon became an NPC). Even though the campaign was underway, it wasn't an issue at all in gameplay: The wizard changed a few spells in his books and we all got on with our fictional lives.
NB: Our evil-charms spell list was a lot narrower and didn't include polymorph- or confusion-type spells or flesh to stone - the last of which frankly baffles me. Between that, different editions, different tables, your mileage may vary. All I can say is that a similar thing wasn't an issue a long time ago for a bunch of misfit teenaged guys.
It definitely comes up. Every table I've played at has had to grapple with the same questions: Why are we justified using methods for which we condemn others? How is the fact that we're unaccountably powerful anything less than a horror? And of course, why do we call this a heroic fantasy game when its mechanics incentivize us to show no mercy, use underhanded tactics, and kill children?
And I only initiate those conversations rarely!
A spell is only as evil as its it used.
Would you cure an insane being with a mind altering spell? If not why would you feel justified in letting them continue with their confused or dangerous life?
By the way I do understand the dislike or fear of mind control spells but who would not expect those type of spells in a game full of magic?
This sounds like a player with a very acute (and real ) fear of being personally altered or compelled against their will.
As for the effect on the game.
The AT would have to have a very real change to its spell list since removing enchantment spells takes half of their spells away. What were they replaced with?
Since most of the mental control spells are very limited and in fact reveal who the caster is I do not see their game power being to great or by any way replaced. In almost every case the spell effect will be or soon can be reversed.
And yes the removal of so many spells in the MIDDLE of a campaign will have great effects all over the world.
You might want to skip that DM, they are taking their own issues and exporting them to game. Those spells are used to help bypass encounters and roleplay. When you take out charm person, when you absolutely need to get to the truth of the matter, well now its gone. You gonna have to trust them and that insight roll was good enough. Polymorph against an enemy is used all the time to help trivialize an encounter, and yes it can suck for the DM but its part of the game. You might want to mention to your DM about the disguise kit and see if that will trigger them. Are changelings going to be banned, because that could be triggering. And oh, mimics and dopplegangers should be removed. You could try to change her mind on it by showing how much of the game is in.
If you can't change their mind, I'd go elsewhere unless you want to play D&D with some kind of hard handicap on roleplaying and combat.
This was a thorny issue and I can see points on both sides, but the degree to which the DM simply dropped the hammer is a bit of a flag, imo. Stuff doesn't always come up in Session 0 or a group doesn't hold one and the DM needs to react down the line, I get it. But a ban list that extensive as fait accompli does at least suggest any aspect of the game is subject to being axed at short notice. If nothing else, I'd suggest the group needs to have a chat and work out what other hard lines people have now rather than have builds disrupted like this again down the line.
Please note, the decision to remove these spells don't just impact the spellcaster abilities of the characters. A player character's class and ancestry can grant them access to similar spell features or defensives against these spells; thus making their character build less effective in the game.
Take the Bard for example. Their 6th level ability of Countercharm becomes less impactful. And depending on their campaign build, they may feel that bardic inspiration is not as impactful if there will be less INT/WIS checks. On paper, it might not seem that big because the party will still face STR and DEX checks, but can we all guarantee the Barbarian won't see the Bard as being less effective because the Barbarian easily succeeds on STR and DEX challenges and sees the inspiration as being non-essential? The point is, even if only a 15% reduction to the players' abilities to have impact in the game, it is still a reduction and that can lead to a player questioning if they can continue as the character.
Making a significant rule change like this during a campaign, it is only fair to allow all players to redesign their characters so they feel they can be impactful under the current game rulesets.
One of my characters got do I aged once, it sucked, but it was only temporary and it’s just part of the game. I fail to see what the big deal is. I’m more concerned with that player who took the game hostage and demanded the spells get banned or they walk. What are they gonna demand next?
And as others have pointed out, half the illusion spells are technically a form of mind control, so what about them? And 80% of the spell list affects “unwilling” creatures, mostly with damage. So what about them? This is a slippery slope, and I wouldn’t want to be on it. What if they decide they don’t like any spells based on fire next because getting burned to death is a horrible way to go and that idea triggers them? Then what?
Honestly, the bolded part is what I take the greatest issue with. While this banning of spells is a bit heavy handed and sudden, and can be a bit unfair (especially if other players were using them to some extend for their characters and are being affected by this sudden ban), many people feel uncomfortable by mind controlling or mind alternating effects and may not really even know that fact until actually experiencing it in play. The DM is only human too and should be able to express when something genuinely makes them uncomfortable and be able to work towards making the game more fun for the players AND themselves.
However, D&D (and TTRPGs in general) are group games and everyone should be able to express themselves and negotiate with the rest on what they want out of the game and work towards that ideal play space for the game. The fact that one player is basically saying that not only is no conversation about this sudden change needed, but that if any conversation actually occurs to try and find a compromise or even discuss with the others why they might want to keeps this spells or even express their frustrations...that she will quit the game, comes off as rather rude and showing a lack or care or cooperation with the rest of the party. And if the DM chose to do as this player said without any other consideration, it comes off like that this player and what they want matters more to the rest of the group and would personally make me uncomfortable being at that table even if I was in full agreement with the ban at the end.
We don't have all the information, but from the information presented, that is the big red flag for me.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
Much like the “this is wrong on its face” crowd are displaying a staggering lack of empathy and off-topic proselytising, so too are the “this should have been done in session zero” folks.
One of the big problems with Session Zero - or more accurately one of the big problems with many of its proponents - is that it is often used as an excuse to justify keeping elements that make folks uncomfortable in the game or vilify those who might realise something they didn’t know in the middle of a campaign. Saying “why didn’t they bring it up in session zero” or other statements which boil down to “this is their fault they didn’t raise it in session zero” shows an incredible lack of understanding of how humans function.
No one ever has perfect knowledge of what might set them off - particularly at the way beginning of a campaign when everything is hypothetical and folks are prone to overestimating the thickness of their skin. Often, it is only through actual play, and the realisation “oh, huh, this makes me profoundly uncomfortable” do those kinds of things come out. A player shouldn’t be vilified for their post-session zero self-realisations—especially on a topic that may very likely be associated with specific trauma (or may not, it’s not really other players’ place to judge, and it takes a certain kind of jerk to say “oh, I see you are uncomfortable, but I don’t care unless you can justify why).
I know a lot of this is off topic for the underlying question OP raised, but I feel the lack of empathy - to an extent that almost borders on cruelty - displayed on this thread does merit a response.
And, to be clear, I am not looking for this to start any discussion - this post is responding to tangential, off-topic posting and I would not want to further derail this thread. Nor will I be responding to anyone who responds to this - it needed to be said once, but not more than that. I would request that, rather than derail the thread, if you are inclined to defend yourself, you instead use the time you would spend posting on self-reflection.
This is really the heart of it for me. I will always prioritize the experience, safety, and fun of my real players over anything based in the game. If I have to roll up a whole new character? That's fine.
Now if the restriction was something like "magic is satanic so I'm banning all magic," then we'd maybe need to have a conversation about playing a different game. But the game is fine without the spells OP listed, and honestly might be a bit easier to DM because many of those are basically instant win buttons in some situations.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
That character description rang more alarm bells for me than anything else in the post, but then again I have had bad experiences with a specific type of player many times over the years, so I may be biased.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
The concerns aren't invalid, but the immediate clamp down on any discussion of the issue is a bit of a flag. I can't make any hard judgements based solely on this portion of the story, but honestly if the DM and player have such strong issues with a significant component of the game experience, you kinda need to stop and ask if people actually want to go forward with the campaign. Just forcing a spell ban and class change without discussion seems like it has the potential to build up bad feelings down the line.
Good news! Friends isn't on the list! Enchantment Wizard is saved!
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I think this thread should be locked tbh. The original question was answered and now it's devolved into pseudo-arguments only
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
For all we know, whatever happened could have occurred well after the game started.
100% agree. The discourse™ that continues to occur here is not only dishearteningly inconsiderate but also irrelevant to the question. I think it's safe to say it's run its course, and that a lock would leave everyone looking better than if the thread is left alone.
Here's my last thought on the actual topic. Arcane Tricksters will get a very minor, nearly invisible buff that feels like a nerf -- because generally speaking, their best spells don't use a saving throw. Take out all their enchantment spells, and they're forced to take other, on average better, spells. (Because they're MAD, their DC will usually be below that of the rest of their party, meaning that appropriately challenging saving throw bonuses against, say, the friendly Cleric will be too high for the Rogue to reliably exploit.)