I've been wondering about "useless" or near-useless spells lately. Like Stoneskin, Ray of Enfeeblement, and Arcane Lock. Almost nobody uses certain spells and that's because their effects are either too paltry to be worth the spell slot and/or because of some other factor like material cost, etc.
How would you fix these and other "Useless" Spells?
Personally, I think Arcane Lock could be fixed simply by getting rid of the casting cost or causing the 25 gp worth of materials to not be consumed on casting. Nobody uses the spell because it's not a failsafe method of stopping most monsters or NPCs from opening a door or chest but still costs as much as a light crossbow for every single casting.
Ray of Enfeeblement is not practical because it is both a concentration spell and it has no effects, RAW, on STR checks or saving throws. I would change it so that it causes disadvantage on STR checks and saving throws in addition to its effect damage-wise and increase its range to 120' to make that aspect of it at least on par with the Slow spell. If you can't even Subtle spell the thing to cripple an giant in an arm-wrestling contest, it's no wonder nobody ever uses it.
As for Stoneskin, its benefits are not much for a 4th level spell that is so expensive. I would change it so that it also reduces the damage of magical weapons by 2 and causes all non-magical weaponry short of critical hits to do only 1 point of damage. The duration would be extended to last 8 hours instead of only 1, but remain a concentration spell for balance. In exchange for this greater potency, the cost would be increased to 250 gp of consumed-on-casting diamond dust.
What if you kept everything else the same as the original spell, but change it so that instead of being given advantage on the 1st attack roll against that targeted creature, the caster gets an expanded range of what qualifies as a critical hit? Or does that impinge too much on Champ Fighter?
I understand the intent of the original spell. I've read others' posts about this topic myself. It's just not clear to me how to fix it so that it remains useful without becoming easily abused or making combat boring. That's why I suggested a change to the crit range instead because it then has a potential large benefit without being too game-able for abuse.
I understand the intent of the original spell. I've read others' posts about this topic myself. It's just not clear to me how to fix it so that it remains useful without becoming easily abused or making combat boring. That's why I suggested a change to the crit range instead because it then has a potential large benefit without being too game-able for abuse.
Let me rephrase myself. I am trying to fix it while maintaining the original intent of the spell.
Yes, I hear that and read the homebrew. I am not satisfied with it either and do not have any suggestions that keep with the original intent. Sorry, I wish I had a better answer.
Arcane Lock is perfectly useful if you're building a house (or a dungeon); sure, it's 25 gp, but an ordinary lock is 10 gp, and the arcane lock doesn't require you to carry a key and is pretty hard to pick. It's not all that useful to PCs because PCs rarely care about a lock lasting more than a single long rest, but it's perfectly useful to NPCs.
True Strike does have narrow use cases (it's better than attacking twice if you have disadvantage on your attack and the target's AC is at least 12 + your attack bonus), but yes, it seems hard to make it actually useful without totally changing what it does. How about this variant:
True Strike (bonus action): you may use your spellcasting stat in place of the normal stat for your next attack before the start of your next turn. At level 5 it applies to up to 2 attacks, at level 11 3 attacks, level 17 4 attacks.
Arcane Lock is perfectly useful if you're building a house (or a dungeon); sure, it's 25 gp, but an ordinary lock is 10 gp, and the arcane lock doesn't require you to carry a key and is pretty hard to pick. It's not all that useful to PCs because PCs rarely care about a lock lasting more than a single long rest, but it's perfectly useful to NPCs.
Which is why it should just be a one time 25 gp component cost that does not need to be paid every time a PC or NPC casts it, IMO.
I'm planning to play a Tiefling with Mammon ancestry in the future, which allows one-a-day casting of Arcane Lock without requiring components. I can see the spell being used a lot more when it doesn't consume any gold dust or even require the spell to consume a spell slot or need to be one of hte spells your character learns.
Which is why it should just be a one time 25 gp component cost that does not need to be paid every time a PC or NPC casts it, IMO.
No, but it could be a recoverable component. e.g.
Material Component: an engraved lock costing at least 25 gp. If the object being closed is capable of being locked with the lock used, the lock attaches itself normally; otherwise it fuses with the surface. The lock cannot be removed until the spell is ended; the caster may end the spell as an action. Once the spell is removed the lock may be opened and removed like a normal lock.
That does mean it will cost you 25gp every time some monster busts the door down, and you can't just lock an infinite number of doors, but it doesn't result in an ongoing cost.
Which is why it should just be a one time 25 gp component cost that does not need to be paid every time a PC or NPC casts it, IMO.
No, but it could be a recoverable component. e.g.
Material Component: an engraved lock costing at least 25 gp. If the object being closed is capable of being locked with the lock used, the lock attaches itself normally; otherwise it fuses with the surface. The lock cannot be removed until the spell is ended; the caster may end the spell as an action. Once the spell is removed the lock may be opened and removed like a normal lock.
That does mean it will cost you 25gp every time some monster busts the door down, and you can't just lock an infinite number of doors, but it doesn't result in an ongoing cost.
The ongoing cost comes from having to pay another 25 gp to lock a Door B after a monster busts open the lock on Door A. I don't see how your version of the material cost, Pantagruel, does anything substantial to lower the bar of entry for this spell, which is one of two main reasons why so few spellcasters ever bother memorizing it.
There is no reason why the lock cannot be a purely magical lock. IOW, there is no need to affix a physical lock of any sort on a door, dresser drawer or chest to reduce its chance of being opened. Why should there be when this is a magical spell?
The ongoing cost comes from having to pay another 25 gp to lock a Door B after a monster busts open the lock on Door A. I don't see how your version of the material cost, Pantagruel, does anything substantial to lower the bar of entry for this spell, which is one of two main reasons why so few spellcasters ever bother memorizing it.
There is no reason why the lock cannot be a purely magical lock. IOW, there is no need to affix a physical lock of any sort on a door, dresser drawer or chest to reduce its chance of being opened. Why should there be when this is a magical spell?
Because permanent magical effects should have a cost. A 25 gp cost that is only paid when a monster actually busts down a door is way lower than a cost that is paid every time you cast the spell on the mere chance of someone deciding to bust down the door.
Because permanent magical effects should have a cost. A 25 gp cost that is only paid when a monster actually busts down a door is way lower than a cost that is paid every time you cast the spell on the mere chance of someone deciding to bust down the door.
I don't know what rule you are basing that on. For example: the Find Steed spell creates a mount that does not require concentration. While the duration says "Instantaneous", the rules say nothing about the mount just disappearing after any particular period of time. At the same time, the steed can be dismissed by the caster expending an action. As such, the steed should count as a permanent magical effect because the horse/pony/riding dog conjured by the spell isn't a flesh and blood animal or monster.
I don't know what rule you are basing that on. For example: the Find Steed spell creates a mount that does not require concentration.
More generically, there should be a limit (beyond available casting slots) to how many copies of the spell you can have in existence at any one time. Find Steed only ever allows one copy.
Meh. I would never take the spell if it cost 25 gp per casting. An actual lock, per the items table in the PHB, doesn't even cost 25 gp. It costs 10 gp, which is somewhat more reasonable.
Meh. I would never take the spell if it cost 25 gp per casting. An actual lock, per the items table in the PHB, doesn't even cost 25 gp. It costs 10 gp, which is somewhat more reasonable.
An actual lock might not be attachable to every door. If the door is flimsy, the lock is useless. Mundane locks can be picked or broken. Arcane Lock is harder to pick/break, can be put on any door/chest without additional attachments, can even seal a rotten door, and will turn itself back on eventually unless permanently dispelled.
Sorry, I did not make myself very clear. I meant that the spell component cost for Arcane Lock should just be 10 gp at most because a physical lock generally costs 10 gp, esp. if one were to go by Pantagruel's argument about permanent multi-location spells. I was not saying that one should just buy a bunch of mundane locks instead.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've been wondering about "useless" or near-useless spells lately. Like Stoneskin, Ray of Enfeeblement, and Arcane Lock. Almost nobody uses certain spells and that's because their effects are either too paltry to be worth the spell slot and/or because of some other factor like material cost, etc.
How would you fix these and other "Useless" Spells?
Personally, I think Arcane Lock could be fixed simply by getting rid of the casting cost or causing the 25 gp worth of materials to not be consumed on casting. Nobody uses the spell because it's not a failsafe method of stopping most monsters or NPCs from opening a door or chest but still costs as much as a light crossbow for every single casting.
Ray of Enfeeblement is not practical because it is both a concentration spell and it has no effects, RAW, on STR checks or saving throws. I would change it so that it causes disadvantage on STR checks and saving throws in addition to its effect damage-wise and increase its range to 120' to make that aspect of it at least on par with the Slow spell. If you can't even Subtle spell the thing to cripple an giant in an arm-wrestling contest, it's no wonder nobody ever uses it.
As for Stoneskin, its benefits are not much for a 4th level spell that is so expensive. I would change it so that it also reduces the damage of magical weapons by 2 and causes all non-magical weaponry short of critical hits to do only 1 point of damage. The duration would be extended to last 8 hours instead of only 1, but remain a concentration spell for balance. In exchange for this greater potency, the cost would be increased to 250 gp of consumed-on-casting diamond dust.
I use Arcane Lock, when you really need to lock a door/chest, there’s no better option.
You want to talk about a truly useless spell, look at True Strike.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yes, Arcane Lock is not technically useless, but it's rarely competitive with other 2nd level spells due to the casting cost.
How would you fix True Strike so that it is useful but not too abusable?
Still working on that. This is the closest I have come so far and I still don’t like it: https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/421057-strike-true
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
What if you kept everything else the same as the original spell, but change it so that instead of being given advantage on the 1st attack roll against that targeted creature, the caster gets an expanded range of what qualifies as a critical hit? Or does that impinge too much on Champ Fighter?
The point of the spell is to increase the probability of a hit, not the damage.
The problem with the original spell is that it is mathematically worse than simply attacking twice.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I understand the intent of the original spell. I've read others' posts about this topic myself. It's just not clear to me how to fix it so that it remains useful without becoming easily abused or making combat boring. That's why I suggested a change to the crit range instead because it then has a potential large benefit without being too game-able for abuse.
Let me rephrase myself. I am trying to fix it while maintaining the original intent of the spell.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yes, I hear that and read the homebrew. I am not satisfied with it either and do not have any suggestions that keep with the original intent. Sorry, I wish I had a better answer.
Arcane Lock is perfectly useful if you're building a house (or a dungeon); sure, it's 25 gp, but an ordinary lock is 10 gp, and the arcane lock doesn't require you to carry a key and is pretty hard to pick. It's not all that useful to PCs because PCs rarely care about a lock lasting more than a single long rest, but it's perfectly useful to NPCs.
True Strike does have narrow use cases (it's better than attacking twice if you have disadvantage on your attack and the target's AC is at least 12 + your attack bonus), but yes, it seems hard to make it actually useful without totally changing what it does. How about this variant:
True Strike (bonus action): you may use your spellcasting stat in place of the normal stat for your next attack before the start of your next turn. At level 5 it applies to up to 2 attacks, at level 11 3 attacks, level 17 4 attacks.
Which is why it should just be a one time 25 gp component cost that does not need to be paid every time a PC or NPC casts it, IMO.
I'm planning to play a Tiefling with Mammon ancestry in the future, which allows one-a-day casting of Arcane Lock without requiring components. I can see the spell being used a lot more when it doesn't consume any gold dust or even require the spell to consume a spell slot or need to be one of hte spells your character learns.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
No, but it could be a recoverable component. e.g.
Material Component: an engraved lock costing at least 25 gp. If the object being closed is capable of being locked with the lock used, the lock attaches itself normally; otherwise it fuses with the surface. The lock cannot be removed until the spell is ended; the caster may end the spell as an action. Once the spell is removed the lock may be opened and removed like a normal lock.
That does mean it will cost you 25gp every time some monster busts the door down, and you can't just lock an infinite number of doors, but it doesn't result in an ongoing cost.
The ongoing cost comes from having to pay another 25 gp to lock a Door B after a monster busts open the lock on Door A. I don't see how your version of the material cost, Pantagruel, does anything substantial to lower the bar of entry for this spell, which is one of two main reasons why so few spellcasters ever bother memorizing it.
There is no reason why the lock cannot be a purely magical lock. IOW, there is no need to affix a physical lock of any sort on a door, dresser drawer or chest to reduce its chance of being opened. Why should there be when this is a magical spell?
Because permanent magical effects should have a cost. A 25 gp cost that is only paid when a monster actually busts down a door is way lower than a cost that is paid every time you cast the spell on the mere chance of someone deciding to bust down the door.
I don't know what rule you are basing that on. For example: the Find Steed spell creates a mount that does not require concentration. While the duration says "Instantaneous", the rules say nothing about the mount just disappearing after any particular period of time. At the same time, the steed can be dismissed by the caster expending an action. As such, the steed should count as a permanent magical effect because the horse/pony/riding dog conjured by the spell isn't a flesh and blood animal or monster.
More generically, there should be a limit (beyond available casting slots) to how many copies of the spell you can have in existence at any one time. Find Steed only ever allows one copy.
Meh. I would never take the spell if it cost 25 gp per casting. An actual lock, per the items table in the PHB, doesn't even cost 25 gp. It costs 10 gp, which is somewhat more reasonable.
An actual lock might not be attachable to every door. If the door is flimsy, the lock is useless. Mundane locks can be picked or broken. Arcane Lock is harder to pick/break, can be put on any door/chest without additional attachments, can even seal a rotten door, and will turn itself back on eventually unless permanently dispelled.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Sorry, I did not make myself very clear. I meant that the spell component cost for Arcane Lock should just be 10 gp at most because a physical lock generally costs 10 gp, esp. if one were to go by Pantagruel's argument about permanent multi-location spells. I was not saying that one should just buy a bunch of mundane locks instead.