What Makes a ‘Bad’ Spell or Ability?

In our most recent episode, we talked about character builds and abilities that really tick us off. During that, I called Banishment a bad spell that was poorly designed, boring and keeps the DM from being able to use a whole class of encounters. “Show us where on the doll Banishment hurt you,” you ask? OK, here’s why I think this spell is bad game design.

I usually try to play the spells and abilities in the rule books straight up, especially D&D 5E. I want to understand how they work in the rules, what they’re intended to do, and how that plays out in the game. So I’m very reluctant to knee-jerk react and say something is bad or broken at first sight. But I did go on the record as saying Banishment was a bad spell and “shit design.”

Frankly, despite all of the work designers put into the game, some of these spells, man … They’re just bad. But I’m using a pretty specific metric to define “bad.” So, let’s talk about what makes a spell or ability “bad” in a game like D&D 5E.

When Is Something ‘Broken’ in Game Terms?

I first learned the term “broken card” playing Magic the Gathering, a collectible card deck-building game (I think you all know that). It’s not just a term used by players but by the designers themselves when they decide a card or cards need to be banned from tournament play.

The criteria for a broken card is that it so warps the metagame – the decks that are competitive in that tournament format – that the card alone determines which decks can be played. A broken card is one that every deck either needs to run or specifically be built to stop. That stifles the deck-building environment and prevents a lot of other good decks from ever seeing the light of day.

I haven’t been active in Magic for like 10 years, so this idea may have expanded since then. It’s still how I decide if something is “broken” and whether I need to consider banning it or changing it (“errata” as it’s called in Magic) so I can do the things I want to do in the campaign.

The bottom line for me is this: If the spell or power prevents me from designing certain kinds of encounters because they can be instantly hand-waved away by the players, I start asking if it’s broken.

And that’s why I speak so strongly about Banishment: It’s a bad spell design.

Why Single Out Banishment? The Hydra Problem

The first time we ran into Banishment, the party was making their way through a dungeon crawl and crossed a bridge over an underground river. As they crossed, 7 hydra heads rose up around them! … And then it disappeared, because the party cleric beat it on initiative, snapped his fingers, cast banishment, and the hydra is never making a charisma save against a decently built caster.

The party crossed the bridge and hurried away out of the dungeon, never to see the hydra again.

I didn’t see this as a problem at the time. The cleric got a cool new spell, it did a cool thing, and on we go. Good for him!

But now this happens any time I try to put the party in a fight against a big dumb monster. And it has shut down an entire slate of encounters I think are fun. After all, when I think of fantasy adventure, I think of Hercules taking on the hydra or Cerberus. I think of a party fighting single giant monsters as much as I think of them going against paramilitary squads of humanoids.

This is a type of fight I want to have in my game as part of the exploration, not necessarily a major plot point or in a lair with legendary resistances. I just want to have the party show off taking down a big dumb monster. With Banishment in the environment, there’s really no point. Even big bruisers that are the centerpiece of larger fights can be Banished away so the party can mop up its support in <4 rounds and still have most of a minute to get out of there or set up a deadly ambush when the heavy blips back in (since it can do literally nothing, not even ready actions, while it’s banished).

I consider this bad spell design. It’s just save or suck on a stat (charisma) that many iconic monsters can’t match, and the suck lets a mid-level character surgically remove a ey monster from the combat that often makes the encounter pointless.

If a single 4th level spell warps the encounter metagame that badly, to me, it’s poor game design. You can’t lock out half the big cool creatures for one 4th level spell. That’s a design mistake.

Why Not Play Around It?

Because I shouldn’t have to. I know the tricks, but all of them change the nature of the encounter from big dumb monster fight to something more complicated:

1. Don’t use big dumb creatures, it’s not what D&D 5E is for: I want to use them because I find this kind of random fight against a big opponent fun. Even if that’s not what 5E is optimized for, a single 4th level spell shouldn’t shut it down.
2. Surround them with allies who can break the caster’s concentration: This slows down combat and makes the encounter much more complicated. The big dumb monster fight is supposed to be more simple and fun.
3. Make the monster legendary: This isn’t really the niche I want this kind of fight to fill – it should be fun, not too deadly and slowed down with a bunch of mid-turn and lair actions.
4. Have it come hunt the Banisher: That’s a smart monster thing, not really what the big dumb monster does or what this fight is for.

By the “broken” criteria I’m using, Banishment forces me to warp the campaign encounter metagame. That’s a broken spell.

What Do You Do About It?

This is what makes this complicated, and makes Banishment such a bad spell design: I don’t want to limit the player’s options by just banning spells and abilities. Hell, I get upset when other DMs do that to me.

So I’ve just been eating this so far, and if it undercuts an encounter, I make up for it elsewhere. But it also has the effect of jacking up a lot of encounter difficulties, because I’m adding more creatures and more complexity to offset the effect. This is an OK response, but it slows the game down and combats are taking forever.

I have considered removing the banish anyone option of the spell so it’s still great against extraplanar beings (who tend to have more competitive charisma saves) but doesn’t affect native denizens. I feel like that fits the flavor of the spell much better. After all, you don’t use exorcisms to get rid of your crime boss, it’s for banishing demons. It feels like that’s the niche Banishment should fill. But I’m sure there are other options I haven’t thought of yet.

So that’s my rant and how I think about whether a spell or ability is “bad” for my campaign. What do you think? Has Banishment been a problem for your campaigns? Am I overreacting? Am I just doing it wrong? Let me know in the comments.