Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 ZickZak Sep 11, 2015 9:53:02	I recently went through The (Not Really) Complete Tome of Spells and I found this cantrip. Is it balanced? Seems a bit off to cast it on someone, then come in melee and obliterate them with a 2hander. Not to mention spamming it on high levels on 12 people. It should be taken from previous editions of D&D like 2e I think.   Distraction Enchantment cantrip Casting Time: 1 action Range: 30 feet Components: S, M Duration: 1 round     One creature you can see must make a Wisdom saving throw or become incapacitated for one round, too preoccupied by its own thoughts or too distracted by shiny things to notice any movement, sound, or smell around them. Creatures with an Intelligence of 1 or that are immune to being charmed are unaffected by this spell.     The number of people you can affect increases to 3 when you reach 5th level, 6 when you reach 11th level, and 12 when you reach 17th level.
#2 Noctaem Sep 11, 2015 10:02:17	ZickZak wrote:
(Reply to #2) ZickZak	Noctaem wrote:
#4 Tempest_Stormwind Sep 11, 2015 10:26:25	Don't use Incapacitated. Have it give advantage to the first attack made against that creature or disadvantage on the next Wisdom (Perception) check the creature makes on a failed save, and increase the number of rolls it lasts for by level (up to the next four attacks made against the creature or checks the creature makes at 17th), again on a failed save. That reflects the same logic as a distraction without bringing up the game-ending Incapacitated status.   It's still probably too strong, but not a game-ender.   A key thing when evaluating spells is how they influence actions. In this case, as written, you spend one action and up to twelve (!!!!!) targets completely lose their actions and reactions, which is basically the same thing as them being killed (a dead target also takes no actions or reactions). All of this for an at-will cantrip, which lets you push it further and further. It amounts to "No Wis save = no chance".   Also, a key question to ask about previous editions spells is: "Why wasn't this included later on?" It could easily be because the effect was just too good.
(Reply to #4) ZickZak	I would not use it in combat anyway to be honest. I like the part where they dont notice anything, so I can charm lets say two guards guarding a door and run straight through.
(Reply to #3) Filksinger	ZickZak wrote:
(Reply to #6) ZickZak	Filksinger wrote:
#8 lawrencehoy Sep 13, 2015 9:47:30	As a cantrip, I would limit the duration to the start of the target's next turn and limit the effects to: cannot take Reactions, Disadvantage on saving throws. Then, you could add additional duration, effects, or range for using it in higher level spell slots.
#9 Saeviomagy Sep 13, 2015 20:11:59	Disadvantage on saving throws is equally ridiculously powerful for a cantrip. I might give disadvantage on perception checks + expenditure of 1 reaction. That makes it sort of a broadly useful spell that's not too powerful.
#10 lawrencehoy Sep 13, 2015 20:38:54	Saeviomagy wrote:
#11 Filksinger Sep 16, 2015 17:59:40	I took a look at "The (Not Really) Complete Tome of Spells" that the original poster gives a link to.  The person writing it states in the introduction that he was often deliberately changing things from the earlier edition descriptions in the AD&D Spell Compendiums:   "Many of these spells have been changed a bit from their original state. I felt that many of them were too powerful, or not nearly powerful enough for their level (for instance, there were some spells listed as 3rd, 4th, even 5th level that in 5e would be just a 1st-level spell now—and vice versa), did weird things that weren’t necessary and just made the spell unnecessarily complicated, or could be better expressed as a variant of another spell; others spells simply needed to be altered to work well in 5e."   So it would appear likely that this wasn't simply putting something on the wrong list - that he took the previous 3rd level DISTRACTION (as it was in the Spell Compendium) and deliberately turned it into a 5E cantrip  Maybe this was because all he could see was the "sneak past the guards"  application and didn't realize how devastating it would be in combat. I can't say. But from the comments here it seems clear that the great majority strongly disagree with his decision to let you have an "at will" spell (cantrip) that can totally take out a good percentage of the enemy forces for a round - something you never run out of, and if you can cast a spell with your bonus action you can cast it twice (requiring 2 will saves to avoid) and so on and so on.   I would advise anyone wanting to use "The (Not Really) Complete Tome of Spells" to look at things VERY CAREFULLY to see if any spell you might want to add to your campaign (as a House Rule) is really balanced for 5E play.  By all means, if you don't have the original source material then feel free to ask here.  If he is as far off the mark on other spells as he seems to be on this one - that must be some rollicking campaign world he has going for himself and his players.