What spells should be banned/altered for a dark fantasy setting?

[supergoji18]

I am considering banning certain spells in a future campaign. The setting is meant to be a dark fantasy, where there is a genuine threat of death and failure. As such, I want to limit the spells they can take because having these spells sometimes creates situations where they automatically win.

The first group of spells I am considering banning is the resurrection/revival type of spells. These spells, in my opinion, almost completely remove the threat of death or failure outside of a TPK. I want to create a sense of danger in the setting, so I will be making death a permanent thing. I may allow for the possibility of a single revival per person if they follow through with a side quest to find a holy person capable of reviving the dead, but I don't want my players to be able to raise themselves back up whenever they want to.

There are also some utility spells that I think I will remove from play. Zone of Truth is the big one that I want to remove, probably not just from the players but from the setting in general. A lot of the troubles of solving mysteries or tracking things down are removed when you can walk up to someone, cast zone of truth, and they are compelled to answer your questions truthfully. I am also considering removing spells that allow players to conjure pre-made structures, like Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion.

Finally, the spell I want to remove from players ability to cast is Wish. A great deal of tension would be removed from the game if I allow my players to be omnipotent for one round. Even if I can screw with the wording, the potential for abuse is too much for the setting.

What I would like to know is if there are any other spells I should restrict in my game? I haven't made a comprehensive list, so there are easily some that could be abused that I missed. Any response is appreciated.

EDIT: The game uses 5e D&D rules

[Tinkerer]

In similar situations I have made it so that the Contingency spell is either banned or requires something like "the sacrifice of someone who has never spilled another's blood". And restricting the Detect line of spells so they just provide a general sense of the subject rather than specifics.

[RazorChain]

Or just change things.

Zone of truth now fills the speakers mouth with bugs that come crawling out when he tells a lie

Ressurection only works if you sacrifice another willingly or unwillingly

Wish doesnt create things, it takes it from another and gives it to you

[tensai_oni]

Take into consideration the following: high level D&D is balanced taking into consideration that... pffft. Okay, let me try that again.

High level D&D is designed taking into consideration that characters will both die and can be revived with minimal hassle, assuming a TPK didn't happen. If Raise Dead is out of the window, so should be all the insta death spells.

You didn't specify which edition you're playing but as a general rule? D&D isn't meant to be played as a gritty dark fantasy with permadeath. Maybe you should look for other systems that simulate this feel better.

[Bulhakov]

Maybe not very dark, but a few houserules I've used in a lot of games make for a more gritty fantasy:

- fast acting healing potions and magic cause very ugly scar tissue and long-lasting phantom pains (with various roll penalties), unless they are used on a resting, normally recovering patient
- resurrections very rare (though can be a quest goal)
- no teleportation magic (or it's extremely rare, and only available to select few NPCs/villains)
- magic weakens reality and invites evil beings from other dimensions to seep in, occasional magic use is ok, but any permanent effects/traps are just begging for trouble (magic items also need to be moved around, any item that's been stationary for a long time is bound to be cursed or surrounded by evil ghosts/horrors/alien parasites)

Also what makes fantasy darker is consequences in general, not just to PCs. I tend to create settings where enemies are not just video-game suicidal, they have their own lives, goals, limits, families, children (imagine a Shirley-Temple street urchin cutting a PCs thigh artery because said PCs has killed her dad - henchman no. 7 - two sessions earlier or the PCs finding out about an orc village genocide some time after they killed most of that tribe's males during a side-quest).

[War_lord]

I agree with Tensai, if what you're envisioning departs so heavily from the mechanics in place that you're having to ban a number of spells, you're better off looking for another system to do that kind of game in.

[BlizzardSucks80]

You might also consider banning the Fly spell and the Spider Climb spell. A friend of mine always does that when he GMs. Those spells can make it too easy to get past certain obstacles.
Example given:

"Dwarven Fighter: Oi! We cannot travel through this 'ere mountain pass! There's a crap ton of boulders and rocks in the way!"
"Dungeon Master: I guess you'll have to go through the Swamp of Horrors to save the princess after all. Hehehehahaha!"
"Elven Wizard: Nope! I cast the Fly spell! Seeya bitches!"
"Dungeon Master: *Facepalms*"
"Dwarven Fighter: Oi! Ye forgot 'bout me!"

[Potato_Priest]

I have a running standard practice of banning the goodberry spell and other spells that create lots of food for low cost. If you want starvation to still be a thing you could do the same.

[Grek]

In D&D, a man in a mask stalking you through the woods at night with a knife isn't scary, it's Tuesday. Just banning spells isn't enough - you need to scale up the opposition to match.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

I'm gonna tell you the hard truth all DMs need to hear.

Don't do this. It's never worth it. Just cap the game's levels at 8 or so.

[Yora]

What game are you playing?

[dps]

I agree with Tensai, if what you're envisioning departs so heavily from the mechanics in place that you're having to ban a number of spells, you're better off looking for another system to do that kind of game in.

I can't entirely agree with that. DMs are expected to customize things to a degree.

While it does depend on the degree of customization--if things are customized to the extent that the DM is essentially designing his own system, he might be better off using a different system or actually starting from scratch and design everything himself--it doesn't seem to me that OP is doing anything that extreme.

[Aliquid]

I can't entirely agree with that. DMs are expected to customize things to a degree.

While it does depend on the degree of customization--if things are customized to the extent that the DM is essentially designing his own system, he might be better off using a different system or actually starting from scratch and design everything himself--it doesn't seem to me that OP is doing anything that extreme.

I have found that getting the players to buy in to "banning spells" or banning anything can be hard. Some players get all upset and act as if you are doing it to screw them over... or they conveniently forget, and then get all mad when they try to cast the spell and you say "no"

If you play an entirely different system, that problem goes away.

Also, if you play a new system, it is easier to change the "mood". Even if you tweak the rules for D&D, the players will still default to their normal expectations of the setting.

Of course, this completely depends on the personalities of the individual players.

[AMFV]

Light obviously. Daylight, searing light, dancing lights... Wait was that not what you wanted.

[supergoji18]

Thanks for the input. I added to the OP that it will be a 5e D&D game.

I think the Detect line is ok. My issue isn't when the players can use magic to get information, its when they use magic to instantly win the quest. If they need to figure out how the Baron of Baronsville died, I'm ok if they use Detect Poison to see if he was poisoned since they would still need to figure out things like who poisoned him, where they got the poison, etc. But if they use some divination spell that just lets them ask a higher power "who did it?" then that's when I have an issue.

My intention isn't to completely revamp the game. I don't want to create extra work for myself, I've got enough to do with designing the setting.

I like the idea of the resurrection spell requiring another person's death. That's fitting for the setting I had in mind.

I might ban Fly and Spider Climb, but it depends on how often I give them obstacles they have to get past.

I don't think I'm going to bother banning the food and water spells. We have an outlander in the group so food won't be an issue in the first place, therefore I don't think its worth the effort. If the players want to have a survival system in place that requires they find food and water, then I'll probably ban them.

[vasilidor]

I managed to traumatize one of my players using "row row your boat" by making it the theme song of a cult that would sing it while murdering people. the fun part was the murder-cult honestly believed they were doing there victims a favor. anyone capable of casting resurrection was a high priority target, and yes they had the means to end such persons.