D&D 5E banning Create Food & Water spell in Thule?

[GlassJaw]

I'm really digging the new 5E Thule, and I like that survival is one of the core tenets of the setting. However, the Create Foods & Water spells are in direct opposition to creating a sense of danger or urgency with regards to survival.

Any thoughts on just outright removing these spells from the setting? Typically I don't like to be so heavy-handed but this feels like a good exception given the nature of the setting. Granted a player would have to use one of their spell slots to use these spells but it still feels like a small price to pay as well as removing a powerful tool in the DM's tool belt.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's not really banning, per se. The DM is under no obligation to include every race and feat and spell from every sourcebook in every world. If your Thule is a world where the Create Food & Water spells don't exist, then that's no more right or wrong than any other choice.

 

[Zardnaar]

Darksun did this in 2E. Rather than ban it the spell was alot less effective.

 

[Hussar]

Probably not a bad idea if you're intending to run a campaign set outside the cities. Inside any of the cities, it's not really an issue, obviously. Although, really, finding food and water usually isn't too much of a difficulty anyway, at least not in most parts of Thule - the only place it might really make a difference is on one of the various glaciers. If you do, you might want to axe Goodberry as well as that's probably even better than Create Food and Water.

 

[Galendril]

Seems consistent from what I've read so far. You could also consider reducing its effectiveness.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Don't forget Goodberry.

In fact, reducing the effectiveness of both of those spells is an excellent way of conveying to players, at a gut level, that this campaign setting is hardscrabble. Even magic food is hard to come by!

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm really digging the new 5E Thule, and I like that survival is one of the core tenets of the setting. However, the Create Foods & Water spells are in direct opposition to creating a sense of danger or urgency with regards to survival.

Any thoughts on just outright removing these spells from the setting?

Sure, don't use the classes that have them. (no, not really, I just came from a Warlord thread, so cutting whole classes due to trivial objections is fresh in my mind)

seriously, though...

Typically I don't like to be so heavy-handed but this feels like a good exception given the nature of the setting. Granted a player would have to use one of their spell slots to use these spells but it still feels like a small price to pay as well as removing a powerful tool in the DM's tool belt.

Yes, you are not just well within your rights to simply ban the spells (and there are plenty of other spells to choose from) - on a whim, if you wanted to - but you're doing so to enhance the themes of the setting.

Go for it.


Also consider if there are any other spells that might be problematic. Is it too easy for a caster to routinely provide complete protection from the elements for a whole party, for instance.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I would be sure to go through all the spells and restrict them if you see them clashing with the setting.

 

[Paraxis]

You might want to change the Outlander background feature if you do this for the same reasons.

FEATURE:WANDERER
You have an excellent memory for maps and geography, and you can always recall the general layout of terrain, settlements, and other features around you. In addition, you can find food and fresh water for yourself and up to five other people each day, provided that the land offers berries, small game, water, and so forth.

 

[Ranes]

Do it. It's entirely reasonable, as long as your players are forewarned. But I'd also take Hemlock's advice about goodberry. One way to accommodate that spell is to revert to the 2-3e versions of the spell that require a material component of 'freshly picked berries', which would keep it under control.