Best Magic Initiate Spell for an EK?

[Jeebs]

Since the errata has confirmed that learning a spell through Magic Initiate allows you to cast the spell through your own spell slots, I was curious as to whether or not you folks thought the best way to build a Fighter 20 with Two Weapon Fighting was to go with the Eldritch Knight Archetype, and take Hex through Magic Initiate.

Then I started to think that all of those Bonus Actions used to swap or re-apply Hex would get in the way of TWF. So maybe Great Weapon Fighting would be better.

But taking Bless might be better for a GWF, especially combined with the feat.

Healing is another option. It would be nice to use Healing Word to pop an ally back into the fight, and then unleash a full Attack action.

Cantrips like Guidance, Blade Ward, and True Strike (not relying on CHA or WIS) could be good options as well.

Any other ideas as to which class' level 1 spells and cantrips are best for a EK 20?

[E’Tallitnics]

Since the errata has confirmed that learning a spell through Magic Initiate allows you to cast the spell through your own spell slots, I was curious as to whether or not you folks thought the best way to build a Fighter 20 with Two Weapon Fighting was to go with the Eldritch Knight Archetype, and take Hex through Magic Initiate.

Then I started to think that all of those Bonus Actions used to swap or re-apply Hex would get in the way of TWF. So maybe Great Weapon Fighting would be better.

But taking Bless might be better for a GWF, especially combined with the feat.

Healing is another option. It would be nice to use Healing Word to pop an ally back into the fight, and then unleash a full Attack action.

Cantrips like Guidance, Blade Ward, and True Strike (not relying on CHA or WIS) could be good options as well.

Any other ideas as to which class' level 1 spells and cantrips are best for a EK 20?

If you choose anything other than Wizard, you'll be creating a MAD (Mulitple Ability Dependant) character. And EK is already that with STR/DEX, CON, INT! Don't make it worse…

Therefore select Wizard but choose spells that work mostly out of combat. (To "round out" your EK.)

I'd suggest: Light (if you don't have Darkvision), Mage Hand, Minor Illusion (if you have Darkvision) and Find Familiar.

Light cast on one of your weapons will save on torches, and you'll always be able the sheath said weapon if darkness/stealth is needed.

Mage hand to test doors/traps at a distance. Plus many other uses when you just need "a third hand".

Find Familiar for a buddy to help out in combat (literally the Help Acrion) and out of combat (for scouting ahead/infiltrating enemy strongholds).

[Sigreid]

Healing word could be awesome and not MAD.

[GiantOctopodes]

If you choose anything other than Wizard, you'll be creating a MAD (Mulitple Ability Dependant) character. And EK is already that with STR/DEX, CON, INT! Don't make it worse…

I respectfully disagree- Magic Initiate has no prereqs. Anyone can take anything from any list. Granted, ideally you don't choose something that is dependent on a save or an attack roll and is wis or cha based, but even if you do it's not the end of the world. You still get your proficiency bonus, after all, and if you're targeting the *right* save for the right enemy, even a relatively easy save can be a better than even chance of success.

I'll give my picks when I have more time to review the options, but right now I'll throw out the most obvious "party support" option in choosing healing word and guidance off the cleric list. No saves to worry about, and it helps both in combat and out (+2.5 to any ability check, anywhere, any time is not a small thing).

[HarrisonF]

Since the errata has confirmed that learning a spell through Magic Initiate allows you to cast the spell through your own spell slots Are you sure on this? I thought it only applied if you learned it from your existing spell list. For example, if you took spells that were already available to EK (ie wizard), then you could cast using your slots. But if you took a cleric only spell like Bless, then you could only do it once per long rest still.

[Sigreid]

Are you sure on this? I thought it only applied if you learned it from your existing spell list. For example, if you took spells that were already available to EK (ie wizard), then you could cast using your slots. But if you took a cleric only spell like Bless, then you could only do it once per long rest still.

Except spell slots aren't typed anymore, they're just raw potential waiting to be spent on whatever.

[coredump]

Harrison has the right of it. The errata only removed a restriction, it did no provide permission.

This is explained in detail in a recent Sage Advice column. But the gist is, a sorcerer does not have permission to use a spell slot to cast wizard spells. So if a sorcerer uses Magic Inititate to grab a wizard spell, still can't use slots for it because no permission. If a sorcerer uses MI to grab a sorcerer spell.... then can use the slots for it.

Again, check out the Sage Advice Column.

[Giant2005]

Are you sure on this? I thought it only applied if you learned it from your existing spell list. For example, if you took spells that were already available to EK (ie wizard), then you could cast using your slots. But if you took a cleric only spell like Bless, then you could only do it once per long rest still.

Magic Initiate explicitly adds the spell to your "Known" spell list. The thing that prevented that from being useful prior to the Errata was that Magic Initiate also explicitly stated that the spell could only be cast once per day regardless of how you cast it. The Errata changed that second aspect so that the once per day hard limit was softened and only applies to the casting given by the feat. So post-Errata, it is a known spell that is no longer subject to a once per day limit if you cast it through your spell slots.

[Sigreid]

So we're back to it being however the DM wants to call it since you can logically read it either way. I'm down with that.

[Drackolus]

Definitely agree with coredump and Harrison. Part of the spellcasting ability allows you to cast spells of that class with your spell slots. It's not really up to interpretation - he explicitly stats that you cannot use your spell slots for magic initiate unless you have at least one level (and therefor it's unique to the class version of spellcasting, though EK and AT use the Wizard's) of the same class.

However, nothing was ever stopping you from using that one spell or a cantrip with War Magic, though you could become MAD.

EDIT: of course, DM's discretion. I don't really think it would break the game personally. Nobody's forcing you to follow the rules explicitly.

[GiantOctopodes]

Definitely agree with coredump and Harrison. Part of the spellcasting ability allows you to cast spells of that class with your spell slots. It's not really up to interpretation - he explicitly stats that you cannot use your spell slots for magic initiate unless you have at least one level (and therefor it's unique to the class version of spellcasting, though EK and AT use the Wizard's) of the same class.

However, nothing was ever stopping you from using that one spell or a cantrip with War Magic, though you could become MAD.

EDIT: of course, DM's discretion. I don't really think it would break the game personally. Nobody's forcing you to follow the rules explicitly.

I agree- he explicitly states it. Neither the rules nor the errata do. Please note that it's not like upon gaining your first Bard level, you suddenly gain Bard slots. In fact, it's the opposite- your slots, however they exist, whether through Pact Magic or any class, can be used to cast any spell you both know and have prepared. The better argument (and the one I personally agree with) is that despite it being added to your spells known, unless you have it on one of the lists for an existing class there is no way it can be a spell you have prepared. This also necessitates of course preparing the spell normally if it is on a class list, and really defines in narrow terms the benefit Magic Initiate provides. However, for classes with limited spells known I can still see the benefit, and EK is one of those classes with limited spells known.

[Giant2005]

The better argument (and the one I personally agree with) is that despite it being added to your spells known, unless you have it on one of the lists for an existing class there is no way it can be a spell you have prepared.

But that is the difference between a prepared spell and a known spell. Known spells (As in the known casters: Sorcerer/Bard/Ranger) don't need to be prepared and are essentially always prepared spells like those gained through a Cleric's Domain feature. If you know the spell, you never need to prepare it, even if your primary spellcasting class is of the prepared variety.

[Drackolus]

I agree- he explicitly states it. Neither the rules nor the errata do. Please note that it's not like upon gaining your first Bard level, you suddenly gain Bard slots. In fact, it's the opposite- your slots, however they exist, whether through Pact Magic or any class, can be used to cast any spell you both know and have prepared. The better argument (and the one I personally agree with) is that despite it being added to your spells known, unless you have it on one of the lists for an existing class there is no way it can be a spell you have prepared. This also necessitates of course preparing the spell normally if it is on a class list, and really defines in narrow terms the benefit Magic Initiate provides. However, for classes with limited spells known I can still see the benefit, and EK is one of those classes with limited spells known.

I feel like your first point contradicts your second. Nothing in any of the "known spell" classes actually states that you can cast known spells. It tells you that you may cast spells using slots and that you know spells, but it does not say that you can cast known spells. That part is actually in the Spellcasting section, where it says that you cast spells by either knowing them or preparing them. And magical initiate says that you know the spell, which by the rules in the Spellcasting section means you could cast it using spell slots. Even if a cleric prepares cleric spells, a character can use a spell slot to cast a cleric spell they have in their mind, either prepared or known.

Though, if we're ignoring official rulings, we aren't really going RAW, are we?

[Giant2005]

Though, if we're ignoring official rulings, we aren't really going RAW, are we?

Out-of-book rulings don't have any bearing on RAW, they can only convey RAI. Although from what I understand from this case is that it is an unusual one where the Developers have essentially gone off-book to add an entirely new rule to the game that isn't otherwise touched upon by the books. With that in mind, it isn't even really RAW or RAI but some kind of homebrew rule created by those with the authority to bring their homebrew into canon but for unknown reasons chose not to do so when writing the Errata.
As an aside, does anyone have a link to the tweet or whatever it is that is being referenced in this thread?

[GiantOctopodes]

But that is the difference between a prepared spell and a known spell. Known spells (As in the known casters: Sorcerer/Bard/Ranger) don't need to be prepared and are essentially always prepared spells like those gained through a Cleric's Domain feature. If you know the spell, you never need to prepare it, even if your primary spellcasting class is of the prepared variety.

Ah, very true and very fair! I suppose I'm guilty of always thinking of things from a Wizard's perspective. My apologies. So, if I'm strictly looking at RAW here (obviously this would be disregarding Crawford's tweet as I am wont to do), this is how I would understand it:

- You add the spell to your spells known. Your spellcasting attribute when using the spell is whatever is defined by the feat. If you do not have spellcasting from another source, you can cast it once per day.

- If you are a Sorcerer, Bard, EK, Arcane Trickster, or Ranger, since you have an additional spell known, and you can cast any spell you know, you can also cast the additional spell you know freely using your slots, and may cast it once without using your slots.

- If you are a Wizard, Druid, Cleric, or Paladin, you have 1 spell known and X spells prepared. Since spell slots can be used for both known and prepared spells, the above also applies to you, you can use your slots freely between the Magic Initiate spell and the spells you have prepared normally. As normal, you can cast it once per day without expending a slot.

Does that seem to fit logically per the rules as written? Obviously I know the additional limitation the Sage Advice article adds, but ignoring that for a moment, do I have the right of it?

[Giant2005]

Ah, very true and very fair! I suppose I'm guilty of always thinking of things from a Wizard's perspective. My apologies. So, if I'm strictly looking at RAW here (obviously this would be disregarding Crawford's tweet as I am wont to do), this is how I would understand it:

- You add the spell to your spells known. Your spellcasting attribute when using the spell is whatever is defined by the feat. If you do not have spellcasting from another source, you can cast it once per day.

- If you are a Sorcerer, Bard, EK, Arcane Trickster, or Ranger, since you have an additional spell known, and you can cast any spell you know, you can also cast the additional spell you know freely using your slots, and may cast it once without using your slots.

- If you are a Wizard, Druid, Cleric, or Paladin, you have 1 spell known and X spells prepared. Since spell slots can be used for both known and prepared spells, the above also applies to you, you can use your slots freely between the Magic Initiate spell and the spells you have prepared normally. As normal, you can cast it once per day without expending a slot.

Does that seem to fit logically per the rules as written? Obviously I know the additional limitation the Sage Advice article adds, but ignoring that for a moment, do I have the right of it?

Sounds right to me, although I'm sure others would disagree.
Of course it also depends entirely on what they actually changed Magic Initiate to be in the new printings of the book, not what they think they changed Magic Initiate to be - the Errata only tells us what they intended to write but in practice, they could have unwittingly written something that conveys an entirely different message.

[Drackolus]

Out-of-book rulings don't have any bearing on RAW, they can only convey RAI. Although from what I understand from this case is that it is an unusual one where the Developers have essentially gone off-book to add an entirely new rule to the game that isn't otherwise touched upon by the books. With that in mind, it isn't even really RAW or RAI but some kind of homebrew rule created by those with the authority to bring their homebrew into canon but for unknown reasons chose not to do so when writing the Errata.
As an aside, does anyone have a link to the tweet or whatever it is that is being referenced in this thread?

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sage-advice-june2015

If it's a rule written by the creators, it's a rule that is written by the creators. Official rulings are RAW. If you're going to make a distinction, than we should call it RAWIB (Rules as written in book) and RAWBWotC (Rules as written by Wizards of the Coast.)

Honestly though, you don't have to follow any rule if you don't want to. DM > WotC. And that's RAW.

[GiantOctopodes]

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sage-advice-june2015

If it's a rule written by the creators, it's a rule that is written by the creators. Official rulings are RAW. If you're going to make a distinction, than we should call it RAWIB (Rules as written in book) and RAWBWotC (Rules as written by Wizards of the Coast.)

Honestly though, you don't have to follow any rule if you don't want to. DM > WotC. And that's RAW.

It's not a rule written by the creators. It's a ruling. And it can be made on one or more of three pillars: RAW, RAI, and RAF.

"When I answer rules questions, I often come at them from one to three different perspectives
RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own. Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we published.
RAI. Some of you are especially interested in knowing the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in: “rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but fail with another. When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule"

If RAW is what the text says in context, without regard for developer intent, and if what he is providing is feedback on RAI, or developer intent, through his rulings, I fail to see how the statement that his rulings are RAW can be justified. Certainly official, but not matching what the text says, and therefore not RAW. If his rulings clarified RAW and matched it, sure, absolutely, it's RAW, and can help narrow down and define the multiple interpretations possible. When it adds material which conflicts with the RAW and flies in the face of it, elucidating the RAI, in my opinion that makes it RAI as well, since what he is writing is not what's on the page. If they want to fix what the text says, well, there's always errata. Note that they released an errata, and the errata says "The feat’s limit on casting the 1st-level spell applies only to the casting given by the feat." So we have the RAW on the page, which has two effects (1) you add the spell to your spells known and 2) you can cast it once without expending slots), and the errata, which specifically clarifies that the limitation on casting it once only applies to the free casting (without expenditure of slots), and thus per the rules for spellcasting in general allows it to be cast from your slots normally.

So the book says one thing, the errata, the official published modification to those RAW says the same thing, and the Sage Advice contradicts that. And you're telling me that Sage Advice is more RAW than the Rules as Written and the Errata combined? Sorry, I don't buy that at all.

[Sigreid]

I'm take Sage Advice as what the name says, Advice. As in, this is how we recommend you handling it. In that regard it's no different than the tweets. It might be worth considering, but it's not an official rule and if you take it you are basically adopting it as a recommended house rule. It's simply not reasonable to constantly change the nature of the game based on what even a designer was thinking from his bubble when he typed the article.

[coredump]

First, this has nothing to do with 'types' of slots, slots are slots, we can all agree on that.

Second, WotC has stated that the rules in Sage Advice *are* Official DnD rules. So they *are* part of the Rules as Written.

Third, Crawford has stated that Sage Advice presents the rules as they are, not how he wished they would be. He is ruling on RAW. He also states that he may rule on RAI or RAF; but he has yet to actually do so. At some point he may, and he has done so in a few tweets, but he is very clear when he does.

Fourth, the Sage Advice on this topic is just explaining, it isn't adding anything. (Which is why I suggested people actually *read* it, but that may have not happened.)


So lets say we have a sorcerer/cleric. That PC has some sorcerer spells and has some cleric spells. And a whole bunch of spell slots.
SLots are slots and can be used for anything
The Cleric Spellcasting Feature gives the PC permission to use slots for casting Cleric Spells
The Sorc Spellcasting Feature gives the PC permission to use slots for casting Sorc Spells.

This PC now takes MI and picks up a Druid spell.
That PC has no permission to use slots for casting a Druid Spell. Since that permission exists in the Druid Spellcasting Feature.





I'm take Sage Advice as what the name says, Advice. As in, this is how we recommend you handling it. In that regard it's no different than the tweets. Well, except that one is published on the Official WotC site and WotC has paid for and okay'd this content. Plus WotC has stated that they are Official Rules of DnD.

They are 'advice' in the same sense all of the PHB is 'advice' which you can take or leave as best suits your group.



but it's not an official rule Um *WotC* says its an Official rule... why should I believe you and not WotC..??

From WotC:
One exception: the game’s rules manager, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), can make official rulings and usually does so in Sage Advice.

[Sigreid]

Um *WotC* says its an Official rule... why should I believe you and not WotC..??

You don't need to believe me. I've not seen the text stating that Sage Advice was the law of the WoTC land, and was stating how I treat it. In the end I expressed my viewpoint that Sage Advice matters only as much as a table wants it to matter. I doubt even AL keeps up with them and adapts the league rules based on them though.

[MeeposFire]

Out-of-book rulings don't have any bearing on RAW, they can only convey RAI. Although from what I understand from this case is that it is an unusual one where the Developers have essentially gone off-book to add an entirely new rule to the game that isn't otherwise touched upon by the books. With that in mind, it isn't even really RAW or RAI but some kind of homebrew rule created by those with the authority to bring their homebrew into canon but for unknown reasons chose not to do so when writing the Errata.
As an aside, does anyone have a link to the tweet or whatever it is that is being referenced in this thread?

Unusual? It seems they do this every other week. Do we have to go to the unarmed strike debacle all over again?

[GiantOctopodes]

First, this has nothing to do with 'types' of slots, slots are slots, we can all agree on that.

Second, WotC has stated that the rules in Sage Advice *are* Official DnD rules. So they *are* part of the Rules as Written.

Third, Crawford has stated that Sage Advice presents the rules as they are, not how he wished they would be. He is ruling on RAW. He also states that he may rule on RAI or RAF; but he has yet to actually do so. At some point he may, and he has done so in a few tweets, but he is very clear when he does.

Fourth, the Sage Advice on this topic is just explaining, it isn't adding anything. (Which is why I suggested people actually *read* it, but that may have not happened.)


So lets say we have a sorcerer/cleric. That PC has some sorcerer spells and has some cleric spells. And a whole bunch of spell slots.
SLots are slots and can be used for anything
The Cleric Spellcasting Feature gives the PC permission to use slots for casting Cleric Spells
The Sorc Spellcasting Feature gives the PC permission to use slots for casting Sorc Spells.

This PC now takes MI and picks up a Druid spell.
That PC has no permission to use slots for casting a Druid Spell. Since that permission exists in the Druid Spellcasting Feature.


First, you contradict this statement later, but I do agree with it, indeed I believe we all can agree on it.

Second, no they're not. As I just demonstrated, he himself clearly delineates his rulings from RAW, RAI and RAF, and explains that his rulings attempt to be built upon a foundation of those things. They are not rules written in the text, which is what he himself defines as RAW. So you can consider them RAW all you want, but he does not.

Third, you also have no proof whatsoever which pillar he is operating from. Are you seriously telling me that you believe the second paragraph of the sage advice bit on Crossbow Expert, where he writes "When designing a feat with a narrow use, we consider adding at least one element that can benefit a character more broadly—a bit of mastery that your character brings from one situation to another" is a RAW ruling, not RAI, which he explains as "When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule"?

Fourth, the meat of your argument, which directly contradicts the first statement you make. First you say "slots are slots", now you say you need "permission" to use slots. You then elaborate on this concept to say that the Druid spellcasting feature grants you permission to use Druid spells with your slots. Meanwhile, when I look at the Druid spellcasting feature, I see "Drawing on the divine essence of nature itself, you can cast spells to shape that essence to your will. See chapter 10 for the general rules of spellcasting and chapter 11 for the druid spell list." Cool enough. For the sake of clarity, I will add that it then goes on to detail how cantrips work, and how to prepare and cast spells as a member of that class. Nothing in there indicates anything about having "permission" to cast Druid spells or anything of the sort. Looking at chapter 10, I see nothing about this "permission" you refer to either. Looking at the multiclass rules, I also see nothing regarding this. Where, exactly, are you deriving this rule from? The mistake Crawford makes is the same one I made initially- looking at it from the perspective of a prepared spellcaster. However, chapter 10 clearly gives you the ability to cast both spells you know, and spells you prepare. There is nothing in the magic initiate feat about spell preparation, you simply learn (and thus know) the spell. It has no requirement for it to be added to a spellbook as a Wizard, for example, something Crawford adds on as a requirement.


In short, Wherein do you derive support for being unable to use your spell slots to cast a spell you know? You argue that you need permission to cast the spell, which is gained through the spellcasting features of the class. I see no such rules present.

[coredump]

Preparing and casting spells
"To cast these Druid spells you must expend a spell slot"
At no point are you given permission to 'cast these sorcerer spells'....

Did you bother to read the Sage Advice column?
Did you bother to read the Sage Advice compendium?

I will give you Chutzpah points for claiming you understand the rules better than Crawford and WotC..... And even offering to correct his mistake.

[GiantOctopodes]

Preparing and casting spells
"To cast these Druid spells you must expend a spell slot"
At no point are you given permission to 'cast these sorcerer spells'....

Did you bother to read the Sage Advice column?
Did you bother to read the Sage Advice compendium?

I will give you Chutzpah points for claiming you understand the rules better than Crawford and WotC..... And even offering to correct his mistake.

Nor are you given permission to cast those druid spells! It is merely explaining how casting druid spells works! Some context, if I could:

"The Druid table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your spells of 1st level and higher. To cast one of these druid spells, you must expend a slot of the spell’s
level or higher. You regain all expended spell slots when you finish a long rest. You prepare the list of druid spells that are available for you to cast, choosing from the druid spell list. When you do so, choose a number of druid spells equal to your Wisdom modifier + your druid level (minimum of one spell). The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots."

Note that it says to cast these druid spells (and then describes how druid spells are cast), not you may cast druid spells by expending a slot of the spell's level or higher. Sorry, nothing in there grants or confers permission.

And yes, I've read the Sage Advice column and compendium, what of it?

[Ralanr]

Thorn whip cantrip.

Because why not?

[GiantOctopodes]

So I finally had a chance to review the options available. Here were some standouts for me:

Healing:
Healing Word (For the reasons mentioned)

Utility:
Feather Fall (you don't always need it, but having it available when you do, without having to worry about slot expenditure can save your bacon)
Find Familiar (doubly so if you have touch range spells you like to use. Can provide you advantage on your attack rolls, can scout, grant you distant spell on touch range spells, etc)

Combat:
Faerie Fire (auto advantage for the entire party, *and* invisibility purge, on all enemies within a 20' radius, lasting up to a minute, which is effectively a whole combat? And, it targets Dex, which is routinely monster's 2nd lowest save after Int. Great spell.)
Bless (the +2.5 is worse than advantage unless you're trying to hit a 19 or higher, and it only affects up to 3 party members instead of everyone. However, it is guaranteed instead of relying on a failed save, applies to all enemies instead of those within a certain radius, and stacks with advantage if you already have it, So for small parties, spread out targets, or situations where you have advantage from another source, it can certainly be better than faerie fire)
Hex (Best if you or someone else in the party is a grappler, since then you can apply disadvantage on their Athletics checks to resist, as well as increasing damage done. Since it does not itself cause damage, also has out of combat utility, for harming NPC's efforts in opposed checks, such as giving them disadvantage on insight checks when you're lying to them, etc)

Cantrips:
Guidance has to be the best Cantrip you as a Wizard don't gain access to for an Eldritch Knight. the +2.5 to effectively anything you're doing out of combat is ridiculously good. Spare the Dying, Resistance, and Thorn Whip are all useful in their own right (Thorn Whip in particular is one of only two forced movement effects in the game which does not allow a save, the other being Eldritch Blast with Repelling Blast), and there is nothing at all wrong with grabbing a utility cantrip you don't already have (presiditation, thaumaturgy, mending, mage hand, message, minor illusion, or produce flame), but I personally can't imagine grabbing any of those before grabbing Guidance, unless there was someone else in the party who already had Guidance who was really good about properly spreading its benefits to the entire party.

My overall recommendation:
If you follow Crawford's ruling, Find Familiar is probably your best choice. If you instead follow the errata and PHB, I'd personally recommend either Faerie Fire and Guidance from the Druid list (if you have 5 or more people in your party) or Bless and Guidance from the Cleric list (if you have 4 or fewer people in the party).