Is it just me, or does evocation stink?

[Grod_The_Giant]

It struck me the other day that I don't think I've ever seen a spellcaster contribute very effectively in the damage department. Cantrips usually so little damage that you'd be better off plinking away with a crossbow, and full spells... as an example, the sorcerer in our last game hit a boss with all three rays of a Scorching Ray spell, and did less than the Rogue did one turn before. Time and again, I see players volley off higher-level spells to do, basically, less than a normal attack routine. Am I crazy, or has anyone else observed the same thing?


(Disclaimers: Yes, martial types should do more consistent damage, but it seems like spending a limited resource should have more of an effect. And yes, casters can do amazingly as BFC/support types, and AoEs can do well against large masses of weak minions-- I'm talking about the popular blaster casters in the popular "small group vs small group" skirmish)

[Yora]

That's an observation people have made at least as far back as early third edition. The ability to fireballing hordes of goblins is insignificant compared to the power of disabling powerful foes with a single spell.

[Baptor]

That's an observation people have made at least as far back as early third edition. The ability to fireballing hordes of goblins is insignificant compared to the power of disabling powerful foes with a single spell.

QFT. Just imagine if it were real life, which would you rather have, the ability to shoot fire or mind control? One is flashy and impressive and the other is...MIND CONTROL.

If you play the old Baldur's Gate and similar games, the mage is always more useful buffing allies, debuffing enemies, or summoning monsters as cannon fodder. Occasionally a fireball is useful, but it's a one-off. Even if it works, there's usually collateral damage you won't like.

About the only exception in 5e is Meteor Swarm which deals insane amounts of damage. But then again, what does that compare to when compared to True Polymorph?

It's sad, because I love to throw fire and lightning in games, but D&D just doesn't support that style of play well.....EXCEPT with Warlocks, whose Eldritch Blast can be improved to make it a very consistent magic gun. if you want to blow it up, play Warlock.

[Ruslan]

Evocation is not really at its best against a single BBEG target. In a small-group-vs-small-group skirmish, on the other hand, a well-placed Fireball can make a huge difference. Against level-appropriate opposition, it can remove about 50% or more of each enemy's hit points in one action.

Of course, a case could be made that a well-placed Hypnotic Pattern would have an even better effect ...

[SilverStud]

Yes the sheer options of all the other schools vastly outweigh the damage done by Fireball, Lightning Bolt, etc. Weapons universally get a damage modifier, but cantrips only do in some cases. The big 'splosions are further reduced in overall efficacy by limited spell slots. Yay burst damage! It can feel underwhelming, eh?

[RulesJD]

It struck me the other day that I don't think I've ever seen a spellcaster contribute very effectively in the damage department. Cantrips usually so little damage that you'd be better off plinking away with a crossbow, and full spells... as an example, the sorcerer in our last game hit a boss with all three rays of a Scorching Ray spell, and did less than the Rogue did one turn before. Time and again, I see players volley off higher-level spells to do, basically, less than a normal attack routine. Am I crazy, or has anyone else observed the same thing?


(Disclaimers: Yes, martial types should do more consistent damage, but it seems like spending a limited resource should have more of an effect. And yes, casters can do amazingly as BFC/support types, and AoEs can do well against large masses of weak minions-- I'm talking about the popular blaster casters in the popular "small group vs small group" skirmish)

Evoc Wizards effectiveness is determined by a lot of things, primary among them:

1. Has to have Elemental Affinity (Fire) feat.

2. Has to be on a grid. Otherwise the Sculpt Spell is useless. On a grid, Sculpt Spell is 10x better than any other Wizard ability outside of maaaybe Abjuration/Divination.

3. Player has to know the best choices for the best situation. This is hard to get.

4. Has to be the right campaign. Fighting a bunch of Fire Giants? Yeah your damage Wizard won't be that useful.

5. Player needs to keep track of their 'total' damage, not just how big the number is that they rattle off. Because a Fireball against even 3-4 baddies will out 'total' damage a full on Fighter/Barb/Paladin.


Additionally, Evoc Wizards don't get actually good until level 10+. At level 10, Evoc Wizards (finally) become better than any other caster at doing damage (depending on how stupid you think Jeremy Crawford's ruling is on adding spell casting mod to damage). Magic Missile = inescapable terrifying orbs of death when the average damage suddenly goes from 3.5 per bolt, to 8.5 per bolt. That's 25.5 single target damage from level 1 spell, going up to 76.5 out of a level 7 spell (about as high as you'd want to go).

Level 14, you get Maximized Cones of Cold (64 damage) to a huge area. Total that up against 3 targets and it's 192 damage, etc.




Really though, Evocs are the best at doing damage because they're able to (almost) completely ignore the biggest limiter to spell casters, which is damaging friendlies. Not to mention that the best damage spells (Fireball, MM) don't require concentration, so they can continue to do their disabling spells (Wall of Force, etc) while dishing out damage.

Oh, and once they get Simulacrum, it's game over with an Evoc Wizard.

[Sigreid]

I suggest viewing evocation spells, especially the AOE ones as a more permanent version of a crowd control spell. They don't knock out the powerful bad guys, they clear the ground so the real target can be focused on.

[MaxWilson]

It struck me the other day that I don't think I've ever seen a spellcaster contribute very effectively in the damage department. Cantrips usually so little damage that you'd be better off plinking away with a crossbow, and full spells... as an example, the sorcerer in our last game hit a boss with all three rays of a Scorching Ray spell, and did less than the Rogue did one turn before. Time and again, I see players volley off higher-level spells to do, basically, less than a normal attack routine. Am I crazy, or has anyone else observed the same thing?

(Disclaimers: Yes, martial types should do more consistent damage, but it seems like spending a limited resource should have more of an effect. And yes, casters can do amazingly as BFC/support types, and AoEs can do well against large masses of weak minions-- I'm talking about the popular blaster casters in the popular "small group vs small group" skirmish)

Yes, evocation stinks in 5E (except for warlocks and sorlocks, for whom it is pretty decent) against single targets.

Overall, that's probably a good thing because it leaves a niche for fighter-types: they are the heavy hitters who do lots of damage, via archery or hitting things with a gigantic halberd. (PM/GWM or Sharpshooter especially.)

[Tanarii]

A 3rd level Rogue hit for more than 6d6 damage? Given he has 3d6+Dex damage available without sacrificing Cunning Action, that's called random fluctuation above the expected average.

Edit: According to anydice, 6d6 > 3d6+3 90% of the time. 6d6 > 4d6+3 74% of the time (ie Rogue sacrifices their Cunning Action).

[Ninja_Prawn]

Guys, guys, you're all missing the point. If you want to blast things with magic, be the DM. Then you get to play as liches, archmages and flameskulls! They're all balanced around their damage output, which is governed by blasty spells, and you never need to worry about running out of spell slots!

[Millstone85]

you never need to worry about running out of spell slots!Because the players won't check?

[jas61292]

Because the players won't check?

Nah, cause you don't need to care about rests, so you will die or tpk before it really comes into play.

[TheUser]

Martial classes need a niche to fill and consistent single target damage would appear to be that niche.

Despite this, conjuration spells (which evocation casters still have access to) will usually do a lot of damage using very few spell slots.

Animate Objects and Animate Dead come to mind.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Because the players won't check?

Nah, cause you don't need to care about rests, so you will die or tpk before it really comes into play.

Eh, either works :smalltongue:

It was the latter I had in mind - there's no limit on the number of monsters in the world, thus no limit on how many spells the DM can cast.

[RulesJD]

Oh, and if you want Single target damage via Evocation Wizard:

1. Cast Animate Objects.

2. Next turn, cast up-cast Magic Missile + Bonus Action Animate Objects.

3. Watch martials cry tears at your single target damage.

4. Profit.

[Contrast]

Yes, evocation stinks in 5E (except for warlocks and sorlocks, for whom it is pretty decent) against single targets.

Overall, that's probably a good thing because it leaves a niche for fighter-types: they are the heavy hitters who do lots of damage, via archery or hitting things with a gigantic halberd. (PM/GWM or Sharpshooter especially.)

This. I'm playing as a rogue at the moment and a number of combats I've been all but useless while the spellcasters did all the heavy lifting with fire and lightning and the rest of us were on mop up duty. Several times my turn has been spent twiddling my thumbs so that the spellcasters had a clear area to AoE.

The main advantage of being an evocation wizard is just increasing the number of times when casting Fireball is appropriate over a normal wizard :smallwink:

[JackPhoenix]

Martial classes need a niche to fill and consistent single target damage would appear to be that niche.

Despite this, conjuration spells (which evocation casters still have access to) will usually do a lot of damage using very few spell slots.

Animate Objects and Animate Dead come to mind.

What conjuration spells do you have in mind? You've mentioned one transmutation and one necromancy...

[Finieous]

I guess I'll play devil's advocate a little. Yeah, evocation wizards aren't great for single-target damage in boss fights, but most control specialists aren't that great in boss fights either. There are a handful of really useful control spells, and both evocation and control specialists can cast one of them at a time (or a buff -- you gotta choose). That done, you might as well be a little better at dishing out damage.

Concentration, repeating end-on-saves, almost no true save-or-sucks, very few ways to decrease save chance, legendary resistances...the game seems to be designed around relatively short fights decided by hit point attrition. Evocation wizards can learn those handful of effective control spells and cast them about as well as any other wizard (maybe excepting a divination wizard), and then he can dish out more damage while he's concentrating to help end the fight.

Either way, in my experience, spell selection has dramatically outweighed subclass in determining how wizards play and how effective they are. Frankly, I wish the subclasses were a little more differentiated.

[Herobizkit]

Generally, Wizards aren't the spellcasters you want blowing people up. That's what Sorcerers and Warlocks are for.

Search for "5e's Treatmonk's Guide to Wizards" to see that the best Wizard is Batman.

Cantrips start spitting out 2 dice of damage come level 5, and yes, that's also when some warrior-types get two attacks a round. Note that Cantrips aren't meant to be cannons, unless you're a Warlock (or feated to get EB).

IF Enemy_HP = 0 THEN PCS = WIN, sure... but HP are usually the least efficient way to defeat enemies.

It's also a team game. Teams have roles. If everyone was playing a (non-caster) Fighter, you'd cream most enemies til you got outnumbered and had no answer for them.

[JAL_1138]

This. I'm playing as a rogue at the moment and a number of combats I've been all but useless while the spellcasters did all the heavy lifting with fire and lightning and the rest of us were on mop up duty. Several times my turn has been spent twiddling my thumbs so that the spellcasters had a clear area to AoE.

The main advantage of being an evocation wizard is just increasing the number of times when casting Fireball is appropriate over a normal wizard :smallwink:

AoE without friendly fire is seriously fantastic in most combats below level 10. I didn't appreciate how much until I finally played in a party with an Evoker who could just lob it every round without worrying where the rest of us were. And AoE in general is really underrated; I didn't really appreciate it until I played in a string of parties in Adventurers' League that had no AoE options. I'd have given my (character's) right arm for a single measly Shatter in some of those fights.

[Pex]

In 5E, most if not all of the best control/debuff spells require concentration and/or the victim gets to roll a save each round ending the effect. Those spells are awesome when they work, but they have mitigating returns. It's on purpose design so that the spellcasters don't end an encounter on round one with just one spell with no one else doing anything, and when the bad guys use those spells on the players they are not out of the rest of combat that will take at least 30 minutes of real world time to play sitting there doing nothing. It's great when a damage spell does manage to kill off some enemies, but they aren't required to. It's enough they contribute to the hit point attrition of the combat. By damaging the monsters some with spells, the warriors need to do that much less damage. It's an attack or two not needed on that opponent that can be aimed towards another opponent. That means something since in 5E warriors can move between attacks. A control/debuff spell is great to take an opponent out of the combat for awhile to allow the party to focus on others, but that opponent still has to be taken care of eventually and will have all its hit points. Damage spells do their job well.

[jaappleton]

The Evocation school sucks, IMO.

Evocation spells? Quite useful, with the right builds.

Dragon Sorcs? Not a bad route to go, although Twinned Spell will always be incredibly useful. Dragon Sorc / Undying Light Warlock (UA article) wrecks with fire damage.

Theurge Wizards, especially Tempest domain? Nothing really tops that for "I obliterate things", IMO. But it's OP as hell. And that's from someone that played one. It's from Unearthed Arcana, if you can swing that.

[Tanarii]

Cantrips usually so little damage that you'd be better off plinking away with a crossbow,Also, this is generally only be true below level 5, and assumes you have a Dex on par with your casting stat.

Conversely, it's absolutely intentional that for most casters, a cantrip is sub-par to a multiple attacks routine from a warrior-type, or an equal level rogue with Sneak Attack. Just as a level-appropriate comparison, a spell will do more damage. (ie if you're comparing to a bog-standard 2nd level slot scorching ray, you compare the damage of a 3rd level character's physical damage.)

[shuangwucanada]

I played an evocation wizard (with elemental adept for fire) from level 1 to level 11 when we finished the Tiamat storyline (our DM is quite good at adjusting encounter difficulties based on the party levels).

And my party loves me! Being able to provide protection to other party members for every fireball I throw - believe me, it is worthy. Not to mention tons of utility spells that make almost every situation easier.

In our campaign, all of us have a secondary character, and sometimes we switch between two characters. And there was a lot of times when I was playing the other character, the party goes: how I wish the wizard was here!

It doesn't seem to be something the numbers would show. I guess it is the stability of safely clearing small monster hoards makes it so awesome.

[odigity]

Cantrips usually so little damage that you'd be better off plinking away with a crossbow

It's funny how expectations drive reactions.

I grew up on Basic / 2nd Edition. I'm still amazed that I get spells I can cast for free all day long now... :)

[MeeposFire]

So far I see evocation spells being better than they have been since AD&D. The damage is not overwhelming but is strong against groups (what evocation wizards are for IMO) and is more usable than it was in 3e.

[djreynolds]

That's an observation people have made at least as far back as early third edition. The ability to fireballing hordes of goblins is insignificant compared to the power of disabling powerful foes with a single spell.

No one complimented you on that well placed Darth Vader line. That's a shame.

You need to force choke someone.

[Sicarius Victis]

All spells have their uses. Or at least most do.

If you want to kill one target, Disintegrate. If you want to kill a lot, Cone of Cold. If you want control over where it's safe to stand, Wall of Fire. If you want to stab faster, Haste.

Almost all spells have some intended purpose, and almost all spells fill those purpose better than other spells. Just because one spell is better than another in one category, that doesn't mean it will be better in all of them.

[Drackolus]

If you're only casting from your primary school, you're not using most of your tools. An evocation wizard can cast haste and hold monster just fine. Wizards probably have the least impactful subclass choices: in the end, whether you're an abjuration specialist or an evocation specialist - if you've gotta blow up a group of 20 goblins at level 6, you've either got fireball or you don't have the right spell memorized.
Even so, single-target damage is not something wizards are good at. Nor should they be. Wizards can get anything done because they have a lot of tools, brains, and pawns friends, but they always need at least two of those.
Well, unless you have disintegrate. Then that'll do. But you gotta earn that.

[Gastronomie]

TBH I think almost all the damage spells are bad choices. The whole point of casters is that they do stuff normal warriors can't, thus improving the versatility of the party. And for the record, DPR is exactly what normal warriors already excel at. If you want to be a straight-forward ranged DPR monster, Sharpshooter already exists.

The spells like Fireball that have wide range can differenate themselves from normal warriors in how they can damage lots of enemies at once (something most melee character cannot do). But even in their case, I think Fireball is "pretty much it" for the choices - unless your game fights a lot of Devils or stuff, and you use Vitriolic Sphere instead. Either way, in my opinion, most casters should have only one or two, maximum three, non-cantrip Blasting spells on their spell list.

I can see Evocation wizards are good, but if I'm to use a caster who's good at protecting friends from his AoEs, I'd always use a Sorcerer with Careful Spell instead. Always protecting friends from your Web, Hypnotic Pattern and Stinking Cloud are most of the time better than protecting them from your Fireball.

[RulesJD]

Another problem is that the vast majority of Evocation Wizards simply have no idea how to use the subclass.

Favorite example:

Encircle your friendlies fighting the BBEG in a circular Wall of Fire. Exempt them from the spell. Friendlies can grapple and push/pull the BBEG in and out of the Wall of Fire, in addition to the damage it takes from ending its turn in the WoFire.

[Grod_The_Giant]

To be clear, I'm talking about the SPELLS, not the SUBCLASS.

[smcmike]

Another problem is that the vast majority of Evocation Wizards simply have no idea how to use the subclass.

Favorite example:

Encircle your friendlies fighting the BBEG in a circular Wall of Fire. Exempt them from the spell. Friendlies can grapple and push/pull the BBEG in and out of the Wall of Fire, in addition to the damage it takes from ending its turn in the WoFire.

I don't think this works. There isn't any saving throw for the damage that Wall of Fire deals to those who enter the wall or end their turns near it.

[RulesJD]

I don't think this works. There isn't any saving throw for the damage that Wall of Fire deals to those who enter the wall or end their turns near it.

Holy crap, you're right. I'm the one that got it totally wrong. I just kind of always assumed the rider damage gave a save but it definitely doesn't. You could still make a WoFire in a circle with the "heat" side being outwards, but that's a risky proposition if the enemy throws them through it etc.

On the other hand, that spell just got a ton better for soft point control and damage.

[PeteNutButter]

My initial reaction to 5e was that evocation was king.

I based that decision on the change to all the "save or suck" spells from save or suck to save or suck, then save again. The surface impression was that these spells suddenly lost a huge part of their power (in comparison to previous editions), thus driving up the power of evocation. Now is it true?

After further experience with the game, I'd say, "yes, but..."

Evocation is stronger in 5e than in previous editions. Fireball starting at 8d6 is much better than the 5d6 of 3e, and the saving throw spells don't stick as well.

All that being said in a truly deadly encounter a save or suck spell is much more likely to make a difference... unless its a horde of baddies.

A CR deadly fight of baddies outnumbering the party 3-1 or more at level 5 can will be fatal if the party lacks AoE spells.

The general rule is: As the number of monsters increases the save or suck spells (even AoE ones) are less effective than just damage. That is in theory assuming more monsters = less hp per monster.

So if your DM never has more than 8 monsters at a time, yeah, evocation spells are kind of weak. Even so, a party with two PCs that can cast fireball often cleans up a fight to just a couple baddies after round 1.

[RickAllison]

Indeed, PeteNutButter. The goal of a wizard is to take enemies out of the combat, either temporarily or permanently. Control spells are great for locking down enemies so they can be dispatched later, but it is even better to take swarms of enemies out completely. Not so great if you don't actually take them out...

[Drackolus]

The nice thing about thr evocation spells is that they are guaranteed some damage. As a fire draconic sorcerer, empowering a fireball can frequently kill or bring very close to killing a lot of monsters, even at level 13. Increasing the number of targets rapidly improves their damage. Just three targets gives fireball an average total of 84 - 42 damage based on saves from a 5th level character. It also takes no concentration and can't be dispelled.
The single target options except for disintigrate do stink. Not really their specialty.

[RulesJD]

The nice thing about thr evocation spells is that they are guaranteed some damage. As a fire draconic sorcerer, empowering a fireball can frequently kill or bring very close to killing a lot of monsters, even at level 13. Increasing the number of targets rapidly improves their damage. Just three targets gives fireball an average total of 84 - 42 damage based on saves from a 5th level character. It also takes no concentration and can't be dispelled.
The single target options except for disintigrate do stink. Not really their specialty.

Except for, you know, Magic Missile that at level 6 (same as Disintegrate) does a guaranteed 68 damage, just 7 less than Disintegrate which offers a save that results in 0 damage being done.

[Drackolus]

Except for, you know, Magic Missile that at level 6 (same as Disintegrate) does a guaranteed 68 damage, just 7 less than Disintegrate which offers a save that results in 0 damage being done.

Huh. It does scale pretty nice though, getting an extra 10.5 per level as opposed to 3.5. At level 9, disintegrate becomes 106.5 with a save vs. 38.5 without one. And is blocked by a 1st level spell. But then again, you could cast an actual 9th level spell that slot, so that would be kinda silly. Y'know, like power word: kill. Which is actually a weaker one, but is 100 without a save.

[Leith]

Why do people think sorcerers are blasters in 5e? They cast all the same spells that wizards do minus the utility. Yes they have empower spell and quicken spell but they also have heighten spell and twin spell...

Also the evocation school doesn't just include damaging spells, nor is it the only school that does damage. Melf's Acid Arrow is a conjuration, and Darkness is an evocation.

As other posters have said, damage spells (those that aren't AoE) are still useful regardless of the rogue dealing more damage. This is because their effects are immediate and permanent, not requiring concentration or allowing repeated saves. They are also often automatic (Acid Arrow doesn't do a lot of damage but it does do some regardless of your attack roll).

[RickAllison]

Huh. It does scale pretty nice though, getting an extra 10.5 per level as opposed to 3.5. At level 9, disintegrate becomes 106.5 with a save vs. 38.5 without one. And is blocked by a 1st level spell. But then again, you could cast an actual 9th level spell that slot, so that would be kinda silly. Y'know, like power word: kill. Which is actually a weaker one, but is 100 without a save.

Interesting thing about Disintegrate is that because it doesn't save for half damage, it completely bypasses the Evasion ability. More useful for the DM, especially since the same people with Evasion tend to have good Dex saves, but pays off against the person who decides to rely entirely on that for their Dex saves while dipping to get Con instead.

[Gastronomie]

Except for, you know, Magic Missile that at level 6 (same as Disintegrate) does a guaranteed 68 damage, just 7 less than Disintegrate which offers a save that results in 0 damage being done.Wait, what, 68 damage? Magic Missile creates only 1 more missile per extra slot level. A level 6 Magic Missile does only 8d4+8 = average 28 damage.

[jas61292]

I think one of the assumptions people make when thinking that damaging spells are bad is that they are always able to identify what they are facing and target it with the most effective spell. That is not always going to be the case, especially in this edition that lacks any rules for identifying creatures.

What I mean by this is that one of the biggest arguments against damaging spells is that why would you just try to do damage when you can do something to incapacitate or otherwise essentially remove the target from combat. But, the fact is that almost all of the spells that do that kind of thing allow saves that completely negate the spell. The beauty of damaging spells is that they (often) are save for half damage. This means that no matter what you do, if you use the spell, then unless the targets are immune, you get an effect. Most other targeted spells are not like that.

To bring this back to my first paragraph, sure, if you always know what a monster's weak saves are, why would you ever bother with damaging spells unless that bad save happens to be Dexterity? But you may not know that. And hell, depending on the game and the DM, you may never know that. So a spell that you know will almost never be wasted, like most evocation, becomes a lot more valuable, cause while a Fireball doing 14 damage to all enemies may not be great, it is infinitely better than using that same 3rd level slot on Stinking Cloud, only to find out your enemy or enemies have good con and make their save(s), rendering your spell useless.

[smcmike]

Wait, what, 68 damage? Magic Missile creates only 1 more missile per extra slot level. A level 6 Magic Missile does only 8d4+8 = average 28 damage.

You are forgetting Empowered Evocation, which works for every missile, for another 40 damage.

[eastmabl]

Wait, what, 68 damage? Magic Missile creates only 1 more missile per extra slot level. A level 6 Magic Missile does only 8d4+8 = average 28 damage.

I'm going to second this. I'm not sure where the 68 damage is coming from, unless there's an additional 5 damage/bolt being added onto the attack.

[smcmike]

I'm going to second this. I'm not sure where the 68 damage is coming from, unless there's an additional 5 damage/bolt being added onto the attack.

.......... yeah, unless ........

[SharkForce]

Wait, what, 68 damage? Magic Missile creates only 1 more missile per extra slot level. A level 6 Magic Missile does only 8d4+8 = average 28 damage.

dev tweet says that magic missile for evoker wizards adds their int modifier to every individual missile. so if you trust that dev tweet, magic missile is actually 8d4 + 48 (or average of about 68) at that level for an evoker.

of course, disintegrate still has other uses regardless... you can't magic missile away a huge boulder in your path, and perhaps more importantly disintegrate is able to destroy walls of force.


Why do people think sorcerers are blasters in 5e? They cast all the same spells that wizards do minus the utility. Yes they have empower spell and quicken spell but they also have heighten spell and twin spell...

Also the evocation school doesn't just include damaging spells, nor is it the only school that does damage. Melf's Acid Arrow is a conjuration, and Darkness is an evocation.

As other posters have said, damage spells (those that aren't AoE) are still useful regardless of the rogue dealing more damage. This is because their effects are immediate and permanent, not requiring concentration or allowing repeated saves. They are also often automatic (Acid Arrow doesn't do a lot of damage but it does do some regardless of your attack roll).

well, for starters, sorcerers are also missing a number of other crucial spells than just utility. they are severely limited in creating minions (they have literally no summoning spells, their options for minions are animated objects and zombies from finger of death). they are missing some high value crowd control spells (no wall of force, bigby's hand, antipathy/sympathy, or maze for example), some fairly significant buffs to self or others (no true polymorph, mind blank, fire shield, or shapechange)... then you look at their subclasses. now, let's see, what does every single final version sorcerer subclass give? why, bonus damage on spells! every single sorcerer subclass they've released as a final version gives some improvement to at least some subset of damaging spells. even wild sorcerer, which you would think has no particular affinity for damage dealing, has an ability randomly shoved into the subclass at high levels for improving damage-dealing spells (presumably they either couldn't actually think of something that fit the wild magic theme so they just went with damage because they associate sorcerers with damage, or perhaps they just associate wild magic sorcerers with damage just as much as they do draconic or storm but they decided the other abilities needed to come first, or maybe they actually thought a bit more average damage was actually a powerful ability). they even included a special rule for metamagic that is pretty much exclusively for the purpose of improving empower spell (ie dealing damage) - "certain metamagics" can be used in combination with other metamagics. they didn't touch that mechanic for any of the other unappealing metamagic techniques, only empower - think how much more interesting extended spell would be if it didn't interfere with other metamagics and could be used just as a spell was about to have its duration run out and you don't want it to. but nope, only empowered spell gets that extra perk, so you can quicken a nuke, tack on a twinned firebolt, and empower both, but you can't quicken a hypnotic pattern, tack on a twinned crowd control cantrip (because they basically don't exist for single-class sorcerers), and extend both.

this is not to say that sorcerers have no abilities that support any role other than damage, of course. careful spell is great for CC (though nothing in the text draws any attention to that fact whatsoever), subtle is good for a variety of unusual situations but particularly including social scenarios, twin is also useful for buffs, and heighten is as good for CC as it is for damage (i'm not a fan of it for either because it is so expensive and only works on one target for one save, but i can see where it is appealing... i just don't like it as much as other metamagics. apparently i'm in a relatively minority on that though).

so, basically... lots of people assume sorcerers are supposed to be nukers because their subclasses hint at that role, their spell list hints at that role, and to an extent even their metamagics hint at that role.

as to the rest, it's clear the OP is not so much truly referring to evocation spells as he is to the typical thing people think of when they talk about evocation wizards. even WotC does that... notice that the evoker subclass explicitly includes non-evocation damaging cantrips in one of the abilities, for example.

[DrDinocrusher]

I'm going to second this. I'm not sure where the 68 damage is coming from, unless there's an additional 5 damage/bolt being added onto the attack.

Empowered Evocation at level 10 means a wizard adds their int modifier onto the damage of their evocation spells. For magic missile, that (presumably) means a +5 onto each dart for 1d4+6 damage. 8 darts total, 48 guaranteed damage off of those darts plus 8d4 on top of that. Of course the damage is lower if the wizard skipped an ASI at 4 or 8 for a feat.

[Gastronomie]

dev tweet says that magic missile for evoker wizards adds their int modifier to every individual missile. so if you trust that dev tweet, magic missile is actually 8d4 + 48 (or average of about 68) at that level for an evoker.Oh, I see - thanks. Makes sense.

[Ashrym]

Time and again, I see players volley off higher-level spells to do, basically, less than a normal attack routine. Am I crazy, or has anyone else observed the same thing

It is not just you. Most spells don't do a lot of damage compared to what extra attack etc can apply. It gets worse because hp increase sharply with CR so spending slots on nuking blitzes can burn through slots fast.

Sacking is a pretty strong word, however. Situational is more applicable because total damage to larger numbers can matter and clearing out trash mobs with a salvo that also damages the main threat(s) is still useful.

Evocation also includes things like force cage, leomund's tiny hut, otiluke's resilient sphere, and wall spells.

It's not even just the damage impacted these days. Save DC's also suffer until high levels so a person might see 1/4 to 1/3 targets save on a mezz while concentration requirements prevent recasting to catch them. Unfortunately, the DC issue also applies to most evocation spells as well, but the nice thing there is they will still do damage, unlike missing on a weapon sequence.

[MaxWilson]

Why do people think sorcerers are blasters in 5e? They cast all the same spells that wizards do minus the utility. Yes they have empower spell and quicken spell but they also have heighten spell and twin spell...

It's because they're missing most of the interesting wizard spells. No Conjure Elemental, no Evard's Black Tentacles, no Wall of Force, no Animate Dead, no Rope Trick, no True Polymorph. If I named another ten awesome wizard spells there's a good chance that at least half of my favorites would not be available to sorcerers.

Plus, with only a handful of spells known, any given sorcerer knows only a tiny fraction of the spells on the Sorcerer list. You don't have to be a blaster, but you can't really be a full-spectrum combat caster either. (A given wizard can't be a full-spectrum combat caster on any given day either, but at least he can swap out e.g. Fly for Evard's Black Tentacles when he expects to be fighting in an underground dungeon. And he prepares more spells than a sorcerer knows, anyway.)

[Ashrym]

Also, before I forget, healing spells are evocation in 5e. Evocation spells are not just damage. Sucks to be a wizard but not a bard or cleric. ;-)

[Kane0]

Theres also the fact that there are very few single target damage spells beyond spell levels 1-3, and even some of them aren't great (witch bolt compared to ray of sickness and chromatic orb). More mid to high level spells didn't make it in except for disintegrate, so blaster mages are missing out on a fair few options like prismatic ray, polar ray and the like.
That said theres plenty of AoE damage to go around, but the lack of high damage, single target spells does make an impact.

[Zene]

dev tweet says that magic missile for evoker wizards adds their int modifier to every individual missile. so if you trust that dev tweet, magic missile is actually 8d4 + 48 (or average of about 68) at that level for an evoker.

Link to Jeremy Crawford (i.e. official ruling) tweet, for those interested: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/26/bonus-spell-damage/

[MaxWilson]

Empowered Evocation at level 10 means a wizard adds their int modifier onto the damage of their evocation spells. For magic missile, that (presumably) means a +5 onto each dart for 1d4+6 damage. 8 darts total, 48 guaranteed damage off of those darts plus 8d4 on top of that. Of course the damage is lower if the wizard skipped an ASI at 4 or 8 for a feat.

This is a slight misinterpretation of 5E's Magic Missile spell. If you have eight missiles, you don't do 8d4+48 damage. You do 8x(1d4+6) damage, because of the "simultaneous" clause in the spell description. This is why Empowered Evocation acts differently for Magic Missile than for Scorching Ray--it's because Magic Missile has only one damage roll.

At least, that's what I get from reading between the lines of the PHB rules on simultaneous damage, and the dev tweets on Empowered Evocation/Magic Missile.

[Sicarius Victis]

This is a slight misinterpretation of 5E's Magic Missile spell. If you have eight missiles, you don't do 8d4+48 damage. You do 8x(1d4+6) damage, because of the "simultaneous" clause in the spell description. This is why Empowered Evocation acts differently for Magic Missile than for Scorching Ray--it's because Magic Missile has only one damage roll.

At least, that's what I get from reading between the lines of the PHB rules on simultaneous damage, and the dev tweets on Empowered Evocation/Magic Missile.

I quote: "It's one damage roll, just like fireball, but that roll can damage the same target more than once."

Thus, your interpretation is correct. At least according to Crawford.

So yeah, that is exactly how it works.

[nilshai]

I quote: "It's one damage roll, just like fireball, but that roll can damage the same target more than once."

I don't see why it even matters. If it's one roll, you add your IntMod once, if it's multiple rolls, you add your IntMod once, because that's what the current official errata says.

Who cares, if some twitter from Crawford at some point in the past created a ruling, that obviously made Magic Missile imbalanced and directly contradicts the current errata? Who would play it that way? It just doesn't make sense.

[MaxWilson]

I quote: "It's one damage roll, just like fireball, but that roll can damage the same target more than once."

Thus, your interpretation is correct. At least according to Crawford.

So yeah, that is exactly how it works.

Point of clarification:

The "read between the lines" part is about trying to figure out why Magic Missile works differently. I think it's about the word "simultaneous" in the Magic Missile description.

The Empowered Evocation/Magic Missile ruling itself doesn't require reading between the lines.

==================


Who cares, if some twitter from Crawford at some point in the past created a ruling, that obviously made Magic Missile imbalanced and directly contradicts the current errata? Who would play it that way? It just doesn't make sense.

Honestly, as a DM my inclination would be to go the other way: why not let Dragon Sorcerers and Evokers get their bonus to every Scorching Ray on a turn? Why not let them get the bonus to each separate Fireball roll, if I decide that Fireball damage will be rolled separately? Why make an artificial distinction here between "one roll, multiplied" and "sum of multiple rolls"? From a game balance perspective, dragon sorcerers are in no need of a nerf (they're already relatively bad), and an Evoker isn't going to be better at abusing Scorching Ray this ruling than he already is at abusing Magic Missile under RAW/RAI.

If someone is willing to invest in Dragon Sorcery or Evocation as a school choice, I might as well let them be awesome at it, the same way I let Sorlocks be awesome at magical lasers and Sharpshooters be awesome at headshots.

[Coffee_Dragon]

So some people are reading MM to be just one d6 roll, fully modified, and then multiplied by the number of missiles that strike each target? That's not how I read it at all, and if that's how it's meant to be read, it's not well written.

[Tanarii]

So some people are reading MM to be just one d6 roll, fully modified, and then multiplied by the number of missiles that strike each target? That's not how I read it at all, and if that's how it's meant to be read, it's not well written.Yeah, I have no clue how anyone could arrive at that conclusion. Totally counter-intuitive.

[RickAllison]

By the way, the thread title makes no sense. Evocation doesn't stink, Conjuration does!

Stinking Cloud, Cloudkill. 'Nuff said.

[nilshai]

Honestly, as a DM my inclination would be to go the other way: why not let Dragon Sorcerers and Evokers get their bonus to every Scorching Ray on a turn? [...] From a game balance perspective, dragon sorcerers are in no need of a nerf (they're already relatively bad), and an Evoker isn't going to be better at abusing Scorching Ray this ruling than he already is at abusing Magic Missile under RAW/RAI.

Because the errata explicitly states, that your add the bonus only to one damage roll and the designers thought that would be balanced. If it acutally is balanced or not, is a completely different question.

Also i didn't understand the problem with Magic Missile, when i posted, i thought people ment something different, and therefor i didn't express correctly, what my opinion is.


So some people are reading MM to be just one d6 roll, fully modified, and then multiplied by the number of missiles that strike each target? That's not how I read it at all, and if that's how it's meant to be read, it's not well written.

The discription of Magic Missile states "A dart deals 1d4 + 1 force damage to its target.", not "all darts". It is simply wrong to interpret that into one roll for all darts.
If the description would be "All darts deal 1d4 + 1 force damage to its targets.", then you could interpret it both ways, but it isn't. There is no inaccuracy here.

[Daphne]

Jeremy Crawford already confirmed that each dart of magic missiles does +int damage,the reason why is simple: magic missiles damage is instantaneous, so you roll once and apply the result to all targets, just like a fireball, the only difference is that you can hit the same target more than once.

[Coffee_Dragon]

the reason why is simple: magic missiles damage is instantaneous, so you roll once and apply the result to all targets

Why would the timing of the strikes have any effect on how you tally up the damage? If the spell had instead read, "The darts all strike pretty much at the same time", would people really argue that makes a mechanical difference? I don't get it.


just like a fireball, the only difference is that you can hit the same target more than once.

Except it cannot be "just like a Fireball" because the spells do different things. At most, you roll a bunch of d4s "just like" you roll a bunch of d6s for Fireball, with each die virtually tagged with the identity of its target. Doesn't follow that each d4 gets a bonus.

[WhiteEagle88]

It's funny how expectations drive reactions.

I grew up on Basic / 2nd Edition. I'm still amazed that I get spells I can cast for free all day long now... :)

Same here. I HATE being a mage-y type and having to lug around some kind of ranged weapon for when I inevitably run out of spells. Just not how I picture my wizards.

When one of my buddies told me can trips were infinite use in 5e I went straight out and bought all the source books. Was a major selling point for me.

[Kane0]

Well if I got +Int to damage rolls with my spells and I used a 1st level magic missile to hit three targets Id expect each target to take 1d4 +1 +Int damage.
Then if I were to move all those missiles to the one target i'd expect the total damage to be the same. So I can see the logic.

[nilshai]

Jeremy Crawford already confirmed that each dart of magic missiles does +int damage,the reason why is simple: magic missiles damage is instantaneous, so you roll once and apply the result to all targets, just like a fireball, the only difference is that you can hit the same target more than once.


Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice.

There is nothing unclear with Magic Missile, so Crawford's ruling is unofficial. Also his ruling is outdated by the official errata, that directly contradicts his unofficial ruling.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Well if I got +Int to damage rolls with my spells and I used a 1st level magic missile to hit three targets Id expect each target to take 1d4 +1 +Int damage.

Which is definitely not the case given the wording of Empowered Evocation unless Magic Missile uses just the roll of a single die to determine all damage. And I can't read it to say that, previous editions in mind or not.

[smcmike]

There is nothing unclear with Magic Missile, so Crawford's ruling is unofficial. Also his ruling is outdated by the official errata, that directly contradicts his unofficial ruling.

Disagree on both points.

[Daphne]

Which is definitely not the case given the wording of Empowered Evocation unless Magic Missile uses just the roll of a single die to determine all damage. And I can't read it to say that, previous editions in mind or not.

It IS one damage roll, thats why you apply to each dart

twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557823175581769729

twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/610955844918886400

[Coffee_Dragon]

It IS one damage roll

With a single die?

[Daphne]

With a single die?

You roll 1d4 once and all darts does that damage

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/610955844918886400

[nilshai]

Disagree on both points.

I showed how the spell can be read only one way and why Crawford has no jurisdiction about clear rules.
As long as you don't provide plausible reasoning or refute mine, there is nothing more to say.

[Drackolus]

Why is Scorching Ray and Eldritch Blast not instantaneous and Magic Missile is? I mean, I see that Magic Missile is because it does explicitly say that, but Scorching Ray and Eldritch Blast don't say either way... And why does whether or not they are instantaneous have anything to do with whether or not it's one roll or multiple rolls?
Wouldn't that also mean that if you empowered Scorching Ray or Eldritch Blast, you could only impact one beam regardless of your Charisma mod? Since they are rolled separately and empowered is "when you roll damage."
It just seems contradictory and needlessly grants more power to the strongest class and denies it from the weaker ones for no better reason than "just 'couse."
It's just bizarre.

[Daphne]

Why is Scorching Ray and Eldritch Blast not instantaneous and Magic Missile is? I mean, I see that Magic Missile is because it does explicitly say that, but Scorching Ray and Eldritch Blast don't say either way... And why does whether or not they are instantaneous have anything to do with whether or not it's one roll or multiple rolls?
Wouldn't that also mean that if you empowered Scorching Ray or Eldritch Blast, you could only impact one beam regardless of your Charisma mod? Since they are rolled separately and empowered is "when you roll damage."
It just seems contradictory and needlessly grants more power to the strongest class and denies it from the weaker ones for no better reason than "just 'couse."
It's just bizarre.

Multiple attack rolls is the reason, which means multiple/different damage rolls. MM has no attack rolls, AND there is the fact that it states in the spell description that it is instantaneous.

[Coffee_Dragon]

You roll 1d4 once and all darts does that damage

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/610955844918886400

Verily he does seem to say that. Looks like I'm house ruling this one to what the rulebook says.

[Daphne]

Verily he does seem to say that. Looks like I'm house ruling this one to what the rulebook says.

The rulebook says that for spells that hit simuntaneously, you roll once, so its right by the book

[Drackolus]

Multiple attack rolls is the reason, which means multiple/different damage rolls. MM has no attack rolls, AND there is the fact that it states in the spell description that it is instantaneous.
That doesn't explain why being instantaneous means that every missile is the same. It also does force damage, but that doesn't have anything to do with the way the damage is actually rolled.

The rulebook says that for spells that hit simuntaneously, you roll once, so its right by the book
Where?

[Coffee_Dragon]

And why does whether or not they are instantaneous have anything to do with whether or not it's one roll or multiple rolls?

There's absolutely zero reason why it should. When you read the spell it says that each dart does d4+1 damage just like in previous editions: one die per dart, which could in theory all be rolled together as long as you keep track of which die corresponds to which target. The instantaneity is fluff, yet people are acting if that's what's telling us only one die should be rolled. Anyone has yet to explain this part.

[Daphne]

"If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than
one target at the same time, roll the damage once for
all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or
a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled
once for all creatures caught in the blast."

MM hits instantaneous three times, its like there were three targets hitted the same time, but the three targets can be the same person. As Crawford said, its an oddball.

EDIT: I forgot to mention there are no attack rolls too, so it means its one attack

[Drackolus]

Actually, I did find it on p. 196.

If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell’s damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast.
But, if then the reasoning is the timing, why then does the method of hitting (attack rolls vs. saving throws) matter? If three goblins all try to dodge fireball at the same time, you still assume it was one explosion. Heck, that can't actually be true for spells like Lightning Bolt that do travel - it doesn't actually hit instantaneously at all, but it's close enough to where it doesn't matter.

[Coffee_Dragon]

OK, then I get the "just like Fireball" part, but I'm having trouble contorting MM in my head to be that kind of spell. So basically it is now an area of effect spell, that hits locally and with potential multiple overlap, just like no area of effect spell does? Still house ruling that, I think.

[Daphne]

OK, then I get the "just like Fireball" part, but I'm having trouble contorting MM in my head to be that kind of spell. So basically it is now an area of effect spell, that hits locally and with potential multiple overlap, just like no area of effect spell does? Still house ruling that, I think.

Yes, thats the reasoning. I wasn't a fan of the empowered evocation nerf (didn't think it was necessary), so I don't mind the way MM works. But I can certainly see why some might want to nerf it.

[smcmike]

I showed how the spell can be read only one way and why Crawford has no jurisdiction about clear rules.
As long as you don't provide plausible reasoning or refute mine, there is nothing more to say.

Nah. I see where you are coming from, and agree that it would be more natural to interpret it as multiple rolls, but the language of the spell does not rule out using one roll for all the darts.

[SharkForce]

Nah. I see where you are coming from, and agree that it would be more natural to interpret it as multiple rolls, but the language of the spell does not rule out using one roll for all the darts.

the language of the spell doesn't rule out a cow falling on the caster from the sky either. i don't see that as a basis to make it happen.

but even if it *is* one damage roll multiplied by the number of darts (which would be super weird), why is the +5 added to each dart instead of being added once to the total damage?

[Daphne]

the language of the spell doesn't rule out a cow falling on the caster from the sky either. i don't see that as a basis to make it happen.

but even if it *is* one damage roll multiplied by the number of darts (which would be super weird), why is the +5 added to each dart instead of being added once to the total damage?

*Cast spell*

*roll 1d4*

"it was a 3!"

3+1 (Spell) + Int (lets say +4) = 8 damage

*Chooses target(s)*

"I want to hit guy number 1 two times and guy number 2 once!"

Guy number 1 takes 16 damage

Guy number 2 takes 8 damage

[Kane0]

I think you guys lost Grod's original post about a page ago. I don't think the MM thing is all that relevant to his point.

[Gastronomie]

I think you guys lost Grod's original post about a page ago. I don't think the MM thing is all that relevant to his point.This. Also, DM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rulings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sage Advice/Twitter.

[Ashrym]

"Empowered Evocation

Beginning at 10th level, you can add your Intelligence modifier to one damage roll of any wizard evocation spell you cast."

The errata seems more restrictive than the previous twitter statements of the intended bonus applying to each target once (which I think is simple and easy).

I would want magic missile to be a single role applied to each missile. That way the int modifier would apply to each missile because it's a single roll.

If it's multiple rolls then the bonus would only apply to one missile as one damage roll. Unfortunately, I believe each dart is rolled separately because the natural language states "each dart" does d4+1 specifically calling out the darts separately. That looks to me like the int modifier would only add on to one missile.

[SillyPopeNachos]

Is evocation a sub-par choice for the wizard? It's better than transmutation or conjuration in 5th, but not by much. Illusion grants nice battlefield control and debuffs, Divination is metagaming, the magic school, Necromancy allows far greater sustainable ranged DPR with skeleton archery (thanks bounded accuracy), bladesinging allows more magic emphasis to the scroll and blade approach than eldritch knight, and Abjuration makes other casters cry.
It is however a decent choice for sorcerers who can use metamagic to twin, heighten, quicken, and bypass counterspell via subtle spell.

[nilshai]

The rulebook says that for spells that hit simuntaneously, you roll once, so its right by the book

All the spells with multiple attacks strike at the same time, because there is nothing telling you, that they don't. Scorching Ray for example says, that you create 3 rays. There is nothing to allow a passing of time between them. There is nothing special about Magic Missile in this regard.

[Cybren]

All the spells with multiple attacks strike at the same time, because there is nothing telling you, that they don't. Scorching Ray for example says, that you create 3 rays. There is nothing to allow a passing of time between them. There is nothing special about Magic Missile in this regard.

There's a substantial aesthetic difference in game mechanics, though, even if there isn't in fictional positioning. Magic missile involves not capital A "Attacks" while scorching Ray does. The process of making attack rolls psychologically

[Occasional Sage]

Late reply, but

No one complimented you on that well placed Darth Vader line. That's a shame.

You need to give out throat hugs (https://www.80stees.com/products/throat-hugs-darth-vader-shirt?sku=SWARS472-XLT&adtype=%7Badtype%7D&utm_source=goog-merch&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=SWARS472&dfw_tracker=6981-11102840901&gclid=CMLyzpTFjNACFZRffgod9xID_Q).

I fixed that for you.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I think you guys lost Grod's original post about a page ago. I don't think the MM thing is all that relevant to his point.
To be fair, I think that was largely answered with "pretty much, except for AoE in encounters with lots of minions."

[Sigreid]

To be fair, I think that was largely answered with "pretty much, except for AoE in encounters with lots of minions."

Yep. That's what Evocation is really for is thinning out the masses so your party can get to the real issue. With my casters I have a general rule that unless I can catch at least 3 targets, it's not worth the spell slot as you likely aren't going to do much more damage than you would have with a cantrip.

[RulesJD]

Here is why you should just straight up ignore JC's tweet and just treat adding Mod to whatever damage like everything else in the game:


The majority of Evocation spells that are worth casting are Damage of Time (DoT) spells. Wall of Fire and Storm Sphere come to mind.

Per JC's idiotic ruling, a LEVEL freaking TEN Evocation Wizard is about 2% better at casting those spells compared to the average wizard.

Why only 2%? Because you add the mod to the damage roll ONCE. Not once per turn, or once per round, but once period. So you roll 5d8+Int for the first time you cast the spell.

After that? Just 5d8, no int mod, for the next minute it's up there.

That is colossally stupid.

[Drackolus]

The errata is what makes it work only once per spell, not a tweet. It's as official as everyone having proficiency in unarmed strikes.
That said, I think that it would be cool to make it "once per spell per turn." Wall of fire would be very strong since it's aoe and dot, so that would be a applied a ton. But maybe that's okay.

[Kane0]

On the topic of some better blasting spells, how about these? Only half of them are evocation spells though.


Corrosive Grasp
1st Level Transmutation
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S
Duration: Up to 1 minute

Make a melee spell attack against one creature within your reach. On a hit, the target takes 4d6 acid damage. Until the spell ends or you hit, you can make the attack again on each of your turns as an action.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot above 1st.

Witch Bolt
1st Level Evocation
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: 30 feet
Components: V, S, M
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute

Make a ranged spell attack against one creature you can see within range. On a hit, the target takes 1d12 lightning damage, and on each of your turns for the duration if the target is visible and within range you can use your bonus action to deal 1d12 lightning damage to the target automatically. The spell ends if you do not use this bonus action on your turn.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the initial and recurring damage increases by 1d12 for each slot above 1st.

Ray of Enfeeblement
2nd Level Necromancy
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: Up to 1 minute

Make a ranged spell attack against one creature you can see within range. On a hit, the target takes 3d6 necrotic damage and deals only half damage with weapon attacks until the spell ends.
At the end of each of the target’s turns it can make a Constitution saving throw against the spell. On a success, the spell ends.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot above 2nd.

Seeking Ray
2nd Level Evocation
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: 120 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous

Make a ranged spell attack against one creature you can see within range, ignoring penalties to hit from cover and concealment. On a hit, the target takes 5d6 lightning damage.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot above 2nd.

Battering Ram
3rd Level Evocation
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, S, M
Duration: Instantaneous

Make a ranged spell attack against one creature or object you can see within range. On a hit the target takes 4d10 force damage and must succeed on a Strength saving throw or be pushed 20 feet in a straight line away from you and knocked prone. Objects struck by this spell take an additional 2d10 damage.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d10 for each slot above 3rd.

Ray of Exhaustion
3rd Level Necromancy
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: 120 feet
Components: V, S, M
Duration: Instantaneous

Make a ranged spell attack against one creature you can see within range. On a hit, the target takes 6d6 necrotic damage and must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or gain one level of exhaustion.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot above 3rd.

Polar Ray
4th Level Evocation
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: 90 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous

Make a ranged spell attack against one creature you can see within range. On a hit, the target takes 8d8 cold damage and has their speed reduced to 0 until the end of their next turn.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 5th level or higher, the damage increases by 2d8 for each slot above 4th.

Resonating Bolt
4th Level Evocation
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: 120 feet
Components: V, S, M
Duration: Instantaneous

Make a ranged spell attack against one creature you can see within range. On a hit, the target takes 8d6 lightning damage and at the beginning of your next turn all creatures within a 5-foor-radius of the target must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 4d6 thunder damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 5th level or higher, the thunder and lightning damage both increase by 1d6 for each slot above 4th.

Prismatic Ray
5th Level Evocation
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: 120 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous

Make a ranged spell attack against one creature you can see within range. On a hit, roll a d8 to determine which color ray affects the target, and the target must succeed a Wisdom saving throw or be blinded until the end of their next turn.
1. Red. The target takes 1d4d8 fire damage
2. Orange. The target takes 14d6 acid damage
3. Yellow. The target takes 14d6 lightning damage
4. Green. The target takes 14d8 poison damage
5. Blue. The target takes 14d8 cold damage
6. Indigo. The target takes 14d6 necrotic damage
7. Violet. The target takes 14d6 radiant damage
8. Special. Roll twice more, ignoring any further 8s
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 6th level or higher, the damage increases by 2 die for each slot above 5th.

Avasculate
7th Level Necromancy

Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: 30 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous

Make a ranged spell attack against one creature you can see within range. On a hit, the target’s current HP is halved and they must succeed on a constitution saving throw or be stunned until the end of their next turn. This spell has no effect on undead and constructs.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 8th level or higher, you can target one additional creature for each slot level above 7th.

[DKing9114]

All the spells with multiple attacks strike at the same time, because there is nothing telling you, that they don't. Scorching Ray for example says, that you create 3 rays. There is nothing to allow a passing of time between them. There is nothing special about Magic Missile in this regard.

When casting Magic Missile, my take on the strike at the same time description is that you must declare all targets before rolling damage, so you risk either wasting missiles on targets that would have died or not using enough missiles on an enemy you needed to kill this turn.

[Zalabim]

Yes, thats the reasoning. I wasn't a fan of the empowered evocation nerf (didn't think it was necessary), so I don't mind the way MM works. But I can certainly see why some might want to nerf it.
I think the reasoning is entirely out of game. Magic Missile is the premier evocation spell, so here's a ruling that makes it the premier evoker-wizard spell, regardless of what natural language would make you think.

[djreynolds]

Late reply, but


I fixed that for you.

You need to give out throat hugs. Too funny.

I like chain lightning, very powerful spell.

Evocation wizards can do a lot of damage with 5th levels spell or lower at 13th. And elemental adept is good feat to help. I feel for any wizard 13th level is that sweet spot, you should have a 20 int by then, and maybe a feat and your proficiency bonus is +5

[Giant2005]

When it comes to damage, Wizards excel at using their bonus action. A 7th level Bigby's Hand for example can convert their bonus action into 8d8 damage which is fairly top tier as bonus actions go - only a Moon Druid/Bard or Moon Druid/War Cleric can approach those numbers for a bonus action (or a Rogue that missed their first attack I guess).
Being able to deal respectable damage with a bonus action means that the Wizard can still buff/debuff/whatever with their action and still deal respectable damage in a round (or do some really impressive damage by casting Scorching Ray + using their bonus action). Non-Spellcasters can't do that - they are either damage or nothing, Wizards can pull off both simultaneously.

[Pex]

People keep saying Scorching Ray is such an amazing spell, but I find it meh. Three attacks for 2d6 damage each is nice but not worth a 2nd level slot for me. As a 3rd level wizard/sorcerer I'd much rather have a defensive spell like Misty Step or Mirror Image. Burning Hands and Magic Missile are still significant 1st level spell damage if needed, and a cantrip is still fine to conserve spells. The ability to attack 3 targets is not appealing enough to me for only 2d6 damage each. At 5th level Fireball becomes available when I need/want a big boom and cantrips are doing 2dX damage. Less damage but not using up a spell slot is a fair trade. Fire-based dragon sorcerers are salivating for next level for their Fire Bolt.

I have not taken the spell for my red dragon sorcerer, and I don't miss it. I'm getting better use of my 2nd level slots with Misty Step, Enhance Ability, and the occasional Burning Hands upgrade.

[MaxWilson]

People keep saying Scorching Ray is such an amazing spell, but I find it meh. Three attacks for 2d6 damage each is nice but not worth a 2nd level slot for me. As a 3rd level wizard/sorcerer I'd much rather have a defensive spell like Misty Step or Mirror Image. Burning Hands and Magic Missile are still significant 1st level spell damage if needed, and a cantrip is still fine to conserve spells. The ability to attack 3 targets is not appealing enough to me for only 2d6 damage each. At 5th level Fireball becomes available when I need/want a big boom and cantrips are doing 2dX damage. Less damage but not using up a spell slot is a fair trade. Fire-based dragon sorcerers are salivating for next level for their Fire Bolt.

I have not taken the spell for my red dragon sorcerer, and I don't miss it. I'm getting better use of my 2nd level slots with Misty Step, Enhance Ability, and the occasional Burning Hands upgrade.

I agree. Who says it's amazing? It's pretty garbage. I thought "evocation stinks" was the whole premise of this thread...

[Gastronomie]

I agree. Who says it's amazing? It's pretty garbage. I thought "evocation stinks" was the whole premise of this thread...I'm pretty sure I've never heard Scorching Ray is an amazing spell, even with Elemental Affinity x3.

[Tanarii]

It's no amazing. It just does more damage than a third level Rogue (with SA) or Barbarian or Fighter does. Assuming the latter doesn't lay out a resource (ie Frenzy or Action Surge).

[Gastronomie]

It's no amazing. It just does more damage than a third level Rogue (with SA) or Barbarian or Fighter does. Assuming the latter doesn't lay out a resource (ie Frenzy or Action Surge).Yeah, except damaging isn't really the caster's jobs in the first place, and the resources of the warriors are more easily restored...

Really, no reason to take it for anyone except those with Elemental Affinity x3, and even for those with Elemental Affinity x3, a doubtful choice past level 5.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, except damaging isn't really the caster's jobs in the first placeUh, what? That's absolutely one of the thier jobs. To be an on demand higher than just normally attacking this round nuker.

[Gastronomie]

Uh, what? That's absolutely one of the thier jobs. To be an on demand higher than just normally attacking this round nuker.Perhaps this is a matter of personal preference, and it may well have to do with how 80% of my builds are gishes, but I take almost no damage-only spells when I play a Caster. Pretty much only Fireball. I find it more efficient to debuff or buff than to inflict direct damage, unless when you're cleaning up a good number of minions in one shot.

[SharkForce]

at level 3, scorching ray is pretty amazing. it loses the shine rather quickly as you gain levels, but when you first get it, i think amazing is a pretty reasonable description.

[Gollumstripes]

Evocation is not really at its best against a single BBEG target. In a small-group-vs-small-group skirmish, on the other hand, a well-placed Fireball can make a huge difference. Against level-appropriate opposition, it can remove about 50% or more of each enemy's hit points instead one action.

Of course, a case could be made that a well-placed Hypnotic Pattern would have an even better effect ...

I second this one

[RickAllison]

I second this one

Indeed. Evokers would be fun for a hostage crisis, actually. "Oh, you are using them as meat shields? My Fireball doesn't care."

[MeeposFire]

Indeed. Evokers would be fun for a hostage crisis, actually. "Oh, you are using them as meat shields? My Fireball doesn't care."

That would make for a fun visual after the fact.

[Occasional Sage]

Indeed. Evokers would be fun for a hostage crisis, actually. "Oh, you are using them as meat shields? My Fireball doesn't care."


That would make for a fun visual after the fact.

*hostage checks to be sure xe is unburnt*
*hostage looks at the charred remains on several sides*
*bladder releases*

[RickAllison]

*hostage checks to be sure xe is unburnt*
*hostage looks at the charred remains on several sides*
*bladder releases*

"You're welcome!!"

Now I kind of want to play a SWAT team in D&D...