Mordenkainen's Sword...

[Spectre9000]

Usually, you can look at something and make an argument as to why something is seemingly and justifiably less powerful than another ability/spell. I can't do that with Mordenkainen's Sword. At level 7 this does 3d10, for an average of 16.5.

Spiritual Weapon is distinctly better in every conceivable way and you get it at level 3. It doesn't even need concentration. It does 3d8+spellcasting ability at level 7, which is an average of 13.5 to 18.5. At worst with only a 16 in Wisdom it equals its damage (if you're using this, you have wisdom), and doesn't require concentration. Okay, okay, that's a cleric spell, it's one of those iconic perks to being a Cleric, yadda yadda.

**** that. Let's look at Bigby's Hand, a wizard spell. It is also distinctly better in every way. It does 8d8 at level 7. That's an average of 36 damage. Thirty Six. Damage. More than double. At level 5 it deals 4d8; an average of 18. A level 5 spell deals more damage. Oh, btw, did I mention you can move Bigby's hand 60 feet instead of only the 20 ft of Mordenkainen's Sword? The icing on the cake is you can do other things with it. Like grapple and crush it. Incidentally, that grapple deals 8d6+spellcasting modifier, which is an average of 28-33. Yes, you can grapple a creature (with +8 to grapple; take that martial characters!) and still deal more damage. Bigby's hand also has double the range.


OH, and did I mention Mordenkainen's Sword requires 250gp? Not a hard sum to come up with at level 13, but it's like adding insult to injury at that point.




Now, I'm REALLY hoping I missed some niche use case that makes this all moot and Mordenkainen's Sword oh so amazing as I like it more thematically. I currently feel like if I took it, I'd have to RP being a recovering victim of an Intellect Devour.

[MrStabby]

There's also the cast time - action vs bonus action.

[MeeposFire]

Well the spell is an action but you can also get your bonus action attack that turn as well but spiritual weapon can get a cantrip on the same turn as well which averages 4d8 so 18 damage (more if it is a caster type cleric). So even then spiritual weapon is ahead.

[Jerrykhor]

Some times I wonder if they will ever put out a balance errata to buff the weak spells, and there are a lot of them. Mordekainen's Sword is certainly not the only one.

I think Circle of Death, Continual Flame and Otto's Irresistible Dance deserves special mention. Darkvision as a 2nd level spell also has got to be a joke when 90% of the races has it.

[Vogonjeltz]

Usually, you can look at something and make an argument as to why something is seemingly and justifiably less powerful than another ability/spell. I can't do that with Mordenkainen's Sword.

I'll have a go at it.

Spells in contention from the post:

Mordenkainen's Sword - B, W; 7th; Evo; Action; 60 ft; V,S,M (expensive); conc to 1 min; Made of Force (can not be destroyed); Bonus action to move and attack for 3d10 force.

Spiritual Weapon - C; 2nd; Evo; bonus action; 60 ft; v, s (requires free hand); 1 min; bonus to move 20 feet and attack; 1d8 force + spell mod/+1d8 per two spell levels;

Bigby's Hand - W; 5th; Evo; Action; 120 ft; V,S,M; Conc to 1 min; AC 20 hp of Caster; Bonus action to move 60 ft and attack; CF - Spell attack 4d8 force/ +2d8 lvl; GH - +8 grapple, bonus action for 2d6 + spell mod bludgeoning / +2d6 lvl

Mordenkainen's Sword carries the following advantages:
1) Only requires one hand be occupied by the material component (A Cleric casting Spiritual Weapon would need an empty hand unless they had Warcaster)
2) Can make two attacks on the first round. Action casts and makes an attack, Bonus action to make another attack total of 6d10 damage on round 1. Spiritual Weapon requires a bonus action to cast and to make attacks, so it can't happen on the 1st round, Bigby's specifically states the bonus action may only occur on subsequent rounds.
3) MS can not be destroyed. Bigby's Hand has hit points and can be ended early even if the caster is unharmed themselves. So although Bigby's potentially deals more damage, it can also be destroyed in the same way as anything else (and with 20 AC, 0 for a Dexterity Saving throw, and the hit points of a Wizard, it's virtually effortless to do so).
4) Spiritual Weapon scales terribly enough that it deals worse damage even when cast at the same level (this is fairly typical).

Conclusion:
For all its Faults, Mordenkainen's Sword is actually the better spell (as it should be).


Well the spell is an action but you can also get your bonus action attack that turn as well but spiritual weapon can get a cantrip on the same turn as well which averages 4d8 so 18 damage (more if it is a caster type cleric). So even then spiritual weapon is ahead.

Technically at the first level a comparison can be made (15th) the Cantrip only does 3d8 if the subject fails a dexterity saving throw (the only option for a Cleric is Sacred Flame). Even if the Cleric has a capped casting modifier, it averages 1 less damage than Mordenkainen's Sword, after the first round MS would be able to also apply a cantrip dealing 3d10, maintaining damage superiority. On top of that, an Evoker (most likely class to use spell slots for big combat spells) would add their int modifier to every attack, further widening the gap.

[MeeposFire]

I'll have a go at it.

Spells in contention from the post:

Mordenkainen's Sword - B, W; 7th; Evo; Action; 60 ft; V,S,M (expensive); conc to 1 min; Made of Force (can not be destroyed); Bonus action to move and attack for 3d10 force.

Spiritual Weapon - C; 2nd; Evo; bonus action; 60 ft; v, s (requires free hand); 1 min; bonus to move 20 feet and attack; 1d8 force + spell mod/+1d8 per two spell levels;

Bigby's Hand - W; 5th; Evo; Action; 120 ft; V,S,M; Conc to 1 min; AC 20 hp of Caster; Bonus action to move 60 ft and attack; CF - Spell attack 4d8 force/ +2d8 lvl; GH - +8 grapple, bonus action for 2d6 + spell mod bludgeoning / +2d6 lvl

Mordenkainen's Sword carries the following advantages:
1) Only requires one hand be occupied by the material component (A Cleric casting Spiritual Weapon would need an empty hand unless they had Warcaster)
2) Can make two attacks on the first round. Action casts and makes an attack, Bonus action to make another attack total of 6d10 damage on round 1. Spiritual Weapon requires a bonus action to cast and to make attacks, so it can't happen on the 1st round, Bigby's specifically states the bonus action may only occur on subsequent rounds.
3) MS can not be destroyed. Bigby's Hand has hit points and can be ended early even if the caster is unharmed themselves. So although Bigby's potentially deals more damage, it can also be destroyed in the same way as anything else (and with 20 AC, 0 for a Dexterity Saving throw, and the hit points of a Wizard, it's virtually effortless to do so).
4) Spiritual Weapon scales terribly enough that it deals worse damage even when cast at the same level (this is fairly typical).

Conclusion:
For all its Faults, Mordenkainen's Sword is actually the better spell (as it should be).



Technically at the first level a comparison can be made (15th) the Cantrip only does 3d8 if the subject fails a dexterity saving throw (the only option for a Cleric is Sacred Flame). Even if the Cleric has a capped casting modifier, it averages 1 less damage than Mordenkainen's Sword, after the first round MS would be able to also apply a cantrip dealing 3d10, maintaining damage superiority. On top of that, an Evoker (most likely class to use spell slots for big combat spells) would add their int modifier to every attack, further widening the gap.

Even accounting for the evocation wizard the sword spell will on average deal only 3 damage more for a 7th level slot compared to spiritual weapons 6h level slot.

Is a 7th level spell only supposed to deal on average 3 damage more than a 6th level slot? I think most would say that spiritual weapon wins that round and if you are not an evocation wizard the comparison shifts to a complete win for spiritual weapon.

As for the 1st round advantage yes for 2 levels 3d8 (average 13.5 or 18.5 if caster type cleric) is actually slightly behind the sword spells 3d10 (average 16.5 or 21.5 if an evocation wizard) but in just two levels the cleric goes up to 18 or 23 average damage and is the better combo. Are you really suggesting that the sword spell is actually overall better when it its damage is behind using a cantrip for the first 12 levels (since you can't cast the sword spell), is ahead for 2, and then is behind for the rest of the game?


Even if you want to claim that even after all of this that an evocation wizard can make this come out a couple of points of damage ahead of a cleric in a round and that makes the spell better I would contend that the fact M sword requires concentration means that it is the inferior spell since spiritual weapon does not. The evocation wizard cannot use any concentration spells while using the sword spell but the cleric gets to use things like spiritual guardians, bless, or other concentration spells while getting to use spiritual weapon, and a cantirp/weapon attack.

An upcast 2nd level spell should not be so competitive with a 7th level spell. The concentration requirement is a real killer IMO when you compare the two spells.

[SharkForce]

if someone is dedicating special effort to killing bigby's hand, they're not busy killing something else most of the time. i mean, AoE attacks do exist, but the hand is probably not in the wizard's location (and thus, most AoEs will also not hitting both it and the wizard). frankly, while being possible to destroy is certainly a drawback, i cannot describe it as being a *major* drawback.

mordenkainen's sword really is just a bad spell. for better results with a mordenkainen spell, i recommend finding a way to lock someone into an area with mordenkainen's hound, which is much more interesting imo.

[Foxhound438]

you know what's even more rich? Flaming sphere upcast deals 7d6 (24.5) at that spell level, possibly multiple times a round to the same creature if you have a grappler on your team, and does half damage on a successful save anyways. Yes the damage type isn't great theoretically, but regardless, 99% of the time this dinky little 2nd level spell that's not even considered to be that great will still out do the sword. Also it doesn't require you to have a priced material component.

Another strong contender (in my opinion) is Storm Sphere. This 4th level spell, when upcast to 7th, gets to fill a 20ft radius with winds that deal 5d6 damage to each creature in it per round, and then you get to shoot 7d6 of lightning at something with advantage. That total of 12d6 will do about 42 damage on average to the one guy you keep in the area by whatever means, and another 17.5 to anything else that happens to be in the area.

Another note, the evocation wizard's damage boost actually wouldn't apply more than once, as per PHB errata. So sure, the sword can out-damage the spirit weapon... for exactly one swing, then it's worse forever.

All in all I'd argue that the sword should do something more like 5d10 (27.5) on a hit. Yes, that's going to be more damage than spirit weapon, but as others have said, SW is non concentration. Plus the fact that an early spell pick shouldn't shine more than a late pick. There are in fact a lot of damage spells that suffer from under-poweredness, including flame strike, ice storm, and lightning arrow. Maybe someday we'll see a balance change to these, but for now they're all just "those bad spells that no one takes for good reason".

[MrStabby]

There are in fact a lot of damage spells that suffer from under-poweredness, including flame strike, ice storm, and lightning arrow. Maybe someday we'll see a balance change to these, but for now they're all just "those bad spells that no one takes for good reason".

I am not sure that this is fair. Spells like flame strike are perfectly fine for when you need them, especially on a class that doesn't get fireball on it's core spell list. It isn't great and not what you would pick the class for but as part of a toolbox it is ok. Quite rightly they don't see a LOT of play but it isn't like they are never the right spell to cast

[Vogonjeltz]

you know what's even more rich? Flaming sphere upcast deals 7d6 (24.5) at that spell level, possibly multiple times a round to the same creature if you have a grappler on your team, and does half damage on a successful save anyways. Yes the damage type isn't great theoretically, but regardless, 99% of the time this dinky little 2nd level spell that's not even considered to be that great will still out do the sword. Also it doesn't require you to have a priced material component.

Another strong contender (in my opinion) is Storm Sphere. This 4th level spell, when upcast to 7th, gets to fill a 20ft radius with winds that deal 5d6 damage to each creature in it per round, and then you get to shoot 7d6 of lightning at something with advantage. That total of 12d6 will do about 42 damage on average to the one guy you keep in the area by whatever means, and another 17.5 to anything else that happens to be in the area.

Another note, the evocation wizard's damage boost actually wouldn't apply more than once, as per PHB errata. So sure, the sword can out-damage the spirit weapon... for exactly one swing, then it's worse forever.

All in all I'd argue that the sword should do something more like 5d10 (27.5) on a hit. Yes, that's going to be more damage than spirit weapon, but as others have said, SW is non concentration. Plus the fact that an early spell pick shouldn't shine more than a late pick. There are in fact a lot of damage spells that suffer from under-poweredness, including flame strike, ice storm, and lightning arrow. Maybe someday we'll see a balance change to these, but for now they're all just "those bad spells that no one takes for good reason".

Fire is the most common resistance and immunity, and there are more than a few spells that halve or completely negate fire damage. Force immunity/resistance are relatively rare.

Not to mention flaming sphere is a friendly fire risk.

[Zalabim]

Flaming Sphere is also limited by being on the ground while the others can float around. Of course, the sword's poor movement rate is a big hindrance as well.

I think a little of the weakness of circle of death and flamestrike is excused by necrotic and radiant being very good damage types. But only a little.

[Gignere]

I think this is just a joke spell. Maybe no concentration and increased movement might make this something to consider. Maybe it was Mordenkainen's idea of punking all the wizards that picks this spell.

[DracoKnight]

I think this is just a joke spell. Maybe no concentration and increased movement might make this something to consider. Maybe it was Mordenkainen's idea of punking all the wizards that picks this spell.

I leave it as is and make it a 3rd level spell. Think call lightning with better damage type, but weaker range. Also an attack roll instead of a saving throw.

[GandalfTheWhite]

I leave it as is and make it a 3rd level spell. Think call lightning with better damage type, but weaker range. Also an attack roll instead of a saving throw.

Makes a lotta f*cking sense. Not good enough a spell t'be 7th level.

[Vogonjeltz]

Makes a lotta f*cking sense. Not good enough a spell t'be 7th level.

6d10 damage plus 3d10 force damage as a bonus action every round after for a minute is well worth a 7th level slot.

[Sariel Vailo]

Some times I wonder if they will ever put out a balance errata to buff the weak spells, and there are a lot of them. Mordekainen's Sword is certainly not the only one.

I think Circle of Death, Continual Flame and Otto's Irresistible Dance deserves special mention. Darkvision as a 2nd level spell also has got to be a joke when 90% of the races has it.

ok now i get it but why ottos irresistable dance its weak but its fun. prime example you see the bbeg about to slap a child the bbeg is now dancing insead he looks weak, yada yada yada.

[Dalebert]

MS is definitely weak but while we're talking about under-powered spells, no one is going to mention Barkskin? First level Mage Armor last 8 hours without concentration. Barkskin is 2nd level, only last 10 minutes, and requires concentration, and it's one of the most likely spells to get broken by frequent concentration checks since it's typically moon druids casting it before morphing and going into battle. Why not just pull a 2nd level slot out of your pocket and set it on fire. What a waste.

[Zalabim]

6d10 damage plus 3d10 force damage as a bonus action every round after for a minute is well worth a 7th level slot.

As long as we're assuming the enemy won't move more than 20 feet, why not 6d10 magic piercing damage and 6d10 magic piercing damage each round with no action for 10 minutes from a 7th level insect plague? Mordenkainen's Sword is one wizard/bard spell a sorcerer will never miss.

Other comparisons would be that you need to hit more than five times to deal more damage than a disintegrate from its spell slot. Both these spells also work on objects.

I think it'd be more accurate to say that 6d10 damage plus 3d10 force damage after is barely worth a 7th level slot. It could be lower level or deal more damage per hit. It doesn't even have scaling for higher levels. Combined with the 20' travel distance at this level, the spell is a joke.

[Dalebert]

Rather than just raising the damage, I think a good fix for this spell would be allowing it to parry as a reaction if it's within X feet of the wizard and maybe even allowing it to move and attack as both an action and a bonus action. Then it would start to feel like a 7th level spell.

[Vogonjeltz]

As long as we're assuming the enemy won't move more than 20 feet, why not 6d10 magic piercing damage and 6d10 magic piercing damage each round with no action for 10 minutes from a 7th level insect plague? Mordenkainen's Sword is one wizard/bard spell a sorcerer will never miss.

Other comparisons would be that you need to hit more than five times to deal more damage than a disintegrate from its spell slot. Both these spells also work on objects.

I think it'd be more accurate to say that 6d10 damage plus 3d10 force damage after is barely worth a 7th level slot. It could be lower level or deal more damage per hit. It doesn't even have scaling for higher levels. Combined with the 20' travel distance at this level, the spell is a joke.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but a) insect plague is potentially friendly fire yes? And b) isn't that not a Wizard spell? Whereas MS is a wizard only spell, yes?)

[Jerrykhor]

ok now i get it but why ottos irresistable dance its weak but its fun. prime example you see the bbeg about to slap a child the bbeg is now dancing insead he looks weak, yada yada yada.

Fun is subjective, but a 6th level slot is not. For combat purposes, its no better than Tasha's Hideous Laughter, a 1st level spell. Plus, Tasha's could work in your example too.

A 6th level spell being comparable to a 1st level spell, and you don't see a problem? That's ridiculous.

[Dalebert]

A 6th level spell being comparable to a 1st level spell, and you don't see a problem? That's ridiculous.

Well, Otto's does make you auto-fail at least long enough to lose one action but I agree that's not 6th level worth of a difference.

[Jerrykhor]

Well, Otto's does make you auto-fail at least long enough to lose one action but I agree that's not 6th level worth of a difference.

Sometimes I wonder what goes through their thought process in balancing the spells. A Hold Person upcasted at 6th level can target 5 humanoids, and instead of just advantage on attacks, grant auto-crits to melee. Its just insane how they think Otto's effect would be worth a 6th level slot.

[Specter]

Some times I wonder if they will ever put out a balance errata to buff the weak spells, and there are a lot of them. Mordekainen's Sword is certainly not the only one.

I think Circle of Death, Continual Flame and Otto's Irresistible Dance deserves special mention. Darkvision as a 2nd level spell also has got to be a joke when 90% of the races has it.

While Mordy's Sword definitely sucks, these other ones (normally) dont.

Circle of Death has a 60-foot radius, maximum of 576 squares, three times that of fireball. That's how wizards decimate entire armies.

Continual Flame is pure utility, like city guards keeping streets always lit. Not awesome, but not meant to be either.

Otto's Irresistible Dance has no save associated with it when it's cast. You can turn a 20th-level Fighter into a chicken with it, or prevent any escape. If they want to waste their action to try to escape, fine by me - I just cast it again. There may be something going on against flight too, but I can't speak RAWly about it. (Even Treantmonk made a mistake about this one, comparing it to Tasha's, a shame coming from such a good guide).

Darkvision is lame for 90% of dudes, true, but for humans, halflings and dragonborns it's mandatory.

[Foxhound438]

Sometimes I wonder what goes through their thought process in balancing the spells. A Hold Person upcasted at 6th level can target 5 humanoids, and instead of just advantage on attacks, grant auto-crits to melee. Its just insane how they think Otto's effect would be worth a 6th level slot.

can't target most BBEG material creatures, and there's the chance to succeed the initial save for the hold. Depending on what you're fighting, you might not be able to land hold person consistently, a lot of scarier things have legendary resists, advantage on saves, and wis save bonuses upwards of +10. Otto's dance is by no means the be all and end all of crowd control, but it still gives your team a reliable advantage against almost anything.

[Jerrykhor]

While Mordy's Sword definitely sucks, these other ones (normally) dont.

Circle of Death has a 60-foot radius, maximum of 576 squares, three times that of fireball. That's how wizards decimate entire armies.

Continual Flame is pure utility, like city guards keeping streets always lit. Not awesome, but not meant to be either.

Otto's Irresistible Dance has no save associated with it when it's cast. You can turn a 20th-level Fighter into a chicken with it, or prevent any escape. If they want to waste their action to try to escape, fine by me - I just cast it again. There may be something going on against flight too, but I can't speak RAWly about it. (Even Treantmonk made a mistake about this one, comparing it to Tasha's, a shame coming from such a good guide).

Darkvision is lame for 90% of dudes, true, but for humans, halflings and dragonborns it's mandatory.
Circle of Death cost 500gp to cast, I think with that amount of gold i would bribe my enemies instead of fighting them. Granted, if your DM doesn't bother with spell components, it could be a decent spell, but still, a Fireball upcasted will do more damage. Its not easy to hit a 60ft radius spell without harming friendlies. Also, Con save is worse than dex save.

Continual Flame is pure crap, its not even real fire. 2nd level slot for 'pure utility' for that once in a blue moon occasion? You got to be kidding me. If i had unlimited spell slots, spells known, AND unlimited prepared spells, maybe.... This is one of those spells that is so bad, i wouldnt take it even if it were a cantrip.

You would use 2 Level 6 slots on 1 creature? And achieve little? You seem to be quite flippant with your spell slots, but just because you are willing to make unwise decisions, doesnt make a spell worth it.

[JackPhoenix]

Circle of Death cost 500gp to cast, I think with that amount of gold i would bribe my enemies instead of fighting them. Granted, if your DM doesn't bother with spell components, it could be a decent spell, but still, a Fireball upcasted will do more damage. Its not easy to hit a 60ft radius spell without harming friendlies. Also, Con save is worse than dex save.

CoD's material component isn't consumed, so you need to have it on your person, but you can use it for as long as you want


Continual Flame is pure crap, its not even real fire. 2nd level slot for 'pure utility' for that once in a blue moon occasion? You got to be kidding me. If i had unlimited spell slots, spells known, AND unlimited prepared spells, maybe.... This is one of those spells that is so bad, i wouldnt take it even if it were a cantrip.

The fact it's NOT real fire is awesome... it means it poses no fire hazard, which is something any medieval-ish city will appreciate. Common tactics was to have some stones with CF cast on it in a bag or something so the light won't be seen, then throw it into dark area you don't want to enter yourself... WITHOUT wasting more precious and limited cantrip choice on Light or Dancing Lights. Torch you don't have to spend time to light, and won't ignite possible explosive gases in underground tunnels and works even underwater. Impressing people with "flaming sword".

It's on wizard's and cleric's spell list, which means there's not much opportunity cost: Wizard most likely won't learn it as one of his level-up spells, but if he finds a scroll, he would be stupid not to add it to his book. He'll use it when he needs to, or he wants to make some money... 5e doesn't have it listed, but in 3.5, Everburning Torch was simply a torch with CF cast on it. 50gp to create, 110gp listed price. It's decent and easy source of money... 60gp for level 2 slot? Yes, please. For cleric, the opportunity cost is even less: when he needs it, he prepares it, when he doesn't, he won't. It's a spell to use in downtime, not when you're expecting combat. How many uses for that "precious" level 2 spell slot you have in that situation?

[Jerrykhor]

CoD's material component isn't consumed, so you need to have it on your person, but you can use it for as long as you want



The fact it's NOT real fire is awesome... it means it poses no fire hazard, which is something any medieval-ish city will appreciate. Common tactics was to have some stones with CF cast on it in a bag or something so the light won't be seen, then throw it into dark area you don't want to enter yourself... WITHOUT wasting more precious and limited cantrip choice on Light or Dancing Lights. Torch you don't have to spend time to light, and won't ignite possible explosive gases in underground tunnels and works even underwater. Impressing people with "flaming sword".

It's on wizard's and cleric's spell list, which means there's not much opportunity cost: Wizard most likely won't learn it as one of his level-up spells, but if he finds a scroll, he would be stupid not to add it to his book. He'll use it when he needs to, or he wants to make some money... 5e doesn't have it listed, but in 3.5, Everburning Torch was simply a torch with CF cast on it. 50gp to create, 110gp listed price. It's decent and easy source of money... 60gp for level 2 slot? Yes, please. For cleric, the opportunity cost is even less: when he needs it, he prepares it, when he doesn't, he won't. It's a spell to use in downtime, not when you're expecting combat. How many uses for that "precious" level 2 spell slot you have in that situation?
.... How much time do you need to light a torch? All the examples you gave, there are better ways around them. More efficient ways, that probably won't involve using a spell slot.

Look, I don't like it when people bend over backwards to justify something. You can justify anything with 'well at least it does that and that', but it still does't make the spell not utter garbage.

Imagine you are lv 3, you only have 2 level 2 spell slots. You reach the entrance of a dark dungeon, and you go 'hold on, let me use Continual Flame'. You are sure to get a few 'Really?' remarks from your party members. What do you say? 'Hey I'm not a power gamer ok'. Well you're certainly right about that, because you're not a power gamer, you're just stupid.

[RulesJD]

Yes Mords Sword sucks, period. Can't even remotely rationalize it due to Concentration requirement.

Also, anyone who says Otto's Irresistible Dance is a bad spell, has clearly never played at higher levels. It is one of the most devastatingly effective spells at higher levels because it eats at least 1 round of BBEG Actions AND gives the rest of your party maximum opportunity to drop their big Dex save spells, usually requiring BBEGs to burn their Legendary Saves in round 1.

Oh, and combine OID with a Simulacrum for pure destructive power. On my Fighter/Abjuration Wizard with a Simulacrum that has Action Surge, it's stupidly high damage potential/removes Legendary Saves round 1. OID + 3 Disintegrates = bye bye BBEG or all Legendary Saves.

[Zalabim]

Comparing Tasha's and Otto's, the dance works automatically, and that's a big deal. It also gives all attackers advantage instead of prone, gives the target disadvantage on dexterity saves, and has no S or M component. The downside is that it doesn't incapacitate the victim, and it's blocked by immunity to Charm. It still takes up their action if they want to stop dancing. The other big upgrade is that the target doesn't get extra saves, with advantage, every time they take damage.


Imagine you are lv 3, you only have 2 level 2 spell slots. You reach the entrance of a dark dungeon, and you go 'hold on, let me use Continual Flame'. You are sure to get a few 'Really?' remarks from your party members. What do you say? 'Hey I'm not a power gamer ok'. Well you're certainly right about that, because you're not a power gamer, you're just stupid.
That's where you pull out the Everburning Torch you made a week ago, because the spell is cast once and then lasts forever. The point is you don't have to cast the spell every time you need a light source.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but a) insect plague is potentially friendly fire yes? And b) isn't that not a Wizard spell? Whereas MS is a wizard only spell, yes?)

Yes, I know area spells aren't like single target spells. The single target spells are supposed to deal more damage. Single target > indiscriminate area > selective multiple targets, generally.

MS is also native to the bard spell list.

[Specter]

Circle of Death cost 500gp to cast, I think with that amount of gold i would bribe my enemies instead of fighting them. Granted, if your DM doesn't bother with spell components, it could be a decent spell, but still, a Fireball upcasted will do more damage. Its not easy to hit a 60ft radius spell without harming friendlies. Also, Con save is worse than dex save.

Continual Flame is pure crap, its not even real fire. 2nd level slot for 'pure utility' for that once in a blue moon occasion? You got to be kidding me. If i had unlimited spell slots, spells known, AND unlimited prepared spells, maybe.... This is one of those spells that is so bad, i wouldnt take it even if it were a cantrip.

You would use 2 Level 6 slots on 1 creature? And achieve little? You seem to be quite flippant with your spell slots, but just because you are willing to make unwise decisions, doesnt make a spell worth it.

The material component is a one-time thing. The fact is, CoD lets you hit up to 576 people, and end an encounter that otherwise would destroy the party. DEX save being better than CON save is just your opinion with no evidence to back it up whatsoever, so let's just ignore that.

Who cares about Continual Flame.

Me being willing to cast a spell twice if the enemy broke free of it has nothing to do with it being good or bad. But let me break Otto's down for you:

1) You cast it, the enemy suffers its effects, period. No save, no to-hit. Gold.
2) All enemy movement is wasted by them dancing on their square. Enemy can't escape, can't fly or climb to a vantage point, can't get close to you (if you're a Wizard that's probably the selling point), can't get up if put to prone. If we're talking about a melee-only enemy (say, a 20th-level Paladin), everybody can just take a step back and destroy him effortlessly. Gold.
3) Verbal-only component, there to help you in a tight spot, or letting you carry whatever you want. Gold.
4) Disadvantage on Reflex saves. With a bit of party coordination, you can wreck bosses in one round, as mentioned earlier. Since in your opinion DEX save > CON save, you should worship this. Gold.
5) Disadvantage on their attack rolls. Party members with good AC can walk around and stay in melee fearlessly, while the low-AC ones now have a high chance of avoiding the blows, or arrows, completely. Gold.
6) Advantage on your parry's attacks against the enemy. That enemy with 30AC just became a lot more hittable, and rogues are crying tears of joy. Gold.
7) The enemy eats up their action to TRY to get out of the spell. Unlike those other bad spells like Phantasmal Killer and Hold Whoever and etc., they don't get a free save every round. Gold.

So yeah, forgive me for not seeing how this is an 'unwise' spell, or how it achieves 'little'.

[RickAllison]

Mooks, the people you would want CoD for, tend to have higher Dexterity because AC is based off it. Constitution is usually higher on bigger enemies that you would use single-target damage on. So generally (but not enough to say it is always applicable) Con saving throws are better for AoEs while Dex saving throws are better for ST spells.

[Gignere]

Have to agree Ottos is a great spell against legendary resistance it is fantastic since it burns an action and works for a round no matter what since most combats lasts 3 -5 rounds you just screwed the BBEG for 1/3 to 1/5 of the fight. How is that not amazing?

Also continual flame has its utility. It is precast do it months or weeks in advance. Even races with darkvision need light. Continual flame on a marble and dump it into a bullseye lantern.

[JackPhoenix]

.... How much time do you need to light a torch? All the examples you gave, there are better ways around them. More efficient ways, that probably won't involve using a spell slot.

Action, propably. Which is more than object interaction needed to pull CF'd object out of your pocket. And I don't see no counterexamples to prove there are more effective ways.


Look, I don't like it when people bend over backwards to justify something. You can justify anything with 'well at least it does that and that', but it still does't make the spell not utter garbage.

And I don't like when people claim something is useless because it doesn't have (and isn't intended to) have use in combat because they have no imagination or ignore the existence of 2/3 of expected gameplay.


Imagine you are lv 3, you only have 2 level 2 spell slots. You reach the entrance of a dark dungeon, and you go 'hold on, let me use Continual Flame'. You are sure to get a few 'Really?' remarks from your party members. What do you say? 'Hey I'm not a power gamer ok'. Well you're certainly right about that, because you're not a power gamer, you're just stupid.

Sure, but because I'm not stupid, when I reach the entrance of a dark dungeon, I'll go "let me pull out this torch with Continual Flame prepared weeks ago while I had nothing better do with my spell slots anyway. In fact, everyone take one, I have enough for the whole party and you'll never know when it could come in handy, it was 50 gold well spent and gold is useless in 5e anyway." And if the caster is level 5, he may use level 3 slot instead for the same cost, to create a light source that works even in Darkness spell. Take that, warlocks and drow

[JellyPooga]

And b) isn't that not a Wizard spell? Whereas MS is a wizard only spell, yes?)

This is something I've noticed a few times recently and the whole "you can't compare X to Y spell, they're not on the same list" thing is nonsense; all spells of equal level can and should be comparable. It doesn't matter whose list they are or aren't on, because Bards get Magical Secrets. That's straight up RAW, in the core book, indisputable, only countered by houserule. Class Features, UA, homebrew, magic items, NPC's, the campaign itself, new published material; these are all potential sources of getting or casting a spell that you wouldn't otherwise be able to and the only benchmark for how powerful that spell is...is its level.

[RickAllison]

This is something I've noticed a few times recently and the whole "you can't compare X to Y spell, they're not on the same list" thing is nonsense; all spells of equal level can and should be comparable. It doesn't matter whose list they are or aren't on, because Bards get Magical Secrets. That's straight up RAW, in the core book, indisputable, only countered by houserule. Class Features, UA, homebrew, magic items, NPC's, the campaign itself, new published material; these are all potential sources of getting or casting a spell that you wouldn't otherwise be able to and the only benchmark for how powerful that spell is...is its level.

I wouldn't make that a hard-and-fast rule (the argument could be made that the Bard spell-list is weaker and so that is why they can gain those options), but it is generally true. Still irrelevant in this case, where MS is rather bad in most comparisons...

[JellyPooga]

I wouldn't make that a hard-and-fast rule (the argument could be made that the Bard spell-list is weaker and so that is why they can gain those options), but it is generally true. Still irrelevant in this case, where MS is rather bad in most comparisons...

MS is a terrible spell for its level, agreed. As several other posters have demonstrated, even up-cast spells of lower level are better than it, if even only marginally in some cases.

The Bard list being weak, however, is a poor argument. Even without Magical Secrets, Bards have some of the best "game changers" and a diversity of spheres afforded to no other Class. Sleep, Hold Person, Heat Metal, Polymorph, Animate Objects, Otto's ID, Forcecage, and Foresight are all on the basic Bard list. They've got healing, control, utility, buffs and debuffs. The only area the Bard spell list falls down even a little, is direct Blasting damage spells; often considered the least important/effective use of a spell slot. Even then it's still got a couple of outliers like the aforementioned Heat Metal.

Then there's also the notion to consider that Bard isn't the only way to add off-list spells to your repertoire...

[SharkForce]

7) The enemy eats up their action to TRY to get out of the spell. Unlike those other bad spells like Phantasmal Killer and Hold Whoever and etc., they don't get a free save every round. Gold.

So yeah, forgive me for not seeing how this is an 'unwise' spell, or how it achieves 'little'.

just to be clear, i'm not trying to disagree in general (i agree with most of the points... i'm not sure if OID is better than, say, mass suggestion or wall of force overall, but it has uses that should definitely be considered).

but phantasmal force gives only one save, and any future investigation checks (not exactly a common proficiency combined with not exactly a common attribute for enemies to have a good modifier on) cost actions to investigate the illusion.

that said, phantasmal force has other problems... like the fact that it's incredibly unclear on what exactly happens if, say... you make an illusion of a chain binding a person and they try to escape it.

[Dr. Cliché]

that said, phantasmal force has other problems... like the fact that it's incredibly unclear on what exactly happens if, say... you make an illusion of a chain binding a person and they try to escape it.

They would pass through it, but think that they broke free or slipped out.#

Honestly though, I find the issue with Phantasmal Force is that every time it's "worked", the enemy has just ignored the illusion entirely. Oh, but at least I get to do a wopping 1d6 damage each round.

https://media.giphy.com/media/lKWE4StyfxZSg/giphy.gif

[Specter]

just to be clear, i'm not trying to disagree in general (i agree with most of the points... i'm not sure if OID is better than, say, mass suggestion or wall of force overall, but it has uses that should definitely be considered).

but phantasmal force gives only one save, and any future investigation checks (not exactly a common proficiency combined with not exactly a common attribute for enemies to have a good modifier on) cost actions to investigate the illusion.

that said, phantasmal force has other problems... like the fact that it's incredibly unclear on what exactly happens if, say... you make an illusion of a chain binding a person and they try to escape it.

I know. I said Phantasmal Killer, the 4th-level spell.

[SharkForce]

I know. I said Phantasmal Killer, the 4th-level spell.

ah. right. my bad. carry on then.


They would pass through it, but think that they broke free or slipped out.#

Honestly though, I find the issue with Phantasmal Force is that every time it's "worked", the enemy has just ignored the illusion entirely. Oh, but at least I get to do a wopping 1d6 damage each round.

maybe it would. maybe the enemy would have their perceptions altered so that they don't think they've moved away from the chains and they just stay there unable to escape.

like i said, the spell is very unclear about how it works. both are possible ways to interpret the spell's effects.

[Gignere]

ah. right. my bad. carry on then.



maybe it would. maybe the enemy would have their perceptions altered so that they don't think they've moved away from the chains and they just stay there unable to escape.

like i said, the spell is very unclear about how it works. both are possible ways to interpret the spell's effects.

Yes it is DM dependent my DM allows me to duplicate any level 2 or under effects. Since web does restrain, he allows me to restrain with PF because Tasha's incapacitate he allows that as well, etc.

[DracoKnight]

So, are there any thoughts on how to fix MS then? The fix I use is dropping it to 3rd level.

[Spectre9000]

So, are there any thoughts on how to fix MS then? The fix I use is dropping it to 3rd level.

Drop it to third level, add 1d10 scaling per level would bring it in line with Bigby's Hand damage. However, at that point it's just an attack, and doesn't have Bigby's utility, which means it should size up better against Animate Objects, which it doesn't even get close to. 10d4+40 = 65 ADPR from Animate Objects (10 tiny) at spell level 5, never mind it increases by 2d4+8 (13 Avg) each additional spell level (2 tiny objects). If you put it at 5d10 + spellcasting modifier with 2D10 scaling per level at level 3, it would close in on Animate Objects for damage (~54.5 DPR; 11 DPR/lvl), but not have the concern of being destroyed like the animated objects have, plus it's force damage instead of bludgeoning/slashing/piercing (though 10 attacks means more chances to do at least some damage, or even criticals, as opposed to all or nothing). Also, increase its move speed to 60ft.


Actually, I might even increase the damage more than this simply because, as the animated objects are constructs, they are technically creatures, and would qualify for allowing rogue sneak attack.

Hmm, the more I think about it, wouldn't the animated objects also, being creatures (constructs), get reactions, and therefore opportunity attacks?

They can make OA's! lol. (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/19/can-an-animated-object-take-an-attack-of-opportunity/)

[SharkForce]

my solution is to basically ignore it. there are enough good spells, and nobody is forced to pick this one, so just pretend that it doesn't exist and move on with your life.

[DracoKnight]

my solution is to basically ignore it. there are enough good spells, and nobody is forced to pick this one, so just pretend that it doesn't exist and move on with your life.

It's such a fun spell, though, visually. It's just at such a high-level that most people don't want to take it. Dropping the level fixes that.

[MeeposFire]

I enjoyed it in Baldurs Gate 2 but in that game it had the benefits of acting like a summon except it was nearly invulnerable (it could be killed easy by magic damage but only a few spells like magic missile and horrid wilting did that damage) and enemies could be forced to attack it.

[Dr. Cliché]

I enjoyed it in Baldurs Gate 2 but in that game it had the benefits of acting like a summon except it was nearly invulnerable (it could be killed easy by magic damage but only a few spells like magic missile and horrid wilting did that damage) and enemies could be forced to attack it.

It also wasn't concentration - so you didn't risk losing it when you took damage and (especially at higher levels) you could have several of them floating around.

[JellyPooga]

It also wasn't concentration - so you didn't risk losing it when you took damage and (especially at higher levels) you could have several of them floating around.

Making it Mordenkainens Swords would differentiate it from other spells, give scaling and generally more oomph.

[MrStabby]

Making it Mordenkainens Swords would differentiate it from other spells, give scaling and generally more oomph.

I think it's called blade barrier. :smallbiggrin:

[Vogonjeltz]

Yes, I know area spells aren't like single target spells. The single target spells are supposed to deal more damage. Single target > indiscriminate area > selective multiple targets, generally.

MS is also native to the bard spell list.

Insect Plague is also not on the bard spell list. So it's not a native spell for either class, that really doesn't make it a valid comparison.

Other flaws: Does not move and a relatively small radius, friendly fire (as previously mentioned), makes the area lightly obscured (which is bad if you have opponents who can hide).


This is something I've noticed a few times recently and the whole "you can't compare X to Y spell, they're not on the same list" thing is nonsense; all spells of equal level can and should be comparable. It doesn't matter whose list they are or aren't on, because Bards get Magical Secrets. That's straight up RAW, in the core book, indisputable, only countered by houserule. Class Features, UA, homebrew, magic items, NPC's, the campaign itself, new published material; these are all potential sources of getting or casting a spell that you wouldn't otherwise be able to and the only benchmark for how powerful that spell is...is its level.

I disagree, the comparison would need to be on the wider field of class/subclass to class/subclass lists. If MS is only on one classes list, then it's only an option for that class, ergo spells unavailable to that class are outside the universe of comparable options.

i.e. The opportunity cost of MS vs say, Flamestrike is being a Wizard vs being a Cleric.

Bards are a very minor exception that in no way confounds the general premise. If its not on your class list, it's not a valid comparison.


MS is a terrible spell for its level, agreed. As several other posters have demonstrated, even up-cast spells of lower level are better than it, if even only marginally in some cases.

Bollocks, if anything the reverse has been demonstrated. The only thing you've mentioned is constant lamentations that other classes have access to vaguely comparable spells (and even then, it's been shown they have many weaknesses not held by MS).

The only two spells that Wizards have which share comparable features to MS are Flaming Sphere and Bigby's Hand (all are mobile single target concentration spells whose full potential exceeds the spells that don't use concentration, but require multiple rounds to get there) and those both have inferior traits (FS is fire and a friendly fire risk, Bigby's can be destroyed putting its damage potential at risk)

Phantasmal Killer might seem good to casual observation, but it requires two saving throws before it deals any damage, doesn't start dealing damage until the opponents turn, and allows a saving throw every single turn to end the spell.

Of the spells that are also concentration many are immobile (Cloud of Daggers, Wall of Fire, Wall of Ice) or uncontrolled (Cloudkill), and the aoe spells all present a potential friendly fire risk, making them unusuable in certain combat configurations.

[Gignere]

Insect Plague is also not on the bard spell list. So it's not a native spell for either class, that really doesn't make it a valid comparison.

Other flaws: Does not move and a relatively small radius, friendly fire (as previously mentioned), makes the area lightly obscured (which is bad if you have opponents who can hide).



I disagree, the comparison would need to be on the wider field of class/subclass to class/subclass lists. If MS is only on one classes list, then it's only an option for that class, ergo spells unavailable to that class are outside the universe of comparable options.

i.e. The opportunity cost of MS vs say, Flamestrike is being a Wizard vs being a Cleric.

Bards are a very minor exception that in no way confounds the general premise. If its not on your class list, it's not a valid comparison.



Bollocks, if anything the reverse has been demonstrated. The only thing you've mentioned is constant lamentations that other classes have access to vaguely comparable spells (and even then, it's been shown they have many weaknesses not held by MS).

The only two spells that Wizards have which share comparable features to MS are Flaming Sphere and Bigby's Hand (all are mobile single target concentration spells whose full potential exceeds the spells that don't use concentration, but require multiple rounds to get there) and those both have inferior traits (FS is fire and a friendly fire risk, Bigby's can be destroyed putting its damage potential at risk)

Phantasmal Killer might seem good to casual observation, but it requires two saving throws before it deals any damage, doesn't start dealing damage until the opponents turn, and allows a saving throw every single turn to end the spell.

Of the spells that are also concentration many are immobile (Cloud of Daggers, Wall of Fire, Wall of Ice) or uncontrolled (Cloudkill), and the aoe spells all present a potential friendly fire risk, making them unusuable in certain combat configurations.

Animate objects does the same thing MS does only way better and can do other things besides what MS does and it is only level 5.

No way and no how can MS compare with simulacrum a spell of the same level.

[jas61292]

Animate objects does the same thing MS does only way better and can do other things besides what MS does and it is only level 5.

No way and no how can MS compare with simulacrum a spell of the same level.

It is true that it is not on the same power level as Simulacrum. It is also true that Simulacrum is arguably the most broken spell for its level in the game, and, in my opinion, really has no business being anything but 9th level. If there is a power discrepancy here, it is Simulacrum that is the issue, not MS.

[Vogonjeltz]

Animate objects does the same thing MS does only way better and can do other things besides what MS does and it is only level 5.

No way and no how can MS compare with simulacrum a spell of the same level.

A simulacrum has only half hp and no equipment, your average fireball could one shot them. By the time you can use a simulacrum it's not even close to worth the gold cost for how quickly it's going to get destroyed.

Also, it's not exactly a spell you use in combat.

Animated objects suffer from the same flaw as Bigbys hand, they can be destroyed (they also have fairly low hp, most AOE would destroy them outright)

[JellyPooga]

Bards are a very minor exception that in no way confounds the general premise. If its not on your class list, it's not a valid comparison.

It's not just Bards; Cleric Domain, Paladin Oath, Warlock Patron and other Class features in the PHB grant additional spells, many of which are off-list. You also appear to ignore the list of other potential sources of off-list spells I mentioned. A spells level is nothing if not its relative power to all other spells, regardless of source.

Maybe in 3ed when different Classes counted the same spells as different level spells, I'd agree with you...but this ain't 3ed.

[Dr. Cliché]

It's not just Bards; Cleric Domain, Paladin Oath, Warlock Patron and other Class features in the PHB grant additional spells, many of which are off-list. You also appear to ignore the list of other potential sources of off-list spells I mentioned. A spells level is nothing if not its relative power to all other spells, regardless of source.

Wouldn't this undermine the classes though?

Compare wizards to clerics - the former have d6hp, no armour proficiency and barely any weapon proficiency. Meanwhile, Clerics have d8hp, martial weapon proficiency and are proficient with at least medium (potentially heavy armour). Clerics also get both more universal abilities and more domain abilities than wizards, and have a list of spells that are always prepared (but don't count against the normal limit).

Finally, wizards can only prepare spells that they have in their spellbook, whilst clerics get to choose from the entire cleric spell list.

Given that the two classes have the same number of can trips and spell slots, surely wizard spells would have to be more powerful than cleric ones? Otherwise the cleric is getting a ton of advantages over the wizard at no cost whatsoever.

[JellyPooga]

Wouldn't this undermine the classes though?

No. Comparing Wizard to Cleric, the strength of the Wizard isn't in the individual "power" of his spells, but in his versatility. Compare the Wizard list to the Cleric list; no spell of a given level is necessarily more powerful, but the Cleric has a relatively narrow focus; namely healing and buffs mostly, while the Wizard has utility, buffs, debuffs, direct damage and control. Yes, the Cleric has few spells that fill roles outside its focus, but the Wizard has more options. Just looking at the length of their respective lists demonstrates this quite nicely! Then consider that many spells are shared; Charm Person, for example, is no better a spell for being cast by a Cleric or a Wizard. What the Cleric gains in access to his whole list, proficiencies and so forth, he loses (compared to the Wizard) in breadth of focus.

The Bards Magical Secrets isn't a powerful ability because it lets you grab the "best" spells for each level; in theory no such spell exists, but because it opens up the versatility of your spellcasting to a degree that no other Class enjoys.

[Morphic tide]

Well, for making Mordenkainen's Sword keep up with the other spells of it's level, there's several options. One is to lower the current form to a 2nd or 3rd level spell, then have upcasting give options, like 3.5 Psionics power augmentation. Something like "increase spell level by one for 20-40' extra move speed" and "increase spell level by one for Xd10 extra damage," possibly "increase spell level by three for an extra sword." One could nix the damage as part of the "pick your boost" thing and have it in the normal "at higher levels" part, like Psionic Power's "additionally" part, which gives effects based on total PP cost, including the other conditional ones.

For example, let's say that you grabbed one move speed boost, making this altered version of the spell a 3rd or 4th level spell. Without any added increases, grabbing the move speed increase boosted the damage as if you had just used the normal upcasting, because the wording, by RAW, makes it so that any increase of spell slots causes the benefit. Doing this requires that you have more than one option, so that you are actually working out a cost/benefit problem of "how much do I put into this one boost, and how much into this other boost?"

Also, some way to increase/reset spell duration by spending spell slots. Not just for this one spell, but all of them. It makes GP costs considerably less problematic for extremely long campaigns.

[Tanarii]

Wouldn't this undermine the classes though?
Undermine is too strong a word. But yes, the strength of a casting class includes what spells are available on their class spell list, plus any added through subclass features. Spells are definitely not all created equal at the same spell level, nor should they be.

That's said, there's weaker, and there's close to useless for its primary purpose RAW.

Of course, there are various spells people misjudge because of their playstyle (such as Calm Emotions because they only fight, or Continual Flame because they only play CaS). But other spells are exceedingly weak at what they are designed for, even by the standard of comparing only within the class list.

[DracoKnight]

What do people think of this (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/SkF1VuIPg) fix?

[GandalfTheWhite]

What do people think of this (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/SkF1VuIPg) fix?

This version isn't bad. Just keep in mind that a Bard who uses Magical Secrets to grab spiritual weapon can have both running. Or if you have an Arcana Cleric who grabs this. Or if spiritual weapon appears on any additional lists in your games.

[DracoKnight]

This version isn't bad. Just keep in mind that a Bard who uses Magical Secrets to grab spiritual weapon can have both running. Or if you have an Arcana Cleric who grabs this. Or if spiritual weapon appears on any additional lists in your games.

I was thinking of the possibility as I wrote it. I'm not too worried about it, personally.

[jas61292]

What do people think of this (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/SkF1VuIPg) fix?

Would it be correct to assume it is supposed to scale for every level above 1st, rather than 6th as is currently says? :smalltongue:

But yeah, this looks nice. A much stronger scaling but less generally useful sacred weapon seems quite nice.

[DracoKnight]

Would it be correct to assume it is supposed to scale for every level above 1st, rather than 6th as is currently says? :smalltongue:

But yeah, this looks nice. A much stronger scaling but less generally useful sacred weapon seems quite nice.

Er, yes. It's supposed to start scaling at 2nd level. I blame copy-pasting :smalltongue:

Thanks. It also allows a decent combat spell for bards and wizards at 1st level, while spicing it up with some D&D Legacy.

[RulesJD]

A simulacrum has only half hp and no equipment, your average fireball could one shot them. By the time you can use a simulacrum it's not even close to worth the gold cost for how quickly it's going to get destroyed.

Also, it's not exactly a spell you use in combat.

Animated objects suffer from the same flaw as Bigbys hand, they can be destroyed (they also have fairly low hp, most AOE would destroy them outright)

.....have.....have you ever actually even played 5e at levels where these spells are relevant?

The amount of things wrong in your post is pretty much everything. For example:

1. Simulacrum = another Counterspell, so no Fireball in the first place. Even if there is, that's what Absorb Elements spell is for. For the cost of the exact same spell slot plus some gold (which at that level is effectively infinite), you are literally doubling your power, in every conceivable way. It's like comparing which is faster, a snail (Mords Sword) or the entire earth hurtling through space (Simulacrum). Sure in some strange edge case maybe the snail "moves" faster, but in all real purposes, it's not even laughably close.

[GandalfTheWhite]

Heheh, yeah, I'm with the Lawyer here: simulacrum is busted as all hell. That's why most games ban it or put it in as a 9th level (unreplicatable by wish) spell.

But that's not the topic, Mordenkainen's Sword is :smalltongue: And there are plenty of threads on simulacrum, I'm sure.

[Vogonjeltz]

It's not just Bards; Cleric Domain, Paladin Oath, Warlock Patron and other Class features in the PHB grant additional spells, many of which are off-list. You also appear to ignore the list of other potential sources of off-list spells I mentioned. A spells level is nothing if not its relative power to all other spells, regardless of source.

Maybe in 3ed when different Classes counted the same spells as different level spells, I'd agree with you...but this ain't 3ed.

None of which grant Mordenkainen's Sword and none of which are Wizards!

I'd gladly do the comparison if there were a comparison to be made.

Ultimately, for Wizards at least, Mordenkainen's Sword is the best spell of its kind (concentration, single target damage each round) because:

1: Force damage (does anything resist?), 2: bonus action use means there's a free action available, 3: mobile, 4: can't be destroyed by damage, 5: descriminate in what is damaged.

If we want to do a Bard comparison it might play out differently, but then you're also looking at the opportunity cost of using that magical secret on something expressly better than MS by all metrics provided such a spell even exists (doubtful), everything else mentioned so far is inferior for at least a couple reasons.

Let's just do a quick comparison:

Natively, Bards only have one spell that could outdamage MS when cast out of the same level slot, Heat Metal. But that has three major downsides: It's situational (must have metal armor to maximize damage, a weapon could just be dropped, and if the target doesn't even use metal armor/weapons spell might as well not exist), can at best target a single creature (MS can swap targets), and lastly fire is an absurdly common resistance and immunity.

Animate Objects might have been up, but by the time that comes online our heroes are fighting either: A) Large pitched battles with many enemies or B) Enemies with powerful area of effect spells themselves. Animated Objects have terrible hit points and would simply get annihilated in either scenario. Not to mention you actually have to have objects to animate.

Outside of Bard:
Wizard has no further competing spells
Cleric has Spiritual Weapon which does less damage, can only get the one attack on the first turn, but doesn't require concentration. So, vaguely worse.
Druid has Moonbeam (7d10 radiant con save for half, 60ft move, but aoe); Call Lightning is similar but costs an action and can't be used indoors;

[RulesJD]

*sigh*

1. Mords sword does 3d10 (16.5) Force damage, takes Concentration for 1 minute, Bonus Action, and a level 7 Spell Slot. It is limited to 20ft of movement, which is pretty garbage against flying enemies, and means the average enemy can just keep moving 30ft each turn and never take damage beyond the first round.

2. Melfs Minute Meteors (7th level) does 4d6 (16 Fire with Elemental Affinity Fire so no resist), takes Concentration for 10 minutes, Bonus Action, and at level 7 spell slot will last for 7 rounds of combat (effectively ~2 combats).

MMM lasts longer, does the same damage against a single target and WAAAAAAAY more damage if there's two+ targets, forces twice the concentration saves on enemies, etc.

3. Animate Objects at Tiny have 20 Health and a pretty solid Dex save, so most AoEs (example, Fireball) will take, on average, 2 spells before going down. Given that they'll be surrounding a target (likely the caster) they will have to nuke themselves. Also, they get Opportunity Attacks if the enemy tries to move away. Your argument only has valid in that Animate Objects (might) not be magical damage.

4. Bigby's Hand at 7th level has (if you aren't a trash Wizard and have 14 Con) 92 Health and 20 AC, so pretty tanky. At 7th level it does 8d8 (36) damage, waaaaay more than Mords sword. Add in that it has tremendously more utility (can even stop an Adult Dragon from closing to within melee/breath weapon range).

5. Flaming Sphere can't be attacked, can't be resisted with Elemental Affinity (fire) which you'll have if you're caring about damage (which is silly at that level but I digress), does 7d6 damage (24.5) against a single target so waaaaay more than Mords sword and WAAAAAAY more if there are 2+ enemies stopping their turn. It can move 30ft per turn so a normal enemy can't just run away.

[DracoKnight]

Which is sad...aren't upcast spells supposed to be weaker than spells of that level?

[SharkForce]

Which is sad...aren't upcast spells supposed to be weaker than spells of that level?

depends on the spell. some scale well, some don't. and some start off with such ridiculous values *coughfireballcough* that they're just straight up better when upcast than similar higher level spells.

[DracoKnight]

depends on the spell. some scale well, some don't. and some start off with such ridiculous values *coughfireballcough* that they're just straight up better when upcast than similar higher level spells.

Eh, we all know that fireball's über-powerful though. And yeah, I guess that's true, it does depend on the starting values of the spell.

[Hrugner]

Just let a companion equip the spell, tailoring weapon type to their needs, and use the better of your casting stat or their martial stat for attacks and as a bonus to damage. On your turn you can spend a bonus action to give your companion an attack and 20 AoO free feet of movement as a reaction.

As is, I think the only unspoken benefit is that the sword's size isn't dictated. It is potentially a very large mobile wall of force. You could also ride around on it which is wicked cool, if a bit slow.

[GandalfTheWhite]

Guys, just a heads up: I played using DracoKnight's fix tonight. I think my Lore Bard has a new attacking routine for single targets. It's actually a useful spell now :smallbiggrin: Is it the be all end all, perfect for every situation? No, but that would be busted to all hell. Is it possible to use it now? Yes :smallsmile: Also, I like that Draco's fix comes online at level 1, so that you can use it from the start of your career. That's nice that you can splash some legacy in right away, since most games never make it to 13, and then at 13 it's absolute garbage for a 7th level slot. It should be better than your at will options at that level.

[Vogonjeltz]

1. Mords sword does 3d10 (16.5) Force damage, takes Concentration for 1 minute, Bonus Action, and a level 7 Spell Slot. It is limited to 20ft of movement, which is pretty garbage against flying enemies, and means the average enemy can just keep moving 30ft each turn and never take damage beyond the first round.

2. Melfs Minute Meteors (7th level) does 4d6 (16 Fire with Elemental Affinity Fire so no resist), takes Concentration for 10 minutes, Bonus Action, and at level 7 spell slot will last for 7 rounds of combat (effectively ~2 combats).

MMM lasts longer, does the same damage against a single target and WAAAAAAAY more damage if there's two+ targets, forces twice the concentration saves on enemies, etc.

3. Animate Objects at Tiny have 20 Health and a pretty solid Dex save, so most AoEs (example, Fireball) will take, on average, 2 spells before going down. Given that they'll be surrounding a target (likely the caster) they will have to nuke themselves. Also, they get Opportunity Attacks if the enemy tries to move away. Your argument only has valid in that Animate Objects (might) not be magical damage.

4. Bigby's Hand at 7th level has (if you aren't a trash Wizard and have 14 Con) 92 Health and 20 AC, so pretty tanky. At 7th level it does 8d8 (36) damage, waaaaay more than Mords sword. Add in that it has tremendously more utility (can even stop an Adult Dragon from closing to within melee/breath weapon range).

5. Flaming Sphere can't be attacked, can't be resisted with Elemental Affinity (fire) which you'll have if you're caring about damage (which is silly at that level but I digress), does 7d6 damage (24.5) against a single target so waaaaay more than Mords sword and WAAAAAAY more if there are 2+ enemies stopping their turn. It can move 30ft per turn so a normal enemy can't just run away.

1) I'm perfectly aware of the function of MS, thank you if you noticed while you read my posts (which I'm completely certain you did...totally sure) that I already described its attributes indicating as much. If the enemy has to move around constantly they can't sit still fighting in melee combat, they may be suffering opportunity attacks and so forth. 20 feet is a (minor) weakness. I'll grant, flying is not its forte, but it's not like the Wizard (or any class) lacks for ranged options.

2) It does .5 less damage per attack and 3 fewer attacks, so the net damage would be 53 less damage assuming max use. So, besides dealing less damage using the same spell slot, it also (in order to ensure damage vs resistance...but not immunity) requires a feat to be fully functional, which is a truly massive opportunity cost to be not quite as good and it (afb) seems to deal aoe, which suggests it's dangerous to friendlies and not good for use in a melee. Also, a typical combat can well exceed 8 rounds, so there's little chance MMM lasts 2 combats that are level appropriate.

3) Yeah so on average 50% of the animated objects who pass would survive the first one while the ones who fail would die outright?
With a +4 saving throw to achieve the 50% success rate would require the DC be no greater than 15. And in that scenario, only 25% of the objects would survive dropping their damage from 14d4 to 3d4-4d4 (3-4 survivors). That's negligible.

Worse when we consider that a party of 4 at level 13 (when MS comes online) could reasonably be expected to face 1 Balor (deadly); It auto deals 3d6 to anything in melee combat and anything that hits it. Animated Objects that are tiny are dead without the Balor having to do anything which is terrible spell efficiency.

The glaring weakness of the animated objects (besides having to have objects at hand) is that they can be destroyed, and fairly easily, limiting their output drastically. The damage is also not magical because the objects must be nonmagical. (You can't animate a magic weapon, according to the spell).

4) A Wizard with 14 Con would only have 80 hp (1st lvl 6+2; 4+2 each level after; if rolled the average would be less). It has a lousy Dex save, so it's likely it gets taken out by an AoE. (An adult dragon would easily drop it through incidental aoe damage without breaking stride, breathe weapon + tail swipe and it's dead, for example). AC 20 is ok, but it's still going to be hit about 50% of the time from attacks. Let's say we're fighting some Orog raiders: 6 of them are an easy encounter (almost a negligible fight), they'd take the hand down in 2 rounds. Granted, it would take up their attacks. If the fight were actually scary (say, a hard encounter of 11-14 Orogs; or a Deadly encounter of 15+) then the Hand simply won't last long enough to make a difference in the fight duration. So, fighting one big opponent, or many little ones, the hand is hampered by the mere fact that in addition to the concentration requirement, damage to the actual spell itself could end its effects earlier than scheduled.

5) A Feat is still a Feat, meaning it's a) optional and b) a colossal opportunity cost vis other feats. Oh you wanted to be Lucky? Too bad you had to take elemental affinity to try to avoid resistance on one damage type...a shame it doesn't help with immunity. Hopefully you never have to face off against Devils, iconic Dragons, or anything associated with the plane of Fire. I wouldn't call 8 damage difference (on a failed save) worth 5 a's more damage when you're level 13. It also happens to be friendly fire (pun intended?) making it dangerous to your allies in close quarters. That's a considerable drawback. Worse, a Wizard could actually be killed by their own Flaming Sphere if an opponent has more hit points and simply latches onto the caster with a grapple.


Which is sad...aren't upcast spells supposed to be weaker than spells of that level?

If they shared all the same features, then yes.

i.e. Is it damage over many rounds? It'll deal less damage per hit than an instantaneous spell but in total it can deal more.
Is the damage special or commonly resisted/immune?
Does it require an action or bonus action? (both to cast and to continue)
Is it mobile/controllable?
Single target, Changable, or multi-target?
Friendly Fire risk or Fun For All Ages?
Ranged or Melee (i.e. does using it put the caster at risk?)? Saving throw? (For ones commonly proficient, or a rarity? For a stat that's typically strong or one that's typically weak?)
Are there counters to the spell? If so, what? (i.e. Straight damage? Dispelling? Wind dispersal? etcetera)

There's more to consider than just the damage dice, is what I'm getting at, and most times when someone laments how one spell has more damage dice than another, they're conveniently leaving out every other factor that goes into balancing the two spells against each other.

i.e. Animate Objects has pretty good damage potential, but it is dependent on materials at hand and the enemy not being resistant to bps (the most common resistance) AND not getting destroyed AND the caster not losing concentration.

Compare to MS, it can't be destroyed, almost nothing resists it, it's not dependent on materials you can't lug around with you. The biggest risk is concentration failure (which is shared by almost all other non instantaneous spell options. For a little lower damage it eliminates most of the flaws that the previously existing spells come with.

[JellyPooga]

None of which grant Mordenkainen's Sword and none of which are Wizards!

I'm not talking about MS, specifically, but the general point that spells can and should be comparable based on level. Those were just a couple of examples. Do you really need me to spell out every possible scenario where any given Class can get an off-list spell (if that were even possible)? Or are you capable of accepting the point that getting off-list spells is really fricken' common and if that's the case (you know, which it is) there's very little basis for comparison between any two spells except their level.

For example; let's take three spells. Thunderwave, Cure Wounds and Alarm. Can we compare any of them based on damage dealt? No. What about HP healed? No again. We can't compare them based on their ability to alert you to intruders either (shocking news, huh?). Hmm, how else might we compare these three spells? How about their spell level? Oh, but we can't compare Cure Wounds to Alarm because no class spell list has both spells on it. What about Thunderwave? It appears on some list alongside Cure Wounds but not others; can we compare them then? Claiming that a spell isn't comparable because it's "off-list" is nonsense.

A Class might be balanced around getting off-list spells, but that doesn't mean the spell itself should be more or less powerful than its level indicates; it's the very purpose of a spell being a given level to tell us, the players, how powerful we can expect that spell to be in a vacuum. If that were not the case, then we'd see different Classes and abilities treating the spells as different levels like in 3ed (e.g. Hold Person was a 2nd level spell for Clerics but a 3rd level spell for Wizards).

Can you honestly, with a straight face tell me you think MS is worth a level 7 spell when Moonbeam, despite being on a different list, deals more damage even when the target succeeds at its save? Since when are Druids supposed to be better blasters than Wizards? One of these spells is "broken" (as in "doesn't do what it's supposed to") and I'm pretty sure it's not Moonbeam.

[djreynolds]

Can you and/or another party member cast a riding ability on MS?

I know another concentration spell from another caster, but could it be done.

[Tanarii]

Since when are Druids supposed to be better blasters than Wizards?
Um, is this a real question? Druids have always been at least as good blasters as wizards in D&D. Their entire point was to take the healery-ness of clerics and blend it with the blasters-ness of wizards.

[JellyPooga]

Um, is this a real question? Druids have always been at least as good blasters as wizards in D&D. Their entire point was to take the healery-ness of clerics and blend it with the blasters-ness of wizards.

I always saw Druids more as taking the healeryness of Clerics and blending the controleryness of Wizards myself, with maybe a bit more blasting. They were certainly never meant to be better than Wizards, which Moonbeam vs. MS would imply.

edit: I love that this arguement has devolved into using non-words like "controleryness":smallbiggrin:

[Tanarii]

I always saw Druids more as taking the healeryness of Clerics and blending the controleryness of Wizards myself, with maybe a bit more blasting. They were certainly never meant to be better than Wizards, which Moonbeam vs. MS would imply.Okay, the controllery-ness AND blastery-ness of wizards.

But what's the difference between the two spells:
A) 6d10 (MB) vs 6d10 (MS) on round 1 (counting the first enemy action as round 1 for MB). 6d10 (MB) vs 3d10 (MS) on rounds 2+.
B) Both require concentration.
C) Action to move, no action to damage, so effectively action to damage (MB) vs bonus action to move and damage (MJ)
D) Movement 60ft, range 120ft (MB) vs Movement 20ft, range 60ft (MJ)
E) small AoE (MB) vs Single Target (MJ)
F) Radiant (MB) vs Force (MJ)
G) Con Save for 1/2 (MB) vs Melee Spell Attack (MJ)

So basically, you've got the same damage on round 1, and an action vs bonus action to do twice the damage with Moonbeam. There are other variable factors here, such as small AoE (adv Moonbeam), damage type, save for 1/2 vs (more likely to hit) melee spell attack, but the big one is action required vs damage done.

I'm not trying to prove MS is okay or that MB isn't better, mainly because I don't DM or play at levels where MJ is anything other than a white-room spell for me. I'm just trying to enumerate the differences so we can see what we're really talking about. But after having done that, in my personal opinion, they're very well balanced. MB needs a small AoE + better movement + twice the damage just to make up for MJ being a bonus action. (Edit: also, it's entirely possible I missed something. If so correct away! Or that white-room theorycrafting like this just flat out doesn't accurately represent table use.)


edit: I love that this arguement has devolved into using non-words like "controleryness":smallbiggrin:Thas right!

[Zalabim]

Insect Plague is also not on the bard spell list. So it's not a native spell for either class, that really doesn't make it a valid comparison.
It's not a comparison. Not directly. There are a lot of wizard spells that sorcerers don't get. There are a handful of sorcerer spells that wizards don't get. I was just saying that this is one of the cases where sorcerers came out ahead for once.


Other flaws: Does not move and a relatively small radius, friendly fire (as previously mentioned), makes the area lightly obscured (which is bad if you have opponents who can hide).
It actually compares almost directly with Cloudkill, and the light obscurement isn't enough for anyone to hide, normally, and I don't imagine anyone would want to hide in it voluntarily.


Bigby's can be destroyed putting its damage potential at risk)
Bigby's also has more range to cast and more speed to move with. The hand is an Object with 20 AC and as much HP as the wizard. There are few effects other than attacks that can even hurt it. The only way it's easier to destroy is that it's in melee range, and if you're using MS to avoid that, it requires the caster to be much closer instead. If you're using Bigby's Hand in a situation where you can use MS (because of its poor speed), then any attacks directed at the Hand are directly diverted away from other party members. The only situation where the Hand's vulnerability is actually a detriment is when it's being used for a function MS can't perform at all.


Compare to MS, it can't be destroyed, almost nothing resists it, it's not dependent on materials you can't lug around with you. The biggest risk is concentration failure (which is shared by almost all other non instantaneous spell options. For a little lower damage it eliminates most of the flaws that the previously existing spells come with.
The biggest, unique risk is the enemies just out-walking it, and the cost is vastly lower sustained damage than the wizard's comparable spell, Bigby's Hand.

[JellyPooga]

Okay, the controllery-ness AND blastery-ness of wizards.

I'll concede that! :smalltongue:


But what's the difference between the two spells:

Aside from Moonbeam from a 7th level slot dealing 7d10 not 6d10, your list there looks about right. As you say, the biggest difference is Bonus Action vs. Action and I won't deny the significance of that. Moonbeam is practically guaranteed damage, though, dealing around the same damage as MS when it "fails". MS does nothing if you miss. For the expendtiture of a 7th level slot, I'll take the guaranteed damage with higher potential (bearing in mind that if you can stop an enemy leaving the admittedly small AoE or continuously shove an enemy back into it somehow, it takes no action at all to deal its damage) over the very minor benefit of dealing Force damage instead of Radiant.


in my personal opinion, they're very well balanced.

I would tend to agree, having looked at it a bit closer, which begs the question of why MS isn't better than it is. Most spells of a given level tend to be slightly better than lower level spells up-cast to that same level; otherwise what's the point of having the higher level spell at all?

Having said all that, the point I was making isn't so much whether Mords Sword is terrible or not (I've expressed my opinion on it enough in this thread), but that it can and should be directly comparable to other spells of its level, regardless of source or spell list. If it's coming out as worse than upcast lower level spells, let alone compared to other 7th level spells, then there's something wrong with it being such a high level spell. To put it in a hypothetical in-game scenario of game-balance, Counterspell and Dispel Magic are both spells available to plenty of Classes other than Wizard and it will take a 7th level upcast of either to guarantee a counter to Mords Sword, just as much as it would any other spell, whether it be a Cleric, Druid, Warlock or whatever spell. If 7th level Wizard spells were not meant to be compared to all other 7th level spells, only other 7th level Wizard spells, surely there would be some clause in Counterspell or Dispel Magic to that effect?

I said it before, but spell level is the only metric by which spells can be compared, regardless of whose list they're on. Classes can be balanced and compared by type of spells they get (damage, control, etc.), but spells themselves can only be compared by level. To say you can't compare Mords Sword to Firestorm, for example, because one's a Wizard spell and the other is a Druid spell is like saying you can't compare Warhammers to Rapiers because Dwarves are proficient in one and Elves the other, despite them both being Martial weapons.

[Tanarii]

Having said all that, the point I was making isn't so much whether Mords Sword is terrible or not (I've expressed my opinion on it enough in this thread), but that it can and should be directly comparable to other spells of its level, regardless of source or spell list.Yeah, I wasn't really getting into that point, because I both agree and disagree. Spells of the same level should be in approximately the same power-band, and new spells of a level should be better (although how much is a point to debate) than upcast spells. But I also think that it matters what's on a spell list, and that comparing spells cross-spell lists isn't always completely fair comparison.

Especially highly different spells that have highly different purposes, like Moonbeam (which serves as either your primary damage, area denial, or both) vs MJ (which serves as bonus action single-target damage ON TOP OF your regular actions). OTOH comparing Spiritual Weapon is a different matter. It's purpose is effectively the exact same thing. But even then, it matters that Clerics are expected to be front liners with decent AC & HPs, vs Wizards are not. (Note that by that standard, MJ should be a little more powerful and/or have more range.)

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm not talking about MS, specifically, but the general point that spells can and should be comparable based on level. Those were just a couple of examples. Do you really need me to spell out every possible scenario where any given Class can get an off-list spell (if that were even possible)? Or are you capable of accepting the point that getting off-list spells is really fricken' common and if that's the case (you know, which it is) there's very little basis for comparison between any two spells except their level.

For example; let's take three spells. Thunderwave, Cure Wounds and Alarm. Can we compare any of them based on damage dealt? No. What about HP healed? No again. We can't compare them based on their ability to alert you to intruders either (shocking news, huh?). Hmm, how else might we compare these three spells? How about their spell level? Oh, but we can't compare Cure Wounds to Alarm because no class spell list has both spells on it. What about Thunderwave? It appears on some list alongside Cure Wounds but not others; can we compare them then? Claiming that a spell isn't comparable because it's "off-list" is nonsense.

A Class might be balanced around getting off-list spells, but that doesn't mean the spell itself should be more or less powerful than its level indicates; it's the very purpose of a spell being a given level to tell us, the players, how powerful we can expect that spell to be in a vacuum. If that were not the case, then we'd see different Classes and abilities treating the spells as different levels like in 3ed (e.g. Hold Person was a 2nd level spell for Clerics but a 3rd level spell for Wizards).

Can you honestly, with a straight face tell me you think MS is worth a level 7 spell when Moonbeam, despite being on a different list, deals more damage even when the target succeeds at its save? Since when are Druids supposed to be better blasters than Wizards? One of these spells is "broken" (as in "doesn't do what it's supposed to") and I'm pretty sure it's not Moonbeam.

I'm not saying you shouldn't compare spells.

I'm saying you should compare the spells that a given character actually has a choice of.

It's also fruitless to wonder if Alarm is "better" than Cure Wounds unless we are asking the question of 'better at what?' Providing warning? Absolutely! Curing wounds? Not so much. If they don't have a shared purpose, it's apples and oranges.

A proper comparison would start with the closest approximation that a character capable of casting the spell can also choose from.

And, considering that Moonbeam isn't a Wizard spell, therefore isn't even an option for the Wizard, yes MS remains worth it. (Even if we do the comparison, I'd argue MS is a better spell overall).


I'm not trying to prove MS is okay or that MB isn't better. I'm just trying to enumerate the differences so we can see what we're really talking about. But after having done that, in my personal opinion, they're very well balanced. MB needs a small AoE + better movement + twice the damage just to make up for MJ being a bonus action.

Agreed, as the Wizard can cast additional spells (or just a cantrip even) to meet/exceed the damage of the Moonbeam user.

I'd also posit that the AoE nature is only good occasionally, and less (not) useful in close quarters situations where a friendly could be hit. Sometimes having a spell's damage be controlled is a good thing.


It's not a comparison. Not directly. There are a lot of wizard spells that sorcerers don't get. There are a handful of sorcerer spells that wizards don't get. I was just saying that this is one of the cases where sorcerers came out ahead for once.

It actually compares almost directly with Cloudkill, and the light obscurement isn't enough for anyone to hide, normally, and I don't imagine anyone would want to hide in it voluntarily.

Bigby's also has more range to cast and more speed to move with. The hand is an Object with 20 AC and as much HP as the wizard. There are few effects other than attacks that can even hurt it. The only way it's easier to destroy is that it's in melee range, and if you're using MS to avoid that, it requires the caster to be much closer instead. If you're using Bigby's Hand in a situation where you can use MS (because of its poor speed), then any attacks directed at the Hand are directly diverted away from other party members. The only situation where the Hand's vulnerability is actually a detriment is when it's being used for a function MS can't perform at all.

The biggest, unique risk is the enemies just out-walking it, and the cost is vastly lower sustained damage than the wizard's comparable spell, Bigby's Hand.

Erm, I don't see how it matters that Sorcerers get it when they don't have a choice.

Cloudkill moves (uncontrolled), but I was thinking of the Skulker feat and Wood Elves if they were in it when cast, I agree it's unlikely anyone would deliberately enter the location. Insect Plague also has the downside of dealing a very commonly resisted damage type (Piercing) and it's expressly from insects, so it's nonmagical...which is pretty rough.

I wouldn't consider 65 feet (technically 90 since the Wizard could move first) that close, but fair enough. The level appropriate situation of fighting an Adult Dragon would be one where the Hand gets auto-destroyed by the aoe from the breathe weapon and the wing buffet. Basically it would amount to a wasted spell slot much of the time. Large groups of smaller enemies could also destroy it in short order, which does mean those were attacks not on the party (unless of course they're using aoe that can also hit the party), but the same effect could have been accomplished by using something like Hold Person.

Enemies who move suffer opportunity attacks from the party, seems very unlikely that they would move just to try and avoid a single spell attack if it means drawing attacks. I don't buy this argument even a little.

[Zalabim]

Insect Plague also has the downside of dealing a very commonly resisted damage type (Piercing) and it's expressly from insects, so it's nonmagical...which is pretty rough.
Cloudkill does poison damage, which is actually useful if you have party members who are immune to poison, otherwise magical piercing damage from a non-attack is among the least resisted types of damage in the game. Off-hand, treants resist it. The two spells actually have a number of important differences.


I wouldn't consider 65 feet (technically 90 since the Wizard could move first) that close, but fair enough. The level appropriate situation of fighting an Adult Dragon would be one where the Hand gets auto-destroyed by the aoe from the breathe weapon and the wing buffet. Basically it would amount to a wasted spell slot much of the time. Large groups of smaller enemies could also destroy it in short order, which does mean those were attacks not on the party (unless of course they're using aoe that can also hit the party), but the same effect could have been accomplished by using something like Hold Person.
Technically 90 feet is close enough for some of those level appropriate Adult Dragons to hit the wizard with a breath attack that's going to almost automatically end concentration on the spell. Actually 65 feet if you move just close enough to hit them when you cast it is going to leave your wizard in range for any kind of Adult Dragon's breath attack.

Bigby's Hand allows you to cast it from a safe distance and remains blissfully immune to Lightning Breath and Wing Attack from an Adult Blue Dragon, as an example. It is an object. Very few effects damage objects.

Hold Person will frequently fail to replace Bigby's Hand. It is very different.


Enemies who move suffer opportunity attacks from the party, seems very unlikely that they would move just to try and avoid a single spell attack if it means drawing attacks. I don't buy this argument even a little.
Even Goblins can escape MS. MS is useless* against goblins:smallconfused:.

MS can only be used in a situation where your allies are preventing the enemies from moving. There are more rewarding spells to use if you have such assistance from your allies.

Bigby's Hand has more uses than MS. Its vulnerability is minor compared to how much more effective the spell is in the only situation that MS is usable.

Spiritual Weapon has the exact same characteristics as MS or better. It does more damage from a 6th level slot and doesn't require concentration. It very plainly demonstrates that MS is a weak spell.

*Seeing goblins flee and scatter before your mighty spell is some use:smallamused:, but it won't kill them all:smallfurious:.

[Gignere]

MS is garbage whoever is still defending this spell I will just say it is your wizard pick it for all I care I will take animate object, bigbys and simulacrum over that garbage spell myself.

[Tanarii]

If you cast it at 60ft (maximum range), it can move beyond that range on subsequent turns, correct?

[Hrugner]

If you cast it at 60ft (maximum range), it can move beyond that range on subsequent turns, correct?

While the "range" section in the PHB says a spell's effect is constrained by its range unless the spell says otherwise, MS says you can move it to a spot you can see on subsequent rounds, so I think you can move it outside that range.

[Tanarii]

While the "range" section in the PHB says a spell's effect is constrained by its range unless the spell says otherwise, MS says you can move it to a spot you can see on subsequent rounds, so I think you can move it outside that range.
I just looked it up, and you've got it backwards. PHB 203:
Once a spell is cast, it's effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise.

/phew I thought for a second I'd been ruling 5e spell's all wrong.

[Gignere]

I just looked it up, and you've got it backwards. PHB 203:
Once a spell is cast, it's effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise.

/phew I thought for a second I'd been ruling 5e spell's all wrong.

Me too, I Tasha's a shadow dragon and it fell 500+ feet. We ruled that he was still laughing because inexplicably the shadow dragon failed his wis save with advantage after taking the falling damage.

[SharkForce]

Me too, I Tasha's a shadow dragon and it fell 500+ feet. We ruled that he was still laughing because inexplicably the shadow dragon failed his wis save with advantage after taking the falling damage.

it was a *really* funny pie-in-the-face gag ;)

[Hrugner]

I just looked it up, and you've got it backwards. PHB 203:
Once a spell is cast, it's effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise.

/phew I thought for a second I'd been ruling 5e spell's all wrong.

Whoops! I better wake up before I try answering any other questions.