Trap Spells [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Spectre9000

2017-01-16, 01:39 PM

I've been looking through and thinking about various spells as I'm playing a spellcaster currently, and I've noticed a few seemingly awesome and must pick spells that actually pretty much suck or have significant nuances that make them traps. I figured I'd list them here to see what other people think, and what spells others have found like this.

So, without further ado...

So, to start with, this is actually a really good spell. You get a 50/50 chance of essentially becoming invulnerable, without requiring concentration. That doesn't mean it isn't a trap spell, however. Note, this takes you to a different plane. That means any spell/ability you had up, or would want to cast with a range fails/can't be used. In many situations, this doesn't matter, but for features such as Projected Ward, you're unable to use them whilst on another plane as I'm pretty sure another plane is more than 30 feet away. Use this spell if you aren't reaction/range dependent, but this is a trap spell if you are.

This is a decent spell. Modest damage, range, fail or take half damage; all in all pretty good. There's just that one little footnote that gets you. The fire ignites any flammable objects... You're in a forest? Forest fire. You're in a city? Building fire. Pretty soon, you're gonna have some people knocking down your door to end your pyromaniac ways. Naturally this is up to DM's, but if they're holding their players responsible then this is inevitable. Furthermore, say you use it, realize you started a massive fire, then use other spells to put it out, you've potentially wasted spell slots to do so.

Man, temporary hit points equal to about half my max hp? No concentration required either! This really seems quite good!

Then you find Armor of Agathys that gives roughly the same amount of HP, but hurts attackers for the same amount. It's even more sad given how easily you can get either of these spells. The icing on the cake is when your warlock gets both (Undying Warlock). *golf clap*

Finally, if you're an abjuration wizard, AoA is an abjuration spell, which therefore replenishes your ward.

This spell grants you three illusory duplicates that are meant to take hits for you and therefore absorb damage. 1 Action to negate 3 attacks worth of damage looks pretty awesome, right? Well... actually, mechanically this doesn't quite work out.

There are a number of issues with this spell, but lets get the most basic misconception out of the way: Any roll of a 6 or more, is an attack I didn't take! Wrong. The reason behind this being wrong, is that any attack that would miss your illusory duplicate, would miss you anyway. You are going to have a higher AC than your illusory duplicate, meaning that any attack that misses that image, would have missed you anyway, meaning you can't count that as an attack it saved you from.

Now, the next misconception: Any attacks that hit the image, are attacks that would have hit me! Wrong again. As I said earlier, your AC is going to be higher than your illusory duplicates AC. Sometimes this difference is only a couple AC, sometimes it's a lot. Let's say you managed to be wearing plate armor, with a shield, and your Dex is mediocre, lets say 14. Your Illusory Duplicates AC is 12, whereas your AC is 20 minimum. So, any attack roll of a 19 to as low as 12 hits your duplicate, but not you, which amounts to it being wasted. Now, obviously, we're only going to take Mirror Image in optimal situations right? So, you have 20 Dex, meaning your duplicates AC is 15. With Mage Armor your AC without a shield is 18. So, any hits between 17-15 waste a duplicate as they wouldn't have hit you anyway. Throw a shield on that, and that gap increases and means more waste. Additionally, this is all ignoring the possibility for AC increasing spells, class features, and magic items which make this spell even worse.

Now, generally, if you're getting attacked, you're getting attacked multiple times. Either it's small creatures that group up and therefore have multiple attacks, or its a big creature with the multiattack feature. Creatures don't generally spread out attacks (though that's subject to DM fancy). Best case your duplicates absorb 3 attacks. Then that's your action to negate their action. The problem with delaying things is that you're burning resources whilst the enemy isn't (unless it's a spell attack). Spending a spell slot and an action to negate the action of a creature (or 3 small creatures) in a best case scenario is pretty bad, except perhaps on heavy hitting enemies with high to hit. If this spell lasts multiple rounds, you wouldn't have been getting hit anyway, or it didn't absorb the damage you were hoping it would. Furthermore, if you don't get hit, then you wasted a second level spell slot, meaning you're betting on yourself being attacked.

Additionally, this only affects attacks. Any spell or ability that doesn't make an attack roll still functions perfectly fine against you. Incidentally, these tend to be the more damaging abilities. There's also all the CC effects that don't work on attack rolls.

Finally, there's the issue that a creature that doesn't rely on sight, isn't affected by this. What this means is that many of the larger, more dangerous creatures that have blindsight (some have tremorsense) ignore this spell entirely, which due to their massive to hit bonus is really when you would need this the most as they are much more certain to hit your AC.

Summing up, this spell can stop some damage from reaching you in niche cases, but it stands such a high chance of being wasted that its initial appeal seems grossly underwhelming.

Man, I really fell in love with this spell when I initially saw it, and thought about all the cool combinations of things I could do with it, and how cool it would seem... Then I got more in depth into the rules of 5e, and found out that in the vast majority of situations, this is just a glorified bonus action dash, which you already can get easily, that doesn't scale with move speed. The one bonus to this is that it doesn't grant OA's.

Many would say that it allows you to traverse otherwise difficult/hazardous terrain or jump gorges without worry. The problem here is, if you were going to go for a bonus action dash, I'd prefer it scaled with my movement first off, but your normal movement, plus a dash should be enough to clear that vast majority of difficult terrain, not the mention there are far better options for this (Longstrider, Freedom of Movement, Fly, Dimension Door). If you using this to clear an obstacle, your allies still have to clear it, so you're stuck, by yourself, waiting on them to get passed it. What was the point of wasting a spell slot to just wait?

Then there's the nail in the coffin. When you cast a spell as a Bonus Action, you can't cast another non-cantrip spell. This is really the big issue with this. Many of the awesome things you could imagine this spell for are halted by this one rule. So you teleport an additional 30 feet away, and cast... Firebolt? Woo. You can make it work, and certainly continue your damage, but it just seems rather boring at that point. Also, no other bonus action dash hampers your casting. All of this on one of three 2nd level spell slots. Far too costly.

On a more positive note, I'd like to bring to light one amazing spell I feel no one thinks much of...

This spell is simply awesome. It puts any beast master ranger (even revised) and druid to shame. Go find and trap as many Rex's, Mammoths, Giant Crocs, Giant Sharks, Elephants, etc that you can find, and make them all your companion. Make a beast army. Polymorph yourself into one of them, and laugh at your Ranger/Druid ally. You want to be Drizzt? Screw that, be better! Sure, this spell costs 1k gold per casting, but now you've found something to do with your gold!

RickAllison

2017-01-16, 02:15 PM

Blink: Spot on. Very useful for a variety of reasons including also functioning as an anti-grapple mechanic, but may be overrated. I like it, but you must be cognizant of its limitations.

Burning Hands: Always seemed to me like the "AoE for Dummies" spell. It primarily seems to serve casters who wish to have an AoE (as that is a combat niche of spellcasters), but have yet to unlock Fireball. Great for the Red Draconic Sorcerer at lower levels, but is best switched as he levels. It has a purpose, but fizzles eventually.

False Life: Where Burning Hands is made to act as a way for lower-level casters to offensively contribute, this is a spell for lower-level casters to survive. At that range, this is potentially doubling or more the caster's hp, which is nothing to sniff at. Switch it out as you get to higher levels, but it kept you alive until that point.

Mirror Image. Remember that the d20 roll to decide which copy to hit is separate from the attack. So it forces an attacker to effectively stack disadvantage mechanics and without concentration! Actually, that last part is the primary reason why MI is so highly rated, it provides a nice defensive benefit at low cost for higher-level casters and the user doesn't have to worry about losing any buffs or debuffs already used. Overrated, but still very useful. Even when you have more attacks, reducing the number that risk concentration loss is a great boon.

Misty Step: I disagree here. Misty Step is not the spell that makes me giddy about obtaining it, or giggle maniacally when I have occasion to use it. It is the spell that I always keep prepared, but rarely use. It reserves a permanent spot in my lineup of spells not because I use it constantly, but because it is a spell that when everything goes to hell, when I have been disarmed of my focus or materials, when I am bound or otherwise unable to use any somatic components, or when I am simply on the other side of a barrier, it is needed. Jailed? Misty Step through the bars. Need through a door? Misty Step under it. Head on the headsman's block? If you have managed to grab just a bit of fleece from someone's clothing and know Minor Illusion, Minor Illusion the image of yourself to appear in the place, then Misty Step away. You only have up to a minute and probably less, but that is more than the alternative. Misty Step is amazing not because it is the most useful thing, but because it is always useful.

Breashios

2017-01-16, 02:17 PM

A list like this is a good resource for players thinking about which spells to select as they level up. I think a few of the class guides cover these issues with regard to their specific builds. I wish I had my books with me right now, so I could add the spells I believe should go here, but I don’t/can’t. I will comment on your list though.

I can attest from personal experience that Blink is much as you state. One of my wizards had it and in use, I could never quite do what I intended and missed opportunities to counterspell, etc. While it possibly kept me safe, the enemy just pounded other party members in my absence, so I did not feel it did much good in the aggregate.

If I remember correctly Burning Hands is considered a weak spell in comparison to other first level options by almost everyone. The additional drawbacks you mention add salt on that wound, but I will say, an Evoker in a party I DM for has it and I can’t think of a point where those concerns would have been an issue (able to avoid x number of friendly PCs, trees, etc. in the area of effect).

Regarding False Life: If you can get Armor of Agathys, do.

I agree regarding the mechanics of Mirror Image, however, in combat, it might be just enough of a hassle to cause the enemy to choose a different target to attack which is just as good an outcome for that character if he is a lower AC.

My only disagreement would be over Misty Step. The no OA feature and the ability to carry an unconscious character with you saved at least half a party from death or capture when retreating from a losing battle. In other cases it is a great utility spell (ignoring whether it is a bonus action or not). Think about getting inside a castle through an arrow slit. You can see the destination. Then sneak around and open the gate, a door or drop a rope ladder over the parapet. (Yes, you could do that with Fly or Dimension Door, but I’ll need those higher slots for damage dealing.) These are just a few examples for awesome uses of this spell!

King539

2017-01-16, 02:21 PM

Two things:
1. Wizards don't get AoA.

2. Actually, you have no way to control Awakened creatures. They are charmed for 30 days, but you have no way to control them other than that.

LudicSavant

2017-01-16, 02:28 PM

*snip*

This is a trap post, containing inaccurate information. For example:

Any roll of a 6 or more, is an attack I didn't take! Wrong. The reason behind this being wrong, is that any attack that would miss your illusory duplicate, would miss you anyway. You are going to have a higher AC than your illusory duplicate, meaning that any attack that misses that image, would have missed you anyway, meaning you can't count that as an attack it saved you from.

This is not how the spell works. The d20 roll to determine whether a duplicate is hit is not an attack roll, and is separate from the attack roll to hit a target.

rigolgm

2017-01-16, 02:34 PM

I'm with Rick regarding Mirror Image. Sure, the images aren't difficult to hit. But your opponent(s) will often be swinging at them rather than you. Once you hit level 18 (as a Wizard) you could run it as one of your zero-cost spells. It takes an action to cast, so you might not keep casting it during combat, but it's good to cast beforehand (as long as its verbal component doesn't ruin an ambush) and it doesn't need concentration. Hardly a 'trap' spell.

Contrast

2017-01-16, 02:54 PM

I think you're somewhat underselling Mirror Image and definately underselling Misty Step.

Sure if you use Misty Step as an alternative to walking its a very underwhelming use of a 2nd level spell. The point is that it isn't walking however - its a teleport. You can escape a prison cell, pass through a keyhole or a closed window without disturbing anything. Blink to the top of a building or behind cover/into another hidden spot leaving your enemy with no idea where you went. It's certainly a poor mans Dimension Door but its also 2 spell levels lower so...it should be.

Conversely I think you're pretty optimistic on Awaken. Remember that the charmed condition does not automatically make them an obedient servant this edition.

Maxilian

2017-01-16, 02:56 PM

When i saw this Thread i was expecting true Trap spells, like... Most poison based damage high lvl spells and the Crown of Madness.

Note: Poison is not that good, mainly because more mobs have Inmunity to Poison damage (and at highter lvl it becomes a constant in most mobs you will face) -Resistance at least can be worked around with a feat

CantigThimble

2017-01-16, 03:01 PM

Two things:
1. Wizards don't get AoA.

2. Actually, you have no way to control Awakened creatures. They are charmed for 30 days, but you have no way to control them other than that.

Yeah, as far as a giant crocodile is concerned, 'friendship' probably consists of not eating you at the first opportunity, not serving you in battle.

It is still a really cool spell though, I wish I ever got a chance to cast it.

SharkForce

2017-01-16, 03:18 PM

Spectre9000

2017-01-16, 04:04 PM

blink: situational, sure, but it's a no-concentration spell that can keep you alive. yes, it can interfere with reactions, and sometimes that's a problem, but being hit for 100% of your hit points by angry giants is also sometimes a problem that blink can help with. it isn't something you'll always want to use without fail, but i wouldn't call it a trap. sometimes it's good, sometimes not quite so good (and seriously, chances are someone else in the party has specifically built their character to be better at taking damage than you, so if others are getting targeted, well, sometimes that legitimately is better than you getting targeted).

I listed why it was a trap. Additionally, if you're getting 1 shot, then blink isn't going to save you. You have a 50/50 chance every round of it doing nothing. 1 shot requires only 1 round. If you get 1 shot you've made some bad decisions and should never allow yourself to be in a position to be hit.

burning hands: trees (living ones, at least) are not particularly flammable. using it in a building is more likely to have problems, depending on the building. and i would definitely not suggest using it on a ship. but the spell is overall fine as a low-level damage option.

Have you been to a forest? Do you imagine people walk through the wilds constantly picking up fallen trees/limbs/leaves/brush? How many times has California caught fire from a simple campfire?

false life: there's a better option out there... on a spell list that most people don't have access to. how is this a trap? i mean, if you do have access to armour of agathys, then sure, take that instead, but most people don't.

It's a trap because you easily get AoA with either a 1 level dip, or Magic Initiate. Mages are going to do at least one of these two things generally. In a build where you want temporary hp, you want the best option available and it's AoA, and AoA is easy to get.

mirror image: as noted, doesn't work the way you seem to think it works. and yes, it isn't a 100% perfect defense. it is, however, a stackable form of defense, and it just might keep you alive. the shield spell is not generally at-will (and if it is, it still eats up your reaction and you can choose mirror image to also be at-will). it shouldn't be your only defense, but you're a fool if you pass up a form of defense purely because it isn't a 100% effective defense against everything ever. again, not something you should always cast, but sometimes it is well worth it. getting hit a couple times less often can easily be the difference between living and dying.

This is a trap post, containing inaccurate information. For example:

Any roll of a 6 or more, is an attack I didn't take! Wrong. The reason behind this being wrong, is that any attack that would miss your illusory duplicate, would miss you anyway. You are going to have a higher AC than your illusory duplicate, meaning that any attack that misses that image, would have missed you anyway, meaning you can't count that as an attack it saved you from.

This is not how the spell works. The d20 roll to determine whether a duplicate is hit is not an attack roll, and is separate from the attack roll to hit a target.

What I said is actually 100% accurate. By all means, however, operate on the assumption I don't know how the spell works in order to slander and derail things. I made that statement expecting that those who read it, would've read the spell, and known how it works. Obviously, the 6 or more is referring to the d20 roll you make as part of Mirror Image that requires a roll of 6 or more for an attack to be targeted at a duplicate. Any assumption otherwise is an obvious attempt at drama.

There's always an attack roll made by the attacker, and you roll a d20 and on a 6/8/11+ (depending on the number of duplicates you have left) that attack is directed at a duplicate. If that roll was under your AC, it wouldn't have hit you anyway, meaning your duplicate did absolutely nothing to benefit you. If that duplicate does get hit with an attack that wouldn't hit you, not only did it not benefit you, but it wasted that duplicate as it is now destroyed.

misty step: not being opportunity attacked is super important. a number of enemies do very unpleasant things on their opportunity attacks. a dash won't get you out of a grapple, or out of a web spell, or past a wall of force, or to the top of a cliff, or over a pit of doom, or through a window, nearly so easily. this spell is not something you spam all the time, but it *is* a great emergency option. and yes, the bonus action casting time means you can only get a cantrip out in the same round. what's your point? you can't exactly get a fireball in the same round as a dimension door, either. meanwhile, your option for bonus action dash costs you either levels in your spellcasting class, or it costs you your concentration. so, expeditious retreat is better, if and only if a non-concentration spell would solve your problem. don't get me wrong, fireball is nice, but... it isn't going to get rid of your problem unless your problem is large numbers of very weak enemies. personally, i'd rather have my concentration available most of the time. fireball is a great spell for solving one kind of problem, but the solutions to most of the really big problems i have involve concentration spells. spells like wall of force (which would also keep enemies from getting to you admirably while also splitting them up into two easy fights), fear (now that group of enemies that got close to you are all stampeding in the other direction), etc.

Misty Step: I disagree here. Misty Step is not the spell that makes me giddy about obtaining it, or giggle maniacally when I have occasion to use it. It is the spell that I always keep prepared, but rarely use. It reserves a permanent spot in my lineup of spells not because I use it constantly, but because it is a spell that when everything goes to hell, when I have been disarmed of my focus or materials, when I am bound or otherwise unable to use any somatic components, or when I am simply on the other side of a barrier, it is needed. Jailed? Misty Step through the bars. Need through a door? Misty Step under it. Head on the headsman's block? If you have managed to grab just a bit of fleece from someone's clothing and know Minor Illusion, Minor Illusion the image of yourself to appear in the place, then Misty Step away. You only have up to a minute and probably less, but that is more than the alternative. Misty Step is amazing not because it is the most useful thing, but because it is always useful.

I think the misconception here is that you can take Misty Step at low level and then swap it out later. That is certainly an option for some spellcasters, but not all. For example, a wizard doesn't have that option. This is often negated by the fact that a wizard can go buy new spells. The problem is, this isn't always the case, for example, I'm playing in a campaign right now where we're a few refuges who managed to survive dragons basically destroying civilization. We survived by sailing to a remote, uncharted wilderness. So, for a wizard in this situation, they're stuck with the spells they choose as part of leveling up. Having overlapping spells is hard given how much utility a wizard is expected to have in his/her spellbook.

each of these spells have excellent uses. none of them are necessarily spells that you should use without thinking, but then again, neither is a fireball or a mass suggestion. these aren't trap spells at all.

Well, if you say so.

When i saw this Thread i was expecting true Trap spells, like... Most poison based damage high lvl spells and the Crown of Madness.

Note: Poison is not that good, mainly because more mobs have Inmunity to Poison damage (and at highter lvl it becomes a constant in most mobs you will face) -Resistance at least can be worked around with a feat

Talking about specific damage types is a different conversation, and is subject to campaign. Poison in general is bad as seen here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?379165-MM-Resistances-Immunities-Vulnerabilities-and-Damage), but if your DM doesn't use those creatures then it's fine, which can be said of all damage types.

I don't consider Crown of Madness a trap spell, as I think it's pretty straight forward in how it's bad. It's not a spell I ever initially thought was amazing, only to figure out it actually sucks a lot. I just thought it sucked from the outset.

Potato_Priest

2017-01-16, 04:12 PM

Misty step is pretty good. If nothing else, you can misty step+dash to get away from an enemy grappler, a thing that all my casters have nightmares about. It's also the only teleportation option at it's level, so that alone makes it worthwhile.

Spectre9000

2017-01-16, 04:26 PM

As pretty much everyone in the thread has already told you, no, it is not.

Ok...

Mirror Image
Each time a creature targets you with an attack during the spell's duration, roll a d20 to determine whether the attack instead targets one of your duplicates.
If you have three duplicates, you must roll a 6 or higher to change tha ttack's target to a duplicate. With two duplicates, you must roll and 8 or higher. With one duplicate you must roll an 11 or higher.

So, please tell me how it works. That is verbatim, explicitly, from the text, exactly how it works. There is an attack, which requires an attack roll. There is then a d20 roll to determine whether the attack targets you or a duplicate. If that attack roll was under your AC, it would have done nothing to you at all, in any way, shape, or form. That is from a basic, fundamental, understanding of D&D 5e. If that attack roll is enough to hit a duplicate, it disappears having done absolute nothing for you since the attack would not have hit you to begin with. If it misses the duplicate, then again, it does absolute nothing, as again, the attack would not have hit you to being with.

Do tell me, what part is wrong. (In before, "all of it")

Edit: Heh. He deleted his post.

LudicSavant

2017-01-16, 04:32 PM

Used the delete button instead of the edit button. Anywho:

What I said is actually 100% accurate

As pretty much everyone in the thread has already told you, no, it is not. Making personal attacks will not alter the rules text.

Each time a creature targets you with an attack during the spell's duration, roll a d20 to determine whether the attack instead targets one of your duplicates.

Your error is in assuming that this d20 roll and the attack roll are one and the same. Nothing in the spell's description indicates this.

Spectre9000

2017-01-16, 04:34 PM

As pretty much everyone in the thread has already told you, no, it is not. Making personal attacks will not alter the rules text.

I refer you to the post above.

Maxilian

2017-01-16, 04:34 PM

Ok...

Mirror Image
Each time a creature targets you with an attack during the spell's duration, roll a d20 to determine whether the attack instead targets one of your duplicates.
If you have three duplicates, you must roll a 6 or higher to change tha ttack's target to a duplicate. With two duplicates, you must roll and 8 or higher. With one duplicate you must roll an 11 or higher.

So, please tell me how it works. That is verbatim, explicitly, from the text, exactly how it works. There is an attack, which requires an attack roll. There is then a d20 roll to determine whether the attack targets you or a duplicate. If that attack roll was under your AC, it would have done nothing to you at all, in any way, shape, or form. That is from a basic, fundamental, understanding of D&D 5e. If that attack roll is enough to hit a duplicate, it disappears having done absolute nothing for you since the attack would not have hit you to begin with. If it misses the duplicate, then again, it does absolute nothing, as again, the attack would not have hit you to being with.

Do tell me, what part is wrong. (In before, "all of it")

Edit: Heh. He deleted his post.

The D20 rolled is not an Attack Roll, its just a D20, so they wouldn't add any of their hit modifiers, also if they happen to hit you, they will have to roll once again to see if they actually hits, so if the enemy have disadvantage it have to roll basically 3 dices (the first one separated from the others ignoring its bonus to hit) and its also a way to fight against the advantage of enemies (the first dice, is just a dice, not an attack roll, so another way to ignore the advantage of the enemy)

Mellack

2017-01-16, 04:37 PM

Ok...

Mirror Image
Each time a creature targets you with an attack during the spell's duration, roll a d20 to determine whether the attack instead targets one of your duplicates.
If you have three duplicates, you must roll a 6 or higher to change tha ttack's target to a duplicate. With two duplicates, you must roll and 8 or higher. With one duplicate you must roll an 11 or higher.

So, please tell me how it works. That is verbatim, explicitly, from the text, exactly how it works. There is an attack, which requires an attack roll. There is then a d20 roll to determine whether the attack targets you or a duplicate. If that attack roll was under your AC, it would have done nothing to you at all, in any way, shape, or form. That is from a basic, fundamental, understanding of D&D 5e. If that attack roll is enough to hit a duplicate, it disappears having done absolute nothing for you since the attack would not have hit you to begin with. If it misses the duplicate, then again, it does absolute nothing, as again, the attack would not have hit you to being with.

Do tell me, what part is wrong. (In before, "all of it")

Edit: Heh. He deleted his post.
The key point is that IF. If it hit your AC, you have a good chance it hits an image instead. If it missed your AC, it might take out an image still. If it missed everything, nothing gained or lost. It is not a perfect defense, nothing is. It is another line of defense that can save you serious damage. I think it holds its own compared to other spells of that level.

Maxilian

2017-01-16, 04:37 PM

Talking about specific damage types is a different conversation, and is subject to campaign. Poison in general is bad as seen here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?379165-MM-Resistances-Immunities-Vulnerabilities-and-Damage), but if your DM doesn't use those creatures then it's fine, which can be said of all damage types.

I don't consider Crown of Madness a trap spell, as I think it's pretty straight forward in how it's bad. It's not a spell I ever initially thought was amazing, only to figure out it actually sucks a lot. I just thought it sucked from the outset.

I hate you so much... MY NAME IS NOT MAXIMILIAN! IS MAXILIAN!

oks... O.T:

Crown of Madness fluff is so cool (reason why so many people end up picking it up) but after you read it, you realize how ****ty it is, and the same go with Poison spells, also... sadly its not if your DM decides not to use those types of monster, most monster in the MM have poison resistance or inmunities and at high lvl, it becomes almost constant in all mobs (Unless you're fighting humanoids, and still... most humanoids enemies have, at least, resistance)

Spectre9000

2017-01-16, 04:37 PM

The D20 rolled is not an Attack Roll, its just a D20, so they wouldn't add any of their hit modifiers, also if they happen to hit you, they will have to roll once again to see if they actually hits, so if the enemy have disadvantage it have to roll basically 3 dices (the first one separated from the others ignoring its bonus to hit) and its also a way to fight against the advantage of enemies (the first dice, is just a dice, not an attack roll, so another way to ignore the advantage of the enemy)

I've never said the d20 rolled was an attack roll. Ever. There is a D20 roll, then there is an attack roll. They are not the same roll. I don't know how many ways I can say this. Also, not that it matters, but you're the one that actually rolls that D20, not them.

Spectre9000

2017-01-16, 04:40 PM

The key point is that IF. If it hit your AC, you have a good chance it hits an image instead. If it missed your AC, it might take out an image still. If it missed everything, nothing gained or lost. It is not a perfect defense, nothing is. It is another line of defense that can save you serious damage. I think it holds its own compared to other spells of that level.

Certainly, there is an if, and like I said "this spell can stop some damage from reaching you". The point was that it isn't as good as it initially seems, not that it's totally useless.

I hate you so much... MY NAME IS NOT MAXIMILIAN! IS MAXILIAN!

Oops... >.> Sorry... I blame GITP! Multi-quoting is hard... <.<

LudicSavant

2017-01-16, 04:47 PM

I've never said the d20 rolled was an attack roll. Ever. There is a D20 roll, then there is an attack roll. They are not the same roll.

Perhaps we misinterpreted you. It appeared as though you were saying that any attack that would miss because of the illusions would always have missed anyways, which is not true.

Maxilian

2017-01-16, 04:48 PM

I've never said the d20 rolled was an attack roll. Ever. There is a D20 roll, then there is an attack roll. They are not the same roll. I don't know how many ways I can say this. Also, not that it matters, but you're the one that actually rolls that D20, not them.

Yes, i know you didn't just wanted to point out some good things about the spell, as a DM i can tell you, that at high lvl, mobs get a really nice hit (to the point that seeing 13 to hit or more its not rare) so there it becomes pretty good (Its one of those rare low lvl spells, that actually become better the higher you are instead of the other way around), also as i mentioned it also ignores advantage (and disadvantage)

Spectre9000

2017-01-16, 04:53 PM

Yes, i know you didn't just wanted to point out some good things about the spell, as a DM i can tell you, that at high lvl, mobs get a really nice hit (to the point that seeing 13 to hit or more its not rare) so there it becomes pretty good (Its one of those rare low lvl spells, that actually become better the higher you are instead of the other way around), also as i mentioned it also ignores advantage (and disadvantage)

Well, as to high level, I also mentioned that in my original post. It would be really good at those levels... if so many things didn't have some way of not relying on sight. If something has tremorsense, or blindsight, or true sight, or whatever sight Mirror Image doesn't work on them, as it explicitly requires that a creature rely upon (basic) sight for it to work.

Spectre9000

2017-01-16, 04:57 PM

Sigreid

2017-01-16, 05:32 PM

Funnily enough I've been playing mostly wizards since the 70's and I don't think I've ever cast any of these spells in any edition.

LudicSavant

2017-01-16, 05:42 PM

Man, I really fell in love with this spell when I initially saw it, and thought about all the cool combinations of things I could do with it, and how cool it would seem... Then I got more in depth into the rules of 5e, and found out that in the vast majority of situations, this is just a glorified bonus action dash, which you already can get easily, that doesn't scale with move speed. The one bonus to this is that it doesn't grant OA's.

Many would say that it allows you to traverse otherwise difficult/hazardous terrain or jump gorges without worry. The problem here is, if you were going to go for a bonus action dash, I'd prefer it scaled with my movement first off, but your normal movement, plus a dash should be enough to clear that vast majority of difficult terrain, not the mention there are far better options for this (Longstrider, Freedom of Movement, Fly, Dimension Door). If you using this to clear an obstacle, your allies still have to clear it, so you're stuck, by yourself, waiting on them to get passed it. What was the point of wasting a spell slot to just wait?

Then there's the nail in the coffin. When you cast a spell as a Bonus Action, you can't cast another non-cantrip spell. This is really the big issue with this. Many of the awesome things you could imagine this spell for are halted by this one rule. So you teleport an additional 30 feet away, and cast... Firebolt? Woo. You can make it work, and certainly continue your damage, but it just seems rather boring at that point. Also, no other bonus action dash hampers your casting. All of this on one of three 2nd level spell slots. Far too costly.

Where are you getting these bonus action dashes from?

Squiddish

2017-01-16, 05:59 PM

The main benefit of mirror image is that it does not require concentration. This leads to some interesting combinations. For example, as long as you're facing something without blindsight, truesight, or see invisibility, you can cast mirror image... followed by invisibility. That means that anything trying to hit you first has a 70% chance of hitting a duplicate, and then has disadvantage on attacking you. You can't do much, but they haven't a clue where you are.

Also, at higher levels, you can cast it multiple times, and from what I understand it would stack, essentially giving you advantage on the d20 roll to see if a creature attacks a duplicate.

However, I will admit that it appears more powerful at first glance than it actually is, since, as you have already stated, your duplicates have a lower AC (Unless of course you forgot to cast mage armor this morning), meaning that some of the attacks it redirects wouldn't have hit you in the first place, but it is still a worthwhile spell.

Spectre9000

2017-01-16, 06:20 PM

Where are you getting these bonus action dashes from?

Monk level 2 - Step of the Wind (Shadow Monk level 6 gives teleport)
Rogue level 2 - Cunning Action

Outside of those two you have:

Storm Sorcerer 1 - As a bonus action, you gain the ability to move 10 ft as part of casting a spell. (No OA)
Level 1 Wizard/Warlock/Sorcerer, Level 3 Eldritch Knight/Arcane Trickster, Level 6/10 Bard (Magical Secrets), Magic Initiate - Expeditious Retreat
Level 5 Wizard/Sorcerer/Gassland Druid, Level 6/10 Bard (Magical Secrets), Level 9 Vengeance Paladin, Level 13 Eldritch Knight/Arcane trickster - Haste

SharkForce

2017-01-16, 07:08 PM

2 level dips to get bonus action dash? now THAT is a trap.

dipping on a full spellcaster is always painful. doing so in a way that doesn't even progress your spellcasting is even more so, because now the spells that might have scaled well enough to keep you near full relevance don't even scale. and i've already expressed my opinion on concentration-based methods of gaining bonus action dash. thanks, but i'll take the bonus action teleport with a regular move so that i ignore terrain, movement-restricting status effects, and intervening obstacles for part of the action instead.

and magic initiate for Armour of Agathys gives you a single use of the spell in a level 1 slot unless you are already a warlock (in which case, why didn't you take the spell with your warlock level, it's certainly good enough). i'm sorry, but 1/day 5 temp HP at the cost of a feat does not remotely invalidate false life as a spell.

no defensive option is perfect. that doesn't mean it isn't really good to get defensive options, especially concentration-free defensive options.

mirror image and blink are good spells because they add a layer of protection that wasn't there before. you might as well argue that plate mail is complete and utter trash because the enemy could roll nothing but 1 every time they attack you. sometimes these spells protect you, sometimes they don't, but the simple fact is you can stack on these forms of protection to decrease the odds of you getting killed. likewise with a shield spell. oh, what a piece of junk, they might never have rolled high enough to hit you anyways, might as well never take that. same with improved invisibility, foresight, heck, every spell in existence could get counterspelled, better not take any spell because they could theoretically do nothing in certain specific conditions and anything that isn't 100% guaranteed to be successful is now a trap.

misty step is a good spell because it can take you out of a dangerous situation sometimes. and no, i am not assuming you can just swap it out later (although even a wizard can swap it out of their prepared spells list, whether they find other level 2 spells in spellbooks, scrolls, etc or not; they'll still have 3 other level 2 spells to choose from for that slot). it is a spell worth keeping available at level 3 when you first get it, and it is worth considering for level 11, when you have really powerful options for your strongest spells, and it is even worth considering for your at-will level 2 spell option in some cases (not always, it will certainly depend on what you're facing).

these spells can buy you enough time to react more effectively to threats. no, you shouldn't be getting into situations where your life is threatening if you play perfectly all the time. and you shouldn't need a safety belt while driving if you don't get into an accident, but we all know you *should* wear them because sometimes mistakes happen and you get in a car crash, generally speaking without intending to have gotten into a car crash even. because we're not perfect beings. we make mistakes, and we have these safety devices to help protect us when those mistakes happen.

and the forest fires in california happen because california is basically perpetually in a drought. the whole place is a desert, and yet they grow a ton of stuff there by stealing water from... well, from pretty much anything they can get their grubby mitts on. you know how often you get forest fires that destroy tens of thousands of square miles of forest in wisconsin? hell, never mind wisconsin, when was the last time you heard of massive forest fires forcing thousands of people to evacuate in the states that literally border california?

so sure, if you're in a forest that is primed for a forest fire, everything is extremely dry, and you're basically surrounded by firewood and kindling... don't use burning hands. likewise if you're swimming in a reservoir of lamp oil. in most other cases, you should be fine.

CantigThimble

2017-01-16, 07:23 PM

Specter are you saying these are all bad options or that they aren't quite as good as they might first appear but (some of them at least) are good regardless?

RickAllison

2017-01-16, 07:39 PM

Monk level 2 - Step of the Wind (Shadow Monk level 6 gives teleport)
Rogue level 2 - Cunning Action

So you will be behind an entire spell level for your entire wizarding career. That means where others have Fireball, you have Shatter. When you have Fireball, they have moved to Greater Invisibility and Polymorph. You will not be as good a wizard as those who chose not to take the multiclass until level 19. So for the vast majority of campaigns, you will never be as good a wizard. This isn't to say that it's a bad decision, but it has a severe and tangible cost. For a sense of scale, a wizard who instead took Fighter 2 has medium/heavy armor (depending when you took it) and once per short rest gets to pull double duty on his big spells.

Outside of those two you have:

Storm Sorcerer 1 - As a bonus action, you gain the ability to move 10 ft as part of casting a spell. (No OA)

Great option as well. Doesn't put a cost on your spell slots, but it does delay your spells known. You also now have to put 13 into Charisma, which means your Dexterity and/or Constituon are going to be lower, making your defenses lower. In exchange for that, you get additional cantrips and some 1st-level spell that work off Charisma. Cool trade, but it is a trade.

Level 1 Wizard/Warlock/Sorcerer, Level 3 Eldritch Knight/Arcane Trickster, Level 6/10 Bard (Magical Secrets), Magic Initiate - Expeditious Retreat

Concentration cost over and above everything Misty Step costs you. It is also useful, but it loses many if the advantages of MS as well. Also restricted by somatic components, so it loses the emergency help.

Level 5 Wizard/Sorcerer/Gassland Druid, Level 6/10 Bard (Magical Secrets), Level 9 Vengeance Paladin, Level 13 Eldritch Knight/Arcane trickster - Haste

Again, costs concentration and is limited by components. Again, it is distinctly a trade, not a gain.

Spectre9000

2017-01-16, 07:45 PM

Specter are you saying these are all bad options or that they aren't quite as good as they might first appear but (some of them at least) are good regardless?

I am saying the latter. Some that appear good initially, aren't, but others simply have drawbacks you should be aware of that could seriously hurt you in specific situations.

CantigThimble

2017-01-16, 08:03 PM

Okay, makes sense. I think a lot of people are interpreting trap option in the 3.5 sense where it just means a terrible option that does nothing but trick people.

Sigreid

2017-01-16, 08:13 PM

Okay, makes sense. I think a lot of people are interpreting trap option in the 3.5 sense where it just means a terrible option that does nothing but trick people.

Well, I always took trap option in 3.5 to mean "Looks good now, but in a few levels you'll see how it's seriously kneecapped the potential of your character and all your friends will laugh at you.":smallbiggrin:

Jerrykhor

2017-01-16, 08:51 PM

Quite a few bold statements, especially on Mirror Image. I cant remember a Sorc/Warlock/Wizard guide that did not rate it less than sky blue.

Burning Hands is one that looks amazing for me as a Fiend lock, but its really not that good. Overall, I would say the spell is fine for its level, but still pretty underwhelming due to its short range. I never got to use it in combat, except for that one time against a Roper that caught me, I used it to burn away its tentacle. Other than that, the spell is pretty hard to use in general. You have to get near enemies to use it, and by the time you do that, your allies are already in the thick of it, so you risk hitting them too. Plus, there's always a chance of the DM going, 'You pissed the whole bunch of them off, now they are after you'.

Mellack

2017-01-16, 08:57 PM

I am saying the latter. Some that appear good initially, aren't, but others simply have drawbacks you should be aware of that could seriously hurt you in specific situations.

That is a very different definition of "trap" than what I understand. These are spells that are good, but not as good as a casual read might entail. That does not make them bad spells. It is much like calling a vorpal weapon a "trap." First glance you might think "hey, I get to kill anything I hit with a critical." But it doesn't work on things without heads. Or that are considered too big. Or that have legendary actions. It doesn't get to work with the expanded crit range or champions. Those make it not as good as first blush, but it is still one hell of a weapon. That is how many of these spells are. They might not be everything you hoped, but they are still pretty good.

georgie_leech

2017-01-16, 09:15 PM

Worth noting that an attack hitting an Image is okay. The point of the spell is to prevent you from getting hit. If an Image gets hit, you weren't.

Breashios

2017-01-16, 09:42 PM

I think the OP made a good topic for discussion, but as I come back this evening to read through I see a lot of posts that do not appear to be in that spirit. Of course I cannot tell if there was any purposeful misinterpretation of the OP regarding Mirror Image. All I can say is I believed the post was based on the correct usage of the spell and I somewhat agree with his analysis that it is not as good as it first appears.

Maybe the OP could have been more clear in explaining what was meant by “have significant nuances” which I believe he illustrated, even though I might disagree with some valuations. Misty Step is just a great spell. If you have a certain expectation for it that doesn’t work by the rules, then it might very well be a trap for you and this is the reason I believe this discussion could be valuable to a player thinking about it as an option.

What are some other spells that fit in this group and why? I'd welcome opinions that are backed up by explanations (whether I will agree or not).

Yaktan

2017-01-16, 09:49 PM

I think the important thing about mirror image is that it lets you trade an action before combat for three attacks in combat, a win for action economy.

On the other hand, casting it in combat is probably going to be bad for action economy because there are multiple enemies or they get lots of attacks or they just do aoe.

Mellack

2017-01-16, 10:00 PM

One of the strengths of Mirror Image is that the typical AoE will not drop them. They are only destroyed by attacks that target you, so a fireball or breath weapon will not remove them.

Gastronomie

2017-01-16, 10:24 PM

Using Mirror Image during combat is a bad move.

The right way is to cast it before combat, and in that case, I believe it's very much worth it.

Addaran

2017-01-16, 10:37 PM

Worth noting that an attack hitting an Image is okay. The point of the spell is to prevent you from getting hit. If an Image gets hit, you weren't.

Using an extreme example: An eldritch knight with a full plate and a shield, with only 8 dex.
Images AC: 9
EK's AC: 20

A lot of the attacks that do hit the images would have bounced harmlessly off the EK. There's a lot of diminishing return the higher your AC is (well depending on how you get it). Best case scenario to use it would be 20 dex and no mage armor for a wizard.

So if it's a good idea to use MI will depends on a few things. Do you have some round before the combat to cast it or will you waste one of your turn? How much survivability does it really add? How much do you need to conserve your resources? Would another 3rd lvl spell have ended the fight quicker, with less expended resources from the team?

EvilAnagram

2017-01-16, 10:43 PM

Using Mirror Image during combat is a bad move.

The right way is to cast it before combat, and in that case, I believe it's very much worth it.

Agreed. It's an excellent way to prepare for a fight with a big nasty, but in the thick of things it's usually better to give your buddies a boost.

Misty Step, however, is a fantastic spell. It always delivers for me, both as a DM and a player. The reason it's not tied to movement is that when your movement speed is reduced, it doesn't matter.

SharkForce

2017-01-16, 11:58 PM

Using an extreme example: An eldritch knight with a full plate and a shield, with only 8 dex.
Images AC: 9
EK's AC: 20

A lot of the attacks that do hit the images would have bounced harmlessly off the EK. There's a lot of diminishing return the higher your AC is (well depending on how you get it). Best case scenario to use it would be 20 dex and no mage armor for a wizard.

So if it's a good idea to use MI will depends on a few things. Do you have some round before the combat to cast it or will you waste one of your turn? How much survivability does it really add? How much do you need to conserve your resources? Would another 3rd lvl spell have ended the fight quicker, with less expended resources from the team?

1) "not for everybody" is not a trap.
2) "not usually for use in the middle of combat over other options" is also not a trap.
3) "not a perfect defense that can't be beaten" is also not a trap.

now, would i recommend an eldritch knight spend one of their very limited spells from other schools on this spell? no. there are better options for level 2 spells outside of abjuration and evocation that could be considered. spells like enlarge, or actually even misty step can be a decent one (since they have a good use for their action that isn't casting a spell). but again, "not for everybody" does not make it a trap option. if you had a 4 person party and every single one of them dipped a single level in rogue to get expertise in thieve's tools and, i dunno, nature, that would be pretty useless in the great majority of imaginable situations. that doesn't mean expertise in thieve's tools or nature is useless, it just means that in a party where that's already covered, you should maybe consider picking expertise in something else. like stealth, so that the entire party is competent at sneaking around extremely challenging encounters.

ShikomeKidoMi

2017-01-17, 05:55 AM

Perhaps we misinterpreted you. It appeared as though you were saying that any attack that would miss because of the illusions would always have missed anyways, which is not true.

I can see how you got that impressions since the OP says

If that attack roll was under your AC, it would have done nothing to you at all, in any way, shape, or form. That is from a basic, fundamental, understanding of D&D 5e. If that attack roll is enough to hit a duplicate, it disappears having done absolute nothing for you since the attack would not have hit you to begin with. If it misses the duplicate, then again, it does absolute nothing, as again, the attack would not have hit you to being with.
Which indicates the spell never does anything because all attacks that hit duplicates would have missed you anyway, which is flat out wrong. However, it is probably just a typo.

I am saying the latter. Some that appear good initially, aren't, but others simply have drawbacks you should be aware of that could seriously hurt you in specific situations.
Then you are misusing the word 'trap'.

Zalabim

2017-01-17, 08:11 AM

If an Image gets hit, you weren't.
Come on. Part of this whole discussion is that it's not so cut and dried as that.

The attack roll has three results, 1)hits you, 2)hits only your image, or 3)hits no one, and then the retarget roll has an independent result for A)targets you or B)targets an image. If 1B, that's good. If 2B, that's bad. Otherwise, no result. Since both the actual results depend on case B, the only thing needed to determine the value of mirror image is the ratio of 1 and 2.

For a Wizard with Mage Armor, with example AC 15 compared to an image's AC 12, an ogre with +6 to hit hits the wizard on a 9, or an image on a 6. There's a 60% chance to hit both, a 15% chance to hit only the image, and a 25% chance to hit neither. Of hits, 60/75 (80%) will be real hits and 15/75 (20%) will be image only hits. So the 3 hits absorbed by mirror image will likely represent 2.4 times you weren't hit.

For an EK in plate armor, with example AC 18 compared to an image's AC 10, an ogre with +6 to hit can hit the EK on a 12, or an image on a 4. There's a 45% chance to hit both, 40% chance to hit only the image, and 15% chance to hit neither. Of hits, 45/85 (52.9%) will be real hits and 40/85 (47.1%) will be image only hits. So the 3 hits absorbed by mirror image will likely represent 1.6 times you weren't hit.

If the above wizard casts Shield, suddenly mirror image looks a lot closer to the EK value. 35/75 (46.6%) real and 40/75 (53.3%) image. Now it absorbs about 1.4 hits. Just something to consider if you're level 18 and picking Shield and Mirror Image as your infinite use spells.
------------

TL;DR, Mirror Image is more effective when you're more likely to be hit, when your dexterity is higher, and when your AC is closer to 10+dex.

I can see how you got that impressions since the OP says

If that attack roll was under your AC, it would have done nothing to you at all, in any way, shape, or form. That is from a basic, fundamental, understanding of D&D 5e. If that attack roll is enough to hit a duplicate, it disappears having done absolute nothing for you since the attack would not have hit you to begin with. If it misses the duplicate, then again, it does absolute nothing, as again, the attack would not have hit you to being with.

Which indicates the spell never does anything because all attacks that hit duplicates would have missed you anyway, which is flat out wrong. However, it is probably just a typo.
I changed the emphasis to show the part you've ignored, yet quoted, as if you were in such a hurry to disagree with Spectre that you skipped reading comprehension to say so.

Then you are misusing the word 'trap'.
That may be so.

Addaran

2017-01-17, 09:25 AM

1) "not for everybody" is not a trap.
2) "not usually for use in the middle of combat over other options" is also not a trap.
3) "not a perfect defense that can't be beaten" is also not a trap.

Yeah, i don't think it's an always bad spell. My gish warlock have it, even if i have good AC.
Just wanted to clarify that a hit on an illusion is always a win. Sometime it wasn't necessary.

Mostly, the spell can be a bad pick in some situation that aren't super apparent at first. But it's often a good spell.

What would have made it a must-have (probably OP) is if you only checked if it hit you or an illusion after the attack connects with your AC.

Biggstick

2017-01-17, 02:05 PM

Getting back into the spirit of things, here are some of the Trap spells I've run into during my time playing.

Friends cantrip. So many players think this is going to be a useful spell that they can use all the time. This is a spell that's useful against a single entity, and only if that entity is non-hostile to you before you cast it (read, you can't use it on someone you're interrogating after combat, as they're still hostile towards you). Afterwards, they're going to be hostile towards you. Even with all of that going into it, the only think you get is advantage on Charisma checks! This doesn't force the enemy to tell you anything, just gives you a better chance on your Charisma checks! Most players seem to think this is an easy way to get information for free, when in reality it just makes the NPC dislike you for using magic on it.

Charm Person. Same as above. The only extra thing is that the humanoid you're casting it on considers you a friendly acquaintance. This doesn't get you as much as you'd think. Charm is much weaker in 5E compared to other editions, and most of the offenders I see regarding these two spells are 3.5 players who think Charm means you can tell the NPC to do whatever you want and they'll do it.

Suggestion. Most players who take this spell don't think tactfully and instead say things that simply just don't cut the cheese. There seems to be very little thought in how the Suggestions are worded most of the time, and because the wording is poor, the NPC's don't respond in the way the PC's think they should. A Suggestion has to be carefully worded to be effective, otherwise it's a trap spell for Players.

Find Traps. Although it says it right in the spell description, the range on this spell is only 120'. It's a second level spell that Players take to, guess what, find traps! If you're only finding traps within 120', I would feel like it's a waste of a second level spell.

Locate Creature. If you're in a huge forest and trying to find...a Unicorn. You're going to have to burn a 4th level slot, maintain concentration for an hour, and manage to come within 1000' of it within that hour. You gain no benefits in attempts to find the Unicorn until you're within 1000' of it! This is a huge waste, especially when you have spells like Arcane Eye available at this level.

Locate Object. Only a second level spell burnt here, but same as above.

There are plenty more, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

georgie_leech

2017-01-17, 02:11 PM

Find Traps. Although it says it right in the spell description, the range on this spell is only 120'. It's a second level spell that Players take to, guess what, find traps! If you're only finding traps within 120', I would feel like it's a waste of a second level spell.

When was the last time a trap more than 100 feet away from your party was relevant? :smallconfused:

Biggstick

2017-01-17, 02:14 PM

When was the last time a trap more than 100 feet away from your party was relevant? :smallconfused:

Caverns that are larger then 100'. This can easily be the case when traveling about to pop this spell at the entrance of the cavern, find no traps, and then walk up to the "prize." Trap goes off. At this point you as the Player realize the "prize" was further then 100' away from where you cast Find Traps.

SharkForce

2017-01-17, 02:24 PM

just out of curiosity, what exactly do you anticipate the normal range of detection for a creature or object to be?

because it is entirely possible that for most creatures, extending your range of detection to a 1000 foot radius results in you searching 4 times the radius, which is 16 times as much area, at a time. oh, and also it doesn't rely on perception checks, so it is entirely possible that it is worth more along the lines of 32 times as many people searching if there's about a 50/50 chance of failure on a perception check.

with objects, it's even more impactful. if you're looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack, your detection range is probably inches. even if you're looking for, say, the king's crown, if that crown is in any old regular bag, your detection range is, once again, inches, and you're going to have to move extremely slowly. locate object could easily cut the man-hours required to locate an object by a factor of several thousand.

with find traps, exactly how far away do you think you need to detect traps from? i mean, the spell has problems... it doesn't give you exact location (although you can potentially triangulate it to a fair degree of accuracy) and it doesn't work on naturally occuring hazards, which means you pretty much *still* need to look for traps, so i can't really argue that this spell is not (ironically enough) a trap spell, but it has nothing to do with the range. if it actually removed the need to have someone searching for traps, it would be a great spell even if it only had a 30 foot range.

Addaran

2017-01-17, 02:32 PM

SharkForce

2017-01-17, 02:45 PM

The problem with Find Traps is that it's instantaneous. You enter the dungeon and cast it near the first door. Then 2 rooms later, you'll need to recast it.... and so on.

With dungeons that are big like in PotA, it's costing you 6-7 slots, if you know what the map looks like or have great spatial awareness.

the problem with find traps is that it's a lot more like "get a vague sense that there is a trap somewhere in the area... maybe".

it doesn't find traps. if there is a trap 2 feet in front of you triggered by stepping on the floor tile and you're surrounded as far as the eye can see by floor tiles, find traps only tells you that there's a dangerous floor tile *somewhere* within 120 feet. meaning, you still need to find the trap. if someone poisoned a water supply, it doesn't tell you which one. you come across a water supply, you still need to test if it is poisonous before you know whether it's poisonous or not. if the water supply is just naturally poisonous becase a tree that is all kinds of poisonous (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchineel) is growing next to it and dumping all kinds of toxic crap in there, you don't get anything at all, so you don't even actually know that a water supply is not poisoned just because the spell didn't detect a trap in the water supply. if there was some species that just likes to drink poison water because it tastes good and doesn't harm them significantly (it's their equivalent of alcohol, for the sake of argument), the spell again does absolutely nothing, because they weren't poisoning the water to kill anyone else, they were poisoning the water so it would taste better.

in short, the range is not the problem. the problem is that the spell does not actually find traps, and it doesn't even give you a vague warning about traps that were not specifically intended as traps. it is absolutely a trap spell, but only because it either does absolutely nothing (you still need to check for traps) or because it gives you a false sense of security.

LudicSavant

2017-01-17, 03:07 PM

Locate Object. Only a second level spell burnt here, but same as above.

Not only can Locate Object drastically cut down the time searching for a very specific needle in a haystack (which can occasionally be gamechanging on its own), it can also just detect the presence of a more general type of thing coming within range of you ("Alternatively, the spell can locate the nearest object of a particular kind, such as a certain kind of apparel, jewelry, furniture, tool, or weapon"). So, for example, you can detect the nearest stormtrooper uniform within 1000 feet, no questions asked. You even know its exact location, speed, and direction of movement.

Stealth rolls and illusions and walls aren't going to stop you from knowing that X kind of object is within 1000 feet of you. I've seen this used to good effect to foil assassins, trailing targets undetectably for investigations (you can even plant the tracking object yourself), evade search parties or guard patrols, set up brutal ambushes (complete with a fully pre-buffed party and rigged-up terrain), and the like.

In one particular case, there was a campaign with two rival adventuring parties (at the time, they were level 6). One of the adventuring parties was highly optimized to get surprise, win initiative, and wipe the floor with basically anything in a round. Builds included things like "Deep Stalker Revised Ranger 3 / Assassin Rogue 3," (which often did over 100 damage before an enemy could act, had advantage on stealth and initiative, and couldn't be picked out by darkvision... at level 6).

The deadly alpha strike party set an ambush, and got TPKed by the rival PCs. Why? Because the rival PCs used Locate Object for something they knew everyone in the rival party had: A holy symbol of the deity they all worshiped. The ambush was completely foiled, and the users of Locate Object set up the entire field to their benefit before springing their trap, complete with stacked buffs from potions and the like. There was no question in anyone's minds that if it had not been for Locate Object, the other party would have been TPKed instead. There was also a fair deal of psychological impact to know that the emblem of their god was what caused their downfall.

Biggstick

2017-01-17, 03:48 PM

Not only can Locate Object drastically cut down the time searching for a very specific needle in a haystack (which can occasionally be gamechanging on its own), it also can also just detect the presence of a more general type of thing coming within range of you ("Alternatively, the spell can locate the nearest object of a particular kind, such as a certain kind of apparel, jewelry, furniture, tool, or weapon"). So, for example, you can detect the nearest stormtrooper uniform within 1000 feet, no questions asked. You even know its exact location, speed, and direction of movement.

Stealth rolls and illusions and walls aren't going to stop you from knowing that X kind of object is within 1000 feet of you. I've seen this used to good effect to foil assassins, trailing targets undetectably for investigations (you can even plant the tracking object yourself), evade search parties or guard patrols, set up brutal ambushes, and the like.

In one particular case, there was a campaign with two rival adventuring parties (at the time, they were level 6). One of the adventuring parties was highly optimized to get surprise, win initiative, and wipe the floor with basically anything in a round. Builds included things like "Deep Stalker Revised Ranger 3 / Assassin Rogue 3," (which often did over 100 damage before an enemy could act, had advantage on stealth and initiative, and couldn't be picked out by darkvision... at level 6).

The deadly alpha strike party set an ambush, and got TPKed by the rival PCs. Why? Because the rival PCs used Locate Object for something they knew everyone in the rival party had: A holy symbol of the deity they all worshiped. The ambush was completely foiled, and the users of Locate Object set up the entire field to their benefit before springing their trap, complete with stacked buffs from potions and the like. There was no question in anyone's minds that if it had not been for Locate Object, the other party would have been TPKed instead. There was also a fair deal of psychological impact to know that the emblem of their god was what caused their downfall.

That is quite the story there. Two rival parties with one party having an ideal ambush team while the other has set-up a solid defensive plan. The Rival PC's have tons of knowledge it seems like on the Alpha Strike party, such as tactics and equipment (read items), as well as a solid spell to find them. Let's pose this question then. How many times did the Rival PC's cast Locate Object? The spell only lasts for 10 minutes. For a party of level 6 PC's, and assuming only one player has the spell, that's 6 total castings of the spell (3 2nd level spells and 3 3rd level spells). That means for 1 hour they are able to "catch" the Alpha Strike party. It seems highly unlikely to me that the Alpha Strike party chooses to strike during this single hour of the day, but that's just me.

As for what you initially brought up, the spell doesn't tell you exactly where the object is. If it's hidden behind a secret door, all that you know is that it's behind a wall. If it's in a hidden compartment, you only know that the item is within the object in front of you. It doesn't give you the exacts that Locate Object actually should, it can only put you in front of the location that the object is supposed to be in.

LudicSavant

2017-01-17, 03:50 PM

Let's pose this question then. How many times did the Rival PC's cast Locate Object? The spell only lasts for 10 minutes.

In that particular session? Once. They both knew that the other party was in the dungeon, but not specifically where. The dungeon was fairly large, with about 13 notable encounters spread out over multiple floors and some pretty large rooms.

Edit: See also http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21609174&postcount=59

As for what you initially brought up, the spell doesn't tell you exactly where the object is.

True, it tells you the direction. Knowing speed, direction, and change in direction relative to your own movement, you can figure out the location, because geometry.

Temperjoke

2017-01-17, 04:01 PM

Willie the Duck

2017-01-17, 04:04 PM

Have you been to a forest? Do you imagine people walk through the wilds constantly picking up fallen trees/limbs/leaves/brush? How many times has California caught fire from a simple campfire?

California is notable because of how unusually flammable it has been as of late (because of drought, among other factors). Normally, in a natural draught-free forest, particularly a medieval one where there isn't an overabundance of flammable material because people have been not letting nature take its' course, general vegetation holds enough water in itself to effectively douse itself.

LudicSavant

2017-01-17, 04:13 PM

Let's pose this question then. How many times did the Rival PC's cast Locate Object? The spell only lasts for 10 minutes.

Adding to what I said before:

Don't forget that the spell also covers a very large area; a 1000-foot radius. To get an idea of how big that is, it's a sphere 400 5-foot squares of graph paper across. This is likely bigger than your dungeon.

http://i.imgur.com/fVEp2nQ.png

Again. They cast it only once.

Edit: I input the correct dimensions into Donjon, but apparently this circle is significantly smaller than that. This is the biggest circle Donjon would let me make, and it's not nearly as big as Locate Object's area! You could fit four of these colossal labyrinths inside of Locate Object!

ShikomeKidoMi

2017-01-17, 11:17 PM

I changed the emphasis to show the part you've ignored, yet quoted, as if you were in such a hurry to disagree with Spectre that you skipped reading comprehension to say so.

No, if I was in a hurry to disagree, I wouldn't have said it was probably just a typo. However, you have changed my mind and now I hold that it's probably a slightly poorly structured paragraph instead of a typo.

Charm Person. Same as above. The only extra thing is that the humanoid you're casting it on considers you a friendly acquaintance. This doesn't get you as much as you'd think. Charm is much weaker in 5E compared to other editions, and most of the offenders I see regarding these two spells are 3.5 players who think Charm means you can tell the NPC to do whatever you want and they'll do it.
To be fair, I think Charm wasn't supposed to get you that much in 3.5 either and a lot of people abused it out of proportion to its intended effects.

Sigreid

2017-01-17, 11:23 PM

To be fair, I think Charm wasn't supposed to get you that much in 3.5 either and a lot of people abused it out of proportion to its intended effects.

Not sure about 3.5 but in 1e the description specifically stated that while the target wouldn't die for you he might be convinced to hold off a red dragon for a round or two for you.

Telok

2017-01-18, 12:23 AM

Don't forget that the spell also covers a very large area; a 1000-foot radius. To get an idea of how big that is, it's a sphere 400 5-foot squares of graph paper across. This is likely bigger than your dungeon.

Well it depends on what scale you're dealing with and what you're trying to find. Essentially it's radius is about from one side of the Tower of London to the other and it finds the nearest instance of the object you search for. Which is great if you need the nearest whatever, it doesn't move between your casting and when you get there, and your search area is castle sized or smaller. If you're dealing with a larger area, mobile objects, or multiple objects scattered around, it's not quite as good. In that above example of finding people in a dungeon it would have been a failure if anyone else in the radius, closer to the caster, had worshipped that particular deity.

Cespenar

2017-01-18, 01:00 AM

It's a level 2, niche spell that can end an exploration encounter all by itself. What more do people want from it, I don't understand.

Sure, it's not Pass Without Trace level broken.

bid

2017-01-18, 01:03 AM

There's always an attack roll made by the attacker, and you roll a d20 and on a 6/8/11+ (depending on the number of duplicates you have left) that attack is directed at a duplicate. If that roll was under your AC, it wouldn't have hit you anyway, meaning your duplicate did absolutely nothing to benefit you. If that duplicate does get hit with an attack that wouldn't hit you, not only did it not benefit you, but it wasted that duplicate as it is now destroyed.
Wait, are you saying that you should be prescient and not use mirror image because you will roll 5 or less?

What if WotC had decided that you will be targetted on rolls of 16+, 14+ or 11+? Any roll between 9 and 15 would have hit you, suddenly mirror image would be the best with the same 3/4, 2/3, 1/2 chances of hitting images.

Your affirmation is a misunderstanding of basic statistics.

SharkForce

2017-01-18, 01:05 AM

Well it depends on what scale you're dealing with and what you're trying to find. Essentially it's radius is about from one side of the Tower of London to the other and it finds the nearest instance of the object you search for. Which is great if you need the nearest whatever, it doesn't move between your casting and when you get there, and your search area is castle sized or smaller. If you're dealing with a larger area, mobile objects, or multiple objects scattered around, it's not quite as good. In that above example of finding people in a dungeon it would have been a failure if anyone else in the radius, closer to the caster, had worshipped that particular deity.

the tower of london is a bit over 100 feet by 100 feet. this spell has a radius of 1,000 feet. which means that if you had 9 buildings the size of the tower of london on your left, and 9 more on your right, and 9 more in front of you, and 9 more behind you, you would be able to search all of them (plus any further similar structures that fit into the circle) without moving a muscle. if i'm not mistaken, you could actually scan over 200 tower of london sized structures in an instant (provided, of course, they're perfectly arranged, touching each other, in a circle-shaped area around you).

in addition, the spell gives you not just the location of the object, but direction and speed, so it also gives you the means to track the object whether the object is stationary or not, giving you not only updates on the current location but also the expected future location of the object.

furthermore, it allows you to move while searching, which means that the faster you move (or potentially if you can teleport, etc), the more area you can search.

and lastly, in addition to searching for a generic object (the holy symbol of a certain deity), you can also search for a specific object you've seen (for example, the holy symbol of a specific deity carried by a specific person).

it isn't the greatest spell around if you're currently being attacked by a horde of kobolds and you just want to kill or drive away as many as possible. but it does exactly what it says on the tin... this spell is an absolutely excellent way to massively enhance your ability to locate an object, whether you just want the nearest example of a general class of object ("i need a long sword") or whether you need a specific example ("i need to find my spellbook").

this spell will let you search small (by our standard) cities. except that when you're talking about the time periods most D&D games would be set in, you're probably looking more along the lines of being able to search a large portion of the area of a city in a single casting. no, really... if you wanted to search the entire area within the walls of ancient jerusalem, you could probably do so with a single casting of this spell, and still have some time left over.

if you had graph paper with each square being 1 cm on a side, and you decided your scale was 1 cm = 10 feet, and your dungeon floor plan was a circle, you would need over 60 standard 8.5" x 11" pages for a single floor to be able to draw out a dungeon that this spell would not reach the edges from the centre. with the same scale and making an entirely linear dungeon, you would need over 7 or 9 pages to create a dungeon where you can't search the edges from the center.

that is not a trap.

edit: to give another perspective on this...

in the classic Dr Seuss children's story "Horton Hears a Who", Horton the elephant searches 3 million clovers before finding the one with his speck on it. if we presume roughly 1 square inch per clover, Horton could have simultaneously checked 452,160,000 clovers with a single casting of this spell (instantly - as in, he wouldn't have had to budge an inch).

in short, in the D&D version if Horton is a level 3 wizard, "Horton Hears a Who" has Horton sleep for 8 hours, wake up, prepare the spell, walk up to the edge of the clover patch, casts the spell once, checks a little over 226 million clovers instantly (he has to check a half circle since he doesn't want to risk crushing the Whos), finds his clover, and then walks straight to it. it should take him less than 2 minutes, and quite possibly less than 1 minute.

ApplePen

2017-01-18, 01:41 AM

That is a very different definition of "trap" than what I understand. These are spells that are good, but not as good as a casual read might entail. That does not make them bad spells. It is much like calling a vorpal weapon a "trap." First glance you might think "hey, I get to kill anything I hit with a critical." But it doesn't work on things without heads. Or that are considered too big. Or that have legendary actions. It doesn't get to work with the expanded crit range or champions. Those make it not as good as first blush, but it is still one hell of a weapon. That is how many of these spells are. They might not be everything you hoped, but they are still pretty good.

Word of Dev is those bonus d8s you roll in case of the monster being legendary/not having a head/etc are doubled by the crit.

You still kill the hell out of most things. Not a lot of monsters can take your normal crit damage plus 12d8 (which cannot be resisted) and the ones who can would be treating it as a death knell.
Vorpal still kicks ass.

LudicSavant

2017-01-18, 01:48 AM

Essentially it's radius is about from one side of the Tower of London to the other

The entirety of the city of London is roughly 1.12 square miles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London). Locate Object covers roughly a tenth (https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1.12+square+miles+divided+by+(pi*1000%5E2)+squa re+feet) of the area of the City of London. Plus potentially quite a lot more, if you're moving for all of those ten minutes.

your search area is castle sized or smaller.

:smallconfused:

Locate Object covers well over 3 million square feet (pi*1000^2). Edinburgh Castle is one of the largest castles in the world. You could fit over half a dozen Edinburgh Castles inside of your search area.

http://i.imgur.com/fVEp2nQ.png

You see this? This is the biggest circle Donjon would let me make with custom settings, and it's not nearly as big as Locate Object's area! This colossal labyrinth is only about 25% of the area that Locate Object covers.

Anyone know a random dungeon generator capable of creating a proper sense of scale here? :smalltongue:

EDL

2017-01-18, 04:30 AM

Friends cantrip. So many players think this is going to be a useful spell that they can use all the time. This is a spell that's useful against a single entity, and only if that entity is non-hostile to you before you cast it (read, you can't use it on someone you're interrogating after combat, as they're still hostile towards you). Afterwards, they're going to be hostile towards you. Even with all of that going into it, the only think you get is advantage on Charisma checks! This doesn't force the enemy to tell you anything, just gives you a better chance on your Charisma checks! Most players seem to think this is an easy way to get information for free, when in reality it just makes the NPC dislike you for using magic on it.

IMO Friends is still pretty useful cantrip.
1. It can be used on someone you are going to fight/kill anyway just to get some advantage or information. Persuading the lonely guard to let you in into some bandits hideout and silently killing him afterwards is more effective then just breaking the door triggering the alarm. Or persuading your target to go with you to that far room alone, leaving all his guards behind. And so on.
2. It can be combined with simple Disguise self spell, disguise kit or any other way to change your appearance. You can talk out whatever you want and the NPC will hate someone else instead of you.

ApplePen

2017-01-18, 04:36 AM

Back in Magic the gathering there used to be a card called Donate.
Used in conjunction with doom thyself cards, it could make ****ty cards good.

That's Friends/Disguise Self in a nutshell.

It's insanely good for making a bunch of people all hate someone in particular, then going back and whipping up an angry mob.

Aside from that though, Friends sucks don't take it. Wait for detect thoughts.

Maxilian

2017-01-18, 09:13 AM

Friends is not good for the goody silver tongue character, is mostly good for those that want to play around with Intimidation (more than any of the other options) as Intimidation, may make the target hostile already, so Friends is quite usefull.

Telok

2017-01-18, 01:32 PM

the tower of london is a bit over 100 feet by 100 feet.

The entirety of the city of London is roughly 1.12 square miles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London).

Ok, you're both misunderstanding.

The Tower of London is the whole castle, SharkForce is referencing the White Tower which, not including the corner towers, is 118 by 105 ft. The castle itself is about 820 x 980 ft. And the "City of London" referenced is literally the financial district in central London. Not, you know, the actual city.

So yeah, like I said, within a castle or dungeon and if the closest instance of an object is good enough then it's a good spell.

MadBear

2017-01-18, 01:42 PM

I'll say for myself, I found misty step really useful as a Paladin. Dragon's on the ceiling out of reach of my awesome greatsword, misty step and hit him with a melee attack.

Then again, the main drawback against not being able to use a non-cantrip spell is moot when I can make 2 attacks using my main weapon (and can add smite to it if need be).

LudicSavant

2017-01-18, 02:19 PM

Ok, you're both misunderstanding.

...

And the "City of London" referenced is literally the financial district in central London. Not, you know, the actual city.

The City of London refers to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London. There was no misunderstanding, except perhaps on your part. I even provided this link earlier to clarify that I was referring to the proverbial Square Mile.

The Tower of London is the whole castle, SharkForce is referencing the White Tower which, not including the corner towers, is 118 by 105 ft. The castle itself is about 820 x 980 ft.

First of all, 820x980 is only 803,600 square feet. Locate Object is well over 3 million square feet, if you never move.

Second of all, Wikipedia is saying that the castle is 12 acres, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_London) which is only 522,720 square feet.

Both figures are a mere fraction of Locate Object's area. You seem to be ignoring the math here when you say that your search area is "castle sized or smaller."

The statement becomes even more wildly inaccurate when you factor in the caster's movement. If you're moving, your area is considerably larger than 3,141,592 square feet. It depends on your movement speed. 10 feet per second is a pretty modest jogging speed (Yeah, 60 feet per round is the fastest that the average D&D character can go, but that's because characters in 5th edition forgot how to "Run" since last edition somehow. An Olympic sprinter speed would be more like 245 feet per second).

Anyways! If you're moving 10 feet per second straight off in some random direction for 10 minutes, you cover 15,141,592 square feet. Almost 5 times the area of if you were standing still.

RickAllison

2017-01-18, 02:29 PM

The City of London refers to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London. There was no misunderstanding.

820x980 is only 803,600 square feet. Locate Object is well over 3 million square feet.

Square footage doesn't matter, what matters is distance, which is a 1000 foot radius. That means that you could look over more than four Towers of London with that spell. So it is a hefty chunk of change, significant enough that a caster with a few more levels could canvas most areas they would ever encounter with ease, but not foolproof. Also remember to account for elevation. If you have a tall tower in the range, you would want to ensure your radius would reach the top of the tower (so the entire thing is reached) rather than just the base.

LudicSavant

2017-01-18, 02:41 PM

Square footage doesn't matter
:smallconfused: Obviously the amount of area searched matters for a spell whose primary purpose is to search for things. The fact that you are searching a sphere rather than a straight line matters in a wide variety of situations.

In any case, the point remains: Locate Object searches a far greater area than Telok is claiming.

SharkForce

2017-01-18, 02:42 PM

Square footage doesn't matter, what matters is distance, which is a 1000 foot radius. That means that you could look over more than four Towers of London with that spell. So it is a hefty chunk of change, significant enough that a caster with a few more levels could canvas most areas they would ever encounter with ease, but not foolproof. Also remember to account for elevation. If you have a tall tower in the range, you would want to ensure your radius would reach the top of the tower (so the entire thing is reached) rather than just the base.

the point remains. locate object could search far more than he's claiming. the AoE is sufficient to search entire cities if you move around a bit, provided we're talking about ancient cities rather than modern cities that have multiple millions of people.

RickAllison

2017-01-18, 03:01 PM

the point remains. locate object could search far more than he's claiming. the AoE is sufficient to search entire cities if you move around a bit, provided we're talking about ancient cities rather than modern cities that have multiple millions of people.

Oh absolutely, and if you re-read my post you will notice that I agreed that it was an incredible tool and quite capable of searching any relevant area. I was just clarifying that it is rather pointless to talk about square footage when in terms of actual use the distance is what is relevant. In a community focused on a main thoroughfare and so built along its length, 3 million square feet would not be able to be scanned with one casting of Locate Object. Same for a multi-tiered city. It is a tool in the caster's utility belt and like any tool, it is important that we remember exactly how to use it and its limitations. Just as I would critique someone using a sledgehammer to shape a metal object based on the sledge being sufficiently tough rather than something like a ball-peen, so too am I critiquing the use of square footage as a metric when such a metric is not relevant to the use of the spell.

Doug Lampert

2017-01-18, 03:04 PM

No, if I was in a hurry to disagree, I wouldn't have said it was probably just a typo. However, you have changed my mind and now I hold that it's probably a slightly poorly structured paragraph instead of a typo.

To be fair, I think Charm wasn't supposed to get you that much in 3.5 either and a lot of people abused it out of proportion to its intended effects.3.x Charm Person made the target friendly, the suggested things it could get someone to do were entirely in line with what friendly was defined as in the diplomacy section of the rules (aka, less than what you got for helpful). Which means that a diplomancer got a better effect with no save and no SR that would work on gods; and he got it as an at will power.

Charm Person and the Detect Law/Chaos/Good/Evil spells were spells where an enormous number of people playing 3.x ignored the text of the spell completely, you could show them the text in an argument, and they'd still insist that the spells did things without any argument or justification based on what the spell says it does.

SharkForce

2017-01-18, 03:15 PM

LudicSavant

2017-01-18, 03:47 PM

I was just clarifying that it is rather pointless to talk about square footage when in terms of actual use the distance is what is relevant. Square footage is relevant for establishing the dimensions of the area you can sift through with your search, particularly when factoring in caster movement.

The area of your search is not a fixed 1000-foot-radius circle. It is a shape established by your movement.

In a community focused on a main thoroughfare and so built along its length, 3 million square feet would not be able to be scanned with one casting of Locate Object.
As Shark already pointed out, it's actually pretty great for this situation.

It is a tool in the caster's utility belt and like any tool, it is important that we remember exactly how to use it and its limitations.
Nobody is forgetting the limitations by saying "it is not a useless trap spell," Rick.

Biggstick

2017-01-18, 04:07 PM

Regardless of how far the spell Locate Object actually searches, you only have 10 minutes that the spell is active. I'm not sure how quickly you're moving through dungeons in your games, but the "in-game" time is usually longer then 10 minutes for me.

Let's enter a dungeon and pop Locate Object. We're here to recover the ancient holy macguffin to save the world. Ok with Locate Object on, we know the macguffin is forward a bit to the right. That's good, as we only see two passageways, and one of those passageways is to the right. This entrance and judging of the area has taken about a minute. As we enter the passageway, we engage in combat.

Combat lasts for 12-30 seconds, depending on what's in front of us and how we as Players deal with the situation. After combat, PC's may or may not loot. PC's may or may not heal themselves. This will probably take at least another 30 seconds. We've burned about two minutes and are barely into the first passageway.

This doesn't include any time that a party might spend doing a plethora of other things that would be useful to the party making it's way through the dungeon. My point is that, as you've pointed out Ludic, the spell covers a large area. What's unrealistic is your ability to get to the object you're actually trying to locate within 10 minutes. The situation has to be perfectly set-up for you to actually reach the object you're locating within 10 minutes (while also not losing concentration, which might be a challenge if you're engaging in combat along the way). And if you don't get to the actual object before the 10 minute period has passed, what then? The spell doesn't actually tell you how far you are from the object, just the direction it's in.

I stand by my statement of the spell Locate Objects being a trap. It seems good at first, until you actually play in a game that presents any sort of disruption (read: delay) to your Locating of said Object.

LudicSavant

2017-01-18, 04:11 PM

Combat lasts for 12-30 seconds, depending on what's in front of us and how we as Players deal with the situation. After combat, PC's may or may not loot. PC's may or may not heal themselves. This will probably take at least another 30 seconds. We've burned about two minutes and are barely into the first passageway.

So, according to your own figures, you take roughly 2 minutes for an encounter. Ergo, you get through roughly 5 encounters in 10 minutes. A full adventuring day has about 6 encounters according to DMG guidelines.

Worst case scenario, you can recast the spell to find the all-important MacGuffin that, according to you, saves the world.

Let's enter a dungeon and pop Locate Object. We're here to recover the ancient holy macguffin to save the world. Ok with Locate Object on, we know the macguffin is forward a bit to the right.

If the MacGuffin is locked in a dungeon and not moving, then Locate Object has already accomplished its primary goal, and the extra duration is just icing. Within a couple of rounds I have determined the position of the MacGuffin utilizing a basic understanding of geometry (since I can derive position using direction and speed relative to multiple reference points, and I can create multiple reference points by moving). I can then navigate to that location utilizing any means available to me, including simply bypassing many dungeons utilizing transportation spells or digging.

The situation has to be perfectly set-up for you to actually reach the object you're locating within 10 minutes Because...?

The spell doesn't actually tell you how far you are from the object, just the direction it's in. It actually does tell you how far away you are, since that information can be derived from other information the spell provides you.

clem

2017-01-18, 04:38 PM

with find traps, exactly how far away do you think you need to detect traps from? i mean, the spell has problems... it doesn't give you exact location (although you can potentially triangulate it to a fair degree of accuracy) and it doesn't work on naturally occuring hazards, which means you pretty much *still* need to look for traps, so i can't really argue that this spell is not (ironically enough) a trap spell, but it has nothing to do with the range. if it actually removed the need to have someone searching for traps, it would be a great spell even if it only had a 30 foot range.

I think this was done intentionally by the designers so that spellcasters didn't end up making rogues obsolete with a 2nd-level spell. Similar to how the knock spell now creates a booming noise that notifies every nearby creature of the party's whereabouts.

Now you could argue that they went a little overboard in neutering find traps, but it was never supposed to be as good as having a skill-monkey in your ranks.

LudicSavant

2017-01-18, 05:10 PM

Find Traps seems rather... limited.

FIND TRAPS
2nd-level divination
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 120 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous

You sense the presence of any trap within range that is within line of sight. A trap, for the purpose of this spell, includes anything that would inflict a sudden or unexpected effect you consider harmful or undesirable, which was specfically intended as such by its creator. Thus, the spell would sense an area affected by the alarm spell, a glyph of warding, or a mechanical pit trap, but it would not reveal a natural weakness in the floor, an unstable ceiling, or a hidden sinkhole. This spell merely reveals that a trap is present. You don't learn the location of each trap, but you do learn the general nature of the danger posed by a trap you sense.

As far as range goes, 120 feet isn't so bad on its own. However, "within line of sight" is a huge limiter; after all, deathtrap-filled mazes tend to be rather limiting to your line of sight. Additionally, it does not reveal the location of traps... only that traps are present. You probably already had a rough idea that traps were present, because you cast this spell while within 120 feet and within line of sight of the trap.

So, the main upshot of what is being divined here is A) Confirming your suspicion that the trap-filled hall is indeed a trap-filled hall and B) the "general nature of the danger posed by the trap you sense."

Within line of sight seems a bit fiddly. Traps are by their nature typically concealed. Can you detect that a trap will activate when you open a door, if the trap is, say, a loaded crossbow bolt firing from behind the door when you open it? It seems like there's some room for DM rulings to curb the spell's functionality even further. Combine this with the "specifically intended by their creator to be harmful" line and there's a good deal of leeway for this spell to give you a false sense of safety, depending on the DM.

Likewise, how much information is conveyed by "the general nature of the danger posed by the trap" is going to be pretty DM dependent as well. The amount of detail provided will impact the usefulness of the spell.

Altogether, it seems like there is a lot of room for the DM to screw you over for taking this spell, thus making it a trap. However, with a descriptive DM who would let you see door traps and the like, it could be situationally useful.

I am curious what others have found to be the best-case uses of this spell. It is almost certainly quite situational. It seems like it might be worth preparing if you know that you will be going to a chamber which you know is going to be heavily trapped... such as, say, a d'Kundarak vault. Such a situation is the only time I saw anyone preparing the spell in any campaign.

SharkForce

2017-01-18, 06:48 PM

I think this was done intentionally by the designers so that spellcasters didn't end up making rogues obsolete with a 2nd-level spell. Similar to how the knock spell now creates a booming noise that notifies every nearby creature of the party's whereabouts.

Now you could argue that they went a little overboard in neutering find traps, but it was never supposed to be as good as having a skill-monkey in your ranks.

i can respect that they didn't want to step on the rogue's toes.

but there were plenty of other spells that didn't make the conversion. spells that i would have *really* liked to see make the conversion didn't make it. why bother converting this spell if it neither replaces nor supplements a skill-monkey (who would still be required to disarm the trap), and furthermore can create a false sense of security leading you to make bad choices.

so, if you're gonna make the spell that bad... just don't convert it. you can always decide to come back and convert it later if you really want to, like for example in the event that you should get a better idea of how to convert this spell without stealing anyone's thunder.

Jerrykhor

2017-01-18, 10:46 PM

So the Find Trap spell is a trap spell? Who would've thought...

Potato_Priest

2017-01-18, 10:47 PM

So the Find Trap spell is a trap spell? Who would've thought...

To bad you can't cast it before you choose it, eh?

LudicSavant

2017-01-18, 11:06 PM

To bad you can't cast it before you choose it, eh?

It wouldn't have mattered, since the Find Trap spell was not specifically intended by its designer to be a trap, and thus could not be detected... even if you were within 120 feet and looking directly at the page it was printed on.

Alas, it cannot even detect itself.

Cespenar

2017-01-19, 07:07 AM

Should have made it Trap Sight, can see traps through walls, but only works against magical traps.

Zorku

2017-01-20, 01:20 PM

Oh absolutely, and if you re-read my post you will notice that I agreed that it was an incredible tool and quite capable of searching any relevant area. I was just clarifying that it is rather pointless to talk about square footage when in terms of actual use the distance is what is relevant. In a community focused on a main thoroughfare and so built along its length, 3 million square feet would not be able to be scanned with one casting of Locate Object. Same for a multi-tiered city. It is a tool in the caster's utility belt and like any tool, it is important that we remember exactly how to use it and its limitations. Just as I would critique someone using a sledgehammer to shape a metal object based on the sledge being sufficiently tough rather than something like a ball-peen, so too am I critiquing the use of square footage as a metric when such a metric is not relevant to the use of the spell.If your thoroughfare is about 10 times as long as it is wide (which seems like kind of an extreme ratio,) then at about a population of 40k you're getting full coverage of the width of the city (If you wanna walk down main street then about a third of your area is cast over the water.) If your thoroughfare is on the smaller side of things with like a 10k pop (which makes the 10 time as long as wide ratio make a little more sense,) then you're going to come pretty close to searching the entire thing with one spell slot.

I'm not really seeing the problem here. Are you warning people that dividing the city's footprint by 3 mil won't get you a perfectly accurate answer? I'd just assume we can handle basic geometry well enough to know that...

The thoroughfare situation seems like it actually makes the spell stronger though, because with such a wide street you can hop on a horse and cover way more ground during your ten minute concentration.

The spell doesn't actually tell you how far you are from the object, just the direction it's in. You don't seem to know about triangulation, but any school learned magic caster probably would.

Let's assume that the first room in the dungeon is a modest 20 feet by 20 feet. You go to one corner and the spell tells you the direction to the object- let's say, almost straight back into the dungeon, but just a few degrees off from being a straight line. You walk to the opposite corner (almost 30 feet diagonal,) and you note the direction locate object is telling you now. If it's still almost straight into the dungeon but it's a few degrees in the other direction, then you can just guess that it's dead center, and ground level. Your wizard type is probably not going to do trigonometry equations in the dungeon (or maybe they will, depends on your setting I guess,) but they know that if the line barely moved that it's pretty deep into the dungeon, but if it moved by like, 10 degrees or so, then it's around 140 feet away.

It's worse though, because they don't have just two points to reference, they're getting continuous updates on relative direction for up to ten minutes. Anybody familiar with that is going to do what half of the pokemon go players were doing on release, but without even having to visualize intersecting circles or guess directions or stare down at a smart phone while you walk into traffic. This is really almost as good as seeing the object after you get used to it. Even if we assume that everyone had much worse spacial sense and visualization skills in those days, the Greeks still figured all of this out on paper where it wasn't even this continuous sensory feedback to them.

And just so you get a sense of how I use this particular hammer on every nail I can find, from Minecraft to weird little JRPG dungeon crawls, there are a lot of games that like to show you some crappy momentary compass arrow or otherwise tell you "here's a line that points at your goal" every once in awhile (not quite as common as hot or cold mini-mechanics, but close,) so I was really familiar with doing this in my head WAY before POGO hit the app store, and if it's a slow enough game that makes it expensive to get these measurements then I'll break out some scratch paper and actually solve for the intersection so I know exactly how far I have to go instead of eyeballing it with three to six reference lines (or way fewer if I can siphon more info than just the direction out of what's being presented to me.)

Just like you recognize that mountains don't visually move very much as you go down a road but nearby trees move a lot, anybody with a 12+ int is gonna recognize how to do this real dang quick once they've cast the spell.

RickAllison

2017-01-20, 01:26 PM

I'm not really seeing the problem here. Are you warning people that dividing the city's footprint by 3 mil won't get you a perfectly accurate answer? I'd just assume we can handle basic geometry well enough to know that...

This is the Internet. Everyone being proficient in basic geometry is NOT a safe assumption to make :smallwink:. I do recognize how amazing the spell is, which is why my characters who know of these try and carry solutions for all the spells. Sheets of lead, crossing rivers, etc.

SharkForce

2017-01-20, 01:50 PM

LudicSavant

2017-01-20, 02:02 PM

Here is a hopefully intuitive illustration of why Locate Object gives you the distance and position of an object, for those internet denizens who are not aware of rudimentary geometry:

http://i.imgur.com/a84KwLn.png

Since you know two angles, you can of course solve for all lengths and angles of the triangle.

*snip*

Your quote attribution is incorrect.

Please correct your post to indicate that you are quoting Biggstick, from post #81, rather than me. :smallannoyed:

Temperjoke

2017-01-20, 02:16 PM

I feel this discussion has gotten on a tangent.

You know I feel is actually a trap spell?

Witch Bolt. It sounds cool, it sounds like an unnatural spell that's fitting for a warlock or some other dark caster. But no! It's got so much baggage that you trip over it, when you wake up next to it the next morning and realize what you've done, and swear to get back on the wagon for the third time this month...

<ahem>

I mean, with requiring concentration, with requiring your action (otherwise it ends), and requiring that the target (who has a rather obvious arc of energy tying him to you) doesn't immediately seek total cover, this spell is a trap to take if I ever saw one.

Toadkiller

2017-01-20, 04:21 PM

Regarding the original post: it is almost like they wanted there to be counters and limits to most any single tactic. Like it's supposed to be some sort of give and take team game or something. Why we can't have low level spells that solve all problems with just one casting I just don't know.

It took us a whole evening last week to go through just part of an adventure. If I had just been able cast one spell per obstacle we would have been able to finish the whole campaign! In fact, since I'm playing a wizard none of the other players would have even needed to do anything. Thanks Wizards of the Coast.

ShikomeKidoMi

2017-01-20, 04:35 PM

You know I feel is actually a trap spell?
Witch Bolt. It sounds cool, it sounds like an unnatural spell that's fitting for a warlock or some other dark caster. But no! It's got so much baggage that you trip over it, when you wake up next to it the next morning and realize what you've done, and swear to get back on the wagon for the third time this month...
I mean, with requiring concentration, with requiring your action (otherwise it ends), and requiring that the target (who has a rather obvious arc of energy tying him to you) doesn't immediately seek total cover, this spell is a trap to take if I ever saw one.

You know, you're not wrong. The worst part is probably that it's a Warlock spell. Specifically, it's a Warlock spell that you can take at the same time as Hex. While it's true that Witchbolt hits automatically in subsequent rounds if the first attack hits, if the first attack misses the spell is wasted. Hex just works automatically. While Hex technically doesn't deal damage on its own, casting Eldritch Blast doesn't use up any of your precious spell slots. At first level 1d6+1d10 beats 1d12. And Eldritch Blast + Hex is going to notably out damage Witch Bolt if you have the invocation that lets you add charisma to damage. Witch Bolt scales decently so at high levels it does 5d12 damage for warlocks, but at high levels Eldritch Blast+Agonizing Blast+Hex does up to 4d10+4d6+20. Even if you miss with half your attacks, you'll do almost as much damage as Witch Bolt. And since Hex can switch targets, you'll use less spells to do so to multiple enemies. Oh and Force damage is much less commonly resisted than lightning.

The sad thing is it's not actually that bad for a first level spell. If it belonged to some other class that doesn't have those abilities, like say Bard, it might be a decent spell, but I can't see a reason for a Warlock to ever take it, unless they know they will be fighting lots of Lightning vulnerable enemies. Maybe if you're a low Charisma Warlock? That would make your Eldritch Blast less competitive and the decreased accuracy might make Witchbolt's ability to hit continuously if you can pull off the first attack more attractive.

Willie the Duck

2017-01-20, 05:19 PM

I feel this discussion has gotten on a tangent.

Trying to decide if that was deliberate.

Temperjoke

2017-01-20, 05:30 PM

Trying to decide if that was deliberate.

Don't give me that much credit.

MeeposFire

2017-01-20, 05:47 PM

Don't give me that much credit.

I take that as a sine that it was not on purpose?

Temperjoke

2017-01-20, 05:53 PM

I take that as a sine that it was not on purpose?

...turn in your character sheet, your character was hit by a meteor in a clear, blue sky, and killed instantly.

MeeposFire

2017-01-20, 05:56 PM

...turn in your character sheet, your character was hit by a meteor in a clear, blue sky, and killed instantly.

Whoops I guess it was a bad time to decide to cosine on that loan with the other guys in the party.

Temperjoke

2017-01-20, 06:09 PM

Whoops I guess it was a bad time to decide to cosine on that loan with the other guys in the party.

...your next character has disadvantage on the next three rolls.

Rysto

2017-01-20, 07:06 PM

...your next character has disadvantage on the next three rolls.

Are those rolls saves against "rocks fall, your character dies"?

Temperjoke

2017-01-20, 07:25 PM

Are those rolls saves against "rocks fall, your character dies"?

No, any roll.

SharkForce

2017-01-20, 10:03 PM

You know, you're not wrong. The worst part is probably that it's a Warlock spell. Specifically, it's a Warlock spell that you can take at the same time as Hex. While it's true that Witchbolt hits automatically in subsequent rounds if the first attack hits, if the first attack misses the spell is wasted. Hex just works automatically. While Hex technically doesn't deal damage on its own, casting Eldritch Blast doesn't use up any of your precious spell slots. At first level 1d6+1d10 beats 1d12. And Eldritch Blast + Hex is going to notably out damage Witch Bolt if you have the invocation that lets you add charisma to damage. Witch Bolt scales decently so at high levels it does 5d12 damage for warlocks, but at high levels Eldritch Blast+Agonizing Blast+Hex does up to 4d10+4d6+20. Even if you miss with half your attacks, you'll do almost as much damage as Witch Bolt. And since Hex can switch targets, you'll use less spells to do so to multiple enemies. Oh and Force damage is much less commonly resisted than lightning.

The sad thing is it's not actually that bad for a first level spell. If it belonged to some other class that doesn't have those abilities, like say Bard, it might be a decent spell, but I can't see a reason for a Warlock to ever take it, unless they know they will be fighting lots of Lightning vulnerable enemies. Maybe if you're a low Charisma Warlock? That would make your Eldritch Blast less competitive and the decreased accuracy might make Witchbolt's ability to hit continuously if you can pull off the first attack more attractive.

no, witch bolt is a pretty bad spell for anyone. it might look comparatively tempting for a bard, because bards don't natively have much in the way of damage, and while it isn't good damage you certainly can't argue that it isn't damage, but...

with all the limiting factors, witch bolt starts off mediocre at best and fairly rapidly decends to being worse than just about anything else you could possibly have imagined doing with your action.

JoeJ

2017-01-20, 11:28 PM

Since you know two angles, you can of course solve for all lengths and angles of the triangle.

You can, with the caveat that it's a bit less accurate when you're guestimating the angles instead of measuring them.

Sigreid

2017-01-20, 11:53 PM

The real trap spell is glyph of warding!

I'm almost sorry, but I can't believe this thread got this far without someone making that lame joke.

Zorku

2017-01-24, 06:18 PM

This is the Internet. Everyone being proficient in basic geometry is NOT a safe assumption to make :smallwink:. I do recognize how amazing the spell is, which is why my characters who know of these try and carry solutions for all the spells. Sheets of lead, crossing rivers, etc.

Not everyone, but adventurers? Surely your typical adventuring party has at least one member that has used or heard of a compass before (maybe not for especially early dark ages settings, but those don't have proper ships or things like rapiers either.) It takes some actual training to draw an accurate enough line when the needle is only shifting by fractions of a degree, but if your relative position to the magnetic North pole was shifting by 30 degrees anyone with 10 int could figure out roughly how far away they were from it, much less the 16-20 int you're gonna see on a wizard.

Also, you seem to be using proficiency to indicate training, where in 5th it's more for things that you've got natural aptitude for. That's why none of the official published material locks people out of making checks they're not proficient in.

I feel this discussion has gotten on a tangent.

You know I feel is actually a trap spell?

Witch Bolt. It sounds cool, it sounds like an unnatural spell that's fitting for a warlock or some other dark caster. But no! It's got so much baggage that you trip over it, when you wake up next to it the next morning and realize what you've done, and swear to get back on the wagon for the third time this month...

<ahem>

I mean, with requiring concentration, with requiring your action (otherwise it ends), and requiring that the target (who has a rather obvious arc of energy tying him to you) doesn't immediately seek total cover, this spell is a trap to take if I ever saw one.
Yeah, it really needs some kind of condition rider if it's going to take concentration and your action each round. Something like "At the start of target's turn it must make a str save of have its movement reduce to 0 for this round," would at least give the spell a chance of lasting.

The way it is by default is worse than you've made it sound though. Things don't need to seek total cover (though that's a good fallback motivation for creatures that don't know about the spell,) when they can simply scoot more than 30 feet away. Since this is a ranged spell attack it probably wasn't cast at point blank, so most of the time creatures can take just a step or two away then move back to where they were.

If the sustained damage grew with spell slots (3d12 is probably a bit much for a level 5 Warlock, so maybe every 2 levels? That would give the 5th level gai 2d12 and a 9th level gai 3d12... which seems ok off the top of my head...) then maybe I could take that spell seriously, but even then it still seems bad.

RickAllison

2017-01-24, 07:14 PM

Zorku, the quote from me wasn't referring to PCs, it was referring to actual denizens of the Internet :smallbiggrin:

SharkForce

2017-01-24, 10:31 PM

got another one: identify.

total trap spell. any random schmuck can identify an item over the course of a short rest without needing a spell. and the other functions are pretty dubious at best, imo.

CantigThimble

2017-01-24, 10:49 PM

got another one: identify.

total trap spell. any random schmuck can identify an item over the course of a short rest without needing a spell. and the other functions are pretty dubious at best, imo.

How do you get the command word for a flame tongue without identify?

Edit: Well, I found the rule regarding that and yeah, that would make identify a trap spell. It is also now on the list of rules I will never in a million years use.

EvilAnagram

2017-01-24, 10:58 PM

If you think Identify is a trap, you have not run into enough cursed items.

SharkForce

2017-01-24, 11:36 PM

If you think Identify is a trap, you have not run into enough cursed items.

1) you don't need to attune to an item to identify it. usually attunement is needed for the curse to activate, as a key part of the curse is that you can't de-attune the item (otherwise you'd be able to just stop using the item, and so much for the curse).
2) the section on cursed items specifically calls out the fact that identify will not, in fact, let you know if the item is cursed. i kid you not, page 139 of the DMG (bolding mine for emphasis), "Most methods of identifying items, including the identify spell, fail to reveal such a curse..."

so i'm afraid identify (using rules as written) is still a trap.

Temperjoke

2017-01-25, 02:16 AM

1) you don't need to attune to an item to identify it. usually attunement is needed for the curse to activate, as a key part of the curse is that you can't de-attune the item (otherwise you'd be able to just stop using the item, and so much for the curse).
2) the section on cursed items specifically calls out the fact that identify will not, in fact, let you know if the item is cursed. i kid you not, page 139 of the DMG (bolding mine for emphasis), "Most methods of identifying items, including the identify spell, fail to reveal such a curse..."

so i'm afraid identify (using rules as written) is still a trap.

Well, the only caveat I would say to that is that you can use Identify on a creature and determine what is affecting it exactly. So I would put it in the pile of spells that are situational at best, and not for active use (since it's a ritual).

SharkForce

2017-01-25, 10:07 AM

Well, the only caveat I would say to that is that you can use Identify on a creature and determine what is affecting it exactly. So I would put it in the pile of spells that are situational at best, and not for active use (since it's a ritual).

you could also use *asking the creature* to determine what is affecting it exactly.

it should also be covered by arcana.

so we're looking at a scenario where you need a creature that cannot answer questions (but is still important enough that you want to ask it questions about what is affecting it) and you fail to identify it with skill checks, and don't know anyone nearby that you can ask.

and you have to buy an expensive component, and you probably have to learn it instead of something else in the first place.

if it was free, sure... not a trap. if it costs you nothing and there is some theoretical situation where you could use it, no big deal. but it isn't free, and therefore, it is a trap.

Breashios

2017-01-25, 11:35 AM

erok0809

2017-01-25, 11:39 AM

Identify is useful in the case where your DM uses the variant rule that you can't just get an idea of an item's use on a rest. Granted, that DM seems to be being a bit of a jerk, but it can happen.

Temperjoke

2017-01-25, 11:55 AM

you could also use *asking the creature* to determine what is affecting it exactly.

it should also be covered by arcana.

so we're looking at a scenario where you need a creature that cannot answer questions (but is still important enough that you want to ask it questions about what is affecting it) and you fail to identify it with skill checks, and don't know anyone nearby that you can ask.

and you have to buy an expensive component, and you probably have to learn it instead of something else in the first place.

if it was free, sure... not a trap. if it costs you nothing and there is some theoretical situation where you could use it, no big deal. but it isn't free, and therefore, it is a trap.

Like I said though, since it can be cast as a ritual, it costs nothing for the wizard to keep it in his spellbook. It's situational. And if you consider 100gp to be expensive (especially since the item isn't consumed by the spell), then man, I'd hate to play the games you're playing in, cause that must be a stingy DM.

Willie the Duck

2017-01-25, 12:33 PM

You still have to get the spell in the first place--which is highly campaign dependent on whether that is trivial or challenging.

SharkForce

2017-01-25, 12:40 PM

You find a clear crystal. Detect Magic indicates it is magical. You attune to it, but the DM says it does nothing for YOU. Is the DM pulling something? Or is this a case where Identify would be needed?

you mean, "the DM changed the rules to make identify useful"? sure, if the DM changes the rules to make identify useful, than identify is useful. we're not talking about what the DM can do to make the spell useful though. we're talking about whether the spell is useful without the DM having to change things to make it useful. if the gem is a magic item, the rules are that you can identify it on a short rest by just examining it, and once attuned, you know what it does. that doesn't make it a good spell. i mean, i could have a spell that, say, causes the nearest chicken egg to be instantly boiled and made tasty at a cost of 500 gold each time. if i then DM and every single quest revolves around making the nearest chicken egg boiled and tasty, is it a good spell, or have i as the DM completely built something specifically to make this stinker of a spell look good?

Like I said though, since it can be cast as a ritual, it costs nothing for the wizard to keep it in his spellbook. It's situational. And if you consider 100gp to be expensive (especially since the item isn't consumed by the spell), then man, I'd hate to play the games you're playing in, cause that must be a stingy DM.

it costs because you have to get it somehow. either it takes one of your automatic spells from class levels, in which case it is displacing something better (like shield, absorb elements, mage armour, feather fall, silent image, etc) or it cost you money and time to scribe that could have been better used elsewhere (like for learning web, or blur, or as part of the money for a higher level spell) assuming your DM even makes that available (for example, for the many people who play in AL, there isn't really any place you can go and learn as many spells as you want even if you did somehow have limitless money.

even if we assume that you have access and time and money, i rather suspect you'll get more value out of, say, contributing to the paladin's plate mail fund, donating to the "please raise me if i die" fund for the cleric, or buying an extra use of glyph of warding so that you can potentially get an extra concentration slot in any fight where you can lure the enemy into a prepared area.

the spell is ridiculously niche, most of what it does can be done easily and reliably (and if not always safely, then no more dangerously than it would have been with identify) without the spell unless you create a specific scenario that is intended to revolve around identify. augury, divination, and contact other plane are all also rituals that can be used to find out many things (including a lot of information about an enchanted creature) and have lower component costs (though divination costs per use, the simple fact of the matter is that it's pretty implausible that you'll be needing to identify more than 4 times under base rules anyways). the level 3 wizard spell "sending" is not a ritual, but can at least be used to gain information about, once again, just about any subject provided the wizard knows someone who might know about that subject, and again, finding stuff out about the enchantments on a creature is probably going to be an intelligence (arcana) check, which the wizard is probably really good at in the first place.

Zorku

2017-01-25, 12:42 PM

Zorku, the quote from me wasn't referring to PCs, it was referring to actual denizens of the Internet :smallbiggrin:
Oh, then what I said stands. Anyone from the internet with at least 10 int and some time to crap about with a compass is going to get good at this quickly. Your first ten minute block of time playing Pokemon Go isn't going to unlock the secrets of the universe, but real time updates on a moving object within 1km is going to teach you enough geometry pretty quick. If this hypothetical person went through some internet equivalent of wizard college in order to get here in the first place, then somebody is going to have mentioned that this that introductory divination courses cover, and that you screw around with during the first week of the lab for that course.

Some people know about this without internet-wizard school just because it's really useful for your hedge wizards (basically the video game applications I use it for from earlier,) and other people just like to check their work with multiple methods before they commit changes to whatever they do. (Side note: Imagine how many amateur prospectors would go around to different farmers and sell them on the idea of housing and feeding the guy for a week while they walked back and forth over the farm plot to locate buried treasure or geodes with the kinds of crystals that go into an arcane focus. T'would be a big thing if it didn't have to come with the implications of Tippyverse... or that 99% of these people can't cast magic at all but just know how to trick farmers into thinking they cast the spell.)

Other people don't know the spell in the first place, because they are Fighters or Monks or Warlocks or Sorcerers or Barbarians.

KorvinStarmast

2017-01-25, 01:01 PM

Misty Step
our Vengeance Paladin did a number on an opposing spell caster with Misty Step and of course that smite. Moved past the fighter I had just dropped, stepped the rest of the way right next to caster, wham.
Misty step has a number of good uses, I don't see it as a trap at all.

RickAllison

2017-01-25, 05:26 PM

Oh, then what I said stands. Anyone from the internet with at least 10 int and some time to crap about with a compass is going to get good at this quickly. Your first ten minute block of time playing Pokemon Go isn't going to unlock the secrets of the universe, but real time updates on a moving object within 1km is going to teach you enough geometry pretty quick. If this hypothetical person went through some internet equivalent of wizard college in order to get here in the first place, then somebody is going to have mentioned that this that introductory divination courses cover, and that you screw around with during the first week of the lab for that course.

Some people know about this without internet-wizard school just because it's really useful for your hedge wizards (basically the video game applications I use it for from earlier,) and other people just like to check their work with multiple methods before they commit changes to whatever they do. (Side note: Imagine how many amateur prospectors would go around to different farmers and sell them on the idea of housing and feeding the guy for a week while they walked back and forth over the farm plot to locate buried treasure or geodes with the kinds of crystals that go into an arcane focus. T'would be a big thing if it didn't have to come with the implications of Tippyverse... or that 99% of these people can't cast magic at all but just know how to trick farmers into thinking they cast the spell.)

Other people don't know the spell in the first place, because they are Fighters or Monks or Warlocks or Sorcerers or Barbarians.

Based on this reaction, I am thinking we need to add a new spell to the books: Detect Joke. It would reduce the disruptions due to people not realizing when a comment is intended for wit rather than a serious diatribe.

Breashios

2017-01-25, 07:38 PM

you mean, "the DM changed the rules to make identify useful"? sure, if the DM changes the rules to make identify useful, than identify is useful. we're not talking about what the DM can do to make the spell useful though. we're talking about whether the spell is useful without the DM having to change things to make it useful. if the gem is a magic item, the rules are that you can identify it on a short rest by just examining it, and once attuned, you know what it does. that doesn't make it a good spell. ... .

Ok, your answer really got me thinking. Our wizard did use identify on the item, pretty soon after we found it. Good thing too. So the situation was that this crystal was a one way scrying portal, the BBEG could use to scry on whatever area it was left in, probably so the BBEG could watch over his minions when they were far away. We had killed one of his lieutenants and taken it (it was magical). Now if attuning to this item had told us exactly what it did, even though we could not use it in any way, I feel that would have been really lame. I guess the rules on attunement are in the DMG, so I don’t know exactly how they are supposed to work, but I’ve seen plenty of forceful comments in this forum to the end that the rules for 5e are to be bent when needed to create what are fun, interesting and worthwhile experiences. In this case I think my DM did the right thing. (If someone had argued about it, he might have relented, but I guess none of us felt the way it happened was unusual). So, to answer someone else's point, I don't see how the DM was being a jerk. I just didn't know how powerful attunement was supposed to be by RAW. Maybe he knew, but changed it. Maybe he didn't know and just made a decision on the spot.

I also remember plenty of modules from earlier versions where there were fountains or other magic devices that produced some type of effect and to figure out how to produce the desired outcome (and not produce a poison or some other dangerous result), the party had to solve a riddle or puzzle. If attunement is all powerful in this regard (tell you exactly what all the uses of the item are), that would kind of ruin the experience. I could just claim the device, attune to it over a short rest and then proclaim the combination of actions that would produce the effect wanted. I’m not saying Identify should solve this type of challenge either, but there would seem to be several ways a GM would probably use the identify spell or the trial and error method several times throughout a campaign without even trying, especially if they were converting older material.

So my conclusion is whether the Identify spell is a trap or not is campaign dependent, but my guess is it would not be a trap in a larger percentage of campaigns than you'd initially believe.

SharkForce

2017-01-25, 08:45 PM

Ok, your answer really got me thinking. Our wizard did use identify on the item, pretty soon after we found it. Good thing too. So the situation was that this crystal was a one way scrying portal, the BBEG could use to scry on whatever area it was left in, probably so the BBEG could watch over his minions when they were far away. We had killed one of his lieutenants and taken it (it was magical). Now if attuning to this item had told us exactly what it did, even though we could not use it in any way, I feel that would have been really lame. I guess the rules on attunement are in the DMG, so I don’t know exactly how they are supposed to work, but I’ve seen plenty of forceful comments in this forum to the end that the rules for 5e are to be bent when needed to create what are fun, interesting and worthwhile experiences. In this case I think my DM did the right thing. (If someone had argued about it, he might have relented, but I guess none of us felt the way it happened was unusual). So, to answer someone else's point, I don't see how the DM was being a jerk. I just didn't know how powerful attunement was supposed to be by RAW. Maybe he knew, but changed it. Maybe he didn't know and just made a decision on the spot.

I also remember plenty of modules from earlier versions where there were fountains or other magic devices that produced some type of effect and to figure out how to produce the desired outcome (and not produce a poison or some other dangerous result), the party had to solve a riddle or puzzle. If attunement is all powerful in this regard (tell you exactly what all the uses of the item are), that would kind of ruin the experience. I could just claim the device, attune to it over a short rest and then proclaim the combination of actions that would produce the effect wanted. I’m not saying Identify should solve this type of challenge either, but there would seem to be several ways a GM would probably use the identify spell or the trial and error method several times throughout a campaign without even trying, especially if they were converting older material.

So my conclusion is whether the Identify spell is a trap or not is campaign dependent, but my guess is it would not be a trap in a larger percentage of campaigns than you'd initially believe.

to be clear, i have no problem with changing the rules. but we can't plausibly discuss the state of the game as defined by everyone's house rules... there is no common ground there. the only common ground would be the rules in the book, at least at this point.

so there's nothing "wrong" with what your DM did... but it still doesn't mean identify is a good spell in general.

(oh, and RAW you shouldn't have even needed to attune to know what the item did, just examining it over the course of a short rest gives you that. furthermore, if the item counts as cursed, which it arguably might - all it does is allow someone else to spy on you - then identify would explicitly not work to tell you what it does. funny enough, the *only* method eplicitly disallowed is identify... an AL DM could rule that handling the item over the course of a short rest works to tell you it is cursed, but could not rule that identify would do the same (though i, for one, would consider that to be a rather odd ruling, likely only made because the DM doesn't want to screw you over with a cursed item but their hands are tied by AL rules).

and that is why i'm calling out identify as a trap here. if you talk to your DM and your DM thinks the official rules are amongst the dumbest rules in existence, and changes them to make identify worth something, then by all means learn the spell. honestly, i wouldn't be surprised if more DMs make a change once they find out what the official rules are than don't (and i wouldn't be surprised if most DMs don't know what the official rules are, leading them to accidentally play with that as a house rule). but it is still a house rule.