Overchannel and sickening radiance

[Brother carc]

So my friend has an evocation wizard and is about to hit 7th level, so I suggested sickening radiance as one of his spells.

He loved the idea, but was wondering how it would interact with overchannel, the 14th level evocation special rule. I could not give a solid answer, so now I put it to the playground.

"Starting at 14th level, you can increase the power of your simpler spells. When you cast a wizard spell of 5th level or lower that deals damage, you can deal maximum damage with that spell. The first time you do so, you suffer no adverse effect. If you use this feature again before you finish a long rest, you take 2d12 necrotic damage for each level of the spell, immediately after you cast it. Each time you use this feature again before finishing a long rest, the necrotic damage per spell level increases by 1d12. This damage ignores resistance and immunity"

When overchanneled, is sickening radiance
a) unaffected
b) maximised for turn one
c) maximised for every turn

Thanks in advance

[Jerrykhor]

This would require some ruling and lawyering, depending on how you interpret the text, and which part of the text you highlight as key words.

Some people would rule that the 'When you cast' part as meaning an ongoing spell only get the maximum damage on the first turn.

Some would rule that when you cast the spell, you can decide to use Overchannel to maximize the damage for the spell, meaning the whole spell's damage would get maximised. Meaning, they interpret the 'When you cast' phrase as the window of using the Overchannel, so you can't use it on the second turn or later.

So either b or c is fine.

[Laereth]

My hunch is that RAI goes towards b) maximize on first turn (i.e. when you cast the spell).

This makes all spells behave the same way with regards to the ability and makes it so that it favors spells that do a lot of boom when they are cast rather than overtime. Again this is just a hunch.

[Brother carc]

I was actually leaning a different way, because sickening radiance doesn't actually deal damage on the turn you cast it. It deals damage "when a creature enters the area for the first time or starts its turn there."

So I think it should either be completely unaffected (because it deals no damage on the turn it is cast) or should be completely maximised (because it is a spell that can deal damage)

[Brother carc]

First of all apologies for the bump

But, I came across a second issue with this spell in last nights game:

The evocation wizard cast the spell into the middle of the room and declared our party to be unaffected by it, using his 2nd level ability.

He then stepped back out of range of the BBEG and next turn our barbarian grappled him down (disadvantage because BBEG failed his first save). Then slowly turn after turn sickening radiance slowly kills BBEG (and everyone else in the room bar us)

DM wasn’t happy but the way he read the rules, this was the correct outcome

So should the evocation wizards ability to sculpt spells allow him to sculpt this spell every turn? Or only on the first?

[LeonBH]

Its damage is maximized every turn, because Overchannel states "you can deal maximum damage with that spell." The maximum damage of Sickening Radiance is 40 per turn, so that is what it will deal when Overchanneled.


So should the evocation wizards ability to sculpt spells allow him to sculpt this spell every turn? Or only on the first?

The text says, "The chosen creatures automatically succeed on their saving throws against the spell". Its wording is consistent with allowing one creature to automatically succeed in all their saving throws against an evocation spell you cast.

Also, the DM should be happy his players found a creative solution to his encounter, because that means the players want to engage. If the DM doesn't like that his players find their own ways of doing things, then the only path the players have is the railroad the DM lays down for them.

[DivisibleByZero]

The RAI is that it only works on the first turn.
The RAW doesn't make that clear, and as such could be interpreted to be every turn.
Bigby's Hand sets precedent, and has been discussed by JC, who basically said exactly that.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/12/17/if-i-overchannel-bigbys-hand/

So basically, do it however you personally want to. There is no wrong answer. One answer is RAI, one answer is RAW.

[Erys]

Also, the DM should be happy his players found a creative solution to his encounter, because that means the players want to engage. If the DM doesn't like that his players find their own ways of doing things, then the only path the players have is the railroad the DM lays down for them.

Pffft

Using poorly written rules to succeed is not creative. Holding someone in an AE effect with a grapple is a cheese win. Legal, sure; but cheese nonetheless. Any DM is right to have a bitter taste in their mouth after such events.

[LeonBH]

Pffft

Using poorly written rules to succeed is not creative. Holding someone in an AE effect with a grapple is a cheese win. Legal, sure; but cheese nonetheless. Any DM is right to have a bitter taste in their mouth after such events.

Right. I suppose grapplers aren't allowed any glory in your table.

[Erys]

Right. I suppose grapplers aren't allowed any glory in your table.

There is no glory in grappling in 5th. Holding someone in the bad is not creative. It's lazy.

And while holding someone in the bad while not being affected by it yourself is technically legal- its cheesy.

[DivisibleByZero]

And while holding someone in the bad while not being affected by it yourself is technically legal- its cheesy.

I wouldn't allow it at all. If you're holding someone somewhere, grappling, making their movement 0, then you're holding them in such a manner that you are also (at least partially) in the area.
You're not holding their arm unless they're a child. You're bear hugging them, keeping them from moving. If they're in it, so are you.

[LeonBH]

There is no glory in grappling in 5th. Holding someone in the bad is not creative. It's lazy.

And while holding someone in the bad while not being affected by it yourself is technically legal- its cheesy.

I see. So you prefer to totally invalidate an entire style of play - grappling in this case. I can understand why you think it's lazy given you are already prejudiced against it (it has no glory, after all). But if you remove any prior bias first (which is a reasonable approach to any issue), I fail to see why your opinion on it rests on solid ground.

In this case, the grappler was also in the area of effect of Sickening Radiance. They passed their saving throw while the grappled target failed it.


I wouldn't allow it at all. If you're holding someone somewhere, grappling, making their movement 0, then you're holding them in such a manner that you are also (at least partially) in the area.
You're not holding their arm unless they're a child. You're bear hugging them, keeping them from moving. If they're in it, so are you.

Considering you can legally grapple two prone creatures while standing up (as a grapple consumes only one free hand), then you're not bear hugging them unless you house rule. You're locking them in a hold such that they cannot move away from you. You don't have to hold their arm to do something like this.

For example, you can hold someone's hair tightly an arm's length away. If they're wearing clothes, you could be holding on to their clothes instead. If they're wearing armor, you're grappling their helmet. You can keep someone in place this way but keep them an arm's length away from you. And of course, you can always hold onto their shoulders or arms.

While you're free to house rule grappling your way on your tables, it's a house rule designed to nerf grapplers and nothing else, and that seems unfair to a certain class of players.

[Erys]

I see. So you prefer to totally invalidate an entire style of play - grappling in this case. I can understand why you think it's lazy given you are already prejudiced against it (it has no glory, after all). But if you remove any prior bias first (which is a reasonable approach to any issue), I fail to see why your opinion on it rests on solid ground.

In this case, the grappler was also in the area of effect of Sickening Radiance. They passed their saving throw.

LOL!!

Yeah, cause only your opinion matters, right?

Also, where did Brother carc say the Barbarian made a save every round? He didn't... and since it was about using sculpt spell to protect allied PCs- odds are- the barbarian in question did not make any saves during that encounter.

Grappling in 5th is not well made and holding someone in the bad is not creative. Don't act like a DM should be proud or happy that his players make such choices. They are not doing anything praise worthy.

[LeonBH]

LOL!!

Yeah, cause only your opinion matters, right?

Also, where did Brother carc say the Barbarian made a save every round? He didn't... and since it was about using sculpt spell to protect allied PCs- odds are- the barbarian in question did not make any saves during that encounter.

Grappling in 5th is not well made and holding someone in the bad is not creative. Don't act like a DM should be proud or happy that his players make such choices. They are not doing anything praise worthy.

Right... let's sarcastically say that only my opinion where we should not arbitrarily nerf a style of play (grappling in this case) is the only one that matters.

Implying, of course, that we should totally arbitrarily nerf an entire style of play when we feel like it.

Are you, in fact, implying this?

The Barbarian automatically passed his saves every round due to Sculpt Spell. So what? He still passed his saves. He was still in the area of effect. It was a team effort and the players won. You're saying you think it would have been more creative of them to have done something less efficient - like, for example, hitting the bad guy with a stick/axe/arrow?

I'm not saying the DM should be proud of his players. I'm saying the DM shouldn't get sour at his players for totally circumventing a combat encounter via a means he didn't see coming. But when you say they didn't do anything praise worthy, I feel like you think all grapplers are doing things wrong, and that is such a dismissive stance.

Grappling in 5e synergizes well with very specific strategies that you do have to plan out in advance, and doesn't always pay off when the environment isn't suited to it.

Meanwhile, throwing a Fireball at someone or hitting them with your sword involves no thought, just "I attack".

[Jerrykhor]

LOL!!

Yeah, cause only your opinion matters, right?

Also, where did Brother carc say the Barbarian made a save every round? He didn't... and since it was about using sculpt spell to protect allied PCs- odds are- the barbarian in question did not make any saves during that encounter.

Grappling in 5th is not well made and holding someone in the bad is not creative. Don't act like a DM should be proud or happy that his players make such choices. They are not doing anything praise worthy.

I would say yes. At least more than yours.

First you say grappling is cheese, then you say its un-creative. The latter may be true, but so what? Its a valid tactic. If I DM for players who use such tag-team tactics, I'd be amazed. Speak for yourself, peasant. The only salty DM here is you.

If grappling is as overpowered as you say, why aren't we seeing more of it? Oh right, because it hardly does any damage. And lots of creatures are too difficult to be grappled.

[Erys]

The Barbarian automatically passed his saves every round due to Sculpt Spell. So what?

That is my point. Because grappling allows for shenanigans where you can hold a person down, but not share the same space... you get moments like Brother carc brought up.


It was a team effort and the players won. You're saying you think it would have been more creative of them to have done something less efficient - like, for example, hitting the bad guy with a stick/axe/arrow?

I'm not saying the DM should be proud of his players. I'm saying the DM shouldn't get sour at his players for totally circumventing a combat encounter via a means he didn't see coming. But when you say they didn't do anything praise worthy, I feel like you think all grapplers are doing things wrong, and that is such a dismissive stance.

Grappling in 5e synergizes well with very specific strategies that you do have to plan out in advance, and doesn't always pay off when the environment isn't suited to it.

Meanwhile, throwing a Fireball at someone or hitting them with your sword involves no thought, just "I attack".

I am saying this:
Also, the DM should be happy his players found a creative solution to his encounter --> Is ridiculous.

No DM should be "happy" because grappling was used in a way to hold a monster in the bad while they magically stay out of it. Let it happen, sure, after all its a legal action- but by no means should you be "happy" about it.


I would say yes. At least more than yours.

First you say grappling is cheese, then you say its un-creative. The latter may be true, but so what? Its a valid tactic. If I DM for players who use such tag-team tactics, I'd be amazed. Speak for yourself, peasant. The only salty DM here is you.

If grappling is as overpowered as you say, why aren't we seeing more of it? Oh right, because it hardly does any damage. And lots of creatures are too difficult to be grappled.

/roll

First off I never called it overpowered, I called it cheesy- because it is.

Seriously, you must have some remarkably un-creative people at your table if grappling "amaze(s)" you...

Regardless the point remains. No DM should be expected to be 'happy' when players use grappling shenanigans to win.

[Jerrykhor]

That is my point. Because grappling allows for shenanigans where you can hold a person down, but not share the same space... you get moments like Brother carc brought up.



I am saying this: --> Is ridiculous.

No DM should be "happy" because grappling was used in a way to hold a monster in the bad while they magically stay out of it. Let it happen, sure, after all its a legal action- but by no means should you be "happy" about it.



/roll

First off I never called it overpowered, I called it cheesy- because it is.

Seriously, you must have some remarkably un-creative people at your table if grappling "amaze(s)" you...

Regardless the point remains. No DM should be expected to be 'happy' when players use grappling shenanigans to win.

And you must be a pretty bad DM to have grappling produce much salt from you. You call it 'cheese' and 'shenanigans', but I don't think you know what they mean.

[LeonBH]

That is my point. Because grappling allows for shenanigans where you can hold a person down, but not share the same space... you get moments like Brother carc brought up.



I am saying this: --> Is ridiculous.

No DM should be "happy" because grappling was used in a way to hold a monster in the bad while they magically stay out of it. Let it happen, sure, after all its a legal action- but by no means should you be "happy" about it.

Right, I meant to say that a DM should appreciate the fact that his players can blindside him with a tactic he didn't prepare a counter for, and that's OK.

Do you feel that it is also cheesy and uncreative when players hit enemies with a sword/axe/arrow/magic projectile?

[Kane0]

I'd let it work for the whole duration. DoT spells have a bad reputation in D&D because of the nature of HP and the action economy, a spell that takes an enemy out of the fight now beats one that takes a few turns to do it. Plus in a lot of cases an over-time spell isn't fully effective because it lasts far longer than the encounter does, on top of the usual concerns like concentration, action/bonus action cost, fixed area and/or friendly fire. They also don't encourage focusing down one enemy at a time since if you do you drop that enemy and the rest of the DoT effect is again wasted, and most casters want to get the most out of their spell slots.
Same for Evoker Scuplt Spells, Sorcerer Careful & Empowered Spell, etc.

Besides, Overchannel is once per day without taking considerable damage. I'm sure the DM can handle that.

[sir_argo]

If grappling someone and holding them in an Area of Effect is cheese, would other means that do the same also be cheese? Hold Person? Bar version of Force Cage? Levitate? I mean, that's kinda the whole point of restraining someone... so that you can then apply something else to them. Are you just holding him down to give him a nice kiss? I think you're restraining him so that he cannot escape what you're about to do next... whatever that might be.

Grappling someone in the middle of an AoE is not cheese... it's precisely one of the things you're supposed to do.

[ImproperJustice]

My two cents:

Grappling someone into an area effect while being unharmed yourself is not that difficult to visualize.

A bad guy puts someone’s head in a toilet, someone has their hand forced onto something sharp, or Frank Castle rubbing a bad guy across broken glass.

If you have physical control of another individual, you havd exactly that.

I have some of my kids in Jiu-Jitsu. They can easily initiate a controling hold with a single hand, so I see no problem with the crazy dual grapples from the 5e rules.

Let the grapplers have their fun. They are a specific concept that doesn’t always get much love.