Spells that use checks and not saves. Bug or fea

[stoutstien]

So was running a oath breaker mini boss the other night and I noticed a few spell call for a check and not a ST. Wrathful smite, maze, ensnaring strike, and entangle are a few.
Checks seem out of place on spell effects. I crazy?

[MaxWilson]

So was running a oath breaker mini boss the other night and I noticed a few spell call for a check and not a ST. Wrathful smite, maze, ensnaring strike, and entangle are a few.
Checks seem out of place on spell effects. I crazy?

In general 5e has been really bad at explaining the difference between checks and saves except in purely metagame (game mechanical) terms. Checks TEND to be more for active attempts, although the pattern is not absolute, and the game makes no attempt at all to explain why you can be good at Dex checks and bad at Dex saves or vice versa.

From a player perspective, though, just take what you're given and run with it. Yes, spells that target checks are more powerful due to bypassing save proficiency AND legendary resistance. Don't worry too much about why, just exploit it until such time as your DM invents better, more consistent rules.

Checks vs. saves is 5E's version of save against spell vs. save against rod/staff/wand. Unexplained but important differences.

[McSkrag]

So was running a oath breaker mini boss the other night and I noticed a few spell call for a check and not a ST. Wrathful smite, maze, ensnaring strike, and entangle are a few.
Checks seem out of place on spell effects. I crazy?

No you're not crazy (ASFAIK :smallwink:). And it makes a difference for spells like Hex which can give disadvantage on an ability check (not save).

[stoutstien]

I should just go through the book and find all the check based spells

[Eragon123]

Sure, make a guide or resource out of it.

[Galithar]

Actually all the spells you listed except Maze call if saving throws.

The saving throw occurs when the spell is cast to resist the effect. I think your confusion is coming from what happens on YOUR (as in the target of the spell's) turn where you are able to take an ACTION to make the check.

I'll use entangle as my example.

Druid A casts entangle on my Fighter. On the Druid's turn, as the spell is cast, I make a strength saving throw which I am proficient in to avoid being restrained. I roll a 2 and am restrained.

On my turn I use my action to attempt to free myself using a strength check. Now as an ability check I can't apply proficiency unless a profecient skill applies. In this case none is listed but as a DM I would allow Athletics to apply to this check.

The difference here is in resisting versus ending an effect.

I don't have my books handy to look for quotes supporting me, so I'll disclaimer this as my interpretation.

[Dalebert]

It's why I like Telekinesis. Magic resistance doesn't help.

[Naanomi]

Many illusions work off of intelligence (investigation) checks as well

[Man_Over_Game]

There is one major exception to the check vs. save issue, which is Wrathful Smite.

On a hit, the target must make a Wisdom SAVE or be frightened.

To remove the fear, the target must spend an action to make a Wisdom CHECK.

And now read the fine print:



A frightened creature has disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls while the source of its fear is within line of sight.
The creature can’t willingly move closer to the source of its fear.


So once it hits, you not only have to spend an action to get rid of it, but you also make that CHECK with disadvantage. Hit a boss with it that's not immune to fear, and the fight's pretty much over.

It is probably one of the most broken level 1 spells, and a must have for all Paladins.

You'd think they'd have errata'd it, especially when you compare it to Searing Smite, but nothing has come from WotC to fix it so far.

[stoutstien]

Actually all the spells you listed except Maze call if saving throws.

The saving throw occurs when the spell is cast to resist the effect. I think your confusion is coming from what happens on YOUR (as in the target of the spell's) turn where you are able to take an ACTION to make the check.

I'll use entangle as my example.

Druid A casts entangle on my Fighter. On the Druid's turn, as the spell is cast, I make a strength saving throw which I am proficient in to avoid being restrained. I roll a 2 and am restrained.

On my turn I use my action to attempt to free myself using a strength check. Now as an ability check I can't apply proficiency unless a profecient skill applies. In this case none is listed but as a DM I would allow Athletics to apply to this check.

The difference here is in resisting versus ending an effect.

I don't have my books handy to look for quotes supporting me, so I'll disclaimer this as my interpretation.

My problem is it should explicitly state an Athletics check and that logic is not consistent with other spells. Most spells that provide the restrained condition do ask for some kind of check which is fine tho it strange you can't use Athletics.
Wrathful smite is the real odd ball here seeing how it call for a wisdom check(the only one that I can find) compared to cause fear also of the same lv and same effect calls for a savings throw.

The reason I felt bad a NPC used wrathful smite and kept the party cleric feared for 4 rounds. He would have passed the second throw if it was a save. If I wasn't rolling in the open I would have fudged it after 2nd fail.

[sophontteks]

Its not OP. Its just a useful smite. Most the smites aren't useful.
1. You have to score a hit.
2. They have to pass a save.
3. They can break the condition with an ability check.


And its just the frightened condition. The cleric can just be frightened and he would be at no disadvantage casting spells without an attack roll. Its not like he is out of the fight. He probably would have been better off not taking the ability check each round.

If he wants to break it, its important to break LOS with the enemy first. As an ability check someone can also use the assist action or give inspiration to help break it.

[stoutstien]

In no way do I think it's overpowered or broken. I just think it's not congruent with other fear effects.

[MrStabby]

Its not OP. Its just a useful smite. Most the smites aren't useful.
1. You have to score a hit.
2. They have to pass a save.
3. They can break the condition with an ability check.


And its just the frightened condition. The cleric can just be frightened and he would be at no disadvantage casting spells without an attack roll. Its not like he is out of the fight. He probably would have been better off not taking the ability check each round.

If he wants to break it, its important to break LOS with the enemy first. As an ability check someone can also use the assist action or give inspiration to help break it.

I wouldn't say it is OP - but it is imbalanced in that when it is good, it is so good it tends to dominate encounters.

To run through the list above...

1) You have to score a hit. True, but if you have two attacks you have two attempts. If you can keep concentration you can get even more attempts accross other turns. In practice it is very rare that this is an issue unless up against the highest AC bad guys. Also it is relatively simple to get advantage on attack rolls.

2) They have to pass a save. Sure... just like almost any other spell. Getting a powerful control effect with no save is basically what you need to wait for wall of force/forcecage for.

3) They can break the condition with an ability check. Is this arguing that it is good or bad? Almost everything else offers a repeated save - something to which proficiency can be added. Using the raw ability instead is much better. Bards may offer some exceptions with jack of all trades and bardic inspiration but anything like a paladin that boosts saves is sidestepped.

For me the bigger issue is needing a melee weapon attack. Not much of a restriction but it is relevant. Still a pole arm can let you hit someone with this whilst still stopping them closing the gap. The mobility feat lets you hit them and they can't follow you away.


I played a hexblade lorebard with this and it was a bit broken. If they failed the save they were rolling with disadvantage to get out from under the effect. If they looked like they might succeed then I could reduce their roll by a d8. Polearm enabled me to apply the effect from range.


Part of it's power is also (in my experience) due to the way a lot of campaign worlds work. Most enemy NPCs fall into rough classes: bruiser (strong and tough, melee focused), rogue (dexterous, assassin style), magus (ranged caster, weak but high mental stats). Wrathful smite is so good because the things most likely to fail it's saves/skills are the "bruiser" type enemies that really suffer from not being able to close to melee. The "magus" type characters are most likely to pass but wouldn't care anyway. This alignment is important. Compare this to ensnaring strike which has a similar Skill Check condition. The enemies that care about not being able to close to melee are the ones to pass because they are strong. The enemies most likely to fail are those that can shrug and still throw a fireball anyway.

[PeteNutButter]

One thing that’s interesting about these spells is their interaction with bards. With jack of all trades, Bards are decidedly better at spells like telekinesis than any class that actually gets the spell.

If you have a teammate that can cast enhance ability, you’ll be tossing around raging barbarians.

Oh, and don’t forget your Luck Stone.

[sophontteks]

I wouldn't say it is OP - but it is imbalanced in that when it is good, it is so good it tends to dominate encounters.

To run through the list above...

1) You have to score a hit. True, but if you have two attacks you have two attempts. If you can keep concentration you can get even more attempts accross other turns. In practice it is very rare that this is an issue unless up against the highest AC bad guys. Also it is relatively simple to get advantage on attack rolls.
The spell ends when it procs. You can't get more attempts. If you miss those two attacks, you may have to roll concentration or lose the spell entirely. Attack adds aren't that common, missing 2 attacks doesn't seem that outlandish to me.


2) They have to pass a save. Sure... just like almost any other spell. Getting a powerful control effect with no save is basically what you need to wait for wall of force/forcecage for.

3) They can break the condition with an ability check. Is this arguing that it is good or bad? Almost everything else offers a repeated save - something to which proficiency can be added. Using the raw ability instead is much better. Bards may offer some exceptions with jack of all trades and bardic inspiration but anything like a paladin that boosts saves is sidestepped.

There are actually quite a number of spells that do not require a save every round. Some examples off the top of my head: Glitterdust, hypnotic pattern, fear, phantasmal force, suggestion.

One can get advantage on ability checks, but can't get advantage on saves. Not saying its better, its just something that may help someone under such an effect. They can look out for ways to give themselves advantage in a pinch. Advantage/disadvantage is the DM's call. A DM could give a particularly scary creature advantage due to it not perceiving you as a threat, for example.



For me the bigger issue is needing a melee weapon attack. Not much of a restriction but it is relevant. Still a pole arm can let you hit someone with this whilst still stopping them closing the gap. The mobility feat lets you hit them and they can't follow you away.

I played a hexblade lorebard with this and it was a bit broken. If they failed the save they were rolling with disadvantage to get out from under the effect. If they looked like they might succeed then I could reduce their roll by a d8. Polearm enabled me to apply the effect from range.

Why was the creature rolling to resist the effect?
Why didn't the creature just use a ranged weapon or attack someone else?
At the very least the creature should have left your line of sight if it was going to burn its actions doing this, right?

[Eragon123]

T...Glitterdust...

Glitterdust isn't in this edition AFAIK

[Man_Over_Game]

One can get advantage on ability checks, but can't get advantage on saves. Not saying its better, its just something that may help someone under such an effect. They can look out for ways to give themselves advantage in a pinch. Advantage/disadvantage is the DM's call. A DM could give a particularly scary creature advantage due to it not perceiving you as a threat, for example.




One thing of note, related to Wrathful Smite, is that disadvantage and advantage don't officially stack with one another. If, for instance, you are blind and prone, and try to attack, and an ally is helping you, it doesn't matter if you have two disadvantages against you and you only have one advantage. RAW and RAI, you attack as normal.

Because of this, even if you have 5 different ways of getting advantage, Fear + Wrathful Smite says that, even in the best case scenario, you roll as normal if you have an advantageous source. If you aren't getting advantage from somewhere to balance it out, the default is that you're rolling at disadvantage.

[sophontteks]

One thing of note, related to Wrathful Smite, is that disadvantage and advantage don't officially stack with one another. If, for instance, you are blind and prone, and try to attack, and an ally is helping you, it doesn't matter if you have two disadvantages against you and you only have one advantage. RAW and RAI, you attack as normal.

Because of this, even if you have 5 different ways of getting advantage, Fear + Wrathful Smite says that, even in the best case scenario, you roll as normal if you have an advantageous source. If you aren't getting advantage from somewhere to balance it out, the default is that you're rolling at disadvantage.
The disadvantage is only if the smiter is in LOS, so its actually really easy to break. That's a part of my confusion with NPC and PC behavior. Why are they standing in plain sight of the thing that frightened them rolling an ability check with disadvantage?


Glitterdust isn't in this edition AFAIK
Sorry meant faerie fire

[Oramac]

I wouldn't say it is OP - but it is imbalanced in that when it is good, it is so good it tends to dominate encounters.


I would disagree with this. It is powerful, yes, but I wouldn't call it imbalanced. Especially against higher level monsters with massive to-hit bonuses. Storm Giants, for example, have a +14 to hit. Against a paladin in plate with a shield, they only need to roll a 6 or higher to hit. That's pretty damn easy, even with disadvantage.

Honestly, I think the most powerful part of the Frightened condition is also the most overlooked: The creature can’t willingly move closer to the source of its fear.

This opens up all kinds of shenanigans if the paladin (or whoever cast Fear, for instance) is very good with their positioning.

[Naanomi]

The disadvantage is only if the smiter is in LOS, so its actually really easy to break. That's a part of my confusion with NPC and PC behavior. Why are they standing in plain sight of the thing that frightened them rolling an ability check with disadvantage?
Presumably because the Smiter is a Conquest Paladin and they don’t have a choice?

[sophontteks]

Presumably because the Smiter is a Conquest Paladin and they don’t have a choice?
Good point. A conquest pally can lock down melee enemies pretty good. I didn't think of that.

But first example was a cleric, who should have plenty of ranged options. And the other example was a lore bard / warlock using it to lock down melee enemies, not a conquest paladin.

[Man_Over_Game]

Sometimes, breaking LOS isn't much of an option.

Consider the fact that, in order to participate in combat, I have to provoke 1-2 attacks of opportunity (since it's a melee attack rider in the first place), run out of combat, to spend my action for a 35% chance that my turn is wasted and that I have to stay out of combat again?

Does that seem "normal", for a level 1 spell that rides on an attack (and doesn't consume its own action) that deals an extra 1d6?



This is in a good scenario. In the event that you're in a dungeon in a large room with only one door, or on the plains, you just have to suck it up, buttercup.

[sophontteks]

Sometimes, breaking LOS isn't much of an option.

Consider the fact that, in order to participate in combat, I have to provoke 1-2 attacks of opportunity (since it's a melee attack rider in the first place), run out of combat, to spend my action for a 35% chance that my turn is wasted and that I have to stay out of combat again?

Does that seem "normal", for a level 1 spell that rides on an attack (and doesn't consume its own action) that deals an extra 1d6?



This is in a good scenario. In the event that you're in a dungeon in a large room with only one door, or on the plains, you just have to suck it up, buttercup.
There are some potent 1st level spells. Dissonate whispers is my fav. Hideous laughter is also really good. Consider that hideous laughter completely takes the target out of the fight. They have to roll each round to do anything at all. With fear you can choose to roll to remove a couple penalties.

Though paladins and rangers generally have spells that are more potent then their level.

Anyway, I'm not saying its the best option, but its a better option then what players and NPCs have been doing in the examples provided. If you are already wasting your action trying to break the frightened effect, why aren't you breaking line of sight first? Why are players and NPCs sitting there for multiple rounds rolling with disadvantage?

In my experience with D&D there are ample ways to break line of sight. There are very few circumstances where there aren't things to hide behind, and there are many cheap ways to create cover too. You just run behind something and roll without disadvantage.

But, if the players are fighting creatures with no ranged options and no support abilities without reach, and they are feared. They could just run away. There are many creature that fall into this catagory who are capable of outrunning the players. Unfavorable fighting conditions? Tactical retreat. The spell is wasted.

[Man_Over_Game]

That is a valid point on the power levels of paladins/rangers. I forget that they're a bit behind the power curve on spells.

Hexblades can still get it level 1, but everybody knows they're stupid strong without it. But seeing who USUALLY gets this spell makes it a bit easier to digest, as its power level is a little bit closer to spell level "1.5", which I could definitely see.

[sophontteks]

That is a valid point on the power levels of paladins/rangers. I forget that they're a bit behind the power curve on spells.

Hexblades can still get it level 1, but everybody knows they're stupid strong without it. But seeing who USUALLY gets this spell makes it a bit easier to digest, as its power level is a little bit closer to spell level "1.5", which I could definitely see.
I'm sorry we kinda ended up going in circles. Its definitely a strong spell. I think there are ways a player and an NPC can outplay the restrictions on the spell at least. Some spells are more like class features and I think this one fits the bill. Lore bards nearly break the game picking such spells from the ranger and paladin spell lists. I mean for secondary casters they really have some crazy strong spells at their disposal.

[MaxWilson]

That is a valid point on the power levels of paladins/rangers. I forget that they're a bit behind the power curve on spells.

Hexblades can still get it level 1, but everybody knows they're stupid strong without it. But seeing who USUALLY gets this spell makes it a bit easier to digest, as its power level is a little bit closer to spell level "1.5", which I could definitely see.

Also, Wrathful Smite is less powerful on a level 1 character (or any non-warrior including Tomelock Hexblades) due to lack of Extra Attack => makes "only on hit" limitation more relevant. If you were going to use Wrathful Smite at low levels, you'd probably want to dual-wield, but even then you only get one attack on the round you cast it since your bonus action is already busy.

For a level 5+ Paladin it is less of an issue.