Treantmonk evaluates 4th level spells [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

View Full Version : Treantmonk evaluates 4th level spells

Treantmonk

2018-10-16, 02:37 PM

I would love you to check out my video (https://youtu.be/l7BEDp_MMus) with my 4th level spell evaluations

Treantmonk.

MaxWilson

2018-10-16, 03:04 PM

I would love you to check out my video (https://youtu.be/l7BEDp_MMus) with my 4th level spell evaluations

Treantmonk.

Nicely done.

W/rt Phantasmal Killer, it's not a good spell, but frightened is a reasonably impactful condition. It can easily prevent an enemy from attacking at all, and even if they can attack it will impose disadvantage.

If Phantasmal Killer were an Int save it would be a good spell.

RE: Banishment, the advantage of Banishment over Otiluke's Resilient Sphere is that Banishment can be upcast, and has no size limits. But Otiluke's does target a weaker save, so it's better against Pit Fiends and stuff.

Palinux

2018-10-16, 03:43 PM

I like your videos on spellevaluation, but you keep coming back to how great bards are at casting, so maybe your next project should be a bard guide? :)

Aimeryan

2018-10-16, 03:56 PM

Enjoyed watching your evaluation!

On the subject of the Find Steed targeting for spells, you are right in your conclusion that by RAW any spell that does not mention targeting more than one creature should be usable for the twinning. If you RAT (Rule As Tweeted), then you end up with this hodgepodge of things that are valid and not valid that doesn't actually end up being related to what was written. RAT here seems to be 'only directly affects you', rather than the quite different 'only targets you'. If that is the case, there really should be an errata.

Is it worth considering when evaluating spells that you (briefly) discuss the differences between what is strictly written as you see it, what has been tweeted, and how this would affect your evaluation based on which was used?

melvinmelon123

2018-10-16, 04:13 PM

tieren

2018-10-16, 04:24 PM

Is that really how "conjure" is pronounced?

MaxWilson

2018-10-16, 04:29 PM

It's very noticeable how much more relaxed your delivery is in the last few videos, great job.

I had a feeling Banishment might make the list. I know some people will point out upcasting, but next level you get Wall of Force for taking things out of a fight with no save. That has to be better in all but the most niche circumstances.

Yes, Wall of Force is better, but do you actually get it next level? Not if you're a Cleric, Paladin, Sorcerer, or Warlock. Only Wizards get Banishment followed by Wall of Force.

melvinmelon123

2018-10-16, 05:09 PM

Yes, Wall of Force is better, but do you actually get it next level? Not if you're a Cleric, Paladin, Sorcerer, or Warlock. Only Wizards get Banishment followed by Wall of Force.

That's a fair point. I suppose I was thinking in terms of this video format where it is class agnostic. Otiluke's is Wizard only too.

If you aren't a Wizard then Banishment is quite a bit better.

Citan

2018-10-16, 06:04 PM

Hi!

I skipped the last threads, but I have to react on the start of this video.
Again, I have to stress how evaluating spells without considering whose caster gets which spell and how synergy can be done greatly reduce the overall value of the analysis.
Although it does indeed have at least the merit of brewing discussion, I'll certainly give you that. :)

----
Grasping Vine: yeah, sure, there are usually better spells to concentrate on, especially as a Druid.
One could argue that you could realistically get a similar effect except with damage by casting a Conjure Animal and make all creatures gang up on shoving prone / grappling / attacking, to pick the usual iconic example.

So, useless? Not quite.
Who gets that spell? Ranger and Druid. For Ranger no doubt it's kind of the worst spell to use a slot on mostly. On a Druid?
On a "I-get-80%-of-all-inescapable-movement-debuff" Druid?
On a "I-can-fly-up-to-200-feet-away-and-still-bother-you" Druid?
On a "I-dont-care-using-niche-spells-one-day-because-I-swap-at-will" Druid?

It's a non-Sorcerer multiclass way to keep at least two creatures close to a target area every turn (Thorns Whip + Grasping Vine), or completely negate a creature's fleeing ability (both on same target). Especially when paired with Earth Tremor / Erupting Earth / Plant Growth, you can completely lock down several creatures.

Will it be useful often? Meh, probably not for most people.
For some party composition (mainly ranged/frail people or people with several "automatic"/"repeatable" AOE damage) or encounter environment (very close quarters making a horde of Conjure Animal difficult to use properly) or specific situation (party just cannot win and has to flee from a monster with AOE or great speed -although Conjure Animals may still work to be honest) it's a good spell.

--
Elemental Bane: soooo, this is becoming kinda embarrassing.

First, you can upcast it to affect several creatures, but I guess it doesn't change much for you.

Second, this is actually one of the greatest party buffs you can provide when you think it has a good chance of landing.
Many many creatures are resistant to one or two damage types by the time you get the spell. Rare are those that are outright immune.
While you have on PC side... "Draconic Sorcerers" (usually focusing on their element, which is usually fire), Celestial Warlocks (will certainly pick one or two radiant/fire damage), Tempest Clerics (maximized damage), Paladins (smite spells or Elemental Weapon), Hexblade Warlocks (Elemental Weapon), Swords/Valor Bards (same)...
And a bootload of people who can get GreenFlame Blade, Booming Blade for martial-ish or Ray of Frost / Firebolt / etc for the others.
So, basic example, party of 4, all of them getting a fire-based sustainable attack (Firebolt/Produce Flame for casters, GreenFlameBlade/Elemental Weapon for others)
Caster lands Elemental Bane, immediately providing 6d6 extra damage on that round. After that it will be 8d6 every round.

Now let's talk about who gets it: Druid, Warlock, Wizard.
For Moon Druids, it's an easy and efficient way to boost their Elemental Form's damage or possibly low-level elemental spells damage.
For Warlocks, especially Hexblades, it's an easy way to boost either Armor of Agathys, Fire Shield or Green Flame Blade damage. And in a proper party that knows rest management, by that level they should get at least 1 or 2 short rest so they can afford niche novas much easier.
For Wizards, especially Evokers, it's a good way to be able to use the Overchannel with the right spell whatever enemy you face.

Now let's talk about possibilities.
You have a Paladin in party? You can boost the automatic damage of Searing Smite, or you can boost his damage on his turn and possibly on off turn if he specializes in OA (with Elemental Weapon).
You have a Rogue? You bump him the equivalent of 4 levels in SA as long as he grabs Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade.
You have a Druid? Now even elemental-resistant enemies can be quickly dispatched with a bunch of relevant Mephits or by pushing/pulling enemies through a Wall of Fire.
You have a Draconic Sorcerer? Upcast to affect two creatures and see the Sorcerer enjoying a simple Scorching Ray with "autoupcast 2 levels higher" or maybe an appropriate Twinned Chromatic Orb with "auto-upcast ~2 levels higher".
You have a 4e/Sun Soul Monk? Same as Sorcerer with Fangs of Fire Snake/Burning Hands/Shatter/etc.
You have another Monk without ki, and another caster? Enjoy an upcast's Dragon Breath.
Etc/etc

So, yeah, it targets Constitution. Tough luck. But Blindness also targets Constitution, and it does not prevent people to use it, although at the time you get it it's equally frustrating to see it fail.
Monk's Stunning Strike also targets Constitution, and it does not prevent people to use it, even if it lasts only one round, even if they have to actually blow 3 or 4 Ki just to land one even if it's most of their resources.

And besides, there are some ways to help it landing: Diviner's Portent, ally's Bane, Wild Magic's Bend Luck, or simply a friendly Heightened/Shadow Hounded's Bestow Curse (although this makes the whole thing costly, if you face an enemy without preparation and see usual tactics failing because of resistance, it's a cheap price to pay).

In practice, you can quickly get situations in which a single cast translates in at least 8d6 more damage per round (nearly) whatever kind of party and reasonably up to 20d6 if landing on two creatures with a synergizing party, while allowing friends to conserve resources. Without repeated saves like Hold Person or without having to wait time like for Banishment or Wall spells. In fights where killing as fast as possible is best and/or dealing damage is hard, one resource from this caster may spare many for others.

Sooo... Yeah, sorry you just completely missed the whole point of the spell: TEAMWORK. It's certainly of a less wide application than others of comparable level but it does have many use-cases except in a very low low magic party.

The only thing I would have loved in this spell is a change in upcast that makes it actually impose vulnerability or remove immunity if upcast at 7th level or later, but well, let's be honest, it would have been too powerful then.

sophontteks

2018-10-16, 06:06 PM

Resisting the urge to make a spellcaster that uses only the worse spell lists.

LudicSavant

2018-10-16, 06:11 PM

Yes, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere can do some things that Banishment can't, but Banishment can do some things that Otiluke's Resilient Sphere can't either, and these things seem to be glossed over.

1) No size limit. You can banish anyone. Also, the things that are most vulnerable to Dex saves tend to also be the big guys.

2) Less opportunity for counterplay from Team Monster. This is the biggest reason that Banishment is considered as strong as it is in high-op games, and this feature isn't mentioned by Treantmonk at all. The #1 reason that Banishment is good is because a lot of the things that counter things like Polymorph and Otiluke's Resilient Sphere (and even Wall of Force) do not counter Banishment. It seems conspicuous that this is left out of the analysis.

For example, Banishment can't really be dispelled (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/04/01/can-dispel-magic-be-used-to-end-banishment/). Nor can you Misty Step out of it. Nor can you have someone shake you awake. Nor can someone stab your frog form to change you back. Nor can you do anything to defend yourself or prepare while you're stuck. You've got pretty much just one option: Break the caster's Concentration. And the fact that the enemy has basically one avenue of attack makes it easy to focus on shoring up that one defense.

Other "disable" options have a relatively long list of options for the enemy team to do something about them. Banishment doesn't. That is why it's strong.

3) Banishment has excellent synergy with a variety of features that Otiluke's simply doesn't. For example, you can use Banishment with War Caster.

MaxWilson

2018-10-16, 06:16 PM

Pex

2018-10-16, 06:19 PM

Chaosmancer

2018-10-16, 06:27 PM

Ah Polymorph. Replacing your allies int, wis and cha can be a bad thing (I think Giant Apes are still smart enough to work, but had a player polymorphed into a goat once) and unless you can deal that massive damage or get that instant kill you are just delaying the fight by using it on an enemy. I wouldn't say "most overrated" but it is easily misused or counter-acted.

Banishment, I can see what you are saying. Going to add this little awesome combo though. You don't need to use your action. Banishment qualifies for Warcaster, so you can use it as an Attack of Opportunity if the chance arises. A cleric tank can really threaten an big bad with this, cause if that banishment lands it can be devastating for the opposing side.

Is stoneskin really that overrated? You see, the vast majority of MM creatures deal non-magical damage. There are very few creatures whose attacks count as magical and so it can really translate to Resistance. Getting the Fighter to take 1/2 damage for the entire fight? That could be worth 100 gp to me.

Guardian of Faith, gotta disagree with you. First of all, you aren't completely correct that it doesn't matter how much damage the enemy takes, damage that goes over zero is wasted. So, 3 goblins could use up an entire Guardian of Faith which is just bad. Secondly, it cannot move. This is horrible. Within 10 ft of this Guardian is space you can't enter, but if the entire fight takes place outside of that 10 ft the spell was completely wasted. Sure, it has uses. It can hit invisible enemies, it can be an area of denial, or if you are fighting in enclosed hallways or the enemy doesn't have good ranged options. But it hits three times and disappears and can never move from the location it is cast in. Those are some harsh penalties.

Kane0

2018-10-16, 06:28 PM

Pretty nice on warlocks too, being automatically scaled to that second target.

LudicSavant

2018-10-16, 06:35 PM

Nitpick: you mean, Banishment on a creature on its home plane cannot really be dispelled. If on the other hand you try to Banish a Glabrezu, it's just going to go back to its home plane and cast Dispel Magic at first opportunity, bringing it right back into the fight. Only creatures on their home planes get "banished to a harmless demiplane" and incapacitated. An extra-planar creature could even theoretically Ready a spell or an action to use as soon as Banishment ends.

Right.

And yet, it does have countermeasures, just like everything else. Wall of Force is weak against creatures that can teleport, like Githyanki; Forcecage is weak against creatures that can teleport and have good Charisma saves, like some demons; Banishment is weak against creatures that are extra-planar spellcasters, again like some demons.

I would draw a distinction between "countermeasures" and "use cases."

For example, teleporting out of Otiluke's Resilient Sphere is counterplay: The enemy reacts to negate the effect. Not using Otiluke's Resilient Sphere on a Huge creature is a use case: You just don't use the spell if they're Huge.

sophontteks

2018-10-16, 06:40 PM

Sorcerers are limited in spells. They can take Polymorph, but Banishment is also valuable. Heighten spell offers a chance for the opponent to fail the save, but in my opinion the stronger option is to Twin it. It's like giving the DM disadvantage even though two creatures make one save. True you can upcast which is why Banishment is good for its own sake, but Twinning helps the Sorcerer conserve his higher level spell slots. Over rated or not, for Sorcerers Banishment is worth knowing.
Twinning banishment. Throw away all your metamagics for a chance to take two things out of the fight. That's 4 metamagics for something that may do nothing at all on a bad roll.
Polymorph and greater invisibility never fail. Twinning those is never going out of style.

Chaosmancer

2018-10-16, 06:49 PM

W/rt Phantasmal Killer, it's not a good spell, but frightened is a reasonably impactful condition. It can easily prevent an enemy from attacking at all, and even if they can attack it will impose disadvantage.

If Phantasmal Killer were an Int save it would be a good spell.

Fear is a 3rd level cone of the same effect.

Sure, shorter distance but hits more people. After seeing someone realize how long the damage from Phantasmal Killer took, I can't see it as a good spell anymore

Hi!

I skipped the last threads, but I have to react on the start of this video.
Again, I have to stress how evaluating spells without considering whose caster gets which spell and how synergy can be done greatly reduce the overall value of the analysis.
Although it does indeed have at least the merit of brewing discussion, I'll certainly give you that. :)

Yeah, this is a big thing. Spell without considering class is a really shaky endeavor

MaxWilson

2018-10-16, 06:53 PM

Twinning banishment. Throw away all your metamagics for a chance to take two things out of the fight. That's 4 metamagics for something that may do nothing at all on a bad roll.
Polymorph and greater invisibility never fail. Twinning those is never going out of style.

...it's all fun and games until an Intellect Devourer perma-stuns your Giant Ape buddy with his -2 Int save and Int 7.

Fear is a 3rd level cone of the same effect.

Sure, shorter distance but hits more people. After seeing someone realize how long the damage from Phantasmal Killer took, I can't see it as a good spell anymore

Yeah, Fear is a better spell with a stronger effect--enemies lose actions from being forced to Dash away, and also drop their weapons if they are holding any. I'm not saying Phantasmal Killer is a good spell. I just think the video does a disservice to it by completely shrugging off the frightened effect and focusing entirely on the 4d10/round damage.

The main use case for Phantasmal Killer would be for dividing and conquering a handful of strong monsters, e.g. Phantasmal Killer on a Githyanki Knight leading a bunch of Githyanki Warriors. You take it out of the fight from 120' away (way more than Fear) while you kill all of the lesser Githyankis; and you probably cause the Knight to lose face as well from showing cowardice. Again, it's not a good spell--but you might as well mention all of the pros and cons if you're going to discuss it at all.

Kane0

2018-10-16, 07:09 PM

Yeah, this is a big thing. Spell without considering class is a really shaky endeavor

Well between Bards stealing spells, Divine Sorcerers getting double spell lists, subclasses granting extra spells known outside of the normal list, Magic initiate and ritual caster feats, etc there are plenty of ways a character can get spells not normally on their list, not to mention magic items, boons and other means beyond normal character building. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

MaxWilson

2018-10-16, 07:22 PM

Well between Bards stealing spells, Divine Sorcerers getting double spell lists, subclasses granting extra spells known outside of the normal list, Magic initiate and ritual caster feats, etc there are plenty of ways a character can get spells not normally on their list, not to mention magic items, boons and other means beyond normal character building. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

It's pretty reasonable when considering "best" spells, which might theoretically be worth poaching. It's a little different when considering overrated or bad spells, when those overrated spells are sometimes the best you've got.

Therefore, the above discussion on Wall of Force vs. Banishment.

Trask

2018-10-16, 07:32 PM

I really like this series, but I think a really great followup series might be to address how you would fix bad spells. Theres such a wealth of spells in 5e that are just really garbage, it would be great to see someone with your experience and knowledge making them good.

NaughtyTiger

2018-10-16, 08:16 PM

Oh no, you polymorphed your tank into a Giant Ape.
Animal Friendship...
polymorph the giant ape into a mouse for insult. (i boosted the tank, and the DM moused her)
minor illusion.

You cast stoneskin on the tank... he takes damage, you concentrate.
restriction to nonmagical damage is a valid gripe, but far fewer monsters deal magical damage than we think

Gastronomie

2018-10-16, 08:34 PM

For some reason I can't watch the video, is it working for other people?

(It's not that the link isn't working; searching the video and clicking on it wouldn't show the video either, saying there's an error.)

Kane0

2018-10-16, 09:09 PM

Youtube in general was having a problem, but should be back now

LudicSavant

2018-10-16, 09:15 PM

Youtube in general was having a problem, but should be back now

Still not working for me.

This appears to be an issue with all of Youtube, not Treantmonk's video specifically.

Draken

2018-10-16, 09:17 PM

If you are buffing an ally, you can flat out do better than Stoneskin, however. Defensively or Offensively. Haste does give a +2 to AC and advantage on Dex saving throws, that will deny a lot of damage. Plus the tank will have higher movement speed and an extra attack every round. Also, you don't spend money on it, not that it matters all that much, money doesn't really have that much value in 5th ed with WBL gone, I feel (not by default anyway).

As for Banishment vs Otiluke's, I can see his point. As a 4th level spell, Banishment is a single target crowd control that takes up your concentration. It is the absolute best single target crowd control that takes up your concentration, but that is still not a very good class of spells to be in.

Oh, to whoever said that Grasping Vine would be a nice 2nd level spell. Gust of Wind is better at forcing movement (specially if you want to throw people off cliffs), better at keeping enemies away from you and doesn't eat your bonus action to keep doing its thing (unless you need to change where it is aiming).

And now that I checked Grasping Vine in the middle of reviewing the spells, I must ask how a player was using that to chuck people off cliffs? It can only pull so the cliff would need to be between the vine and the target, that is a very tight fit, specially considering the vine can't move.

Corran

2018-10-16, 09:26 PM

I enjoy these videos and the discussion in the thread.

A few questions for anyone that is willing to answer (thanks in advance).

If you were playing a wizard and had every intention of taking wall of force at level 9, would you forgo taking banishment at level 7? I am tempted to say that I would take both, as there are certain enemies against which banishment (possibly upcasted but that depends on the enemy numbers; 2-5 strong enemies seems like a good set up against which to use banishment) would be a better use of concentration instead of wall of force (low charisma for starters, after that it depends on a mixture of factors like enemy positioning, environment and enemy size). If there are several enemies that fall into that category (stone giant is the only example that comes to mind; but this is where I think my issue is; that a lack of knowledge when it comes to MM does not let me see how much of a situational spell banishment actually is for a wizard), then perhaps a wizard should still get banishment, so that they can have a spell for these occasions (ie when it would be a better than wall of force). So, if anyone is willing to share some insight or just their instinct on this, I am all ears (again, thanks in advance).

Now, about guardian of faith. After I read Treantmonk's cleric build guide, I took a long look at this spell, and started searching of ways to incorporate it as part of some kind of tactical routine of either a cleric or some other sort of gish. And I couldn't do it. The fact that enemies stop taking damage while within the spell's area after the first time they take it, makes it just so difficult to plan around using this spell often and reliably. It is this kind of spell that needs to go hand in hand with some forced movement to make it useful. But even when it comes to forced movement, you need to be able to both pull and push enemies, so that makes it even harder for us to make the most out of this spell. Honestly, aside for camp protection, whenever I read this spell, the situation that comes to mind is the gates of a besieged city are broken and enemies start pouring inside. The defenders flee to the keep and some clerics cast this spell along the way of their retreat. I think this spell is too situational as a combat spell, and I don't think it's underrated. But I would love to hear examples of how someone might have thought of using it or used it in a way that would make it more commonly applicable than I think it is.

Treantmonk

2018-10-16, 09:59 PM

LudicSavant

2018-10-16, 10:12 PM

I enjoy these videos and the discussion in the thread.

A few questions for anyone that is willing to answer (thanks in advance).

If you were playing a wizard and had every intention of taking wall of force at level 9, would you forgo taking banishment at level 7? I am tempted to say that I would take both, as there are certain enemies against which banishment (possibly upcasted but that depends on the enemy numbers; 2-5 strong enemies seems like a good set up against which to use banishment) would be a better use of concentration instead of wall of force (low charisma for starters, after that it depends on a mixture of factors like enemy positioning, environment and enemy size). If there are several enemies that fall into that category (stone giant is the only example that comes to mind; but this is where I think my issue is; that a lack of knowledge when it comes to MM does not let me see how much of a situational spell banishment actually is for a wizard), then perhaps a wizard should still get banishment, so that they can have a spell for these occasions (ie when it would be a better than wall of force). So, if anyone is willing to share some insight or just their instinct on this, I am all ears (again, thanks in advance).

Your thinking is on the right track. It is often worthwhile to take both, as they both are countered by different things.

You mentioned Stone Giants, but I'd say that a different enemy is the most worthy of consideration here. What enemy could that be? Well...
https://youtu.be/Xi_hcwB8i64?t=12
Beware his powers!

Essentially, various casters tend to be able to deal with Wall of Force better than they can deal with things like, say, Portent Banishment. Given that said spellcasters tend to be one of the most threatening things in the entirety of D&D (seriously, "beware his powers" is good advice), any tool that helps out in this matchup is noteworthy.

In fact, landing Banishment on an enemy caster will stop their Banishment/Wall of Force/whatever they're concentrating on (if they're native to the plane you're on, of course).

Teaguethebean

2018-10-16, 10:35 PM

Corran

2018-10-16, 10:40 PM

Essentially, various casters tend to be able to deal with Wall of Force better than they can deal with things like, say, Portent Banishment. Given that said spellcasters tend to be one of the most threatening things in the entirety of D&D (seriously, "beware his powers" is good advice), any tool that helps out in this matchup is noteworthy.

In fact, landing Banishment on an enemy caster will stop their Banishment/Wall of Force/whatever they're concentrating on (if they're native to the plane you're on, of course).
Haha, it's funny not thinking how a spell you intend on using against enemies could just as well be used against you so effectively. Thanks for pointing that out.

And since this is a temple of knowledge...:smallsmile:What can a wizard use to protect themselves against banishment, aside from counterspell which is one obvious option. Can we do anything with contingency or some other spell?

Edit:

Man you will be impressed by cause fear a level one spell
Just want to say my opinion on this (even if your comment was not for me). Cause fear is lackluster (at least IMO), not because frightened is a bad condition, but because frightening an enemy will rarely make up for all the other downsides of this spell ( targets one enemy, save every round, concentration).

Draken

2018-10-16, 10:54 PM

Haha, it's funny not thinking how a spell you intend on using against enemies could just as well be used against you so effectively. Thanks for pointing that out.

And since this is a temple of knowledge...:smallsmile:What can a wizard use to protect themselves against banishment, aside from counterspell which is one obvious option. Can we do anything with contingency or some other spell?

Edit:

Just want to say my opinion on this (even if your comment was not for me). Cause fear is lackluster (at least IMO), not because frightened is a bad condition, but because frightening an enemy will rarely make up for all the other downsides of this spell ( targets one enemy, save every round, concentration).

Forbiddance should technically prevent Banishment from being used, but denying this particular effect is more the province of Dimensional Anchor which... Uh, hasn't been printed for 5th edition yet.

MaxWilson

2018-10-16, 11:31 PM

If you were playing a wizard and had every intention of taking wall of force at level 9, would you forgo taking banishment at level 7? I am tempted to say that I would take both

Sure, I would forego it. I can think of a bunch of other spells that would be higher on my list: Conjure Minor Elementals, Dimension Door, Evard's Black Tentacles, Polymorph, Fabricate, Arcane Eye, Greater Invisibility, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, perhaps Fire Shield and Confusion. I only get four of them, and the choice is already going to be painful. Polymorph, Evard's Black Tentacles, Dimension Door, Fabricate perhaps? No way am I going to ditch one of those four for Banishment.

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

And now that I checked Grasping Vine in the middle of reviewing the spells, I must ask how a player was using that to chuck people off cliffs? It can only pull so the cliff would need to be between the vine and the target, that is a very tight fit, specially considering the vine can't move.

He asked if he could cast it to pull the cyclops off the cliff, with the vine coming out of the cliff face and reaching up and back over, and I shrugged and said, "Sure."

By strict RAW the vine would be growing out of the ground at the bottom of the cliff instead (since the spell effect is defined in 2D terms not 3D terms) and it should have reached up dozens or hundreds of feet in the area and over the cliff to grab the giant--but there's a DM for a reason. It made more sense to just agree with the player's suggestion and let it work. In game mechanical terms there is no difference though--either way you get to pick a location and pull the enemy toward it.

Pex

2018-10-16, 11:43 PM

Teaguethebean

2018-10-17, 12:02 AM

Just want to say my opinion on this (even if your comment was not for me). Cause fear is lackluster (at least IMO), not because frightened is a bad condition, but because frightening an enemy will rarely make up for all the other downsides of this spell ( targets one enemy, save every round, concentration).

Oh I know it is a lackluster spell it was in response to a poorly thought out defense for phantasmal killer

Corran

2018-10-17, 12:23 AM

Forbiddance should technically prevent Banishment from being used, but denying this particular effect is more the province of Dimensional Anchor which... Uh, hasn't been printed for 5th edition yet.

Sure, I would forego it. I can think of a bunch of other spells that would be higher on my list: Conjure Minor Elementals, Dimension Door, Evard's Black Tentacles, Polymorph, Fabricate, Arcane Eye, Greater Invisibility, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, perhaps Fire Shield and Confusion. I only get four of them, and the choice is already going to be painful. Polymorph, Evard's Black Tentacles, Dimension Door, Fabricate perhaps? No way am I going to ditch one of those four for Banishment.

Ah... I know that I am in uncharted waters when I see spells that I don't remember exactly what they are doing (forbiddance and fabricate). *opens a wizard's guide*
Thank you both for your input.

MaxWilson

2018-10-17, 12:50 AM

Oh I know it is a lackluster spell it was in response to a poorly thought out defense for phantasmal killer

If you thought that was a "defense" of phantasmal killer you must have missed the multiple places where I said it's not a good spell.

Frightened is a pretty good condition to inflict. That doesn't make Phantasmal Killer a good spell. Phantasmal Killer would be a good spell if it were an Int save though.

Lord Vukodlak

2018-10-17, 03:34 AM

Oh no, you polymorphed your tank into a Giant Ape.
Animal Friendship...

Doesn't work, a giant ape has an intelligence of 7, anything 4 or above and the spell fails

Merudo

2018-10-17, 04:20 AM

Citan

2018-10-17, 04:56 AM

"In practice" you're probably not going to have 4 fellow PCs all specializing in the same element (e.g. everyone with Greenflame Blade), and if your party is doing it deliberately... there are still much better synergies you could build your party around. Elemental Bane would be cool if it inflicted vulnerability to a damage type, and it is nice that the druid can pick it up whenever it's likely to be needed, but it's still pretty marginal. Not useless, but not worth building a party around, and seldom even worth memorizing IMO.

YMMV.

I'm sorry but your "in practice" argument bears no weight.
The thing is, there is no need to have all PC specializing. No need *at all*
Every caster will usually have at least two elemental cantrips.
A Paladin or a Rogue usually try to get as many OA as possible, and it's easy for both to get Warcaster to pair with damaging spell/cantrip.
Druids and Wizards get Conjure Minor Elemental and Conjure Elemental.

So technically just 2 guys properly set up could enough to work up 8d6 more damage per round. Or you could simply upcast EB to affect two creatures then use abilities that can affect several creatures.
And even outside of this obviously particular use-case...

I don't see many casters (apart from Warlock) not picking Firebolt or Ray of Frost because those are the best go-to cantrips for ranged attacks.
I don't see many Sorcerers or Wizards either not picking Chromatic Bolt precisely because it's an adaptative spell.
I see even less Eldricht Knights and Arcane Tricksters not picking Booming Blade at least, possibly GreenFlame Blade.
And between...
- Chromatic Bot, Shatter, Burning Hands, Dragon Breath, Absorb Elements and Ice Knife which are easy to get for most casters,
- Elemental Weapon or added elemental damage as class features (like Nature Cleric, Tempest Cleric etc)
- Magic weapons you can get, although elemental ones are mostly rare IIRC...
You have plenty of combinations of characters and build that would immediately benefit of Elemental Bane without having to discuss and decide on one particular element to focus on in session 0.

You are basically taking the thing in reverse:
Elemental Bane is NOT about specializing a whole party around one particular trick (which would be extremely dangerous).
It's about using a single spell to enhance a subset of abitilites...
- Whenever the usual party tactics won't work (ex usual tactic is Polymorphing or Holding bad guy, tough luck this one has high WIS, or just gangbang with weapon attacks, too bad this one is resistant or has high defense).
- Or whenever one or two particular member, which party usually relies on heavily to deal damage (typical opti example: Rogue with Booming Blade and Warcaster, Paladin with smite spells), would be half as efficient because resistance.
- Or whenever it's important to kill a few creatures as quickly as possible yet party wants to conserve resources overall (as I demonstrated, Elemental Bane is roughly equivalent to a "two-ranks" upgrade of every cantrip, class feature or 1st to 4th spell, including Elemental Weapon or even Flame Arrows -we finally found a niche use for this one, yay o/-).

That's why the spell is probably useless in a full-martial party (except bunch of particular cases like Storm Herald Barbarian / Eldricht Knight / Arcane Trickster / 4E Monk), probably worth picking in a balanced 4+ party (just one other Druid or Wizard makes it worth if they go Conjurer), and totally great when you can project at least 4 instances of added damage in a round. And those can be fairly common occurences considering all above.

If Elemental Bane was worthless, then what to say about Crusader's Mantle? It's a 3rd level spell...
- non-scalable
- only adding 1d4 damage, of a type that can have synergy with only some Clerics and Warlocks basically (at least it's rarely resisted),
- not doing anything against damage resistance creatures may have otherwise...
- and requiring everyone to stay within 30 feet (which amounts to a big middle finger towards all guys that try to stay out of danger, typically casters).
Yet it can great in melee parties especially those with many attacks, or with conjured minions.

Same spirit with Elemental Bane: party buff that scales extremely well. Only two differences are that...
- EB is more reliant on party numbers.
- But EB is also much easier to use whatever kind of party you are in. :)

ProsecutorGodot

2018-10-17, 05:19 AM

Treantmonk, I've noticed you sometimes rate a spells without taking account every spell list it's on.

I think "bad" spells might actually be alright for a given class if said class lacks similar options.

Examples:
- Confusion: rated 3rd worst level 4 spell because it is worst than Slow/Fear/Hypnotic Pattern/Stinking Cloud. However, Druids have access to none of these alternative spells, so Confusion has some uses for them.
- Catnap: rated worst level 3 spell because it is worst than Rope Trick. However, only Wizards get access to Rope Trick
- Healing Word: on the overrated list, because the Familiar/Goodberries combo is superior. But said combo is not available to Clerics

When giving a "worst" or "overrated" rating to a spell, I think it is best to consider the classes for which the spells has the most value.

I agree with this, however I feel the need to point out that my positive experience with Catnap in particular has come from the fact that the Gloom Stalker Ranger in my party, where I played the Wizard, allowed me to use Catnap to give us prep time after the short rest inside the Rope Trick.

My secondary point in this is that, just to be fair, some subclasses gain access to these combos listed. Gloom Stalker Ranger gets Rope Trick. Arctic Land Druids get access to slow. Sadly for clerics my only solution requires bare minimum of feats (Magic Initiate Druid, Ritual Caster Wizard) or multiclassing to acquire goodberry + find familiar.

In fact, something I hadn't even thought of at the time was that Catnap can cast itself for free using Arcane Recovery. It's not a concentration spell and there's nothing saying that the caster can't target themselves with it. I know the spell is niche but I wouldn't say it's the absolute worst.

SNIP

I'm not sure if comparing Elemental Bane to Crusader's Mantle is making a good case towards defending it, even as a niche spell. In either case where you could choose to either target a single creature with Elemental Bane (because upcasting Elemental Bane is something I can't consider realistic) or cast Crusader's Mantle, I would rather have Crusader's Mantle.

A few things to point out in your example however:
-Crusader's Mantle only applies to weapon attacks, your casters aren't making use of it regardless
-Elemental Bane doesn't interact with Damage Immunities.
-Elemental Bane only activates on the specific damage type you chose, once per turn.
-Elemental Bane does nothing if the target saves
-Crusader's Mantle scales with extra attack, saying that Crusader's Mantle is non scaleable but advocating for Elemental Bane scaling with multiple attacks is poor form
-Crusader's Mantle is always going to be a good damage type and the enemies have no choice but to take the damage unless they're immune (only 1 monster in 5E is totally immune to radiant damage)
-Crusader's Mantle can split its damage against multiple targets
-You bring up a party strategy being foiled by a high Wisdom Target, however those spells cause the target to be completely helpless on a success. Elemental Bane gives a minor benefit and targets an equally "poor" save

I would say that this in practice example does have merit because Elemental Bane is significantly harder to make consistent use of without building a group around it (which isn't as simple as you're suggesting, since it requires the martials to have cantrips and/or War Caster and the casters to have very specific spells), whereas Crusader's Mantle would be equally or more useful with just 2 martial characters with extra attack, no investment beyond leveling your class necessary.

Edit: to expand on my point, I had briefly considered taking Elemental Bane as my new 4th level spell in the ongoing SKT campaign (the same one mentioned above) but quickly thought better of it. The reasoning for taking it was to help out our Blaster Sorcerer (Red Dragon Bloodline) in our next endeavor into Fire Giant territory. The cost of my concentration and the fact that our party doesn't share a common elemental type (except for Thunder and Fire damage) as well as targeting what I knew was a strong save on the giants part was enough to steer me in another direction. It's not worth my concentration and I can deal or enable more damage in other, less costly ways.

Treantmonk

2018-10-17, 06:40 AM

Treantmonk, I've noticed you sometimes rate a spells without taking account every spell list it's on.

For the purpose of this series, I'm rating spells against each other by spell level alone. I figure in theory, a 5th level spell on one list should be as good as a 5th level spell on another list. Though that might just be my viewpoint.

I think "bad" spells might actually be alright for a given class if said class lacks similar options.

I disagree. If a class isn't supposed to have access to "good" spells of a certain type, then maybe don't give them access to spells at that type at all, rather than throwing them some bad options that players may not realize are bad until they've used them for awhile.

- Healing Word: on the overrated list, because the Familiar/Goodberries combo is superior. But said combo is not available to Clerics

To be clear, I still recommend Healing Word as a spell choice. I don't think it's overrated because Goodberry is better, I think it's overrated because THIS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzlR00IZ29A) is not a unique opinion.

Considering people actually think that, I'm betting you would agree it HAD to be my most overrated spell for level 1.

Zalabim

2018-10-17, 08:27 AM

While some spells are better than others, there should be no case of a spell being made better or worse because of the spell list it's on. Fireball does more damage because it's fireball, for example. This point is usually in answer to ranger and paladin spells. As a notable example, swift quiver is totally in line with haste and won't make your bard into the best archer in the game.

Confusion: The area is small, but like slow it doesn't have to deal with charm or fear immunity and it eclipses slow for outright denying the victim control of their action 80% of the time. There's even a chance to cause friendly fire with it. A slowed enemy can still move at half speed and attack every turn, or otherwise try to defend themselves. If Confusion is bad at its level it's only because the 4th level competition is too fierce. I'm sure there's something else that actually deserves this spot. I'm tempted to give Grasping Vine two spots at the moment.

Sorcerers are limited in spells. They can take Polymorph, but Banishment is also valuable. Heighten spell offers a chance for the opponent to fail the save, but in my opinion the stronger option is to Twin it. It's like giving the DM disadvantage even though two creatures make one save. True you can upcast which is why Banishment is good for its own sake, but Twinning helps the Sorcerer conserve his higher level spell slots. Over rated or not, for Sorcerers Banishment is worth knowing.
Banishment is in the somewhat unique case of being more expensive to Twin it than to upcast it. It does take time to switch your 4th level slot and sorcery points into a 5th level slot, however. Once you do that, it's 7 sorcery points to make a 5th level slot, or 8 sorcery point value if you cast a twinned 4th level spell.

He asked if he could cast it to pull the cyclops off the cliff, with the vine coming out of the cliff face and reaching up and back over, and I shrugged and said, "Sure."

By strict RAW the vine would be growing out of the ground at the bottom of the cliff instead (since the spell effect is defined in 2D terms not 3D terms) and it should have reached up dozens or hundreds of feet in the area and over the cliff to grab the giant--but there's a DM for a reason. It made more sense to just agree with the player's suggestion and let it work. In game mechanical terms there is no difference though--either way you get to pick a location and pull the enemy toward it.
The spell only has a 30' range, and has to originate from a space on the ground that you can see. You have to be able to see the creature you want to pull as well. It's just a really bad spell all around. It works entirely off of bonus actions though, so it's an option a ranger can use without interrupting their normal attacks at all. It's just not worth a 4th level slot. Maybe 2nd level, as a concentration-required, shorter ranged, immobile, pulling version of the excellent spiritual weapon. I don't think it would overshadow gust of wind as a second level spell.

Draken

2018-10-17, 09:24 AM

I have of late been considering the idea that a spell should either demand your concentration or your repeated actions, but never both. As a general fix to a number of terrible spells.

MaxWilson

2018-10-17, 12:24 PM

The spell only has a 30' range, and has to originate from a space on the ground that you can see.

A fair point about range. The cliff was something like 80' high (I forget exactly) so the ground at the bottom would have been out of range I guess.

I don't regret the ruling but I can see now how it meaningfully diverges from the rules as written, and therefore makes the spell technically worse.

tieren

2018-10-17, 12:31 PM

Personally, I'd allow the vine to be at the very edge of the cliff and pull things over, call it their momentum carrying them over.

Pex

2018-10-17, 12:35 PM

Banishment is in the somewhat unique case of being more expensive to Twin it than to upcast it. It does take time to switch your 4th level slot and sorcery points into a 5th level slot, however. Once you do that, it's 7 sorcery points to make a 5th level slot, or 8 sorcery point value if you cast a twinned 4th level spell.

??

It only costs 4 to twin Banishment. You can't twin it if you upcast it. Your choice is twin Banishment or use a 5th level slot for the same effect. At 7th and 8th level twinning Banishment is phenomenal. Even 9th level is a good time to do it since you only have one 5th level spell slot itching for your first 5th level spell. It becomes niche cases to upcast Banishment at high level play. Good to do when you need it but not as standard operating procedure. Twinning Banishment could be. Game circumstances of course can influence things. I'm not saying every Sorcerer must have Banishment or else you're doing it wrong. I just find the spell more valuable to Sorcerers than other spellcasters for twinning purposes.

Citan

2018-10-17, 02:16 PM

I would say that this in practice example does have merit because Elemental Bane is significantly harder to make consistent use of without building a group around it (which isn't as simple as you're suggesting, since it requires the martials to have cantrips and/or War Caster and the casters to have very specific spells), whereas Crusader's Mantle would be equally or more useful with just 2 martial characters with extra attack, no investment beyond leveling your class necessary.

Edit: to expand on my point, I had briefly considered taking Elemental Bane as my new 4th level spell in the ongoing SKT campaign (the same one mentioned above) but quickly thought better of it. The reasoning for taking it was to help out our Blaster Sorcerer (Red Dragon Bloodline) in our next endeavor into Fire Giant territory. The cost of my concentration and the fact that our party doesn't share a common elemental type (except for Thunder and Fire damage) as well as targeting what I knew was a strong save on the giants part was enough to steer me in another direction. It's not worth my concentration and I can deal or enable more damage in other, less costly ways.
I'd like to point out that I DID stress that Crusader's Mantle scales with number of weapon attacks.
But precisely the fact it works only on weapon attacks and requires everyone in a 30 feet sphere is a big downside to me.

Especially on that part...
"I would say that this in practice example does have merit because Elemental Bane is significantly harder to make consistent use of without building a group around it "
It's funny how from the same facts we come to such opposite conclusions.
Elemental Bane works consistently well with 90% of party compositions, precisely because so many classes get elemental damage one way or another.

I mean, I demonstrated pretty neatly I think how you can use Elemental Bane with whatever (mostly) character you have in your group.
Crusader's Mantle however is mostly worthless for all casters and all ranged attackers.

Deathtongue

2018-10-17, 02:53 PM

Here's my problem with Elemental Bane. It targets Constitution. The worst save in the game to target save for a small handful of higher-CR spellcasters. If you're targeting Constitution with a 4th level spell, it better take the target out of the game entirely. It does not do that. It pierces resistance and allows people to do 2d6 extra damage a turn. Not per damage instance, per turn. Flaming Sphere and Melf's Minute Meteors beat it on several metrics (being redeployable, can target more than one creature, targets a better save) and neither are exactly a game-changer.

I don't know where this idea came from that spells have to have some hidden use that we just don't see. This game printed Mordenkainen's Sword, that mentality should've been permanently shattered years ago.

MaxWilson

2018-10-17, 02:56 PM

I mean, I demonstrated pretty neatly I think how you can use Elemental Bane with whatever (mostly) character you have in your group.

I don't think you did this, or at least you didn't do a good job of showing why anyone else should share your thinking. Mostly you just told us about what spells your group picks, and not in a way which adds up to that easy +8d6 damage/round you mentioned originally. Quoting the key section:

I don't see many casters (apart from Warlock) not picking Firebolt or Ray of Frost because those are the best go-to cantrips for ranged attacks.
I don't see many Sorcerers or Wizards either not picking Chromatic Bolt precisely because it's an adaptative spell.
I see even less Eldricht Knights and Arcane Tricksters not picking Booming Blade at least, possibly GreenFlame Blade.
And between...
- Chromatic Bot, Shatter, Burning Hands, Dragon Breath, Absorb Elements and Ice Knife which are easy to get for most casters,
- Elemental Weapon or added elemental damage as class features (like Nature Cleric, Tempest Cleric etc)
- Magic weapons you can get, although elemental ones are mostly rare IIRC...
You have plenty of combinations of characters and build that would immediately benefit of Elemental Bane without having to discuss and decide on one particular element to focus on in session 0.

So, let's say you've got a group with a Booming Blade/Sharpshooter EK, an Ancestor Barbarian, a Moon Druid, and a Bardlock. The hypothetical bardlock is trying to decide between Elemental Bane and Crusader's Mantle. How in the world is Elemental Bane going to yield +8d6 damage/round? It's not (Edit: see *** for niche exception). Even if you choose fire and the Moon Druid chucks Produce Flame and the Bardlock decides to engage with Greenflame Blade instead of Agonizing Repelling Eldritch Blast (a questionable decision), you're spending your concentration and a spell slot to get +4d6 damage per round, not +8d6. Crusader's Mantle isn't terrific, but it straightforwardly adds about +6d4 right off the bat (~two attacks each for EK/Barb/wildshaped Moon Druid) with an extra +8d4 if the Moon Druid has any conjured animals. And you don't have to discount the spell effects based on the chance of the enemy succeeding on its save or there being multiple enemies, because Crusader's Mantle is a buff to your allies, not a curse to a single enemy.

You've illustrated your thinking pretty clearly, and I'm glad you did that, but not cogently. Now I understand why we don't agree, but I don't expect your argument to persuade anyone else ****.

*** Edit: I acknowledge that Elemental Bane could be pretty nice if you summon Magma Mephits. 8 Magma Mephits spamming 8 Heat Metals for 2d8+2d6 per turn is obviously better than 8 Magma Mephits spamming Heat Metal for only 2d8 per turn, even before you add in Greenflame Blade + Produce Flame from the druid + bardlock. But a tactic which is strong only against an enemy with enough metal objects on them for 8 Heat Metals is... pretty niche.

**** I have to think about the Magma Mephit use case some more but I think it is too niche to persuade me that "you can use Elemental Bane with whatever (mostly) character you have in your group," especially when you start counting the opportunity cost of spending TWO concentration spells and a 6th level spell slot for a combo relying on a bunch of fragile 22-HP minions.

Crusader's Mantle however is mostly worthless for all casters and all ranged attackers.

Nitpick: this is not correct. If I have 20 skeleton archers within 30' of me shooting arrows at a dragon, 20 skeletons all get +1d4 radiant damage per hit. Ditto for an EK shooting arrows. It's true that ranged attackers have a motivation to spread out and so are less likely to all benefit from the same Crusader's Mantle, but it is false to equate that with it being "mostly worthless" to "all ranged attackers".

In general, it's just easier to get lots of weapon attacks (Crusader's Mantle) than it is to get lots of elemental attacks (Elemental Bane). And Crusader's Mantle doesn't rely on there being one big tough target who nevertheless fails its Con save.

Citan

2018-10-17, 05:59 PM

I don't think you did this, or at least you didn't do a good job of showing why anyone else should share your thinking. Mostly you just told us about what spells your group picks, and not in a way which adds up to that easy +8d6 damage/round you mentioned originally. Quoting the key section:

So, let's say you've got a group with a Booming Blade/Sharpshooter EK, an Ancestor Barbarian, a Moon Druid, and a Bardlock. The hypothetical bardlock is trying to decide between Elemental Bane and Crusader's Mantle. How in the world is Elemental Bane going to yield +8d6 damage/round? It's not (Edit: see *** for niche exception). Even if you choose fire and the Moon Druid chucks Produce Flame and the Bardlock decides to engage with Greenflame Blade instead of Agonizing Repelling Eldritch Blast (a questionable decision), you're spending your concentration and a spell slot to get +4d6 damage per round, not +8d6. Crusader's Mantle isn't terrific, but it straightforwardly adds about +6d4 right off the bat (~two attacks each for EK/Barb/wildshaped Moon Druid) with an extra +8d4 if the Moon Druid has any conjured animals. And you don't have to discount the spell effects based on the chance of the enemy succeeding on its save or there being multiple enemies, because Crusader's Mantle is a buff to your allies, not a curse to a single enemy.

You've illustrated your thinking pretty clearly, and I'm glad you did that, but not cogently. Now I understand why we don't agree, but I don't expect your argument to persuade anyone else ****.

*** Edit: I acknowledge that Elemental Bane could be pretty nice if you summon Magma Mephits. 8 Magma Mephits spamming 8 Heat Metals for 2d8+2d6 per turn is obviously better than 8 Magma Mephits spamming Heat Metal for only 2d8 per turn, even before you add in Greenflame Blade + Produce Flame from the druid + bardlock. But a tactic which is strong only against an enemy with enough metal objects on them for 8 Heat Metals is... pretty niche.

**** I have to think about the Magma Mephit use case some more but I think it is too niche to persuade me that "you can use Elemental Bane with whatever (mostly) character you have in your group," especially when you start counting the opportunity cost of spending TWO concentration spells and a 6th level spell slot for a combo relying on a bunch of fragile 22-HP minions.

Nitpick: this is not correct. If I have 20 skeleton archers within 30' of me shooting arrows at a dragon, 20 skeletons all get +1d4 radiant damage per hit. Ditto for an EK shooting arrows. It's true that ranged attackers have a motivation to spread out and so are less likely to all benefit from the same Crusader's Mantle, but it is false to equate that with it being "mostly worthless" to "all ranged attackers".

In general, it's just easier to get lots of weapon attacks (Crusader's Mantle) than it is to get lots of elemental attacks (Elemental Bane). And Crusader's Mantle doesn't rely on there being one big tough target who nevertheless fails its Con save.
Well, as usual you don't really try to project, just reducing other's argument in a way that helps your own view by trying to pick the extreme opposite and presenting it as a general case.

Ok, nevermind.

Let's pick what I think everyone will agree as being an archetypal group. Obviously level 7-8. ;)
Wizard (Diviner or Evoker), Rogue (Thief or Arcane Trickster), Fighter (Eldricht Knight), Cleric (Tempest or Life).
For this group, Elemental Bane wouldn't be in the spells to keep prepared "by default". Only the EK, Wizard itself and possibly Cleric (if Tempest) or Rogue (if Magic Initiate) could get some work of it.

What could be affected? Booming Blade (Rogue/Fighter), GreenFlameBlade (Rogue), Create Bonfire (Fighter) and Flame Strike (Cleric, which usually has better spending of slots anyways). So, useless? Nope.

It's still worth having in the book (reminder: nobody forces you to *prepare* it every single day) for whenever you expect to be fighting fire-resistant or thunder-resistant enemies or just want to be on the safe side.
Booming Blade: instead of 50% reduction, you get at the very least 50% *increase* (lvl 8: 1d8+5 (weapon) + 1d8 (thunder)), and another 50% increase on enemy's turn thanks to the rider. Because now enemy moving would take 2d8+2d6.
Conversely, this also means the "you'd rather not move" soft control effect is *much* more efficient.
So with just one guy with one easy to get cantrip, you give at least 4d6 extra damage (Rogue or Fighter + yourself), possibly 6d6.
If you upcast Elemental Bane to target 2 creatures, you can quickly rack up to 10d6 (yourself using low-level AOE is simple enough).

GreenFlameBlade: same basic 50% increase, which could amount to much more with an upcast Elemental Bane thanks to the collateral damage.
And you as a Wizard probably got a fire cantrip too so same as previous.

--
Now let's consider another classic party: Paladin, Eldricht Knight, Nature Cleric, Wizard.
Paladin could use Searing Smite, now dealing 3d6 damage until CON save (if you used Elemental Bane, I figure you consider chances of failing save are high enough ;)).
Eldricht Knight could grapple him over a Create Bonfire while smaking it.

Let's figure what happens at level 9.
Paladin gets Elemental Weapon, so fire/ice/lightning are legit. Eldricht Knight could mix up War Magic to get extra damage from a cantrip among Booming Blade / GreenFlameBlade / Shocking Grasp / Ray of Frost while still getting one weapon attack. Nature Cleric gets extra damage that he can choose from with a weapon attack. Yourself as a Wizard can reasonably spend one or two Chromatic Bolts.
So three of party can use Elemental Bane with all elements, only the EK will feel a bit cranked unless he used one of its many feats to get Magic Initiate.
And the ONLY choice here are:
- Wizard picks and prepares Elemental Bane (normally not a big deal unless no chance to learn extra spells).
- Paladin prepares Elemental Weapon (which is honestly a sensible thing to do usually whenever you don't know what you'll face the next day).
And I honestly could find ways to crank up similar damage mostly whatever party combination you get unless you only pick purely martial ones.
So much for "you just told your group's choices" (which is by the way terribly wrong, I've been pulling back everything I read around here in addition to people around me).

As I said... You just don't try to see the synergy.
And I find very funny that you try to refute my argument of "it's too niche" with the nichest use-case that may exist for Crusaders' Mantle (yeah, sorry, undead armies led by PC is NOT normal).

I can completely respect an opinion like "I'll always prefer try my luck on a debuff spell" (because that is personal taste, nothing to say to that) or "I'll always rather try a group debuff" (because having full waste is very frustrating, at least you'll have some effect, and I can perfectly back that)...
But saying that "Elemental Bane is useless" or "Elemental Bane requires a very specific party" is just blinding oneself. It's the opposite: Elemental Bane is useless only with a few specific cases of party composition.

Oh, by the way, on your example (congrats on finding probably the most disparate party, I did mention that martial heavy parties were the less fitting and you put a non-Storm Herald Barbarian in here, a Sharpshooter with Booming Blade -which means basically it's a ranged martial, without elemental ability and Booming Blade as a simple afterthought): if party considers thunder damage is the way to go, have the Fighter comes up and close to use Booming Blade, you're already 2d6 or 4d6 in. Bardlock (I'll guess Hexblade because it's the obvious optimal choice) will certainly have picked Booming Blade whatever Pact he chooses. So just do the same.
Enemy doesn't move? 4d6 extra damage. Enemy moves? 6d6 (since riders don't stack). On only 2 people. Or you could use another thunder damage cantrip/spell if it's better for situation.
If fire was the way to go? EK can use Firebolt or Create Bonfire or GreenFlame Blade and one Sharpshooter shoot with War magic (reminder: you're supposedly fighting an enemy with a reason to use Elemental Bane, like being resistant to weapon damage or very high HP and/or dangerous close-quarter abilities), while Bardlock uses GreenFlame Blade or Firebolt. Druid can conjure up some Minor Elemental then use Produce Flame, or keep up a Flaming Sphere, if high enough level could stack this with a Fire Elemental Shape.
Maths? 2d6 (EK) + 2d6 (Warlock) + 2d6 (Druid) + 2d6 (conjuration). Buff that with 50% or 100% increase as soon as Warlock gets autoupcast as a level 5 spell (2 creatures), depending on other cantrips and spells party has.

Here's my problem with Elemental Bane. It targets Constitution. The worst save in the game to target save for a small handful of higher-CR spellcasters. If you're targeting Constitution with a 4th level spell, it better take the target out of the game entirely. It does not do that. It pierces resistance and allows people to do 2d6 extra damage a turn. Not per damage instance, per turn. Flaming Sphere and Melf's Minute Meteors beat it on several metrics (being redeployable, can target more than one creature, targets a better save) and neither are exactly a game-changer.

I don't know where this idea came from that spells have to have some hidden use that we just don't see. This game printed Mordenkainen's Sword, that mentality should've been permanently shattered years ago.
Yeah, it's true, targeting CON is a pain.
This is certainly one flaw (the only one in fact) of the spell.

But who cares really? The single-target spells that are in practice "accurate enough" to be reliable against most enemies and "sustainable enough" to last can be counted on probably no more than two hands: basically only spells that target INT and CHA.
Blindness targets CON and gives a save every turn. But people still use it because sometimes a turn is enough.
Hold Person targets WIS which is better, but it gives a save every turn. And you still have no certainty of success. Yet people still use it because one turn of better offense and defense is (usually) worth the shot.
Hypnotic Pattern targets WIS, and ends whenever targets suffers damage (among other things) which makes it fairly unreliable in practice unless whole party is ready and in ability to shut off anyone succeeding on the save. Yet many *many people* try their luck because it's still quite a few actions wasted on enemy side usually.
Elemental Bane caters to different situations: ONE fail is all you need. And ONE fail is something that can be helped with unless you have no knowledge at all about enemies nor any character with save-altering spell/feature.
And pulling the "it's save or nothing" card against it honestly hilarious considering this is the case of at least 50% of debuff spells, including the most appreciated ones like...
- Polymorph (which renders that enemy harmless, but ultimately delays the actual dealing with it)
- Banishment (same)
- Phantasmal Force (which can be a bit unreliable or limited depending on player and DM).
So, in reality, every day of adventuring, casters waste a chunk of slots, sometimes because of inaccurate assessment of enemy weaknesses, sometimes because of sheer bad luck... And still people enjoy very much playing casters even without being Diviner Wizard / Sorcerer.

I'd like to stress that I'm not saying anything like "Elemental Bane is great and should be used as often as possible".
To be honest, as a Wizard, my first reflex would never be Elemental Bane, rather a Slow or Wall. Because those usually have *some* effect so I won't fear wasting a slot (although in practice the results may be of little interest to party).
But it does have enough utility to be kept either permanently as a Wizard (because you can afford it), as a Druid (same, especially Shepherd or Moon) or as a conscious design choice as a Warlock (because you have enough people in party with elemental tools or because you consider having enough ways to make good use of it yourself).

And it becomes a shiny big tool in parties made by optimizing people: let's recall the number of threads around here about Warcaster Booming Blade Rogues, GWM+Warcaster Booming Blade/GreenFlameBlade Eldricht Knights, Twinning Booming Blade / Chromatic Bolt single/dual/tri-classed Sorcerer, HexbladesWarlocks/DevotionOrVengeancePaladins to quote the most prominent ones.

MaxWilson

2018-10-17, 06:51 PM

And I find very funny that you try to refute my argument of "it's too niche" with the nichest use-case that may exist for Crusaders' Mantle (yeah, sorry, undead armies led by PC is NOT normal).

That wasn't a refutation of "it's niche." That was a correction to "mostly worthless for... all ranged attackers."

We apparently both agree that Crusader's Mantle is not great, but if I want to demonstrate use cases I'll point not only to necromancers but also to fighters, barbarians, druids (especially Shepherd), and anyone fighting zombies or vampires. It's niche and definitely not terrific but its utility is not restricted to just necromancers.

But saying that "Elemental Bane is useless" or "Elemental Bane requires a very specific party" is just blinding oneself...

I'd like to stress that I'm not saying anything like "Elemental Bane is great and should be used as often as possible".
To be honest, as a Wizard, my first reflex would never be Elemental Bane, rather a Slow or Wall...
But it does have enough utility to be kept either permanently as a Wizard (because you can afford it), as a Druid (same, especially Shepherd or Moon) or as a conscious design choice as a Warlock (because you have enough people in party with elemental tools or because you consider having enough ways to make good use of it yourself).

I'd never pick Elemental Bane on level-up, but if I got it for free as a wizard, as loot instead of a level-up pick, sure, I'd keep it. In that scenario it's basically free, costs me only time and gold. I think we both agree that it's not useless to have in your spell list. But it isn't great and I would rarely even prepare it.

Chaosmancer

2018-10-17, 07:35 PM

If Elemental Bane was worthless, then what to say about Crusader's Mantle? It's a 3rd level spell...
- non-scalable
- only adding 1d4 damage, of a type that can have synergy with only some Clerics and Warlocks basically (at least it's rarely resisted),
- not doing anything against damage resistance creatures may have otherwise...
- and requiring everyone to stay within 30 feet (which amounts to a big middle finger towards all guys that try to stay out of danger, typically casters).
Yet it can great in melee parties especially those with many attacks, or with conjured minions.

Same spirit with Elemental Bane: party buff that scales extremely well. Only two differences are that...
- EB is more reliant on party numbers.
- But EB is also much easier to use whatever kind of party you are in. :)

I could be remembering wrong but Elemental bane has a saving throw and affects only a single target. Meaning even in the best circumstance you're only ganking a single opponent.

Crusaders Mantle is a buff, so no save and it doesn't care about the number of enemies. Only about if you are within the aura.

I can see a big difference in the tactics of those spells

Edit: I see I should have reloaded the page before posting.

I can see where the damage of Elemental bane stacks if everyone has elemental damage. But even if you can (and you can't always unless the group has coordinated, because while the fighter CAN get magic initiate for green flame, they took mobile to get in melee quicker or some other strategy)

However, it still doesn't change that single target. I'd say its rare to have a lot of mid level fights with only a single important target, because too many spells end that fight and the damage inequity is too big.

Zalabim

2018-10-18, 02:08 AM

??

It only costs 4 to twin Banishment. You can't twin it if you upcast it. Your choice is twin Banishment or use a 5th level slot for the same effect. At 7th and 8th level twinning Banishment is phenomenal. Even 9th level is a good time to do it since you only have one 5th level spell slot itching for your first 5th level spell. It becomes niche cases to upcast Banishment at high level play. Good to do when you need it but not as standard operating procedure. Twinning Banishment could be. Game circumstances of course can influence things. I'm not saying every Sorcerer must have Banishment or else you're doing it wrong. I just find the spell more valuable to Sorcerers than other spellcasters for twinning purposes.

You're forgetting about Font of Magic which all sorcerers have access to.

Jerrykhor

2018-10-18, 02:31 AM

Elemental Bane may be bad, but no way its worse than Grasping Vine. Like many have said, Elemental Bane is a very niche spell whose mileage depends on the team setup and enemy type.

But Grasping Vine has to take the No.1 spot. The spell is just horrible mechanically, and fluff wise. The vine pulls a creature nearer to itself.... and cannot hold on to it. Not even a basic debuff such as grappled, restrained or whatever. Nothing. You know, things that Lv1 spells do. It just pulls you in and lets go, so that it can pull you again. It doesn't even make sense! So it does no damage, hogs your concentration AND bonus action, and it pulls the target. But its not even forced movement a la Dissonant Whispers. Its essentially a glorified Thorn Whip.

And no, I disagree that Banishment is overrated. When spells with repeated saves are the norm, Banishment stands out for being one of the few 'Fail once, suck forever' spell. Its only weakness being Concentration, but its one where it made sense to balance out this otherwise incredibly overpowered spell that can hard CC a creature no matter how big, how strong or how fast it is.

tchntm43

2018-10-18, 10:45 AM

I just started watching your videos. Really cool stuff. I've never really thought about how spells can be used in combination to be more than the sum of the parts (i.e. Goodberry + Find Familiar), and I'm not really sure how I never considered that since I've also been playing Magic since 1994.

I'm not really sure there are useless spells (i.e. Illusionary Script). One aspect of my personal DM philosophy is that it's my job to make my player's decisions relevant. If someone in my group thinks Illusionary Script is a cool spell to take, it'll be up to me to have some element of the story involve a part where using that spell (if they realize it) would be helpful. As part of the process in planning out my dungeons and role-playing scenarios, I'm going to look at what the party has for items and skills, and add content that gives them the opportunity to use what they have.

EvilAnagram

2018-10-18, 02:24 PM

For the purpose of this series, I'm rating spells against each other by spell level alone. I figure in theory, a 5th level spell on one list should be as good as a 5th level spell on another list. Though that might just be my viewpoint.
The designers have explained in multiple D&D Beyond videos that they disagree. Damaging spells from divine classes, for example, are intentionally less damaging than arcane spell lists because they want the classes to have different feels. This extends into having different disabling and buffing spells available to different classes. Sure Otiluke's Resilient Sphere is nice, but my sorcerer can't use it. She can use a Heightened Banishment to end a fight with a Gorristro with an 80% chance of success, however. Well, 92.5% with Bend Luck.

Your position just doesn't mesh with the design goals of the game.

MaxWilson

2018-10-18, 02:33 PM

The designers have explained in multiple D&D Beyond videos that they disagree. Damaging spells from divine classes, for example, are intentionally less damaging than arcane spell lists because they want the classes to have different feels.

Not that I didn't suspect this already, but... what a huge disconnect between the designers who said this and the writers of the 5E DMG spell creation guidelines.

EvilAnagram

2018-10-18, 02:56 PM

Not that I didn't suspect this already, but... what a huge disconnect between the designers who said this and the writers of the 5E DMG spell creation guidelines.

Here is the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USqR_-pcXAw), if you're interested.

MaxWilson

2018-10-18, 03:06 PM

Here is the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USqR_-pcXAw), if you're interested.

Thanks.

Reaction: ugh, seriously? He's explicitly pushing that "dragons can fly because of magic" garbage? That just opens the door for huge arguments about antimagic zones. What a careless thing to say in public.

Merudo

2018-10-18, 03:16 PM

But Grasping Vine has to take the No.1 spot. The spell is just horrible mechanically, and fluff wise. The vine pulls a creature nearer to itself.... and cannot hold on to it. Not even a basic debuff such as grappled, restrained or whatever. Nothing. You know, things that Lv1 spells do. It just pulls you in and lets go, so that it can pull you again. It doesn't even make sense! So it does no damage, hogs your concentration AND bonus action, and it pulls the target. But its not even forced movement a la Dissonant Whispers. Its essentially a glorified Thorn Whip.

Grasping Vine is a great spell if cast near a spiked pit, a bridge, a tower, etc. Could potentially be a save or die spell, every round.

Sure, it is incredibly niche - but for Druids who can prepare it only when needed, that doesn't matter one bit.

Treantmonk

2018-10-18, 03:44 PM

Draken

2018-10-18, 09:37 PM

Grasping Vine is a great spell if cast near a spiked pit, a bridge, a tower, etc. Could potentially be a save or die spell, every round.

Sure, it is incredibly niche - but for Druids who can prepare it only when needed, that doesn't matter one bit.

The spell still demands an incredibly specific situation where you put the spell on the other side of a ravine so it can pull enemies over it. It's positional demands for such a use are downright outlandish.

And if you want to continuously force enemies to save against being pushed to their doom, well, Gust of Wind is a second level spell, significantly less fiddly and just generally more useful to boot. Targets Str saves and only pushes 15 ft. but I guess it can't be perfectly better in every way, just most of them.

EvilAnagram

2018-10-18, 09:44 PM

Could you link one? I would be very interested to check that out.

I posted it in another comment. The link is at the top of this page.

Treantmonk

2018-10-18, 11:43 PM

The designers have explained in multiple D&D Beyond videos that they disagree. Damaging spells from divine classes, for example, are intentionally less damaging than arcane spell lists because they want the classes to have different feels. This extends into having different disabling and buffing spells available to different classes. Sure Otiluke's Resilient Sphere is nice, but my sorcerer can't use it. She can use a Heightened Banishment to end a fight with a Gorristro with an 80% chance of success, however. Well, 92.5% with Bend Luck.

Your position just doesn't mesh with the design goals of the game.

I watched the video, and I see Mr Crawford explain how a Cleric spell list tends to centre more around healing, while a Wizard spell list tends to centre more around destructive spells.

At no point in this entire video, does he say, suggest, or imply that a Cleric spell of a particular level will be less damaging than a Wizard spell of the same level.

That's particularly what I'm looking for. Can you link me a video where he suggests a 5th level Cleric spell that does damage (for example) should do less damage than a 5th level Wizard spell?

That the Cleric has less damaging spells is self-evident, and basically irrelevant to comparing spells between classes.

Kane0

2018-10-19, 12:12 AM

Light and Tempest clerics seem pretty competitive.

LudicSavant

2018-10-19, 12:38 AM

MaxWilson

2018-10-19, 02:38 AM

One thing I'm a bit curious about.

Treantmonk, in your evaluation of Enlarge/Reduce, you say that it's the second most underrated spell because of its usefulness "when your realize it can target objects." This struck me as a little strange, given that the only prominent optimizer I was aware of that rated the spell low (and didn't mention its usefulness when targeting objects as the main point of the spell) was none other than Treantmonk himself, who rated it a lowly Orange in his Guide to Wizards and (at least originally) only mentioned its use targeting creatures (it now has a note about doors, saying that this was suggested by a reader).

Is the one who "underrated" the spell in this case supposed to be your own past self? :smallconfused:

What's this "prominent optimizer" thing? It's sufficient to know that Treantmonk obviously interacts with people who do not think about shrinking objects, and believes that publicizing this capability widely will benefit viewers. It's a reasonable belief IMO, although I think you have to ask your DM for a ruling on how the spell interacts with integrated mechanisms with hinges (can you shrink just the door? what happens to the hinges it's in?) before concluding that it can replace Knock.

Especially considering that one of the main selling points of picking locks, and therefore of Knock, is that it leaves the door and the lock intact behind you in case you don't want to be followed. Even a best-case ruling on Knock is going to leave the door in an inoperative state after you're done with it, making Reduce little different from an axe except for being quieter.

Nevertheless it's a useful factoid to be aware of. I can't blame him for thinking it might be a bit obscure.

LudicSavant

2018-10-19, 03:08 AM

What's this "prominent optimizer" thing? It's sufficient to know that Treantmonk obviously interacts with people who do not think about shrinking objects, and believes that publicizing this capability widely will benefit viewers. It's a reasonable belief IMO, although I think you have to ask your DM for a ruling on how the spell interacts with integrated mechanisms with hinges (can you shrink just the door? what happens to the hinges it's in?) before concluding that it can replace Knock.

Especially considering that one of the main selling points of picking locks, and therefore of Knock, is that it leaves the door and the lock intact behind you in case you don't want to be followed. Even a best-case ruling on Knock is going to leave the door in an inoperative state after you're done with it, making Reduce little different from an axe except for being quieter.

Nevertheless it's a useful factoid to be aware of. I can't blame him for thinking it might be a bit obscure.

I agree that it's a useful factoid to be aware of, but I don't see what any of this has to do with my question.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-10-19, 03:12 AM

Nevertheless it's a useful factoid to be aware of. I can't blame him for thinking it might be a bit obscure.

I think that LudicSavant's point in mentioning it was that in most spell evaluations and spell list suggestions that I've read, Enlarge/Reduce is very typically given a bonus because of its ability to manipulate objects. Of course, deciding a list of underrated spells is a very opinionated and the question is aimed at seeing where/how that opinion was formed. Treantmonk seems to have glossed over this usefulness in the past and Ludic is looking for clarification.

I'm also not sure that I would consider it an obscure ability of the spell, it's mentioned in the same breath as targeting a creature in the spell card. It's hard to miss.

I don't consider Enlarge/Reduce to be very underrated myself, if anything I would lean closer to overrated because the creature targeted effect has been lackluster in most situations I've used it.

skaddix

2018-10-19, 03:53 AM

So that is what Treantmonk looks like well the bald look does fit the monk part of his name...

EvilAnagram

2018-10-19, 06:25 AM

I watched the video, and I see Mr Crawford explain how a Cleric spell list tends to centre more around healing, while a Wizard spell list tends to centre more around destructive spells.

At no point in this entire video, does he say, suggest, or imply that a Cleric spell of a particular level will be less damaging than a Wizard spell of the same level.

That's particularly what I'm looking for. Can you link me a video where he suggests a 5th level Cleric spell that does damage (for example) should do less damage than a 5th level Wizard spell?

He says, and I paraphrase, the most destructive spells are not on divine spell lists. They have some destructive spells, but only what is needed or thematically appropriate. Most destructive = most damaging.

This philosophy carries into other areas of casting because the focus of divine casters, according to that video, is on support.

Zalabim

2018-10-19, 06:55 AM

He says, and I paraphrase, the most destructive spells are not on divine spell lists. They have some destructive spells, but only what is needed or thematically appropriate. Most destructive = most damaging.

This philosophy carries into other areas of casting because the focus of divine casters, according to that video, is on support.

And when they do get a destructive spell because it's thematically appropriate or needed, it is generally within the same range of power as other spells of its level. Or identical, in the case of Light clerics getting Fireball.

EvilAnagram

2018-10-19, 07:11 AM

And when they do get a destructive spell because it's thematically appropriate or needed, it is generally within the same range of power as other spells of its level. Or identical, in the case of Light clerics getting Fireball.

Fireball is actually just an example of a divine caster dipping into an arcane spell. A good example of a 3rd level spell that has a divine source is Call Lightning. The damage for Call Lightning is significantly behind fireball, but what saves it as a spell is that you can continually call the lightning down.

Other examples of destructive divine spells are Flame Strike and Fire Storm, which fall well behind similarly leveled spells in damage.

Treantmonk

2018-10-19, 07:17 AM

ProsecutorGodot

2018-10-19, 07:30 AM

And when they do get a destructive spell because it's thematically appropriate or needed, it is generally within the same range of power as other spells of its level. Or identical, in the case of Light clerics getting Fireball.

Looking into it this does seem to hold true for the most part. 5th level particularly draws some comparisons between Divine Based spells like Flame Strike and Destructive Wave being comparable in damage to Cone of Cold or Synaptic Static.

3rd Level is likely an outlier specifically due to Fireball being an almost entirely Arcane Exclusive spell and being given a nudge in power due to it's history in DND.

While there are definitely less overall destructive spells in the Divine listings, the spells that are there are in line with Arcane spells of an equal level.

The gap seems to widen past 5th level in terms of raw damage output but not by a whole lot.

EvilAnagram

2018-10-19, 07:37 AM

Looking into it this does seem to hold true for the most part. 5th level particularly draws some comparisons between Divine Based spells like Flame Strike and Destructive Wave being comparable in damage to Cone of Cold or Synaptic Static.

3rd Level is likely an outlier specifically due to Fireball being an almost entirely Arcane Exclusive spell and being given a nudge in power due to it's history in DND.

While there are definitely less overall destructive spells in the Divine listings, the spells that are there are in line with Arcane spells of an equal level.

The gap seems to widen past 5th level in terms of raw damage output but not by a whole lot.

I would disagree with this. For your example, Cone of Cold does more damage over a wider area than Flame Strike, and Synaptic Static is a potent debuff in addition to dealing as much damage.

LudicSavant

2018-10-19, 07:53 AM

I would absolutely include myself.

Interesting! Thanks for clearing that up. :smallsmile:

ProsecutorGodot

2018-10-19, 08:03 AM

I would disagree with this. For your example, Cone of Cold does more damage over a wider area than Flame Strike, and Synaptic Static is a potent debuff in addition to dealing as much damage.

5th level: Destructive Wave 10d6(35) AoE, compared to Cone of Cold at 8d8(36) or Synaptic Static 8d6(28).
6th level: Harm 14d6(49) Single Target (Save for Half), compared to Disintegrate 10d6+30(65) Single Target (Save for 0)
7th level: Fire Storm 7d10(38.5) AoE, compared to Prismatic Spray 10d6(35) AoE
8th level: Sunburst 12d6(42) Aoe, compared to Albi-Dalzims Horrid Wilting 12d8(54)
9th level: Psychic Scream is great, but Meteor Swarm knocks it completely out of the park in terms of raw damage.

The gap never gets very large between the spells damage, at least up until 7th level. Sure the effectiveness may vary but the damage numbers don't. The frequency of damaging spells in the divine list is fewer but the power isn't off by a huge margin.

I think this is an important clarification to make because that's how I interpret JC's words when he says that Divine magic is less destructive, his heavy emphasis on the theming of those destructive spells is what makes me believe that.

Zalabim

2018-10-19, 08:09 AM

Fireball is actually just an example of a divine caster dipping into an arcane spell. A good example of a 3rd level spell that has a divine source is Call Lightning. The damage for Call Lightning is significantly behind fireball, but what saves it as a spell is that you can continually call the lightning down.

Other examples of destructive divine spells are Flame Strike and Fire Storm, which fall well behind similarly leveled spells in damage.

Call Lightning isn't the same kind of spell as Fireball. It does its damage over multiple turns, so it's more in line with concentration spells like Moonbeam or Flaming Sphere. It's a druid spell and a lot of their other spells work that way too.

Flame Strike does just the damage suggested by the DMG for 5th level area spells. Cone of Cold does more, yes, but so do Fireball and Lightning Bolt. All three of those sometimes show up on other domain-style spell lists. Fret not however, as Destructive Wave and Conjure Volley, both apparently divine spells, also deal similar damage to Cone of Cold at this level.

Fire Storm does 1d6 less than is recommended for its level, 12d6 like Delayed Blast Fireball starts out with, but its 7d10 damage is in a highly malleable area and it's an arcane spell anyway. It's one of the handful of sorcerer spells that wizards don't get access to. Or maybe you're suggesting that Sorcerers are dipping into divine powers with this one. Either way, its damage is not obviously out of line for its effect.

Chain Lightning stands out more on the arcane side, dealing almost two dice over the average damage to 4 chosen targets. Then again, I've hit 4 targets easily enough with a 10' radius Shatter. Hitting 4 targets within 30' radius of one of them is a small number at 6th level. Something between 38.5 and 55 is probably the right value for its damage after all. I point this out just because it does the same safe targeting as Fire Storm, more damage, and a level lower.

It's a really good thing that there's no example of a spell that is only on the arcane caster's lists that deals less damage than other spells of its level or the DMG suggests for 6th level spells like Circle of Death. Exactly like Circle of Death.

EvilAnagram

2018-10-19, 08:57 AM

5th level: Destructive Wave 10d6(35) AoE, compared to Cone of Cold at 8d8(36) or Synaptic Static 8d6(28).
6th level: Harm 14d6(49) Single Target (Save for Half), compared to Disintegrate 10d6+30(65) Single Target (Save for 0)
7th level: Fire Storm 7d10(38.5) AoE, compared to Prismatic Spray 10d6(35) AoE
8th level: Sunburst 12d6(42) Aoe, compared to Albi-Dalzims Horrid Wilting 12d8(54)
9th level: Psychic Scream is great, but Meteor Swarm knocks it completely out of the park in terms of raw damage.

The gap never gets very large between the spells damage, at least up until 7th level. Sure the effectiveness may vary but the damage numbers don't. The frequency of damaging spells in the divine list is fewer but the power isn't off by a huge margin.

I think this is an important clarification to make because that's how I interpret JC's words when he says that Divine magic is less destructive, his heavy emphasis on the theming of those destructive spells is what makes me believe that.
Both Sunburst and and Albi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting are available to multiple arcane classes, so those don't really play into a comparison, same for Psychic Scream and Meteor Swarm.

I think the two examples in which damage is better for the divine spells are telling, as Destructive Wave is only in the Paladin list, and is only available to them in the final levels of play. Yeah, it's potent, but at that point it'scompeting with higher level spells than fifth. True, the Tempest Cleric gets it, but I think the Fireball example shows they were willing to bend the curve for blaster domains to make them as effective as an arcane blaster. On the other hand, there's a random chance to double the damage of Prismatic Spray, explaining why its damage is relatively depressed.

You make a good point, though. While divine casters are relatively less capable of blasting, they're not incompetent. I would also say that while divine casters are not as effective at control, they're not incompetent. However, because they do have differing focuses with different access to spells, I still think the spells should be evaluated within their own classes.

Deathtongue

2018-10-19, 09:09 AM

However, because they do have differing focuses with different access to spells, I still think the spells should be evaluated within their own classes.

I have to agree. If you're a Warlock or Cleric looking for spells and all of the 'pick these spells' are in the arcane spells and you only get the 'these spells are overrated', then what good does an analysis like that do for you?

ProsecutorGodot

2018-10-19, 10:31 AM

Both Sunburst and and Albi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting are available to multiple arcane classes, so those don't really play into a comparison, same for Psychic Scream and Meteor Swarm.

I think the two examples in which damage is better for the divine spells are telling, as Destructive Wave is only in the Paladin list, and is only available to them in the final levels of play. Yeah, it's potent, but at that point it'scompeting with higher level spells than fifth. True, the Tempest Cleric gets it, but I think the Fireball example shows they were willing to bend the curve for blaster domains to make them as effective as an arcane blaster. On the other hand, there's a random chance to double the damage of Prismatic Spray, explaining why its damage is relatively depressed.

You make a good point, though. While divine casters are relatively less capable of blasting, they're not incompetent. I would also say that while divine casters are not as effective at control, they're not incompetent. However, because they do have differing focuses with different access to spells, I still think the spells should be evaluated within their own classes.

Yea a few of those examples were a mistake on my part, although the 9th level example was more a jab at the fact that Clerics and Druids don't have many offensive 9th level spell options. I mistakenly thought that Psychic Scream was on the Cleric list. As for Sunburst, it's in more arcane classes than divine so that was another thing overlooked.

But I did mention that the gap begins to widen past 7th level, mostly because divine magic is (as the video you linked mentions) pushed into a supportive control direction. The few spells that are available to divine classes at this level aren't that much worse than arcane spells though, some are even shared with arcane classes.

As for evaluating spells based on the classes they're found in I agree. There are some spells that can be poor on one class list and invaluable on another, which if I'm understanding correctly, is what you're trying to advocate for.

MaxWilson

2018-11-11, 11:13 PM

Asmotherion

2018-11-11, 11:40 PM

I didn't see any discussion of Confusion in this thread.

Treantmonk rates Confusion as a terrible spell (2nd worst) because it's smaller AoE than Hypnotic Pattern or Fear, it has only an 80% chance of preventing a creature from acting normally each round, and it is higher level than Hypnotic Pattern or Fear.

I don't agree that Confusion is in any way a bad spell, and here is why: unlike Hypnotic Pattern and Fear (which are great spells in their own right!) it doesn't have any targeting restrictions. That's a big deal. If you're relying on Fear for all of your crowd control, when you meet a new type of creature (especially an undead-looking creature) you have a tough choice: do you run up to them and spend an action and a spell slot casting Fear in hopes of scattering them, knowing that there is a good chance that these creatures just can't be frightened? Do you cast Hypnotic Pattern on the theory that some undead can be charmed but not frightened? Or do you play it safe and cast Confusion as your action-denial spell instead?

Slow is also a good bet in many ways, but it's a different class of spell: it's more like Web than it is like Hypnotic Pattern. It doesn't deny actions entirely, and it won't prevent e.g. Bodaks from using their ranged attacks.

I think it is a mistake to put all your eggs in one basket, and a bard who knows Hypnotic Pattern AND Confusion is in a significantly stronger position w/rt crowd control than a bard who knows only Hypnotic Pattern. Bards have a lot of pressure on their spells known so I wouldn't want to take both of those and Fear, but for example it's probably better to know Confusion + Hynotic Pattern than Fear + Hypnotic Pattern. Not a bad spell.

The dealbreaker with confusion (and were I agree with Treantmonk) is the part were you use a 4th level spell slot to maybe (they get an initial save) confuse opponents for a round. From that point, someone will either stab you (and you'll loose concentration), or a large portion of the afflicted enemies will succeed on their saves, and you're back were you started.

You might get a tactical advantage out of this, at best buying you a round or two, but it's not worth a 4th level spell slot. 3rd perhaps? 4rth level slots give us Black Tentacles to put enemies into, and Polymorph, the most abused spell of them all.

Hypnotic Pattern, a 3rd level spell, simply ends encounters, and Fear, as long as they can see you, they don't get to save again, which can also either end encounters, or be used strategically for some builds (the conquest paladin comes to mind).

MaxWilson

2018-11-12, 12:56 AM

The dealbreaker with confusion (and were I agree with Treantmonk) is the part were you use a 4th level spell slot to maybe (they get an initial save) confuse opponents for a round. From that point, someone will either stab you (and you'll loose concentration), or a large portion of the afflicted enemies will succeed on their saves, and you're back were you started.

You might get a tactical advantage out of this, at best buying you a round or two, but it's not worth a 4th level spell slot. 3rd perhaps? 4rth level slots give us Black Tentacles to put enemies into, and Polymorph, the most abused spell of them all.

Hypnotic Pattern, a 3rd level spell, simply ends encounters, and Fear, as long as they can see you, they don't get to save again, which can also either end encounters, or be used strategically for some builds (the conquest paladin comes to mind).

Black Tentacles is great, but only wizards get it natively.

If you cast a crowd control spell (Confusion or Fear or Hypnotic Pattern, doesn't matter which) and then immediately lose concentration next round from getting stabbed... you're doing crowd control wrong. I have never seen it work the way you describe.

Hypnotic Pattern and Fear are great when they work, but it's not exactly rare to meet something that might be immune. Relying on them is risky.

I suspect we're thinking of different scenarios though. I'm thinking of deadly combats, like six Bodaks and a Nightwalker at level 9. Taking three or four Bodaks out of the combat for a while is worth doing. If it were an easy combat like a Wraith and a couple of Specters it wouldn't be worth a fourth level spell slot, you'd just cast Tasha's Nitrous Oxide^h^h^h^h^h^hHideous Laughter on the Wraith instead and then kill the Specters.

Asmotherion

2018-11-12, 02:32 AM

Black Tentacles is great, but only wizards get it natively.

If you cast a crowd control spell (Confusion or Fear or Hypnotic Pattern, doesn't matter which) and then immediately lose concentration next round from getting stabbed... you're doing crowd control wrong. I have never seen it work the way you describe.

Hypnotic Pattern and Fear are great when they work, but it's not exactly rare to meet something that might be immune. Relying on them is risky.

I suspect we're thinking of different scenarios though. I'm thinking of deadly combats, like six Bodaks and a Nightwalker at level 9. Taking three or four Bodaks out of the combat for a while is worth doing. If it were an easy combat like a Wraith and a couple of Shadows it wouldn't be worth a fourth level spell slot.

Definitelly... I don't believe a sane DM would make you face a Night Walker (CR 20 Monster) at level 9. I wouldn't want to be playing at such a table.

That said, if you're level 9 in this scenario, a Wall of Force or Stone does seem more practical than using your action for a confusion spell, in wich case it's a waste of action and concentration.

Now, on the "Wizards Only" part of Black Tentackles... it's also avalable to Old One Warlocks, and any Bard who cares to take it through Magical Secrets really (Lore can get it faster).

MaxWilson

2018-11-12, 03:00 AM

Definitelly... I don't believe a sane DM would make you face a Night Walker (CR 20 Monster) at level 9. I wouldn't want to be playing at such a table.

That's from this thread here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?573297-what-level-to-fight-a-nightwalker-at. Maybe it's just me, but as a player I think I'd want to bring level 9 characters to that one-shot. Strikes a good balance between "challenging" and "suicidal." Level 5 would be too suicidal (you'd either be at the mercy of the dice or you'd have to use gimmicky un-fun tactics like Phantom Steed kiting), level 15 would be way too easy.

I think you may be overestimating the difficulty of the Nightwalker fight. It's got crummy saves and no legendary resistances. It's basically just a big stupid negative energy giant with a 1/combat paralyzing ranged attack.

That said, if you're level 9 in this scenario, a Wall of Force or Stone does seem more practical than using your action for a confusion spell, in wich case it's a waste of action and concentration.

I mean, sure, Wall of Force is great if you've got it. But only wizards have native access. Wall of Stone, has, well, obvious issues with placement. (Doesn't work if you're on any terrain but stone.)

Now, on the "Wizards Only" part of Black Tentackles... it's also avalable to Old One Warlocks, and any Bard who cares to take it through Magical Secrets really (Lore can get it faster).

Lore Bards can only get Black Tentacles at 10th level, same as any other bard (the 6th level pick can't be used for 4th level spells), and they have enough competition for their Magical Secrets already that I wouldn't want to count on Black Tentacles making the cut, even though it's a great spell.

So, Black Tentacles is "wizard (natively), plus some bards and warlocks," whereas Confusion is "bard/druid/sorcerer/warlock." Black Tentacles is a better spell overall and I'd take it if it were an option, but frequently it's not.

Confusion is a pretty good spell. Definitely not one of the three worst at fourth level. (For "worst" I'd nominate, oh, maybe Control Water, Staggering Smite, and Dominate Beast. Compulsion and Giant Insects are notable for being more expensive and mostly worse than Hypnotic Pattern and Conjure Animals, respectively, but they're not necessarily bad spells--they're just not as good. Grasping Vine is pretty bad too.)

Asmotherion

2018-11-12, 03:40 AM

That's from this thread here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?573297-what-level-to-fight-a-nightwalker-at. Maybe it's just me, but as a player I think I'd want to bring level 9 characters to that one-shot. Strikes a good balance between "challenging" and "suicidal." Level 5 would be too suicidal (you'd either be at the mercy of the dice or you'd have to use gimmicky un-fun tactics like Phantom Steed kiting), level 15 would be way too easy.

I think you may be overestimating the difficulty of the Nightwalker fight. It's got crummy saves and no legendary resistances. It's basically just a big stupid negative energy giant with a 1/combat paralyzing ranged attack.

I mean, sure, Wall of Force is great if you've got it. But only wizards have native access. Wall of Stone, has, well, obvious issues with placement. (Doesn't work if you're on any terrain but stone.)

Lore Bards can only get Black Tentacles at 10th level, same as any other bard (the 6th level pick can't be used for 4th level spells), and they have enough competition for their Magical Secrets already that I wouldn't want to count on Black Tentacles making the cut, even though it's a great spell.

So, Black Tentacles is "wizard (natively), plus some bards and warlocks," whereas Confusion is "bard/druid/sorcerer/warlock." Black Tentacles is a better spell overall and I'd take it if it were an option, but frequently it's not.

Confusion is a pretty good spell. Definitely not one of the three worst at fourth level. (For "worst" I'd nominate, oh, maybe Control Water, Staggering Smite, and Dominate Beast. Compulsion and Giant Insects are notable for being more expensive and mostly worse than Hypnotic Pattern and Conjure Animals, respectively, but they're not necessarily bad spells--they're just not as good. Grasping Vine is pretty bad too.)

Well, control water can be situational, but I can think of many creative uses for it. Not all of them are combat applicable though, and the ones that are, are situational at best.

I have to agree on Staggering Smite. They probably just wanted to make a 4th level Smite Spell, and were running low on ideas. Still it at least does not fail to deliver the "smiting" end of the bargain, even if as a spell it's lame, barbaric and aweful. From that point, it's "it might get a seccondary effect, which will be cool, or might not, but he still gets the extra smite damage".

I'm also with you on Dominate Beast. If there's a beast worth using up a spell slot to take on your team, better use Animal Friendship (And a 1st level spell slot) to get it for 24 hours, than burn out a 4th level spell slot and your concentration to maybe get it for a minute.

It also gets advantage on it's save if you're fighting it (which, if you're willing to use a 4th level spell slot to Dominate it, you probably are, because we're talking about a beast you want to dominate for a minute), so it's probably designed to fail.

If it's worth dominating, it has an intelligence score of 5 or more, and I'll need Dominate Person, probably even Dominate Monster to get it anyway.

So, I'll at least give you Dominate Beast as being inferior than Confusion, at the very least when cast at 4th level...

MaxWilson

2018-11-12, 08:44 AM

Well, control water can be situational, but I can think of many creative uses for it. Not all of them are combat applicable though, and the ones that are, are situational at best.

Granted. I hesitated before putting Control Water on my list because I also see situational uses for it. I don't think there are any truly worthless spells at 4th level, even Staggering Smite. But Control Water is a spell that I would never prepare unless I somehow knew I'd be having waterborne conflicts in the near future, like a pirate adventure or kraken-hunting. YMMV. There are probably worse spells, but at any rate I think it is more niche than Confusion.

I'm also with you on Dominate Beast. If there's a beast worth using up a spell slot to take on your team, better use Animal Friendship (And a 1st level spell slot) to get it for 24 hours, than burn out a 4th level spell slot and your concentration to maybe get it for a minute.

I'm not sure that Animal Friendship would "get" you the beast for 24 hours ("charmed" doesn't do that), but again, Dominate Beast is still so situational that I'd almost never prepare it, even as a druid, unless we were in The Land Before Time land filled with dinosaurs.

See you later,
Max