Treantmonk evaluates 6th level spells

[Treantmonk]

My list for 6th level spells (https://youtu.be/PdCWGC-dD9Q). My picks for best, worst, most overrated, underrated, and my least favorite spell in D&D.

[MaxWilson]

My list for 6th level spells (https://youtu.be/PdCWGC-dD9Q). My picks for best, worst, most overrated, underrated, and my least favorite spell in D&D.

Grim Harvest is better than you think. If you kill 8 orcs with Evard's Black Tentacles, you get 16 HP back in one round. (Because each one dies on a different turn.) If you kill a bunch of 2cp chickens over the course of a minute via Vampiric Touch, you'll get 90-150 HP back (depending on if what level you cast Vampiric Touch back) at the cost of 20cp and one spell slot.

I'm shocked that Drawmij's Instant Summons didn't get the vote for "worst spell in D&D".

Eyebite... you should just Fear or Hypnotic Pattern instead. Same effect, better action economy, lower spell slot cost.

True Seeing + Darkness is a poor man's Foresight. Not terrific but not terrible, especially if you have multiple True Seeings on multiple PCs so you get lots of advantage for only one concentration. (And Darkness is low enough level that it might be a low-level caster like an Eldritch Knight or Shadow Monk keeping Darkness up while the wizards/druids concentrate on better stuff.) Anyway, the point is that exploiting darkness that you yourself create isn't circumstantial--it's a tactic you can use every single day if you are so inclined.

[Eragon123]

I'm shocked that Drawmij's Instant Summons didn't get the vote for "worst spell in D&D".


Really? It's situational sure but there are uses for it. I've linked a sapphire onto a spare spellbook and then left the sapphire on a necklace for my familiar. Store familiar in extraplanar space and now you can always get your spellbook back in short order. Even if you "lost it" in Leomund's Secret Chest. Also you can use it to create another link to Leomund's secret chest but I am not going to defend LSC.

[LudicSavant]

Hooray! Videos! :smallbiggrin:

Goes to watch

Content summary for people's convenience:

Worst Spells
3) Investiture of Wind
2) Move Earth
1) Circle of Death

Best Spells
3) Heal
2) Mass Suggestion
1) Contingency

Underrated Spells
3) Eyebite
2) Create Homunculus
1) Word of Recall

Overrated Spells
3) Disintegrate
2) Otto's Irresistable Dance
1) Tenser's Transformation
Honorable Mention) True Seeing

[Eragon123]

Worst Spells
3) Investiture of Wind
I've been tempted to take this as a blade warlock to help maintain Armor of Agythy's and it not being wasted on arrows.
2) Move Earth
agreed
1) Circle of Death
eh, 60 foot radius sphere means it has different uses than fireball and a different damage type. Not necessarily a good spell but not the worst.

Best Spells
3) Heal
2) Mass Suggestion
1) Contingency

No problems with any of these

Underrated Spells
3) Eyebite
2) Create Homunculus
1) Word of Recall
Honorable Mention) True Seeing

No problem with any of these either

Overrated Spells
3) Disintegrate
This spell also has some utility uses that I feel justify people taking it. Either you burn a legendary save or maybe target things that have poorer dex saves (such as giants and dragons) or you can break down the wall of force and get out.
2) Otto's Irresistable Dance
It's a bit better than he is giving it credit for as you at least remove all the movement and action for one creature for at least one round but I won't begrudge him this placement.
1) Tenser's Transformation
How is Tenser's Overrated? Almost every post I've seen extolls its uselessness. The most fun I've seen is trying to make this spell work. Using illusion wizard and creation to transform your clothes into armor and glyph of warding implanted into a suit of armor you store at home incase someone transgresses into your wizard's tower.

Also salty that Find the Path is not the worst spell. Maybe it's so bad that Treantmonk repressed the knowledge of its existence to spare himself the pain?

[LudicSavant]

Personally, I always thought that Disintegrate was pronounced "Dispel Walls and Death Gate Effects."

[MaxWilson]

Really? It's situational sure but there are uses for it. I've linked a sapphire onto a spare spellbook and then left the sapphire on a necklace for my familiar. Store familiar in extraplanar space and now you can always get your spellbook back in short order. Even if you "lost it" in Leomund's Secret Chest. Also you can use it to create another link to Leomund's secret chest but I am not going to defend LSC.

Even in this niche scenario with questionable usage of the familiar to store objects extradimensionally (but work at a given table but ask your DM) you could just as easily make a spare spellbook. Drawmij's Instant Summons adds nothing to the equation, and unlike the spare spellbook it doesn't do anything useful if someone has taken the spellbook from wherever you left it.

Don't get me wrong, the spell isn't completely worthless if you get it for free (instead of as a level-up spell) and there are niche scenarios where it's worth casting--but it's clearly worse IMO than Circle of Death. Circle of Death would be good for a 4th level spell (good AoE) but it's bad for a 6th level spell; Drawmij's Instant Summons would be weak for a 3rd level spell (like an expensive and unreliable version of 4th level Leomund's Secret Chest) and reasonable as a 1st level spell.

Oh, I'm also kind of surprised that Magic Jar didn't make any lists of good or underrated spells, especially after all the Find Steed discussion mentioned it. Magic Jar into werebear = hooray, you are now a wizard with 135 HP and Str 19/Con 17 and immunity to most nonmagical attacks (but an Achilles Heel to Dispel Magic). Or you could take over the body of a Gloomweaver and get two sweet high-damage melee attacks on top of your spellcasting, plus impose disadvantage on enemy saving throws. (IIRC beast or humanoid saving throws.) IMO that's clearly more of a game changer than Heal, though depending on campaign you may need True Polymorph to create the bodies you need.

RE: Investiture spells, a cool idea I saw on these forums somewhere is to make them all the same spell: Elemental Investiture, and you get to choose at casting time which element you're going to invoke. The individual effects are still kind of weak but the versatility would give the spell a clear niche separate from Fly/Stoneskin/etc.

[Deathtongue]

Magic Jar is damn powerful when it works. However, the number of hoops you have to jump through to make it work make it non-usable unless you are specifically trying to abuse it. Like Magic Jar-ing into the body of a Warlord for Legendary Action Shadow Blades on your Bladesinger. Or Gloom Weaver for general saving throw hilariousness.

1) Until you get True Polymorph or Gate (which has their own problems) you're completely dependent on the GM to 'drop' monsters that would be good for possession. However, since you can only target humanoids you could be waiting a long time until then. Or even never. That said, when you get True Polymorph, you could always either get yourself a monster that can turn into humanoids (like Ancient Brass Dragons) or you could transform a non-humanoid into a humanoid then dispel the True Polymorph but not the Magic Jar. But that's a level 17 effect anyway.

2) You have to tote around your reliquary and inanimate body and keep it within 100 feet so you don't die instantly if you catch a stray dispel magic. Have fun making those arrangements and not having the DM continually target your body with stray avalanches / arrows / pools of acid / whatever.

3) And even if you do catch a stray dispel magic, you're faced with two bad choices: either keep the soul container closeby and face having another token on the battlefield if this does happen, or risk fate 4.

4) If for whatever reason the host container dies, you will probably die, too. Unless you took a level of warlock or bard for your first level, your charisma save bonus is probably pretty awful. And you'll automatically die if you don't have the container within 100 feet -- which exacerbates the problem of two. You can get around this, technically, with Death Ward.

[Deathtongue]

Long story short, Magic Jar is one of those spells, like Mirage Arcana or Find Steed or Astral Projection, that are only good if you're abusing them. But the setup for Magic Jar is a lot more of a PITA than other 'only good if you're abusing them' spells.

I'm okay with someone deciding to rate Magic Jar with how it'd go over on most tables -- and if you're using the spell 'normally' you'll really be finding it wanting.

[Draken]

I have been considering taking Circle of Death on my wizard in one of my group's campaigns on our next level up. But only for one reason.

We play an enormously modded game and a recently added ability that my character can use goes as follows.


Lingering Spell (Mystic Arte) [3 TP]
You create a lingering pocket of energy from a portion of your spell, creating an area influenced by its power.
Benefit: Usable with any damaging single target or area of effect spell. After concluding the effects of the spell, you create an zone that lasts until the end of your next turn. If the spell targeted a single creature, the zone’s area includes target’s square and all adjacent squares. If the spell was area of effect, the zone includes all affected squares. If a creature enters or ends its turn in the area, it takes 2d6 plus 1d6 for every level of the spell (cantrips deal 2d6) of the same damage type as the spell. An affected creature may attempt a Dexterity save (same as the spell’s DC) for half damage. A creature may only be affected by this zone once per round.
Dungeonmancy: You may raise the MP cost of this spell by one level to make this effect last for a number of rounds equal to your proficiency modifier.

Notes:
We use a system (mainly replacing feats) where our characters have a number of points (level dependent) with which they get some ancillary abilities (passive and active alike), so this one costs 3 points to get.
The Dungeonmancy entry is specific to my character.
Our fights are generally pretty harsh regardless of extras.

Even with this, I fully acknowledge that I only want to get Circle of Death because of the hilarity of a gigantic zone of repeat damage, even if it is basically unuseable because my character is not an evoker and can't make safety holes for the rest of the group.

Edit:

Also, Treantmonk. You can't actually use Heavy Armor with Tenser's because it takes 10 minutes to don heavy armor and Tenser's lasts 10 minutes sooo... You either have the armor on and aren't proficient (so you can't cast spells) or you cast the spell and start putting on heavy armor and by the time you are done, the spell ends and you can't use it anymore!

[Deathtongue]

Whoops. I didn't see that clause in Symbol where once it's triggered, it continues to affect creatures who enter/end their turn in the sphere even if they weren't the ones who triggered it.

[iTreeby]

Magic Jar is damn powerful when it works. However, the number of hoops you have to jump through to make it work make it non-usable unless you are specifically trying to abuse it. Like Magic Jar-ing into the body of a Warlord for Legendary Action Shadow Blades on your Bladesinger. Or Gloom Weaver for general saving throw hilariousness.

1) Until you get True Polymorph or Gate (which has their own problems) you're completely dependent on the GM to 'drop' monsters that would be good for possession. However, since you can only target humanoids you could be waiting a long time until then. Or even never. That said, when you get True Polymorph, you could always either get yourself a monster that can turn into humanoids (like Ancient Brass Dragons) or you could transform a non-humanoid into a humanoid then dispel the True Polymorph but not the Magic Jar. But that's a level 17 effect anyway.

2) You have to tote around your reliquary and inanimate body and keep it within 100 feet so you don't die instantly if you catch a stray dispel magic. Have fun making those arrangements and not having the DM continually target your body with stray avalanches / arrows / pools of acid / whatever.

3) And even if you do catch a stray dispel magic, you're faced with two bad choices: either keep the soul container closeby and face having another token on the battlefield if this does happen, or risk fate 4.

4) If for whatever reason the host container dies, you will probably die, too. Unless you took a level of warlock or bard for your first level, your charisma save bonus is probably pretty awful. And you'll automatically die if you don't have the container within 100 feet -- which exacerbates the problem of two. You can get around this, technically, with Death Ward.

Magic jar is my favorite spell. I played a gnome lore bard with magic jar, I had the paladin carry me in her backpack and wear my jar as a ring. I would only fail the save on a one or two and I had the lucky feat for a potential third try on the save to not die.

[Solusek]

Overrated Spells
3) Disintegrate

Disintegrate does have limitations. It is no slam-dunk best spell or anything, but I hate seeing it listed as overrated and making a list like this. Disintegrate is a legitimately good spell. It has utility breaking through force effects or other physical impediments, and becomes great for damage when combined with a stun effect (auto fail dex saves when stunned).

My last campaign we had a Monk who just went ham with Stunning Strikes. Every time he gets a stun I follow up with disintegrate. Sometimes he even stuns two opponents, so I follow up with twinned disintegrate. It worked *really* well for the rest of that campaign. It worked so well I would often be burning 7th and 8th level slots to keep doing it more times in a day!

Now of course, in a situation where I'm not a sorcerer with Twin Spell and Heighten Spell to boost disintegrates effectiveness and without a monk party member to lay down stunning fists the spell does lose some luster. I would never call it overrated, though. Disintegrate is awesome.

[Deathtongue]

Disintegrate's obvious application (hit someone with a disintegration ray) is pretty weak and overrated, but notably it's one of the few things that can counter the 'screw you' effects of Wall of Force or Forcecage in a reasonable amount of time. For example, party gets cut off in a hall by a Wall of Force? You could dimension door one party member over through the wall, then cantrip + Misty step back on the other side, then DD again with the other party member. Or you could just blow through it with one action with Disintegrate.

Disintegrate also has a cheesy RAW use in that it also allows you to OHKO polymorphed creatures. And unlike, say, Cone of Cold I could see more than a handful of DMs letting you get away with it.

I mean, it's still in my opinion overrated, but if I was around level 15+ or so? I'd keep it prepared as an anti-Forcecage/WoF measure.

[Deathtongue]

Magic jar is my favorite spell. I played a gnome lore bard with magic jar, I had the paladin carry me in her backpack and wear my jar as a ring. I would only fail the save on a one or two and I had the lucky feat for a potential third try on the save to not die.What I don't like about Magic Jar is that even if you get around the logistic problems (and they are not small, even though Death Ward takes care of a lot of them), until very high level it's a spell that's only useful depending on what the DM has you encounter. If your level 11 - 16 adventure has you mostly fighting fiends and undead and elementals, the spell is just sitting uselessly in your arsenal.

And even then, the border between 'useful' and 'game-breaking' is pretty small. Most of the eligible targets are a straight downgrade. A Bladesinger who bodyjacks a Variant Human Warlord or a Drow Consort or even an Archdruid is going to completely tear encounters apart.

Because of its gamebreaking applications, I can't call Magic Jar overrated. But a spell that until the last 5th of the game is completely dependent on the DM to make it work at all and in any case is useless 90% of the time and game-shattering the other 10%? If I was going to pick a 'lol only viable in CharOP' spell, it's this one.

[LudicSavant]

@Treantmonk: I feel like there are a few important utilities that could be added to your analysis of Disintegrate. The most notable ones being:

1) Disintegrate kills people when they are reduced to zero hp, even if they wouldn't otherwise die when reduced to zero HP. Both the RAW and the Sage Advice Compendium PDF are clear: You simply die at zero hit points.


If the damage from disintegrate reduces a half-orc to 0 hit points, can Relentless Endurance prevent the orc from turning to ash?
If disintegrate reduces you to 0 hit points, you’re killed outright, as you turn to dust. If you’re a half-orc, Relentless Endurance can’t save you.

What happens if a druid using Wild Shape is reduced to 0 hit points by disintegrate? Does the druid simply leave beast form?
The druid turns to dust, since the spell disintegrates you the instant you drop to 0 hit points

Whether it's a polymorphed frog, a Zealot Barbarian, an infinitely wildshaping half-orc archdruid with Death Ward... it's dead at zero hit points.

2) Disintegrate remove walls, be it walls of force or those formed of more conventional matter. Given that you rate Wall of Force as the best spell, surely you would recognize the value in countering it.

3) It combos with certain effects, like a Monk's stunning strike (which causes the victim to automatically fail their Dex save).

[Draken]

@Treantmonk: I feel like there are a few important utilities that could be added to your analysis of Disintegrate. The most notable ones being:

1) Disintegrate kills people when they are reduced to zero hp, even if they wouldn't otherwise die when reduced to zero HP. Both the RAW and the Sage Advice Compendium PDF are clear: You simply die at zero hit points.



Whether it's a polymorphed frog, a Zealot Barbarian, an infinitely wildshaping half-orc archdruid with Death Ward... it's dead at zero hit points.

2) Disintegrate remove walls, be it walls of force or those formed of more conventional matter. Given that you rate Wall of Force as the best spell, surely you would recognize the value in countering it.

3) It combos with certain effects, like a Monk's stunning strike (which causes the victim to automatically fail their Dex save).

Treantmonk isn't saying Disintegrate is bad, he is saying it is overrated. Specifically, it is overrated as a damaging spell.

As any of its other utility, specially its unique use as a destroyer of force effects, Disintegrate is an excellent (if situational) spell. But as a source of big numbers, which is slaps front and center on you with its 10d6+40, it doesn't really deliver.

Also, as a way to remove walls, Transmute Rock is better in just about every possible way, being a level lower and affecting a larger area (also spitting in the face of Move Earth).

Actually, Transmute Rock is just great and I want Treantmonk's opinion on it.

[LudicSavant]

Treantmonk isn't saying Disintegrate is bad, he is saying it is overrated. Specifically, it is overrated as a damaging spell.

I know that. That doesn't really address what I was saying, though.


Also, as a way to remove walls, Transmute Rock is better in just about every possible way, being a level lower and affecting a larger area (also spitting in the face of Move Earth).

Agreed, if the walls are made of rock.

However, not every troublesome object that you want to get rid of will be made of stone. Also, versatility in slot counts for something, as does the fact that not everyone with Disintegrate on their list gets Transmute Rock (for example, Sorcerers don't get Transmute Rock). Transmute Rock is great and all, but it doesn't exactly make Disintegrate obsolete, or its utility in removing walls unworthy of mention.

[Solusek]

Treantmonk isn't saying Disintegrate is bad, he is saying it is overrated. Specifically, it is overrated as a damaging spell.


It's a top 3 Sorcerer/Wizard spell at 6th level. I concede that Mass Suggestion and Contingency are generally stronger spells.

[Zuras]

Investiture of Wind is much better than many 6th level spells if you don’t have access to Fly.

It is actually a go-to spell for my Moon Druid in multiple scenarios. Nothing like being a Flying Brontosaurus or Hulking Crab and abusing your reach and providing cover to your allies.

If you have a wizard who can cast fly, obviously it’s not as compelling, but it actually works pretty well for druids.

[Treantmonk]

@Treantmonk: I feel like there are a few important utilities that could be added to your analysis of Disintegrate. The most notable ones being:

1) Disintegrate kills people when they are reduced to zero hp, even if they wouldn't otherwise die when reduced to zero HP. Both the RAW and the Sage Advice Compendium PDF are clear: You simply die at zero hit points.



Whether it's a polymorphed frog, a Zealot Barbarian, an infinitely wildshaping half-orc archdruid with Death Ward... it's dead at zero hit points.

2) Disintegrate remove walls, be it walls of force or those formed of more conventional matter. Given that you rate Wall of Force as the best spell, surely you would recognize the value in countering it.

3) It combos with certain effects, like a Monk's stunning strike (which causes the victim to automatically fail their Dex save).

There are lots of ways to prevent a creature from making it's save, I mention one in the example. The problem is when a creature can choose to succeed on that save instead.

As for getting rid of Wall of Force, or other force effects, yes, that's useful, but I just don't find I'm targeted with those effects often enough to prepare a 6th level spell to counter them. If you do, then I completely understand having this spell readied.

[MaxWilson]

Magic Jar is ---- powerful when it works. However, the number of hoops you have to jump through to make it work make it non-usable unless you are specifically trying to abuse it. Like Magic Jar-ing into the body of a Warlord for Legendary Action Shadow Blades on your Bladesinger. Or Gloom Weaver for general saving throw hilariousness.

1) Until you get True Polymorph or Gate (which has their own problems) you're completely dependent on the GM to 'drop' monsters that would be good for possession. However, since you can only target humanoids you could be waiting a long time until then. Or even never. That said, when you get True Polymorph, you could always either get yourself a monster that can turn into humanoids (like Ancient Brass Dragons) or you could transform a non-humanoid into a humanoid then dispel the True Polymorph but not the Magic Jar. But that's a level 17 effect anyway.

2) You have to tote around your reliquary and inanimate body and keep it within 100 feet so you don't die instantly if you catch a stray dispel magic. Have fun making those arrangements and not having the DM continually target your body with stray avalanches / arrows / pools of acid / whatever.

3) And even if you do catch a stray dispel magic, you're faced with two bad choices: either keep the soul container closeby and face having another token on the battlefield if this does happen, or risk fate 4.

4) If for whatever reason the host container dies, you will probably die, too. Unless you took a level of warlock or bard for your first level, your charisma save bonus is probably pretty awful. And you'll automatically die if you don't have the container within 100 feet -- which exacerbates the problem of two. You can get around this, technically, with Death Ward.

I agree with what you say, just want to add one thing: you don't necessarily have to tote your reliquary and body around, since the worst that can happen in 5E is that losing Magic Jar kills you, which means all the standard countermeasures against death still apply (Revivify, Death, Clone, etc.), unlike AD&D-era Magic Jar where death in a Magic Jar was permanent. And of course you can Counterspell some Dispel Magics, if your reaction happens to be available.

But I agree that it's finicky to use, and probably not worth the bother if you're not trying to abuse it. Magic Jarring random humanoids without any intention of keeping the bodies long-term is mostly waste.

But if you are intending to abuse it, it's more of a game changer than Heal is, so it's on my list. Contingency, Mass Suggestion (especially with upcasting), and Magic Jar are all powerful spells, each worthy of a wizard's 11th or 12th level spell pick. Globe of Invulnerability is also excellent and worth considering, especially if you're concerned about enemy spellcasters with spells like (*coughcough*) Dispel Magic.


Investiture of Wind is much better than many 6th level spells if you don’t have access to Fly.

It is actually a go-to spell for my Moon Druid in multiple scenarios. Nothing like being a Flying Brontosaurus or Hulking Crab and abusing your reach and providing cover to your allies.

I must concede that a flying Brontosaurus, hovering over the battlefield threatening opportunity attacks with its tail, is indeed hilarious. :)

[Deathtongue]

There are lots of ways to prevent a creature from making it's save, I mention one in the example. The problem is when a creature can choose to succeed on that save instead.

As for getting rid of Wall of Force, or other force effects, yes, that's useful, but I just don't find I'm targeted with those effects often enough to prepare a 6th level spell to counter them. If you do, then I completely understand having this spell readied.

I play a lot of Adventurer's League for T3 and T4 and Wall of Force/Forcecage come up a lot. There are three separate T3 adventures across the seasons where the opening move of the spellcaster boss is 'use Wall of Force to cut the party in half'. Now, they aren't as evil with this as they could be (for example, the last time this happened, the Sharpshooter Fighter took care of that Wall of Force right away with three DC 15 concentration saves) but it is a concern if the encounters get smarter about it. Getting Forcecage'd out of Counterspell (or Counterspell-the-Counterspell) range I can forsee being a big problem, since you can't get around Forcecage with Dimension Door/Misty Step/Thunder Step and some elbow grease easily as you can with Wall of Force.

[Deathtongue]

I agree with what you say, just want to add one thing: you don't necessarily have to tote your reliquary and body around, since the worst that can happen in 5E is that losing Magic Jar kills you, which means all the standard countermeasures against death still apply (Revivify, Death, Clone, etc.), unlike AD&D-era Magic Jar where death in a Magic Jar was permanent. And of course you can Counterspell some Dispel Magics, if your reaction happens to be available.Dispel Magic has a range of 120 feet, Counterspell has a range of 60 feet. And sometimes your reaction will get tied up anyway with a Shield or Absorb Elements.

But toting your body around is a thing you have to do with the spell. Even if you manage to ward against instantly dying because of Death Ward/Clone/complicated Contingency shenanigans, if you left your body someplace inconvenient like back at the base or in a Tiny Hut outside of the dungeon you're going to have a devil of a time rejoining the adventure. I would keep my body closeby for that if nothing else, even if I didn't care if I ended up dying from Magic Jar.

[Corran]

Eyebite... you should just Fear or Hypnotic Pattern instead. Same effect, better action economy, lower spell slot cost.

I was thinking the same thing. I will say a couple of things though in favor of eyebite. The first one is easy to guess, and it has to do with friendly fire, and I don't think I need to add anything to that. Still, it seems a bit lackluster. So, here is the second thing I want to say about eyebite. If you are playing in a party with several melee characters, who also have good opportunity attacks (a melee rogue, a BB user, a GWM fighter, a paladin, a caster who uses summons, possibly more that I can't think of right now), it might be a good use of your action to pursue this round to round frightening enemies, cause the enemies will take good damage since each one of them flees in a different round so that our allies' reactions have recharged. On its own the spell is a bit meh, at least for me, but it has potential with the right setup or team tactics. With that given, think of it as a very good upgrade for your vicious mockery routine of your bard.

Basically, as you said, action economy is the main problem of this spell, but off-turn damage from allies (added on top of the debuff) might(?) actually transform this weakness into a strong point.

[Pex]

As with Banishment, Disintegrate is better for Sorcerers for the same reasons. You can twin it for a good chance at least one of your targets fail or heighten it to make it harder for the opponent to make the save.

Any Diviner Wizard, or any spellcaster at all, who uses his highest spell slots immediately upon facing a creature with Legendary Resistance should have died many levels ago through stupidity. You cast your lower level spells. Either the monster uses his legendary resistance so you wear them out and then cast your highest level spells, or the monster saves them worried about your highest spells so your lower level spells get their use and affect the monster when he fails his saving throws. Do that enough and the monster will use his legendary save because you're annoying him too much. That was Treantmonk's friend's mistake. He had cast Disintegrate too soon upon first meeting the BBEG. That had no relationship to the value of Disintegrate. There's also teamwork. Other party members can have their own save or suck ability. A monster may use his legendary save against a monk's stunning fist for example. The friend's problem was his own hubris, not Disintegrate.

Disintegrate is not overrated.

[LudicSavant]

Any Diviner Wizard, or any spellcaster at all, who uses his highest spell slots immediately upon facing a creature with Legendary Resistance should have died many levels ago through stupidity.

*snip*

That had no relationship to the value of Disintegrate.

Pretty much

I think the Disintegrate analysis rubs the wrong way because it doesn't evaluate the spell in terms of competent use of that spell. It would be like if the video said Fireball was overrated, then said that the reason it was overrated was because people are disappointed when they use it on single targets, and didn't mention anything else the spell could be used for.

The problem is that the Disintegrate argument doesn't criticize the spell so much as it just shows someone being a very bad wizard (https://y.yarn.co/e10904cd-625f-4c14-ae8e-1885946d952f_text_hi.gif).

[Deathtongue]

Disintegrate is overrated, though, if you're using it to zap monsters. Your action for one shot of 65 damage out of a 6th-level slot after jumping through a bunch of hoops to make that happen is not cutting the mustard. At least when you first get the spell. I mean, I can see it being decent if you're like level 20 with a Tome of the Stilled Tongue and a Wish-Simulacrum and you want a way to burn spell slots for damage.

But using one of your precious 6th-level spell slots at levels 11-14 to zap a monster? What's the onomatopoeia for a wet fart?

[LudicSavant]

I can't speak for others commenting on the subject, but the point I'm making isn't about whether Disintegrate is actually overrated or not, but whether or not the argument in the video does a good job of making the case either way.

I feel like less experienced viewers (the very ones I think these videos are intended to inform) might watch the video and come away with the idea that Disintegrate is just a damage spell, and a poor one. When I think the nature of what Treantmonk meant to convey is that some people overestimate its worth as a damage spell specifically, but knows that it has other uses as well.

[Corran]

Hey Treantmonk. I have not read any discussion about Tenser's transformation (I am sure there must be many, I just never stumbled into any of them), nor have I ever seen it used in my games or thought about it seriously. So if you are saying that people overrate it, I am perfectly happy to take your word for it. Looking at it now, my first impression is that Tenser's transformation is a damaging spell on its core. So I can understand if people are overrating something that gives them extra damage, as I also fall into the same trap sometimes. But I am thinking that it might not be that bad of a spell, simply because it has a very good damage potential.

Ok, concentration is definitely an issue. But that's mitigated by the con save proficiency that the spell grants you (assuming my source was correct). Still probably not enough for the average wizard. But if the wizard is a bladesinger that helps. So, at 11th level, a bladesinger with a CON of 14 and an Int of 20, has a concentration check of +11 (I am assuming bladesinging is in effect). Or +10 with advantage if he took warcaster in place of an Int bump. That's not that bad. So yeah, probably for any other wizard is a bad choice, simply because how their concentration will not be as high as a bladesinger's.

Now, as you said, a bladesinger has no use for some of the boosts this spell provides. Namely armor proficiency, weapon proficiencies and extra attack; because they already have these. So there is overalp for sure. But lets see what this spell actually provides. I want to leave the temp hp on the side. They are a nice boost, sure, actually very much needed if you intend to have your bladesinger in the front line (while taking away spells like shield, absorb elements and counterspell while TT is in effect, to mention a few). But I want to focus on the damage boost, cause that's what I think this spell basically is. A boost to damage. Everything else it provides is just there to make this spell viable and to make up for the tactical peril it puts you into in the first place, while the damage boost is the actual gain. So lets look at some numbers. Given a DEX 16 (and an initial 55% hit chance, due to not maxing our attack stat), and under the assumption that we pre casted the spell (since duration allows for it; so that's two attacks at turn 1 and three attacks from twf every turn thereafter), that's basically roughly 37 damage on the first turn, and roughly 51 every turn after that (which you can spread against up to three enemies). Pure damage, meaning that I included hit chance and crits (which add no small amount of damage to the aforementioned total), the bulk of which is force damage which is rarely resisted (but that last part is more emphatical than important). So, after 3 turns (which I assume is a good approximation for most encounters -in my games they tend to last a bit longer, say 4-5), that's a total of 139 damage. That's very good damage!

Now, I know that wizards can do all kind of cool stuff with their spells (or so I hear, since I've only played a couple so far and didn't give it a great shot -mostly I just stuck in my comfort zone, using spells I was already familiar with and didn't experiment enough with some of the great spells). Especially if we are talking about high level spells, like 6th level ones. I don't know how TT's damage compares to summoning tactics (I am assuming badly), but aside for summoning spells, I don't see many spells that can offer that much firepower to a wizard (against something that is not a horde). Referring strictly to its damage potential, it's like casting a disintegrate each round, with a hit chance of 50% during the first turn, and a hit chance of 70% every turn thereafter. That's great if you want to focus on damage. What you trade is the ability to use spells as reactions (which hurts) and having to be in the front line. But assuming you have boosted you concentration saves with warcaster (which is not a bad choice for a bladesinger I imagine), having to be in the front line is a benefit and not a drawback, as you add 'tanking some hits' to the value you squeeze out of this spell.

Look, I know my preferences took over and are doing the talking right now, as I like martials a lot (and a simplistic approach of 'tank and kill the enemies' is always my first instinct). And I realize that there are far better things for a wizard to do than to focus on damage. But this spell allows at least bladesingers to add this dynamic to their gameplay in a more efficient way than disintegrate or other damaging spells would allow for them or for any other wizard (assuming they invest a feat in warcaster, which doesn't sound that horrible to me).

On the other hand (and with that I will bring my rambling to an end), I am open to the idea that I may be viewing all this with a completely wrong mentality. Thinking that it's cool to have a spell that will allow my wizard to be as awesome as a fighter, instead of thinking how my wizard can be awesome without going against their role, but instead by using the spells that make wizards what they are (and with that, let me say that I am eagerly anticipating your video about battlefield control spells). So my question now becomes: ''Are there certain kind of encounters/enemies against which wizards don't shine so having my wizard act like a fighter would be better than whatever other alternative I might have?'' -possibly excluding summons. The damage is good though (am I doing it again, am I walking into a trap?), and as I am thinking this right now, it's a spell that would tempt me for a bladesinger (at least a lot more than disintegrate). If for nothing else, just for a change of pace. Using this spell so every once in a while I can forgoe spellcasting and go up front and smash faces!:smallsmile:

[Kane0]

Tensers would be much better without concentration, maybe an hour duration too

[Solusek]

Tensers would be much better without concentration, maybe an hour duration too

The hour duration is almost necessary if you want to make use of the granted heavy armor proficiency. As written it takes longer to don the heavy armor after casting Tensers Transformation than the duration lasts - lol. It's like whoever wrote the spell effect didn't know the game rules about casting spells in unproficient armor (you can't), or how long it would take to don heavy armor afterwards.

[dragoeniex]

Personally, I love the sound of Tenser's and am working my way to a pretty specific set of powers to utilize it. Not a whole build (bard), but a fun gish switch.

Outside of methods I'm using, though, I'm surprised more people don't mention this spell is just as good on ranged attacks as it is melee. You just got proficiency with a longbow and the ability to shoot two high-power arrows from 150 feet out with advantage. Or from up to 600 feet out at regular attack rolls (if you can manage to keep line of site). You could really use the advantage, assuming dex wasn't your primary, but hey. Advantage you have- and safely out of most enemy spell ranges!

You're level 11 minimum when this comes online, so it's even better if you have some kind of flight to use it with. Magic broom, carpet, buddy's pegasus, pet giant eagle, etc. Dip in, shoot 'em up, dip out. See if you can't wring more than one encounter out of that 10 min max duration.

The 50 temp hp and proficiency in con saves will be nice to shore up your chances on those times you couldn't dip out of range far enough. And if you had a buff cast on you by a teammate- or even yourself ahead of time- it can get even more fun. You can't cast counterspell inside the form anyhow, so why not slap blink on yourself before you Tenser's up and walk into the boss room? Or mirror image. If you're going to choose to be up in melee, you might as well be infuriatingly hard to stab.

Builds that let you spam nova on multiple hits (whisper bard, rogue or paladin multiclass for some reason, etc) also enjoy being able to unload more at once.

I agree the armor you're not natively proficient with is a trap. And to that, I would say, "Then don't wear it."

All in all, it's not going to be the best choice for a lot of casters. But it can be a fun one, and if you've got some strategy to feed into it, it can be pretty dang scary. It's a great opportunity to use one, bigger slot for several turns and conserve more slots for your next encounter.

You raise good points with things people should consider before nabbing it. Armor, concentration, etc. Overall, though, it fills a niche 5e didn't have before and in general makes me happy it's an option.

[Brother carc]

How to make tenser’s transformation work for you?

Step 1: have your bard friend cast find greater steed into a ring of spell-storing
Step 2: cast find greater steed
Step 3: cast tenser’s transformation on you AND your new pet
Step 4: profit

[Treantmonk]

Hey Treantmonk. I have not read any discussion about Tenser's transformation (I am sure there must be many, I just never stumbled into any of them), nor have I ever seen it used in my games or thought about it seriously. So if you are saying that people overrate it, I am perfectly happy to take your word for it. Looking at it now, my first impression is that Tenser's transformation is a damaging spell on its core. So I can understand if people are overrating something that gives them extra damage, as I also fall into the same trap sometimes. But I am thinking that it might not be that bad of a spell, simply because it has a very good damage potential.

I don't disagree with the point that this spell can turn a wizard into a generator of damage beyond what they could produce without the spell.

Obviously, my position has always been that a Wizard's damage potential is not amazing, nor the reason to play the class, particularly single-target damage potential.

If struggling through the low levels as a non-armored caster, and finally reaching the levels where spells rule everything leads you to think, "I wish my character was a glass cannon that couldn't cast spells" then, I would agree, this spell allows you to achieve that once per day reasonably effectively. That still just sounds awful to me though.

[Aaron Underhand]

Major Image is the most underrated 6th level spell...

Major Image at 6th is permanent...

[Treantmonk]

Major Image is the most underrated 6th level spell...

Major Image at 6th is permanent...

This spell (and this use of the spell - particularly when combined with Malleable Illusion) involved me in a more complicated and confusing discussion of rules than any other spell in 5e.

I had an illusionist cast it as a ring on his finger. He could then change it into something else as needed.

It was then pointed out to me that it would require an action to move the ring with my character. I replied that no, the ring was stationary on my finger. The conversation then devolved into how a major image would act if cast on a cart, on a boat, on a world that rotates and flies through space.

It was like relativity in grade 12 physics all over again.

What we decided to agree on was: Ask your DM.

[jiriku]

This spell (and this use of the spell - particularly when combined with Malleable Illusion) involved me in a more complicated and confusing discussion of rules than any other spell in 5e.

I had an illusionist cast it as a ring on his finger. He could then change it into something else as needed.

It was then pointed out to me that it would require an action to move the ring with my character. I replied that no, the ring was stationary on my finger. The conversation then devolved into how a major image would act if cast on a cart, on a boat, on a world that rotates and flies through space.

It was like relativity in grade 12 physics all over again.

What we decided to agree on was: Ask your DM.

Haha, didn't realize I was torturing you so badly with that conversation. But then, I'm an engineer, physics is fun for me.

My DM ended up saying the reference point would be the world itself, so no illustionary rings for me. And no illusions on boats. :smallfrown:

[MaxWilson]

How to make tenser’s transformation work for you?

Step 1: have your bard friend cast find greater steed into a ring of spell-storing
Step 2: cast find greater steed
Step 3: cast tenser’s transformation on you AND your new pet
Step 4: profit

Or just get Find Greater Steed's effect via Wish, no magic items needed.


So my question now becomes: ''Are there certain kind of encounters/enemies against which wizards don't shine so having my wizard act like a fighter would be better than whatever other alternative I might have?'' -possibly excluding summons. The damage is good though (am I doing it again, am I walking into a trap?), and as I am thinking this right now, it's a spell that would tempt me for a bladesinger (at least a lot more than disintegrate). If for nothing else, just for a change of pace. Using this spell so every once in a while I can forgoe spellcasting and go up front and smash faces!:smallsmile:

Two come to mind immediately:

First is single combat between champions. If you meet a bunch of strange humanoids (e.g. a dozen Githyanki), and neither is quite sure who is tougher or whether you should leave each other alone, challenging someone to single combat can make the appropriate point without burning a bunch of resources on an all out brawl. This is also a situation in which it might pay to keep the enemy in the dark about your true capabilities and have the wizard Tenser up and fight in melee instead of with magic, and instead of making the Fighter do it. Tensers would be a good way of keeping your cards close to your chest. Moreover, the wizard may have fun beating on the enemy (Githyanki Knight?) and showing off his melee prowess because it's a change of pace. If he needs to cast spells he can instantly drop concentration on Tenser's anyway, so it's not like it really precludes spell casting anyway, it just isn't compatible with it.

The other scenario it could be useful in is if the party is in a labyrinth or the Shadowfell and keeps getting whacked from unexpected directions, and the wizard is sick of being the squishy. Tenser's gives the wizard 3-4 high damage attacks at advantage per round (4 if opportunity attacks are a factor) and a nice pool of temp HP for a reasonably looking duration. It might be enough to beat off a few waves of grues or ghouls or shadows without spending any other spells.

Is it a good spell? Would I recommend it as a pick? Absolutely not. In those specific situations, would I be glad to have it? Yes.

[jiriku]

Is it a good spell? Would I recommend it as a pick? Absolutely not. In those specific situations, would I be glad to have it? Yes.

Yep, exactly. Its real strength is that it is so far off the beaten path of what wizards do that when you use it, it is completely unexpected. That doesn't make the spell good -- but there's value in being able to bring unexpected tools to bear on a challenge even if those tools are not as strong as your regular, more efficient tools. Tenser's is a spell I wouldn't choose with my spells known, but if I came across it and had a chance to scribe it, I'd gladly put it in my book and save it against that one day when being able to pull something weird out of my butt would win the day.

[Treantmonk]

Haha, didn't realize I was torturing you so badly with that conversation. But then, I'm an engineer, physics is fun for me.

My DM ended up saying the reference point would be the world itself, so no illustionary rings for me. And no illusions on boats. :smallfrown:

LOL - my DM was opposite. Said that the ring on finger thing was cool and fun and he wasn't going to rule it away. His wife thought it was cool too, so that probably helped.

[Corran]

I don't disagree with the point that this spell can turn a wizard into a generator of damage beyond what they could produce without the spell.

Obviously, my position has always been that a Wizard's damage potential is not amazing, nor the reason to play the class, particularly single-target damage potential.

If struggling through the low levels as a non-armored caster, and finally reaching the levels where spells rule everything leads you to think, "I wish my character was a glass cannon that couldn't cast spells" then, I would agree, this spell allows you to achieve that once per day reasonably effectively. That still just sounds awful to me though.
You know, out of curiosity I compred Tenser's transformation with animate objects, and assuming the wizard who casts animate objects uses sth like a firebolt fter the first turn, the dpr difference is very small (sth like 5 damage in the first turn and 8 damage every turn thereafter, in favor of TT; and it will get even smaller when the wizard hits level 17 and the cantrips power up once more). All while animate objects does not force you into the front line (cause I was assuming a twf bladesinger) nor denying you reaction spells (at least without dropping concentration as you would do if using TT) or the opportunity to use something better than firebolt (that I used just for damage comparison) when you need to. Not to mention it uses a lower level spell slot. And yeah, if you are fighting something that has resistance (or immunity) to the damage from animate objects then it wont be as good, but as you said in your previous video, it's not like the wizard don't get other spells to depend that much on animate objects. I think I see the light! But damn, I really like this spell...:smallsmile:

ps: Maybe if you could squeeze two (long-ish) encounters within 10 minutes after you cast TT it could be worth it? You know what, don't bother answering that, I am desperately trying to invent and add some value to sth substandard that I like.



Is it a good spell? Would I recommend it as a pick? Absolutely not. In those specific situations, would I be glad to have it? Yes.

Tenser's is a spell I wouldn't choose with my spells known
Out of curiosity, which four 6th level spells would you pick?

[Treantmonk]

You know what, don't bother answering that, I am desperately trying to invent and add some value to sth substandard that I like.

If you like it, then of course you should take it and use it. Game is for fun. I have the opposite reaction. My videos are to share my opinions and observations on my perception regarding mechanical value.

It's not like your eyes aren't open, and you've made the calculations where you know what you will and won't get out of the spell, so if you love the flavor, and it's fun for you, I don't understand, but so what? Go for it.

Of course, nobody would ever convince me to like the spell, even if they were able to get me to see mechanical value in it. May as well try to convince me that grape nuts are a delicious cereal.

[Aaron Underhand]

This spell (and this use of the spell - particularly when combined with Malleable Illusion) involved me in a more complicated and confusing discussion of rules than any other spell in 5e.
...snip...
It was like relativity in grade 12 physics all over again.

What we decided to agree on was: Ask your DM.
Ha, yes

Had many such conversations, in many univesrse and systems.

Just ask "how does invisibility work" I think we had 6 different mechanisms without just saying "it's magic". Some work in mirrors and on CCTV others don't, some leave shadows, others don't. That's before we consider the etherial plain ...

I like those conversations, but agree... This spell, like d
So many others is "ask your DM"

[MaxWilson]

Out of curiosity, which four 6th level spells would you pick?

Contingency and Mass Suggestion for sure. The rest depends on party and PC. Otto's, Magic Jar, Transmute Rock to Mud, True Seeing, Globe of Invulnerability all come to mind as potentially worthy, and if I could I'd take them all. Probably a couple I'm overlooking from Xanathar's. I might even go back to a lower level to pick up something I was forced to skip earlier, e.g. Fabricate.

Spell picks are always a tough decision for wizards.

[Draken]

Transmute Rock is a 5th.

Personally. Guards and Wards is a favorite of mine and Create Undead can always be used to cause problems.

[OracularPoet]

How to make tenser’s transformation work for you?

Step 1: have your bard friend cast find greater steed into a ring of spell-storing
Step 2: cast find greater steed
Step 3: cast tenser’s transformation on you AND your new pet
Step 4: profit

I was planning a non-optimized paladin 2/glamour bard 18 build talking TT with magical secrets @bard 14 to transform into a smiting machine when it would be dramatic and heroic. Was also planning for find greater stead @bard 10 anyway and hadn’t even considered this combo. Standard modus operandi for this character would still be buff/de-buff.

[Treantmonk]

Contingency and Mass Suggestion for sure. The rest depends on party and PC. Otto's, Magic Jar, Transmute Rock to Mud, True Seeing, Globe of Invulnerability all come to mind as potentially worthy, and if I could I'd take them all. Probably a couple I'm overlooking from Xanathar's. I might even go back to a lower level to pick up something I was forced to skip earlier, e.g. Fabricate.

Spell picks are always a tough decision for wizards.

Musts for me are Contingency, Magic Jar (Didn't make my list, but a personal favorite to have), Soul Cage if I'm EEEVIL!, Maybe Programmed Illusion (100% if illusionist), Mass Suggestion, Sunbeam, am I over 4 already?

[LudicSavant]

@Treantmonk Is there a thread for your new "how to think about damage" video?

[Malifice]

If you kill a bunch of 2cp chickens over the course of a minute via Vampiric Touch, you'll get 90-150 HP back (depending on if what level you cast Vampiric Touch back) at the cost of 20cp and one spell slot.

This post confirms that you and I play very different games.

Also; wouldnt chickens have like 1 HP each? They have at most 1 hit dice (1d4 due to size) and a likely lowish Con mod (-1). That gives them the same HP as a Raven or an Owl (the other tiny bird beasts we have stats for) who both also only have 1 HP (1D4 HD, Con of 8).

Cats have 2 HP and I'd argue they are hardier than a Chicken (1d4 HD, Con 10).

Half of 1 point of damage is (rounded down) zero. You heal nothing by slapping a Chicken with Vampiric touch.

You could kill Cats (they have 2 HP each) killing them instantly (you probably do 4+ HP damage on your 3d6) and getting back 1 HP each time you do (while the spell lasts) but you're clearly the kind of sociopathic monster that tortures kittens for fun and profit, and thus I'd change your alignment to CE.

[Sigreid]

I kind of feel I should point out that Tensers has always been how high level wizards commit suicide. I've never seen an incarnation of it that was actually a good idea.

[Pex]

Disintegrate is overrated, though, if you're using it to zap monsters. Your action for one shot of 65 damage out of a 6th-level slot after jumping through a bunch of hoops to make that happen is not cutting the mustard. At least when you first get the spell. I mean, I can see it being decent if you're like level 20 with a Tome of the Stilled Tongue and a Wish-Simulacrum and you want a way to burn spell slots for damage.

But using one of your precious 6th-level spell slots at levels 11-14 to zap a monster? What's the onomatopoeia for a wet fart?


I can't speak for others commenting on the subject, but the point I'm making isn't about whether Disintegrate is actually overrated or not, but whether or not the argument in the video does a good job of making the case either way.

I feel like less experienced viewers (the very ones I think these videos are intended to inform) might watch the video and come away with the idea that Disintegrate is just a damage spell, and a poor one. When I think the nature of what Treantmonk meant to convey is that some people overestimate its worth as a damage spell specifically, but knows that it has other uses as well.

Zapping for damage is a viable tactic in 5E even at high level. It's also fun to say you Disintegrate someone. I would not claim to say Disintegrate is the best 6th level spell of them all. However that's not the other choice when saying it's not overrated. Not overrated != Best Spell Ever. It's a good spell and that's good enough.

[JellyPooga]

Worst Spells
3) Investiture of Wind
2) Move Earth
1) Circle of Death

Wow. No hate for Find the Path? "Follow me guys, I've spent my vast magical prowess on knowing which way to go to this place I already know about"..."Uh, Frank, it's . We know the way, [quest giver] told us where to go and we have a map". It doesn't even work on something useful like a moveable object (or location) or a place you don't know; if you could track down a liches phylactery or locate a place you aren't aware of, it'd have [i]some use, but no, you have to specifically be familiar with the place to use the spell...if I'm familiar with a place, I literally don't need magic to learn the way there!

As for Circle of Death; Ok, so it's a crappy and expensive Fireball, but...it has a better damage type that's less commonly resisted, it has twice the radius (which means more than just twice the area; CoD has an AoE of roughly 10,800ft2 vs. Fireballs 2,700ft2, or 4 times the AoE) and it's a Con Save for half; no Evasion or Shield Master negating this damage. Sure it's not a great spell, but it's a far cry from the worst spell of it's level; there's plenty of worse uses for a 6th level slot.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Wow. No hate for Find the Path? "Follow me guys, I've spent my vast magical prowess on knowing which way to go to this place I already know about"..."Uh, Frank, it's . We know the way, [quest giver] told us where to go and we have a map". It doesn't even work on something useful like a moveable object (or location) or a place you don't know; if you could track down a liches phylactery or locate a place you aren't aware of, it'd have [i]some use, but no, you have to specifically be familiar with the place to use the spell...if I'm familiar with a place, I literally don't need magic to learn the way there!

I will say that as limited as the uses are for Find the Path, it does have one. You can find the path back to somewhere you know of if you ever happen to find yourself somehow lost in a place where you have no knowledge of. However unlikely that scenario is (especially for a spellcaster talented enough to cast 6th level spells) we shouldn't assume you know exactly where you are at all times.

With that said, it's single "good" use is such a niche scenario that fails in cases where you've ended up on another plane of existence. It's still terrible and I'm surprised it didn't make the list.

[LudicSavant]

if I'm familiar with a place, I literally don't need magic to learn the way there!

To play devil's advocate: If that were true, "The Odyssey" would not be a thing.

Sure, it's situational, but if you're a Druid or Cleric, that's not really an issue. The situations that Find the Path solves generally aren't the kind of situations where you need to have the spell on hand right this instant instead of tomorrow morning, so it's not competing for a spell known slot or a spells prepared slot. The only "risk of waste" is that you spent 100gp on a reusable material component you might never use.

Of course, if you're a Bard it's a whole different can of worms.

[Dark Schneider]

I think Investidure of Wind is nice, you get fly, missile protection and attack into one single spell, that lasts up to 10 minutes!

So you could fly up to be safe from melee attacks, also missile attacks have disadvantage against you, and you can even use it for attacks for free, a 15-foot cube 2d10, nothing bad, with greater possibilities at cliff edge because they could be moved 10 feet away and fall.

Disintegrage is a must damage spell for when the foe is nullified for DEX saving throws.

Also, a much underrated spell is Magic Missile. For evoquers is the best attack spell, getting 1d4 + 1 + INT per missile of unnavoidable force damage.

[Sahe]

This post confirms that you and I play very different games.

Also; wouldnt chickens have like 1 HP each? They have at most 1 hit dice (1d4 due to size) and a likely lowish Con mod (-1). That gives them the same HP as a Raven or an Owl (the other tiny bird beasts we have stats for) who both also only have 1 HP (1D4 HD, Con of 8).

Cats have 2 HP and I'd argue they are hardier than a Chicken (1d4 HD, Con 10).

Half of 1 point of damage is (rounded down) zero. You heal nothing by slapping a Chicken with Vampiric touch.

You could kill Cats (they have 2 HP each) killing them instantly (you probably do 4+ HP damage on your 3d6) and getting back 1 HP each time you do (while the spell lasts) but you're clearly the kind of sociopathic monster that tortures kittens for fun and profit, and thus I'd change your alignment to CE.

You don't get the HP from Vampiric Touch, but from the Grim Harvest Feature of the Necromancer, which let's you regain hp equal to 3 times the spell level if you kill something with a necromancy spell once per turn (or twice the spell level for other spells). If you cast Vampiric Touch you can slay 10 chickens (spell lasts 1 Minute) and regain 9 HP each time. May not be a good way to spend your action (and concentration!) in combat, but could be a good out of combat heal. Also, ritually slaying chicken to drain their life energy, actually has a good necrotic themed touch to it.

[JellyPooga]

To play devil's advocate: If that were true, "The Odyssey" would not be a thing.

To be fair, it wasn't that Odysseus didn't know the way home; he wasn't lost per se, it was just that he kept getting waylaid (aka: railroaded into adventures) :smallwink:.

[darknite]

A quick case study for Tenser's Transformation.

I have a Bard (College of Swords) 14 / Warlock (Hexblade) 1 who was assembled with the idea of taking Tenser's Transformation as a Magical Secret. Of course he had to wait a good, long time to get it (15th level) but it's proven pretty good thus far as a BBEG killer, especially since he also has a Sword of Speed.

But beyond that, it's not a spell I would burn a spell slot on...

[darknite]

Disintegrate's obvious application (hit someone with a disintegration ray) is pretty weak and overrated, but notably it's one of the few things that can counter the 'screw you' effects of Wall of Force or Forcecage in a reasonable amount of time. For example, party gets cut off in a hall by a Wall of Force? You could dimension door one party member over through the wall, then cantrip + Misty step back on the other side, then DD again with the other party member. Or you could just blow through it with one action with Disintegrate.

Disintegrate also has a cheesy RAW use in that it also allows you to OHKO polymorphed creatures. And unlike, say, Cone of Cold I could see more than a handful of DMs letting you get away with it.

I mean, it's still in my opinion overrated, but if I was around level 15+ or so? I'd keep it prepared as an anti-Forcecage/WoF measure.

This is the primary reason my Wizard takes it. There are also some (very) powerful creatures that are immune to low level spells and Disintegrate is at least an option. I'll occasionally use it against another wizard because A) I soak up their Counterspell with a Rod of Absorption and B) their Dex saves usually suck. It's fun to dust-ify an evil mage... :)

[Treantmonk]

@Treantmonk Is there a thread for your new "how to think about damage" video?
No, I didn't bother to promote it since it was just a "mini" video that just something I thought might be handy to link to as it comes up in the future.

[Treantmonk]

Wow. No hate for Find the Path? "Follow me guys, I've spent my vast magical prowess on knowing which way to go to this place I already know about"

The uses of this spell are circumstantial, and it was nearly on my worst list, but I'm surprised how nobody who has brought it up has brought up the most obvious use of the spell.

The spell finds the "shortest, most direct physical route" to the place you are finding. This to me has some very obvious uses, not to travel to a location, but to find the path to a location.

If you start thinking about it in that way, I think you'll find there are (circumstantial) uses for this spell numerous enough that listing them would be impossible, but I will give one example to get you going.

The party has been imprisoned by Drow and transported by slave caravan to work in the darksteel mines of X. These mines, located in an island of the underdark, are beneath a literal labrynth of tunnels.

Now, the party vows to escape and exact revenge on these Drow. Being heroes, they also plan to free the hundreds of slaves held here.

The party Wizard suggests a teleportation circle to escape. This is viable, however, there are a number of drawbacks. First is that they may not have the 50gp of gems - such an obvious valuable is likely to have been taken by their captors. Another problem is that they will not be able to return - finding this location from whatever teleportation circle they know is basically impossible. There is no way to exact revenge, nor is there a way to save the prisoners (except perhaps a few that you could hurry through the circle before it completes the following round). Finally, maybe you just don't happen to have the spell.

Find the Path is the superior option. It works you through the mines to the surface providing the most direct route. It finds the hidden shipyard to escape the island, despite it being obscured by permanent illusions. It provides the route through the underdark, and the labrynth of caverns to the surface. From this point, the PC's can retrace their steps to conduct the revenge/rescue plan for the others.

OK, one more example.

Your keep of mighty heroes lies next to a great mountain range. You make peaceful contact with a colongy of dwarves within the mountain range. Those dwarves make amazing crafted items that would be useful to the people of your lands if you could establish trade with them.

Unfortunately, nobody knows of any passes through these mountains that reach this colony. Cast Find the Path, oh, there's a pass this way...

Not a good spell, not a spell that will find regular use. I am absolutely not recommending this spell. It is a spell that I would consider nearly irreplaceable in those circumstances where you could use it though. That's why I didn't add it to my list.

[Treantmonk]

Also, a much underrated spell is Magic Missile. For evoquers is the best attack spell, getting 1d4 + 1 + INT per missile of unnavoidable force damage.

According to the designers, the way it works is you roll (1d4+1)x(number of missles strike a target)+Int

So the Int is added only once per target. If you want that Int added for each missile, they much each strike a different target.

Also, unlike most players use this spell, apparently if all the missiles strike the same target, you are only rolling 1d4.

All that said, I like the magic missile spell overall. It's flexible and reliable, even if the damage is not overwhelming.

[LudicSavant]

Find the Path *Snip*

My sentiments are rather similar. Find the Path isn't going to come up in every campaign, but there are situations where it's quite potent. Combine that with the fact that it has very low opportunity cost for Clerics and Druids, and you've got a spell that while situational is not something you should just sweep under the rug and forget about the existence of.

Do note however that it does require a material component, and if the Drow took all your stuff you may not have that component.

[ProsecutorGodot]

finding this location from whatever teleportation circle they know is basically impossible. There is no way to exact revenge, nor is there a way to save the prisoners (except perhaps a few that you could hurry through the circle before it completes the following round).

In this example it doesn't matter how they escape because Find The Path can now find a way back into this Drow Prison for them to exact their revenge. They're familiar with this Drow Prison.


OK, one more example.

Your keep of mighty heroes lies next to a great mountain range. You make peaceful contact with a colongy of dwarves within the mountain range. Those dwarves make amazing crafted items that would be useful to the people of your lands if you could establish trade with them.

Unfortunately, nobody knows of any passes through these mountains that reach this colony. Cast Find the Path, oh, there's a pass this way...

I don't know how you're using Find the Path without having been there and if your now allied Dwarves have taken you to the city once, establishing a trade route is viable without the spell. In this scenario as well it might lead you to a large gorge in the mountains because for all the paths there are, jumping the gorge is the most direct.

Now you could argue on the definition of "Familiarity" for this spell, but Teleport gives us a pretty solid guideline. Stating "-insert name of dwarf fortress here-" might not be specific enough. You tend to need to have visited the place to be familiar with it.

There's also the note, which doesn't detract from your examples but does reinforce my reasoning a bit, in that one of the material components of the spell is an object from the location that you're trying to find. This requirement is kind of a big deal in terms of usefulness.

The uses aren't numerous, it's "Find a way back to a place you've been when you don't know where you are in relation to it". If you're ever in that scenario, it's an amazingly useful spell. For the 99% of the time you aren't, it's a waste of your time and resources. It at the very least deserved a mention as one of the worst spells, I personally would rate it lower than all three of the spells you chose. It's use is too limited.

[MaxWilson]

According to the designers, the way it works is you roll (1d4+1)x(number of missles strike a target)+Int

Not unless Crawford has changed his mind again. The canonical way to apply Magic Missile Damage for an Evoker is

(1d4+1+Int) x (number of missiles that strike the target),

apparently because of the "simultaneous" clause in Magic Missile and how it interacts with the PHB rules for simultaneous damage and AoE effects.

Ref: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557823175581769729


JC: Empowered Evocation does benefit magic missile's damage roll.

Q: So Scorching Ray gets +X 1 time per cast,but Magic Missile gets +X on every bolt?

JC: Correct. Magic missile is an oddball, in that it functions a bit like an area-damage spell ("strike simultaneously").

[LudicSavant]

The uses aren't numerous, it's "Find a way back to a place you've been when you don't know where you are in relation to it". If you're ever in that scenario, it's an amazingly useful spell. For the 99% of the time you aren't, it's a waste of your time and resources. It at the very least deserved a mention as one of the worst spells, I personally would rate it lower than all three of the spells you chose. It's use is too limited.

I largely agree, except for the fact that any of the stuff you said actually makes the spell garbage.

The 99% of the time that you aren't using it, you haven't wasted any time, and the only resource you've used (if you're a Cleric/Druid) is 100gp. That's a pittance for the captain outfitting an expedition down the Grand Line where all kinds of crazy fantasy @#$% happens and navigation is genuinely challenging. Think of it as the ability to give yourself a Log Pose for anyplace you've visited and can grab a rock from.

Is the job narrow? Sure. But it does its job, isn't notably outclassed by some competitor for its job, and has a low opportunity cost if that job never comes up.

If you're a Bard or Divine Soul Sorcerer, of course, then you're talking about a much more substantial opportunity cost and the "waste of resources" is much more meaningful.

[JellyPooga]

Not a good spell, not a spell that will find regular use. I am absolutely not recommending this spell. It is a spell that I would consider nearly irreplaceable in those circumstances where you could use it though. That's why I didn't add it to my list.

Whilst I agree that it can have some use and that those uses are generally irreplacable, it remains highly circumstantial and it has a lot of caveats.

The material component alone is something of a hurdle; if you're "escaping the dungeon", as you mention in your first example, the 100gp component may well be unavailable, or if you're "finding the lost city" as you give in your second example, then having an item from the location may also be a no-go. Not to mention that if the destination is more than a days travel away, then it costs you 100gp and an item per day (material components being consumed in the casting unless specified otherwise, which in this case it is not) making the "object from destination" cost very significant if such objects are rare or even exclusive.

Then there's the path it finds. It explicitly says in the spell that it's not always the safest (a major concern in your first example; going through your captors barracks or their kings throne room, as unlikely as it might be, isn't really achieving your goal of escape). It's also the most direct route, which may include those that are inaccessible to you or your capabilities; a "path" that goes straight up a cliff face or across a thinly frozen lake may be direct and physical, but not necessarily convenient to traverse. The most direct route anywhere out of doors may well be "as the crow flies" and if flight is not an option (for whatever reason), this may be less than useful information.

Then there's concentration. Many of the best spells require it and so does Find the Path. Hobbling one of the parties primary high-level casters for the duration of the day, even an entire adventure; bearing in mind time-scales of when Find the Path is actually useful and that 6th level slots are hardly in abundance, making recasting it after you've dropped it for a particularly hard encounter a chancy, if not impossible proposition until the next day.

On the whole, I can see some use for it, but outside of a "skip to the end" scenario (which makes for a boring adventure), it's pretty terrible; too circumstantial, too many caveats and too high level for what you can actually do with it.

[iTreeby]

Since we have some people talking about find the path, I think there is an edge case that makes the spell possibly interesting and I'd like some opinions about it. If I am at location A and cast find the path to location B and the shortest physical path is through the shadowfell/feywild it would lead you to a portal to the shadowfell/feywild and then cut out when you pass through it. Does this interpretation make sense to anyone else? I don't see it as a Nerf to the spell because it is a more direct route and could bypass many traditional defenses. Obviously this wouldn't happen every time find the path is cast but it could be fun every once in a while.

[LudicSavant]

The material component alone is something of a hurdle; if you're "escaping the dungeon", as you mention in your first example, the 100gp component may well be unavailable, or if you're "finding the lost city" as you give in your second example, then having an item from the location may also be a no-go. Not to mention that if the destination is more than a days travel away, then it costs you 100gp and an item per day (material components being consumed in the casting unless specified otherwise, which in this case it is not) making the "object from destination" cost very significant if such objects are rare or even exclusive.

You have the rules backwards. Material components are only consumed if specified, not the other way around.


MATERIAL (M)
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.

If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell.

A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.

Because the material component is not consumed, it's basically paying 100gp to give Druids/Clerics the ability to make Log Poses of anyplace they stop by, which can be handy in certain settings. And if it's not handy, who cares? The absolute worst case for Cleric/Druid is that you spent 100gp.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I largely agree, except for the fact that any of the stuff you said actually makes the spell garbage.

The 99% of the time that you aren't using it, you haven't wasted any time, and the only resource you've used (if you're a Cleric/Druid) is 100gp. That's a pittance for the captain outfitting an expedition down the Grand Line where all kinds of crazy fantasy @#$% happens and navigation is genuinely challenging. Think of it as the ability to give yourself a Log Pose for anyplace you've visited and can grab a rock from.

Is the job narrow? Sure. But it does its job, isn't notably outclassed by some competitor for its job, and has a low opportunity cost if that job never comes up.

If you're a Bard or Divine Soul Sorcerer, of course, then you're talking about a much more substantial opportunity cost and the "waste of resources" is much more meaningful.

I will concede that saying it so bluntly is a bit misleading, however the concentration can be seen as wasted time as it limits your ability to do some things and the 100gp worth of items you're now required to purchase and lug around could be seen as a waste of resources. You're right though, they're not too much of an opportunity cost as to take away a lot of the spells value.



The material component alone is something of a hurdle; if you're "escaping the dungeon", as you mention in your first example, the 100gp component may well be unavailable, or if you're "finding the lost city" as you give in your second example, then having an item from the location may also be a no-go. Not to mention that if the destination is more than a days travel away, then it costs you 100gp and an item per day (material components being consumed in the casting unless specified otherwise, which in this case it is not) making the "object from destination" cost very significant if such objects are rare or even exclusive.

The rule is actually that the components are only consumed if the spell states that they are, not that they must state that they aren't.


Spellcasting, Chapter 10 PHB PG 203:
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5, “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.

If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell.
This just means that a component pouch or focus is insufficient to cast Find the Path.

EDIT: Looks like I was beat to the punch, that's what I get for looking up the page number.

[Snowbluff]

My comment from the video, re: a hypothetical use for tenser's.

"I've considered Tensers Transformation on my Paladin2/Sword's BardX To Wit: Obtain Greater Steed for a flying guy with like 2 attacks Obtain Transformation and cast it, share it with Buckbeak over there (he can attack, as an independent mount) Do TWF So you'll have 5 attacks for +5d12 total damage, 40 hp to you and your steed (who needs it IMO)
You get condition free advantage on your attacks and get to argue to your DM whether or not this extends to your pet (I don't think it does).

Of course, this is an AL character and I figured I'd just get a flying broom and use Spirit Guardians for Bonus damage instead, so I can cast Counterspell and Bestow Curse and Blindness/Deafness and Mass Suggestion and... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"

[Dark Schneider]

According to the designers, the way it works is you roll (1d4+1)x(number of missles strike a target)+Int

So the Int is added only once per target. If you want that Int added for each missile, they much each strike a different target.

Also, unlike most players use this spell, apparently if all the missiles strike the same target, you are only rolling 1d4.

All that said, I like the magic missile spell overall. It's flexible and reliable, even if the damage is not overwhelming.
I think you mean some tweet from collaborators. The JC one overrides all them:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/26/magic-missile-3-bolts/

Empowered Evocation does benefit magic missile's damage roll.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557823175581769729?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5E tweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E557823175581769729&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F2015%2F0 1%2F26%2Fmagic-missile-3-bolts%2F
So it is only one roll, this damage is all the same for all darts, multiple darts can hit the same target. Empowered evocation is only for one roll, not per target, that is not written anywhere. As the spell has only one roll, it applies to all darts that share the same roll.

Note: I see @ MaxWilson was ahead :smallsigh:

[JellyPooga]

You have the rules backwards. Material components are only consumed if specified, not the other way around.

Oops! Point conceded :smallwink: Still, in the "escape the dungeon" scenario, you may not have your divination gear, or something from "home".

[LudicSavant]

Still, in the "escape the dungeon" scenario, you may not have your divination gear, or something from "home".

Yeah. I pointed that out myself, in post #64.

[JellyPooga]

Yeah. I pointed that out myself, in post #64.

True 'nuff. As I say, it does have uses; just not that many of them. In my opinion, definitely one of the worst 6th level spells because it is so situational and even then it has so many limitations on top of that.

[LudicSavant]

True 'nuff. As I say, it does have uses; just not that many of them. In my opinion, definitely one of the worst 6th level spells because it is so situational and even then it has so many limitations on top of that.

Being situational doesn't make something bad, though. Something is bad when its benefit is not worth its cost, or when it is outclassed in its own job by superior options.

[dejarnjc]

How do you all get around the material component of "an object from the location you wish to find" part of Find the Path?

If you have an associated object... then you've likely been there before and so Tree Stride has a high chance of being superior (cause trees are pretty common in most places) or Wind Walk.

Teleport is 100% effective if you have an associated object (within the last 6 months though).

Can't think of a single instance where I would use Find the Path in a regular game. Just seems to be outclassed in every way.

[MaxWilson]

How do you all get around the material component of "an object from the location you wish to find" part of Find the Path?

By strict RAW, since it doesn't have a gold cost, a spellcasting focus obviates the need it. I assume that's not intended though and I don't know how many DMs would actually let that fly--although there are probably plenty of DMs who would be happy to just waive the requirement entirely because otherwise it is, as you say, a pretty bad spell.

[JellyPooga]

Being situational doesn't make something bad, though. Something is bad when its benefit is not worth its cost, or when it is outclassed in its own job by superior options.

While FtP does have the Advantage of unlimited range on the same plane and being unerringly correct, many lower level divinations (some of which are rituals to boot) achieve much the same objective. Commune (with Nature) will reveal local terrain or information about best routes. Though relatively short ranged, Locate Object/Creature will point you in the right direction. Speak with Dead might be cryptic or misleading, but can reveal valuable info on routes to your destination and FtP might be just as misleading, given it's ambiguity regarding safety and directness.

At the end of the day, spells of 5th level or lower are a much lesser resource expenditure compared to those of 6th or higher, if only because you get so many more of them. A 6th level spell needs to really do something worth its salt if it's going to be a niche spell and Find the Path simply doesn't stand out as significantly better than other divinations that have similar or approximately similar end result.

[LudicSavant]

While FtP does have the Advantage of unlimited range on the same plane and being unerringly correct, many lower level divinations (some of which are rituals to boot) achieve much the same objective. Commune (with Nature) will reveal local terrain or information about best routes. Though relatively short ranged, Locate Object/Creature will point you in the right direction. Speak with Dead might be cryptic or misleading, but can reveal valuable info on routes to your destination and FtP might be just as misleading, given it's ambiguity regarding safety and directness.

At the end of the day, spells of 5th level or lower are a much lesser resource expenditure compared to those of 6th or higher, if only because you get so many more of them. A 6th level spell needs to really do something worth its salt if it's going to be a niche spell and Find the Path simply doesn't stand out as significantly better than other divinations that have similar or approximately similar end result.

That's a better argument, I think.

My point was just to caution against using Sorcerer logic when saying that Cleric/Druid spells are bad (e.g. the "it's situational" thing. Being situational doesn't matter that much for the kind of spells that aren't competing for spells known or spells prepared slots. If it's the kind of thing that you know automatically and use on the morning that you already know you need to cast it, it's just adding potential utility to your build even if it's not coming up in every campaign).

[Zene]

@Treantmonk Is there a thread for your new "how to think about damage" video?


No, I didn't bother to promote it since it was just a "mini" video that just something I thought might be handy to link to as it comes up in the future.

In that case, I’ll ask the question here. What use cases are there for the damage preference thing? I’m trying to think of times in game where I get to choose between 1d12 and 1d6+3 (or similar); and they’re all extremely minor (like greatsword vs greataxe). Am I missing something? Can this philosophy be used in a build or something?

On another note, really looking forward to your 7th level spells video. Trying to decide on my L14 magical secrets picks :)

[Kane0]

Magic Missile vs Scorching ray?

[LudicSavant]

In that case, I’ll ask the question here. What use cases are there for the damage preference thing? I’m trying to think of times in game where I get to choose between 1d12 and 1d6+3 (or similar); and they’re all extremely minor (like greatsword vs greataxe). Am I missing something? Can this philosophy be used in a build or something?

On another note, really looking forward to your 7th level spells video. Trying to decide on my L14 magical secrets picks :)

School of thought 1 is the most wrong school of thought. 1d6+3 v 1d12 is not a trick question, and those who claim this position are failing to consider any of the relevant variables, and then they're doing math wrong (e.g. the average of both 1d6+3 and 1d12 are not 6.5, because of factors like crit chances).

School of thought 2 and 3 (that one or the other is categorically better) are also both wrong; which is better depends on the situation. That said, within a specific situation, you can mathematically determine, as a matter of fact, which one is objectively better using plain ol' probability math.

So, let's take Greatsword vs Greataxe. The difference is not extremely minor, it's actually way bigger than you might expect. Barring some specific synergizing abilities that make the weapon die size more impactful, Greatswords mathematically destroy greataxes. Here's why:

Let's say you need to kill a goblin. It has 7 hit points. And to keep things simple, we'll say we have 15 strength and no other abilities. We crit on a 20.

So, what is our goal here? Is it to do the highest average damage roll? No, wrong, bad statistician in training! Your intuitions are worthless in probability math! Our goal is to maximize the probability that we do lethal damage (in a typical goblin's case, 7), or, failing that, maximize the probability that the next attack will do at least lethal damage, and so forth down the Matryoshka Doll line. Often the next attack will be your ally's attack. Again to keep things simple, we'll presume all characters in your party are the same character.

So we can calculate the probability that we'll do at least 7 damage pretty easily. For a 2d6+2 Greatsword, it's ~83.33% chance of killing on a regular hit, or ~99.92% chance of killing on a critical hit. We're not actually sure of our grand total chance to kill, because we need to know our chance to hit for that (we know that 5% of attacks are critical hits, but not what percent of attacks are normal hits, because we don't know what percent are misses). Thankfully this level of precision won't be necessary to determine that the greataxe is a lot worse. Anyways, we can still tell that your chance of killing if you hit twice is 100% (because 4d6+4 has a minimum value of 8 hp damage).

Okay, now let's take our greataxe. For a 1d12+2 Greataxe hit, your chance of killing on a normal hit is only ~66.67%. Your chance of killing on a critical hit is only ~95.83%. As we can see, both figures are significantly lower. They're also significantly lower on subsequent hits. For example, our chance to kill after two hits is less than 100%, because 2d12+4's minimum is only 6.

Even if we're hitting an enemy that has more hit points and has no chance of dying this turn, the greatsword's more reliable curve combined with its higher average (factoring crits makes its average even more favorable compared to a greataxe), then the greatsword's coming out way ahead here.

Now, it's actually theoretically possible for there to be tactical situations where the Greataxe is better. For example, if an enemy has exactly 11-14 hit points, and is so dangerous that they must die this turn or they'll wipe you, then a Greataxe is better because the Greatsword's higher chance to roll an 8, 9, or 10 becomes irrelevant. All that matters in that very moment is whether you get at least 11, in which case the greataxe is a bit more likely to do so. But for pretty much any other case (which is to say, the vast majority of cases), the Greatsword is better.

In order for the greataxe to ever truly be worthy of consideration over a greatsword, you need to be stacking abilities that give you an extra weapon die based on the weapon die you already have (in which case a greataxe will scale more with those abilities than a greatsword will).

Some relevant data here: https://anydice.com/program/12307

[Zalabim]

*Snip, editing in with AnyDice graphs and such*

Wow, wonderful timing on my part, because I was going to snip most of that anyway. Speaking of doing math wrong, minor nitpicks (very minor):

1) Critical hits double the dice, but not the flat damage. Normal hit is 2d6+2 or 1d12+2 and critical hits are 4d6+2 or 2d12+2. Fixed in the edit, doesn't need this reply.
2) The rate of normal hits to critical hits isn't 95/5 (each out of 100). It depends on your chance to hit in the first place. In the case of the Goblin, you know its AC and your attack bonus so you can use a real figure. 95/5 is always going to be slightly off, as even when an enemy is the broadside of a barn with 7 AC, you still miss on a 1. In that case, it's 90/95 and 5/95 as your mix.
Also not relevant to the edit either, but it's still kinda there for anyone else who might learn something from it.

[Corran]

In that case, I’ll ask the question here. What use cases are there for the damage preference thing? I’m trying to think of times in game where I get to choose between 1d12 and 1d6+3 (or similar); and they’re all extremely minor (like greatsword vs greataxe). Am I missing something? Can this philosophy be used in a build or something?
Without being entirely sure about the correctness of what I am about to say, here it goes:

In the case of d12 vs d6+3, excluding criticals for a moment, and under the assumption that it is equally likely for the enemy we are about to hit, to have any number of 1-12 hp remaining just before we attack them (and under the many variables in play I think this is a fair assumption), then both damage rolls (ie d12 and d6+3) have the exact same chances of killing the enemy (again, when the enemy's current hp is a random number between 1-12). What pushes the d12 slightly ahead is that it crits better.

I think Treantmonk used the wrong example for the point he was trying to make (but hey, this is an assumption, I am not in Treantmok's mind). To use an alternative example, I think what Treantmonk meant to say, is that if for example he had the option to choose from:
A) Have a 50% chance to do 20 damage and 50% chance to do 0 damage, and
B) Have a 100% chance to do 10 damage,
then he would take option B, because option A has more risk associated with it.

But for option B to be subjectively better than option A, one has to make the assumption that we are the favourites for winning the battle already. Because, to put it simply, you probably want to take less (symmetrical) risks when you are happy enough with your initial chances.

[LudicSavant]

There are a few key advantages to having more "bell curved" distributions for your damage.

1) The worst case scenarios are worse for the swingier damage. With the number of rolls you make over the course of the campaign, it's not actually all that unlikely to have a case of rolling a 1 on a 1d12 twice in a row come up.
2) The best case scenario of a swingy damage curve isn't as rewarding as the worst case scenario is harmful. "Overkill" damage is wasted, while underkill always converts directly into needing additional actions/resources to kill the enemy (or possibly allowing them to get extra actions of their own).
3) A more predictable curve means that you can plan ahead more reliably. This particular aspect is a bit more difficult to quantify mathematically, but is nonetheless relevant for a tactician.

However, as Corran notes, if we're not the statistical favorites for winning the battle already (as the PCs almost always are), then taking the longshot becomes more beneficial.


Fixed in the edit, doesn't need this reply.

You're quick! Your corrections were accurate, but I noticed the 4am-addled mistake myself the instant I clicked Submit and fixed it as fast as I could. As your edit notes, the math is now corrected.

[Zalabim]

However, as Corran notes, if we're not the statistical favorites for winning the battle already (as the PCs almost always are), then taking the longshot becomes more beneficial.
Which is why we fear the ones with the greataxes and heavy crossbows more.
You're quick! Your corrections were accurate, but I noticed the 4am-addled mistake myself the instant I clicked Submit and fixed it as fast as I could. As your edit notes, the math is now corrected.
Yep. Unfortunately for you, 4AM is my prime working time. Doing so much work here. At work.

[MaxWilson]

Wow, wonderful timing on my part, because I was going to snip most of that anyway. Speaking of doing math wrong, minor nitpicks (very minor):

1) Critical hits double the dice, but not the flat damage. Normal hit is 2d6+2 or 1d12+2 and critical hits are 4d6+2 or 2d12+2. Fixed in the edit, doesn't need this reply.
2) The rate of normal hits to critical hits isn't 95/5 (each out of 100). It depends on your chance to hit in the first place. In the case of the Goblin, you know its AC and your attack bonus so you can use a real figure. 95/5 is always going to be slightly off, as even when an enemy is the broadside of a barn with 7 AC, you still miss on a 1. In that case, it's 90/95 and 5/95 as your mix.
Also not relevant to the edit either, but it's still kinda there for anyone else who might learn something from it.

More importantly, there isn't a general solution. Against 7 HP goblins, a greatsword for 2d6 has a higher kill chance. Against 11 HP hobgoblins, a greataxe for d12 has a higher kill chance.

The whole point of discussing averages is so that we don't have to just throw up our hands and say, "Who knows? Everything depends!" But that's also why we don't get excited over tiny differences in average damage. Greatsword vs. greataxe, meh, they're pretty comparable. But on a 6th level fighter, (Str 16/push prone + GWM attacks + PAM bonus attack with GWM) is clearly better against most foes than (Str 20/attack sequence) from both a tactical and a DPR standpoint, and that is why we talk about averages as one component of tactical analysis.

[LudicSavant]

More importantly, there isn't a general solution. Against 7 HP goblins, a greatsword for 2d6 has a higher kill chance. Against 11 HP hobgoblins, a greataxe for d12 has a higher kill chance.

To be clear: the greataxe's niche is even more niche than that. In order for the 11hp case to matter, you need to not care about your average time to kill the enemy, just how likely you are to kill the enemy on that specific round (e.g. why the post says "either you get them with this attack or you wipe"). And it's only at 11-14 hit points.

The greatsword's advantage isn't only at some narrow range, it's at "almost all cases."

[MaxWilson]

{Scrubbed}

[Kane0]

No mention of Chain Lightning? I've always found it to be so lacklustre in practice.

[Zene]

School of thought 1 is the most wrong school of thought. 1d6+3 v 1d12 is not a trick question, and those who claim this position are failing to consider any of the relevant variables, and then they're doing math wrong (e.g. the average of both 1d6+3 and 1d12 are not 6.5, because of factors like crit chances).

School of thought 2 and 3 (that one or the other is categorically better) are also both wrong; which is better depends on the situation. That said, within a specific situation, you can mathematically determine, as a matter of fact, which one is objectively better using plain ol' probability math.

So, let's take Greatsword vs Greataxe. The difference is not extremely minor, it's actually way bigger than you might expect. Barring some specific synergizing abilities that make the weapon die size more impactful, Greatswords mathematically destroy greataxes. Here's why:

Let's say you need to kill a goblin. It has 7 hit points. And to keep things simple, we'll say we have 15 strength and no other abilities. We crit on a 20.

So, what is our goal here? Is it to do the highest average damage roll? No, wrong, bad statistician in training! Your intuitions are worthless in probability math! Our goal is to maximize the probability that we do lethal damage (in a typical goblin's case, 7), or, failing that, maximize the probability that the next attack will do at least lethal damage, and so forth down the Matryoshka Doll line. Often the next attack will be your ally's attack. Again to keep things simple, we'll presume all characters in your party are the same character.

So we can calculate the probability that we'll do at least 7 damage pretty easily. For a 2d6+2 Greatsword, it's ~83.33% chance of killing on a regular hit, or ~99.92% chance of killing on a critical hit. We're not actually sure of our grand total chance to kill, because we need to know our chance to hit for that (we know that 5% of attacks are critical hits, but not what percent of attacks are normal hits, because we don't know what percent are misses). Thankfully this level of precision won't be necessary to determine that the greataxe is a lot worse. Anyways, we can still tell that your chance of killing if you hit twice is 100% (because 4d6+4 has a minimum value of 8 hp damage).

Okay, now let's take our greataxe. For a 1d12+2 Greataxe hit, your chance of killing on a normal hit is only ~66.67%. Your chance of killing on a critical hit is only ~95.83%. As we can see, both figures are significantly lower. They're also significantly lower on subsequent hits. For example, our chance to kill after two hits is less than 100%, because 2d12+4's minimum is only 6.

Even if we're hitting an enemy that has more hit points and has no chance of dying this turn, the greatsword's more reliable curve combined with its higher average (factoring crits makes its average even more favorable compared to a greataxe), then the greatsword's coming out way ahead here.

Now, it's actually theoretically possible for there to be tactical situations where the Greataxe is better. For example, if an enemy has exactly 11-14 hit points, and is so dangerous that they must die this turn or they'll wipe you, then a Greataxe is better because the Greatsword's higher chance to roll an 8, 9, or 10 becomes irrelevant. All that matters in that very moment is whether you get at least 11, in which case the greataxe is a bit more likely to do so. But for pretty much any other case (which is to say, the vast majority of cases), the Greatsword is better.

In order for the greataxe to ever truly be worthy of consideration over a greatsword, you need to be stacking abilities that give you an extra weapon die based on the weapon die you already have (in which case a greataxe will scale more with those abilities than a greatsword will).

Some relevant data here: https://anydice.com/program/12307

Cool, I get all that; and I appreciate the thoughtful response. But even in the scenario you detailed, I’m still calling that a minor difference; not only in situational kill percentages, but in the fact that everyone who can use a greatsword can use a greataxe and vice versa, so this has little difference on character design (in most cases).

Also, even in comparison to the 1d6+3 vs 1d12 example, this is minor.

So to reiterate my question: How is this perspective useful in game? Other than choosing between a greatsword and Greataxe.

Like, this must come up somewhere, for treantmonk to decide to post about it.

[MaxWilson]

So to reiterate my question: How is this perspective useful in game? Other than choosing between a greatsword and Greataxe.

Like, this must come up somewhere, for treantmonk to decide to post about it.

Well, Treantmonk's recent video mentions Prismatic Spray as a bad spell, and if you've seen the video on damage/reliability already it's immediately obvious why Treantmonk thinks it's bad. (And he's right.)

[Asmotherion]

A very underated spell despite the 10 minute cast time in my opinion is forbiddance. Cast it hidden before entering a dungeon for example wile the party is protecting you and you might deal with a big part of the dungeon the easy way.

[AHF]

A very underated spell despite the 10 minute cast time in my opinion is forbiddance. Cast it hidden before entering a dungeon for example wile the party is protecting you and you might deal with a big part of the dungeon the easy way.

Just read that for the first time. Wow. That could totally destroy a dungeon.

I'm imagining as an example a necromancer operating out of a crypt below a graveyard. Cast forbiddance, designate undead and now all undead in a 40,000 square foot area (basically 1 acre of space) take 5d10 radiant damage per turn and there can be no planar travel to gate in a demon, etc. who isn't already there.

If the crypt is covered entirely by the 40,000 foot, 30 feet high area (for example if there are only two levels of 15' height or less) then you could end up destroying just about everything in there if there are limited access and egress points. And to not even spend a spell slot is pretty engaging. You could even do this level by level in a dungeon where each level is >40,000 sqft where you simply spend 10 minutes recasting before you go down the next staircase.

[MaxWilson]

A very underated spell despite the 10 minute cast time in my opinion is forbiddance. Cast it hidden before entering a dungeon for example wile the party is protecting you and you might deal with a big part of the dungeon the easy way.

Good point. I'm not sure you wouldn't run into issues with casting it through total cover, but if your DM allows that tactic it is very strong.

Druid Grove is arguably even stronger due to all the "no friendly fire" effects you can stack up, like Spike Growth that doesn't hurt allies and fog that doesn't impair allied vision. It's pretty close to the ultimate party buff. Doesn't even cost your concentration to maintain. Set it up somewhere in advance and use it as a defensive strong point from which to strafe the enemy to death.

[Asmotherion]

Good point. I'm not sure you wouldn't run into issues with casting it through total cover, but if your DM allows that tactic it is very strong.

Druid Grove is arguably even stronger due to all the "no friendly fire" effects you can stack up, like Spike Growth that doesn't hurt allies and fog that doesn't impair allied vision. It's pretty close to the ultimate party buff. Doesn't even cost your concentration to maintain. Set it up somewhere in advance and use it as a defensive strong point from which to strafe the enemy to death.

Thanks for that. Totally missed Druid's Grove in my Xanathar's! That's one more Wish super-trick I approve of!

[Waifu Collector]

I’ve always hated disintegrate. A save or suck for you only. The damage isn’t even that impressive, at least not impressive enough to warrant such a risk of wasting a high level spell slot that could’ve been used for like, anything else.

[Asmotherion]

I’ve always hated disintegrate. A save or suck for you only. The damage isn’t even that impressive, at least not impressive enough to warrant such a risk of wasting a high level spell slot that could’ve been used for like, anything else.

Sure, if you think of it as a direct damaging spell it sucks.

If you read between the lines and see the part that says it disintegrades a 10 foot cube of non living matter automatically, you'd know better than to underestimate what it can do strategically in a battle.

I believe Disintegrede is secretly an awesome control spell, with an attack option. Put your opponent in a 10 foot deep pit suddently, and with no apparent save? Now that's a great spell.

[Zene]

Sure, if you think of it as a direct damaging spell it sucks.

If you read between the lines and see the part that says it disintegrades a 10 foot cube of non living matter automatically, you'd know better than to underestimate what it can do strategically in a battle.

I believe Disintegrede is secretly an awesome control spell, with an attack option. Put your opponent in a 10 foot deep pit suddently, and with no apparent save? Now that's a great spell.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding... but wouldn’t dropping your (size large or smaller, non flying) enemy into a 10’ hole, just 1) do 1d6 fall damage, 2) give him full cover from ranged attackers whose turns come after you (and possibly put him out of reach for melee attackers), and 3) only require him to spend 20 movement —10 if he has a climb speed or a decent jump— and maybe a low-DC athletics check for the climb—to get right back out on his next turn? Then still have his full action, including remaining movement?

I mean sure, there’s no save,,, but I don’t think I’d want to spend a L6 slot on that.

[Asmotherion]

Maybe I’m misunderstanding... but wouldn’t dropping your (size large or smaller, non flying) enemy into a 10’ hole, just 1) do 1d6 fall damage, 2) give him full cover from ranged attackers whose turns come after you (and possibly put him out of reach for melee attackers), and 3) only require him to spend 20 movement —10 if he has a climb speed or a decent jump— and maybe a low-DC athletics check for the climb—to get right back out on his next turn? Then still have his full action, including remaining movement?

I mean sure, there’s no save,,, but I don’t think I’d want to spend a L6 slot on that.

I see it going as force him to pass a Dex save or fall prone, then a climb action (and an other check) (costing 10 feet of movement per 5 feet actually moving), and since he's going to exit prone, it could take him about 2 turns to even stand up. Even if he does not fall prone initially, he does exit prone from the pit (using his full round doing so), giving a full round of being prone, and potentially trowing him back again. In the meanwile, you can gain precious momentum in the fight, like make a wall spell, or put something like a Black tentacles inside the pit.

[Mordaedil]

Cool, I get all that; and I appreciate the thoughtful response. But even in the scenario you detailed, I’m still calling that a minor difference; not only in situational kill percentages, but in the fact that everyone who can use a greatsword can use a greataxe and vice versa, so this has little difference on character design (in most cases).

Also, even in comparison to the 1d6+3 vs 1d12 example, this is minor.

So to reiterate my question: How is this perspective useful in game? Other than choosing between a greatsword and Greataxe.

Like, this must come up somewhere, for treantmonk to decide to post about it.
I've seen spells been balanced between d4, d6 and d8's over this. Which is stronger between a 5d8 spell and a 10d6 spell? It's always going to be the 10d6 and you don't have to be a math genius to know why. That isn't maybe the fairest comparison though.

Let's take two spells from an older edition that I recently did the math on, Ice Burst vs Fireball. Ice burst deals 1d4+1 damage per level while fireball deals 1d6 damage per level. On average they deal the same damage. But in general the ice burst spell is going to deal more damage, because it has a low-cap of 20 damage against the fireballs 10. It can't reach the max damage of 60, but fireball has less than a percent chance of rolling that. Even 1% we're looking at 45-46 damage. Similar odds for ice burst lands us at 42-43 damage, an acceptable difference if you ask me. This percentage goes backwards too, where a fireball at around 1% of the time landing at 24-25 damage, the ice burst lands at 27-28. Still minor difference, but you will notice that ice burst peaks a lot more eagerly than fireball does.

In other words, appreciate the low point of damage as it usually represents your guarantee better than high end. Like the difference between 10d8 and 15d6.

[Zene]

I've seen spells been balanced between d4, d6 and d8's over this. Which is stronger between a 5d8 spell and a 10d6 spell? It's always going to be the 10d6 and you don't have to be a math genius to know why. That isn't maybe the fairest comparison though.

Let's take two spells from an older edition that I recently did the math on, Ice Burst vs Fireball. Ice burst deals 1d4+1 damage per level while fireball deals 1d6 damage per level. On average they deal the same damage. But in general the ice burst spell is going to deal more damage, because it has a low-cap of 20 damage against the fireballs 10. It can't reach the max damage of 60, but fireball has less than a percent chance of rolling that. Even 1% we're looking at 45-46 damage. Similar odds for ice burst lands us at 42-43 damage, an acceptable difference if you ask me. This percentage goes backwards too, where a fireball at around 1% of the time landing at 24-25 damage, the ice burst lands at 27-28. Still minor difference, but you will notice that ice burst peaks a lot more eagerly than fireball does.

In other words, appreciate the low point of damage as it usually represents your guarantee better than high end. Like the difference between 10d8 and 15d6.

Ah ok, that helps clear it up for me. Thank you!