Most underused spells/abilities? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

LudicSavant

2019-03-05, 08:24 PM

Stuff that's underused because it's actual garbage:

Witch Bolt: Some people get confused and think that Witch Bolt provides 6.5 DPR because it "auto-hits." It doesn't auto-hit. It has a miss chance; it's basically an all-or-nothing DoT that requires extra investments of actions to get the reward for the initial hit. The result is that the correct DPR calculation is... terrible. Compared to basically anything else you could do. We've had thread after thread establishing this.

Melf's Acid Arrow: Imagine a world where we severely buffed Melf's Acid Arrow so that it automatically hit and dealt all of its damage in one turn. In this hypothetical world with this severely buffed Acid Arrow, you would have a spell that does 1 point more damage than an upcast Magic Missile on average (4d4+4 averages 14, 6d4 averages 15). In exchange for this +1 damage, it would have less range, a worse damage type, and lack the ability to be split between targets or synergize with features like Hexblade's Curse or Empowered Evocation.

Of course, we know that Melf's Acid Arrow doesn't automatically hit, and doesn't deal all its damage in one turn. This is complete garbage.

Stuff that's underused because it's sometimes underrated:

Mold Earth: I’ve seen at least one person say “you can do that with a shovel!” I think that they lack a sense of scale.

The first bullet point in the spell's description is the important one.

The ability to instantaneously excavate a 5x5x5 foot cube’s worth of earth (about 5000 pounds of rather average topsoil) in 6 seconds gives you an ability to create earthworks and excavations comparable to an army of people with shovels and entrenching tools. You can move 75,000 cubic feet of earth in an hour. That’s no joke. That’s like 250 commercial dump trucks worth of dirt. Literally tons and tons of dirt. Mind, you might move less than that in practice (since you might have to move some clumps of dirt more than 5 feet for your engineering project of choice), but even a fraction of that amount is astronomically beyond the scope of what one can do with a shovel in that sort of time frame.

Some examples of uses:
Hide underground.
Create pit traps.
Create earthworks fortifications, cover, etc.
Build shelters surprisingly quickly.
Redirect a river or lava flow.
Burrow under a building.
Sink aforementioned building.
Dig a grave instantly.
Dig up a grave instantly, for you grave robbers and necromancers out there.
Excavate buried ruins with one man instead of 100.
Block off dungeon passageways until you’re ready to go through them.
Reinforce an unstable structure.
Activate pressure plates and other traps by sending mounds of earth ahead of you. Why sacrifice innocent summoned minions when you can just use sand?
Cleaning.

Some examples of possible combat uses:
Create a ringed dirt wall around a ranged character, providing them with ¾ cover. Such cover is better than the Dodge action, and can be taken on behalf of an ally. Sure, the wall’s only “loose earth” but so are sandbags.
Fill in a hole, while someone is in it. Multiple characters with the cantrip can both make the hole and fill it in, burying a foe alive in a single round.
An enemy is standing near a cliff edge. You shape the earth they’re standing on into a slide.

The main thing holding this spell back is that it’s limited by environment. That said, loose earth isn’t exactly a particularly rare type of terrain; it applies to most outdoor environs, and in a medieval setting it would apply to quite a few indoor ones as well. And you always have the option of bringing some earth with you (such as for the pressure plates usage I suggested).

Note: If your DM is uncertain about what counts as “loose earth,” there is a Sage Advice for it. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/18/whats-loose-earth-for-the-mold-earth-cantrip/)

Control Flames:
Another one I've occasionally seen underrated by a few guides. This is a good cantrip for providing and denying vision (among a few other things).

Increasing the radius of a hooded lantern to 60 feet bright / 60 feet dim is fantastic vision for a cantrip (same radius as the Daylight spell, and way more illumination than the Light spell), and the flavor effects can be fun (or possibly nab you Advantage on things like perform or intimidation for a clever player). And the extinguishing flames line makes you an excellent fireman… or just able to clean up all the stuff that ignited as collateral damage from your Fireball ;)

This also is a rare example of a spell that only has a Somatic component. Want to spread the fire from the guardsmen’s torches to fill their squares while staying safely hidden in the shadows and completely silent? You can absolutely do that! Want to make those torches look they naturally sputtered out to set up your ambush as they fumble with flint and steel? You can do that too!

Chronos

2019-03-05, 09:16 PM

Huh, really, Mold Earth is underused? The only reason I haven't taken it on every character with cantrips I've made is because my group is PHB only. Even aside from iffy usages like burying opponents alive, just the ability to dig out an earthen fort in a couple of minutes (unambiguously within the scope of the spell) would be worth it.

LudicSavant

2019-03-05, 09:35 PM

Huh, really, Mold Earth is underused?

At the very least, it is (undeservedly, in my opinion) rated red on some guides on this forum, with comments like "you can just do this with a shovel" or "I can't think of any uses for this."

Even aside from iffy usages like burying opponents alive, just the ability to dig out an earthen fort in a couple of minutes (unambiguously within the scope of the spell) would be worth it.

Agreed.

jdolch

2019-03-05, 09:47 PM

As someone who plays Curse of Strahd at the moment, I'd like to see the "Daylight" spell renamed. It doesn't actually create Daylight at all, just a generic "Bright Light" and as such it doesn't do poopoo against Vampires. Very disappointing. The spell should be called "Illumination" or something and "Daylight" should be recreated at a higher spell level and actually produce daylight.

No brains

2019-03-05, 09:52 PM

I actually used the 'rain' feature of Create/ Destroy Water to extinguish a plot fire and impact an adventure. It seems useful as it stands, but wow factor and guessing when its useful is up to the player.

Jerrykhor

2019-03-05, 09:52 PM

I've actually seen Witchbolt on someone's spell list before. Its likely some newer players might take it, since it doesn't sound too bad on paper.

There are a ton of underused spells, but i think the Most underused spells have to be the ones that sound lame and are actually lame, like Illusory Script, Create/Destroy Water, Continual Flame.

Then there are the 'DM spells' like Magic Mouth, Nystul Magic Aura that players have no use for.

stoutstien

2019-03-05, 10:02 PM

LudicSavant

2019-03-05, 10:18 PM

There are a ton of underused spells, but i think the Most underused spells have to be the ones that sound lame and are actually lame, like Illusory Script, Create/Destroy Water, Continual Flame.

Continual Flame isn't actually lame though. Have your cleric pop in 50gp, get back a hands-free piece of gear that illuminates magical Darkness and provides waterproof magical light. Forever.

JoeJ

2019-03-06, 12:16 AM

Then there are the 'DM spells' like Magic Mouth, Nystul Magic Aura that players have no use for.

Unless a player wants to break the world at 3rd level, by creating magitech communication devices, computers, and sensors (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?539861-The-Arcane-Programmer-Guide-(-Official-Rules-Technique-)).

jdolch

2019-03-06, 04:53 AM

Continual Flame isn't actually lame though. Have your cleric pop in 50gp, get back a hands-free piece of gear that illuminates magical Darkness and provides waterproof magical light. Forever.

Continual Flame is a second Level Spell. Darkness specifically states that if his AoE overlaps with an Area Illuminated by a Spell of second Level or lower, that Spell is dispelled. Not 'may be', it 'is' dispelled. So it doesn't illuminate magical Darkness, it is snuffed out. Just like if somebody actually used Dispel Magic AND succeeded on their Ability Check, only they don't even need to roll. So the actual effect of the second level spell Continual Flame is basically the same as the light Cantrip. The only advantage is that you don't need to recast it, which in theory is an advantage but in practice: How difficult is it for the Cleric in your group to recast a Cantrip? Yeah. Plus more likely than not 5 out of 6 Adventurers either have their own light or don't even need light.

LudicSavant

2019-03-06, 05:13 AM

This is precisely the sort of misinformation that leads to some things being misrated.

Continual Flame is a second Level Spell. Darkness specifically states that if his AoE overlaps with an Area Illuminated by a Spell of second Level or lower, that Spell is dispelled. Not 'may be', it 'is' dispelled. So it doesn't illuminate magical Darkness, it is snuffed out.

This is resolved by upcasting it to third level. Note the relevant rule on page 201 of the PHB.

CASTlNG A SPELL AT A HIGHER LEVEL
When a spellcaster casts a spell using a slot that is of a higher level than the spell, the spell assumes the higher level for that casting. For instance, if Umara casts magic missile using one of her 2nd-levei slots, that magic missile is 2nd level. Effectively, the spell expands to fill the slot it is put into.

Continual Flame is basically the same as the light Cantrip. The only advantage is that you don't need to recast it, which in theory is an advantage but in practice: How difficult is it for the Cleric in your group to recast a Cantrip? Yeah. Plus more likely than not 5 out of 6 Adventurers either have their own light or don't even need light.

First, it is not the same as a Light cantrip, because it can create a permanent item which illuminates magical Darkness, as well as produce multiple light sources.

Second, you say this as if you believe that its ability to replace a cantrip is a bad thing. Let's examine the opportunity cost.

Taking the Light cantrip takes up a very limited and valuable resource: A cantrip slot.
Taking Continual Flame is automatic for a Cleric. Using it requires 50gp and a spell slot on a day I'm not adventuring anyways. Using this instead of Light means that you can take a different cantrip instead.

jdolch

2019-03-06, 07:21 AM

This is precisely the sort of misinformation that leads to some things being misrated.

This is resolved by upcasting it to third level. Note the relevant rule on page 201 of the PHB.

CASTlNG A SPELL AT A HIGHER LEVEL
When a spellcaster casts a spell using a slot that is of a higher level than the spell, the spell assumes the higher level for that casting. For instance, if Umara casts magic missile using one of her 2nd-levei slots, that magic missile is 2nd level. Effectively, the spell expands to fill the slot it is put into.

First, it is not the same as a Light cantrip, because it can create a permanent item which illuminates magical Darkness, as well as produce multiple light sources.

Second, you say this as if you believe that its ability to replace a cantrip is a bad thing. Let's examine the opportunity cost.

Taking the Light cantrip takes up a very limited and valuable resource: A cantrip slot.
Taking Continual Flame is automatic for a Cleric. Using it requires 50gp and a spell slot on a day I'm not adventuring anyways. Using this instead of Light means that you can take a different cantrip instead.

I stand corrected. I didn't think about upcasting it and then it actually counts as a higher level spell. Never had that actually come up. Neither have I actually ever had a need for illuminating Darkness. Not sure if that is just me or if that is actually not a relevant problem. Probably depends on your DM. In my games most people have Darkvision and the Rest have some form of creating light, so the DM basically just hand waves that everybody can see in normal Darkness. And I don't think anybody ever cast 'Darkness'. I thought about taking it a few times but it's not worth it in practice when you actually have other Party members who like to ... you know ... see.

But you convinced me. That is actually a cool spell if you play in a game where the DM actually puts some weight on who can see what and so on.

Thanks for the new Perspective.

As for "misinformation": Dude, not everybody knows everything. I am happy for you that this has somehow come up for you at one point and then you read up on it. No reason to get personal.

For as how to rate it, i am not sure. It's not as bad as i originally thought but on the other hand: You treat it as a throwaway spell that you cast on hypothetical off-days, where you don't actually have to spend any resources on it. So if it isn't worth any resources, how should I rate it. I don't know.

P.S.:
We are at the point again where the PHB makes no sense. What If I cast Darkness with a 9th level slot? Does your 3rd level Light still survive? By RAW it does, since the Darkness spell doesn't actually specify any scaling. So they packed this blanket rule, that you quoted, in there and then promptly forgot about the implications. So it can be argued that this whole "I upcast light and then it's safe" is actually against RAI. Maybe I have less tolerance for this bs than other people but how these kinds of blatant oversights can still persist in a 5th Edition of something that has been playtested for 40 years is beyond me. I swear in this game, every 5 seconds you stumble over something where you think: "Has nobody ever read this before they printed it?" And then Crawford tweets his "clarifications" (aka "Whoopsie, i guess we were hammered when we wrote that") while sitting on the toilet and somehow these issues still don't make it into the next errata.

MrStabby

2019-03-06, 07:48 AM

Underused? Well there are those that are underused in the sense that the ability really isn't that useful - it is intentionally weak.

Then there are those that are powerful but situational and are not used as the situation does not arise.

Then there are those that look good but in practice are not.

Finally there are abilities that people seem to forget about.

I will put spells aside as they are too rich a field.

In the first category I will put any language other than common and sometimes undercommon. Never have I needed to speak to a dragon in draconic or an elemental in primordial. Anything the campaign expects you to speak to speaks common. If you want class abilities then druidic or thieves cant, although both of these have seen some use at my table.

In the second category of being too situational... I would but the knowledge cleric's ability to become proficient in a tool or skill. Proficiency is great and a nice bonus to these skills is a great touch but you need that task to come up. You also need it to be a task where the proficiency makes a difference - thieves tools doesn't help if the party rogue can still do it better; if the non proficient but still higher dexterity monk can pull it off better than you then it is lower value still. The times it makes a difference is pretty small. The times it is worth consuming a CD for are even fewer.

In the third category... things just not as good as they seem; you get abilities that get used once or twice and then no more. Flurry of blows on a lot of monks - it's good till you hit level 5 and you can stun things. There are fights where it is useful, but you kind of have to engineer them. Barbarian unarmoured defence is another; looks good, looks cool but when you can just wear pretty good armour anyway (possibly magic) it gets used less.

The abilities people forget? Well this must change from table to table. Racial spells seem to be commonly forgotten for example (oddly, I see this more amongst experienced than new players).

LudicSavant

2019-03-06, 08:15 AM

I stand corrected. I didn't think about upcasting it and then it actually counts as a higher level spell. Never had that actually come up. Neither have I actually ever had a need for illuminating Darkness. Not sure if that is just me or if that is actually not a relevant problem. Probably depends on your DM. In my games most people have Darkvision and the Rest have some form of creating light, so the DM basically just hand waves that everybody can see in normal Darkness. And I don't think anybody ever cast 'Darkness'. I thought about taking it a few times but it's not worth it in practice when you actually have other Party members who like to ... you know ... see.

But you convinced me. That is actually a cool spell if you play in a game where the DM actually puts some weight on who can see what and so on.

Thanks for the new Perspective.
NP! :smallsmile:

Another note, though: Darkvision does not actually let you see well in darkness. It only lets you see as if you were in dim light (e.g, with Disadvantage). It was designed so that light would remain very important even if everyone had Darkvision.

Of course, if your DM is just handwaving all the exploration and vision rules, then none of this would matter to you. But if you are instead playing in an underdark crawl where the DM is accurately tracking vision (such as, say, by using Roll20's dynamic lighting feature) then light sources become very important indeed.

As for "misinformation" . . . No reason to get personal.
:smallconfused: I didn't. Misinformation (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misinformation) means "incorrect information." Telling you that the information you posted is incorrect is not getting personal, and you should not take it as such.

P.S.:
We are at the point again where the PHB makes no sense. What If I cast Darkness with a 9th level slot? Does your 3rd level Light still survive?

If you cast Darkness with a 9th level spell slot, it becomes more difficult to dispel. It does not become better at dispelling things. So for example, if you upcast Darkness, it can't be dispelled by Daylight.

So it can be argued that this whole "I upcast light and then it's safe" is actually against RAI.

I would strongly caution against ever assuming that something is RAI or not, without a developer comment to that effect.

The devs have previously commented that this is how it's supposed to work. It's also covered in Sage Advice, here (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-september-2015).

Shuruke

2019-03-06, 08:32 AM

I constantly like to implement little fixes into my games to make every ability feel important. But some just...don't.

Goliath's Large carrying capacity, Blade Ward, Create or Destroy Water, etc.

What abilities/spells would you like to see get improved, and how would you like to see it done?

It doesn't necessarily have to be a homebrew fix. Goliaths, for example, can be improved by just implementing more Strength-based traps (portcullises, sinking roofs, carrying people, etc).

Generally for the races with powerful build o try to throw the occasional object needing pushed put of way during a combat scenario that is big enough that they can push it by themself while others fight

Another thing I do for powerful build is that it increases str or con by an additional +1 increasing the max for the chosen one to 21 (+6)
Which could get broken but I dm for a mainly RP group so I generally dont need to worry bout it.

I would like to see more uses for darkvision spell XD especially if you compare it to see invisibility it just doesnt do as much

Allowing it to see through magical darkness and having it increase darkvision if u already have darkvision could be cool.

I also don't see Elemental adept enough not sure how to fix that
Maybe make it a half feat for +1 to int , Cha, Wis

I think it might get used more if may be it had a once per rest feature.
Something like adding another damage dice to a spell or add level to spells damage on one target.

Dungeon-noob

2019-03-06, 08:44 AM

Snip

In the third category... things just not as good as they seem; you get abilities that get used once or twice and then no more. Flurry of blows on a lot of monks - it's good till you hit level 5 and you can stun things. There are fights where it is useful, but you kind of have to engineer them. Barbarian unarmoured defence is another; looks good, looks cool but when you can just wear pretty good armour anyway (possibly magic) it gets used less.
Minor correction, but a Barb can't rage in armor. So that sounds like a bad plan to deny yourself your main class feature for a few points of AC when that's not even going to save you HP (damage resistance, yay!).

On the languages, DM dependant to be sure, but having a party only language makes sceming a whooolle lot easierer, since no one can understand what you're talking about. Not to mention being able to read all the ancient or mystical writings you find is always neat (can save you a few mislabel problems).

Chronos

2019-03-06, 09:12 AM

A barbarian can't rage in heavy armor. Light or medium armor is no problem.

And Illusory Script is useful for sending messages to someone that you don't want intercepted. That really doesn't ever come up in other folks' games?

Guy Lombard-O

2019-03-06, 10:21 AM

:smallconfused: I didn't. Misinformation (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misinformation) means "incorrect information." Telling you that the information you posted is incorrect is not getting personal, and you should not take it as such.

Actually, I don't think it was fair to call it "misinformation". He was right about what he said in response to the words in your first post. You didn't initially mention that you were talking about an upcast version of Continual Light. So his information was a correct assessment of what you actually said.

That said, thanks for the great idea. Using to it negate the need for Light cantrip is smart.

jdolch

2019-03-06, 11:36 AM

I would strongly caution against ever assuming that something is RAI or not, without a developer comment to that effect.

The devs have previously commented that this is how it's supposed to work. It's also covered in Sage Advice, here (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-september-2015).

To tell you the truth, I don't put the Devs of D&D on a Pedestal. I like Mike Mearls, don't get me wrong, but D&D is not a Master Piece by any stretch of the imagination. It's fine for a first draft of something, but this isn't the first draft. This is the 5th edition. 40 years of playtesting, and it's literally riddled with holes and inconsistencies. Sure, we can work around that but when I say RAI, i actually mean RATMS (Rules As They Make Sense). I don't give a crap about RAI, as in what the Devs wanted: If it were so important to them to get their ideas across they should have done a better job of writing it down. As it stands D&D is a collaboration of all the people who play together. Working for WOTC doesn't make you any more right about something, at least not in my book. They bought the rights, that's all. And if you ask me they should have hired some Lawyers. Actually that goes for ALL rule systems. But not Common Law Lawyers with all the weird Case laws, No, Civil Law Lawyers. People who actually understand how to create a codified system of rules that has an inner consistency, where you don't have to make stuff up on the fly anytime you try to use it.

stoutstien

2019-03-06, 11:59 AM

nickl_2000

2019-03-06, 12:00 PM

Unless you are playing very specific campaigns, I would say the Bard's countercharm ability.

MaxWilson

2019-03-06, 12:08 PM

I stand corrected. I didn't think about upcasting it and then it actually counts as a higher level spell. Never had that actually come up. Neither have I actually ever had a need for illuminating Darkness. Not sure if that is just me or if that is actually not a relevant problem.

I'd definitely want a few upcast Continual Lights on hand if I were going demon-hunting, because Darkness + Truesight + pincer attacks is one of a Glabrezu's more fearsome combinations, and there are other fiends as well like Nycaloths who have similar capabilities.

In the first category I will put any language other than common and sometimes undercommon. Never have I needed to speak to a dragon in draconic or an elemental in primordial. Anything the campaign expects you to speak to speaks common. If you want class abilities then druidic or thieves cant, although both of these have seen some use at my table.

One way to make other languages useful is to have monsters communicate with each other during combat, signalling their intentions to each other.

"The hobgoblin squad leader yells something--does anyone speak orcish? [yep] He is saying, 'Hold their attention until the Iron Shadows are in position. Threaten but do not break cover and press the attack home yet.' You also see about a third of the hobgoblins stow their shields and unsling their longbows."

Now the players have a chance to mess up the orc tactics but e.g. shouting and acting (maybe using a Minor Illusion for sound effects) to deceive the hobgoblins into thinking the Iron Shadows are already in position so they will break cover too early.

Admittedly this does work better if you use a different initiative system than PHB standard so all the hobgoblins can act in narrative unison, instead of having to break this sentence up into five different turns between the hobgoblin squad leader and the four hobgoblins who change weapons. But most of things work better if you use a different initiative system, this is just one of them.

Man_Over_Game

2019-03-06, 12:15 PM

I'd definitely want a few upcast Continual Lights on hand if I were going demon-hunting, because Darkness + Truesight + pincer attacks is one of a Glabrezu's more fearsome combinations, and there are other fiends as well like Nycaloths who have similar capabilities.

Notably, you could make a really good fortune of creating "magical lanterns" that are just level 3 Continual Flames that can open and close (makes it so that they're harder targets to casually Dispel). Continual Flame costs like 50g to make, but I could see an Adventurer buying an Anti-Darkness lantern for 500g.

MaxWilson

2019-03-06, 12:21 PM

Notably, you could make a really good fortune of creating "magical lanterns" that are just level 3 Continual Flames that can open and close (makes it so that they're harder targets to casually Dispel). Continual Flame costs like 50g to make, but I could see an Adventurer buying an Anti-Darkness lantern for 500g.

I'd suggest that if demons and spellcasting clerics and people who can fight demons are both common enough to create a sustainable anti-demon economy, your PCs are going to feel like small fish in a rather big pond. I like to reserve that kind of thing for Spelljammer/Planescape/Shadowrun, but for groundling campaigns I'd rather have the PCs be fairly unique, often by killing off all the comparable good guys.

Also, if you want them to be hard to casually Dispel, better make them 4th level Continual Flames so they require an ability check or 4th level Dispel.

stoutstien

2019-03-06, 12:21 PM

jdolch

2019-03-06, 12:56 PM

I'd definitely want a few upcast Continual Lights on hand if I were going demon-hunting, because Darkness + Truesight + pincer attacks is one of a Glabrezu's more fearsome combinations, and there are other fiends as well like Nycaloths who have similar capabilities.

It goes without saying that there are many, many spells and abilities that are situationally extremely useful but are not generally considered worthwhile. I play CoS and i can tell you first hand that we have many spells and abilities work like gangbusters that are pretty crappy elsewhere.

Amdy_vill

2019-03-06, 01:04 PM

animate object. i don't see people talking about it that much but by using tiny objects you out class fire ball. at level 5 fireball does an average of 35 damage where animate object does 65(assuming all hit). and assuming all hit is not a stretch as a +8 id really good.

Glyph or wording as well but this spell really depends on you DM's ruling on the spells vagueness.

Man_Over_Game

2019-03-06, 01:15 PM

It goes without saying that there are many, many spells and abilities that are situationally extremely useful but are not generally considered worthwhile. I play CoS and i can tell you first hand that we have many spells and abilities work like gangbusters that are pretty crappy elsewhere.

"Earthbind".

JackPhoenix

2019-03-06, 01:15 PM

stoutstien

2019-03-06, 01:27 PM

It may create daylight. Daylight is not a mechanical term, sunlight is.
Raw this is correct but Daylight and Sunbeam should make sunlight. One is a 3rd and the other is a 6th lv slot minimum.
I guess daylight could be seen as lasting to long but if it was reduced to minute it could be an solid alternative to fireball for some situations.

JackPhoenix

2019-03-06, 01:38 PM

Raw this is correct but Daylight and Sunbeam should make sunlight. One is a 3rd and the other is a 6th lv slot minimum.
I guess daylight could be seen as lasting to long but if it was reduced to minute it could be an solid alternative to fireball for some situations.

Sunbeam creates sunlight. To my knowledge, Daylight never created sunlight, to the extent that 3.5 version specifically said that it is *not* sunlight.

OverLordOcelot

2019-03-06, 01:47 PM

Mold Earth: I’ve seen at least one person say “you can do that with a shovel!” I think that they lack a sense of scale.

I think that they have a vastly different sense of what 'loose earth' is than you do - it's what you get when you have a dirt pile or freshly plowed field, it's not just any dirt. You can't use it to create earthworks that are anything more than a pile of dirt, because they require tightly packed dirt for structure which the spell simply doesn't do even under a generous interpretation.

As far as the specific examples go, I (and most DMs I know) wouldn't allow the majority of what you listed. Pit traps with loose earth sides are just shallow holes, trying to get 10' deep either requires something too wide to be a pit or non-loose dirt for walls. Regular graveyard graves similarly use packed earth, and the earth over a grave is usually packed, not loose. Fortifications similarly need to be made of packed earth, not just some loose dirt. Unless you're digging a shallow hole and putting a roof over it, you're not making much of a shelter. Any building heavier than a straw hut or tent is going to be supported by packed earth or rock, so you can't burrow under or sink it, and the interior of a building with a dirt floor will be tightly packed if the building sees much use. Similarly, loose earth won't do much to stabilize most structures. Buried ruins are usually not under loose earth, and dungeon passageways don't generally have piles of loose dirt handy to block them. Sandbags are not loose, they're contained; the word 'bags' is in there for a reason - if you attempted to use non-bagged sand, you just end up with a short pile, not 3/4 cover. If something is solid enough to be a 'cliff edge', then it's not loose earth. Similarly if something is shaped enough to be a 'slide' and not a pile, it's not loose any more.

Note: If your DM is uncertain about what counts as “loose earth,” there is a Sage Advice for it. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/18/whats-loose-earth-for-the-mold-earth-cantrip/)

The Sage Advice, like much of what Crawford posts, is vague and only tells us that loose earth is not stone, which a surprising number of people don't get, but doesn't say much about what kind of earth counts as 'loose'. If your DM rules that 'loose earth' applies to pretty much any ground then the spell is crazy good, but I doubt that's a common interpretation of the spell.

OverLordOcelot

2019-03-06, 02:00 PM

Some spells and abilities that I'd like to see made more useful:

Witch Bolt is just bad, but looks really cool. Often gets discussed. Spare the Dying is basically 'do what a healing kit does without spending the insignificant cost of a healing kit'. Barkskin should be a good buff for a druid, but it's pretty much never worth concentration. Find traps is hilariously bad. Call lighting should be a stable druid spell, but moonbeam is better 95% of the time.

Aett_Thorn

2019-03-06, 02:01 PM

Most of the Mordenkainen's spells from the PHB could use some love. Especially sword and faithful hound

stoutstien

2019-03-06, 02:03 PM

Sunbeam creates sunlight. To my knowledge, Daylight never created sunlight, to the extent that 3.5 version specifically said that it is *not* sunlight.
You are correct about Sunbeam. The last line is omitted is some printings. I really should buy a DND beyond subscription.
I know in 3.5 daylight wasn't sunlight but there was also deeper darkness and such to make need for a huge bright light spell.

jdolch

2019-03-06, 02:36 PM

It may create daylight. Daylight is not a mechanical term, sunlight is.

Daylight is Sunlight. Or where does Daylight come from where you live?

I understand that that is not how it works in D&D, which was exactly my point.

LudicSavant

2019-03-06, 03:25 PM

when I say RAI, i actually mean RATMS (Rules As They Make Sense). I don't give a crap about RAI, as in what the Devs wanted

Then you should probably stop saying RAI when you mean something else entirely. I think RATMS is a more productive discussion anyways. :smalltongue:

OverLordOcelot

2019-03-06, 03:38 PM

Daylight is Sunlight. Or where does Daylight come from where you live?

https://www.cnet.com/reviews/ge-60w-equivalent-daylight-led-review/

There's actually a lot of lightbulbs that call themselves 'Daylight' that don't directly involve any light from the sun. The spell is using daylight to mean 'light that's like daylight', the way lightbulb marketing companies do, not 'creates literal sunlight'. I agree it's a bad name in a system where there are spells that create sunlight, though.

LudicSavant

2019-03-06, 04:35 PM

That said, thanks for the great idea. Using to it negate the need for Light cantrip is smart.

Yeah. I think a few people get mixed up and just assume that if a leveled spell does something a cantrip can do, it must be a bad spell. But that reasoning doesn't really hold for a permanent duration Cleric spell, since it's not actually competing for an adventuring day preparation slot, nor is it competing for a spell known slot. The thing Continual Flame is really competing for is 50 gold pieces. By contrast, cantrips have unprecedented importance in 5e, and you have a very limited number of cantrip slots. As such, Continual Flame arguably has a lower opportunity cost than the Light cantrip, rather than the other way around.

The Sage Advice, like much of what Crawford posts, is vague and only tells us that loose earth is not stone It also tells you that dirt counts. Not "a very specific and narrow kind of dirt." Just dirt, as distinct from the category "stone."

Also:

Discussion on this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?397940-5e-Druid-Handbook-Land-amp-Moon), and then Googling a bit for definitions of "loose earth," has finally convinced me that Mold Earth is a useful spell. In particular,

1.) Googling around for English usages of "loose earth", I think "loose earth" and "dirt" in the spell description are intended to be synonymous. For example, most of the results for this Google search (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22loose%20earth%22) equate all dirt with "loose earth". The main thing that makes something not "loose earth" seems to be, not whether it's packed, but whether it has plant roots growing throughout (in which case it is "sod", not "loose earth").

jdolch

2019-03-06, 08:37 PM

https://www.cnet.com/reviews/ge-60w-equivalent-daylight-led-review/

There's actually a lot of lightbulbs that call themselves 'Daylight' that don't directly involve any light from the sun. The spell is using daylight to mean 'light that's like daylight', the way lightbulb marketing companies do, not 'creates literal sunlight'. I agree it's a bad name in a system where there are spells that create sunlight, though.

I think you're on to something there...

I cast 'Light that's as bright as Daylight but actually isn't' at level ... uhm ... 4

Ok, the cave is now illuminated in a bright light that almost looks like daylight but actually isn't. Piper, what does your Character do?

Hm, my Character is putting on a lotion that almost looks like Sun Lotion but isn't, because we don't actually need it in this cave that is now illuminated by what looks like daylight but is actually just a bright light that isn't actually Daylight. It still makes my Tiefling uncomfortable and she glares at Astarte and his stupid Spellmongering. At least her Skin is now moisturized.

OverLordOcelot

2019-03-06, 09:51 PM

It also tells you that dirt counts. Not "a very specific and narrow kind of dirt." Just dirt, as distinct from the category "stone."

It tells you that what counts is "dirt" not "stone". It doesn't say 'any dirt whatsoever', and definitely doesn't say "explicitly ignore the wording of the spell as written, in particular the word 'loose', resulting in this cantrip being better at making an improvised fortification than the 4th level 'wall of stone'".

Also:

The fact that another guy on this forum in 2015 stated that he agreed with you that 'packed earth' is the same thing as 'loose earth', that fortifications are made from 'loose earth', and that buildings rest on 'loose earth' is... not exactly convincing. The google search does not return what he says it does for me, but since google searches are individualized offering one as a cite is just silly.

Jophiel

2019-03-06, 11:48 PM

Somewhere between loose soil and stone is clay and anyone who thinks that clay counts as "loose earth" has never tried to dig through it. How deep you need to go before you hit clay depends on a number of things but, as a DM, I'd rule a single 5' depth usage of Move Earth before you're not going any deeper (excepting scenarios like desert sands). Loose earth has an angle of repose of around 30-40 degrees so, while you could build a sloped berm 5' high in the center, you won't get much more architectural than that with it.

R.Shackleford

2019-03-07, 12:25 AM

I want to say Wolf Totem, especially for small races.

The absolute best barbarian I ever played was a halfling who would climb onto bigger creatures while raging. He would do a bit of damage, but the main focus was to give allies advantage.

So, basically, a halfling would be wrapped around the leg of an enemy.

Bonus points for Rogue for expertise in athletics.

I love a martial controller/leader.

I've only ever really seen one or two other people actually play a wolf totem and everyone online have a crush on direct damage that Wolf is criminally underrated.

TheUser

2019-03-07, 12:50 AM

Wrathful Smite.

Every Paladin has access to it.

1d6 psychic damage and Frightened for 1 minute on a failed save. No big deal right? Uhm actually it takes an action to even attempt to break the spell, the target does not make automatic saves at the end of each turn. Better yet it's just a flat Wisdom ability check to attempt to end it; no saving throw bonus! But wait, there's more! Since the creature is frightened they must make all ability checks at disadvantage... Including the ability check to try and end the effects of the spell....

So busted. Hardly ever used...literally a level 1 spell.

LudicSavant

2019-03-07, 01:48 AM

It tells you that what counts is "dirt" not "stone". It doesn't say 'any dirt whatsoever'

In the Sage Advice in question, the person asks if the category is "not stone" as opposed to "a more specific type of dirt." In that context, the answer "think dirt, not stone" isn't all that vague.

Here are some of the definitions available to us in English:

dirt
Dictionary result for dirt
/dərt/
noun
noun: dirt

loose earth; the ground.
synonyms: earth, soil, loam, clay, silt

dirt

the part of the earth's surface consisting of humus and disintegrated rock

Type of:
earth, ground
the loose soft material that makes up a large part of the land surface

loose
detached or able to be detached.

You are certainly free to interpret it as you like at your table. However, to claim that a given type of dirt is definitively loose or not and that people who disagree are ignoring the word loose is like saying "you can't say that's a big rat. Rats are small! You're ignoring the word big!" It's a relative term, and dirt is certainly loose relative to other forms of earth, such as solid stone.

Great Dragon

2019-03-07, 07:07 AM

Um, maybe it's just me - but I was under the impression that unless a spell says that it can be Upcast - it can't be.

PHB Spell Descriptions

DARKNESS
2nd-level evocation
Casting Time: I action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V,M (bat fur and a drop of pitch or piece of coal)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1O minutes
Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a IS-foot-radius sphere for the duration. The darkness spreads around corners.A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it. If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn't being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with il. Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a heIm, blocks the darkness.
If any of this spell's area overlaps with an area of light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, the spell that
created the light is dispelled.

DAYLIGHT
3rd-Level evocation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: 1 hour
A 60-foot-radius sphere of light spreads out from a point you choose within range. The sphere is bright light and sheds dim light for an additional 60 feel. If you chose a point on an object you are holding or one that isn't being worn or carried, the light shines from the object and moves with it. Completely covering
the affected object with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the light.
If any of this spell's area overlaps with an area of darkness created by a spell of 3rd level or lower, the
spell that created the darkness is dispelled.

SUNBEAM
6th-level evocation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self (60-foot line)
Components: V, S, M (a magnifying glass)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
A beam of brilliant light flashes out from your hand in a 5-foot-wide, 60-foot-long line. Each creature in the line must make a Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, a creature takes 6d8 radiant damage and is blinded until your next turn. On a successful save, it takes half as much damage and isn't blinded by this spell. Undead and oozes have disadvantage on this saving throw.
You can create a new line of radiance as your action on any turn until the spell ends.

For the duration, a mote of brilliant radiance shines in your hand. It sheds bright light in a 30-foot radius and dim light for an additional 30 feet. This light is sunlight.

Note that Sunbeam does create an Area of Illumination that acts like Sunlight.

Remember that Vampire Spawn are CR 5 and a Full Vampire is a CR 12.
So the Low Level PCs are hard pressed to get the Spawn into a Sunlight area, but the High Level PCs can create Sunlight (nearly insta-killing those Spawn within 30 feet) and still shoot Radiant Beams at the Vampire up to 60 feet!!

CONTINUAL FLAME
2nd Level evocation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M (ruby dust worth 50 gp, which the spell consumes)
Duration: Until dispelled
A flame, equivalent in brightness to a torch, springs forth from an object that you touch. The effect looks like a regular flame, hut it creates no heat and doesn't use oxygen. A continual flame can be covered or hidden but not smothered or quenched.

The Light vs Daylight war was what created spells like Deeper Darkness in 3x.

I could see a 4th level version of Continual Flame that negates Darkness in it's area. But, that's my Homebrew.

One of the things that I think a lot of the makers of D&D wanted was that there was not a lot of direct this verses that conflicts.

LudicSavant

2019-03-07, 07:18 AM

Um, maybe it's just me - but I was under the impression that unless a spell says that it can be Upcast - it can't be.

Any spell can be upcast, per the general rules on how spell slots work. Specific spells get additional benefits for being upcast.

Unoriginal

2019-03-07, 07:24 AM

If you use a 9th level slot to cast Light, it can't be Counterspelled like a lvl 1 spell, for example.

Great Dragon

2019-03-07, 07:29 AM

Any spell can be upcast, per the general rules on how spell slots work. Specific spells get additional benefits for being upcast.

Humm. Still getting all these rules.
When I have the time and computer access - I like to place the Book and page for ease of reference for other Readers. (I'm stuck on my phone a lot so can't always do this)

PHB 201

CASTING A SPELL AT A HIGHER LEVEL
When a spellcaster casts a spell using a slot that is of a higher level than the spell, the spell assumes the higher level for that casting. For instance, if Umara casts magic missile using one of her 2nd-level slots, that magic missile is 2nd level. Effectively, the spell expands to fill the slot it is put into.
Some spells, such as magic missile and cure wounds, have more powerful effects when cast at a higher level, as detailed in a spell's description.

So, the Darkness and Daylight both cast in a 9th Level Slot would be equal, and most likely simply cancel each other?

OverLordOcelot

2019-03-07, 10:20 AM

In the Sage Advice in question, the person asks if the category is "not stone" as opposed to "a more specific type of dirt." In that context, the answer "think dirt, not stone" isn't all that vague.

It doesn't address the question of looseness at all, and your idea that sandbags (note the 'bags') and hard-packed earth (note the 'hard-packed' rather than 'loose') are what is meant defy the English language, common sense, a literal reading, and game balance. The game balance one is notable, since you repeatedly ignore the rather major point that your interpretation leads to the conclusion that a basic cantrip is more effective at creating improvised fortifications than a 4th level spell (wall of stone).

Here are some of the definitions available to us in English:

Cherry picking unsourced single definitions that don't actually support your point. is not going to convince me that a cantrip is supposed to be more powerful at making improvised fortifications than a 4th level spell by RAW. Earthworks are not composed of 'loose earth', loose earth just gives you a pile of dirt, not ramparts. Sandbags are not 'loose earth', they're bags tightly packed with sand that hold it in a position that it couldn't maintain if it was loose. Buildings don't rest on loose earth, again it's highly dense and compacted.

You are certainly free to interpret it as you like at your table. However, to claim that a given type of dirt is definitively loose or not and that people who disagree are ignoring the word loose is like saying "you can't say that's a big rat. Rats are small! You're ignoring the word big!" It's a relative term, and dirt is certainly loose relative to other forms of earth, such as solid stone.

Earth is a synonym for dirt according to one of your unnamed sources, trying to say that 'earth' includes 'stone' is you saying that even you don't agree with the 'evidence' you provided to support your position. If even your cherry picked and oddly interpreted definitions don't support what you're claiming, it's a pretty good bet that what you're claiming is ill supported. And yes, I will continue to say that people who argue that you can create hard-packed, solid earthworks using a spell that can only move "loose earth" are ignoring the word loose.

JackPhoenix

2019-03-07, 10:30 AM

If you use a 9th level slot to cast Light, it can't be Counterspelled like a lvl 1 spell, for example.

If you use 9th level slot to cast Light, you're cheating, because Light is a cantrip, and cantrips can't be upcast.

So, the Darkness and Daylight both cast in a 9th Level Slot would be equal, and most likely simply cancel each other?

No. Daylight dispels darkness from level 3 or lower spell no matter what slot it was cast from, Darkness dispels light spells cast from level 2nd or lower spell slot no matter what slot it was cast from. Level 9 Daylight illuminates level 9 Darkness (because it's magical light), but neither dispels the other.

LudicSavant

2019-03-07, 10:55 AM

your idea that sandbags (note the 'bags') and hard-packed earth (note the 'hard-packed' rather than 'loose') are what is meant

And yes, I will continue to say that people who argue that you can create hard-packed, solid earthworks using a spell that can only move "loose earth" are ignoring the word loose.

I do not appreciate you blatantly misrepresenting what I have said.

I said that cover made of sand is basically what sandbags are, not that the spell literally creates sandbags. I said that the spell allows you to create earthworks, not that it creates hard-packed, solid earthworks.

Great Dragon

2019-03-07, 11:01 AM

No. Daylight dispels darkness from level 3 or lower spell no matter what slot it was cast from, Darkness dispels light spells cast from level 2nd or lower spell slot no matter what slot it was cast from. Level 9 Daylight illuminates level 9 Darkness (because it's magical light), but neither dispels the other.

I....think I get this.
So, say The BBEG put in a Permanent (IDK, Wish or something) Darkness cast at 9th level on a hallway.

The 17th Level Mage Hero can cast his Daylight in a 9th Level slot, so that the Party can see while traveling in said hallway, but - once the Mage leaves the area (taking the Daylight with him) - the area returns to it's original Darkness; and any Mage Caster under 16th Level simply cannot Illuminate said hallway.

LudicSavant

2019-03-07, 11:02 AM

I....think I get this.
So, say The BBEG put in a Permanent (IDK, Wish or something) Darkness cast at 9th level on a hallway.

The 17th Level Mage Hero can cast his Daylight in a 9th Level slot, so that the Party can see while traveling in said hallway, but - once the Mage leaves the area (taking the Daylight with him) - the area returns to it's original Darkness; and any Mage Caster under 16th Level simply cannot Illuminate said hallway.

Upcasting Darkness and Daylight does not increase their ability to dispel other things, it only increases their resistance to being dispelled.

Darkness only dispels light spells of 2nd level and lower, regardless of how much it is upcast.

OverLordOcelot

2019-03-07, 11:16 AM

I do not appreciate you blatantly misrepresenting what I have said.

I said that cover made of sand is basically what sandbags are, not that the spell literally creates sandbags. I said that the spell allows you to create earthworks, not that it creates hard-packed, solid earthworks.

I am not misrepresenting what you have said, I'm pointing out that what you said is absurd. You said that cover created by the cantrip, hence 'loose earth' is basically the same thing as sandbags. It's not, sandbags are not loose, no matter how much you hate to admit it. You stated that it allows you create "earthworks, fortifications, cover, etc". If a particular earthwork is solid enough to qualify as a fortification, then it's made of hard-packed, solid earth. An 'earthwork' actually made of loose earth is just a 'pile', not the 'fortification' you described it as.

And again, you've made another post that doesn't address my repeated point that you're trying to 'interpret' a cantrip as more powerful than a fourth level spell.

stoutstien

2019-03-07, 11:21 AM

jdolch

2019-03-07, 11:26 AM

So, the Darkness and Daylight both cast in a 9th Level Slot would be equal, and most likely simply cancel each other?

No. Daylight dispels darkness from level 3 or lower spell no matter what slot it was cast from, Darkness dispels light spells cast from level 2nd or lower spell slot no matter what slot it was cast from. Level 9 Daylight illuminates level 9 Darkness (because it's magical light), but neither dispels the other.

Here we are again with RAW vs RATMS.

RAW:

Darkness specifies that it dispells light created by a level 2 spell or less. That wording leaves no space for scaling. Even if you upcast Darkness the wording doesn't change. In other spells they simply didn't use that wording and as such these spells are much more powerful for no reason at all.

RATMS:

It's a Battle between Light and Darkness. The higher Spell wins. Whether a Light Spell just Illuminates the Darkness created by 'Darkness' or if it actually dispels the Spell depends on the Spell used to create the Light.

Also:

There is an interesting Sentence in the Spell 'Daylight' (PHB 230)

If any of this spell’s area overlaps with an area of
darkness created by a spell of 3rd level or lower, the
spell that created the darkness is dispelled.

This makes me question if Darkness is actually meant to be able to be upcast. It's not conclusive since there is at least 1 other Spell that can create Darkness from a higher Level Slot: 'Hallow'

Man_Over_Game

2019-03-07, 11:36 AM

This makes me question if Darkness is actually meant to be able to be upcast. It's not conclusive since there is at least 1 other Spell that can create Darkness from a higher Level Slot: 'Hallow'

My guess is that they just followed the same formula for both spells to keep things consistent.

Darkness is a level 2 spell, removes level 2 Light spells
Daylight is a level 3 spell, removes level 3 Darkness spells.

JackPhoenix

2019-03-07, 11:37 AM

I....think I get this.
So, say The BBEG put in a Permanent (IDK, Wish or something) Darkness cast at 9th level on a hallway.

The 17th Level Mage Hero can cast his Daylight in a 9th Level slot, so that the Party can see while traveling in said hallway, but - once the Mage leaves the area (taking the Daylight with him) - the area returns to it's original Darkness; and any Mage Caster under 16th Level simply cannot Illuminate said hallway.

Sort of. The Darkness will return, but any caster can illuminate the hallway, assuming he uses spell of 3rd level or higher. And non-spell magical sources of light (like Sun Sword, or other glowing weapons) work just fine.

Here we are again with RAW vs RATMS.

That's called a houserule. It's got nothing to do with actual rules.

Jophiel

2019-03-07, 11:42 AM

I am not misrepresenting what you have said, I'm pointing out that what you said is absurd. You said that cover created by the cantrip, hence 'loose earth' is basically the same thing as sandbags. It's not, sandbags are not loose, no matter how much you hate to admit it. You stated that it allows you create "earthworks, fortifications, cover, etc". If a particular earthwork is solid enough to qualify as a fortification, then it's made of hard-packed, solid earth. An 'earthwork' actually made of loose earth is just a 'pile', not the 'fortification' you described it as.
I wouldn't allow it to make an architectural fortification but, if you move 4.6cy of soil from point A and set it in Point B next door, after it settles you're going to have a (from a side view) sort of sine wave going on. Stand in the low part and lean against the higher part and you'll have pretty effective cover. Not a fort, but I'd allow 3/4 cover with just their head and shoulders sticking above provided the berm was between them and the enemy. It won't stop anyone from charging you or do much if they walk to the side and change their line of sight.

Between the round spent making the cover (assume it's on the fly) and a movement penalty to get out of the hole and the fact that this would only work for encounters taking place on soil (no dungeon tunnels or castle hallways) I think it's powerful but fair.

jdolch

2019-03-07, 11:43 AM

That's called a houserule. It's got nothing to do with actual rules.

Actually RATMS is my Version of RAI. As i explained earlier in this thread I don't care about Sage Advice and other Toilet tweets. But sometimes in the way the Rules are written, you can literally see where they made an obvious mistake and then the Conclusion you draw from that is basically RAI, but of course i am not allowed to call it that because nobody tweeted it from the toilet.

If the people who inform what is RAI and what is not actually had the Wisdom, Knowledge and Intelligence to decide that we wouldn't need RAW vs RAI in the first place because you can in fact write Rules in a way that is unambiguous.

Now formal Erratas are fair and welcomed but Tweets or Interviews? Nope. Sorry, Buster, you had your chance to make your Opinion stick and you still can write Erratas but having a momentary brain fart just doesn't count.

Man_Over_Game

2019-03-07, 11:48 AM

Actually RATMS is my Version of RAI. As i explained earlier in this thread I don't care about Sage Advice and other Toilet tweets. But sometimes in the way the Rules are written, you can literally see where they made an obvious mistake and then the Conclusion you draw from that is basically RAI, but of course i am not allowed to call it that because nobody tweeted it from the toilet.

To be fair, at that point, it's the Rules as Intended by...who?

The guys who made the game, or someone who told you so on the internet?

In the end, we're all just different people on the internet, all screaming at each other that I KNOW how it's supposed to be intended.

Or we could just take the rules as they're written or, in lieu of that, take the rules how the developers chose it to be.

Because beyond that, it's a bunch of random, meaningless opinions over ambiguous rules for a fantasy game about magic and dragons.

jdolch

2019-03-07, 11:57 AM

The guys who made the game, or someone who told you so on the internet?

In the end, we're all just different people on the internet, all screaming at each other that I KNOW how it's supposed to be intended.

Or we could just take the rules as they're written or, in lieu of that, take the rules how the developers chose it to be.

Because beyond that, it's a bunch of random, meaningless opinions over ambiguous rules for a fantasy game about magic and dragons.

The Guys who made that game and who may have a legitimate claim to decide what is D&D and what is not are both dead. RIP.

The guys who work on D&D now have no claim to that level of Immunity. They are Stewards of OUR game. As Stewards, they have to do their work and be judged by it. And that judgement isn't always favorable to say the least.

I value Opinions and Arguments on their merit. Working for WOTC doesn't make your opinion immune to critique. You still have to follow the rules. And the rules are you have to make sense and your stuff has to be congruent.

I'll happily accept RAW if they make internal sense, even if i don't like it. But I will not put sloppyness on a pedestal. Not from WOTC, not from anyone.

And I fully expect to be called out on it when I work sloppily, which I do. And as earlier in this thread I will happily accept that critique AND correct myself.

There is a simple Rule in Law that states that a correction to a Law has to be delivered the same way that Law is delivered. That means if WOTC want to correct misstakes they made earlier, that's what official Erratas are for, not Opinions of individual persons disseminated through arcane channels.

LudicSavant

2019-03-07, 11:58 AM

I wouldn't allow it to make an architectural fortification but, if you move 4.6cy of soil from point A and set it in Point B next door, after it settles you're going to have a (from a side view) sort of sine wave going on. Stand in the low part and lean against the higher part and you'll have pretty effective cover. Not a fort, but I'd allow 3/4 cover with just their head and shoulders sticking above provided the berm was between them and the enemy. It won't stop anyone from charging you or do much if they walk to the side and change their line of sight.

Perfectly good example.

I'd also add that you don't need to exclusively use the spell to accomplish a task. Basically any kind of earthworks project you want can be expedited. Want to make a trench full of spikes? The spell doesn't have to actually put in the spikes for you to be able to do that way faster with Mold Earth.

JackPhoenix

2019-03-07, 12:01 PM

Actually RATMS is my Version of RAI. As i explained earlier in this thread I don't care about Sage Advice and other Toilet tweets. But sometimes in the way the Rules are written, you can literally see where they made an obvious mistake and then the Conclusion you draw from that is basically RAI, but of course i am not allowed to call it that because nobody tweeted it from the toilet.

If the people who inform what is RAI and what is not actually had the Wisdom, Knowledge and Intelligence to decide that we wouldn't need RAW vs RAI in the first place because you can in fact write Rules in a way that is unambiguous.

Now formal Erratas are fair and welcomed but Tweets or Interviews? Nope. Sorry, Buster, you had your chance to make your Opinion stick and you still can write Erratas but having a momentary brain fart just doesn't count.

Call it whatever you want. It's a houserule, it's got nothing to do with either RAI (which doesn't matter in this case) or RAW (which is unambiguous for Darkness/Daylight interaction). And considering a large portion of SA tweets is people asking questions about things that are clear and unambiguous if you actually read the rules, we would STILL need RAW vs RAI. Your hatred of SA (what, did it killed your dog or something?) won't change that.

Great Dragon

2019-03-07, 12:02 PM

Upcasting Darkness and Daylight does not increase their ability to dispel other things, it only increases their resistance to being dispelled.

Darkness only dispels light spells of 2nd level and lower, regardless of how much it is upcast.

So, an 18th level Wizard casting Darkness with a 9th level Spell Slot, and only another Caster using Dispel Magic in a 9th level slot negates it....

- but the 6th level Sorcerer simply negates it by casting Daylight with their 3rd Level Spell Slot?

That sounds rediculus!!

stoutstien

2019-03-07, 12:06 PM

Can we add the charm condition to the list also.

Man_Over_Game

2019-03-07, 12:07 PM

So, an 18th level Wizard casting Darkness with a 9th level Spell Slot - but the 6th level Sorcerer simply negates it by casting Daylight with their 3rd Level Spell Slot?

That sounds rediculus!!

I upcast Shield. Does my AC increase?
I upcast Identify. Do I learn more about the item?
I upcast Darkvision, does it allow me to see through magical Darkness?

If magical darkness was impossible to remove, it'd make the game a lot less fun (because there's only one invocation for one class that can see through it).

jdolch

2019-03-07, 12:16 PM

Can we add the charm condition to the list also.

I am not sure it counts as underrated, but I love dropping Hypnotic Pattern as a Sorcadin. Either with Aura of Devotion or Careful spell.

Call it whatever you want. It's a houserule,

A houserule is when I, as a GM/DM, take a rule and, because I (for whatever reason) don't like it's effect in the game at my table, deliberately change it.

For example: The Shadowrun Living World Community 'Runnerhub' has their houserules here (https://runnerhub.neosynth.net/index.php?n=Rules.Rules?from=Rules.HouseRules) and it's a bunch. Made necessary because as a LWC they play the game different from how it is originally intended to be played. i.e. at one table, with a static group. (I am ssure D&D's AL have done something similar)

That is completely different from the actual rules being unclear, sloppy, incongruent, incomplete, contradictory or otherwise in desperate need to be amended and/or changed. That's not a houserule. That's fixing someone else's work.

CorporateSlave

2019-03-07, 12:20 PM

Rope Trick...just use a shorter piece of rope. Like 6' or so. any PC has enough movement to climb that in a turn easy.

Cast it behind some total cover, and you can run around a corner and vanish, using object interaction to pull up the rope.

Cast it out in the open, and it can be used as (effectively) total cover for a caster, cast, climb up, pull up rope. Next turn jump down (rope still in hand) and cast again, then back up inside. Eventually a smart enemy might hold their Action to hit you, but that can happen anyway.

Great Dragon

2019-03-07, 12:20 PM

1) I upcast Shield. Does my AC increase?
2) I upcast Identify. Do I learn more about the item?
3) I upcast Darkvision, does it allow me to see through magical Darkness?

If magical darkness was impossible to remove, it'd make the game a lot less fun (because there's only one invocation for one class that can see through it).

1) In my game, yes.

2) I could allow this. But then, IiRC, Identify simply tells the Caster everything the item does...

3) Sure, but then I know I'm Home brewing.
Why should the Warlock be the only one that can do it? I thought they were proud of the fact that niches were gotten rid of....

stoutstien

2019-03-07, 12:20 PM

I upcast Shield. Does my AC increase?
I upcast Identify. Do I learn more about the item?
I upcast Darkvision, does it allow me to see through magical Darkness?

If magical darkness was impossible to remove, it'd make the game a lot less fun (because there's only one invocation for one class that can see through it).
Maybe a deeper darkness spell is in order. Lv 5 maybe

Man_Over_Game

2019-03-07, 12:24 PM

Why should the Warlock be the only one that can do it? I thought they were proud of the fact that niches were gotten rid of....

The Warlock isn't the only person capable of dealing with Darkness, though.

Something off the top of my head: Daylight.

If everyone could Rage, what would we have Barbarians for?

LudicSavant

2019-03-07, 12:28 PM

If everyone could Rage, what would we have Barbarians for?

Emotional support.

Man_Over_Game

2019-03-07, 12:29 PM

Maybe a deeper darkness spell is in order. Lv 5 maybe

I think a fair solution would be to allow Darkness to be upcasted, adding a minute per additional spell level and dispelling Light spells who's level is 1 less than the slot spent for Darkness.
Then have a similar clause for Daylight but dispelling Darkness spells of equal level or less. This does mean that a level 3 Darkness Spell is just as easy to dispel as a level 2 version.

Darkness imposes change, and Daylight imposes a counter to that change but is worthless without Darkness.
Darkness is the versatile tool and Daylight is the niche.
As a result, Daylight should always have the advantage, and Darkness should always have a way to be removed (even if that means preparing to cast a level 9 Daylight).
Plus, Light always triumphs over Darkness.

Great Dragon

2019-03-07, 12:35 PM

Maybe a deeper darkness spell is in order. Lv 5 maybe

I'll most likely do this for my game.

Maybe add Fiend Vision as a 3rd level.

I liked my earlier example for Light vs Dark, so most likely will use that.

Edit
@man_over_game. I like this

jdolch

2019-03-07, 12:56 PM

I think a fair solution would be to allow Darkness to be upcast, adding a minute per additional spell level and dispelling Light spells who's level is 1 less than the slot spent for Darkness. Then have a similar clause for Daylight but dispelling Darkness spells of equal level or less. This does mean that a level 3 Darkness Spell is just as easy to dispel as a level 2 version.

Darkness imposes change, and Daylight imposes a counter to that change but is worthless without Darkness. Darkness is the versatile tool and Daylight is the niche.
As a result, Daylight should always have the advantage, and Darkness should always have a way to be removed (even if that means preparing to cast a level 9 Daylight).

Sounds good.

Plus, Light always triumphs over Darkness.

Getting philosophical here, are we?

Without going into any metaphysical detail, let alone real world implications, let me just say this:

In D&D there are two conditions where it is dark:

1. the Absence of Light and

2. the Presence of Darkness.

Those two are fundamentally different. And it's not just "magically created absence of light". For example the Darkness that exists in the Realm of Shadows is not the "absence of Light". Darkness in that sense is a physical Phenomenon for which we have no Analogy in real life. In reality Darkness is less than Light. But in D&D it is not.

In D&D it is a scale (which I find fascinating):

Light (i.e. The Presence of Light) <--> Normal Darkness (i.e. The Absence of (Anti-)Light) <--> 'Magical Darkness' (i.e. The Presence of Anti-Light)

Notice also the Description in the 'Darkness'-Spell (PHB 230)

If the point you choose is on an object you are holding
or one that isn’t being worn or carried, the darkness
emanates from the object and moves with it. Completely
covering the source of the darkness with an opaque
object, such as a bow l or a helm, blocks the darkness.

I am giving the Designers of D&D a lot of poo for there mistakes, so let me balance it: This creation of an Anti-Light is ingenious!

On that scale Light isn't any better than Anti-Light. It's just the opposite Pole. Much like the two Poles of a Magnet. Notice that, for example, The Realm of Shadows is not Evil or anything.

You can be a Lawful Good Shadowsorcerer or a Chaotic Good Hexblade. Both gain their powers from the 'Shadows', i.e. the Anti-Light.

JackPhoenix

2019-03-07, 01:12 PM

A houserule is when I, as a GM/DM, take a rule and, because I (for whatever reason) don't like it's effect in the game at my table, deliberately change it.

That is completely different from the actual rules being unclear, sloppy, incongruent, incomplete, contradictory or otherwise in desperate need to be amended and/or changed. That's not a houserule. That's fixing someone else's work.

No, it's the same thing. You don't like a rule, so you change it. Saying that the rule is "unclear, sloppy, incongruent, incomplete, contradictory or otherwise in desperate need to be amended and/or changed" is your opinion, not an objective fact, and attempt to excuse your houserule as something more than what it is.

jdolch

2019-03-07, 01:22 PM

No, it's the same thing. You don't like a rule, so you change it. Saying that the rule is "unclear, sloppy, incongruent, incomplete, contradictory or otherwise in desperate need to be amended and/or changed" is your opinion, not an objective fact, and attempt to excuse your houserule as something more than what it is.

And that is your Opinion.

Hah! What are you gonna do now?

Did i win? It sounds like it.

stoutstien

2019-03-07, 01:24 PM

I think a fair solution would be to allow Darkness to be upcasted, adding a minute per additional spell level and dispelling Light spells who's level is 1 less than the slot spent for Darkness.
Then have a similar clause for Daylight but dispelling Darkness spells of equal level or less. This does mean that a level 3 Darkness Spell is just as easy to dispel as a level 2 version.

Darkness imposes change, and Daylight imposes a counter to that change but is worthless without Darkness.
Darkness is the versatile tool and Daylight is the niche.
As a result, Daylight should always have the advantage, and Darkness should always have a way to be removed (even if that means preparing to cast a level 9 Daylight).
Plus, Light always triumphs over Darkness.
I think if daylight was ruled as actual sunlight it would find its way into more prepared lists. Least it would be a good non leathal anti drow, kolbolds, and so on spell.

JackPhoenix

2019-03-07, 01:31 PM

And that is your Opinion.

Hah! What are you gonna do now?

Did i win? It sounds like it.

No, that's a fact. But considering the post I was quoting, I don't expect you to understand the difference.

Man_Over_Game

2019-03-07, 01:37 PM

That is completely different from the actual rules being unclear, sloppy, incongruent, incomplete, contradictory or otherwise in desperate need to be amended and/or changed. That's not a houserule. That's fixing someone else's work.

No, it's the same thing. You don't like a rule, so you change it. Saying that the rule is "unclear, sloppy, incongruent, incomplete, contradictory or otherwise in desperate need to be amended and/or changed" is your opinion, not an objective fact, and attempt to excuse your houserule as something more than what it is.

And that is your Opinion.

Hah! What are you gonna do now?

Did i win? It sounds like it.

I think there's this stigma that houserules are bad, so people are justifying why their abstract rulings that stay consistent in their games aren't houserules. "It's not a houserule, it's just not official!"

If something is a circumstantial exception, that's a ruling. If something is consistent and isn't supported by the RAW, that's a houserule.

I use a ton of them, whether it be from longer rests, to differences in how elements affect the environment, to all of the homebrews in my signature. I don't think it makes a DM anything less, but rather a reflection of their knowledge.

Rather than choosing to do nothing from the fear of seeming the fool and making something worse, a DM with houserules generally knows why those houserules are implemented and is willing to back them. He understands the game, not just plays it.

Of course, the term Houserule or Homebrew has a negative culture about it on the internet, because it often means that you don't have any support for your argument (and what else do you do on a forum?), or it comes off as saying that you're someone who only cares about getting their ego stroked ("The game is sh**, so I made it a better game!"), but means something entirely different with an actual DM. A real DM doesn't print out a list of new weapons because he wants to assert that he's your God.

Back your houserules. Assert the fact that you feel you're in the right. Provide proof as to why that is. Prove everyone else is wrong for going the lazy/cowards' way of following the status quo. 5e was designed to be modular and easily customizable for a reason, and the reason is for people like us. To evolve the game so that the developers don't have to. I firmly believe that most of the extra content they've released is probably based on a bunch of the stuff that people have already came up with, borrowed ideas and all that.

JackPhoenix

2019-03-07, 01:48 PM

Snip

Indeed. I don't think I've played a game without any houserules. That's fine, if it leads to better (and different people have different opinions on what is better) game, houserule away. But don't pretend the houserules are anything less or more than what they are. Or try to present your subjective opinions as a fact.

"Third bullet of the original printing of Grappler feat didn't refer to any existing rule and didn't do anything" is a fact.
"Darkness and Daylight should interact differently" is an opinion based on personal preferences.

Great Dragon

2019-03-08, 03:14 AM

Because beyond that, it's a bunch of random, meaningless opinions over ambiguous rules for a fantasy game about magic and dragons.

Which Nerds/Geeks have been fighting over since Gary and Dave first made the game!!
It's tradition!! LoL :mitd:

DrKerosene

2019-03-08, 03:18 AM

jdolch

2019-03-08, 04:16 AM

Levitate doesn’t seem to get used, not once in my several years IIRC. In 5e you can potentially use it to basically end an encounter with a melee only bruiser type.

I’ve only ever planned to use it on a Barghest who would be threatening to drop Goblin or PCs 60+ feet.

I think many people consider taking it, read the Description and then realize that they can't use it to fly. Then they take something else. But it is definitely a good Spell.

MrStabby

2019-03-08, 04:22 AM

Levitate doesn’t seem to get used, not once in my several years IIRC. In 5e you can potentially use it to basically end an encounter with a melee only bruiser type.

I’ve only ever planned to use it on a Barghest who would be threatening to drop Goblin or PCs 60+ feet.

Levitate is a nice effect... but it works best when a creature floating in the air neutralises it. Most enemies that are totally neutralised by floating in the air tend to be melee monsters, which also tend to be exactly the type of monster that excels at constitution saves.

Chronos

2019-03-08, 07:31 AM

I've found the same problem with Ensnaring Strike. The Restraied condition is at its most useful when applied to a monster without ranged attacks (it's still useful against others, just not as much so), which tend to also have good Str saves.

Provo

2019-03-08, 09:40 AM

Contagion! It is a flavorful spell with a powerful effect... but only after you succeed at an attack, the creature fails several saves, and it doesn’t get dispelled or cured. AKA it is trash.

Note that it has been erattad. It now causes the poisoned condition too (immediately)

This spell can still be fun in a combo. Polymorph followed by contagion (slimy doom), followed by moonbeam is an auto victory if polymorph succeeds. Lots of resources, but it is fun to flat-out destroy a powerful non-legendary creature.

Guy Lombard-O

2019-03-08, 01:57 PM

The ability which one of my characters currently has and has never used is the Nature's Wrath channel divinity power of the Ancients Paladin.

I'm a hexblade dip paladin, so my Cha DC is as solid as a full caster. But the ability itself is just so weak:

Nature’s Wrath. You can use your Channel Divinity to invoke primeval forces to ensnare a foe. As an action, you can cause spectral vines to spring up and reach for a creature within 10 feet of you that you can see. The creature must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (its choice) or be restrained. While restrained by the vines, the creature repeats the saving throw at the end of each of its turns. On a success, it frees itself and the vines vanish.

On the positive side, it's a channel divinity. So it's non-concentration and a SR resource (which unless we're fighting fey or fiends has little other competing uses).

On the negative side, it gives a save every round, an initial save which gives the target a choice between two different abilities, it's very short range, it's a single target, and it uses up my action.

My Hexadin has good ranged attacks, good melee attacks, pretty good buff spells, and can heal. His actions in combat are, I'd say, reasonably valuable. So the main problem I see with this ability is the opportunity cost of using up my action to do this. The CD resource is basically a freebie, and using it doesn't break/take my concentration, but I've still never found this ability a more appealing option than simply attacking something! That is (of course) because I have trouble believing that it will ever take effect in the first place and will simply waste my action, primarily thanks to letting the target choose to make whatever save they're best at.

Am I alone in thinking this ability is so bad it's not worth foregoing a couple of sword/smite melee attacks or a couple of agonizing blast ranged attacks? Do other people get good enough mileage out of this ability that I should reconsider? Or does it need a fix?

opaopajr

2019-03-08, 02:45 PM

Color Spray. Duration equals 1d4+Proficiency Bonus. (Upcast also adds 5' per sp lvl to cone distance, along with 2d10 per sp lvl.)

Brings back a classic back into rotation, hard. :smallcool:

OverLordOcelot

2019-03-08, 05:08 PM

Am I alone in thinking this ability is so bad it's not worth foregoing a couple of sword/smite melee attacks or a couple of agonizing blast ranged attacks? Do other people get good enough mileage out of this ability that I should reconsider? Or does it need a fix?

I would think it's worthwhile, you give up one round of attacks to do a grapple/restrain that doesn't require concentration or you having a free hand and restraining yourself. You give up one round of attacks for a good chance of giving you and all of your allies advantage on attacks against the creature and it disadvantage on all attacks against your party and immobilizing it. Most creatures don't have proficient STR or DEX saves, so you've got a better than 50-50 shot of it landing even on creatures like dragons and giants with a high score in one of those abilities. Even if you only get a turn or two out of it, that's a turn or two of it being highly ineffective at attacks and your party being highly effective at attacks. You don't want to use it on a minor enemy that you'll kill in a round anyway, but on a 'boss' type that is going to survive more than one round of focus fire it looks very worthwhile to me.

Chronos

2019-03-08, 09:31 PM

Misterwhisper

2019-03-08, 09:59 PM

Guy Lombard-O

2019-03-08, 10:03 PM

I would think it's worthwhile, you give up one round of attacks to do a grapple/restrain that doesn't require concentration or you having a free hand and restraining yourself. You give up one round of attacks for a good chance of giving you and all of your allies advantage on attacks against the creature and it disadvantage on all attacks against your party and immobilizing it. Most creatures don't have proficient STR or DEX saves, so you've got a better than 50-50 shot of it landing even on creatures like dragons and giants with a high score in one of those abilities. Even if you only get a turn or two out of it, that's a turn or two of it being highly ineffective at attacks and your party being highly effective at attacks. You don't want to use it on a minor enemy that you'll kill in a round anyway, but on a 'boss' type that is going to survive more than one round of focus fire it looks very worthwhile to me.

Okay, that's fair. I'm at least convinced enough to try it a couple of times and see how it goes. Thanks.

Great Dragon

2019-03-08, 10:33 PM

Not sure how rare the Sleet Storm spell is.

Encounter - trail near the edge of the Forest.
10 Bandits (6 melee - 4 of which have shields, the other two are two-handing longswords. 4 with Longbows) and one Sorcerer-like Mage. Archers and Mage hiding in the Forest, with the Mage constantly moving to try and remain hidden.

The Bandits end up engaging the Devotion Paladin built to be a Mounted Terror.

The Mt Dwarf 5th level Mountain Land Druid (first non-Moon Druid I've seen) cast Sleet Storm on the Mage.

This was hilarious!
Automatically cuts movement in half with Difficult Terrain.
If the mage wanted to move at all, Dex Save DC 16 or fall prone - cutting move in half again = effectively Move 5'/Rd. With only a +1 to Dex, he pretty much failed all the time.

Mage casts Mirror Image to try and give himself better chances to escape - but NOPE!
Druid casts Conjure Animals and brings forth 8 Wolves!

The Party captured the Mage and one of the Bandits, and only one managed to live to run away.
Total time that passed for the encounter - 4 rounds = 24 seconds!

Provo

2019-03-08, 10:34 PM

To be fair, pre-errata, Contagion was hideously overpowered. Make one attack roll, and one target is now completely, utterly screwed for a bare minimum of three rounds, and probably indefinitely. Especially when you consider that the caster could be a War Cleric, who can very nearly guarantee that it'll hit. Did they go too far in nerfing it? Maybe... I haven't read the erratum. But an underpowered ability is far better for the game than an overpowered ability.

To be fair, I believe the errata was meant as a buff (not a nerf). Pre-errata the RAI was a worthless spell, and the RAW was an insanely powerful spell... so powerful that few DMs would choose to enforce the RAW over the RAI.

I’m hoping Contagion will see more use now, but It’s still not exactly great.

stoutstien

2019-03-08, 10:50 PM

To be fair, I believe the errata was meant as a buff (not a nerf). Pre-errata the RAI was a worthless spell, and the RAW was an insanely powerful spell... so powerful that few DMs would choose to enforce the RAW over the RAI.

I’m hoping Contagion will see more use now, but It’s still not exactly great.
I still see a lot with one of my tables. Thet know they won't burn down some NPCs in a few rounds so I could be worth the slot. Pairs well with deviation wizard and bestow curse

jdolch

2019-03-09, 10:37 AM

MrStabby

2019-03-09, 11:13 AM

Certainly there are some classes and archetypes that I think are underrepresented. Based on what I have seen played and what I have seen considered there is little appetite for:

Rangers, possible exception of gloomstalkers
Barbarian, all types other than zealots
Cleric, knowledge, nature, trickery pretty much ignored other than for multiclasses characters
Fighter, champion is ignored, now the xgte are as well
Monk, no one wants anything but shadowmonk in any of my circles
Paladin, used to be all vengeance, now its all conquest. Some nod to ancients sometimes but no one likes redemption.
Sorcerer used to be all draconic. XGtE has broadened this nicely.
Warlock was mostly fiend but some others considered. Now it's Hexblade or nothing.
Wizard has conjuration and transmutation with little interest here. All the others have has some interest.

It isn't just quality, so.e archetypes are seen as being just a lot less fun than others.

OverLordOcelot

2019-03-09, 04:02 PM

Okay, that's fair. I'm at least convinced enough to try it a couple of times and see how it goes. Thanks.

Yep - when I first saw the ability (and others like it) I thought 'oh, a crowd control spell' since it looks a lot like the thorns spells druids in WOW get. From the perspective of taking something out of a fight, it's just not very good, especially for minor enemies, so I bet that's how you've viewing it. But when you view it (and use it) as a short-term, high power debuff that you use to help the party burn down a major enemy and reduce his damage output, it's much more worthwhile to spend a round on.

R.Shackleford

2019-03-09, 05:53 PM

Spells would be a long list because quite frankly some of them suck or at at least inferior to other spells of the same level.

Ability wise:

Step of the wind: I played a monk to level 9, I have seen two others played to the teens, across all three it was used a total of once.

Any metamagic other than twin, subtle or quicken.

MANY warlock invocations. Everyone always takes the same ones unless they are pact specific.

Frenzy, only saw it used in one game where the dm said it did not cause frenzy.

Any battlemaster ability other than precise, trip, or disarm.

Some races I never see:

Have yet to see a Dragonborn played.
Have not seen any volo race played except a tabaxi and lizardfolk.
Never seen a non-variant human.
This one may be hard to believe but nobody has played a halfling.

Subclasses:

Only one berserker
Every bard has been lore and every game has one.
Every Druid has been land.
No champion, or arcane archer.
No elemental monk.
All rangers are gloomstalker
Only 2 sorcerers at all, one shadow one storm.
Hexblades all over the place, for 2 levels, only warlock past level two was a great old one.

If you want more Beserker, have it where you can remove exhaustion with hit die during a short rest.

Have it be cumulative throughout the day. So whatever your max exhaustion level would have been is how many hit dice you need to remove that one level from your PC.

1 level = 2 hit die

2 levels = 3 hit dice

3 levels = 4 hit dice

So to get rid of three instaces of exhaustion, as a Beserker, you would need 9 hit dice. This is if you heal it after each time you get the exhaustion. If you have three levels of exhaustion at one time, it's only 4 hit dice to remove it. This encourages the barbarian to keep the exhaustion and heal it all at once but also allows the barbarian to heal it after each instance.

Also makes the barbarian think about exhaustion versus healing.

I love that with rages per day and how the mechanic works (got to attack or be damaged I keep it going) that the barbarian uses more brains than most fighters XD.

Actually, I have a new entry... Hit dice. So many people forget about hit dice.