Divine Favor concentration

[Aaedimus]

Honestly, I feel like concentration on this spell is... well, it's a little much. Even with multiple attacks it doesn't add that much.

[Galithar]

I agree and could see removing it, or adding scaling to the damage when up cast. 1d4 isn't much, but 2d4 or 3d4 can get nasty if you have 3+ attacks in a round (I'm thinking a straight class Paladin here. Action with extra attack, PAM or TWF bonus action attack, and potential for a reaction attack)

[BarneyBent]

I mean compare it to Hunter’s Mark and Hex. Slightly lower damage, but applies to everyone you attack. With no concentration it would be OP, especially on a Paladin with PAM or something like a War Cleric/EK or War Cleric/Ranger.

[Galithar]

I mean compare it to Hunter’s Mark and Hex. Slightly lower damage, but applies to everyone you attack. With no concentration it would be OP, especially on a Paladin with PAM or something like a War Cleric/EK or War Cleric/Ranger.

I disagree. It's less damage then the examples you gave, and has a much shorter duration. Hex can be used all day for one spell slot once you get level 5 slots, often you can cover a full adventuring day with the 8 hours from a level 3 slot.

I would hardly say 7.5 (average of 3d4) damage a round is overpowered by not requiring concentration. I haven't seen this spell used because it had a relatively high cost (your concentration) for a very marginal benefit. Allowing it to scale would make it more meaningful and worthy of needing concentration. I think 1d4 increase per 2 levels (2d4 at 3rd and 3d4 at 5th) would be a decent way to scale it and make it worth that concentration.

[BarneyBent]

I disagree. It's less damage then the examples you gave, and has a much shorter duration. Hex can be used all day for one spell slot once you get level 5 slots, often you can cover a full adventuring day with the 8 hours from a level 3 slot.

I would hardly say 7.5 (average of 3d4) damage a round is overpowered by not requiring concentration. I haven't seen this spell used because it had a relatively high cost (your concentration) for a very marginal benefit. Allowing it to scale would make it more meaningful and worthy of needing concentration. I think 1d4 increase per 2 levels (2d4 at 3rd and 3d4 at 5th) would be a decent way to scale it and make it worth that concentration.

Agree that allowing it to scale would make it much better and would be appropriate, but I disagree that removing concentration would be balanced.

I’m not sure I like allowing it to scale through damage though. Reason being getting it on an EK or Ranger is quite easy with War Cleric, and allowing it to scale both through up-casts AND through extra attacks (I’m thinking a Hunter here) would be just too abusable. Though I admit I haven’t crunched the numbers.

I’d prefer allowing it to scale on duration like Hex and Hunter’s Mark do. That would make it a really useful tool for builds that don’t use other concentration spells very often, without making it a must take.

[Aaedimus]

E It's not much damage, has to be used in melee, it's a paladin spell, and smites cost concentration, also there are so many more useful concentration spells. As is, I think it would barely be worth a non concentration 1st level spell until late game

My question: how could not having concentration hurt?

[Galithar]

Agree that allowing it to scale would make it much better and would be appropriate, but I disagree that removing concentration would be balanced.

I’m not sure I like allowing it to scale through damage though. I’d prefer allowing it to scale on duration like Hex and Hunter’s Mark do.

At that point you might as well just put one of those spells on the Paladin spell list. 1d4 extra damage per hit isn't much.

Let's compare it to other level one concentration spells.

Hex: More damage, longer duration, disadvantage on one attribute. But only single target at a time, bonus action can move it when the target dies though.

Bless: 1d4 to attack rolls and saving throws for 3 allies is worth more DPR (via increasing hit chance) then a potential 3d4 damage.

Witch Bolt: Easy to break, but after the initial hit deals 1d12 damage automatically. Now I would say this is actually pretty close. 1d12 isn't great and it doesn't take much to break the spell, so Divine Favor wins this one. But if I have to scrape to the bottom of the barrel for something worse than it.... That's not a good sign

Faerie Fire: Advantage on all attacks against the target? This can be an encounter changing spell even later in levels. Preventing invisibility is always good.

Heroism: Temp HP equal to my modifier every round? Not the BEST, but put it on your barbarian for an effective 10 THP every round they are getting attacked. Adds up to real value faster then the 7.5 damage that Divine Favor gives (assuming you build for s third attack)

[Jerrykhor]

I agree on the no concentration fix. Right now, my opinion on this spell is that there's no reason to use it. More damage is never bad, but the concentration requirement makes it more trouble than its worth.

Either make it affect 3 targets, or remove the concentration.

[follacchioso]

As a front line paladin, you are likely to lose concentration often during a combat. Thus, a longer duration like hex or hunter's mark is not going to make a big difference.

Bless and faerie fire have stronger effects, but they require an action to cast.. While divine favour is a bonus action that you can combine with an attack.

It also provide radiant damage, which is useful against most of the enemies encountered by paladins.

So that is the niche that divine favour covers.. It's a simple boost that you can cast at the beginning of the fight, without having too much to worry about losing concentration ( you're not so dependant on it like a warlock is), that gives bonus damage to all your attacks.

[Torsopants]

Direct comparisons to ranged attacker equivalents are flawed, because concentration in melee is much bigger burden.

Then again, adding more damage to the paladin is boring. Perhaps a cool rider effect would be better?

[Arkhios]

If everything absolutely must be optimized to minute details, maybe 5e isn't the game for you guys.

[Aaedimus]

I agree on the no concentration fix. Right now, my opinion on this spell is that there's no reason to use it. More damage is never bad, but the concentration requirement makes it more trouble than its worth.

Either make it affect 3 targets, or remove the concentration.

I like that one too.

Arkhios I'm not trying to optimize anything to crap, what brought me here is, it's one of the war cleric's domain spells, and I was trying to decide which domain I wanted. It just feels like it'll never be useful. And the other war cleric's 1st level domain spell is divine shield, which is a defensive spell you can't use if you use divine favor. It just feels a bit wonky and over restrictive.

[Arkhios]

I like that one too.

Arkhios I'm not trying to optimize anything to crap, what brought me here is, it's one of the war cleric's domain spells, and I was trying to decide which domain I wanted. It just feels like it'll never be useful. And the other war cleric's 1st level domain spell is divine shield, which is a defensive spell you can't use if you use divine favor. It just feels a bit wonky and over restrictive.

Granted, I'm nitpicking, but I would say it's primarily Paladin's spell; Cleric only gets an expanded access to it via War Domain.

But really, Divine Favor isn't wonky or over-restrictive. Concentration is one of the things which makes spellcasting much more balanced in 5th edition than it has been numerous times before in earlier editions. If you don't like the mechanic, either play a non-caster or entirely different game.

Divine Favor is better than Hex or Hunter's Mark, because it's not tied to one target at a time. That is, if you felled an opponent during your turn, and you could attack another time (if you have Extra Attack (Paladin 5+ or War Domain's War Priest ability which is very similar) and/or you're dual-wielding), you don't have to use your Bonus Action to switch targets (especially valuable when dual wielding is an option, or if you are a Cleric with War Domain who could make another attack as a Bonus Action, due to their Domain feature). The spell affects you, the caster. Not someone or something else.

[stoutstien]

Granted, I'm nitpicking, but I would say it's primarily Paladin's spell; Cleric only gets an expanded access to it via War Domain.

But really, Divine Favor isn't wonky or over-restrictive. Concentration is one of the things which makes spellcasting much more balanced in 5th edition than it has been numerous times before in earlier editions. If you don't like the mechanic, either play a non-caster or entirely different game.

Divine Favor is better than Hex or Hunter's Mark, because it's not tied to one target at a time. That is, if you felled an opponent during your turn, and you could attack another time (if you have Extra Attack (Paladin 5+ or War Do and/or you're dual-wielding), you don't have to use your Bonus Action to switch targets (especially valuable when dual wielding is an option, or if you are a Cleric with War Domain who could make another attack as a Bonus Action, due to their Domain feature). The spell affects you, the caster. Not someone or something else.
Also being radiant damage has it's uses. I do like the idea of up casting to increase duration.

[Vogie]

My question: how could not having concentration hurt?

You would then run both it, and bless, simultaneously. Just 1d4 to attacks, and damage, and hell, start dual wielding so you get 3/attacks a turn.

It also turns a 1 level dip into War Cleric (which also grants it) into a giant powerhouse for things like Fighter, Ranger, or even barbarian, as divine favor increases damage on all weapons (allowing them to use it as a "ranged rage" damage bonus).

[Aaedimus]

Lol I was honestly looking at it as a possible wildshape buff, but it just doesn't really make a huge difference... although stacking that and the Aasimar's racial ability even at level 4 would let a druid add a potential 2d4 +4 (without a monk dip you're not getting 3 hits until the giant scorpion at 9th level)

[Arkhios]

Lol I was honestly looking at it as a possible wildshape buff, but it just doesn't really make a huge difference... although stacking that and the Aasimar's racial ability even at level 4 would let a druid add a potential 2d4 +4 (without a monk dip you're not getting 3 hits until the giant scorpion at 9th level)

I fail to grasp why it couldn't be a possible Wild Shape buff?

Wild Shape, 3rd bullet point:
"You can't cast Spells, and your ability to speak or take any action that requires hands is limited to the capabilities of your beast form. Transforming doesn't break your Concentration on a spell you've already cast, however, or prevent you from taking Actions that are part of a spell, such as Call Lightning, that you've already cast."

[Dalebert]

I fail to grasp why it couldn't be a possible Wild Shape buff?

He didn't say it was impossible. He said it didn't make a huge difference. He knows he can.

[Vogie]

I fail to grasp why it couldn't be a possible Wild Shape buff?

It may be a DM decision for or against natural weapons triggering DF as a "weapon attack"

Divine Biter.

[Bjarkmundur]

Look at it this way.

A single combat is 3-6 rounds.
Level 1 Divine Smite is 2d8
Divine Favour is 1d4 per attack

At earlier levels you need 4 Divine Favour hits to get the same amount of damage as a single Smite. That means you need to maintain your concentration for the entire combat just to break even. And then of course there's the single target / multiple target difference. Divine favor is better against multiple targets, but concentration is harder against multiple targets. I think this puts divine favor is in a weird spot, where its most powerful in the situation that hurts it the most.

With level 2 spell slot you get 3d8 from a divine Smite. That's equivalent to 5 hits with divine favour.

Upcasting it doesn't help it, since it hides its power behind a knowledge barrier, which isn't good game design.

I think, since it scales with multi attack, simply removing the concentration is perfect for all builds. It makes it a viable option for two weapon Paladins and single-weapon Paladins alike.

It doesn't make divine favor super powerful by any means, but it does what a spell is supposed to do: add versatility, and make it good in the situation where it's supposed to be good.

Longer fights, multiple small minions, last spell slot of the day, two weapon fighting, these are all situations where you'd possible want divine favor over Smite. It's not more power, it's different power.

[stoutstien]

I would Increase damage at a rate of 1d4 for every other spell lv above one or increase duration with up casting. Removing concentration could cause some unwanted stacking (bless, hunters mark/hex, crusader mantle, a d so on).

When I was working on a way to bring twf up to par with other styles I found out if a player can stack any two on hit bonus damage spells or effects they can get within the ~10-15% of a similar build using duelist but with higher normalized damage due to more attacks. If the fight lasted more than 5 rounds they can pull ahead.

[Bjarkmundur]

I would Increase damage at a rate of 1d4 for every other spell lv above one or increase duration with up casting. Removing concentration could cause some unwanted stacking (bless, hunters mark/hex, crusader mantle, a d so on).

When I was working on a way to bring twf up to par with other styles I found out if a player can stack any two on hit bonus damage spells or effects they can get within the ~10-15% of a similar build using duelist but with higher normalized damage due to more attacks. If the fight lasted more than 5 rounds they can pull ahead.

You're right, I agree. Every other works perfectly.

[Aaedimus]

I fail to grasp why it couldn't be a possible Wild Shape buff?

Wild Shape, 3rd bullet point:
"You can't cast Spells, and your ability to speak or take any action that requires hands is limited to the capabilities of your beast form. Transforming doesn't break your Concentration on a spell you've already cast, however, or prevent you from taking Actions that are part of a spell, such as Call Lightning, that you've already cast."

There are better spells to concentrate on is the issue

A cr 1/4 or 1/2 or even 1 or 2 creature focusing on a melee damage increasing spell is going to lose concentration quickly vs one concentrating on something defensive or for crowd control. Add the fact that it doesn't add that much damage

I think stacking buffs like what you're trying to avoid with the concentration would be a great use for divine favor since it's only 1d4, and I'm not sure why you think it's so important to avoid with such a small dice roll.


Anyways, my big point was that it's one of those spells that seem a bit wasted and I felt like it being a domain spell for war cleric doesn't help towards that being a viable one level dip

[KorvinStarmast]

Longer fights, multiple small minions, last spell slot of the day, two weapon fighting, these are all situations where you'd possible want divine favor over Smite. It's not more power, it's different power. Nice post, thanks for how you presented that. :)

[Aaedimus]

^That was a good post btw. You should get credit for that.

[Keravath]

There are better spells to concentrate on in most cases. Situationally, something requiring radiant damage to prevent regeneration or vulnerable to radiant would be good cases.

However, having it not require concentration would turn it into everyone's go to spell to have up all the time. Free d4 on every hit against every creature, no concentration, all the time. WAY better than hex or hunter's mark which only average 1 damage more, apply to one target, require concentration and also need a bonus action to move to a new target (which has to die before you can move it).

If you compare to hex and hunter's mark, the versatility of divine favour applying to every attack to any target without requiring a bonus action means that a PAM paladin will be getting more attacks.

The problem is not divine favour ... it is pretty balanced with hex and hunter's mark which are the comparable spells for other classes. The issue is that the paladin may have better concentration options and they can always convert spell slots directly into damage by smiting (especially on crits) so if a spell is likely to do less damage than a smite at the comparable level, is it worth using a spell slot and concentration to maintain?

[MrStabby]

There are better spells to concentrate on in most cases. Situationally, something requiring radiant damage to prevent regeneration or vulnerable to radiant would be good cases.

However, having it not require concentration would turn it into everyone's go to spell to have up all the time. Free d4 on every hit against every creature, no concentration, all the time. WAY better than hex or hunter's mark which only average 1 damage more, apply to one target, require concentration and also need a bonus action to move to a new target (which has to die before you can move it).

If you compare to hex and hunter's mark, the versatility of divine favour applying to every attack to any target without requiring a bonus action means that a PAM paladin will be getting more attacks.

The problem is not divine favour ... it is pretty balanced with hex and hunter's mark which are the comparable spells for other classes. The issue is that the paladin may have better concentration options and they can always convert spell slots directly into damage by smiting (especially on crits) so if a spell is likely to do less damage than a smite at the comparable level, is it worth using a spell slot and concentration to maintain?

I agree. Divine favour is where it should be - it is the smite mechanic that isn't quite on par with where it should be. Moving smite to a d6 would make a lot more of the paladins spells see play; the class as a whole is strong enough to survive this anyway. It isn't like the paladin is a class in need of a boost.

[Galithar]

There are better spells to concentrate on in most cases. Situationally, something requiring radiant damage to prevent regeneration or vulnerable to radiant would be good cases.

However, having it not require concentration would turn it into everyone's go to spell to have up all the time. Free d4 on every hit against every creature, no concentration, all the time. WAY better than hex or hunter's mark which only average 1 damage more, apply to one target, require concentration and also need a bonus action to move to a new target (which has to die before you can move it).

If you compare to hex and hunter's mark, the versatility of divine favour applying to every attack to any target without requiring a bonus action means that a PAM paladin will be getting more attacks.

The problem is not divine favour ... it is pretty balanced with hex and hunter's mark which are the comparable spells for other classes. The issue is that the paladin may have better concentration options and they can always convert spell slots directly into damage by smiting (especially on crits) so if a spell is likely to do less damage than a smite at the comparable level, is it worth using a spell slot and concentration to maintain?

I disagree with the assessment that it's better as is then hex or Hunter's Mark. Sure in a white room it sounds better. But that's looking at the situation like a 5 minute adventuring day. How do I get the most damage out of a spell in one combat, where hex and Hunter's Mark are both designed to be used over multiple encounters giving you a huge increase in damage over the course of a day. 3 combats of 4 rounds each. Depending on how quickly they hit that can be 24 attacks (no bonus action, spells, etc).
(84) 24d6 for attacks all day and assuming moving it EVERY TURN for one spell slot. Or (82.5) 33d4 (extra attack plus bonus action attack on all but first turn needed to cast the spell) in the same time but using 3 spell slots. Now that's 3 level ones versus a level 3 unless all three encounters can take place within an hour, but for the most part I'd make that trade for equal value. I can maintain my low level slots for smiting if I use Hex (assuming the spell is still on a Paladin base for ease of comparison)
Add in bonus action attacks even half the time and Hex/Mark pull way ahead, and did so with fewer slots.

And I don't know about your experience, but in mine paladin's tend to do alright with their concentration saves. At level 6 when that aura kicks in you can easily have +6 on them. Throw in just one thing to boost that like warcaster and you'll be set for concentration saves unless you get hit by a freight train of an attack for 30+ damage.

Now I'm not saying that the spell is terrible and should never be used, but as is there is almost always a better option. I rarely see it used because of this. That's the sign of underpowered when something is used so infrequently. Allow it to scale damage (every other level) or remove concentration and it suddenly becomes something that people will want to use more, but maybe not always because other options could situationally be better (you need help hitting so you throw up bless | concentration but scaling damage | or you need the damage NOW so you smite for 2d8 to try to put that baddie down right away | no concentration |)

I personally am more inclined to keep concentration, but allow it to scale. That keeps it in line with the capabilities of Hex/Mark from what I can see. Maybe being better then them with a 5th level slot which may be undesirable.

[Keravath]

I disagree with the assessment that it's better as is then hex or Hunter's Mark. Sure in a white room it sounds better. But that's looking at the situation like a 5 minute adventuring day. How do I get the most damage out of a spell in one combat, where hex and Hunter's Mark are both designed to be used over multiple encounters giving you a huge increase in damage over the course of a day. 3 combats of 4 rounds each. Depending on how quickly they hit that can be 24 attacks (no bonus action, spells, etc).
(84) 24d6 for attacks all day and assuming moving it EVERY TURN for one spell slot. Or (82.5) 33d4 (extra attack plus bonus action attack on all but first turn needed to cast the spell) in the same time but using 3 spell slots. Now that's 3 level ones versus a level 3 unless all three encounters can take place within an hour, but for the most part I'd make that trade for equal value. I can maintain my low level slots for smiting if I use Hex (assuming the spell is still on a Paladin base for ease of comparison)
Add in bonus action attacks even half the time and Hex/Mark pull way ahead, and did so with fewer slots.

And I don't know about your experience, but in mine paladin's tend to do alright with their concentration saves. At level 6 when that aura kicks in you can easily have +6 on them. Throw in just one thing to boost that like warcaster and you'll be set for concentration saves unless you get hit by a freight train of an attack for 30+ damage.

Now I'm not saying that the spell is terrible and should never be used, but as is there is almost always a better option. I rarely see it used because of this. That's the sign of underpowered when something is used so infrequently. Allow it to scale damage (every other level) or remove concentration and it suddenly becomes something that people will want to use more, but maybe not always because other options could situationally be better (you need help hitting so you throw up bless | concentration but scaling damage | or you need the damage NOW so you smite for 2d8 to try to put that baddie down right away | no concentration |)

I personally am more inclined to keep concentration, but allow it to scale. That keeps it in line with the capabilities of Hex/Mark from what I can see. Maybe being better then them with a 5th level slot which may be undesirable.

In my experience, I've never seen a Ranger cast hunter's mark with anything but a level 1 spell slot. They have lots of better higher level spells requiring concentration - healing spirit, pass without trace, haste on some archetypes etc. In addition, since it is concentration it drops fairly easily when hit since none of the classes that get these spells have con saves by default.

As for warlocks, as they get to higher levels they will often use something OTHER than hex again since they only have two slots (to level 10) and some of the decent spell options like blink/fly/hypnotic pattern/shadow of moil are all concentration as well.

Basically, although hex and hunters mark CAN last longer, in practice I have never seen it happen. If you wanted to extend the time of Divine Favour when upcast while still requiring concentration, I would say go ahead .. I don't think it will break anything since again the classes that get it often have better spells to use their concentration on at higher levels.

However, making Divine Favour non-concentration is a strict upgrade to every attack made by that character in that combat. If the combat is long enough a paladin/warlock could add hex on top of a non-concentration divine favour for an average +6 damage on most attacks (d6+d4).

[Galithar]

In my experience, I've never seen a Ranger cast hunter's mark with anything but a level 1 spell slot. They have lots of better higher level spells requiring concentration - healing spirit, pass without trace, haste on some archetypes etc. In addition, since it is concentration it drops fairly easily when hit since none of the classes that get these spells have con saves by default.

As for warlocks, as they get to higher levels they will often use something OTHER than hex again since they only have two slots (to level 10) and some of the decent spell options like blink/fly/hypnotic pattern/shadow of moil are all concentration as well.

Basically, although hex and hunters mark CAN last longer, in practice I have never seen it happen. If you wanted to extend the time of Divine Favour when upcast while still requiring concentration, I would say go ahead .. I don't think it will break anything since again the classes that get it often have better spells to use their concentration on at higher levels.

However, making Divine Favour non-concentration is a strict upgrade to every attack made by that character in that combat. If the combat is long enough a paladin/warlock could add hex on top of a non-concentration divine favour for an average +6 damage on most attacks (d6+d4).

The biggest draw for Hex is the fact that you can use it, rest and get your slot back and still benefit from it. So while you may not have seen it it's a major strategy of DPR optimizing Warlocks. Hunter's Mark, maybe not so much. Rangers see almost no play at my tables so I have very little experience with them so I can't comment on that too much.

If you begin to compare multiclass potential don't forget that the number one multiclass for Paladin and Warlock is probably Sorcerer, which coincidentally had that Con save proficiency.

Having options other then Hex for Warlocks doesn't make Divine Favor better. It makes Warlocks have to calculate the opportunity cost of their spells. Warlocks benefit the most from spells that can last a long time. Like Hex.

I also see no problem in allowing the two to stack. That's a minimum of 2 level one spell slots and your concentration for an average of 12 damage per round. I can still beat that with one well used Bless. All I have to do is average turning one miss into a hit per round and it'll probably end up being more than 12 damage. (GWM barbarian?) It wouldn't beak anything, and while I'm not saying you're wrong in disliking it, it's still a very valid adjustment to a spell if someone likes the idea of it but it's always outclassed by better options.

[djreynolds]

It's a bonus action. Just like shield of faith.

Oath of devotion, action sacred weapon, then either BA divine favor, or BA smite spell, or BA shield of faith.

Next round go to it.

It's not terrible, but it gives you an option. Smite once for 2d8, or use divine favor for 1 minute or 10 rounds

[sambojin]

Lol I was honestly looking at it as a possible wildshape buff, but it just doesn't really make a huge difference... although stacking that and the Aasimar's racial ability even at level 4 would let a druid add a potential 2d4 +4 (without a monk dip you're not getting 3 hits until the giant scorpion at 9th level)

You can if your DM/campaign is dino friendly. Deinonychus gets 3 standard +4/1d8+2's and a possible 4th through a 20' pounce at CR1. And if Ixalan content is in, Frilled Deathspitter gets 3x +5/1d6+3's at CR1/2 (and a fairly nifty DC13 for half, 4d8 poison 15/30' blinding ranged attack). Maybe reskin one into a Honey Badger, the other into a Dire Skunk?

If it didn't take concentration, I'd use it all the time as a WarMoon. But it is, so Bless is almost always better for a lvl1 slot usage in wildshape. I mean, it's there, it's prepared, so you can still use it. It'll do something, just don't expect to be wowed, even if all 3-4 (with War's bonus) attacks connect. Still, a potential 3d4-4d4 extra radiant damage a turn isn't bad from a lvl1 spell. It's just that +to-hit is usually nicer for Moon druids.

[Dalebert]

Dropping concentration is right out. Magic weapon level two requires concentration. Detect magic requires concentration. When they don't want something stacking with other things, they put concentration. It's not necessarily or only about how powerful the spell is.

[KorvinStarmast]

Rangers see almost no play at my tables so I have very little experience with them so I can't comment on that too much.
I use the heck out of Hunters Mark. Love it.
I also use Fog Cloud a lot.
Why?
To break contact if we are in over our heads, to shape the battlefield, or to take enemy archers out of the fight for a round.

[sophontteks]

You are both right about hex. Warlocks will use spells other then hex as they level up, in general. But warlocks can build around hex very effectively too. Fiendlocks don't need concentration, and they can enhance the hex with invocations, making it a very cheap and effective way to boost their dps.