Overchannel is either too good or not good enough depending on interpretation...

[TheUser]

Starting at 14th level, you can increase the power of your simpler spells. When you cast a wizard spell of 1st through 5th level that deals damage, you can deal maximum damage with that spell.
The first time you do so, you suffer no adverse effect. If you use this feature again before you finish a long rest, you take 2d12 necrotic dam age for each level of the spell, immediately after you cast it. Each time you use this feature again before finishing a long rest, the necrotic damage per spell level increases by 1d12. This damage ignores resistance and immunity.

So RAW would indicate you choose when casting a spell if the spell deals maximum damage; if the spell has a duration of any kind it does maximum damage throughout (maximized Dawn being a personal favorite). Ok fine.

But the RAI from Jeremy Crawford has indicated the "When you cast a spell..." is also the narrow window of opportunity that the spell deals maximum damage, however he has acknowledged that this is the "intent" (meaning he knows the wording is super ambiguous).

My conundrum is that with the first interpretation the feature is obscenely strong but the JC interpretation makes it hardly worth notice compared to other Wizard subclasses.

What do you guys think?

[bid]

Double damage once per day is ok, twice per day if someone can heal you back up.

Better than Megumin.:smallbiggrin:


Maybe it shoudn't skip the 1d12 step.

[Lord Vukodlak]

No RAW is when you cast the spell deals maximum damage.. So it would only affect damage done by the spell when you cast it not after.

That aside its still a fine ability, making sure that one big blast is maximized is going to be a big help. And a contingency "when I over channel" cast a 5th level false life could eat up some of the damage from overchanneling.

[Chronos]

"When you cast a spell" is the condition on when you can use Overchannel. The effect is "you can deal maximum damage with that spell". If the spell deals continuing damage, and the later damage is not maximized, then you're not dealing maximum damage with that spell.

[Aimeryan]

"When you cast a spell" is the condition on when you can use Overchannel. The effect is "you can deal maximum damage with that spell". If the spell deals continuing damage, and the later damage is not maximized, then you're not dealing maximum damage with that spell.

This. You would have to add a separate clause to limit the effect to only the instance of casting.

As for the OP's question - I don't find maximum damage on one spell that overpowered, because I don't find damage spells to be that powerful on average. With Overchannel, a damage spell can become reliably powerful for that cast, but it is not spammable. Now, Animate Objects...

[TheUser]

Great, I'm super happy we're over the first hurdle of "this is what words mean"

Can we actually discuss the rammifications of which interpretation have on the overall power level of the Invoker*?


I think my issue is mostly derived from making this feature at all good also makes the Simulacrum the wizard makes of themselves -also- that good (and that much better at conserving slots).

2 different maximized Dawn spells, or a healthy double overchannel Bigby's (for those bosses you just gotta smash) has some absolutely ridiculous rammifications.

* yesyesyes, I know it's poor "phraseology" but the term sounds better to me in my head and is also the term used in AD&D when I first inducted into the world of D&D so it has a primacy effect if you will.

Don't even get me started on the potential Magic Jar combo shenanigans....

[Haydensan]

I've always interpreted this as the apparently RAI version (though i see this as RAW too) and never had a problem with the power level of the Evocation school wizards.

A maximised AOE even on 3 foes is still a huge amount more than average.

EDIT: plus i find the other interpretation to trivialise things with how much damage it can put out.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Most big AOE spells involve lots of dice. That means a highly peaked distribution. You're very unlikely to roll max damage on 8d6 (p = 6x10^-8), and very likely to roll average (or near average). So maximizing that is a huge change. Doing that on an upcast boom spell, and you're talking serious damage.

[Unintensified]

I agree with all the above points in favor of using overchannel for the entire duration. I think it really makes a high-level wizard blaster viable. Most of the time, the high-level control/utility spells far outclass the pure blasting ones. so being able to maximize damage on these spells is a really great ability. I always felt like a wizard blaster works really well at low levels, but begins to taper off as swarms of enemies tend to disappear, replaced with higher hp/save/resistance mooks that control spells are better against. It's no fun being a wizard if you're only doing clean up duty on the easy monsters. This abilitie really brings the blaster up to the level of other damaging classes.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

No RAW is when you cast the spell deals maximum damage.. So it would only affect damage done by the spell when you cast it not after.

That aside its still a fine ability, making sure that one big blast is maximized is going to be a big help. And a contingency "when I over channel" cast a 5th level false life could eat up some of the damage from overchanneling.

I read it as the choice is made when casting the spell.
I see the deals maximum damage as a different part of the sentence.

"When you cast a wizard spell of 1st through 5th level that deals damage, you can deal maximum damage with that spell."

No where I can see why it will be limited to the first instance of the spell damage.

It just says "deal maximum damage with that spell" not "deal maximum damage with that spell this turn/for the first damage roll/ext.."

Where do you see the condition that limit you to the first damage roll?

[Contrast]

...but the JC interpretation makes it hardly worth notice compared to other Wizard subclasses.

I don't know that I agree.

I played a couple of sessions with an evoker wizard who literally only prepared damage spells. After some cajoling we did convince him to prepare Polymorph and had fun cosplaying as a T-Rexs.

In the period where I was playing he probably did more damage than the entire rest of the (5 man?) party combined - I would guess by a considerable margin (and while playing very suboptimally). Being able to drop AoE spells right on top of the parties head is a massive game changer in terms of how easy it is to get use out of them in my experience.

[Corran]

"When you cast a spell" is the condition on when you can use Overchannel. The effect is "you can deal maximum damage with that spell". If the spell deals continuing damage, and the later damage is not maximized, then you're not dealing maximum damage with that spell.
Nothing actually restricts it to being just the condition. In fact, ''when you cast a spell'' is the only thing that specifies timing. Assuming that the ''dealing maximum damage with the spell'' specifies timing/duration/whatever is a bit of a stretch imo, particularly when you read the sentence as a whole without isolating parts of it.
Bolded part: You are doing maximum damage with the spell when you cast it though.


Great, I'm super happy we're over the first hurdle of "this is what words mean"
If you want to avoid a debate about RAW, then don't start the topic by defining what the RAW and what the RAI is. People who disagree will note their objections to your reading. Instead, you could go directly to your actual question:



My conundrum is that with the first interpretation the feature is obscenely strong but the JC interpretation makes it hardly worth notice compared to other Wizard subclasses.

What do you guys think?
I think that Crawford's ruling is well balanced. Falls in line with every other wizard subclass feature, which (maybe with the exception of illusory reality which is crazy, or so I hear about it) are ok from a power level, since wizard subclasses add just a few touches on a very strong base.

Ruling it to work for multiple rounds (combined with spells like dawn or sickening radiance) is not broken or anything on its own, but if you can combine that with some strong battlefield control, then yeah, we are talking about silly strong stuff. So, imo, this interpretation has the potential to result in broken combos.

[TheUser]

I think that Crawford's ruling is well balanced. Falls in line with every other wizard subclass feature, which (maybe with the exception of illusory reality which is crazy, or so I hear about it) are ok from a power level, since wizard subclasses add just a few touches on a very strong base.


I tend to disagree with this point.

Illusory Reality aside, Spell Resistance, Command Undead and Modify Memory stick out as really strong, permanent modifications.

Having Overchannel only work on one round of the spell's damage would seem to bring it under par compared to other Wizard subclass abilities of the same level.

Command Undead gives you the potential for a minion that does continual and daily recharging damage. If we compared that to the mathematical boost that overchannel provides (about an 90% average damage boost in most cases) on 1 spell a day and then start killing yourself; the notion that it work on multiple rounds isn't exactly out of whack but it's just much much stronger this way (and far more flexible to use).

[Lord Vukodlak]

A lot is going to depend on does the DM use lots of low CR creatures as fodder to protect the higher CR creatures. Bounded Accuracy can let low CR creatures hit many mid to high level PC's. Things in the 1/2 to 2 range can survive a poor roll on a fireball or a average roll if they make the save. An overchannel can ensure you clear the field of all the fodder.
Things in the CR 3 range tend to have about 60 to 70 HP. They will survive a fireball or a cone of cold. But after one thats been hit by overchannel they likely won't survive a single hit.

[Aimeryan]

Nothing actually restricts it to being just the condition. In fact, ''when you cast a spell'' is the only thing that specifies timing. Assuming that the ''dealing maximum damage with the spell'' specifies timing/duration/whatever is a bit of a stretch imo, particularly when you read the sentence as a whole without isolating parts of it.
Bolded part: You are doing maximum damage with the spell when you cast it though.

The timing in the condition specifies when the condition is met. To link a timing to the effect the timing would have to be a part of the effect clause. To further nail the coffin shut, the effect specifies the spell deals maximum damage, which can only occur if the damage throughout the spell is indeed maximised.

~~~


I think my issue is mostly derived from making this feature at all good also makes the Simulacrum the wizard makes of themselves -also- that good (and that much better at conserving slots).

2 different maximized Dawn spells, or a healthy double overchannel Bigby's (for those bosses you just gotta smash) has some absolutely ridiculous rammifications.


Simulacrum... yup, there's a balanced spell.

Dawn is concentration, what do you mean by '2'? Bigby, the damage is done by the object, not the spell.
EDIT: Ah, the simulacrum's cast. Again, yup.

[Corran]

I tend to disagree with this point.

Illusory Reality aside, Spell Resistance, Command Undead and Modify Memory stick out as really strong, permanent modifications.

Having Overchannel only work on one round of the spell's damage would seem to bring it under par compared to other Wizard subclass abilities of the same level.

Command Undead gives you the potential for a minion that does continual and daily recharging damage. If we compared that to the mathematical boost that overchannel provides (about an 80% average damage boost in most cases) on 1 spell a day and then start killing yourself; the notion that it work on multiple rounds isn't exactly out of whack but it's just much much stronger this way (and far more flexible to use).
There is a difference though. And that is that while command undeath and spell resistance are more situational. You need to find an undead or you need to fight against a spellcaster, which are stronger hypotheses than fighting against a decent number of enemies that overchannel requires. Features are balanced both by their raw power and by how often you get to make good use out of them.

Plus, comparing lvl14 features alone can be misleading. For example, the lvl14 feature of divination is not as strong. It's actually weaker than the lvl2 divination feature if we want to look at it this way. Meaning, that the defining or stronger feature is not always the highest level one, or just one feature for that matter. Overchannel alone is not that great, but it becomes better when combined with sculpt spells.

You might be right though. An increase of 6/12 (AoE) damage per round at these levels might not be as terrible as I first thought.
Edit: Can't math... it's an extra of 9/18 average AoE damage per round, depending if the enemies save. That's sounds like much. I'd like to playtest it, but at first glance it sounds like a lot. I'd like to see what others think of this.

Edit:

The timing in the condition specifies when the condition is met. To link a timing to the effect the timing would have to be a part of the effect clause.
I don't see why. It's part of the sentence, I don't see why you need it to be repeated. Otherwise it would be ''when you cast a spell... you do maximum damage with that spell when you cast it''. Granted, you could write it a bit more cleanly, like specifying ''on the first round''. But to me it seems redundant. Maybe it's a case of language/translation. But even then, in the absence of anything else that specifies timing, I don't see how you can ignore it just because it is before a comma.
Scratch that. I agree that the interpretation you are proposing is the simpler one.

[OvisCaedo]

Given that errata nerfed overchannel in I believe the same release that nerfed empowered evocation, and the latter had its wording specifically updated TO prevent the +int damage bonus from applying to multiple damage rolls, I'd also lean towards overchannel affecting the entire spell.

though I also disliked both nerfs to begin with, so I'd have to admit I'm probably biased on this one.

[Reevh]

A maximized Steel Wind Strike seems pretty good to me.

[Trickery]

I'm in favor of it working on the full spell and not just the first turn. Two reasons: that's what the text says, and this rewards players for carefully reading their abilities.

[Bobthewizard]

I'm in favor of it working on the full spell and not just the first turn. Two reasons: that's what the text says, and this rewards players for carefully reading their abilities.

The way it is written, "When you cast a spell" is a bit of a dangling modifier. It could apply to either the choosing of the spell or the time you are allowed to cause maximum damage. The spell should either add "for that turn" to explicitly limit it, or "for the duration of the spell" to explicitly allow it. Without either of those, you could read the spell either way. If I were a player and my DM limited it to the first turn, I'd have to say that is a fair reading. If I'm the DM though, I'd allow it for the duration because I think it's cool.

To the OP, I think either ruling is fine. Allowing it for the duration is better for the player but it won't overshadow everyone else in the party. Only allowing it on the first round would mean they'd only use it on instantaneous blasts, but it would still be effective.

[Trickery]

The way it is written, "When you cast a spell" is a bit of a dangling modifier. It could apply to either the choosing of the spell or the time you are allowed to cause maximum damage. The spell should either add "for that turn" to explicitly limit it, or "for the duration of the spell" to explicitly allow it. Without either of those, you could read the spell either way. If I were a player and my DM limited it to the first turn, I'd have to say that is a fair reading. If I'm the DM though, I'd allow it for the duration because I think it's cool.

To the OP, I think either ruling is fine. Allowing it for the duration is better for the player but it won't overshadow everyone else in the party. Only allowing it on the first round would mean they'd only use it on instantaneous blasts, but it would still be effective.

I think the text leans more toward the full spell ruling, since it says "you can deal maximum damage with that spell." But I agree that it's poorly worded because it doesn't actually define what maximum means or specify what "when" means.

For anyone who doesn't know, the word "when" doesn't mean what you think it means in 5e. For example, the feat Mage Slayer and the fighting style Protection both use the word when as in when a creature does a thing you can react, but the designers intended for Mage Slayer to happen after the trigger and Protection to happen during the trigger.

So we can't use the word "when" to divine intent in 5e. The only recourse is to ask the devs, which has been done, and they said they meant for overchannel to only apply on the turn it's first used. Not my personal ruling for the reasons stated above.

[dragoeniex]

I tend to disagree with this point.

Illusory Reality aside, Spell Resistance, Command Undead and Modify Memory stick out as really strong, permanent modifications.

Having Overchannel only work on one round of the spell's damage would seem to bring it under par compared to other Wizard subclass abilities of the same level.

Command Undead gives you the potential for a minion that does continual and daily recharging damage. If we compared that to the mathematical boost that overchannel provides (about an 80% average damage boost in most cases) on 1 spell a day and then start killing yourself; the notion that it work on multiple rounds isn't exactly out of whack but it's just much much stronger this way (and far more flexible to use).



This ability shouldn't be as strong as Command Undead, because Command Undead comes with its own set of limitations, bad ideas, and rests solely on the hope the DM will toss you good minion candidates. One of my teammates is a lv 20 necromancer right now, and while he enjoys getting the chance to use this, it comes up once in a blue moon.

Between significant targets, the party (including him) forgets he can have a regular zombie or something equivalent enslaved. It just doesn't matter most of the time.

Overchannel, on the other hand, is universally applicable. There's never a bad time or place to max your damage if your allies are automatically immune. You have to show restraint if you want to apply it at the optimal times, but that's the only drawback. Want more mileage? You can squeeze an extra use out, though it's going to be costly.

Spell Resistance makes an abjurer insanely annoying for other casters to fight, which feels great, but that's it. Non-spell magic works against them just as well as against anyone. This means, again, the capstone's power depends on what the DM is throwing your way. Some days it will mean the world, and others it won't even factor in.

Overchannel puts the control in your hands. It's more consistent.

[BloodOgre]

When you consider that a tempest cleric has a channel divinity that lets them do maximum damage with a lightening or thunder damage spell at level 2, (twice per SHORT REST by level 6), I don't think the overchannel that evocation wizards get at level 14 to be OP no matter how you interpret it.

In the case of the Tempest cleric it is clearly stated "when you roll damage". So I'm inclined to say that an over-channelled spell does max damage on every roll if it has a continued effect, otherwise they would have limited it to one roll of the damage dice per spell casting by saying "...on that turn" or "you can replace one roll of the damage dice with max damage". But they didn't. So I say it applies to ALL damage the spell does.

A 14th level wizard gets this once a day without ill effects. A sixth level cleric gets it twice a short rest, meaning they could do it 4, 6 or even 8 times a day depending on how many rests he gets. And the cleric isn't limited to just a 5th level spell.

[PhoenixPhyre]

When you consider that a tempest cleric has a channel divinity that lets them do maximum damage with a lightening or thunder damage spell at level 2, (twice per SHORT REST by level 6), I don't think the overchannel that evocation wizards get at level 14 to be OP no matter how you interpret it.

In the case of the Tempest cleric it is clearly stated "when you roll damage". So I'm inclined to say that an over-channelled spell does max damage on every roll if it has a continued effect, otherwise they would have limited it to one roll of the damage dice per spell casting by saying "...on that turn" or "you can replace one roll of the damage dice with max damage". But they didn't. So I say it applies to ALL damage the spell does.

A 14th level wizard gets this once a day without ill effects. A sixth level cleric gets it twice a short rest, meaning they could do it 4, 6 or even 8 times a day depending on how many rests he gets. And the cleric isn't limited to just a 5th level spell.

Be careful not to compare features in isolation. As a whole, Tempest Clerics are way less blasty than Evocation Wizards. So the two features when you consider the entire package aren't that out of balance.

[Trickery]

One thing that just occurred to me. This is dumb, but...can you overchannel Tenser's Transformation?

[TheUser]

One thing that just occurred to me. This is dumb, but...can you overchannel Tenser's Transformation?

Nope. It's a 6th level spell and Overchannel only works on 5th level spells and lower.

However you can Overchannel a 5th level Bestow Curse for a permanent +8 damage on everything you do to that creature for 8 hours concentration free.

There's a few other interesting options with the more generous interpretation (shadow blade gets -very- interesting with other combos).

[sambojin]

To put it into context, a Moon Druid's 14th level ability is "can cast Alter Self at will". A 2nd level spell. Yep, that's it. But it's on a horribly front-loaded class where a lot of their spells are now going stupid-scalar, and having unlimited disguises is actually quite powerful (it's not an illusion, and within size limits, Moons can run pretty hard with this in many environments. That whole bipedal/quadrapedal thing applies to you a lot less).

So, should Over Channel work on spells that last more than one round? Hard to say. Wizards are a stupidly mid-high range loaded class, but without huge problems at the beginning either (although, they're harder to play well than Moons are at lvls2-6). I don't mind Crawford's 1-round-only interpretation, but I honestly wouldn't be against it if people went RAW and said "yep, for the whole spell. They shut down that entire encounter with damage. Or take a fair bit of damage for a second/third encounter".

Evokers are already pretty powerful. This makes them quite a lot more powerful in RAW. Or it can be looked at as "cancels resistance", or "destroys mooks", or "not as bad as illusory reality". It's a thing they can do. I tend to think it is meant as a "cancels resistance with your basic toolkit spells", but with such a huge and useful spell-list, and a bit of player meta knowledge, it actually means double damage.

Possibly a bit too good, but not overwhelmingly so. I do think having a super-punch first round of a spell, followed by normal damage for the rest is fine. But if others think differently, it's not going to affect actual threats to a 14th level Wizard, it will just alter how the DM runs encounters slightly. Big damage is big. Not the end of the world.

[Zalabim]

If you already presume that Dawn is balanced with Cone of Cold, then one might presume that maximised Dawn (all damage) is balanced with maximised Cone of Cold (all damage), so it's not strictly about balance. In the reverse, for an ability that's only going to be used a small number of times each day (unless you actually want your wizard to immediately die), if maximised cone of cold is theoretically just as good as maximised dawn, then saying only maximised cone of cold works because that's the flavor you want isn't crippling the evoker.

I want to specifically point out that the wizard can keep using overchannel as long as you think you won't actually roll more than current hp + maximum hp in damage, if an ally can stabilize you after (or you have death ward or something). Megumin yourself two, three, maybe four times a day depending on your constitution and party. A level 20 wizard with an amulet of health is going to have 182 maximum HP. There's a really miniscule chance for 20d12 to outright kill that wizard from 1 HP (00.02%). Do it again (25d12) and you might really die (11.26%).To go beyond that you should have more and more current HP. Add in things like Healer and Inspiring Leader (or other durable sources of temporary hp) and an invoker could safely use Overchannel six or more times each day with a cooperative party. At that point, you're running out of 5th level spell slots and "this is the last turn of battle" moments to kaboom-thud in, but only if you try to use it as intended.

[TheUser]

Oh man, I'm dumb. It's completely fair and balanced if you bear in mind that 10d12 necrotic damage (65 average) will gut punch 99% of Wizards out of concentration spells. Making the first Overchannel of the day the only one usable with a concentration spell.

Makes it not even a debate anymore as far as I am concerned. Maximum damage no matter how long. Only your first overchannel can be used on a 5th level concentration spell; subsequent attempts would be massive gambles.

[Mitsu]

Personally and all groups I played with- we interpret it in a way that allow FULL maxed damage for the whole duration of the spell.

So for example overchannelled Storm Sphere would do maximum damage for full duration from both per turn damage tick and from lighting strikes.

Same with Dawn - you get maximized damage every turn after you casted it with Overchannel.

Without it I think overchannel isn't really that good outside of broken Nuclear Wizard build.

So I will stick to this as it makes more sense to me and allow Evoker to really feel like powerful Evoker instead of "here goes another fireball...".

[Chronos]

Quoth Zalabim:

If you already presume that Dawn is balanced with Cone of Cold, then one might presume that maximised Dawn (all damage) is balanced with maximised Cone of Cold (all damage), so it's not strictly about balance.
I was actually just going to mention this. Except even with full damage every round, the duration spells still often end up falling behind a bit, because a lot of them have something other than damage as a major feature. A maximized Cone of Cold has everything it does nearly doubled. A maximized Sickening Radiance, even if we count all the rounds, doesn't have everything doubled, because the exhaustion isn't affected.

[Trickery]

I was actually just going to mention this. Except even with full damage every round, the duration spells still often end up falling behind a bit, because a lot of them have something other than damage as a major feature. A maximized Cone of Cold has everything it does nearly doubled. A maximized Sickening Radiance, even if we count all the rounds, doesn't have everything doubled, because the exhaustion isn't affected.

Also most fights only last 3-5 rounds. Unless you overchannel something that lasts ten minutes or an hour, you're probably only getting it for part of one fight.

[TheUser]

Ok so next part of this, if a feature of some kind gave sneak attack dice on an overchanneled shadow blade, with the sneak attack damage labelled as "extra damage" would it be part of the spells damage and hence also maximized?

Like, if you hit a creature that is resistant to damage with a sneak attack that same bonus damage is also reduced by resistance right?

(Which leads me to the Invoker 17/Rogue 3 that uses Magic Jar to inhabit the body of an Assassin and do 71 (4d8+3+6d6) damage with one sneak attack; if you get hasted by your simulacrum and surprise the creature it's 244 psychic damage in one round!)

[Aimeryan]

Ok so next part of this, if a feature of some kind gave sneak attack dice on an overchanneled shadow blade, with the sneak attack damage labelled as "extra damage" would it be part of the spells damage and hence also maximized?

Like, if you hit a creature that is resistant to damage with a sneak attack that same bonus damage is also reduced by resistance right?

(Which leads me to the Invoker 17/Rogue 3 that uses Magic Jar to inhabit the body of an Assassin and do 71 (4d8+3+6d6) damage with one sneak attack; if you get hasted by your simulacrum and surprise the creature it's 244 psychic damage in one round!)

Shadow Blade, I would rule that the spell creates the weapon; the weapon deals the damage. Therefore, no overchannel, anyway.

Sneak Attack damage is absolutely not the spell's damage; no overchannel even if you rule the weapon's base damage as being the spell's damage.

Simulacrum, as previously, this spell is just not balanced. Presuming the Wizard is balanced before, adding another of himself cannot be balanced. This is especially true regarding the limits on action economy and concentration that this spell breaks. I just can't find any reason to throw Simulacrum into a balance debate and still find it meaningful.

[Corran]

It's completely fair and balanced if you bear in mind that 10d12 necrotic damage (65 average) will gut punch 99% of Wizards out of concentration spells. Making the first Overchannel of the day the only one usable with a concentration spell.
That's a good point.

I was thinking something else as well. Would I pick dawn or sickening radiance on an evocation wizard? Probably not. But with overchannel working for the entire duration of the spell, I'd probably pick one of the two (probably sickening radiance, but that's beside the point). Balance aside, thematically at least it's a step in the good direction (I have this idea that the wizard schools don't add as much as I would like to differentiate wizards of different schools).

[Chronos]

Even without Overchannel, being able to sculpt Sickening Radiance is a pretty big deal. And heck, even without any special subclass features at all, it's already a pretty good spell. I'd take it anyway, unless you're just going for the stereotypical zero-impulse-control pyromaniac mage... in which case you wouldn't take it even if you could overchannel it fully.

[Sigreid]

That's a good point.

I was thinking something else as well. Would I pick dawn or sickening radiance on an evocation wizard? Probably not. But with overchannel working for the entire duration of the spell, I'd probably pick one of the two (probably sickening radiance, but that's beside the point). Balance aside, thematically at least it's a step in the good direction (I have this idea that the wizard schools don't add as much as I would like to differentiate wizards of different schools).

My evoker wizard has historically used sickening radiance a lot, though admittedly he has done most of his leveling so far in CoS so being able to wall an entire area off with radiant damage was invaluable.

[TheUser]

My evoker wizard has historically used sickening radiance a lot, though admittedly he has done most of his leveling so far in CoS so being able to wall an entire area off with radiant damage was invaluable.
Simulacrum doubling it's potential puts the spell into a whole new level.

Either Sickening Radiance + Wall of Force
Or just do double Sickening Radiance and by turn 1 if both saves fail their speed is already halved.
Better yet, being immune to the radiant damage doesn't prevent the exhaustion.


Dawn is sublime because it still does damage on a successful saved and can be moved 60ft with a bonus action.

Double Overchanneled Dawn is a minimum 40 radiant damage if both saves succeed! Sickening radiance is great enough without overchannel imho.

[Chronos]

Simulacrum puts everything to a whole new level.

[Crgaston]

This may have been mentioned, but how about adding a Con save for half damage by 2nd and subsequent uses of Overchannel?

This would make using it twice per day a more reliable option without removing the risk entirely.

[NaughtyTiger]

Even without Overchannel, being able to sculpt Sickening Radiance is a pretty big deal. And heck, even without any special subclass features at all, it's already a pretty good spell. I'd take it anyway, unless you're just going for the stereotypical zero-impulse-control pyromaniac mage... in which case you wouldn't take it even if you could overchannel it fully.

i didn't respect the evoker until he learned sickening radiance...


This may have been mentioned, but how about adding a Con save for half damage by 2nd and subsequent uses of Overchannel?
This would make using it twice per day a more reliable option without removing the risk entirely.

OP was worried about it being too strong, and you want to make it stronger...

[Bobthewizard]

Simulacrum doubling it's potential puts the spell into a whole new level.

Either Sickening Radiance + Wall of Force
Or just do double Sickening Radiance and by turn 1 if both saves fail their speed is already halved.
Better yet, being immune to the radiant damage doesn't prevent the exhaustion.


Dawn is sublime because it still does damage on a successful saved and can be moved 60ft with a bonus action.

Double Overchanneled Dawn is a minimum 40 radiant damage if both saves succeed! Sickening radiance is great enough without overchannel imho.

I don't think you can double Sickening Radiance or Dawn in the same area. You'd need to cast one of each. "The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine, however."

Simulacrum is broken on paper, but when I DM I find it's easy to fix. A 12 hour casting time, a full body of ice and a 1500gp ruby make it so they can't spam it until they get Wish at 17. The half HP and inability to heal means they never make it to the boss fight when I DM. The simulacrum is useful to conserve your spells, but you better use the simulacrum's spells fast before I kill it off.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think you can double Sickening Radiance or Dawn in the same area. You'd need to cast one of each. "The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine, however."

Simulacrum is broken on paper, but when I DM I find it's easy to fix. A 12 hour casting time, a full body of ice and a 1500gp ruby make it so they can't spam it until they get Wish at 17. The half HP and inability to heal means they never make it to the boss fight when I DM. The simulacrum is useful to conserve your spells, but you better use the simulacrum's spells fast before I kill it off.

Don't forget no gear. Except in the most monty hall-style, you're unlikely to have a full set of gear for your sim as well as for yourself. And that makes a significant difference. Even just +Saves or utility stuff (boots of flying, etc).

[Sigreid]

Simulacrum doubling it's potential puts the spell into a whole new level.

Either Sickening Radiance + Wall of Force
Or just do double Sickening Radiance and by turn 1 if both saves fail their speed is already halved.
Better yet, being immune to the radiant damage doesn't prevent the exhaustion.


Dawn is sublime because it still does damage on a successful saved and can be moved 60ft with a bonus action.

Double Overchanneled Dawn is a minimum 40 radiant damage if both saves succeed! Sickening radiance is great enough without overchannel imho.

Well, we defeated his fangyness when he tried to intimidate us in person outside his castle and found himself in a force cube box with a kensi monk armed with the Sunsword.

[Crgaston]

OP was worried about it being too strong, and you want to make it stronger...

OP was worried about it being either too weak or too strong. Running it 1st round only (which, to be fair, I didn't specify) but with a Con save for subsequent uses splits the difference.

[Chronos]

But "first round only" is how it always works for Fireball and the like, and adding the save makes it much more powerful for those spells.

[Crgaston]

But "first round only" is how it always works for Fireball and the like, and adding the save makes it much more powerful for those spells.

Exactly.

Again, according to the premise of the OP, it's underpowered when its applied to non-concentration spells or only the first round of concentration spells. He's looking for a compromise solution vs. letting it apply to the full duration of concentration spells.

[NaughtyTiger]

Exactly.

Again, according to the premise of the OP, it's underpowered when its applied to non-concentration spells or only the first round of concentration spells. He's looking for a compromise solution vs. letting it apply to the full duration of concentration spells.

is basic overchannel underpowered for fireball?
if the answer is no, then the con save for subsequent uses is a straight power bump.
a compromise would be applying the con save to subsequent rounds...

[Crgaston]

is basic overchannel underpowered for fireball?
if the answer is no, then the con save for subsequent uses is a straight power bump.
a compromise would be applying the con save to subsequent rounds...

According to the OP it is underpowered.

What you suggest is also a viable alternative!

Edit: And the 2 ideas are not mutually exclusive.

First round of damage is free. Subsequent rounds do 2d12 per spell level plus 1d12 additional per round whether it is a new casting or a Concentration spell.

A failed save equals DC32 Concentration save on the second round for Dawn and Sickening Radiance. Even a passed save equals a DC 49 Concentration save for the 3rd round.