[GUIDE] Inquisitor Lim's Miniguide to the Evoker [Archive]

LudicSavant

2020-03-10, 12:21 PM

Ooooh, mini-guide! :smallsmile:

Going over the low level spell ratings (might comment on more if I find time, but this took long enough), some things I'd add as an optimizer who's played quite a lot of Evoker and Hexblade/Evoker:

- Of course, with buffs like Hexblade's Curse and Empowered Evocation, you already know that Magic Missile "shines like the surface of the sun." But it's also one of the best single target attack spells in an L1 or L2 slot without any buffs at all.

Without any particular buffs, Magic Missile is mathematically better than Scorching Ray when cast in a level 2 slot if enemies have even moderate AC (around 14 AC, depending on your Int), in addition to having a much better damage type, etc.

Magic Missile average damage regardless of AC: 14
Scorching Ray from a tier 1 Evoker with 16 Int vs AC 15: 12.6
Scorching Ray from a tier 1 Evoker with 16 Int vs AC 14: 13.65
Scorching Ray from a tier 1 Evoker with 16 Int vs AC 13: 14.7
(And yes, these figures are accounting for Scorching Ray being able to crit)

So in order for Scorching Ray to be better without buffs, even ignoring advantages like force damage, better bell curve, and being able to "downcast" with the prepared slots, Scorching Ray will only do more damage if the enemy has AC 13 or less. Or 14 when you have 18 Int.

It's easy to underestimate it, because many people's brains are just sorta inherently wired to notice how much extra damage they get on a hit more than they notice how much damage they risk on a miss (e.g. human intuitions are terrible at math).

- I think Chromatic Orb is just kinda pants. In addition to not being particularly mathematically competitive with its "all or nothing" attack roll, it costs 50gp, which isn't just an ignorable sum when you're at level 1. That money could go to upgrading someone's armor or buying an emergency healing potion for your familiar to hand out or something.

- Some level 1 AoEs are decently competitive with Shatter when upcast to level 2 AoEs, particularly if you're using the recommended Hexblade 1 dip (which is sufficient to make you safer at close range than many Fighters if you're playing your cards correctly).

The area is better than it might intuitively sound since cubes and cones don't follow the "has to cover 50% of a square to affect it" rule. That's only for spheres. (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/774037607097311232?lang=en)

Thunderwave will do 3d8 / con for half in a second level slot (like Shatter), plus the knockback (unlike Shatter) which I can usually find a way to translate into more damage (or other positioning advantages).

Burning Hands will do 4d6 / dex, which is slightly better damage than Shatter, uses a Dex save, and has a much better AoE than Snilloc's.

Both provide the advantage of being able to be "downcast" compared to Shatter, giving you extra flexibility for that prepared spell (you can only prepare so many).

The main disadvantage of each is range, but like I said that matters less when you're a Hexvoker.

- I think Warding Wind is a bit better than it was given credit for. Certainly not on a level with the likes of Snilloc's Snowball Swarm. Sometimes I'll prep it instead of something like Blur, since it has a 10x longer duration, gives Disadvantage to ranged attackers against you and allies, and can make the terrain juuust difficult enough to help kite melee attackers for you and your allies (meaning it can be used as a deterrent for both melee and ranged foes), comboing with other things to make creatures deaf and blind (which is a whole lot worse than just being blind), and has a bunch of situational effects like blowing away fog and wrecking a Bard's day (had that one in particular come up recently).

It's not for every situation / party composition (for example, it can occasionally ruin your own Bard's day), but it's something I'll see optimizers who wanna fight 6+ Deadlies a day with Tucker's Kobolds / OSR Gygaxian meat grinder style DMs actually prepare, unlike other spells you gave similar ratings.

- Snilloc's Snowball Swarm doesn't even deserve the already-low purple rating. Contrast casting Ice Knife in an L2 slot: 3d6/Dex damage, 1d10 attack on top of that, and a larger area (since it measures 5 feet from the edges of a creature's space, rather than 5 feet from a single point). And I'm not really a fan of Ice Knife.

Deathtongue

2020-03-10, 12:39 PM

The thing about Empowered Evocation + Hexblade's Curse + Magic Missile is that I've had really spotty luck getting DMs to agree to that interpretation. I play AL, a lot of homebrew face-to-face games, and Roll 20 and that interpretation is accepted in about a third of the tables. For contrast, allowing a Hexblade's Curse double-tap on Melf's Minute Meteors was allowed by almost every table I've been at. Even the ones that read Sage's Advice tend to go lol no. I honestly can't recommend for people go down that route, because getting the 'filthy rules lawyer powergamer' tag isn't worth it.

If your DM does allow it, though, it's an OMG good combination.

I rated Shatter higher than I perhaps should because a party-safe AoE, even at the pitiful radius of 10', you can use at 60' at level 3-4 is no joke. Prior to Xanathar's, I have clean-swept T1 encounters with it before; I don't know if I could've do so if I had to wait another round get up closer. Just completely wrecking a 6-8 man team of orcs or skellies is worth the price of admission. Of course, once Dragon's Breath came out I've never used it. Owl + Dragon's Breath + Fire Bolt is just too good.

In hindsight, Warding Wind was surprisingly good in Against the Giants. Stone and Fire Giants getting a big nerf to one of their most dangerous aspects (i.e. having a good chance of winning a ranged damage race unless you're like Sorlocks and Sharpshooter Samurais). I'll bump it up a bit; it's one of those spells that are better at higher level than lower level, like Dispel Magic.

Ice Knife is selection bias. I see so many new players prepare it that I think it's better than it is. Definitely should be lower.

MaxWilson

2020-03-10, 12:51 PM

The area is better than it might intuitively sound since cubes and cones don't follow the "has to cover 50% of a square to affect it" rule. That's only for spheres. (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/774037607097311232?lang=en)

Nothing against you, LudicSavant, but

The only thing more annoying than a rules lawyer is a rules lawyer with a corporate platform. Why is Crawford pushing these legalistic rulings? DMG is DM guidance anyway, DMs are supposed to do something reasonable. DMs are not supposed to slavishly stick to the text of the DMG for all of their rulings.

The principle behind the DMG guidance here is "when you need to fit a non-grid-aligned AoE to a grid, looking at coverage is a reasonable way to do it." That principle is equally reasonable for cones and cubes, not just spheres. It's not the only way to do things but it's reasonable.
Fortunately even Crawford figured out that he shouldn't be doing this, and demoted his tweets from official corporate communications back to publicly-voiced opinions.

It's not for every situation / party composition (for example, it can occasionally ruin your own Bard's day), but it's something I'll see optimizers who wanna fight 6+ Deadlies a day with Tucker's Kobolds / OSR Gygaxian meat grinder style DMs actually prepare, unlike other spells you gave similar ratings.

I like this way of thinking about usefulness.

The thing about Empowered Evocation + Hexblade's Curse + Magic Missile is that I've had really spotty luck getting DMs to agree to that interpretation. I play AL, a lot of homebrew face-to-face games, and Roll 20 and that interpretation is accepted in about a third of the tables.

Yeah, I saw that. I also saw that you've had a lot of DMs agree to allow Hex bonus damage on Magic Missile. The implication that some DMs allow Hex bonus damage (which is supposed to work only when an attack hits, excluding Magic Missile) but not Hexblade's Curse bonus damage (which is supposed to add to every damage roll, including Magic Missile)... that is interesting.

Deathtongue

2020-03-10, 12:57 PM

I need to bump up Create Bonfire up a notch in rating. ... actually, I don't even remember doing cantrips.

Why? Because I completely forgot that was one of the spells eligible for Readied Action double-tap cheese. Granted, it's a tactic that drops off later on in the game (since it breaks your concentration) but it is there and available, especially at lower level.

LudicSavant

2020-03-10, 01:06 PM

I like this way of thinking about usefulness.
That's why I use it :smallsmile:

Fortunately even Crawford figured out that he shouldn't be doing this, and demoted his tweets from official corporate communications back to publicly-voiced opinions. Indeed.

However, that particular line is also in the official compendium (and I think is clear in the books). I just can't conveniently link a single line from those sources like I can from the tweets. *Shrug*

The principle behind the DMG guidance here is "when you need to fit a non-grid-aligned AoE to a grid, looking at coverage is a reasonable way to do it." That principle is equally reasonable for cones and cubes, not just spheres. It's not the only way to do things but it's reasonable.

Actually, I think you can tell that it was intended for cubes to cover more squares than spheres in this way, because it also seems to be (roughly) accounted for in the "playing without a grid" AoE conversion rules in the DMG (where a 10-foot cube hits the same number of targets as a 10-foot radius sphere).

That and... the designers keep telling us this was intended. And it's in the official compendium. And it's consistent with the wording of the text in the rulebooks. So I see no reason to think that it's not supposed to be the case.

I think people just sort of assume that it'll work like older editions even when it doesn't (for example, cones aren't 90 degrees anymore).

Edit: For those who could give a fig about whether it's RAW or RAI or not, I also find this interpretation better from an RAF point of view, since in my experience players use a wider variety of attack spells when it is in effect, like actually bothering to use Lightning Bolt or Burning Hands or Cone of Cold sometimes. It also is slightly faster to run than figuring out if a cone is actually hitting 50% of a square. So not only do I think it's the rules as written and intended, I also think it's a better rule than the alternative... at least as long as we're not going to just rebalance all those spells.

Evaar

2020-03-10, 02:06 PM

Regarding Cone/Cube spaces, if you look at the maps illustrated in the tweet Crawford is responding to, I think they just look more like what the spell ought to do when every square touched is affected. You end up with some pretty weirdly shaped spell effects if you use the 50% coverage rules. And yeah I know the spell is still a cone regardless of what squares are actually impacted, but it just looks more intuitive to me the other way.

Anyhow, a note on the guide - it seems like the Dragonmark commentary is outdated. You reference Dragonmarked feats, but they've been subraces for a while now. I'm not sure the Aberrant Dragonmark feat still has the mechanics you describe, either. I don't have the book on hand, but what I recall is that it's now +1 Con, the bonus cantrip and level 1 spell, and then a roll to do random damage or gain THP. The Con and spells are handy, but the extra effect seems pretty lame. If your DM allows the variant, you might later get some epic boons out of it at the cost of your hit dice/max hit points. Some of the subrace options deserve commentary: Mark of Making, Mark of Detection, Mark of Passage, Mark of Scribing, Mark of Warding, Mark of Handling can all make at least serviceable wizards. Mark of Warding in particular opens up Dwarves as a viable option with a free Mage Armor to boot and access to Armor of Agathys. Mark of Passage gives a free misty step, 35 walking speed, and access to Pass Without Trace. Mark of Handling opens up Conjure Animals.

Naturally you can't cover every possible option ever written for D&D, but I do think the things in published books are more relevant than, say, UA options from years ago that never saw publication.

Master O'Laughs

2020-03-10, 02:21 PM

LudicSavant

2020-03-10, 02:29 PM

Didn't Xanathar's Guide to Everything also publish specific layouts for different shaped effects? Would that not hold preference over a tweet if it was subsequently published in an official book?

I believe it was on pg 86

Yeah. The rules on page 86 of Xanathar's Guide again emphasize that the default rule is...

If an area of effect is circular and covers at least half a square, it affects that square.

The rule's pretty clear, and reiterates Crawford, the Compendium, the PHB, and the DMG. There would be no reason for them to add the line "is circular" if it applied to all areas of effect. It would just say "if an area of effect covers at least half a square, it affects that square."

Edit Side note: some folks who just skim through XGtE get confused because they see the pictures on page 87 for the token variant, but don't read where it says that that's a variant, or where it says that said variant does not faithfully represent the shape of the AoE, or notice that the shapes for the variant look nothing like the descriptions in the PHB or DMG.

Deathtongue

2020-03-10, 04:21 PM

Evaar: Damn, I knew it was too good to be true. I probably should've learned my lesson from the last time I tried to include UA material in the Bladesinger guide. Ah, well, it's being removed.

Evaar

2020-03-10, 07:37 PM

Some more notes:
Tiny Hut is rated twice, first as Leomund’s Tiny Hut and then just as Tiny Hut.
Polymorph starts by saying it has two great uses, and then only describes one use.
Prismatic Wall’s description just cuts out mid-sentence, it seems like you were just getting to another point and didn’t finish it. It also mentions using Reverse Gravity, but you don’t discuss Reverse Gravity in the level 7 spells and since you’re presumably recommending taking it, I think that was an oversight.

Deathtongue

2020-03-11, 03:05 PM

Deathtongue

2020-03-22, 07:38 AM

Although the document is already too long for a mini-guide, I'm strongly thinking of making a magical item section.

I played an Evoker to level 16 in AL (Tier 4 play is just too hard to organize, so that's the stopping point for all of my characters) and one thing I can say is that the additional of magical items greatly increases your effectiveness as an Evoker. I traded a Flametongue shortsword for a Wand of Fireballs at level 6, upgraded to a Staff of the Magi in T3 (this was a season ago) and I just had way too much power. I think the limiting factor on the Evoker's power is spell slots -- when you're limited to the PHB default your rhythm is still dictated by the PHB and adventure design. You have by far the best Fireballs but you're not throwing out Fireballs every round.

Now, this applies to every other wizard subclass as well, but in addition to being gated by spell slots they're ALSO gated by the concentration mechanic. I also played an Illusionist and a Bladesinger to T4 (I love wizards, as you can tell) and while juicy items like the Staff of Power and Tome of the Stilled Tongue were very appreciated I still couldn't just go nuts. Having an extra Wall of Force or an extra Globe of Invulnerability was still liquid awesome, but I couldn't just go nuts with it. But if your limiting factor is the action economy, party composition, and spell slots (as it tends to be for Evokers), uncapping the spell slots and party composition just makes things go wild.

The game really changes in a huge way once you grab one of the damage staves/wands to increase your endurance. Level 6 onwards, I opened with a Minute Meteor/Storm Sphere/Dawn combo and a Wand of Fireballs and my damage output was disgusting. And it only snowballed from there. If Rare+ magical items drop in your game, I'd go as far as to say that Evokers are the best wizard subclass unless your DM lets you abuse Malleable Illusions/Illusory Reality.

LudicSavant

2020-03-26, 05:01 AM

this feature actually kind of sucks! The problem is that at level 10, there's no reason to be using anything other than Evocation cantrips UNLESS you're going for the additional effect. And the best Evocation cantrips (Shocking Grasp, Ray of Frost, Fire Bolt) require attack rolls.

I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that Potent Toll the Dead is flat out inferior to Empowered Fire Bolt. I feel like you might have counted non-Evocation cantrips out of the race too quickly, and underrated the feature in general.

Let me show you what I mean:

At level 1-9, we can probably already agree that TtD is as good or better than Fire Bolt.
At level 10, Fire Bolt has its best case scenario, but it lasts for only one level. Or zero levels if you're using the recommended 1 level Hexblade dip.
At level 11-16, it's 3d10+5 (21.5) vs 3d12 (19.5), a 2 point difference... except that one is "missed attack roll negates" and the other is "save for half."
At level 17-20, it's 4d10+5 (27) vs 4d12 (26), a 1 point difference... except that one is "missed attack roll negates" and the other is "save for half."

How valuable the Save for Half thing is depends on your save DC and the save bonus of your enemy, but generally speaking it's a fairly decent chunk. Frequently worth more DPR than a +5 on its own in tier 3 and 4 (because the more dice you're rolling, the more damage you're risking on a miss), in addition to the tactical value of having a guaranteed damage ping.

TtD also has a superior damage type, ignores 1/2 and 3/4 cover, and doesn't have any penalties if someone engages you in melee range. Just about the only thing that Fire Bolt has going for it is that sometimes you want an attack roll instead of a Wisdom saving throw.

Then there's Create Bonfire, which scales into an At-Will Cloud-of-Daggers-ish ability that can combo very efficiently with a little teamwork.

For the sake of completeness, there's also Frostbite and Thunderclap, which scale with both EE and Potent. So does Lightning Lure, but for Potent to work with it you need to be within 5 feet. There's also the edge case of Boros Legionnaire / Sacred Flame.

It's only good for Acid Splash and even then only marginally.
I am curious how you came to this conclusion as well. Acid Splash isn't an Evocation spell, and it doesn't benefit from Potent any more than better spells (like TtD and CB) do.

kazaryu

2020-03-26, 06:05 AM

Link to the guide here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CR2AoDVco5rf_o1KmxH_NOPxTIiX6FA58N_prw8Qzww/)

This guide has been a long time coming. I organically raised a Warlock 1 / Evoker 16 in Adventurer's League during Seasons 6 and 7, then took a long break from May of last year until now with D&D. I know I've missed a couple of changes in the meta since then, such as Eberron and some Unearthed Arcana modules. But the guide reflects actual experience. I also took some pointers from my Bladesinger guide I wrote earlier (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O6vBhvie18hFDmnom5lMv3zTj1nYUkvC8UxH0ngZWXQ/). But Bladesinger was written with a full-stack perspective, since the ethos of the class required you to dig deeper into the game than most other wizards. Evokers, for better or worse, don't have as many nuances as Bladesingers. In fact an observation I repeatedly had when making this guide was 'this effects interacts with the Evoker like it does for the Bladesinger, but at a more shallow level'.

I eventually want to add sections for Contingency that are Evoker-flavored, uses for Wish and True Polymorph, and a magic item guide. But this thing is already more than 40 pages, time to release this baby.

A lot of DMs throw hissy fits about using Dispel Magic to get rid of common magical obstacles like a pillar of necrotic energy blasts. Read them the first sentence of the spell.

i get what you're saying, however. reading the actual spell itself

Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends.

so while yes, you can *target* a magical effect. the spell only RAW removes spells affecting that magical effect.

of course there's a discussion to be had about interpretation and intentions of dispel magic. but purely by RaW dispel doesn't remove non-spell magical effects
existing examples of this include: the abjurers ward, enchanter's hypnotic gaze, diviner's third eye, transmuter's stone.

once again, speaking only about RaW, its perfectly possible to have a magical barrier that is not a spell. and thus isn't affected by dispel magic.

Deathtongue

2020-03-26, 07:05 AM

How valuable the Save for Half thing is depends on your save DC and the save bonus of your enemy, but generally speaking it's a fairly decent chunk. Frequently worth more DPR than a +5 on its own in tier 3 and 4 (because the more dice you're rolling, the more damage you're risking on a miss), in addition to the tactical value of having a guaranteed damage ping.
Here's the thing: there's not much value in having a guaranteed value ping of 3d12/2, or about 10 damage. Even it's most obvious use (force an enemy caster to make a concentration check) is pretty weaksauce. If what you want is sustainable damage, it doesn't provide that much more utility than Fire Bolt. Assuming you don't regularly have advantage or some other attack roll boost (like Bless or Wand of the War Mage), levels 6 - 11 you will land save cantrips slightly more often than attack rolls. But the marginal utility is still small.

It's not completely useless, especially if you do long workdays in cramped quarters (like Dead in Thay), but even at its best it's still underwhelming. Worst of all of the L6 Wizard subclass features except for maybe the War Mage's.

Then there's Create Bonfire, which scales into an At-Will Cloud-of-Daggers-ish ability that can combo very efficiently with a little teamwork.I don't think the combo is anything approaching efficient in 5E D&D. Sure, in 4E D&D where everyone and their mother had forced movement effects it would've been godly. But forced movement is much more difficult to get in 5E D&D unless you're willing to sacrifice attacks. And note that you need to have TWO instances of forced movement, to push the character in and then out of the Create Bonfire, because 5E D&D doesn't have slides. This makes tactics like Shield Master unreliable. Grappling could also work, but I'm positive that 95% of characters who have a good Strength score either go sword-and-board, two-weapon fighting, or two-handed weapon so it's a non-starter unless they have an unusual build like a Grapple Bard. I think the only two commonly-built characters who can reliably combo from this tactic are Eldritch Blast Warlocks and Open Hand Monks.

LudicSavant

2020-03-26, 07:11 AM

I can't help but notice that you didn't reply to the bulk of the post and only addressed the part that's just a footnote.

If what you want is sustainable damage, it doesn't provide that much more utility than Fire Bolt.

"Not much more than Fire Bolt" is still more than Fire Bolt.

Your claim in the guide is that there's no reason to use Toll the Dead over Fire Bolt, and that Potent Cantrip is only useful for Acid Splash. This just isn't true.

Deathtongue

2020-03-26, 07:19 AM

I can't help but notice that you didn't reply to the bulk of the post and only addressed the part that's just a footnote.

If what you want is sustainable damage, it doesn't provide that much more utility than Fire Bolt.
Look, I ignored your analysis because it's irrelevant to my argument: that is, the marginal utility is small. You can nitpick about a 1-2 point DPR advantage, but:

1) Wizards don't get that many cantrips and you have good reasons not to pick more than 1 or 2 damage cantrips. Especially because:
2) As the game goes on, you will use cantrips and thus this feature less and less often. It's not a stable DPR advantage you can count on like a fighting style, it's an infrequently-used ribbon you add on unless you're doing something like casting a bonus action spell or trying to conserve spell slots. That's why I rated it so low.

LudicSavant

2020-03-26, 07:33 AM

Look, I ignored your analysis because it's irrelevant to my argument

What you argued in the guide (and that my post was addressing) is that Acid Splash is the only thing it's good with, and that there's no point in using things like TtD compared to things like Fire Bolt. Both of these claims are quite false (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24419007&postcount=17). You could improve the guide by revising these sections.

The problem is that at level 10, there's no reason to be using anything other than Evocation cantrips UNLESS you're going for the additional effect. And the best Evocation cantrips (Shocking Grasp, Ray of Frost, Fire Bolt) require attack rolls.

It's only good for Acid Splash and even then only marginally.

Corran

2020-03-26, 12:57 PM

(taken from the guide)
Sculpt Spell
...such as dropping a Dawn or Sickening Radiance right in the middle of the battlefield and laughing.

Note that a very technical reading of the spell makes it so that you can’t protect yourself from the AoE, just your allies. Most DMs I’ve played with don’t hold me to this, but even if they do it doesn’t hurt you too much.
(emphasis added)
That's how I would run it, also how I would use it on my own if playing an evoker. Catching yourself inside the blast of a fireball might not be a huge deal (absorb elements, fire shield, etc) if the cast is really worth it, but when it comes to using (concentration) spells like sickening radiance or dawn (even more so if you are using overchannel (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?595445-Overchannel-is-either-too-good-or-not-good-enough-depending-on-interpretation&highlight=overchannel)), then being inside the blast ranges from pretty bad to unthinkable, and being out of the blast zone undermines how effective these spells are, considering that you provide a target (ie the evoker) outside the blast zone when there should be none for maximum gain. Of course, there are ways to go about solving this positioning issue, such as dimension door, or find greater steed (from an ally or from wish), or maybe rope trick, or maybe the best way would be to stay out and tank some of it (with non concentration spells like fire shield and armor of agathys trying to make up for losing targets from the AoE's radius), though I doubt that the last approach is really worth it. I am saying all this, because I am very hopeful that there must be some very effective ways to go about ''hiding'' your miniature in the scenario of say, an overchannel sickening radiance. And personally I'd like to see a section of the guide talking about this. In fact, I was hoping for such an analysis when I saw this thread. If you are thinking that you don't have enough experience with this because you might only be playing with a better version of sculpt spells for which what I am describing is a non issue, I would still want you to try and tackle it (again, if it interests you and you have the time for it, no pressure). Both cause I would appreciate your theorycrafting, and because addressing the issue could lead to getting some feedback from others as well. A section talking about what countermeasures an evoker might expect against their magic missile of doom, and what countermeasures the evoker can take in turn, would also be very appreciated.

LudicSavant

2020-03-26, 01:23 PM

That's how I would run it, also how I would use it on my own if playing an evoker. Same here.

Catching yourself inside the blast of a fireball might not be a huge deal (absorb elements, fire shield, etc) if the cast is really worth it, but when it comes to using (concentration) spells like sickening radiance or dawn (even more so if you are using overchannel (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?595445-Overchannel-is-either-too-good-or-not-good-enough-depending-on-interpretation&highlight=overchannel)), then being inside the blast ranges from pretty bad to unthinkable

Yeah. It makes a pretty significant tactical difference if you can put yourself inside that Sickening Radiance radius or not.

Corran

2020-03-27, 11:16 AM

Yeah. It makes a pretty significant tactical difference if you can put yourself inside that Sickening Radiance radius or not.
Then everything I said applies to you too Ludic.:smallsmile:
If you are still putting things on your to do list of course.

MaxWilson

2020-03-27, 12:52 PM

That's how I would run it, also how I would use it on my own if playing an evoker. Catching yourself inside the blast of a fireball might not be a huge deal (absorb elements, fire shield, etc) if the cast is really worth it, but when it comes to using (concentration) spells like sickening radiance or dawn (even more so if you are using overchannel (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?595445-Overchannel-is-either-too-good-or-not-good-enough-depending-on-interpretation&highlight=overchannel)), then being inside the blast ranges from pretty bad to unthinkable, and being out of the blast zone undermines how effective these spells are, considering that you provide a target (ie the evoker) outside the blast zone when there should be none for maximum gain. Of course, there are ways to go about solving this positioning issue, such as dimension door, or find greater steed (from an ally or from wish), or maybe rope trick, or maybe the best way would be to stay out and tank some of it (with non concentration spells like fire shield and armor of agathys trying to make up for losing targets from the AoE's radius), though I doubt that the last approach is really worth it. I am saying all this, because I am very hopeful that there must be some very effective ways to go about ''hiding'' your miniature in the scenario of say, an overchannel sickening radiance. And personally I'd like to see a section of the guide talking about this. In fact, I was hoping for such an analysis when I saw this thread. If you are thinking that you don't have enough experience with this because you might only be playing with a better version of sculpt spells for which what I am describing is a non issue, I would still want you to try and tackle it (again, if it interests you and you have the time for it, no pressure). Both cause I would appreciate your theorycrafting, and because addressing the issue could lead to getting some feedback from others as well. A section talking about what countermeasures an evoker might expect against their magic missile of doom, and what countermeasures the evoker can take in turn, would also be very appreciated.

Can you clarify the point about "hiding your miniature"? Maybe in general clarify what you are looking for besides ways to get out of the blast zone?

Then everything I said applies to you too Ludic.:smallsmile:
If you are still putting things on your to do list of course.

Point of order: LudicSavant essentially means "one who is learned about games." "Ludic" by itself just means "of or relating to games." If you're going to give LudicSavant a nickname it should probably be Savant instead of Ludic, otherwise it won't make sense. : )

LudicSavant

2020-03-27, 01:53 PM

If you are still putting things on your to do list of course.

My to-do list is too loooong T_T

But I can at least give abbreviated answers:

A section talking about what countermeasures an evoker might expect against their magic missile of doom, and what countermeasures the evoker can take in turn, would also be very appreciated.

Whenever people had a lot of countermeasures for my magic missiles of doom as a Hexvoker, I generally just used one of my other dozen wonderful Wizard tricks that I happened to have prepared at the time. That's the thing about Hexvokers, they're basically the complete opposite of one trick ponies.

There's a post I made a while back that basically elaborates on my philosophy... here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=23667136&postcount=251).

That said, here's some examples of countermeasures to Magic Missiles of Doom and some ways to deal with them (assume each of these also includes "or just use a different spell combo that doesn't involve Magic Missile because you can save your hammer for when you have nails since you own an entire tool shed"):
- Magical Darkness: Just carry around an upcast Continual Flame item. You don't need any action, you can just walk into the Magical Darkness and it's gone.
- Invisibility: Sickening Radiance is great for you in general due to Sculpt tactics, but also paints a target on pesky invisible foes for the benefit of not only you, but all your allies. See Invisibility is a cheap, Concentrationless, long duration precast at higher tiers when you don't care about your 2nd level slots much.
- The Shield spell: You can counterspell it. They can't counterspell your counterspell, because they just blew their reaction.
- Globe of Invulnerability: This one's an effective defense, but only if Team Monster isn't blowing too much of their action economy to do it (depends on how many enemies there are, etc). It can be counterspelled or dispelled. It also requires Concentration, so you can break that.

MaxWilson

2020-03-27, 02:22 PM

- Globe of Invulnerability: This one's an effective defense, but only if Team Monster isn't blowing too much of their action economy to do it (depends on how many enemies there are, etc). It can be counterspelled or dispelled. It also requires Concentration, so you can break that.

It also is immobile so another PC could potentially drag them out, or you could Telekinesis them out if you have it. Or just encase the enemy in a Wall of Force and ignore them until Globe of Invulnerability expires. Depends on situation.

On phone, please forgive typos.

Deathtongue

2020-03-27, 08:21 PM

What you argued in the guide (and that my post was addressing) is that Acid Splash is the only thing it's good with,

You're right, I was being way too nice in the guide. I'll just say it's a good-for-nothing ability that pretends like it's doing something, like Ice Knife.

and that there's no point in using things like TtD compared to things like Fire Bolt. Both of these claims are quite false (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24419007&postcount=17). You could improve the guide by revising these sections.

Look, there is a point in using Toll the Dead over Fire Bolt, even when you don't need the damage. A lot of monsters, especially mid-tier monsters, have much lower WIS saves than AC values. But even so, the ability has such low marginal utility compared to what you were already doing. It doesn't enable new tactics. It doesn't even kill monsters all that much faster. CR5+ enemies have 80 hitpoints or more, doing 6.5 extra damage to a single enemy is chaff. It becomes increasingly useless as the game goes on due to monsters being lopsidedly good at WIS and CON saving throws and you having less things to do with a cantrip.

If you're building your character to use that feature, you're screwing your character up. A purple rating is appropriate. I might even rate it red, since it encourages you to make suboptimal decisions.

Deathtongue

2020-03-27, 08:26 PM

A section talking about what countermeasures an evoker might expect against their magic missile of doom, and what countermeasures the evoker can take in turn, would also be very appreciated.I've been over this before. And I will pretend that the magic missile of doom doesn't exist.

I'm sorry, but I will not humor a tactic, especially one with an unimaginative justification like 'but, Jeremy Crawford said', that has a high probability of getting someone labeled as a rules-lawyer munchkin. You deserve better than that. Most tables I played at wouldn't allow this, even those who actually read Sage Advise, and for good reason. Just pretend that a 3rd-level Magic Missile with Empowered Evocation at INT 20 does 5d4+10 damage and things will be fine.

LudicSavant

2020-03-27, 09:08 PM

If you're building your character to use that feature, you're screwing your character up. A purple rating is appropriate. I might even rate it red, since it encourages you to make suboptimal decisions.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. What "suboptimal decision" do you think it's encouraging? Taking Toll the Dead over Fire Bolt or Acid Splash? That's not a suboptimal decision at all, as the math demonstrates.

If anything, it seems like you're doing precisely the thing you're concerned about, except with EE: You appear to be foregoing demonstrably better cantrip options just because they don't work with Empowered Evocation.

A section talking about what countermeasures an evoker might expect against their magic missile of doom, and what countermeasures the evoker can take in turn, would also be very appreciated.I've been over this before. And I will pretend that the magic missile of doom doesn't exist.

I'm sorry, but I will not humor a tactic, especially one with an unimaginative justification like 'but, Jeremy Crawford said'that has a high probability of getting someone labeled as a rules-lawyer munchkin.

Apologies if I'm misreading the tone here but it seems needlessly hostile, especially since you seem to be humoring something that's completely against the rules (Hex + Magic Missile) but not something that is supported by the rules.

It's an unfair representation of the case to say that people think it works that way just "because JC said" or because they're "unimaginative." Many people already thought it worked that way because the PHB said, have thought so since the PHB was released, and at some point someone asked JC if they were reading it right, and he confirmed the pre-existing expectation matched his.

The implication that some DMs allow Hex bonus damage (which is supposed to work only when an attack hits, excluding Magic Missile) but not Hexblade's Curse bonus damage (which is supposed to add to every damage roll, including Magic Missile)... that is interesting.

Yeah, that seems pretty strange to me.

Someone nerfing the MM combo I can certainly understand. The idea that Hex+MM is somehow more valid just seems bizarre to me.

Corran

2020-03-28, 06:57 AM

Can you clarify the point about "hiding your miniature"? Maybe in general clarify what you are looking for besides ways to get out of the blast zone?
The idea is that our evoker will be using something like sickening radiance and our allies will aim to fight inside that area. If the enemies engage in melee it will be good because they'll take damage (assuming every ally of ours is relatively tanky to be able to stay long enough inside that area; less pressure on that if we are using overchannel), and if the enemies don't engage in melee it will be beneficial because we assume that the pc's have the upper hand in ranged combat. Obviously this will not work for every encounter, and it requires some degree of optimization (for example, allies with warlock dips are much preferable to barbarians), and there are ways for it to backfire (eg if the enemies can grapple or throw nasty AoE's). But before anything else, it is our own evoker that sabotages the plan here, as the idea is to not provide targets outside our spell's AoE, and we can't have our evoker inside it in the first place. So that's why I was trying to think of a way to make the evoker not targetable, at the very least by melee attacks. And ideally I would like to have a way that would work even when fighting in very tight spaces too, cause that could be another good opportunity for throwing down a sickening radiance.

Point of order: LudicSavant essentially means "one who is learned about games." "Ludic" by itself just means "of or relating to games." If you're going to give LudicSavant a nickname it should probably be Savant instead of Ludic, otherwise it won't make sense. : )
Ah, I see. In my mind, ''LudicSavant'' was like saying ''NickSavant'', because ''Ludic'' sounds like an eastern European name to me.

I've been over this before. And I will pretend that the magic missile of doom doesn't exist.
Fair enough. I read the guide (haven't gone into the spells yet) when it first came out, and I didn't remember that.

MaxWilson

2020-03-28, 08:03 AM

IMO Potent Cantrip + Thunderclap is actually pretty good against mobs, especially for an armored wizard (like LudicSavant's Nuclear Wizard) who can afford to mix it up in melee if he wants to. Sometimes it's just fun to toss on a Blur spell and detonate 3d6+INT damage on four or five orcs per round, and it's nice not to have to worry about some of them potentially making their saves and getting off scott-free, significantly increasing how long it takes to kill them all. It becomes sort of a small, fun, free mini-Fireball to which your allies BTW are still immune. Furthermore LudicSavant is right about Toll the Dead: Potent Cantrip does make it do more damage than Fire Bolt in many cases.

Potent Cantrip is definitely good for something besides Acid Splash.

I'm not a huge fan of Create Bonfire though even with Potent Cantrip because it has such a small AoE and it takes concentration.

The idea is that our evoker will be using something like sickening radiance and our allies will aim to fight inside that area. If the enemies engage in melee it will be good because they'll take damage (assuming every ally of ours is relatively tanky to be able to stay long enough inside that area; less pressure on that if we are using overchannel), and if the enemies don't engage in melee it will be beneficial because we assume that the pc's have the upper hand in ranged combat. Obviously this will not work for every encounter, and it requires some degree of optimization (for example, allies with warlock dips are much preferable to barbarians), and there are ways for it to backfire (eg if the enemies can grapple or throw nasty AoE's). But before anything else, it is our own evoker that sabotages the plan here, as the idea is to not provide targets outside our spell's AoE, and we can't have our evoker inside it in the first place. So that's why I was trying to think of a way to make the evoker not targetable, at the very least by melee attacks. And ideally I would like to have a way that would work even when fighting in very tight spaces too, cause that could be another good opportunity for throwing down a sickening radiance.

Hmmm. The thing that confused me is that this goal here (avoiding melee attacks) doesn't really have anything at all to do with Sculpt Spells. Even if Sculpt Spells does protect the caster, you still need a way to avoid being attacked in melee, or else you risk losing concentration. All Sculpt Spells does is add another layer of deterrence, "if you charge up to me you risk taking radiant damage and exhaustion". The only way to definitely, for sure avoid melee attacks is what you already said--not to be there--but I think safety is not what you're really looking for--I think your real goal is probably to force melee enemies into a position where they voluntarily run into the Sickening Radiance for lack of a better option (instead of chasing after a fleeing spellcaster).

So the question then becomes, how to make that unprofitable for them, and force them to stay in the Sickening Radiance AoE for as long as possible while keeping yourself as safe as possible? The ideas that come to mind are:

(1) First and foremost, positioning. Your goal is to be standing somewhere where you're not in the Sickening Radiance, but anyone who could attack you in melee is. Move to a corner or behind a chokepoint blocked by another PC, before casting Sickening Radiance. With any luck there may be difficult terrain or previously-laid caltrops or other PCs threatening melee attacks to make charging up to you an even more difficult proposition, but the Sickening Radiance itself adds another layer of deterrence.

If you can't arrange this, then at least make it so that anyone who wants to attack you this turn has to run through the Sickening Radiance in order to get to you.

(2) Poor man's alternative to positioning: strong Con saves. If you play a Yuan-ti Evoker with Resilient (Con), for example, your odds of not taking damage from your own spell are pretty decent, and your odds of not losing concentration are also pretty decent. You can drop Sickening Radiance on your position with at least high probability that you won't break your own concentration by failing your own save against it.

Furthermore, even with the worst Concentration saves in the world, at least you've got one full round before Sickening Radiance starts to affect you: the spell will hit you at the beginning of your next turn.

(3) If you play a Goblin Evoker trained in Stealth, then after you cast Sickening Radiance you can Hide.

(4) You can become an unattractive target in all the usual ways: have high AC, be Dodging, someone casts a Sanctuary spell on you, an Arcane Archer protects you with a Beguiling Arrow, etc.

Evaar

2020-03-28, 10:09 AM

I've been over this before. And I will pretend that the magic missile of doom doesn't exist.

I'm sorry, but I will not humor a tactic, especially one with an unimaginative justification like 'but, Jeremy Crawford said', that has a high probability of getting someone labeled as a rules-lawyer munchkin. You deserve better than that. Most tables I played at wouldn't allow this, even those who actually read Sage Advise, and for good reason. Just pretend that a 3rd-level Magic Missile with Empowered Evocation at INT 20 does 5d4+10 damage and things will be fine.

I think it’s fine to describe in your guide why you think most DMs will houserule the MMOD out of existence and even to warn against using it too much due to its spotlight stealing potential.

But it’s not accurate to portray it as a completely unreasonable interpretation of the rules without Crawford’s say so. I posted about this in another thread where people were disputing its legality.

Alright, let's back up.

Magic Missile being one damage roll for all darts wasn't in question until someone said there was an errata that changed it. The errata was posted and it, in fact, does not change anything about how Magic Missile works. Then the individual made a post about how they run things at their table, which isn't really relevant, so I pointed out that it wasn't relevant and that the rule about Magic Missile being one damage roll stands.

Now people are saying Crawford's clarification of RAW doesn't apply to Magic Missile, even though he is specifically addressing Magic Missile, because the rule he cites mentions Fireball and Flame Strike.

So here's the rule:

Note how it doesn't say "it deals damage in an area." It says "deals damage to more than one target at the same time." Magic Missile explicitly meets that definition, as the spell states "The darts all strike simultaneously, and you can direct them to hit one creature or several." The rule gives two example spells, but just because you can point out ways those spells are different from Magic Missile doesn't change the rule - similarly, the rule also doesn't only apply to spells that deal fire damage, even though both of the example spells deal fire damage.

So intuitively you might think it shouldn't be that way, and you don't want to rule it that way. You might even say there's some ambiguity, because Nuclear Wizard focuses all the missiles on one target so technically it's not striking more than one target, so in that specific scenario it doesn't work, even though Crawford has explicitly said it does. That's fine, it's your game, your table. But in threads like this one, it's really only relevant to discuss RAW and, where RAW is ambiguous, to go for the most authoritative ruling we can get. Because it's kind of impossible and pointless to make and share builds assuming a bunch of house rules. Unless you're the Sorcerer King, I suppose.

By RAW, Nuclear Wizard works.

Corran

2020-03-28, 10:33 AM

I think your real goal is probably to force melee enemies into a position where they voluntarily run into the Sickening Radiance for lack of a better option (instead of chasing after a fleeing spellcaster).
Exactly.

(1) First and foremost, positioning. Your goal is to be standing somewhere where you're not in the Sickening Radiance, but anyone who could attack you in melee is. Move to a corner or behind a chokepoint blocked by another PC, before casting Sickening Radiance. With any luck there may be difficult terrain or previously-laid caltrops or other PCs threatening melee attacks to make charging up to you an even more difficult proposition, but the Sickening Radiance itself adds another layer of deterrence.
This was my first thought too. Well, the choke point really, but I get that there are ways to improve on it (like the caltrops you mentioned). I can see this working well in most dungeons. We are already thinking under the assumption that the group of pc's has a strong collective ranged attack, so when there is no reason to press the attack (rush before the hostages get executed, or before the villain flees with the McGuffin, or before reinforcements arrive etc), we could always try to lure enemies back to this certain part of the dungeon where it would be suitable to use this plan (the alternative I see being that we could engage in a war of attrition, and again that's profitable because I am assuming that pc's are capable of regenerating health much faster than several enemies). Basically, I am interested to see how well I could make it work without relying on a choke point, cause if I've got the choke point I might not even have to rely on such a spell. Well, maybe for reducing the risk and consequently expediting the fight.

If you can't arrange this, then at least make it so that anyone who wants to attack you this turn has to run through the Sickening Radiance in order to get to you.
I am thinking more along the lines that if I can't prevent enemies from attacking me, or at the very least if I cannot prevent them from attacking me from inside my AoE, then I should use something else instead. Though perhaps I am setting a higher bar than I should here, and that may be because I don't value sickening radiance and dawn that much otherwise (and I could be wrong about that). I can't tell though if you are mentioning this for the sake of completion. Personally, I am still trying to figure out if I can translate sculpt SR/dawn and overchannel into an effective combat strategy that is not too niche, so that I include one of these spells in my list as an evoker in the first place. And not to make sure I get the best out of them after I have already included them.

(2) Poor man's alternative to positioning: strong Con saves. If you play a Yuan-ti Evoker with Resilient (Con), for example, your odds of not taking damage from your own spell are pretty decent, and your odds of not losing concentration are also pretty decent. You can drop Sickening Radiance on your position with at least high probability that you won't break your own concentration by failing your own save against it.

Furthermore, even with the worst Concentration saves in the world, at least you've got one full round before Sickening Radiance starts to affect you: the spell will hit you at the beginning of your next turn.
I had to check sickening radiance again, cause I thought it deals half damage on a failed save (also, I am assuming that exhaustion happens only after a failed save, which may be ambiguous). Now I see why dawn might justify a higher level slot, cause the movement alone (considering the change in timing for the saves) didn't cut it for me before. Yes, the odds are not bad. Btw, this is probably the idea I was looking for. How important do you think having an ally with access to warding bond would be in that case?

(3) If you play a Goblin Evoker trained in Stealth, then after you cast Sickening Radiance you can Hide.
I also like this a lot. Would you bother with the skulker feat?
Being around to throw a dispel magic (or better yet, a counterspell that wont get countered) should I need to (if for example an enemy casts their own AoE to force my allies out of SR's AoE) could be very useful.

(4) You can become an unattractive target in all the usual ways: have high AC, be Dodging, someone casts a Sanctuary spell on you, an Arcane Archer protects you with a Beguiling Arrow, etc.
Yes, anything that adds up will be useful. In the case of the goblin if stealth fails, in the case of the yuan-ti (who might stay inside their own AoE) so that we reduce the risk of losing concentration and dropping unconscious.

TheUser

2020-03-28, 11:00 AM

You're missing the Dawn spell in your level 5 spells breakdown; big oof from me dawg.

Apart from that this is great; entirely endorsed and gets my seal of approval.

HappyDaze

2020-03-28, 11:40 AM

I've enjoyed using Potent Cantrip with acid splash and thunderclap (with Sculpt Spell allowing one ally a free out from thunerclap) on a hobgoblin evocation school wizard that gets in close thanks to medium armor and a shield (had 13 Dex, Moderately Armored gained me a lot here).

MaxWilson

2020-03-28, 01:07 PM

Exactly.

This was my first thought too. Well, the choke point really, but I get that there are ways to improve on it (like the caltrops you mentioned). I can see this working well in most dungeons. We are already thinking under the assumption that the group of pc's has a strong collective ranged attack, so when there is no reason to press the attack (rush before the hostages get executed, or before the villain flees with the McGuffin, or before reinforcements arrive etc), we could always try to lure enemies back to this certain part of the dungeon where it would be suitable to use this plan (the alternative I see being that we could engage in a war of attrition, and again that's profitable because I am assuming that pc's are capable of regenerating health much faster than several enemies). Basically, I am interested to see how well I could make it work without relying on a choke point, cause if I've got the choke point I might not even have to rely on such a spell. Well, maybe for reducing the risk and consequently expediting the fight.

I am thinking more along the lines that if I can't prevent enemies from attacking me, or at the very least if I cannot prevent them from attacking me from inside my AoE, then I should use something else instead. Though perhaps I am setting a higher bar than I should here, and that may be because I don't value sickening radiance and dawn that much otherwise (and I could be wrong about that). I can't tell though if you are mentioning this for the sake of completion. Personally, I am still trying to figure out if I can translate sculpt SR/dawn and overchannel into an effective combat strategy that is not too niche, so that I include one of these spells in my list as an evoker in the first place. And not to make sure I get the best out of them after I have already included them.

I had to check sickening radiance again, cause I thought it deals half damage on a failed save (also, I am assuming that exhaustion happens only after a failed save, which may be ambiguous). Now I see why dawn might justify a higher level slot, cause the movement alone (considering the change in timing for the saves) didn't cut it for me before. Yes, the odds are not bad. Btw, this is probably the idea I was looking for. How important do you think having an ally with access to warding bond would be in that case?

I also like this a lot. Would you bother with the skulker feat?
Being around to throw a dispel magic (or better yet, a counterspell that wont get countered) should I need to (if for example an enemy casts their own AoE to force my allies out of SR's AoE) could be very useful.

Yes, anything that adds up will be useful. In the case of the goblin if stealth fails, in the case of the yuan-ti (who might stay inside their own AoE) so that we reduce the risk of losing concentration and dropping unconscious.

As a Yuan-ti Resilient (Con) Evoker using Overchanneled Sickening Radiance: access to Warding Bond might be the difference between blowing a DC 20 concentration save and succeeding on a DC 10 one. Otherwise I'm relying almost purely on my ability to beat my own spell save Con DC. I think it would be helpful but not essential, especially if I had Bless--wouldn't stop me from trying the tactic if I didn't have Warding Bond, but if someone in the party could pre-cast Warding Bond it would be a good investment in spell slots and I would be dumb not to request it.

As a Goblin Evoker, would I take Skulker? Yes. There are DMs who run games for which Skulker wouldn't be valuable, but I probably wouldn't want to play a goblin in those games in the first place. Skulker takes everything fun about being a goblin and turns it up to 11. Not only would I abuse Skulker hiding in conjunction with Sickening Radiance, I'd abuse it constantly on every turn when my bonus action isn't busy with e.g. Hexblade's Curse. Normally the worry you have with Skulker is "won't they just target the rest of the party?" but Sculpt Spells (Sickening Radiance) takes care of that. (There are other ways to take care of it too including being way in front of the party as their stalking horse.)

But there are downsides to Goblin too, notably that if you roll an even-numbered Int like 15, taking Goblin + Skulker puts you still at 17 when a variant human Evoker would be at Int 20 (plus a feat). At level 11 when the human gets access to Empowered Evocation + Hexblade's Curse Magic Missile V for 7 x (d4+9) = 80 auto-damage, you're only doing 7 x (d4+7) = 66 damage, and your spells like Sickening Radiance are correspondingly weaker. Would that stop me? No. I'd rather have a versatile, fun no-concentration at-will ability from level 1 onwards than have a temporary damage advantage. But I'd still feel better about playing a goblin if I had rolled an even Int, hopefully at least Int 16, instead of an odd one.

Note that I'd be taking advantage of other fun goblin abilities too, like zipping into the middle of a clump of bad guys to cast Potent Sculpted (Empowered?) Thunderclap before bonus action Disengaging back out (or Hiding if it's dark, and then moving away because being hidden also protects you from opportunity attacks).

Edit: comment on including Sickening Radiance in your combat list in the first place. I think you definitely want to do this because lots of creatures are resistant or immune to fire damage. I would hate to rely on something like Fireball to fight off a bunch of Shadows or Specters, for example, but Sickening Radiance does the trick nicely, even if they try to strafe you (hiding on the other side of walls when it's your turn). Normally I'd want at least one good non-fire-based AoE on a wizard PC for this reason, and Evard's Black Tentacles and Sickening Radiance would both be good candidates, but for an Evoker Sickening Radiance is clearly preferable. Fireball is still cheaper, higher-damage, and non-concentration of course.

Edit2: maybe it's obvious but as a goblin I'd also learn Longstrider because Nimble Escape + higher movement is another way to buy time for Sickening Radiance to kill, especially against monsters with blindsight, like Shambling Mounds and Blights, which Skulker won't help with. Of course you may not need it because Shambling Mounds and non-Needle Blights are already slow--depends on the situation.

Edit3: another fun thing for a Goblin Skulker to do when not throwing spells, is to throw nets/lassos. You have advantage for being hidden before you throw. You *don't* have disadvantage for being within 5' of a non-incapacitated hostile creature who can see you, because you're hidden. You attack at advantage, with proficiency because Hexblade 1, and if you miss you're still hidden because Skulker. Very resource-efficient, good alternative to cantrips.

Corran

2020-03-28, 10:11 PM

I did a quick search (https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/3kohwd/how_do_i_gain_resistance_to_radiant/) to see if there are any ways to get resistance to radiant damage (relevant to using sickening radiance or dawn as a yuan-ti evoker and choosing to stay inside the AoE). The only thing of use to us is apparently a magic item called ring of radiant resistance (other options that don't really help us, were aasimar, totem barb 3, fiendlock 10 and transmuter 2).

As a Yuan-ti Resilient (Con) Evoker using Overchanneled Sickening Radiance: access to Warding Bond might be the difference between blowing a DC 20 concentration save and succeeding on a DC 10 one. Otherwise I'm relying almost purely on my ability to beat my own spell save Con DC.
That's a small number, but I was also thinking of our hp. After some napkin math (assuming a hexblade 1 dip, and a 4 round encounter, calculating at cl 7 and 15 where getting hit by our SR is at its worst due to low hp and overchannel; each hit takes away about 1/3 of our hp; also I am assuming I'll succeed on concentration checks), there's a 42% chance we'll get hit once, 21% for 2 hits, and 5% for 3 or more hits, if we succeed on our concentration checks, which is something that we actually want). That's beside whatever damage we might take from the enemies. And I am thinking that if I am using my concentration (and overchannel at higher levels) for AoE damage, I better be doing it against enemies that hit hard. Bottom line, I think our hypothetical hp under that scenario need a boost. Otherwise we might be faced with the scenario where we are considering voluntarily dropping concentration on SR (possibly during a fight where it's pulling its weight), or more likely with using a dimension door to get to safety (which uses slots of the same level, and takes away actions we could be using against the enemies during subsequent rounds). So...

I think it would be helpful but not essential, especially if I had Bless--wouldn't stop me from trying the tactic if I didn't have Warding Bond, but if someone in the party could pre-cast Warding Bond it would be a good investment in spell slots and I would be dumb not to request it.
… I don't actually disagree with what you are saying. We have many things going for SR already to abandon it. After all, we always have the option to drop concentration or to teleport to safety. I guess bless would work too (better than WB probably, assuming committing concentration to it is not a huge deal for the caster). So would a paladin's aura (and lay on hands) or bardic inspiration and a good combat healing spell like heal. I am wondering though if you factored in the hp cost, and if not, I am wondering if the goblin stealthy approach (I am thinking that truesight/blindsight/etc is usually reserved for monsters that don't come in numbers) starts seeming like the more reliable one (cause my first instinct was that the yuan-ti that stays inside the AoE was the better option, but now, without additional support on my hp and or saves from allies, I am doubting it).
We've got good defenses. Advantage on saves and a good effective AC plus extra low level slots per day. The chances of what I am fearing regarding staying inside the SR's AoE are relatively small (quite small once I factor in concentration after taking damage from SR).

fun with goblins
I've been thinking. Dawn interacts with overchannel better than SR (thanks to half damage on failed save). Do you think it's worth to wait for dawn and skip SR completely, assuming you are playing with spells slots? Naturally, picking dawn instead of SR means less points for the yuan-ti that stays inside the AoE, and more points for a goblin that hides outside of it.

Edit: comment on including Sickening Radiance in your combat list in the first place. I think you definitely want to do this because lots of creatures are resistant or immune to fire damage. I would hate to rely on something like Fireball to fight off a bunch of Shadows or Specters, for example, but Sickening Radiance does the trick nicely, even if they try to strafe you (hiding on the other side of walls when it's your turn). Normally I'd want at least one good non-fire-based AoE on a wizard PC for this reason, and Evard's Black Tentacles and Sickening Radiance would both be good candidates, but for an Evoker Sickening Radiance is clearly preferable. Fireball is still cheaper, higher-damage, and non-concentration of course.
That makes sense. I was speaking hastily there.

Edit2: maybe it's obvious but as a goblin I'd also learn Longstrider because Nimble Escape + higher movement is another way to buy time for Sickening Radiance to kill, especially against monsters with blindsight, like Shambling Mounds and Blights, which Skulker won't help with. Of course you may not need it because Shambling Mounds and non-Needle Blights are already slow--depends on the situation.
With disengage as a bonus action at-will? Definitely. Longstrider would actually be useful anyway assuming a party with good ranged attacks, which is important to put sculpt SR/dawn to good use.

Edit3: another fun thing for a Goblin Skulker to do when not throwing spells, is to throw nets/lassos. You have advantage for being hidden before you throw. You *don't* have disadvantage for being within 5' of a non-incapacitated hostile creature who can see you, because you're hidden. You attack at advantage, with proficiency because Hexblade 1, and if you miss you're still hidden because Skulker. Very resource-efficient, good alternative to cantrips.
This is great. Wait... is there a concentration AoE evocation spell that targets dex saves?!!!
Nothing of real value as far as I can see. Best case scenario is combining this with wall of ice, but eh. Whirlwind would work nicely if it wasn't for the action economy clog. Shame...

Bonus question:
Say one of your players came to you and asked you for their evoker to research the anti-radiant version of absorb elements. And you know that this is not because for example the group is fighting an order of clerics or paladins, or a bunch of celestials, or for any other story related reason, but solely because the player was trying to do what we are discussing here, regarding the yuan-ti hexvoker that uses SR and stays inside the zone (I guess this is reason enough for the actual character to want to research some protection spell). Would you allow it, or do you think there is good reason that radiant resistance should remain a rare thing? And if you allowed it, what level would you have the spell be?

MaxWilson

2020-03-28, 10:48 PM

Quick response, may edit to add later: I'm not actually very worried about needing to spend 4 rounds in an Overchanneled Sickening Radiance. That would require a bunch of enemies all with ~120+ HP each, in tight quarters where I myself have absolutely no option but to hide inside the Sickening Radiance and take it. Why am I not e.g. letting someone else cast Invisibility on me and then Hiding with my action on round 2?

If I did have to hide inside Overchanneled Sickening Radiance for extended periods without Bardic Inspiration/etc., yes, I'd worry about HP but I'd worry even more about exhaustion. Having failed three saves (5% chance) I'm now potentially at disadvantage on all rolls including saves, and half speed. Hopefully so are all the monsters, so at this point yes I absolutely would have already exited the Sickening Radiance via Misty Step/whatever, hoping that all of the surviving, half-speed monsters can be dealt with by the rest of the party.

Anyway, I'm not very worried that it would actually come to that, but the Goblin approach is absolutely more my style than the Yuan-ti approach. To my way of thinking, every time you rely on a saving throw to save you, you've already failed at least a little bit. Saves should be your last line of defense, not your first.

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

On a real computer now, adding more responses:

I did a quick search (https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/3kohwd/how_do_i_gain_resistance_to_radiant/) to see if there are any ways to get resistance to radiant damage (relevant to using sickening radiance or dawn as a yuan-ti evoker and choosing to stay inside the AoE). The only thing of use to us is apparently a magic item called ring of radiant resistance (other options that don't really help us, were aasimar, totem barb 3, fiendlock 10 and transmuter 2).

That's a small number, but I was also thinking of our hp. After some napkin math (assuming a hexblade 1 dip, and a 4 round encounter, calculating at cl 7 and 15 where getting hit by our SR is at its worst due to low hp and overchannel; each hit takes away about 1/3 of our hp; also I am assuming I'll succeed on concentration checks), there's a 42% chance we'll get hit once, 21% for 2 hits, and 5% for 3 or more hits, if we succeed on our concentration checks, which is something that we actually want). That's beside whatever damage we might take from the enemies. And I am thinking that if I am using my concentration (and overchannel at higher levels) for AoE damage, I better be doing it against enemies that hit hard. Bottom line, I think our hypothetical hp under that scenario need a boost. Otherwise we might be faced with the scenario where we are considering voluntarily dropping concentration on SR (possibly during a fight where it's pulling its weight), or more likely with using a dimension door to get to safety (which uses slots of the same level, and takes away actions we could be using against the enemies during subsequent rounds). So...

… I don't actually disagree with what you are saying. We have many things going for SR already to abandon it. After all, we always have the option to drop concentration or to teleport to safety. I guess bless would work too (better than WB probably, assuming committing concentration to it is not a huge deal for the caster). So would a paladin's aura (and lay on hands) or bardic inspiration and a good combat healing spell like heal. I am wondering though if you factored in the hp cost, and if not, I am wondering if the goblin stealthy approach (I am thinking that truesight/blindsight/etc is usually reserved for monsters that don't come in numbers) starts seeming like the more reliable one (cause my first instinct was that the yuan-ti that stays inside the AoE was the better option, but now, without additional support on my hp and or saves from allies, I am doubting it).
We've got good defenses. Advantage on saves and a good effective AC plus extra low level slots per day. The chances of what I am fearing regarding staying inside the SR's AoE are relatively small (quite small once I factor in concentration after taking damage from SR).

I've been thinking. Dawn interacts with overchannel better than SR (thanks to half damage on failed save). Do you think it's worth to wait for dawn and skip SR completely, assuming you are playing with spells slots? Naturally, picking dawn instead of SR means less points for the yuan-ti that stays inside the AoE, and more points for a goblin that hides outside of it.

That makes sense. I was speaking hastily there.

With disengage as a bonus action at-will? Definitely. Longstrider would actually be useful anyway assuming a party with good ranged attacks, which is important to put sculpt SR/dawn to good use.

This is great. Wait... is there a concentration AoE evocation spell that targets dex saves?!!!
Nothing of real value as far as I can see. Best case scenario is combining this with wall of ice, but eh. Whirlwind would work nicely if it wasn't for the action economy clog. Shame...

Bonus question:
Say one of your players came to you and asked you for their evoker to research the anti-radiant version of absorb elements. And you know that this is not because for example the group is fighting an order of clerics or paladins, or a bunch of celestials, or for any other story related reason, but solely because the player was trying to do what we are discussing here, regarding the yuan-ti hexvoker that uses SR and stays inside the zone (I guess this is reason enough for the actual character to want to research some protection spell). Would you allow it, or do you think there is good reason that radiant resistance should remain a rare thing? And if you allowed it, what level would you have the spell be?

Magic items... I'm not really into extrinsic boosters like magic items so no real opinion there. Ring of resistance sounds fine, cloak of elvenkind would be equally useful for goblins, but as a PC I'd be more excited to find a formula for Wands of Magic Missiles and start cranking out the wands. I don't actually want to Overchannel Sickening Radiance on myself often enough to make a ring pay off.

As DM, if you wanted to re-research RAW Absorb Elements I'd call it natively a third-level spell, because it protects from five elements and also does some minor damage to the next guy you hit, which means that researching it as a first-level spell requires some pretty intense optimization--three successful weekly DC 21 Arcana checks. Like Shield, it's a very powerful spell: it's effectively permanent, no-concentration resistance to five whole elements, just for keeping the spell prepared. However, if you wanted to research a similar spell Absorb Radiance that works only against Radiance, I'd be fine calling that a first-level spell, so one weekly DC 11 Arcana check (in a level 1 research library) is all that's needed. If you tried to pack that into the existing Absorb Elements spell and protect against six elements I'd call that effectively a fourth-level spell, which would be four DC 14 checks to research as a fourth-level spell or four DC 26 checks if you tried to pack it all into a first-level spell slot. Four DC 22 checks if you tried to do it out of a second-level slot.

Basically you'd need to be a world-class spell hacker or the luckiest wizard alive to expand the existing Absorb Elements to cover acid/cold/fire/lightning/thunder/radiance.

I'm not super-impressed with Dawn, both because the ends-on-turn damage is easier to avoid (though still pretty decent if you're defending the party against melee enemies) and because it doesn't have the sweet, sweet, crippling effects that Sickening Radiance does. (It's kind of like a Slow spell with no save-every-round clause to end it.) The best thing about Dawn is the efficiency: if the party is kicking down doors and advancing through the dungeon, you can bring (Overchanneled?) Dawn along with you as you move, unlike Sickening Radiance. But it still only lasts a minute, and nothing is stopping you from sending a stalking horse ahead through the dungeon to kick in some doors and then fall back to prepared positions if they encounter heavy opposition... plus, it's fifth level, so it competes with Wall of Force/Animate Objects/Animate Dead V/Telekinesis/etc. for spell slots.

The save-for-half clause is nice too BTW against e.g. demons, could increase effective damage by about 50%, but still all else being equal I'd prefer Sickening Radiance. Cheaper + longer-lasting + more crippling beats more damaging + mobile in my mind.

RE: <<This is great. Wait... is there a concentration AoE evocation spell that targets dex saves?!!!>>

The point of restraining isn't so much the disadvantage on Dex saves, it's to (1) eat enemy actions trying to get out, (2) give advantage to other PCs attacking the creature, (3) buy more time for other PCs + potentially your (Overchannelled?) Sickening Radiance to kill the creature, without it doing anything in return. Hmm, I guess #1 and #3 are actually the same thing.

However, it is true that being restrained would impose disadvantage on saves against Fireball or Web/Evard's Black Tentacles (presumably cast by someone else since Mr. Goblin Evoker took Sickening Radiance instead), and that's not nothing. It's similar to granting advantage to the party Sharpshooter: worth doing.

BTW, technically Wall of Stone is a concentration AoE evocation spell that targets Dex saves, but I know it's not what you were really looking for. : )

One more comment on the Goblin Skulker Evoker thing: if you had a Goblin Skulker Moon Druid buddy with Pass Without Trace up life would be sweet! Good combo for a two-PC campaign.

TheUser

2020-03-28, 11:48 PM

MaxWilson

2020-03-28, 11:56 PM

If Overchannel is on the table then you are not reliant on an ally at all as your simulacrum can cast level 3 invisibility on both of you.

You're not wrong, but blech, Simulacrum. I always overlook that spell because as DM I don't allow it in its RAW form.

Besides, a Simulacrum is still "someone else."

TheUser

2020-03-29, 12:06 AM

You're not wrong, but blech, Simulacrum. I always overlook that spell because as DM I don't allow it in its RAW form.

Besides, a Simulacrum is still "someone else."

Incapable of learning, counts as a construct, a distinct lacking in autonomy and agency....it's more of a something than it is a someone as far as I am concerned :P

Corran

2020-03-29, 03:01 PM

Anyway, I'm not very worried that it would actually come to that, but the Goblin approach is absolutely more my style than the Yuan-ti approach. To my way of thinking, every time you rely on a saving throw to save you, you've already failed at least a little bit. Saves should be your last line of defense, not your first.
I have to admit that I like the simplicity of the yuan-ti approach, always regarding the SR thing.
Recalculating the numbers and putting them in the correct perspective, the risk regarding everything, from duration, to hp and accumulating exhaustion, is pretty much minimal (at least as far as I understand). Even when overchannel kicks in, rearranging the feat order and prioritizing lucky to my last INT bump, brings the numbers almost back to where they were before overchannel. The biggest issue I see is if the enemies focus fire on us. I guess would could always try to dodge from round two. The goblin does not rely on saves, but it does rely on stealth and a lot more on positioning. So I see it as higher risk/ higher reward, but overall less reliable, cause it's very risky to pull this off with a goblin if say, you are facing melee cavalry on an open field, or if you are ambushed in a tight space. I can see some clear advantages that the goblin approach will have, for example being able to hide just after using a wall of force, or improved counterspelling while also having it easier to be within range, having a strong at will with the net, generally being able to disengage with a bonus action, etc, but in the end I think I am impressed with all the little synergies (SR not doing damage to us on round 1, no half damage on successful save, yuan-ti magic resistance and the build's generally good defenses, adding resilient con and eventually lucky -reserving the rolls for saves against OC SR and crits during this same fight- on top of everything else because we were already almost there so I keep thinking it's a shame not to give a small boost and use this approach; and for effectiveness of course sculpt and finally overchannel), which I think bring the risk (and thus probably the frequency we would have to deviate from the routine, say by moving out of SR's radius or by skipping using it for a day or two every once in a while to bring down any accumulated exhaustion) down to an acceptable level per my reading.

I have this thought in the back of my mind, that all this may be for naught. Combining every important evoker feature with the right spell and throwing all these bits of small synergies on top to make it work more reliably, even if this is (at most, due to bad lack leading to accumulated exhaustion) a 1/day thing, even if the enemies may have ways to ruin the plan of every pc being semi stationary, all this may be of little value simply because the effect does not really pull its weight. We basically end with an alternative version of spirit guardians. Improved significantly in some ways (more damage on average and more importantly with a greater radius), with some small but noticeable drawbacks (risk to damage yourself, damage is a lot more spiky). I am sure it will be good under the right situations, but honestly, at first glance (cause I haven't tested it), I would expect a bigger reward at the end of this whole optimization process, when you think that without any optimization you can just drop a wall of force or you get access to spells like forcecage and simulacrum.

Quick response, may edit to add later: I'm not actually very worried about needing to spend 4 rounds in an Overchanneled Sickening Radiance. That would require a bunch of enemies all with ~120+ HP each, in tight quarters where I myself have absolutely no option but to hide inside the Sickening Radiance and take it. Why am I not e.g. letting someone else cast Invisibility on me and then Hiding with my action on round 2?
Many more possibilities will open up once we start accounting for allies. Though I could justify bless coming from a paladin/hexblade2, I am less inclined to count on someone committing their concentration on invisibility. Maybe a twinned greater invisibility coming from a sorcerer ally would be a better easier for me to justify though.

If I did have to hide inside Overchanneled Sickening Radiance for extended periods without Bardic Inspiration/etc., yes, I'd worry about HP but I'd worry even more about exhaustion. Having failed three saves (5% chance) I'm now potentially at disadvantage on all rolls including saves, and half speed. Hopefully so are all the monsters, so at this point yes I absolutely would have already exited the Sickening Radiance via Misty Step/whatever, hoping that all of the surviving, half-speed monsters can be dealt with by the rest of the party.
If we cannot rely on sth like bless or bardic inspiration from allies, one option could be to take the lucky feat (I also assume resilient con). It drops the chance of accumulating exhaustion roughly to 4%. It would also help against crits, in the unlikely scenario we get critted during the fight we were using the overchanneled SR. I think the delay on the (second) INT bump is worth it for the yuan-ti build. And the low number of rerolls is not too bad considering our initial defenses (effective AC, saves, and to a lesser extent concentration).

Magic items... I'm not really into extrinsic boosters like magic items so no real opinion there. Ring of resistance sounds fine, cloak of elvenkind would be equally useful for goblins, but as a PC I'd be more excited to find a formula for Wands of Magic Missiles and start cranking out the wands. I don't actually want to Overchannel Sickening Radiance on myself often enough to make a ring pay off.
I am with you on the magic items. Crafting wands of magic missiles sounds like a very good use of coins.

Honestly, this sounds like something I might try incorporating in some campaign in some way. Magic research in the kingdom of X is close to finding a way of mass producing cheap wands of magic missile of doom. It will take them something like 1 year (subject to change) from the start of the campaign to pull it off, and say another year for enough soldiers to get trained in using them at least semi-effectively. The pc's start the campaign knowing nothing about this, and it is up to them if they'll try to get involved and how should they hear whispers of it. Otherwise, 2 years from the start of the campaign, the kingdom of X will start waging war and slowly become the empire of X, and the pc's just happened to live during a significant historical event. Or sth like that. Probably best for a spying type campaign. Might just have ignored a bunch of rules regarding magic item creation, but eh.

As DM, if you wanted to re-research RAW Absorb Elements I'd call it natively a third-level spell, because it protects from five elements and also does some minor damage to the next guy you hit, which means that researching it as a first-level spell requires some pretty intense optimization--three successful weekly DC 21 Arcana checks. Like Shield, it's a very powerful spell: it's effectively permanent, no-concentration resistance to five whole elements, just for keeping the spell prepared. However, if you wanted to research a similar spell Absorb Radiance that works only against Radiance, I'd be fine calling that a first-level spell, so one weekly DC 11 Arcana check (in a level 1 research library) is all that's needed. If you tried to pack that into the existing Absorb Elements spell and protect against six elements I'd call that effectively a fourth-level spell, which would be four DC 14 checks to research as a fourth-level spell or four DC 26 checks if you tried to pack it all into a first-level spell slot. Four DC 22 checks if you tried to do it out of a second-level slot.

Basically you'd need to be a world-class spell hacker or the luckiest wizard alive to expand the existing Absorb Elements to cover acid/cold/fire/lightning/thunder/radiance.
Thanks for the detailed answer. Sounds very reasonable.

I'm not super-impressed with Dawn, both because the ends-on-turn damage is easier to avoid (though still pretty decent if you're defending the party against melee enemies) and because it doesn't have the sweet, sweet, crippling effects that Sickening Radiance does. (It's kind of like a Slow spell with no save-every-round clause to end it.) The best thing about Dawn is the efficiency: if the party is kicking down doors and advancing through the dungeon, you can bring (Overchanneled?) Dawn along with you as you move, unlike Sickening Radiance. But it still only lasts a minute, and nothing is stopping you from sending a stalking horse ahead through the dungeon to kick in some doors and then fall back to prepared positions if they encounter heavy opposition... plus, it's fifth level, so it competes with Wall of Force/Animate Objects/Animate Dead V/Telekinesis/etc. for spell slots.
I see. I have a hard time giving much weight to the exhaustion effect, simply because it takes so long to start making a difference. Maybe I just didn't have many long lasting fights so far. Would you change your mind if using spell points instead?

The save-for-half clause is nice too BTW against e.g. demons, could increase effective damage by about 50%, but still all else being equal I'd prefer Sickening Radiance. Cheaper + longer-lasting + more crippling beats more damaging + mobile in my mind.
50% increase is pretty significant though when it comes to concentration AoE. Spirit guardians is just a 33% increase when upcasting by 1 level, and it's not a bad spell at all (yes, for a cleric) to overcast. I am currently thinking that for a goblin playing with spell points I might go for it. Though again, this may just be because I don't usually have fights that last long enough to think that I would make something great out of the better duration and out of the exhaustion effect. It's also because I am oversimplifying all this and I am basically thinking that SR/dawn is a 1/day thing at most, which may be a mistake on my part (thinking again the example with the shadows/specters).

The point of restraining isn't so much the disadvantage on Dex saves, it's to (1) eat enemy actions trying to get out, (2) give advantage to other PCs attacking the creature, (3) buy more time for other PCs + potentially your (Overchannelled?) Sickening Radiance to kill the creature, without it doing anything in return. Hmm, I guess #1 and #3 are actually the same thing.
I get it. Sometimes I am easily tempted by a few points of extra damage without seeing the real potential. Disadvantage on the dex save would probably be something close to 8 extra points of damage to one target, while denying an enemy's melee attack might spare you from a lot more damage taken.

However, it is true that being restrained would impose disadvantage on saves against Fireball or Web/Evard's Black Tentacles (presumably cast by someone else since Mr. Goblin Evoker took Sickening Radiance instead), and that's not nothing. It's similar to granting advantage to the party Sharpshooter: worth doing.
Yeah, or setting up advantage against a priority target, agreed.

One more comment on the Goblin Skulker Evoker thing: if you had a Goblin Skulker Moon Druid buddy with Pass Without Trace up life would be sweet! Good combo for a two-PC campaign.
I get it(?), one pc nowhere to be found, so the enemies have to go through the sack of temp hp inside the SR. The lack of good ranged damage in this party scares me a little though.

MaxWilson

2020-03-29, 03:47 PM

I have to admit that I like the simplicity of the yuan-ti approach, always regarding the SR thing.
Recalculating the numbers and putting them in the correct perspective, the risk regarding everything, from duration, to hp and accumulating exhaustion, is pretty much minimal (at least as far as I understand). Even when overchannel kicks in, rearranging the feat order and prioritizing lucky to my last INT bump, brings the numbers almost back to where they were before overchannel. The biggest issue I see is if the enemies focus fire on us. I guess would could always try to dodge from round two. The goblin does not rely on saves, but it does rely on stealth and a lot more on positioning. So I see it as higher risk/ higher reward, but overall less reliable, cause it's very risky to pull this off with a goblin if say, you are facing melee cavalry on an open field, or if you are ambushed in a tight space. I can see some clear advantages that the goblin approach will have, for example being able to hide just after using a wall of force, or improved counterspelling while also having it easier to be within range, having a strong at will with the net, generally being able to disengage with a bonus action, etc, but in the end I think I am impressed with all the little synergies (SR not doing damage to us on round 1, no half damage on successful save, yuan-ti magic resistance and the build's generally good defenses, adding resilient con and eventually lucky -reserving the rolls for saves against OC SR and crits during this same fight- on top of everything else because we were already almost there so I keep thinking it's a shame not to give a small boost and use this approach; and for effectiveness of course sculpt and finally overchannel), which I think bring the risk (and thus probably the frequency we would have to deviate from the routine, say by moving out of SR's radius or by skipping using it for a day or two every once in a while to bring down any accumulated exhaustion) down to an acceptable level per my reading.

I have this thought in the back of my mind, that all this may be for naught. Combining every important evoker feature with the right spell and throwing all these bits of small synergies on top to make it work more reliably, even if this is (at most, due to bad lack leading to accumulated exhaustion) a 1/day thing, even if the enemies may have ways to ruin the plan of every pc being semi stationary, all this may be of little value simply because the effect does not really pull its weight. We basically end with an alternative version of spirit guardians. Improved significantly in some ways (more damage on average and more importantly with a greater radius), with some small but noticeable drawbacks (risk to damage yourself, damage is a lot more spiky). I am sure it will be good under the right situations, but honestly, at first glance (cause I haven't tested it), I would expect a bigger reward at the end of this whole optimization process, when you think that without any optimization you can just drop a wall of force or you get access to spells like forcecage and simulacrum.

Many more possibilities will open up once we start accounting for allies. Though I could justify bless coming from a paladin/hexblade2, I am less inclined to count on someone committing their concentration on invisibility. Maybe a twinned greater invisibility coming from a sorcerer ally would be a better easier for me to justify though.

If we cannot rely on sth like bless or bardic inspiration from allies, one option could be to take the lucky feat (I also assume resilient con). It drops the chance of accumulating exhaustion roughly to 4%. It would also help against crits, in the unlikely scenario we get critted during the fight we were using the overchanneled SR. I think the delay on the (second) INT bump is worth it for the yuan-ti build. And the low number of rerolls is not too bad considering our initial defenses (effective AC, saves, and to a lesser extent concentration).

I am with you on the magic items. Crafting wands of magic missiles sounds like a very good use of coins.

Honestly, this sounds like something I might try incorporating in some campaign in some way. Magic research in the kingdom of X is close to finding a way of mass producing cheap wands of magic missile of doom. It will take them something like 1 year (subject to change) from the start of the campaign to pull it off, and say another year for enough soldiers to get trained in using them at least semi-effectively. The pc's start the campaign knowing nothing about this, and it is up to them if they'll try to get involved and how should they hear whispers of it. Otherwise, 2 years from the start of the campaign, the kingdom of X will start waging war and slowly become the empire of X, and the pc's just happened to live during a significant historical event. Or sth like that. Probably best for a spying type campaign. Might just have ignored a bunch of rules regarding magic item creation, but eh.

Thanks for the detailed answer. Sounds very reasonable.

I see. I have a hard time giving much weight to the exhaustion effect, simply because it takes so long to start making a difference. Maybe I just didn't have many long lasting fights so far. Would you change your mind if using spell points instead?

50% increase is pretty significant though when it comes to concentration AoE. Spirit guardians is just a 33% increase when upcasting by 1 level, and it's not a bad spell at all (yes, for a cleric) to overcast. I am currently thinking that for a goblin playing with spell points I might go for it. Though again, this may just be because I don't usually have fights that last long enough to think that I would make something great out of the better duration and out of the exhaustion effect. It's also because I am oversimplifying all this and I am basically thinking that SR/dawn is a 1/day thing at most, which may be a mistake on my part (thinking again the example with the shadows/specters).

I get it. Sometimes I am easily tempted by a few points of extra damage without seeing the real potential. Disadvantage on the dex save would probably be something close to 8 extra points of damage to one target, while denying an enemy's melee attack might spare you from a lot more damage taken.

Yeah, or setting up advantage against a priority target, agreed.

I get it(?), one pc nowhere to be found, so the enemies have to go through the sack of temp hp inside the SR. The lack of good ranged damage in this party scares me a little though.

In no particular order:

(1) I agree about ranged firepower. Having poor ranged firepower is the biggest Achilles Heel of druids, IMO, but it's so hard to fit all of the roles into a two-man party. In a two-man party I would probably take a second level of Warlock on the Hexblade (eventually) to pick up Eldritch Spear and Agonizing Blast, and then also Spell Sniper. There will be many cases where you can instead of stealth (Pass Without Trace, Earth Glide from an elemental, Dimension Door) to get close enough that you don't need to beat a longbow's range, but it still makes me feel better to be able to win an archery duel if need be. However, I would leave Charisma at its starting value (14ish probably, maybe 16) and still focus on maxing INT (eventually, by my fourth feat at Evoker 16/Hexblade 2) to maximize the effectiveness of my presumed bandolier of Wands of Magic Missiles which I ought to have created by then. If I did get into a long-range duel with e.g. a hobgoblin army, having that 4 x +8 for d10+2 attack that ignores partial cover, plus partial cover of my own from Mold Earth, plus healing from my druid buddy, is enough to make me confident that I'm not helpless in that scenario. In closer-ranged scenarios Evokers are fine.

(2) Speaking of closer-ranged scenarios... I wouldn't use Overchanneled Sickening Radiance (or Dawn) even against melee cavalry. There's too much risk they'll just ride out of range and wait out the spell, and now you've lost an Overchannel for nothing. Obviously a ranged-heavy party can make this painful for them, but in a ranged-heavy party they don't really need the Evoker to handle the melee cavalry anyway. Goblin is free to do whatever, whether that is getting out in front and Dodging to provoke attacks/buy time, or doing a Fog Cloud + Hide combo to try to make himself safe (plus by RAW at least provide advantage on ranged attacks out of the cloud, although in my game I don't grant advantage on ranged attacks to unseen attackers because it doesn't make any sense and makes it too easy to get ranged advantage), or chucking Fireballs whenever there's a particularly large cluster of cavalry all together, or pew-pewing away with cantrips. Could also Polymorph somebody into a Giant Ape and THEN start Dodging, or cast a Web and hide the whole party inside of it, to buy more time and make the cavalry bunch up for later Firebalsl, etc. Remember that you can always drop the Web by ceasing concentration at any time, even in the middle of an enemy's attack sequence e.g. if someone squishy has been Restrained by the web and you don't want the enemy to have advantage against them. Also remember that Webs create light obscurement so they synergize with your Skulker feat: cast Web on yourself and immediately Hide and move elsewhere within the Web, and you don't risk getting restrained until your next turn.

Fundamentally I'm comfortable just treating "melee cavalry in a wide-open field" as something out of scope for the goblin Hexvoker, but there are still a bunch of things you can do that would be fun even though it's off-specialty.

(3) My opinion on Dawn doesn't change with spell points. I habitually run spell points, although I allow two kinds: DMG spell points (which are more complicated at high levels because you have to still keep track of slots as well as spell points), and my smoothed-out version: https://bluishcertainty.blogspot.com/2016/12/spell-points-by-formula-5e-variant-rule.html which just makes high-level spells outrageously expensive. DMG is more commonly chosen but if I were playing I'd probably prefer the other version just for the cognitive simplicity.

(4) Sickening Radiance doesn't really take that long to kick in. After one failed save, enemies have disadvantage on ability checks until you cease concentration. After two failed saves, they have halved move (and I don't need to tell you how great that is for a ranged-heavy party). After three failed saves, they have disadvantage on attack rolls. For a goblin relying on Stealth, even one failed save is pretty crippling: -5 to passive Perception, and any allies doing grapple/prone tricks have an even easier time taking opponents out of combat--even zombies will have a good chance of grappling, and that's true even after the enemy leaves the Sickening Radiance zone. If an enemy fails two saves, any melee enemy without at least 60' of movement is basically toast. If an enemy fails three saves, it's all over but the shouting even if they do have good ranged attacks. (I'm oversimplifying--some monsters like Krakens could still put up a good fight, especially if they target the Sickening Radiance caster to break concentration and end the exhaustion.)

The differences between Sickening Radiance and Slow are (1) Slow puts time pressure on the party to kill the monsters before effects wear off. With Sickening Radiance, time is purely on the PCs' side. (2) Con saves vs. Wisdom saves. Mostly a wash I guess although big tough brutes like Purple Worms are less vulnerable to Sickening Radiance. (3) Sickening Radiance is better at killing mobs, like whole battalions of Duergar cavalry in a confined space--again, in an open plain they'd probably just decline to engage. (4) Slow acts faster to (temporarily) disable big monsters. With Sickening Radiance you need to buy another round or two for the second-stage effects (halved movement) to kick in. Goes well with other delaying spells like Web, or tactics like Dodging.

Anyway, that's why I prefer Sickening Radiance over Dawn. It has more interesting synergies than just doing a bunch of damage. (Also, spells with only a 1-minute duration scare me a little because they're too easy to wait out. You can't even really pause to regroup and rethink your tactics, or the spell will run out before you've finished talking to each other.)

(5) "Is all this optimization even worth it?" That's why I wouldn't go the Yuan-ti route for just SR, or specifically get rings of radiant resistance. To me this whole Sickening Radiance thing is just a sideshow to use against mobs. I still fully expect to use nuclear Magic Missile when a nova is needed, invest in Planar Binding Invisible Stalkers/Earth Elementals/Efreets, etc. I don't even really care about the Overchannel thing although I would willingly use it with Sickening Radiance because it's pretty decent--better than Forcecage for dealing with melee mobs, even on open plains against cavalry. : ) Might get lucky and they'll just charge right in.

Anyway, the point is that against serious opposition, where it's about survival and not just earning XP, the game changes. I always have that change in the back of my mind unless I'm playing something deliberately simple like a Zealot.

BTW I acknowledge that Yuan-ti does have some real advantages when it comes to dealing with enemy mages (e.g. bunches of Neogi Masters slinging multiple upcast Hold Person spells every round), and also having good stats for warlocking. It's not completely Sickening Radiance-oriented and I would consider it for Hexvokering.

TheUser

2020-03-29, 09:01 PM

MaxWilson

2020-03-30, 08:55 AM

You don't need to keep creatures inside of the Dawn spell...it literally has a 30ft Radius and can be moved with a bonus action; just keep dumping it on top of the monsters engaged in melee with your party and they are eat AoO's or spend their action disengaging and fleeing; win win situation as far as I am concerned.

Also in tight spaces sometimes you can't really get away from something 60ft wide....

The movement thing is definitely still an issue. You only have so many opportunity attacks, and e.g. the melee cavalry from upthread could just goblin conga line you to death. They make N attacks per round on you, and all Overchannelled Dawn gets you in return is one opportunity attack. You might as well not even have Overchannelled it. At least Sickening Radiance would have forced N saves!

We know based on experience with Silence (40' diameter in 5e) that there are cases where Dawn could be useful because yes, sometimes PCs can grapple or move aggressively to block the exits and/or an enemy is physically too slow to move 30' - 60' even while Dashing. But it's still pretty niche.

KorvinStarmast

2020-03-30, 09:26 AM

Link to the guide here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CR2AoDVco5rf_o1KmxH_NOPxTIiX6FA58N_prw8Qzww/)

This guide has been a long time coming. Based on the opinion of a player in our weekly group (he's playing an evoker, straight, not MC, and is at 7th level) the guide is insufferably long. TL/DR was his remark when I provided the link.

What plans do you have for a round of serious liposuction? I ask because you built this from "at table play experience" rather than White Board optimization. My first look at it found some nice nuggets.

As an aside: I am not sure that you wouldn't be better off naming this the Hexblade/Evoker guide, given your strong recommendation to build an evoker, from scratch, with an initial level in Warlock/HB.

Deathtongue

2021-06-05, 05:35 PM

Treantmonk's latest video about how DPR-focused wizards suck and how DPR is a bad tool got me all salty. Especially because Tasha's, and to a lesser extent Wildemount and Xanathar's, made DPR-focused wizards much, MUCH more viable than they were at the start of this edition. To that end, I overhauled this guide and added a lot more. Big changes are:

A cheeky title change.
A shift in design philosophy from 'blasting' to 'DPR'. DPR now includes blasting, summoning, AND enabling. Blasting will still form the backbone of your DPR, especially as most tables won't tolerate you making twenty d20+4 attack rolls against a creature with an AC of 19 every round, but I wanted to broaden the horizons a bit. In the end, an enemy with 0 hit points is still one with 0 hit points.
A brief history of the changes between 2E, 3E, 4E, and 5E with respect to monster hit points and why I think a lot of people miss how instantaneous and average DPR is a much more respectful first principle in 5E than it was in 3E/4E.
Suggestion of wizard builds aside from Hexvokers. I think that as of Tasha's splashing levels of Sorcerer and Order Domain Cleric are now much more competitive and even in many cases superior to Hexvokers in the realm of DPR.
Making it more Evoker-agnostic. There are some other really strong DPR-focused wizards who would pick the same spells Evokers would, like Theurgists and Necromancers. I changed up the spell ratings to assume that you're playing any kind of wizard that thirsts for DPR -- of course making dual-ratings for spells that change significantly in the hands of certain wizards. I found that this was most common with Evokers, so the guide uses them as a straw-model.

TO-DO:

Magical items ratings. I talk a lot about the busted magical items Tasha's introduced, but didn't actually rate them individually. No matter, anyone can see how busted they are, it doesn't change the overall thrust of the guide.
Additional builds and breakpoints, especially in late T2 and early T3.
Things to put in a Contingency. Thinking of just copying from my Bladesinger Guide.
Things to summon with Summon Greater Demon / Infernal Calling. I generally think Summon Whatever is better because they give you merely modestly worse DPR while being MUCH more sustainable, but there are certain wizards who can make casting those spells 95-100% safe if, again, the DM allows those broken Tasha's magical items.
Additional tactics for Wizards in general. I definitely want to have sections on Tactical Light Usage, Avoiding Stealth Nerfs of Illusions, Combat Pre-Casting, and Tactical Door Usage for examples.

Dork_Forge

2021-06-05, 05:50 PM

He makes a lot of... just silly claims (phew, managed to self edit that one!) the notion that damage is a bad tool is ridiculous. Damage is how you end 99% of encounters.

What's even more surprising is that he would make this claim after having made up his own {Scrubbed} damage threshold for effectiveness.

Deathtongue

2021-06-05, 05:58 PM

Based on the opinion of a player in our weekly group (he's playing an evoker, straight, not MC, and is at 7th level) the guide is insufferably long. TL/DR was his remark when I provided the link.

What plans do you have for a round of serious liposuction? I ask because you built this from "at table play experience" rather than White Board optimization. My first look at it found some nice nuggets.This reaction, and it's by no means the first, is why I changed Miniguide to Guide.

That said: I'm shooting for people who already have considerable experience at the tabletop and are looking for a way to marry up white room theorycrafting with RAI or the typical D&D metagame. It's not focused solely towards number-crunching nerds, which is why except in some cases where the devil is in fact in the details (like the Summoning Spells versus Disintegrate) I try to avoid numbers and stick to relative comparisons and possibilities.

But this guide was made with the expectation that the person reading this guide has played as or at least with blasters before. They may not consider themselves an optimizer, but they have thrown out a few Fireballs, felt excited for a few levels over how much better it is than Shatter/Thunderwave, yet have felt their effectiveness dwindle as the game goes on... to the point where they're nodding their head at people going 'actually, wizards focused on DPR are weak because the best spells like Shatter and Fireball and even Animate Objects are no match for crushing the encounter with Hypnotic Pattern or Wall of Force'. If you haven't given much thought to the D&D metagame beyond 'which spells should my blaster wizard pick', then this guide is going to be tl;dr. Why is this dude suggesting you pick weird spells like Dark Star and Create Bonfire and even Earth Tremor? But if you want to know WHY I think Disintegrate is kind of pants and why you should choose Summon Undead over Fireball, even if DPR is your pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, there's going to be some tl;dr -- especially if you haven't experienced the counterintuitive reality of being a DPR-Wizard firsthand. It'll just feel like I'm padding the guide, rather than just me getting straight to the 'use these spells, profit'.

truemane

2021-06-05, 06:27 PM

Metamagic Mod: Necro thread, arise! Thread re-opened with permission.

MaxWilson

2021-06-06, 04:27 AM

But this guide was made with the expectation that the person reading this guide has played as or at least with blasters before. They may not consider themselves an optimizer, but they have thrown out a few Fireballs, felt excited for a few levels over how much better it is than Shatter/Thunderwave, yet have felt their effectiveness dwindle as the game goes on... to the point where they're nodding their head at people going 'actually, wizards focused on DPR are weak because the best spells like Shatter and Fireball and even Animate Objects are no match for crushing the encounter with Hypnotic Pattern or Wall of Force'. If you haven't given much thought to the D&D metagame beyond 'which spells should my blaster wizard pick', then this guide is going to be tl;dr. Why is this dude suggesting you pick weird spells like Dark Star and Create Bonfire and even Earth Tremor? But if you want to know WHY I think Disintegrate is kind of pants and why you should choose Summon Undead over Fireball, even if DPR is your pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, there's going to be some tl;dr -- especially if you haven't experienced the counterintuitive reality of being a DPR-Wizard firsthand. It'll just feel like I'm padding the guide, rather than just me getting straight to the 'use these spells, profit'.

FWIW, you've just sold me on reading it. Sounds like a fun read!

ff7hero

2021-06-06, 09:12 PM

Oh, I saw this at a great time, since I'm currently in the pre-planning stage of building an Evoker myself. I'm working my way through it, but I wanted to pick a few nits while they were fresh in my mind.

First one is small, because it's more implied than stated, but the section for for Potent Cantrip and it's inclusion in the Cantrips section seems to imply Acid Splash is an Evocation spell, when it is actually Conjuration. Frostbite could probably replace it in the first section, and I think might warrant a mention in the Cantrips section as well.

The other one is in the section for Overchannel. You caution about the damage "unless you're using Warding Bond cheese." Assuming this just mean "casting Warding Bond on the Evoker" [1] this doesn't work anyway, and is actually a nonbo [2]. Warding Bond does it's thing by granting it's recipient Resistance, which Overchannel ignores, so both target and caster would take full Overchannel damage.

[1]As opposed to some combo involving Warding Bond I am not aware of.
[2]A combination of abilities which appear synergistic but are actually anti-synergestic. Rhymes with and opposite of "combo."

ETA: Since I started, might as well continue. From the Post Tasha's bit in the beginning of the Multiclassing section, this bit "This means that a DPR-Wizard can now not only only recharge their" seems to have an extra "only."

ETA 2, Electric Bugaloo: from the section on High Elves: "An extra wizard cantrip (unless you’re using that Unearthed Arcana psionics article) isn’t a killer app" I don't know what article this refers to and Google isn't helping. I don't see any replacement racial features for High Elves (or any races at all) in either "Psionic Options" (Psychic Warrior and Psi Knight) or in the (I think, it was #3) most recent Mystic article. This one I'm just curious about, because I'm a Psionics fanboy and thought I was aware of all of the Psionic UAs.

ETA3: "Crusher - Being limited to attack rolls makes it only really useful with Catapult and Magic Stone but those cantrips are also only really good at lower level anyway. " Catapult is a 1st level spell that forces a Dex save. This mistake is repeated in the analysis of Catapult, resulting in recommendations to use it with Hex or Spirit Shroud.

estein

2021-06-18, 03:36 PM

Great guide, I am looking forward to combining elements of this and LudicSavant's Nuclear Wizard and Jorasco Physician in an upcoming campaign.

Just a quick note, for Mind Sliver, you have it dealing 1d4*tier damage, it's actually 1d6 damage and then the 1d4 penalty to saving throws.

Deathtongue

2021-07-22, 08:32 AM

Guide updated per the comments in this thread.

I've been playing another Order Domain Cleric 1 / Evoker X, up to character level 11 from starting level 3. Game has frequent long rests -- I've never gone more than three encounters between long rests -- almost nothing in the way of magical items (the best drop we've had so far is a +1 Full Plate), standard point buy. No Wildemount or UA or any expansion material besides Xanathar's and Tasha's. Feats and multiclassing allowed.

Order Domain Cleric is an absolutely disgusting add-on. Better than even a level of Hexblade, which under Point Buy I won't be able to fit in until very late-game anyway. Dropping Fireballs or Melf's Minute Meteors to squeeze extra attacks out of the party's paladin not only makes my character really popular at the table but is also really strong. I'm tempted to use Feather Fall cheese to squeeze out even more attacks, but there's been no need for that yet. DM lets me not only use Voice of Authority with Sculpt Spells, but allows repeated taps of the effect with Melf's Minute Meteors.

RogueJK

2021-07-22, 09:16 AM

I'm tempted to use Feather Fall cheese to squeeze out even more attacks

That could be pretty tough to set up. Feather Fall can only be cast as a Reaction "when you or a creature within 60 feet of you falls". So you'd be dependent on your ally having the proper positioning to use their movement on their turn to walk off a ledge/cliff, and still be within range of an enemy to be able to make a weapon attack while falling (especially tricky if they're a melee fighter like your party's Paladin).

Thunderous Mojo

2021-07-22, 09:49 AM

Dropping Fireballs or Melf's Minute Meteors to squeeze extra attacks out of the party's paladin

Technically Fireball should not trigger Voice of Authority.
Per the PHB pg 202:
RANGE
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range. For a spell like magic missile, the target is a creature. For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts.

Voice of Authority states:
VOICE OFAUTHORITY
1st-level Order Domain feature
You can invoke the power of law to embolden an
ally to attack. If you cast a spell with aspell slot of 1st level or higher and target an ally with the spell, that ally can use their reaction immediately after the spell to make one weapon attack against a creature of your choice that you can see.
If the spell targets more than one ally, you choose the ally who can make the attack.

The PHB uses the Fireball spell, (explicitly), to demonstrate that area effect spells in 5e do not target creatures directly, area effects, instead, Target the space of origin.

To pose a counterfactual implication: If Area Effects Spells did not explicitly target the space of the effect's origin, but instead targeted creatures directly, then one would be unable to cast Area Effect spells at the Interstices of the Game Board Squares...as most of the time, Creatures---Unlike Spells---are required to be in Board Squares.

Speaking purely factually: Deathtongue's Experience is due to a single campaign's, idiosyncratic, interpretations of the PHB targeting rules...(Which is the Table's Right to do!)...but, Gentle Reader, just be aware one should not presume this deviation from the text is universal.

In other words...a DM would be backed by RAW to state: "Sorry Fireballing your friends doesn't trigger Voice of Authority".

Bless would work..since it Targets specific creatures.

I'm not trying to start any beef...do what your group finds fun.

Dork_Forge

2021-07-22, 09:52 AM

Thunderous Mojo

2021-07-22, 10:09 AM

I agree with your post, I just have a nagging feeling that Crawford tweeted that people hit by AOEs are targets at some point. I don't agree with that, but I feel like that was a thing at one point (tweets aren't official, just whatever that's worth).

This falls under Wittgenstein's criticism that natural language lacks precise clarity.

In other words, the designers of 5e needed a thesaurus.

Fireball Targets a space..Target here meaning the point of the spell's origin of effect...once the Fireball detonates...due to the vagaries of the English Language, one could also refer to those in the area of effect as "Targets".

Think of it this way...if a Military Force launches a Drone Strike to kill a particular person, let's call them Person 1, and in so doing also envelope Person 2, Person 3 and Person 4 in the blast...the Military that launched the attacks typically do not classify Persons 2+ as the Target, the Military refers to them as Collateral Damage.

To channel Monty Python: The people responsible for writing and editing the 5e rules should be sacked!

One of my dear friends, and player of 20 years in my game is an Editor;
She has edited pieces for the New Republic, for Literary Magazines, and for Medical Technical journals, and many other publications over her decades long career.

Her, Professional, opinion is the 5e rules represent a failure of editing...at all levels...the rules neither conform to Literary nor Technical Editorial standards...the 5e rules, editorially speaking...suck no matter the Editorial Lenses one uses to examine them.

LudicSavant

2021-07-22, 10:13 AM

Thunderous Mojo

2021-07-22, 10:26 AM

As it turns out, both the PHB and the DMG say the creatures hit by AoEs are targets, multiple times (including in the description of the Fireball spell, in fact). You should be able to find them in (among other places) the Fireball spell description, the Damage Rolls general rules, and multiple times in the general rules for resolving AoEs (in the DMG).

The place folks get confused is taking the quote in the Range section out of said context, and assuming "the target" means "the only target" as opposed to "the target at this step in the resolution." It says right after that after this step, the effects of the spell are not limited by its Range.

Right! My post, (#60)...addresses the confusion caused by the designer's -over-reliance on a single word.

Grammar and syntax has logical consequences. If Fireball Targets people...then no casting the spell at the intersections.....since the DMG and XGE both state that one can cast an AOE at the Intersections of Board Squares....logically, this results in some rules interpretations not being Sound.

If I had the will to do so, I could detail the difference using Symbolic Language, of the different usage of the same word "Target".

(I don't, however, have the desire to do so as that would be tedious and time consuming...and WoTC isn't paying me)

In terms of Syntax, English, is much more confused and confusing, than other languages.

LudicSavant

2021-07-22, 10:32 AM

Right! My post, (#60)...addresses the confusion caused by the designer's -over-reliance on a single word.

Grammar and syntax has logical consequences. If Fireball Targets people...then no casting the spell at the intersections.....since the DMG and XGE both state that one can cast an AOE at the Intersections of Board Squares...

The place you're getting tripped up is thinking that if Fireball targets people, it can't target something else (such as an intersection). You're injecting an "instead" that isn't there.

The way AoEs work is that first they target a point in space (their point of origin), then they expand from their point of origin to affect additional targets.

You can find the relevant rules on that in the DMG section on resolving AoEs, as well as the PHB section on Damage Rolls for AoE abilities, as well as by the fact that spell descriptions often use "an affected creature" or "target" interchangeably. Numerous AoE spells refer to the damaged creatures as targets in their descriptions.

Moreover, these rules are important -- if you instead changed it so that AoEs don't target creatures, it would open up a whole floodgate of exploits. It would also render some abilities inoperable (For example, the Tarrasque's ability to deflect line spells would never trigger, since it would never be considered "targeted").

Thunderous Mojo

2021-07-22, 10:48 AM

The place you're getting tripped up is thinking that if Fireball targets people, it can't target something else (such as an intersection). You're injecting an "instead" that isn't there.

The way AoEs work is that first they target a point in space (their point of origin), then they expand from their point of origin to affect additional targets.

You can find the relevant rules on that in the DMG section on resolving AoEs, as well as the PHB section on Damage Rolls for AoE abilities, as well as by the fact that spell descriptions often used "an affected creature" or "target" interchangeably.

No..this is incorrect assessment of what I am doing. Again..Syntax...5e uses the word Target..for Point of Origin of AoEs...and unfortunately the same term to apply to the subjects on Non AoE spells.

Syntax has necessary logical consequences, that natural language often obscures.

The resulting confusion is a result of over reliance on a single world, and natural language. In Symbolic Notation..the distinction between the actual meaning of the words vis a vis AoEs and spells that effect only specific creatures is much clearer.

"You've got to mind your P's and Q's"😉

To boil it down, Use the Rules however you like....just don't assume everyone shares your interpretation.

LudicSavant

2021-07-22, 10:57 AM

*snip*

Edit: Now that I'm sitting at a PC instead of on a phone...

If you don't believe every dev article, podcast, and Sage Advice telling you that subjects of Fireball are targets, you should believe the PHB and DMG telling you that over and over again. Just a few of the examples:

To use the table, imagine which combatants are near one another, and let the table guide you in determining the number of those combatants that are caught in an area of effect. Add or subtract targets based on how bunched up the potential targets are. Consider rolling 1d3 to determine the amount to add or subtract.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/841980415115919381/867800646828032060/unknown.png

For example, if a wizard directs burning hands (a 15-foot cone) at a nearby group of orcs, you could use the table and say that two orcs are targeted (15 + 10 = 1.5, rounded up to 2). Similarly, a sorcerer could launch a lightning bolt (100-foot line) at some ogres and hobgoblins, and you could use the table to say
four of the monsters are targeted (100 + 30 = 3.33, rounded up to 4).

A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for
all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast.

Deathtongue

2021-07-22, 12:04 PM

That could be pretty tough to set up. Feather Fall can only be cast as a Reaction "when you or a creature within 60 feet of you falls". So you'd be dependent on your ally having the proper positioning to use their movement on their turn to walk off a ledge/cliff, and still be within range of an enemy to be able to make a weapon attack while falling (especially tricky if they're a melee fighter like your party's Paladin).The easiest way I can think of making this happen is combining mixed movements of walking speed and flight access. That is, fly at least 10 feet upwards, switch to a walking movement mode mid-air, then Feather Fall + Voice of Authroity. Also some shenanigans we could do with Summon Celestial (which I don't have) for flying taxi access. Of course, there's always the options of trees/rocks/tables/stairs and going all Parkour on your enemies.

It's purely theoretical OP, I've never felt the need to cast Feather Fall for non-cheesy reasons at this table since the current DM prefers cityscapes and closed dungeons. And the game isn't difficult enough for me to really dig into my bag of tricks anyway.

Deathtongue

2021-07-22, 12:06 PM

Moreover, these rules are important -- if you instead changed it so that AoEs don't target creatures, it would open up a whole floodgate of exploits. It would also render some abilities inoperable (For example, the Tarrasque's ability to deflect line spells would never trigger, since it would never be considered "targeted").

This is a tradeoff I'd happily accept for Voice of Authority not working with Fireball. Imagine the cheese potential. I love Gygaxian Backfires.

Thunderous Mojo

2021-07-22, 12:44 PM

Anything in the Area of Effected is is some sense Targeted....but the Target as the PHB indicates for AoEs is the point of origin.

To continue my prior example of a Drone Strike. Person 1 is the Target. Person 2+ were targeted, but not actually the target.

The difference in interpretations results in a minor change in play...
As a DM, I will often let the group vote on how they want to play it.

Fireballing the PC Monk and allowing them to them make a Reaction attack is sweet!

(Just not how I personally interpret the rules).

Deathtongue

2021-07-22, 12:59 PM

Anything in the Area of Effected is is some sense Targeted....but the Target as the PHB indicates for AoEs is the point of origin.Both the point of origin and things the AOE inside the AOE are Targets. If you rule that only the point of origin is a Target and there's a gameplay distinction between being a Target and being targeted, then spells like Fireball don't damage creatures. They have to make a Dexterity saving throw for... something, but since they're not targets they don't take the 8d6 damage.

winterwarrior

2021-08-02, 03:33 PM

Person_Man

2021-08-02, 10:25 PM

Technically Fireball should not trigger Voice of Authority.
Per the PHB pg 202:
RANGE
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range. For a spell like magic missile, the target is a creature. For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts.

Voice of Authority states:
VOICE OFAUTHORITY
1st-level Order Domain feature
You can invoke the power of law to embolden an
ally to attack. If you cast a spell with aspell slot of 1st level or higher and target an ally with the spell, that ally can use their reaction immediately after the spell to make one weapon attack against a creature of your choice that you can see.
If the spell targets more than one ally, you choose the ally who can make the attack.

The PHB uses the Fireball spell, (explicitly), to demonstrate that area effect spells in 5e do not target creatures directly, area effects, instead, Target the space of origin.

To pose a counterfactual implication: If Area Effects Spells did not explicitly target the space of the effect's origin, but instead targeted creatures directly, then one would be unable to cast Area Effect spells at the Interstices of the Game Board Squares...as most of the time, Creatures---Unlike Spells---are required to be in Board Squares.

Speaking purely factually: Deathtongue's Experience is due to a single campaign's, idiosyncratic, interpretations of the PHB targeting rules...(Which is the Table's Right to do!)...but, Gentle Reader, just be aware one should not presume this deviation from the text is universal.

In other words...a DM would be backed by RAW to state: "Sorry Fireballing your friends doesn't trigger Voice of Authority".

Bless would work..since it Targets specific creatures.

I'm not trying to start any beef...do what your group finds fun.

I agree with you, though re-reading the Order domain and Sculpt Spell, I could see how a reasonable DM would rule otherwise.

My 5E RAW skills aren't the best in the world (too many other editions cluttering my memory), but I'd add that while the plain language of Sculpt spell is clearly "X allies are hit and auto-pass Saves..." I think the intent of Sculpt spell is that selected allies are not targeted/effected by the spell. In theory they could have instead written "choose a number of 5 foot squares, which do not need to be contiguous, equal to..." but didn't because the Theater of the Mind and natural language are the defaults for 5E.

On a completely separate issue, but still on topic for the thread, I'd note that a Fighter 2/Dao Genie Warlock X might be considered in the blue range as a point of comparison to the Evoker, and is also fun, really difficult to hurt, and easy to use. Fighter gives heavy armor, shield, Fighting Style (presumably for another +1 AC), and of course Action Surge. Dao Genie Warlock gives Proficiency Bonus to damage, Spiked Growth on your spell list (which can be cast before combat without alerting enemies, which shouldn't be difficult to do since you can get an invisible familiar), Eldritch Blast can push and pull enemies across your Spiked Growth, Resistance to Blunt damage from your Pact plus any one other damage type from Fiendish Resilience, flight, and eventually the ability for your party to take Short Rests in just 10 minutes while inside a ring (which you can just hide in the dirt or whatever before going in), and Limited Wish.

It probably doesn't hold up level by level if you're prioritizing DPS completely over defense. But if you factor that in and I'd personally prefer the Fighter/Warlock or a similar build. And there's a sweet spot around ECL 12ish where the benefits of being able to use all of your Short Rest resources basically every combat would probably outweigh the benefits almost any other blaster build could provide. (For a while at least, until full casters start routinely dominating combats with their more prolific high level spells and then just using magic to teleport away or whatever to Rest when needed).

ff7hero

2021-08-03, 12:49 AM

snipped Daolock discussion

At the risk of derailing the thread, I'll say I think this build wants 3 or 4 Sorcerer levels for Spike Growth slots (it doesn't upcast) and Quicken Spell.

Person_Man

2021-08-03, 12:07 PM

At the risk of derailing the thread, I'll say I think this build wants 3 or 4 Sorcerer levels for Spike Growth slots (it doesn't upcast) and Quicken Spell.

Yeah, I could see that. Though at that point, you’re probably just better off playing a Fighter 2/Sorcerer X, basically just nerfing your spell progression in exchange for +4ish AC and the occasional Action Surge.

Deathtongue

2021-08-06, 01:38 AM

Really enjoyed reading this guide as a first time player/Variant Human Evoker!

1) Is 1 LVL of Hexblade still worth it when most of the campaign happens at low levels (1-10), and with Standard Array for points rather than rolling? I plan on getting the Hex spell via Fey-Touched even if I go full Wizard, but the med armor/shield/curse from Hexblade is intriguing.

2) Do you think getting an upgraded Eldritch Blast is worth sacrificing some CON? Extra attack rolls (for comboing with Hex) seem really good but this statline seems pretty squishy. I don't have a good feel for this since I am a rookie.1)Absolutely. In fact that level of Hexblade is worth more in games that stop before T3. I ran a Hexvoker in Adventurer's League from level 1 to level 17 with standard array and overall the tradeoff was really worth it.

2) Depends on how often you get attacked. A lot of DMs, especially in parties that are heavy with melee combatants, don't really target the backline. Doubly so if you have a good AC and take advantage of cover and corners.

However, you are going to be playing a character with really bad base hit points. Having 54 hit points at level 10 is very dicey. Sure, your AC will be top-tier for the rest of the game if you run Medium Armor + shield + Shield Spell -- but you will go down from a couple stray rocks from a Stone Giant or a good roll on a Cone of Cold plus some nuisance damage or whatever. I personally never run d6/d8 hit die characters with less than 14 CON.

Deathtongue

2021-08-06, 01:52 AM

I agree with you, though re-reading the Order domain and Sculpt Spell, I could see how a reasonable DM would rule otherwise.I wouldn't call DMs who ignore RAW AND Sage Advice while pretending it's not THEM throwing out the nerfs reasonable. Quite the opposite.

My 5E RAW skills aren't the best in the world (too many other editions cluttering my memory), but I'd add that while the plain language of Sculpt spell is clearly "X allies are hit and auto-pass Saves..." I think the intent of Sculpt spell is that selected allies are not targeted/effected by the spell. In theory they could have instead written "choose a number of 5 foot squares, which do not need to be contiguous, equal to..." but didn't because the Theater of the Mind and natural language are the defaults for 5E. Sculpt Spells specifically does not protect allies from being hit by attack rolls. It also doesn't protect allies from effects that still happen even when they make a save. They still suffer most of the effects of a Freezing Sphere cast by an ally with Sculpt Spells even if they take no damage from the effect.

Gtdead

2021-08-06, 05:26 AM

Since we are on the topic of Evoker, I wonder what people think about Overchanneling persistent spells like Dawn and Sickening Radiance.

Disclaimer: Afaik, when phb was released, there weren't any persistent evocation spells eligible for Overchannel so the wording didn't matter that much.

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.

By RAW I'm 99% sure that it's possible to overchannel these spells for the whole duration because of the phrase "with that spell". However this particular phrase, "when you cast", is often associated with addons that work only once per cast. I'm fairly sure I haven't missed any errata. What's your opinion? Would you allow it in any case?

PhantomSoul

2021-08-06, 09:03 AM

By RAW I'm 99% sure that it's possible to overchannel these spells for the whole duration because of the phrase "with that spell". However this particular phrase, "when you cast", is often associated with addons that work only once per cast. I'm fairly sure I haven't missed any errata. What's your opinion? Would you allow it in any case?

It looks like the strict reading is that it's only immediate damage, and for these spells I feel no need to buff them further :P

quindraco

2021-08-06, 10:00 AM

Since we are on the topic of Evoker, I wonder what people think about Overchanneling persistent spells like Dawn and Sickening Radiance.

Disclaimer: Afaik, when phb was released, there weren't any persistent evocation spells eligible for Overchannel so the wording didn't matter that much.

By RAW I'm 99% sure that it's possible to overchannel these spells for the whole duration because of the phrase "with that spell". However this particular phrase, "when you cast", is often associated with addons that work only once per cast. I'm fairly sure I haven't missed any errata. What's your opinion? Would you allow it in any case?

When you cast effects only happen when you cast them, so dealing maximum damage only happens when you cast it. Any damage dealt after your cast is resolved is not maximized.

quindraco

2021-08-06, 10:13 AM

I wouldn't call DMs who ignore RAW AND Sage Advice while pretending it's not THEM throwing out the nerfs reasonable. Quite the opposite.

I'm not 100% certain where you fall on this issue from context, but for the record, the PHB explicitly states that Fireball targets the creatures it deals damage to. Page 196 (emphasis mine):

If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than
one target at the same time, roll the damage once for
all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or
a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled
once for all creatures caught in the blast.

Note also that ruling that Fireball doesn't target what it damages has other rules interactions, like letting it ignore 1/2 and 3/4 cover - the +2 and +5 to Dex saves given by the respective cover types are only given to targets.

Gtdead

2021-08-06, 10:20 AM

Overchannel specifies that the spell is maximized, while other abilities like Destructive Wrath specify that we use it when we are about to roll, and we instead use the maximum.

Channel Divinity: Destructive Wrath
Starting at 2nd level, you can use your Channel Divinity to wield the power of the storm with unchecked ferocity.

When you roll lightning or thunder damage, you can use your Channel Divinity to deal maximum damage, instead of rolling.

In overchannel, the clause "When you cast" means that you need to overchannel the moment you cast the spell. Once it's cast, you can't use overchannel to maximize the subsequent rounds of the persistent spell. Then it proceeds to explain the effect, which is that the spell is maximized.

This is in contrast to Destructive Wrath, where you can maximize a Call Lightning bolt at a later round.

I'm not sure why you guys read it as it's a one time thing. Care to explain?
Again, I'm aware that when PHB released, there weren't persistent spells eligible for overchanneling so it wouldn't make any difference.

quindraco

2021-08-06, 10:39 AM

Overchannel specifies that the spell is maximized, while other abilities like Destructive Wrath specify that we use it when we are about to roll, and we instead use the maximum.

In overchannel, the clause "When you cast" means that you need to overchannel the moment you cast the spell. Once it's cast, you can't use overchannel to maximize the subsequent rounds of the persistent spell. Then it proceeds to explain the effect, which is that the spell is maximized.

This is in contrast to Destructive Wrath, where you can maximize a Call Lightning bolt at a later round.

I'm not sure why you guys read it as it's a one time thing. Care to explain?
Again, I'm aware that when PHB released, there weren't persistent spells eligible for overchanneling so it wouldn't make any difference.

I read it as a one time thing because all "when you cast" effects are one time things, where the one time is the time when you cast. This is universal. For example, if you are a Stars Druid in Chalice form:

Whenever you cast a spell using a spell slot that restores hit points to a creature, you or another creature within 30 feet of you can regain hit points equal to 1d8 + your Wisdom modifier.

I.e. the bonus healing happens at cast time. If you're a Shepherd Druid with your Unicorn totem out, the same thing happens, only the RAW uses "if" instead of "when", which are contextually synonymous:

In addition, if you cast a spell using a spell slot that restores hit points to any creature inside or outside the aura, each creature of your choice in the aura also regains hit points equal to your druid level.

The wording you want is on Life Clerics, which don't trigger on cast, they trigger on use:

Whenever you use a spell of 1st level or higher to restore hit points to a creature, the creature regains additional hit points equal to 2 + the spell's level.

So if a Life Cleric casts a sustained healing spell, like healing spirit, their healing buff applies every time, because their ability applies on use. Stars and Shepherd Druids only gain their healing buff on cast. Likewise, Overchannel only applies on cast. If Overchannel said use, you would be able to do it every time the sustained spell dealt damage. With a more extensive change, you'd be able to Overchannel once and have the spell deal max damage every time.

You're incorrect about persistent evocation spells, so let's use a PHB example: Wall of Fire. RAW, Overchannel can only apply to the damage the Wall deals when it appears. Here's several wording variations we could have and how they do or would interact with WoF:

Current RAW modified to be less wordy, only applies on cast, so only appearance damage:
When you cast a level 1 to 5 wizard spell that deals damage, you can deal maximum damage with that spell.

Letting you Overchannel again every time the Wall deals damage, so appearance or when a creature enters the wrong space or ends its turn there:
When you use a level 1 to 5 wizard spell to deal damage, you can deal maximum damage with that spell.

Letting you Overchannel once and the Wall always deals maximum damage, but you have to make the choice when you cast:
When you cast a level 1 to 5 wizard spell that deals damage, you can choose to Overchannel that spell. An Overchanneled spell deals maximum damage.

See the differences? You can, on cast, maximize damage - which is not the same as maximizing damage on use, and is also not the same as, on cast, choosing to maximize the spell's damage throughout its duration, as opposed to only during the cast.

MaxWilson

2021-08-06, 10:56 AM

Since we are on the topic of Evoker, I wonder what people think about Overchanneling persistent spells like Dawn and Sickening Radiance.

Disclaimer: Afaik, when phb was released, there weren't any persistent evocation spells eligible for Overchannel so the wording didn't matter that much.

Bigby's Hand is a 5th level evocation spell, has been Overchannel-eligible all along. Ditto upcast Wall of Fire. Since Overchannel isn't restricted to evocation spells, things like Evard's Black Tentacles and Flaming Sphere have also always been eligible, although they are not good choices.

As a DM I try to be generous and avoid surprising players, and IMO the least surprising interpretation of Overchannel is that you get max damage on the whole Bigby's Hand/Sickening Radiance/whatever, for as long as it lasts.

Gtdead

2021-08-06, 11:41 AM

@quindraco

The healing examples showcase the use of "when you cast" phrase, which is the trigger. They don't explain why overchannel's effect should work in a particular way.

Trigger: When you cast a spell
Condition: The spell needs to use a spell slot and restore hit points
Effect: Another party member regains health

The effect in this case is instantaneous because "regain health" describes a very particular thing where persistence can't possibly be assumed.

---------------

In the case of Overchannel

Trigger: When you cast a spell
Condition: The spell deals damage (which means that it doesn't apply to shadowblade for example)
Effect: You maximize the spell.

Again, the effect is instant, a spell is maximized. The spell in question is persistent. There is no clause anywhere in the rules that states a modification can't apply to the whole duration of the spell.
You can't have a maximized spell if only the first instance of the damage is maximized. It's not intuitive. At best it would be called "semi maximized", or it would use the wording of destructive wrath.

-------------------------------------

In the case of Destructive Wrath

Trigger: When you roll thunder
Condition: thunder or lightning damage
Effect: You maximize instead of rolling

---------------------------------

Another example is Transmuted Spell metamagic.
"Transmuted Spell. When you cast a spell that deals a type of damage from the following list, you can spend 1 sorcery point to change that damage type to one of the other listed types: acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison, thunder."

By your logic, if you transmute a cloudkill to fire damage, then the combo wouldn't work, because cloudkill doesn't deal damage on cast. It would miss it's chance to deal fire damage and it would continue to deal poison damage. I don't see why that should be the case.

--------------------------------

Same thing with Awakened Spellbook. Although the wording is vastly different, it's again a "when you cast", and there is no reason to not apply to a spell like cloudkill. In fact many people on the internet use this example as an above average use of the feature.

When you cast a wizard spell with a spell slot, you can temporarily replace its damage type with a type that appears in another spell in your spellbook

--------------------------------

Basically we have 3 different abilities with 3 different wordings that we don't have any reason to believe that the effect doesn't apply to the whole duration. The author doesn't feel the need to explain that a modified spell lasts the whole duration because there aren't any rules that point to the opposite. If overchannel can't affect persistent spells, then these abilities can't do it too.

I had forgotten completely about Wall of Fire and Bigby's, thanks for reminding me guys, that was a huge brain fart... It allowed me to do a more thorough google search and I also found this:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/if-i-overchannel-bigbys-hand/

Crawford says that by RAW overchannel is supposed to last the duration. Then he says that it wasn't the intent. This actually is reason enough for me to not allow overchannel to work with persistent spells, but in actuality, the effect isn't that amazing, even with the grapple cheese. Wizard has so much cheese that an extra 18 damage per turn at lvl 14 is inconsequential.

Gtdead

2021-08-06, 11:47 AM

Bigby's Hand is a 5th level evocation spell, has been Overchannel-eligible all along. Ditto upcast Wall of Fire. Since Overchannel isn't restricted to evocation spells, things like Evard's Black Tentacles and Flaming Sphere have also always been eligible, although they are not good choices.

As a DM I try to be generous and avoid surprising players, and IMO the least surprising interpretation of Overchannel is that you get max damage on the whole Bigby's Hand/Sickening Radiance/whatever, for as long as it lasts.

That's fair. The reason I started thinking about it was actually because I was entertaining the notion of an evoker assassin with SWS on a surprise round, and tried to see if there was a non multiclass option that could create a similar effect without the need for multiclassing. Surprised enemies can't move so the persistent effects will hit at least 2 times without need for crowd control. Turns out that assassin SWS wins but I don't think it's worth the investment even for a oneshot.

MaxWilson

2021-08-06, 12:22 PM

That's fair. The reason I started thinking about it was actually because I was entertaining the notion of an evoker assassin with SWS on a surprise round, and tried to see if there was a non multiclass option that could create a similar effect without the need for multiclassing. Surprised enemies can't move so the persistent effects will hit at least 2 times without need for crowd control. Turns out that assassin SWS wins but I don't think it's worth the investment even for a oneshot.

If you want an Evoker assassin, go for Fighter 2/Evoker 9+, and then do Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound + Action Surge: Wall of Force. Assuming you don't lose concentration and that the enemy can't Dispel the spell or teleport away, they're now stuck taking damage from an invisible dog (advantage on attack rolls, 4d8 on hit) every six seconds or so until they die.

It doesn't work on everything (although a pre-cast Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum can help eliminate the teleport issue) but as an assassination technique, it's better than relying on a burst of nova damage. You can't kill a 200 HP Efreet with Steel Wind Strike but you can with Private Sanctum + this technique. (Private Sanctum eliminates the Plane Shift escape potential.)

PhantomSoul

2021-08-06, 12:25 PM

...Wall of Force. Assuming you don't lose concentration and that the enemy can't Dispel the spell or teleport away, ...

And Wall of Force is great for countering Dispel... simply because it can't be removed with Dispel Magic! (Disintegrate is needed)

MaxWilson

2021-08-06, 12:53 PM

And Wall of Force is great for countering Dispel... simply because it can't be removed with Dispel Magic! (Disintegrate is needed)

Yeah, but they can Dispel the Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound (and/or Private Sanctum).

Gtdead

2021-08-06, 12:58 PM

If you want an Evoker assassin, go for Fighter 2/Evoker 9+, and then do Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound + Action Surge: Wall of Force. Assuming you don't lose concentration and that the enemy can't Dispel the spell or teleport away, they're now stuck taking damage from an invisible dog (advantage on attack rolls, 4d8 on hit) every six seconds or so until they die.

It doesn't work on everything (although a pre-cast Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum can help eliminate the teleport issue) but as an assassination technique, it's better than relying on a burst of nova damage. You can't kill a 200 HP Efreet with Steel Wind Strike but you can with Private Sanctum + this technique. (Private Sanctum eliminates the Plane Shift escape potential.)

Yea, I remember your duel with Unoriginal I think it was, where you walled him with the hound, and the discussion that ensued after that ^^. Of course WotC later published the Chronurgist so now we have a lot more options on how to kill a force walled enemy! ^^

MaxWilson

2021-08-06, 01:46 PM

Yea, I remember your duel with Unoriginal I think it was, where you walled him with the hound, and the discussion that ensued after that ^^. Of course WotC later published the Chronurgist so now we have a lot more options on how to kill a force walled enemy! ^^

What I learned from Vlad Taltos: assassination isn't about how big your nova damage burst is, it's about constraining of your targets's options so that they are all bad options, all ending in a dead target.

I was about to write "Assassination also doesn't fit well into D&D's party-oriented play" but then I realized that isn't true. In many ways, Combat As War is all about conducting monster assassinations instead of "fair fights," and in many ways it's actually easier with a big party. (E.g. instead of having to take Fighter 2 for Action Surge, you can just have two separate wizards work together, one Readying an action and the other casting normally while keeping his reaction open for Counterspell.)

Gtdead

2021-08-06, 02:29 PM

What I learned from Vlad Taltos: assassination isn't about how big your nova damage burst is, it's about constraining of your targets's options so that they are all bad options, all ending in a dead target.

I was about to write "Assassination also doesn't fit well into D&D's party-oriented play" but then I realized that isn't true. In many ways, Combat As War is all about conducting monster assassinations instead of "fair fights," and in many ways it's actually easier with a big party. (E.g. instead of having to take Fighter 2 for Action Surge, you can just have two separate wizards work together, one Readying an action and the other casting normally while keeping his reaction open for Counterspell.)

Oh well, if the fights were fair, the party would be constantly at a disadvantage. The most "fair" you can get in DnD is to follow the recommended progression which no one does because it's boring.

It's also why DPR is so sexy (not just in DnD but in pretty much every game). Every round that passes increases the chances that something will go horribly wrong. Why kill something efficiently in 4 turns when you can burst it down in 1? Let the DM worry about pacing, I'm casting Tiny Hut.

MaxWilson

2021-08-06, 03:42 PM

It's also why DPR is so sexy (not just in DnD but in pretty much every game). Every round that passes increases the chances that something will go horribly wrong. Why kill something efficiently in 4 turns when you can burst it down in 1? Let the DM worry about pacing, I'm casting Tiny Hut.

I think that DPR preference must be a personal preference. I just rediscovered Diablo II (thanks to the upcoming Diablo 2: Resurrected) and in Hardcore mode there is very little temptation for me to maximize DPR at any cost, because the RoI on other things is often much higher. E.g. my Assassin could have a slightly stronger Death Sentry/Lightning Sentry if I dropped Mind Blast/Shadow Master/Dragon Talon, etc., but I value the versatility of having multiple tactics available to me more than the potential increase in lightning DPR.

In some cases there really is a clear best choice, which is determined by rules, but in other cases it's a player preference thing based on things like how much you mind having to run away from lightning-immune monsters, or in 5E's case how your DM structures encounters and whether anything happens in the gameworld while you sit in a hut (Tiny or otherwise) doing nothing for 24 hours.

quindraco

2021-08-06, 03:42 PM

Trigger: When you cast a spell
Condition: The spell deals damage (which means that it doesn't apply to shadowblade for example)
Effect: You maximize the spell.

Note: this is widely considered incorrect, but the necessary RAW basically doesn't exist. Shadow Blade creates a shadow blade in the exact same way Wall of Fire creates a wall of fire - in both instances, a spell creates an object, and it's possible for that object to damage targets. It's hard to see the edges of this question because of the limited monsters that actually exist, so imagine a new spell called "conjured knife" that literally just manifests a knife while you concentrate and the spell text just says the knife deals 1d4 slashing damage. We immediately need to know if this damage is magical or not, and based on the rules we have, the knife is magical if and only if the knife is the spell. There's no RAW covering this, but what we can do is examine other rules and apply logical reduction: what must WOTC intend in order for other rules to make sense? This leads to the following conclusion by the playerbase, but again, there's no actual RAW stating this:
1) When a spell creates a creature, that creature is not the spell. This is why the Shepherd Druid L6 ability does something.
2) When a spell creates an object, that object is the spell. This is why Cloud of Daggers deals magical damage - the daggers it makes are the spell.

tl;dr Either Cloud of Daggers and Shadow Blade both count as the spell dealing damage when they inflict damage or neither do, and the community consensus is that they do.

Another example is Transmuted Spell metamagic.
"Transmuted Spell. When you cast a spell that deals a type of damage from the following list, you can spend 1 sorcery point to change that damage type to one of the other listed types: acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison, thunder."

I snipped out the rest of your post because it got into weeds that I realized weren't really relevant to our core discussion here. This is an excellent point you've made. There is only one significant difference between this and Overchannel:

Transmuted Spell changes the damage a spell deals. Overchannel changes the damage the caster deals.

The former clearly changes the spell for its entire duration - you change the damage type the spell deals, and no rule changes it back. The latter changes the caster - that is, Overchannel states "you can deal maximum damage with the spell". If it had Transmuted Spell's wording, the only difference would be "you can change the spell's damage values to their maxima."

So the question is, how germane is this? Does it matter that Transmuted Spell modifies the spell itself, but Overchannel modifies the caster?

I think yes. I think if you can deal maximum damage with the spell when you cast it, then you can only do so for the duration of the cast, not the duration of the spell, because otherwise, the ability never wears off - that is, Overchannel has no reason to expire when the spell expires. An Evoker could cast Fireball, Overchannel Fireball, and then they deal maximum damage with Fireball. If "when they cast" isn't the time limiter - if they don't stop dealing maximum damage with Fireball when they finish casting it - I don't see a valid reason to think they stop dealing maximum damage with Fireball when the spell ends. By contrast, if Overchannel modified Fireball itself, as Transmuted Spell does, then we could conclude Overchannel ends when the spell ends.

Gtdead

2021-08-06, 05:35 PM

Note: this is widely considered incorrect, but the necessary RAW basically doesn't exist. Shadow Blade creates a shadow blade in the exact same way Wall of Fire creates a wall of fire - in both instances, a spell creates an object, and it's possible for that object to damage targets. It's hard to see the edges of this question because of the limited monsters that actually exist, so imagine a new spell called "conjured knife" that literally just manifests a knife while you concentrate and the spell text just says the knife deals 1d4 slashing damage. We immediately need to know if this damage is magical or not, and based on the rules we have, the knife is magical if and only if the knife is the spell. There's no RAW covering this, but what we can do is examine other rules and apply logical reduction: what must WOTC intend in order for other rules to make sense? This leads to the following conclusion by the playerbase, but again, there's no actual RAW stating this:
1) When a spell creates a creature, that creature is not the spell. This is why the Shepherd Druid L6 ability does something.
2) When a spell creates an object, that object is the spell. This is why Cloud of Daggers deals magical damage - the daggers it makes are the spell.

tl;dr Either Cloud of Daggers and Shadow Blade both count as the spell dealing damage when they inflict damage or neither do, and the community consensus is that they do.

You are absolutely right, my example was unfortunate. I should had used cure wounds as an example. I concede this one.

I snipped out the rest of your post because it got into weeds that I realized weren't really relevant to our core discussion here. This is an excellent point you've made. There is only one significant difference between this and Overchannel:

Transmuted Spell changes the damage a spell deals. Overchannel changes the damage the caster deals.

The former clearly changes the spell for its entire duration - you change the damage type the spell deals, and no rule changes it back. The latter changes the caster - that is, Overchannel states "you can deal maximum damage with the spell". If it had Transmuted Spell's wording, the only difference would be "you can change the spell's damage values to their maxima."

So the question is, how germane is this? Does it matter that Transmuted Spell modifies the spell itself, but Overchannel modifies the caster?

I think yes. I think if you can deal maximum damage with the spell when you cast it, then you can only do so for the duration of the cast, not the duration of the spell, because otherwise, the ability never wears off - that is, Overchannel has no reason to expire when the spell expires. An Evoker could cast Fireball, Overchannel Fireball, and then they deal maximum damage with Fireball. If "when they cast" isn't the time limiter - if they don't stop dealing maximum damage with Fireball when they finish casting it - I don't see a valid reason to think they stop dealing maximum damage with Fireball when the spell ends. By contrast, if Overchannel modified Fireball itself, as Transmuted Spell does, then we could conclude Overchannel ends when the spell ends.

I see, that's really smart and I hadn't thought about it in this way. So now my question is, who deals the damage, the caster or the spell? If the spell deals the damage, then the empowered caster creates a stronger effect by altering the damage of the spell and the language is unfortunate because it doesn't match the mechanics. The end result should be that the spell stays maximized till the end because the damage attribute of the spell is changed, or at least that's how I understand it. If the caster deals the damage through the spell, then your reading is perfectly accurate, because otherwise the empowered caster would just keep slinging maximized fireballs while concentrating on the maximized persistent spell.

------------------------------------------------------------

I think that DPR preference must be a personal preference. I just rediscovered Diablo II (thanks to the upcoming Diablo 2: Resurrected) and in Hardcore mode there is very little temptation for me to maximize DPR at any cost, because the RoI on other things is often much higher. E.g. my Assassin could have a slightly stronger Death Sentry/Lightning Sentry if I dropped Mind Blast/Shadow Master/Dragon Talon, etc., but I value the versatility of having multiple tactics available to me more than the potential increase in lightning DPR.

In some cases there really is a clear best choice, which is determined by rules, but in other cases it's a player preference thing based on things like how much you mind having to run away from lightning-immune monsters, or in 5E's case how your DM structures encounters and whether anything happens in the gameworld while you sit in a hut (Tiny or otherwise) doing nothing for 24 hours.

Diablo has a more intricate design than most games. I haven't played 2, but I have played 3, and while stacking dps is the optimal way to level up (at least for ranged characters), past some point, you face enemies with damage immunities and unavoidable aoe damage. If you don't invest in some form of defense, be it health, mitigation or lifesteal, you will die. Every class has it's own niche. You can't make Monk a dps monster and you can't make demon hunter a tank no matter how much you try. Or at least you couldn't when I was playing the game. It's been a while.

The allure of dps is that in some games, it absolutely trivializes other attributes and there is a good reason for it. Also whenever there is a gate that requires a fight, ff you have 100 damage and 0 defense, you have a chance to progress. If you have 0 damage and 100 defense, then you will never progress. Damage is the requirement and defense is the force multiplier. This is also the reason why focusing on damage is so intuitive to most players.

The right balance is inherent to the design of the game. It's why I love Dark Souls and other similar games so much. You use defense to learn the game. The more you learn, the less defense you need.

MaxWilson

2021-08-06, 06:48 PM

Diablo has a more intricate design than most games. I haven't played 2, but I have played 3, and while stacking dps is the optimal way to level up (at least for ranged characters), past some point, you face enemies with damage immunities and unavoidable aoe damage. If you don't invest in some form of defense, be it health, mitigation or lifesteal, you will die. Every class has it's own niche. You can't make Monk a dps monster and you can't make demon hunter a tank no matter how much you try. Or at least you couldn't when I was playing the game. It's been a while.

The allure of dps is that in some games, it absolutely trivializes other attributes and there is a good reason for it. Also whenever there is a gate that requires a fight, ff you have 100 damage and 0 defense, you have a chance to progress. If you have 0 damage and 100 defense, then you will never progress. Damage is the requirement and defense is the force multiplier. This is also the reason why focusing on damage is so intuitive to most players.

The right balance is inherent to the design of the game. It's why I love Dark Souls and other similar games so much. You use defense to learn the game. The more you learn, the less defense you need.

To me, Diablo 2 seems simplistic, certainly more simplistic than something like Dominions 5 or 5E. If maximizing DPR is not necessarily the right strategy in a simple game like Diablo 2, it is for sure not necessarily the right strategy in 5E. :) Because of how 5E is designed, you quickly reach a point of diminishing returns where increasing your damage per round by 50% is extremely expensive or infeasible, even though increasing your damage-dealt to damage-received ratio is still very cheap and easy. E.g. casting Blur can easily cut your incoming damage by 50%, but casting Hunter's Mark only boosts damage dealt by something on the order of 15%--and Blur is easier to get! There are plenty of classes out there like the Champion and the Bladesinger which dedicate entire class features to tiny damage boosts on the order of +4 DPR per round, while at the same time the CR calculation completely neglects mobility aside from flying as even a factor in combat calculations. But boosting your mobility and using it is an extremely powerful defensive strategy in reality. It just doesn't increase your kill speed, only your victory ratio.

Anyway, DPS/R increases may trivialize some games, but not 5E. (I'm not saying you necessarily said that it would trivialize 5E, @Gtdead, I'm just commenting.) Even totally bonkers DPR like a Hexvoker with a Simulacrum spewing Magic Missiles under Hexblade's Curse is (1) mostly only broken because Simulacrum is broken, and (2) still susceptible to counterplay, not least because Hexblade's Curse has an extremely short range. Even the most broken DPR combo in 5E is never a dominant strategy, at best it's a good strategy which plays well with a versatile portfolio of other strategies.

</rant>

Gtdead

2021-08-06, 07:39 PM

To me, Diablo 2 seems simplistic, certainly more simplistic than something like Dominions 5 or 5E. If maximizing DPR is not necessarily the right strategy in a simple game like Diablo 2, it is for sure not necessarily the right strategy in 5E. :) Because of how 5E is designed, you quickly reach a point of diminishing returns where increasing your damage per round by 50% is extremely expensive or infeasible, even though increasing your damage-dealt to damage-received ratio is still very cheap and easy. E.g. casting Blur can easily cut your incoming damage by 50%, but casting Hunter's Mark only boosts damage dealt by something on the order of 15%--and Blur is easier to get! There are plenty of classes out there like the Champion and the Bladesinger which dedicate entire class features to tiny damage boosts on the order of +4 DPR per round, while at the same time the CR calculation completely neglects mobility aside from flying as even a factor in combat calculations. But boosting your mobility and using it is an extremely powerful defensive strategy in reality. It just doesn't increase your kill speed, only your victory ratio.

Anyway, DPS/R increases may trivialize some games, but not 5E. (I'm not saying you necessarily said that it would trivialize 5E, @Gtdead, I'm just commenting.) Even totally bonkers DPR like a Hexvoker with a Simulacrum spewing Magic Missiles under Hexblade's Curse is (1) mostly only broken because Simulacrum is broken, and (2) still susceptible to counterplay, not least because Hexblade's Curse has an extremely short range. Even the most broken DPR combo in 5E is never a dominant strategy, at best it's a good strategy which plays well with a versatile portfolio of other strategies.

</rant>

I'm in full agreement about the scaling and the rest of the theory in 5e. DPR calculations at this point are just a "guilty" pleasure. I've never played a sorlock for example even if I have theorycrafted the build to kingdom come. I only play Clerics.. #notyourhealbot. ^^

As for D2, as I said I haven't played it, only D3, but I know very well that most video games have a flat percentage based approach to damage scaling. This is usually the reason why most people get away with just playing offense, no matter how difficult the game is. It's a very volatile design approach, because damage scales so hard that the only way to shut it down is to make enemies invincible or bloat their hit points to absurd levels.

And even that sometimes isn't enough, like in Skyrim, where they introduced a difficulty mode that cuts your damage output to 25% of the original, bloats enemy health by 200%, and still you can oneshot anything on the curve by using sneak attacks, while listening to the hilarious oneliners like "It must have been the wind" when the dead guy's comrade can't spot you.

Even turn based games like Wasteland 3 for example suffer greatly from this. For some reason they thought it would be a good idea to add a talent that makes the shotgun cone volley damage increase by 25% for every target it attacks. So basically, attack 4 targets, and you deal double damage to every single one of them. Lategame shotgun attack was a mini nuclear bomb. There isn't any work around for this type of scaling. I mean.. it's supposed to be a tactical party turn based game but the most viable tactic is to increase the shotgun's area of effect range and bomb everything out of orbit. Hopefully they rebalanced it a bit cause I'm feeling nostalgic lately.

BullyWog

2021-08-06, 11:18 PM

Re: fire bolt vs toll the dead. Fire bolt is much more likely to give away your position than TtD. Also, sometimes at the end of a battle a little damage can be important

Deathtongue

2021-08-07, 11:24 AM

In some cases there really is a clear best choice, which is determined by rules, but in other cases it's a player preference thing based on things like how much you mind having to run away from lightning-immune monsters, or in 5E's case how your DM structures encounters and whether anything happens in the gameworld while you sit in a hut (Tiny or otherwise) doing nothing for 24 hours.

I really do think the metagame shifts more towards DPR as 5E D&D goes on.

The big reason being is that individual monster hit points don't scale as quickly in T3/T4 as they do in T1/T2. If you trace out the hitpoint progression of all of the DMG giants versus their CR, it's less-than-linear. Monsters also, unlike 3E and 4E D&D, don't really develop a lot of defenses to hit point damage such as damage reduction, regeneration, lol no attack nullifiers like Immediate Interrupts, soforth. This is good news for pure martials, especially if their table drops a lot of magical items, but it's still weird when you look at the stats of something like an Astral Dreadnaught or a Balor and note that for all of their anti-spellcaster defense-in-depths they're still vulnerable to Sharpshooter Samurai dropping the hammer with an Action Surge Oathbow. A team of optimized, ranged-capable martials with just enough spellcasting to overcome common T3/T4 obstacles (i.e. Dispel Magic, Flight, Water Breathing, etc.) can really snap lategame encounters in half unless the DM spices up the battlefield or adopts a Shadowrun mentality towards adventure design.

Sure, even in late T3/T4 that rolling pure God Wizard is not just viable, but OP, but nonetheless monsters just start developing more counters to spells that don't subvert the saving throw system like Transmute Rock/Ray of Enfeeblement or just outright pre-snap the game in half like Wall of Force and Dark Star. Which you think would open up a space for spells like Disintegrate and Bigby's Hand and Chain Lightning, but it really didn't until Tasha's. And even then, contemporary DPR-focused spellcasters can't just select the best spells from a guide and stick it onto any specialization. Melf's Minute Meteors is ironically harder to get the most use out of than Web and Hypnotic Pattern.

Because of how 5E is designed, you quickly reach a point of diminishing returns where increasing your damage per round by 50% is extremely expensive or infeasible, even though increasing your damage-dealt to damage-received ratio is still very cheap and easy. E.g. casting Blur can easily cut your incoming damage by 50%, but casting Hunter's Mark only boosts damage dealt by something on the order of 15%--and Blur is easier to get! Depends? The Concentration mechanic and 5E D&D's stringency with buffs doesn't make them as good as they are in 3E and 4E D&D I feel. Casting Blur does cut your incoming damage, yes, but it also cuts into your offensive options -- which gives Team Monster more potent and/or numerically more turns to act in response. 5E D&D has enough in the way of non-concentration offensive options like Tasha's Mind Whip, Command, and Transmute Rock that this isn't a huge deal, especially in T3+ that this is often the way you want to go. But I've found that if you're able to consistently take down Hard or even Deadly encounters in 1-2 rounds the metagame shifts towards pure offense.

The DM, being the DM, still has tricks up their sleeve to force the players to play at the pace they want to play. But unlike 4E D&D, they can't rely on printed monster design to halt the onslaught of a Nash's equilibrium of all-out-offense. They need to do things like 'remember the Dark Elf's cave in FF4? Yeah, magnetism time' or 'you fool, did you think that PCs were the only ones with access to Glyph of Warding cheese'?

Gtdead

2021-08-07, 11:55 AM

snip

I think that Max's point was about changing the focus of optimization in builds. For example about the Samurai squad, you are using a class that has high dpr built in and your optimization focus is to add spell support for dispel magic, water breathing etc.

No one in their right mind would say "An Oathbow Samurai doesn't have enough damage, let me dip 2 levels of X class to increase it even further", in the same vein that a wizard doesn't dip other classes to increase the spell versatility, rather to boost passive defense, offense and action economy.

It's more about finding the cutoff point where stacking offense isn't worth it anymore, because the increases are mostly flat (advantage is pretty much the only exception and it's a worthy endeavor for most builds), and unless they are substantial, the diminishing returns work against the intent of the player.

Instead a more reasonable way to approach this is to compare rounds need to kill vs rounds to be killed. If your offensive focus only decreases the rounds to kill by a marginal amount, but a defensive focus doubles your survival rounds, then it's time to forget about boosting offence all together, you have reached the limit.

Deathtongue

2021-08-07, 12:16 PM

No one in their right mind would say "An Oathbow Samurai doesn't have enough damage, let me dip 2 levels of X class to increase it even further", in the same vein that a wizard doesn't dip other classes to increase the spell versatility, rather to boost passive defense, offense and action economy.

It's more about finding the cutoff point where stacking offense isn't worth it anymore, because the increases are mostly flat (advantage is pretty much the only exception and it's a worthy endeavor for most builds), and unless they are substantial, the diminishing returns work against the intent of the player.That's kind of the point of this guide. As of Tasha's -- especially if your game uses magical items like 90% of T2+ games do -- I genuinely feel that sacrificing defense and control for raw offense is a defensible choice now. Before Tasha's, unless you were a Hexvoker and/or doing something weird like Command Undead cheese, there was a point of diminishing returns to being a spellcaster focused on DPR. You enjoyed Fireball and Animate Objects for what they were, then moved onto 'real spells' when they weren't so good anymore. Evoker gave you the ability to surprise an enemy with an Overchanneled Scorching Ray Plus Some Hex Action, but optimized wizards were God Wizards first, anything else second.

But the T1-T3 returns aren't as diminishing as they used to be. Dragon's Breath and Summon Undead will make you feel good about your life choices all game long. DPR spells are a lot more efficient in terms of spell slots than they used to be and also have greater availability. And there are also a number of game effects to throw some additional spice on top of that with less opportunity cost than before. But the utility and interplay isn't obvious.

winterwarrior

2021-08-08, 02:23 PM

1)Absolutely. In fact that level of Hexblade is worth more in games that stop before T3. I ran a Hexvoker in Adventurer's League from level 1 to level 17 with standard array and overall the tradeoff was really worth it.

2) Depends on how often you get attacked. A lot of DMs, especially in parties that are heavy with melee combatants, don't really target the backline. Doubly so if you have a good AC and take advantage of cover and corners.

However, you are going to be playing a character with really bad base hit points. Having 54 hit points at level 10 is very dicey. Sure, your AC will be top-tier for the rest of the game if you run Medium Armor + shield + Shield Spell -- but you will go down from a couple stray rocks from a Stone Giant or a good roll on a Cone of Cold plus some nuisance damage or whatever. I personally never run d6/d8 hit die characters with less than 14 CON.

Thanks for the advice, probably makes sense to have a little more durability. I believe your guide recommended level 1 for the Warlock dip, but I am already a few sessions in at LVL 3. Is it worth getting Wizard 5 for the LVL 3 spells (Fireball) first before the warlock level?

MaxWilson

2021-08-08, 10:42 PM

I really do think the metagame shifts more towards DPR as 5E D&D goes on.

The big reason being is that individual monster hit points don't scale as quickly in T3/T4 as they do in T1/T2. If you trace out the hitpoint progression of all of the DMG giants versus their CR, it's less-than-linear. Monsters also, unlike 3E and 4E D&D, don't really develop a lot of defenses to hit point damage such as damage reduction, regeneration, lol no attack nullifiers like Immediate Interrupts, soforth. This is good news for pure martials, especially if their table drops a lot of magical items, but it's still weird when you look at the stats of something like an Astral Dreadnaught or a Balor and note that for all of their anti-spellcaster defense-in-depths they're still vulnerable to Sharpshooter Samurai dropping the hammer with an Action Surge Oathbow. A team of optimized, ranged-capable martials with just enough spellcasting to overcome common T3/T4 obstacles (i.e. Dispel Magic, Flight, Water Breathing, etc.) can really snap lategame encounters in half unless the DM spices up the battlefield or adopts a Shadowrun mentality towards adventure design.

I understand the HP vs. level/CR pattern you're talking about but I draw a different conclusion: it's a DM/playstyle thing, not a tier thing. Monster HP progression comes to an almost-screeching halt around CR 4-5 (a CR 5 Earth Elemental has almost as many HP as a CR 10 Young Red Dragon or a CR 13 Beholder), which means that if your DM is the type to rely mostly or entirely upon solo monsters pretending to be armored tanks, those 100-200ish HP will evaporate very quickly under focused fire. That doesn't necessarily make DPR a better strategy than defense, but it does mean not much is at stake even in cases where defense would be more cost-effective, because inflicting 200 HP over 3 rounds and inflicting 200 HP in two rounds are both inexpensive for a level 8ish+ party.

But things change radically if your DM is the opposite type, the kind who loves setpiece battles. Your 8th level party may be able to nova 200 HP in single-target damage in two rounds, but if the DM is following Xanathar's guidance to put the party up against 12 Skeletons (12 * 13 = 132 HP), 7 zombies (7 * 22 = 154 HP), 4 scarecrows (4 * 36 = 144 HP), and 7 magma mephits (7 * 22 = 154 HP), you're facing approximately 150 HP per PC (584 total), and DPR novas aren't the right approach.

You might want to do something else, like having somebody with good Wisdom saves go out in front and tank (under a Blur spell? Dodging?) to get the zombies and scarecrows to clump up in Fireball Formation so you can Fireball them next round. Or, maybe you kill the skeletons with ranged fire and then kite the scarecrows and zombies to death instead, over the course of 5-7 rounds.
That's still true in Tier 3 and Tier 4, because 4 20th level PCs still don't want to rely on novas to kill the Xanathars-suggested 9 White Wyrmlings (9 * 32 = 288 HP), 6 Yetis (6 * 51 = 306 HP), and 8 Star Spawn Manglers (8 * 71 = 566 HP), which is 1160 total HP, approximately double what there was at level 8. 20th level PCs have higher damage than 8th level PCs, but it isn't double the damage output in most cases (outside of corner cases like a party full of Hexvokers, or a party abusing Simulacrum and/or Planar Binding--these cases will be obvious to a DM). Just as monster HP increases sub-linearly with level, so does PC damage increase sub-linearly with level.

If you're going to fight the Wyrmlings/Yetis/Manglers, you want a non-DPR-centric strategy, even at 20th level, and especially a non-single-target-DPR-focused strategy. E.g. instead of just novaing, hoping against hope that you can kill all of the Manglers before they can ripe you to shreds, the party might be better off upcasting Fly to let all the PCs fly, which reduces the battle to a more-easily-solved problem of "how do we Fireball/Sharpshooter all of the Wyrmlings to death without losing concentration on Fly?" and a related question of "how do we mop up all of the manglers and yetis before they can get away and live to fight another day" (which might involve giving them some summons or illusions to attack, maybe supported by one PC with AoEs). Incidentally this is one reason why Four Elements Monks are underrated--having another PC who can pour on the Fireballs/Cones of Cold when needed can increase your party AoE output by 50% to 100%ish in large battles, which is sort of like Overhcanneling the party wizard's spells except the party didn't have to pay 14 levels of Evoker for the privilege and it's usable more than once per day.

Ergo, no matter what your party level, it totally depends on DM style and whether your DM likes solo glass cannons or big battles against hordes. If your DM chooses to stop using hordes as the party grows in level, that's their choice but I would ask, why are you doing that? 5E is specifically built around a concept called bounded accuracy which is intended, among other things, to make sure that monsters never go out of style--a DM can keep using orcs and hobgoblins against 20th level PCs and the challenge never goes away. Just use more of them.

Sure, even in late T3/T4 that rolling pure God Wizard is not just viable, but OP, but nonetheless monsters just start developing more counters to spells that don't subvert the saving throw system like Transmute Rock/Ray of Enfeeblement or just outright pre-snap the game in half like Wall of Force and Dark Star.

I doubt Wall of Force and Dark Star's ability to snap the game in half against either the 8th level encounter above (scarecrows, skeletons, etc.) or the 20th level encounter. I think you're very focused on one particular DMing style, big solo monsters or small groups of thug monsters, but it's not the only way to play 5E, even according to WotC's own designers!

Which you think would open up a space for spells like Disintegrate and Bigby's Hand and Chain Lightning, but it really didn't until Tasha's. And even then, contemporary DPR-focused spellcasters can't just select the best spells from a guide and stick it onto any specialization. Melf's Minute Meteors is ironically harder to get the most use out of than Web and Hypnotic Pattern.

Depends? The Concentration mechanic and 5E D&D's stringency with buffs doesn't make them as good as they are in 3E and 4E D&D I feel.

I can't compare to 3E and 4E since 5E is the first WotC game I've ever given more than about twenty hours of attention to. Or, rather, based on my experience with video games (Icewind Dale II is an implementation of 3E, and ToEE is an implementation of 3.5E) I suspect you're probably right but I don't have experience with 3E as an actual rule engine.

But even if defenses are more expensive in 5E than in 3E (many of them take a feat or proficiency, not just a spell slot, and the ones that do take spell slots take concentration), they're still usually more cost effective than those DPR-oriented options you mentioned above, like Disintegrate. Even Meteor Swarm isn't actually a great DPR spell, just a fun one with a huge AoE and moderately good damage.

Casting Blur does cut your incoming damage, yes, but it also cuts into your offensive options -- which gives Team Monster more potent and/or numerically more turns to act in response. 5E D&D has enough in the way of non-concentration offensive options like Tasha's Mind Whip, Command, and Transmute Rock that this isn't a huge deal, especially in T3+ that this is often the way you want to go. But I've found that if you're able to consistently take down Hard or even Deadly encounters in 1-2 rounds the metagame shifts towards pure offense.

If you're saying "it depends," I agree. But I doubt you're going to take down a Hard encounter full of Magma Mephits or Goblins in 1-2 rounds unless the goblins are inexplicably in Fireball formation instead of using their bows. (And a Hard encounter of Magma Mephits for an 8th level party is up to 20 Magma Mephits, 440 HP doing 40d6(140) with their breath weapons and another 40d6 (140) with their death bursts, not to mention Heat Metal and their claws!) In a case like this, looking for ways to win through cheap defense is going to get you more mileage than novaing harder on your DPR by upcasting Shatter, spending all your superiority dice, etc.

The DM, being the DM, still has tricks up their sleeve to force the players to play at the pace they want to play. But unlike 4E D&D, they can't rely on printed monster design to halt the onslaught of a Nash's equilibrium of all-out-offense. They need to do things like 'remember the Dark Elf's cave in FF4? Yeah, magnetism time' or 'you fool, did you think that PCs were the only ones with access to Glyph of Warding cheese'?

Hard disagree.

TL;DR The DM just has to remember to use more than one type of encounter: solos + hordes instead of just solos.

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

I think that Max's point was about changing the focus of optimization in builds. For example about the Samurai squad, you are using a class that has high dpr built in and your optimization focus is to add spell support for dispel magic, water breathing etc.

No one in their right mind would say "An Oathbow Samurai doesn't have enough damage, let me dip 2 levels of X class to increase it even further", in the same vein that a wizard doesn't dip other classes to increase the spell versatility, rather to boost passive defense, offense and action economy.

It's more about finding the cutoff point where stacking offense isn't worth it anymore, because the increases are mostly flat (advantage is pretty much the only exception and it's a worthy endeavor for most builds), and unless they are substantial, the diminishing returns work against the intent of the player.

Instead a more reasonable way to approach this is to compare rounds need to kill vs rounds to be killed. If your offensive focus only decreases the rounds to kill by a marginal amount, but a defensive focus doubles your survival rounds, then it's time to forget about boosting offence all together, you have reached the limit.

Yes, for example there are many encounters in which you'd rather have a Samurai with Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, Dex 20, and Defensive Duelist instead of a Samurai with Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, Dex 20, and Piercer despite the latter's higher DPR.

Deathtongue

2021-08-11, 04:52 AM

But things change radically if your DM is the opposite type, the kind who loves setpiece battles. Your 8th level party may be able to nova 200 HP in single-target damage in two rounds, but if the DM is following Xanathar's guidance to put the party up against 12 Skeletons (12 * 13 = 132 HP), 7 zombies (7 * 22 = 154 HP), 4 scarecrows (4 * 36 = 144 HP), and 7 magma mephits (7 * 22 = 154 HP), you're facing approximately 150 HP per PC (584 total), and DPR novas aren't the right approach.

I played a lot of Adventurer's League (got three characters to T4) and tabletop on discord. And IMX that kind of encounter design doesn't really happen at T2+ except to tick a box that goes 'with bounded accuracy D&D can support encounters that aren't just a superboss or a handful of their lieutenants'. One that exists on paper, like the 6-8 encounter workday, but doesn't actually really happen in gameplay. For a few reasons.

1.) It's an enormous pain in the ass to run that many monsters for more than a couple of encounters, even if you're using tricks like group initiative and laminated trackers. For one, it limits the kind of setpieces you can use because you simply need bigger spaces. Have you tried putting 15 monsters in a 15 x 15 map that's not a goat pasture? Yet if you're using theater of the mind, it gets even worse. Or how about if someone tries dropping a Fear? It'll completely upend the encounter. Not just in a 'aw crap, it's DC17 and none of these twenty monsters has a save better than +1' way, but a 'okay, move this token to here, can't quite make a save. Move this token here, they're still in dim light, no save, etc.' manner.

2.) The setup reacts really weirdly with bounded accuracy. This setup is pretty much no threat to a high-AC character like a Bladesinger, even if they can't use their primary magical weapon because of the Heat Metal. You have to use monsters overpowered for their CR for it to be a real challenge like wyrmlings and intellect devourers. But then that screws over characters who don't have a good way to lock out monsters. If the barbarian doesn't get a reasonably high initiative and gets targeted, it's gg for them. And of course lower-CR monsters can't do much about certain tactics common at higher tiers (like extended invisibility, lolhueg Stealth checks, flight, etc.), making the problem worse.

3.) Most importantly, this setup doesn't actually hurt a focus on DPR all that much. It hurts a focus on single-target DPR, yes, but a couple of Fireballs will still make the encounter go up in smoke if the user(s) get a reasonably high initiative roll.

Gignere

2021-08-11, 05:50 AM

Yes, for example there are many encounters in which you'd rather have a Samurai with Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, Dex 20, and Defensive Duelist instead of a Samurai with Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, Dex 20, and Piercer despite the latter's higher DPR.

You’d need to explain your logic here. How do you use Defensive Duelist while using a hand crossbow? You still need a free hand to reload or are you juggling weapons every turn with your empty hand?

stoutstien

2021-08-11, 05:55 AM

You’d need to explain your logic here. How do you use Defensive Duelist while using a hand crossbow? You still need a free hand to reload or are you juggling weapons every turn with your empty hand?

Free item interaction. It's not like you can use your hand crossbow as a reaction anyways.

Gignere

2021-08-11, 06:04 AM

Free item interaction. It's not like you can use your hand crossbow as a reaction anyways.

Works for the first turn, unless you’re carrying a bunch of daggers and dropping it every turn. But that’s really gamist.

A better example would be one samurai with resilient wis and the other has piercer. Makes the point better and doesn’t require a gamist intervention.

stoutstien

2021-08-11, 06:47 AM

Works for the first turn, unless you’re carrying a bunch of daggers and dropping it every turn. But that’s really gamist.

A better example would be one samurai with resilient wis and the other has piercer. Makes the point better and doesn’t require a gamist intervention.

I mean it is a game so trying to find the point of using the rules becoming gamist Is chasing a line of dust with a broom. Having only one reaction is as gamist as trying to utilize it.

Why would a Sammy need resi Wis? It's baked into the class.

Regardless I think the point was that spending increasing opportunity costs on damage have a sharp diminishing returns. where adding in defensive or utility options have a higher payout because the "ceiling" of those are much higher. Assuming you have adequate damage already.

MaxWilson

2021-08-11, 09:39 AM

I played a lot of Adventurer's League (got three characters to T4) and tabletop on discord. And (D) IMX that kind of encounter design doesn't really happen at T2+ except to tick a box that goes 'with bounded accuracy D&D can support encounters that aren't just a superboss or a handful of their lieutenants'. One that exists on paper, like the 6-8 encounter workday, but doesn't actually really happen in gameplay. For a few reasons.

1.) It's an enormous pain... to run that many monsters for more than a couple of encounters, even if you're using tricks like group initiative and laminated trackers. For one, it limits the kind of setpieces you can use because you simply need bigger spaces. Have you tried putting 15 monsters (C) in a 15 x 15 map that's not a goat pasture? Yet if you're using theater of the mind, it gets even worse. Or how about if someone tries dropping a Fear? It'll completely upend the encounter. Not just in a 'aw crap, it's DC17 and none of these twenty monsters has a save better than +1' way, but a 'okay, move this token to here, can't quite make a save. Move this token here, they're still in dim light, no save, etc.' manner.

2.) The setup reacts really weirdly with bounded accuracy. (A) This setup is pretty much no threat to a high-AC character like a Bladesinger, even if they can't use their primary magical weapon because of the Heat Metal. You have to use monsters overpowered for their CR for it to be a real challenge like wyrmlings and intellect devourers. But then that screws over characters who don't have a good way to lock out monsters. If the barbarian doesn't get a reasonably high initiative and gets targeted, it's gg for them. And of course lower-CR monsters can't do much about certain tactics common at higher tiers (like extended invisibility, lolhueg Stealth checks, flight, etc.), making the problem worse.

3.) (B) Most importantly, this setup doesn't actually hurt a focus on DPR all that much. It hurts a focus on single-target DPR, yes, but a couple of Fireballs will still make the encounter go up in smoke if the user(s) get a reasonably high initiative roll.

(A) The Magma Mephits' breath weapon and death burst is a big threat to the Bladesinger (they aren't even proficient in Dex saves, and 28d6(95) total damage is a lot to a Bladesinger), it still uses up a Bladesong, and threatening other PCs is a threat to a Bladesinger. Besides, even if you had picked a different example to whom it pretty much isn't a threat (e.g. Skulker Roguesinger), that's the point of the example--to show that in this case, having the highest DPR isn't the right optimization.

(B) Fireballs aren't very good at killing fire-immune creatures like Magma Mephits, skeletons have ranged weapons and aren't going to be (C) on a 15' x 15' map with the zombies and scarecrows unless/until you do something to make them clump up in Fireball formation. You might want to have somebody with good Wisdom saves go out in front and tank (under a Heroism spell? Blur? Dodging?) to get the zombies and scarecrows to clump up in Fireball Formation so you can Fireball them next round, but adopting a pure DPR focus will mean you need three or four Fireballs to get them all (or most of them), which is wasteful. Playing defense for round 1 to get them into Fireball Formation might reduce the number of Fireballs needed and increase efficiency.

(D) I'm not responsible for your DMs. If you want to say that your DMs don't run anything but solo encounters, fine, but that's not my fault and it isn't Tier 3's fault, it's your DM's or DMs' fault. They don't have to do that. 5E is perfectly comfortable telling you that your Tier 3 or 4 PCs should be fighting lots of monsters instead of a few. It doesn't have to be as extreme as the examples I gave before, and frankly I can't use examples from my own campaign because I tend to use large numbers of high-CR monsters which yield Deadly+ ratings, but even something like eight Orogs vs. a 13th level party (Medium encounter) is still perfectly manageable for a DM (I run more than 8 monsters all the time, it's not that hard, either in ToTM or on whiteboards) and is 332 HP of raw damage against which a nova strategy doesn't perform well.

TL;DR don't say "it doesn't perform well in Tier 3-4" when what you really mean is "it doesn't perform well against small groups of monsters." They're not the same thing.

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

Works for the first turn, unless you’re carrying a bunch of daggers and dropping it every turn. But that’s really gamist.

A better example would be one samurai with resilient wis and the other has piercer. Makes the point better and doesn’t require a gamist intervention.

[shrugs] Sure, fine. I wasn't even necessarily meaning that you had to use Defensive Duelist at the same time as your hand crossbow (versatility is valuable, and sometimes you want to go rapier-and-shield so you can be a tank), or every round. You can always throw the dagger every round if dropping it offends your suspension of disbelief (and there's nothing unbelievable about carrying 2-3 daggers), and actually Resilient (Wisdom) is a terrible feat for Samurai because Samurai are already Wis-proficient, but yes, if you like Resilient (Dexterity) or Lucky or something better, you can choose that example instead of Piercer.

But I do think that Defensive Duelist is quite a good feat.

Regardless I think the point was that spending increasing opportunity costs on damage have a sharp diminishing returns. where adding in defensive or utility options have a higher payout because the "ceiling" of those are much higher. Assuming you have adequate damage already.

Exactly. I've found Mobile to be another feat with a high RoI, especially for Sharpshooters. Being able to dedicate one attack to a kick or something in order to get out of melee, instead of taking an opportunity attack, and then using your extra movement (and maybe also the ability to ignore difficult terrain, if you have a bonus action Dash from another source), is useful for archers who get caught in melee due to D&D tropes.