Exploiting Witch Bolt

[Greywander]

This is a famously useless spell, so I was wondering if there might be a way to exploit it. My first thought was to use it like Heat Metal, where we blast someone and then deal 1d12 unavoidable damage every round for 1 minute. However, there are a couple things that make this worse than Heat Metal: you must use your action every round to deal the extra damage, or the spell ends, the spell also ends if the target is ever outside the spell's range, or if the target has full cover from you.

Honestly, it's probably better just to use Heat Metal, but maybe the intended victim has fire immunity, or isn't wearing metal.

If we want to get the most out of this, then there are a couple of things we can do.

2 levels in rogue lets us Hide as a bonus action, while we can still use our action for Witch Bolt. The idea is that we only expose ourselves to danger for 1 round (if that), but deal a whole 10d12 damage. Once hidden, we can bonus action Dash to make sure to keep the target in range. However, it's questionable if we even can hide, as the spell creates an arc of lightning between you and the target.

Spell Sniper doubles our range from 30 to 60 feet, allowing us more room to move around (or for our victim to move around) without breaking the spell.

3 levels in sorcerer can get us Distant Spell, which can double our range again to 120 feet, or Extended Spell to double the damage to 20d12 (that's 130 average).

Total cover is a problem, so the best way to deal with that is probably to fly. Winged tiefling or aarakocra are probably the solution here. Hard to hide in air, though.

Something like caltrops could be used to reduce the target's speed. Even with a range of 60 feet, most creatures would be able to Dash away from you to get outside the range. Remember, the spell ends if they are ever outside the range, it's not about who is where as the start or end of someone's turn.

You could perhaps use Mold Earth and Shape Water to fashion a slippery enclosed space and then lure the target inside, but that seems like it might be too much setup. Ideally, we'd be getting more consistent use out of Witch Bolt than the odd contrived situation here or there.

Again, Heat Metal does this much better, but 65 damage for one 1st level slot isn't bad (nor is 130 damage for one 1st level slot and 1 sorcery point).

Aaaaand now I want to play a sorcerer who Subtle casts Heat Metal to just murder people and no one else knows why they die. I suppose this could work for Witch Bolt as well, but the spell creates "a sustained arc of lightning between you and the target," so I don't know that Subtle Spell would help.

[MaxWilson]

Aaaaand now I want to play a sorcerer who Subtle casts Heat Metal to just murder people and no one else knows why they die. I suppose this could work for Witch Bolt as well, but the spell creates "a sustained arc of lightning between you and the target," so I don't know that Subtle Spell would help.

The screaming and the smell of burning flesh, plus the red-hot object, will probably clue people in. If you want to murder people with absolutely no trace you probably want to use something like Subtle Mental Prison instead. (Subtle Phantasmal Force might work, although since it still has a material component you probably still have to wave a magic wand or something and that could easily give you away--but Subtle Mental Prison has no components.)

Edit: oh, I forgot--Subtle Heat Metal also still requires a piece of iron and a flame, or an arcane focus. Pointing your wand at somebody just before they start screaming and sizzling will probably give you away. Remember that Subtle Spell only removes verbal and somatic components, not all components.

[elyktsorb]

Aaaaand now I want to play a sorcerer who Subtle casts Heat Metal to just murder people and no one else knows why they die. I suppose this could work for Witch Bolt as well, but the spell creates "a sustained arc of lightning between you and the target," so I don't know that Subtle Spell would help.

Subtle spell witch bolt and then roll a sick deception to convince everyone that your witchbolt target is actually attacking you with witch bolt.

[JellyPooga]

You could get the Thief to lock the victim in a room with you, stopping them from running. It's also worth bearing in mind that if your target does run away from you to end the spell; that can be a "win" in itself, in the form of a bit of battlefield control.

[Greywander]

The screaming and the smell of burning flesh, plus the red-hot object, will probably clue people in. If you want to murder people with absolutely no trace you probably want to use something like Subtle Mental Prison instead. (Subtle Phantasmal Force might work, although since it still has a material component you probably still have to wave a magic wand or something and that could easily give you away--but Subtle Mental Prison has no components.)

Edit: oh, I forgot--Subtle Heat Metal also still requires a piece of iron and a flame, or an arcane focus. Pointing your wand at somebody just before they start screaming and sizzling will probably give you away. Remember that Subtle Spell only removes verbal and somatic components, not all components.
I kind of meant that people just seem to die of hot metal poisoning whenever I'm around for some mysterious reason. Yes, Heat Metal isn't exactly a subtle spell, but if you Subtle Spell it then you have no idea who to blame.

For material components or a spell focus, you usually just have to touch them to use them. No elaborate gestures or pointing, that's what somatic components are for. So you could literally just be chilling with your wand in your hand, or a crystal on a ring, or something else, and thus stuff just starts happening. No reason to think it was you unless it's obviously a spell and you're the only spellcaster in the room.


Subtle spell witch bolt and then roll a sick deception to convince everyone that your witchbolt target is actually attacking you with witch bolt.
I actually thought of this as well. I feel like it would be a bit more difficult to explain why they are dead and you are fine, but maybe you could lie your way past that. I'd be more concerned about the target themselves either engaging you or running away.


You could get the Thief to lock the victim in a room with you, stopping them from running. It's also worth bearing in mind that if your target does run away from you to end the spell; that can be a "win" in itself, in the form of a bit of battlefield control.
If you're locked in with your target, then you can't escape either. At that point, most builds would be better off just using regular attacks or cantrips every round. To make this work, you have to get yourself out of combat while still damaging the target every round. If you can fly and the target doesn't have any ranged attacks, then that could work pretty well, you just hover above them blasting until they die. But we should probably assume ranged attacks are in play.

I wonder if there's a way to somehow turn invisible and make the lightning look like it's coming from something else? I'm not sure how you'd turn invisible without either using concentration or an action, either of which would end Witch Bolt. There's a warlock invocation that lets you turn invisible in dim light, but it uses an action and ends if you take any other actions. Maybe something using Devil's Sight and darkness. Aside from the spell, Darkness, I don't know of any ways to generate dim light or darkness. If we could get blindsight somehow, an Eversmoking Bottle could be used, but the only way I can think of to get blindsight is with the half-dragon template and that only gives it out to 10 feet. If only there was something like an anti-Light cantrip.

[JackPhoenix]

I kind of meant that people just seem to die of hot metal poisoning whenever I'm around for some mysterious reason. Yes, Heat Metal isn't exactly a subtle spell, but if you Subtle Spell it then you have no idea who to blame.

For material components or a spell focus, you usually just have to touch them to use them. No elaborate gestures or pointing, that's what somatic components are for. So you could literally just be chilling with your wand in your hand, or a crystal on a ring, or something else, and thus stuff just starts happening. No reason to think it was you unless it's obviously a spell and you're the only spellcaster in the room.

Doesn't matter. If you cast a spell with any component, everyone will know, without any doubt, that you've cast a spell. It doesn't matter how mundane or inconspicuous the M component is. They won't know what spell it was without Arcana check, but they'll know spellcasting took place. That's the RAW.

[Chronos]

Again, Heat Metal does this much better, but 65 damage for one 1st level slot isn't bad (nor is 130 damage for one 1st level slot and 1 sorcery point).
The mistake here is at looking at damage per spell slot. 65 damage for a single spell slot looks good... until you realize that you can get a thousand damage from no spell slot at all, using cantrips. To get all that damage from Witch Bolt, you need to drop ten actions on it, and actions are valuable. For a fair comparison, you should look at Witch Bolt plus n rounds of maintaining it, vs. some other 1st-level spell like Chromatic Orb or Magic Missile, plus n rounds of Firebolt.

Even assuming that nothing ends the spell early, there are almost no situations where Witch Bolt is better than one of those other options, and very few where it's better than either. And there are a whole lot of situations where Witch Bolt ends early: The enemy getting out of range, or you losing concentration, or the enemy dying, or you deciding that there's some other spell that's more important than it.

[Tanarii]

After much consideration, I decided the way to optimize Witch Bolt is to give it to mook casters backing up a bad guy. It's clearly not a spell intended for PCs.

Even then it's not technically optimizing. But it certainly is fun watching players scramble to run out of range or get behind cover. Heck, it even tends to be fun for them, in that it makes the battle more entertaining and memorable.

Something folks often miss is spells aren't just for PCs. They're also tools for DMs. And something too weak for a player to pick might be exactly what the DM needs.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

If you want to subtly murder someone with magic, Dissonant Whispers is the way to go. It's verbal-only, and only your target can hear the verbal component per the spell's description.

[Quietus]

After much consideration, I decided the way to optimize Witch Bolt is to give it to mook casters backing up a bad guy. It's clearly not a spell intended for PCs.

Even then it's not technically optimizing. But it certainly is fun watching players scramble to run out of range or get behind cover. Heck, it even tends to be fun for them, in that it makes the battle more entertaining and memorable.

Something folks often miss is spells aren't just for PCs. They're also tools for DMs. And something too weak for a player to pick might be exactly what the DM needs.

Can confirm. I created some electric spiders for an adventure once, basically just spiders that could cast witch bolt, which I flavored as essentially taser-webs. Made for an enjoyable couple of encounters, and they're one of the monsters that stood out the most to my players from that adventure.

[Asisreo1]

If your bard/wizard companion felt like coming up with a good strategy, they could turn you invisible after you hit witchbolt (BA witchbolt, ready Hide). You can then just continuously do damage without coming out of hiding.

[Xetheral]

Doesn't matter. If you cast a spell with any component, everyone will know, without any doubt, that you've cast a spell. It doesn't matter how mundane or inconspicuous the M component is. They won't know what spell it was without Arcana check, but they'll know spellcasting took place. That's the RAW.

Do you have a page cite for this claim? I don't remember seeing a rule like this.

[JackPhoenix]

Do you have a page cite for this claim? I don't remember seeing a rule like this.

XGtE, p. 85: "Many spells create obvious effects: explosions of fire, walls of ice, teleportation, and the like. Other spells, such as charm person, display no visible, audible, or otherwise perceptible sign of their effects, and could easily go unnoticed by someone unaffected by them. As noted in the Player's Handbook, you normally don't know that a spell has been cast unless the spell produces a noticeable effect.

But what about the act of casting a spell? Is it possible for someone to perceive that a spell is being cast in their presence? To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component. The form of a material component doesn't matter for the purposes of perception, whether it's an object specified in the spell's description, a component pouch, or a spellcasting focus.

If the need for a spell's components has been removed by a special ability, such as the sorcerer's Subtle Spell feature or the Innate Spellcasting trait possessed by many creatures, the casting of the spell is imperceptible. If an imperceptible casting produces a perceptible effect, it's normally impossible to determine who cast the spell in the absence of other evidence."

[Xetheral]

Thanks for the quote. That only says that casting a spell with components is perceptible, however, not that it actually will be perceived. Ergo, I don't think it supports your claim that "If you cast a spell with any component, everyone will know, without any doubt, that you've cast a spell."

[JackPhoenix]

Thanks for the quote. That only says that casting a spell with components is perceptible, however, not that it actually will be perceived. Ergo, I don't think it supports your claim that "If you cast a spell with any component, everyone will know, without any doubt, that you've cast a spell."

Well, obviously, if you cast a spell in front of someone who's blind and deaf, or a mile away, or behind a solid wall, he won't notice. Normal sensory limitations still apply. But if you're casting a spell with M component, even if you have Subtle metamagic? People watching you will know you're casting a spell. And if they have Counterspell, they can use it, without any chance to mistake your actions for anything else, or without the possibility of being decieved if you just wave your wand around.

[Asisreo1]

Well, obviously, if you cast a spell in front of someone who's blind and deaf, or a mile away, or behind a solid wall, he won't notice. Normal sensory limitations still apply. But if you're casting a spell with M component, even if you have Subtle metamagic? People watching you will know you're casting a spell. And if they have Counterspell, they can use it, without any chance to mistake your actions for anything else, or without the possibility of being decieved if you just wave your wand around.
I guess it depends. I can imagine a sorcerer saying he holds his component under his robe or he "drops" his component and picks it up to subtly cast a spell.

[Xetheral]

Well, obviously, if you cast a spell in front of someone who's blind and deaf, or a mile away, or behind a solid wall, he won't notice. Normal sensory limitations still apply. But if you're casting a spell with M component, even if you have Subtle metamagic? People watching you will know you're casting a spell. And if they have Counterspell, they can use it, without any chance to mistake your actions for anything else, or without the possibility of being decieved if you just wave your wand around.

That definitely seems like a reasonable way to run it. I think it would be also be reasonable, however, for a DM to take into account the specifics of the situation before ruling on which characters (if any) are actually aware of a subtle spell with only an M component.

[LudicSavant]

The mistake here is at looking at damage per spell slot. 65 damage for a single spell slot looks good... until you realize that you can get a thousand damage from no spell slot at all, using cantrips. To get all that damage from Witch Bolt, you need to drop ten actions on it, and actions are valuable. For a fair comparison, you should look at Witch Bolt plus n rounds of maintaining it, vs. some other 1st-level spell like Chromatic Orb or Magic Missile, plus n rounds of Firebolt.

Just wanted to call attention to this post, because it is entirely correct.

Another warning I'll give is to remember that none of Witch Bolt's damage is automatic, all of its DPR is contingent upon landing the first attack roll.

Basically, some people think the average DPR calculation for Witch Bolt would be:
Round 1: (Chance to hit) * 6.5
Round 2+: 6.5

When the actual average DPR calculation for Witch Bolt is:
Round 1: (Chance to hit) * 6.5
Round 2+: (Chance you hit on round 1 and maintained Witch Bolt to the current round) * 6.5 + (chance that you didn't, and thus need to use a different option this round) * (DPR of backup option)

Which is much, much worse.

[RSP]

Well, obviously, if you cast a spell in front of someone who's blind and deaf, or a mile away, or behind a solid wall, he won't notice. Normal sensory limitations still apply. But if you're casting a spell with M component, even if you have Subtle metamagic? People watching you will know you're casting a spell. And if they have Counterspell, they can use it, without any chance to mistake your actions for anything else, or without the possibility of being decieved if you just wave your wand around.

No. People will know you’re holding a staff (same as you were the other 5 minutes you’ve been standing there), the lack of S or V components means that’s all they see. Holding a staff is, indeed, visible, but is not a giveaway that you’re casting a spell.

[JackPhoenix]

No. People will know you’re holding a staff (same as you were the other 5 minutes you’ve been standing there), the lack of S or V components means that’s all they see. Holding a staff is, indeed, visible, but is not a giveaway that you’re casting a spell.

Casting a spell with M component, however, is a giveaway. Whatever that entails.

[RSP]

Casting a spell with M component, however, is a giveaway. Whatever that entails.

How so? You don’t perceive any S or V. What gives away the casting?

[Cikomyr2]

Can you twin Witch Bolt and apply the damage to both targets with you action every turn?

[JackPhoenix]

How so? You don’t perceive any S or V. What gives away the casting?

M. See the quote a bit above.

[Asisreo1]

Can you twin Witch Bolt and apply the damage to both targets with you action every turn?

Yes, you can. You can also quicken a different spell the next turn and continue using your action to keep the witchbolt up. It's like using the BA leveled spell with a strong cantrip guaranteed to hit. If you had the sorcery points to spare, you could have also distanced the witchbolt to give more leeway to the casting.

[Tanarii]

Yes, you can. You can also quicken a different spell the next turn and continue using your action to keep the witchbolt up. It's like using the BA leveled spell with a strong cantrip guaranteed to hit. If you had the sorcery points to spare, you could have also distanced the witchbolt to give more leeway to the casting.
Twin and Distance can't be used on the same spell.

[J-H]

After much consideration, I decided the way to optimize Witch Bolt is to give it to mook casters backing up a bad guy. It's clearly not a spell intended for PCs.

Even then it's not technically optimizing. But it certainly is fun watching players scramble to run out of range or get behind cover. Heck, it even tends to be fun for them, in that it makes the battle more entertaining and memorable.

Something folks often miss is spells aren't just for PCs. They're also tools for DMs. And something too weak for a player to pick might be exactly what the DM needs.

Thank you. I like this idea and wish I had time to use it in my current campaign, but with only 4 total fights left...

[Asisreo1]

Twin and Distance can't be used on the same spell.

I was talking about a separate instance, not the same scenario

[Nagog]

Witch Bolt seems to me to be akin to Sith Lightening: Sustained, heavy damage with a continuous beam of lightening, but leaves you open to be betrayed by your cyborg apprentice.

That said, Witch Bolt could be useful for interrogation of captured targets, but according to my sources, that's "unethical" and "a violation of human rights". But... it still works.

[clash]

I feel like it could work well on a grappling bard build. Start sorcerer for witch bolt and con save proficiency. Then take valor bard for medium armor and athletics expertise and eventually extra attack. First turn grapple. Second turn witch bolt. They can't run and you have decent con save and ac.

[Damon_Tor]

I wish artificers had Witch Bolt on their spell list: it would be pretty good in a Spell Storing Item based TSAR. Your Tiny Servants could each cast Witch Bolt in turn, so a ten-servant TSAR could deal 10d12 damage per round.

[MaxWilson]

I wish artificers had Witch Bolt on their spell list: it would be pretty good in a Spell Storing Item based TSAR. Your Tiny Servants could each cast Witch Bolt in turn, so a ten-servant TSAR could deal 10d12 damage per round.

But you'd have to be level 17 to have ten Tiny Servants as a pure Artificer, and at that level 10d12 (65) is unimpressive even if all ten Witch Bolts hit, which they wouldn't.


I feel like it could work well on a grappling bard build. Start sorcerer for witch bolt and con save proficiency. Then take valor bard for medium armor and athletics expertise and eventually extra attack. First turn grapple. Second turn witch bolt. They can't run and you have decent con save and ac.

You'd do more damage just by repeatedly casting a cantrip.

Witch Bolt is irredeemably bad. Just ask Emperor Palpatine how he died.

[Asisreo1]

You'd do more damage just by repeatedly casting a cantrip.
Witch Bolt is irredeemably bad. Just ask Emperor Palpatine how he died.
How is that the case? Unless you mean at level 6 draconic sorcerer. You have a chance to miss with a cantrip and the strongest one is toll the dead which is also a d12.

[MaxWilson]

How is that the case? Unless you mean at level 6 draconic sorcerer. You have a chance to miss with a cantrip and the strongest one is toll the dead which is also a d12.

Cantrips scale with level. Witch Bolt doesn't scale with level, and even if you burn extra spell slots to increase the initial damage it doesn't increase the damage on subsequent rounds. Burning your action to inflict 1d12 points of damage automatically with Witch bolt is almost always going to be worse than burning your action to cast a cantrip, e.g. Toll the Dead at 6th level would be 2d12, later on it's 4d12.

[LudicSavant]

How is that the case? Unless you mean at level 6 draconic sorcerer. You have a chance to miss with a cantrip and the strongest one is toll the dead which is also a d12.

You have a chance to miss with Witch Bolt.

Witch Bolt's DPR calculation isn't like "you roll to hit a cantrip on round 1, then get a weaker Magic Missile on future rounds," because the damage on future rounds is not guaranteed, it's contingent on that first hit and the first hit wasn't guaranteed. It's more like "You roll to hit a damage over time effect on round 1. Also it's worse than a real damage over time effect, because you have to use your actions to keep it going, if you hit initially."

Basically, if you want to compare the expected DPR of Witch Bolt to another first level spell, you'd do it something like so:

DPR of Magic Missile + Toll the Dead over 3 rounds:
Round 1: 1d4+1 (3.5) * 3
Round 2+: 1d12 (6.5) * (chance of enemy to fail save vs Toll the Dead)

DPR of Witch Bolt + Toll the Dead (if Witch Bolt misses) over 3 rounds:
Round 1: (chance to hit of Witch Bolt) * 6.5
Round2+: (chance that you hit with Witch Bolt on round 1 and maintained it to the current round) * 1d12 (6.5) + (chance that Witch Bolt initially missed or tether was broken, and thus you need to use Toll the Dead this round) * 1d12 (6.5) * (chance of enemy to fail save vs Toll the Dead)

This is... bad. Really bad. And it only gets worse and worse for Witch Bolt, because cantrips scale, while Witch Bolt's round 2+ damage doesn't.

So, yeah. Its reputation as one of the worst spells in D&D is well deserved.

[Asisreo1]

You have a chance to miss with Witch Bolt.

Witch Bolt's DPR calculation isn't like "you roll to hit a cantrip on round 1, then get a weaker Magic Missile on future rounds," because the damage on future rounds is not guaranteed, it's contingent on that first hit and the first hit wasn't guaranteed. It's more like "You roll to hit a damage over time effect on round 1. Also it's worse than a real damage over time effect, because you have to use your actions to keep it going, if you hit initially."

Basically, if you want to compare the expected DPR of Witch Bolt to another first level spell, you'd do it something like so:

DPR of Magic Missile + Toll the Dead over 3 rounds:
Round 1: 1d4+1 (3.5) * 3
Round 2+: 1d12 (6.5) * (chance of enemy to fail save vs Toll the Dead)

DPR of Witch Bolt + Toll the Dead (if Witch Bolt misses) over 3 rounds:
Round 1: (chance to hit of Witch Bolt) * 6.5
Round2+: (chance that you hit with Witch Bolt on round 1 and maintained it to the current round) * 1d12 (6.5) + (chance that Witch Bolt initially missed or tether was broken, and thus you need to use Toll the Dead this round) * 1d12 (6.5) * (chance of enemy to fail save vs Toll the Dead)

This is... bad. Really bad. And it only gets worse and worse for Witch Bolt, because cantrips scale, while Witch Bolt's round 2+ damage doesn't.

So, yeah. Its reputation as one of the worst spells in D&D is well deserved.
What if your first attack had advantage, like if you casted true strike before combat began or casting it at a target that can't see you?

I get it's bad compared to upscaled spells but I don't quite see what's wrong with upcasting it for extra 1d12 damage at level 2, even if it's only once.

You can easily swap it before level 6 anyways.

[th3g0dc0mp13x]

I like the theorycrafting behind this. My opinion is actually to go for a higher damage spike then the sustained damage which will be hard to maintain.



Start Hexblade warlock, This gets you the spell and Hexblades curse, This has two benefits. First additional damage on every damage roll. 6.5 becomes 8.5 which is pretty good. Secondly you crit on a 19 or 20.
Take two levels of tempest cleric to get that sweet channel divinity. This allows you to maximize the damage done. At this point that's not that great but later it becomes decent.
Take more cleric levels, You are specifically going for a feat where you take the "elven accuracy" feat. Now you wait for advantage and drop the biggest witch bolt you can. If you crit then you deal max damage. This is the major benefit to witch bolt compared to something like call lightning, though chromatic orb is still pretty dang good.
Take some more cleric levels and at level 9 take the "lucky" feat. Now you have 4d20 and crit on a 19 or 20, so you have a ~34% chance of a crit which is pretty good. Your also at 4th level spell slots so 8*12=96 damage.
At 10th level you get a 5th level spell slot, and I think at this point the best option is to grab bestow curse and deal an extra 1d8 damage to them for the duration.


Now this is all up to level 10 technically you could get some minor increases past there but once you're past this point the OP's way of keeping up the spells with extended range or some kind of lockdown effect would probably be good.

Other options.
Druid casting plant growth.
Evocation wizard 10 for int mod to one damage roll of the spell.
Sorcerer twinning the spell
Or to quicken the spell
3 Samurai Fighter for advantage and action surge. Quicken, Action, Action Surge. Takes an extra round to set up the curse but in my experience you can curse them before combat a lot of the time.
Paladin for Guided strike, champion challenge, or Vow of Enmity.
3 assassin rogue for auto crit.

[LudicSavant]

What if your first attack had advantage, like if you casted true strike before combat began or casting it at a target that can't see you?

Well let's try it, using the formula laid out above.

To give the best possible case to Witch Bolt, there's Advantage on round 1 but no other rounds.

Let's say you're a 16 Int / 16 Dex Wizard against a CR 2 Ankheg (AC 14). We'll assume a rather generous 90% chance of maintaining the range/Concentration/no cover per round, and that the Ankheg survives 3 rounds before the party kills it.

For our baseline we'll try Magic Missile + light crossbow (1d8+3)
Round 1: 6.73875 DPR (light crossbow, Advantage)
Round 2: 10.5 DPR (Magic Missile)
Round 3: 4.725 DPR (light crossbow, normal)
Total = 21.96375

Now, Witch Bolt + light crossbow (1d8+3):
Round 1: 6.09375 (Witch Bolt w/Advantage. Note: On round 1 it can crit!)
Round 2: 4.914 + 1.1529 = 6.0669 (Witch Bolt or Light Crossbow)
Round 3: 4.4226 +1.51011 = 5.93271 (Witch Bolt or Light Crossbow)
Total = 18.09336

...Assuming I didn't get a typo in there somewhere.

Since the Witch Bolt calc is a little more complicated I'll break it down.
On round 1, it had 84% chance to hit and 9.75% chance to crit.
On round 2, it had (84%*90%)=75.6% chance to maintain and do 6.5 damage (4.914), the other 24.4% of the time we used our 4.725 DPR crossbow (.244*4.725=1.1529).
On round 3, it had (75.6%*90%)=68.04% chance to maintain and do 6.5 damage, the other 31.96% of the time we used our 4.725 DPR crossbow.

Anyways... even with Advantage on the first round it's not looking so hot.

Even if we assumed a 100% chance to maintain rather than 90%, it wouldn't catch up.

We could try a higher AC monster but that probably wouldn't help much since it makes Witch Bolt more likely to miss, Magic Missile can't miss, and you could just switch from the crossbow to Toll the Dead if the enemy has a high AC.

[Asisreo1]

Why're we limiting ourselves to a single character synergy? If a warlock casted Gaseous Form on the sorcerer while the sorcerer is concentrating on witch bolt, they can still do damage while in the form. The sorcerer could easily make it a distant spell.

A cleric can cast sanctuary as well

If someone like the Ranger casted Pass Without Trace and everyone successfully hid, you can BA witchbolt, Action hide and keep it going while still hidden.

[Asisreo1]

Well let's try it, using the formula laid out above.

To give the best possible case to Witch Bolt, there's Advantage on round 1 but no other rounds.

Let's say you're a 16 Int / 16 Dex Wizard against a CR 2 Ankheg (AC 14). We'll assume a rather generous 90% chance of maintaining the range/Concentration/no cover per round, and that the Ankheg survives 3 rounds before the party kills it.

For our baseline we'll try Magic Missile + light crossbow (1d8+3)
Round 1: 6.73875 DPR (light crossbow, Advantage)
Round 2: 10.5 DPR (Magic Missile)
Round 3: 4.725 DPR (light crossbow, normal)
Total = 21.96375

Now, Witch Bolt + light crossbow (1d8+3):
Round 1: 6.09375 (Witch Bolt w/Advantage. Note: On round 1 it can crit!)
Round 2: 4.914 + 1.1529 = 6.0669 (Witch Bolt or Light Crossbow)
Round 3: 4.4226 +1.51011 = 5.93271 (Witch Bolt or Light Crossbow)
Total = 18.09336

...Assuming I didn't get a typo in there somewhere.

Since the Witch Bolt calc is a little more complicated I'll break it down.
On round 1, it had 84% chance to hit and 9.75% chance to crit.
On round 2, it had (84%*90%)=75.6% chance to maintain and do 6.5 damage (4.914), the other 24.4% of the time we used our 4.725 DPR crossbow (.244*4.725=1.1529).
On round 3, it had (75.6%*90%)=68.04% chance to maintain and do 6.5 damage, the other 31.96% of the time we used our 4.725 DPR crossbow.

Anyways... even with Advantage on the first round it's not looking so hot.

Even if we assumed a 100% chance to maintain rather than 90%, it wouldn't catch up.

We could try a higher AC monster but that probably wouldn't help much since it makes Witch Bolt more likely to miss, Magic Missile can't miss, and you could just switch from the crossbow to Toll the Dead if the enemy has a high AC.
Edit: NVM, for some reason I thought they didn't get light crossbow proficiency.

[RSP]

M. See the quote a bit above.

I don’t think that quote says what you seem to think it says. Holding a staff is something that is perceptible, however, outside of meta gaming, it’s not anything that would tip off that someone is casting a spell. “Can be perceived” does not equal “you know what’s happening.” What you’re able to see matters.

Incase you think there’s more to the M component, here’s the PHB description:

“A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components—or to hold a spellcasting focus—but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.”

Now if the caster is using the actual components, a savvy viewer who knows the spell’s M requirements and effects may well put 2 and 2 together, but the guy who’s just holding the staff, and has been holding the staff, for 10 minutes, isn’t giving away anything other than that he’s holding a staff.

[Asisreo1]

If you take spell sniper and be a sorcerer, the range can be up to 120ft for witchbolt, making it unlikely that the target will leave the area.

If you take warcaster, you can incidentally cast witchbolt as a reaction and keep it going.

If you take magic initiate as a war cleric, you can use your channel divinity to give a +10 attack roll to the first hit and guaranteeing the next ones (assuming you stay in range).

This one's pretty niche, but you could use it on a friendly flesh golem to get basically guaranteed 1d12 healing to it each turn. Same with Shambling Mound and one of the oozes. Perfect for a DM to make as an encounter.

A DM can make a pit trap with a crystal ball and a couple enemies at the bottom. The pit is 30ft in diameter and the crystal ball has a glyph of warding witch bolt.

[JackPhoenix]

I don’t think that quote says what you seem to think it says. Holding a staff is something that is perceptible, however, outside of meta gaming, it’s not anything that would tip off that someone is casting a spell. “Can be perceived” does not equal “you know what’s happening.” What you’re able to see matters.

Incase you think there’s more to the M component, here’s the PHB description:

“A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components—or to hold a spellcasting focus—but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.”

Now if the caster is using the actual components, a savvy viewer who knows the spell’s M requirements and effects may well put 2 and 2 together, but the guy who’s just holding the staff, and has been holding the staff, for 10 minutes, isn’t giving away anything other than that he’s holding a staff.

The caster isn't just holding a staff. He's casting a spell with M component using the staff, which is somehow different from just holding it. Sufficiently different that anyone observing him can tell he's casting a spell, even if the spell has no S or V component, or any visible effect. The rules for identifiyng a spellcasting don't say anything about holding a focus being perceivable, they say that spellcasting is perceivable if it has any component, including M, and the form of that M component doesn't matter for the spellcasting to be perceivable. If you couldn't tell casting a spell with M component from just holding the component, it wouldn't be called out.


A DM can make a pit trap with a crystal ball and a couple enemies at the bottom. The pit is 30ft in diameter and the crystal ball has a glyph of warding witch bolt.

How is the Witch Bolt using an action to keep the spell going? You would only get the first instance of damage, and then the spell would end.

[Asisreo1]

How is the Witch Bolt using an action to keep the spell going? You would only get the first instance of damage, and then the spell would end.
So, the BBEG caster still needs to use his action to continue witchbolt, but with a clever use of clairvoyance, the caster can continue the damage from far away without even being in the same building as them.

[RSP]

The caster isn't just holding a staff. He's casting a spell with M component using the staff, which is somehow different from just holding it. Sufficiently different that anyone observing him can tell he's casting a spell, even if the spell has no S or V component, or any visible effect. The rules for identifiyng a spellcasting don't say anything about holding a focus being perceivable, they say that spellcasting is perceivable if it has any component, including M, and the form of that M component doesn't matter for the spellcasting to be perceivable. If you couldn't tell casting a spell with M component from just holding the component, it wouldn't be called out.

Again, this is not what the rules say. “Can be perceived” does not equal “knowing a spell is being cast.”

We know what the M component entails, because the PHB tells us: it just needs to be held.

That is something that is perceivable (though that also doesn’t necessarily mean that it is perceived). But again, it doesn’t impart knowledge of a spell being cast, just that a staff (or whatever M component) is being held.

For instance, let’s say a Giant Fire Beetle (Int score of 1) perceived a Wizard casting a spell. Does that GFB suddenly gain intelligence to the point where it understands magic, the Weave and the act of spell casting?

“No” is the answer. The GFB doesn’t have the mental capacity to understand these things, and nothing in the RAW tells us this should occur.

Now, if that same Wizard casts a VSM spell in front of a Sorcerer, that Sorcerer (presumably) has the knowledge and experience to deduce that what they are perceiving equals spellcasting.

The XgtE rule you previously quoted tells us spells are imperceptible if there’s no components. The PHB, though, tells us what is perceived when each component is present: V is the chanting of a “particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance”; S is gestures that “might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures”; M is access to the stated component, or “hold a spellcasting focus.”

The GFB perceived these components when the Wizard casts, just like the Sorcerer does. However, the GFB doesn’t know a spell is being cast, because that’s not part of perceiving: that’s part of intellectual deduction.

So when a Subtle spell is cast using a staff as a focus, what’s perceptible is that someone is holding a staff. If there’s no perceptible effect of the spell being cast, then there isn’t much to go on to deduce that spellcasting has occurred, even though there was a perceived component.

[Arkhios]

At first, I read this topic as "Exploding Witch Bolt" and my initial thought was "Yes, please. Explode this crap to smithereens".

But then I began wondering... What if, indeed, the Witch Bolt's damage would explode. Meaning, each 12 you roll, you can roll it again and add the results together?

[Yuroch Kern]

I can't remember the thread that covered this awhile back, but I'm not in the habit of necro-ing...

I did indeed make an experimental character, a Vuman Bronze Dragon Sorcerer, with Spell Sniper at level one...hideously effective. That Sorc is now 10th level. The big idea after making it 60' range really opens up your spell slot. Firing Cantrips may never run out, but you are rolling every time. Get the WB, and now you force control, especially if you do it just outside their movement. Later, combine it with Ray of Frost or a net, and if you can sustain 3 rounds, you just did 3d12 for one 1st level slot. Or rather, 3d12+4 at 6th level. I know the limits are brutal, but the Feat is the workaround, and frankly, the thing that makes all of it worth it. Of course, my DM rules that Concentration ends AFTER casting another Concentration spell, so True Strike is typically a first round cast along with a Quickened Ray of Frost, but that is a special case...

[Yuroch Kern]

Again, this is not what the rules say. “Can be perceived” does not equal “knowing a spell is being cast.”

We know what the M component entails, because the PHB tells us: it just needs to be held.

That is something that is perceivable (though that also doesn’t necessarily mean that it is perceived). But again, it doesn’t impart knowledge of a spell being cast, just that a staff (or whatever M component) is being held.

For instance, let’s say a Giant Fire Beetle (Int score of 1) perceived a Wizard casting a spell. Does that GFB suddenly gain intelligence to the point where it understands magic, the Weave and the act of spell casting?

“No” is the answer. The GFB doesn’t have the mental capacity to understand these things, and nothing in the RAW tells us this should occur.

Now, if that same Wizard casts a VSM spell in front of a Sorcerer, that Sorcerer (presumably) has the knowledge and experience to deduce that what they are perceiving equals spellcasting.

The XgtE rule you previously quoted tells us spells are imperceptible if there’s no components. The PHB, though, tells us what is perceived when each component is present: V is the chanting of a “particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance”; S is gestures that “might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures”; M is access to the stated component, or “hold a spellcasting focus.”

The GFB perceived these components when the Wizard casts, just like the Sorcerer does. However, the GFB doesn’t know a spell is being cast, because that’s not part of perceiving: that’s part of intellectual deduction.

So when a Subtle spell is cast using a staff as a focus, what’s perceptible is that someone is holding a staff. If there’s no perceptible effect of the spell being cast, then there isn’t much to go on to deduce that spellcasting has occurred, even though there was a perceived component.

Excellent. I'm glad you said that first and well. The Arcana skill used as a form of Passive Perception may apply, but this is what happens at my table. 🤘

[Warlush]

Why're we limiting ourselves to a single character synergy? If a warlock casted Gaseous Form on the sorcerer while the sorcerer is concentrating on witch bolt, they can still do damage while in the form. The sorcerer could easily make it a distant spell.

A cleric can cast sanctuary as well

If someone like the Ranger casted Pass Without Trace and everyone successfully hid, you can BA witchbolt, Action hide and keep it going while still hidden.

Because NOBODY on this forum ever discusses real life game play, only damage spread sheets for single character optimization. Which has very very little to do with real life game play.

[Cikomyr2]

Favored soul sorcerer can just cast Witch Bolt and Spiritual weapon, and then use their turns doing 1d12+ 1d8+Stat of damage per round without expanding a spell slot.

Edit: and then turn invisible, and she won't break invisiblity

[Tanarii]

Because NOBODY on this forum ever discusses real life game play, only damage spread sheets for single character optimization. Which has very very little to do with real life game play.
Having seen Witch Bolt in play (both in AL and IMC), and the aftermath, and having discussed the aftermath with said players, here is what happens:
Caster casts it and hits. There is now a visible bolt of lightning to the creature. If it's big and tough, it beelines for the caster and whomps on them. If it's small and not so dangerous, it backs away to 31ft or behind cover and the lightning ends. The caster pouts in disappointment, because they were expecting round after round of damage.

And in their disappointment they go online, at which point numerous folks point out that in real life game play there is no reasonable use case for Witch Bolt for a PC, they swap it out.

Only in theoretical optimization threads do any use cases come up. Threads like this one where people throw out corner cases and expending resources (both permanent and temporary, both the characters and other PCs) that might, just might, almost allow it to catch up with other spells. Before level 5, at which point repeatedly casting a damaging cantrip is superior. Not to dump on a fun theoretical optimization for edge cases that will rarely if ever see actual play, but let's be clear that's what we are doing here.

[Chronos]

Quoth Arkhios:

But then I began wondering... What if, indeed, the Witch Bolt's damage would explode. Meaning, each 12 you roll, you can roll it again and add the results together?
When folks first encounter the concept of exploding dice, they usually get excited: "Wow, that means there's no upper limit to the amount of damage I can do!". But the big results are highly unlikely. On average, making a die exploding only adds either a half a point or one point (depending on how the explosion is implemented) per die. It's not a big deal.


Quoth Yuroch Kern:

I can't remember the thread that covered this awhile back, but I'm not in the habit of necro-ing...

I did indeed make an experimental character, a Vuman Bronze Dragon Sorcerer, with Spell Sniper at level one...hideously effective. That Sorc is now 10th level. The big idea after making it 60' range really opens up your spell slot. Firing Cantrips may never run out, but you are rolling every time. Get the WB, and now you force control, especially if you do it just outside their movement. Later, combine it with Ray of Frost or a net, and if you can sustain 3 rounds, you just did 3d12 for one 1st level slot. Or rather, 3d12+4 at 6th level. I know the limits are brutal, but the Feat is the workaround, and frankly, the thing that makes all of it worth it. Of course, my DM rules that Concentration ends AFTER casting another Concentration spell, so True Strike is typically a first round cast along with a Quickened Ray of Frost, but that is a special case...
3d12 with one spell slot (if you hit), as compared to the 3d8 from one spell slot (if it hit) you could have gotten by using Chromatic Orb instead. Which would do that damage all at once, which might save you from a couple of rounds of counterattacks from that monster. And which would also enable you to do something else for the next two levels, which could be a no-spell-slot cantrip: If you can't do an average of six damage with two rounds worth of cantrips, then something is wrong. Or it would leave your options open to use some other leveled spell, if appropriate, without having to sacrifice some of the damage from the spell you cast two rounds ago. Congratulations; you've expended significant build resources to turn Witch Bolt from something that's a lot worse than what you could do instead, to instead be only a little worse than what you could do instead.

[Asisreo1]

Having seen Witch Bolt in play (both in AL and IMC), and the aftermath, and having discussed the aftermath with said players, here is what happens:
Caster casts it and hits. There is now a visible bolt of lightning to the creature. If it's big and tough, it beelines for the caster and whomps on them. If it's small and not so dangerous, it backs away to 31ft or behind cover and the lightning ends. The caster pouts in disappointment, because they were expecting round after round of damage.

And in their disappointment they go online, at which point numerous folks point out that in real life game play there is no reasonable use case for Witch Bolt for a PC, they swap it out.

Only in theoretical optimization threads do any use cases come up. Threads like this one where people throw out corner cases and expending resources (both permanent and temporary, both the characters and other PCs) that might, just might, almost allow it to catch up with other spells. Before level 5, at which point repeatedly casting a damaging cantrip is superior. Not to dump on a fun theoretical optimization for edge cases that will rarely if ever see actual play, but let's be clear that's what we are doing here.
I don't think that's necessarily true. You're right that most players don't get what they're expecting out of the spell, but I think 1d12 damage that occurs without being called an attack or spell can be useful for the invisibility case. It also works if someone casted darkness after it connected.

In real play, it definitely requires synergy, which is why it's very good as a DM to show players what being a team looks like when the enemy manhandles them by having the brute autograppler and the witchbolt caster while the support casts invisibility and the ranged attacker pressures the PC spellcasters.

Then, hopefully, the party realizes that they should probably work on some team-based strategy instead of playing like they're in a team deathmatch with randoms on CoD and contribute only to themselves.

[Arkhios]

When folks first encounter the concept of exploding dice, they usually get excited: "Wow, that means there's no upper limit to the amount of damage I can do!". But the big results are highly unlikely. On average, making a die exploding only adds either a half a point or one point (depending on how the explosion is implemented) per die. It's not a big deal.

I feel mildly offended that you seem to have assumed I just now "first encountered the concept", or that I went "Wow, that means there's no upper limit to the amount of damage it can do!" ...which I didn't. Nor did I exclaim this in any way.
I merely mentioned it. That's all. Climb down from your ivory tower.

I'm aware it doesn't add much, especially with a d12. The bigger the die, the lesser impact exploding dice actually have. The odds are only ~8% per d12 to "explode". Only slightly better than to score a critical hit.

[RSP]

I don't think that's necessarily true. You're right that most players don't get what they're expecting out of the spell, but I think 1d12 damage that occurs without being called an attack or spell can be useful for the invisibility case.

It’s still true because synergy doesn’t overcome the fact that 1d12 isn’t a great outcome for an Action, even if everything goes exactly as you need it to. And think of what else you’re requiring - another PC needs to be a dedicated Grappled and willing to do the grunt work here.

At level 5, WB does 3d12 on a hit, then 1d12 as an Action on subsequent rounds. That same Warlock can do 2 EB attacks at 1d10+mod each, using those same Actions, without using one of their two spell slots. Or, if you really want to compare them with resource use, have them throw up Hex before the attacks to compare damage with each using a spell slot. The EB Warlock is still benefiting from the Dedicated Grappler doing their thing, in that they can stay at range the entire time.

So the WB caster does 3d12 on a hit, nothing on a miss when the spell slot and Action result in 0 damage done. On a hit, that’s ~19.5 on the first round, and ~6.5 on subsequent rounds.

The EB caster does 1d10+1d6+3 (probably 4 at 5th but whatever), with two attacks, and two chances to hit. That’s about ~12-24 damage, depending on if both hit or just one does. Then it’s still ~12-24 damage per round after that. So 1st round EB does ~24 damage:~19.5, assuming everything goes right; subsequent rounds it does ~24:~6.5.

So the only situation where WB is expected to out damage EB+Hex is where it’s a very tough AC to hit, and WB hits with the first attack. Otherwise, EB+Hex will outdamage WB pretty much every round.

At 3rd or 4th level, it’s still a comparison of 2d12 (~13) versus 1d10+3+1d6 (~12) on first hit and 6.5:12 every subsequent round. And WB is still all or nothing while EB+Hex can go on for up to an hour (and probably multiple combats).

WB is just an awful spell.

[Guy Lombard-O]

What if your first attack had advantage, like if you casted true strike before combat began or casting it at a target that can't see you?

Don't think that in particular works - True Strike ends the second you stop concentrating on it, which happens as soon as you begin casting another concentration spell.

Hey, look! Two horrible spells for the price of one!

[Asisreo1]

It’s still true because synergy doesn’t overcome the fact that 1d12 isn’t a great outcome for an Action, even if everything goes exactly as you need it to. And think of what else you’re requiring - another PC needs to be a dedicated Grappled and willing to do the grunt work here.



In the case I was referring, it's all NPC's. For PC's, the cleric can cast sanctuary on you. Doesn't even cost him their concentration.

[RSP]

In the case I was referring, it's all NPC's. For PC's, the cleric can cast sanctuary on you. Doesn't even cost him their concentration.

Read the Errata on Sanctuary: causing damage ends it.

“If the warded creature makes an attack, casts a spell that affects an enemy, or deals damage to another creature, this spell ends.”

Edit: even pre-errata, what would be the point? If levels 1-4, the Warlock and Cleric are both using a valuable slot to guarantee ~6.5 damage on one creature, one encounter. That’s a lot of resources, compared to what they have.

After level 5, you’re really wasting Actions on ~6.5 damage, though the cost becomes less. Actually, if your DM makes the mistake of having the BBEG focus on the Warlock in this situation, it may be the best use I’ve seen for WB: the BBEG can focus on the PC doing ~6.5 damage/round, while ignoring the much more effective characters.

In either case, the Cleric is much better off casting Sanctuary on a character that has multiple enemies surrounding them. Like if the fighter charges the Orcs to protect the back line, and now has 4 all within melee range. If the Cleric now goes before the Orcs, even if only active for that round and then expires on the fighter’s next turn, can prevent a lot of damage.

[Monster Manuel]

Witch Bolt seems to me to be akin to Sith Lightening: Sustained, heavy damage with a continuous beam of lightening, but leaves you open to be betrayed by your cyborg apprentice.


100% this, and it just reinforces what Tanarri said upthread about this being a spell for NPCs. This would make a fantastic low-level boss-fight scene...the BBEG laughing maniacally while using his actions to maintain Witch Bolt on the Barbarian, while the rogue sneaks up behind him and *BACKSTAB*!

If there was some kind of rider on the spell that also locked down movement to some degree (maybe the lightning Entangles you like rough terrain), that would make it more fun, and mitigate the "I just walk away from the caster" issue.

That, or maintaining the damage only uses concentration (no action required), so long as the caster does not move and monologues at the victim for the duration. I could get behind that as a house rule, as well...

[elyktsorb]

The more I read this thread, the more Witch Bolt seems like a spell you enchant on an obstacle. Like, put them in a maze and if you step too close to the pedestal, bam, it's casting Witch Bolt at you, which isn't a huge deal you just have to get out of range of it.

Witch Bolt seems like a spell you build a room around, or set up an area for. (And by this I mean the bad guy probably)

[Greywander]

Why're we limiting ourselves to a single character synergy? If a warlock casted Gaseous Form on the sorcerer while the sorcerer is concentrating on witch bolt, they can still do damage while in the form. The sorcerer could easily make it a distant spell.

A cleric can cast sanctuary as well

If someone like the Ranger casted Pass Without Trace and everyone successfully hid, you can BA witchbolt, Action hide and keep it going while still hidden.
This isn't necessarily about white room theorycrafting, it's just that you're spending so many resources trying to make a crappy spell less crappy that at some point you should back off and ask if it would be better to just spam a cantrip instead. This is why I think the only way to make Witch Bolt effective in a practical way is to find a way, without spending any more resources, to remove yourself as a possible target after hitting someone with it. Witch Bolt makes this difficult, though, as it ends if the target is too far away or behind full cover. Heat Metal doesn't have this problem, you can "cook and book" i.e. cast it and run away.


Again, this is not what the rules say. “Can be perceived” does not equal “knowing a spell is being cast.”

We know what the M component entails, because the PHB tells us: it just needs to be held.

That is something that is perceivable (though that also doesn’t necessarily mean that it is perceived). But again, it doesn’t impart knowledge of a spell being cast, just that a staff (or whatever M component) is being held.

For instance, let’s say a Giant Fire Beetle (Int score of 1) perceived a Wizard casting a spell. Does that GFB suddenly gain intelligence to the point where it understands magic, the Weave and the act of spell casting?

“No” is the answer. The GFB doesn’t have the mental capacity to understand these things, and nothing in the RAW tells us this should occur.

Now, if that same Wizard casts a VSM spell in front of a Sorcerer, that Sorcerer (presumably) has the knowledge and experience to deduce that what they are perceiving equals spellcasting.

The XgtE rule you previously quoted tells us spells are imperceptible if there’s no components. The PHB, though, tells us what is perceived when each component is present: V is the chanting of a “particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance”; S is gestures that “might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures”; M is access to the stated component, or “hold a spellcasting focus.”

The GFB perceived these components when the Wizard casts, just like the Sorcerer does. However, the GFB doesn’t know a spell is being cast, because that’s not part of perceiving: that’s part of intellectual deduction.

So when a Subtle spell is cast using a staff as a focus, what’s perceptible is that someone is holding a staff. If there’s no perceptible effect of the spell being cast, then there isn’t much to go on to deduce that spellcasting has occurred, even though there was a perceived component.
This is also a good time to point out the difference between Perception and Investigation. Perception allows you to spot a crack in the wall, Investigation allows you to realize that the crack is a hidden door. Everyone can see that you're holding the staff, but it would take an Investigation (or Arcana) check to realize that you might have just cast a spell (and only then if there is a perceptible effect of the spell, which, for Witch Bolt, there is).

[Quietus]

The one thing that Witch Bolt seems like it'd be good for is on a Warlock, as a "I need to do maximum damage right now" option. It's the second highest damage you can do from a fifth level spell slot (barring subclass options), the first being a constitution save for half on Blight. 5d12 is a decent initial blast, for single target damage. But that's still "good with caveats", not legitimately good.

[Tanarii]

The one thing that Witch Bolt seems like it'd be good for is on a Warlock, as a "I need to do maximum damage right now" option. It's the second highest damage you can do from a fifth level spell slot (barring subclass options), the first being a constitution save for half on Blight. 5d12 is a decent initial blast, for single target damage. But that's still "good with caveats", not legitimately good.
Stack with Tempest Cleric 2 for short rest maximized damage

[Yuroch Kern]

When folks first encounter the concept of exploding dice, they usually get excited: "Wow, that means there's no upper limit to the amount of damage I can do!". But the big results are highly unlikely. On average, making a die exploding only adds either a half a point or one point (depending on how the explosion is implemented) per die. It's not a big deal.


3d12 with one spell slot (if you hit), as compared to the 3d8 from one spell slot (if it hit) you could have gotten by using Chromatic Orb instead. Which would do that damage all at once, which might save you from a couple of rounds of counterattacks from that monster. And which would also enable you to do something else for the next two levels, which could be a no-spell-slot cantrip: If you can't do an average of six damage with two rounds worth of cantrips, then something is wrong. Or it would leave your options open to use some other leveled spell, if appropriate, without having to sacrifice some of the damage from the spell you cast two rounds ago. Congratulations; you've expended significant build resources to turn Witch Bolt from something that's a lot worse than what you could do instead, to instead be only a little worse than what you could do instead.

Some things, kinda minor:

You're not entirely wrong, except Chromatic is not a core spell, so very optional and lugging around a valuable focus is a risk. Also, working on the idea that I should have just risked another attack roll is courting the same miss chance. At low level, slots are very strict for any full caster. Managing them to their maximum is key, and while those other options are fine, some risk is always worth the planning. A single attack can set up a long term plan, and much like the discussion on perceiving casting, one of the gambles is what the target knows and reacts to this spell. As far as it knows, I have a Lightning Cantrip that I am hitting it with every round, kinda like hitting every round with Firebolt. It feels as if this spell WAS a Cantrip that had the rider of continuous damage, but rather than keep it at that level, upped the power and gave it 1st level. Probably decided there were enough low die Cantrips...

Did I expend significant resources? While I had a mind to see if I could improve WB, I tried to do so in a way that made it multi-purpose. Spell Sniper also gave me a 240' Chill Touch and a 120' Ray of Frost, picked up Shocking Grasp, True Strike, and Prestidigation. Got 3 nets, and now I'm 10th level. If you are referring to expending space on Spells Known, spells that don't work out are able to be swapped out at any level gain. Since it worked, I kept it. Was so effective at managing actions and range, I grabbed Distant Spell and now it is almost impossible to avoid should it hit. Haven't gone the full 10 rounds yet, but I typically use it when I'm getting low on high level spell slots. The other consideration to it is a continuous damage, so if you can maintain it on an enemy caster, then you will have a source of continual Concentration checks too...

[RSP]

The one thing that Witch Bolt seems like it'd be good for is on a Warlock, as a "I need to do maximum damage right now" option. It's the second highest damage you can do from a fifth level spell slot (barring subclass options), the first being a constitution save for half on Blight. 5d12 is a decent initial blast, for single target damage. But that's still "good with caveats", not legitimately good.

Which is still just ~32.5 vs ~28 from 2 EB with Hex up (assuming everything hits, but we’re assuming that for WB as well). At level 11, that becomes ~42; again assuming all hits. So for levels 9 and 10 you average 4.5 damage more with WB than Hex and EB. The next round you average 6.5 with WB, but up to 42 again with EB and Hex (and Hex can stay up all day).

[Asisreo1]

This isn't necessarily about white room theorycrafting, it's just that you're spending so many resources trying to make a crappy spell less crappy that at some point you should back off and ask if it would be better to just spam a cantrip instead.

In my opinion, it is indeed better to invisibility and witch bolt than to spam cantrips for two reasons: It keeps the sorcerer from being an easy target to hit and knock concentration loose and any sort of team strategy, no matter how convoluted, is more fun than spamming cantrips.

Witchbolt also doesn't require sight, neither to cast or continue. It may behoove you to true strike (which also doesn't require sight) then witchbolt rather than constantly attack with disadvantage when in magical darkness or against an invisible creature like an invisible stalker, darkmantle, drider, or drow.

Ultimately, though, yeah it's a fun little boss spell in my eyes. Give it to a hag or an evil lightning mage. Have an NPC flying overhead and concentrating on it while the mount they're riding dodges. Place it as a trap and have the party panic with constant damage. I don't mind the spell being somewhat subpar.

[Greywander]

In my opinion, it is indeed better to invisibility and witch bolt than to spam cantrips for two reasons: It keeps the sorcerer from being an easy target to hit and knock concentration loose and any sort of team strategy, no matter how convoluted, is more fun than spamming cantrips.
How are you turning invisible? Remember that Witch Bolt uses concentration, and requires an action every round to maintain it, so the Invisibility spell is a no-go. Now, if you had a way to turn invisible without using an action or requiring concentration...

[Quietus]

Which is still just ~32.5 vs ~28 from 2 EB with Hex up (assuming everything hits, but we’re assuming that for WB as well). At level 11, that becomes ~42; again assuming all hits. So for levels 9 and 10 you average 4.5 damage more with WB than Hex and EB. The next round you average 6.5 with WB, but up to 42 again with EB and Hex (and Hex can stay up all day).

Yup, and that's pretty much the best case scenario for Witch Bolt. So... it's something? At least you only need one instance of Familiar-provided Help for advantage since it's a single attack roll.

[Asisreo1]

How are you turning invisible? Remember that Witch Bolt uses concentration, and requires an action every round to maintain it, so the Invisibility spell is a no-go. Now, if you had a way to turn invisible without using an action or requiring concentration...

It's called a bard

[Greywander]

It's called a bard
But that just brings us back to, "Why not just use Heat Metal?" It's on the bard list, and both Heat Metal and Invisibility use a 2nd level slot. Witch Bolt requires you to stick around, but with Heat Metal you can "cook and book" i.e. run away and boil your enemy to death while they chase you.

I suppose if the target was immune to fire or wasn't wearing metal armor, then Heat Metal wouldn't work. So maybe something like this would work for such a situation. Is it worth it for such a niche, though? There's a lot of other ways you could deal with the problem if you have a 1st and 2nd level spell slot to work with.

I was trying to find a way to make Witch Bolt useful, but it seems like there's just too many restrictions on it. You can't run away, which means you have to find some way to make yourself untargetable. However, this uses up further resources that could have been spent on something more effective. If you can't make yourself untargetable, you'll do more damage by just spamming a cantrip.

One thing that might still work is using an Eversmoking Bottle. Trap the target in an enclosed space and uncork the bottle (requires an action, so it must be done before Witch Bolt). Hit them with Witch Bolt (since neither of you can see the other, there is no advantage or disadvantage), then use your bonus action to hide (with 2 levels in rogue). What I don't like about this is that it requires the enclosed space, as otherwise they can just run away, and you can't guaranty you'll have such a space.

[JackPhoenix]

Again, this is not what the rules say. “Can be perceived” does not equal “knowing a spell is being cast.”

We know what the M component entails, because the PHB tells us: it just needs to be held.

That is something that is perceivable (though that also doesn’t necessarily mean that it is perceived). But again, it doesn’t impart knowledge of a spell being cast, just that a staff (or whatever M component) is being held.

For instance, let’s say a Giant Fire Beetle (Int score of 1) perceived a Wizard casting a spell. Does that GFB suddenly gain intelligence to the point where it understands magic, the Weave and the act of spell casting?

“No” is the answer. The GFB doesn’t have the mental capacity to understand these things, and nothing in the RAW tells us this should occur.

Now, if that same Wizard casts a VSM spell in front of a Sorcerer, that Sorcerer (presumably) has the knowledge and experience to deduce that what they are perceiving equals spellcasting.

The XgtE rule you previously quoted tells us spells are imperceptible if there’s no components. The PHB, though, tells us what is perceived when each component is present: V is the chanting of a “particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance”; S is gestures that “might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures”; M is access to the stated component, or “hold a spellcasting focus.”

The GFB perceived these components when the Wizard casts, just like the Sorcerer does. However, the GFB doesn’t know a spell is being cast, because that’s not part of perceiving: that’s part of intellectual deduction.

So when a Subtle spell is cast using a staff as a focus, what’s perceptible is that someone is holding a staff. If there’s no perceptible effect of the spell being cast, then there isn’t much to go on to deduce that spellcasting has occurred, even though there was a perceived component.

And yet, if a sorcerer stands there for 10 minutes holding a staff, and at some time during that period decides to cast Subtle spell with M component, anyone with access to Counterspell (yes, even the bug, if it gets Counterspell somehow... there are few potential ways to do that without affecting its mental capabilities) instantly knows a spell is being cast, and can trigger the Counterspell. There's no Arcana check or minimal ability score values, or any other requirement beyond the range and the ability to see the caster mentioned anywhere. If the sorcerer instead cast Subtle spell without M component, or used a magic item (which do remove the need for components unless specifically saying otherwise) to do so, Counterspell wouldn't be triggered, because the act of spellcasting would be imperceptible.

That means that whatever the sorcerer is doing in the moment he's casting a Subtle spell with M component is different enough from 'just holding a staff' that anyone... even an Int 1 overgrown bug or orc (which is a thing entirely possible to have as a PC) is able to tell the difference.

[LudicSavant]

Heat Metal doesn't have this problem, you can "cook and book" i.e. cast it and run away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMqE-xerANk :smallsmile:

[Greywander]

And yet, if a sorcerer stands there for 10 minutes holding a staff, and at some time during that period decides to cast Subtle spell with M component, anyone with access to Counterspell (yes, even the bug, if it gets Counterspell somehow... there are few potential ways to do that without affecting its mental capabilities) instantly knows a spell is being cast, and can trigger the Counterspell. There's no Arcana check or minimal ability score values, or any other requirement beyond the range and the ability to see the caster mentioned anywhere. If the sorcerer instead cast Subtle spell without M component, or used a magic item (which do remove the need for components unless specifically saying otherwise) to do so, Counterspell wouldn't be triggered, because the act of spellcasting would be imperceptible.

That means that whatever the sorcerer is doing in the moment he's casting a Subtle spell with M component is different enough from 'just holding a staff' that anyone... even an Int 1 overgrown bug or orc (which is a thing entirely possible to have as a PC) is able to tell the difference.
[citation needed]

I can see where you're coming from, and it looks like that could be a valid interpretation of the rules (and the more I reread the section, the more this sounds strictly RAW), but I'm having trouble seeing that as making sense. There doesn't appear to be any indication of what using a material component for a spell looks like (and indeed, it probably depends on the spell), so it's hard to say if using a component would be obvious. If all you have to do is touch or hold the component or spell focus, then it becomes a lot easier to mask what you are doing. Sure, if you reach into a pouch and pull out, I don't know, a shriveled finger, and then someone nearby suddenly gets violently sick, and then you put it away, that's fairly obvious. But if you've been clutching that shriveled finger in your hand for the last few minutes, and all most people can see is that you're holding something in your hand, there wouldn't necessarily be a reason for them to assume it was a spell component. Moreso if you're holding a staff, as that's pretty normal and something a lot of people do.

The way I've always interpreted Sutble Spell is that it does make a spell imperceptible, but you still need a free hand and either a component pouch or spell focus. If your spell focus gets taken away, you can't cast that spell. IMO, this was always meant to be the purpose of material components: to provide a way to "disarm" the caster by taking their spell focus away. It is the somatic and verbal components that really draw attention to you. But I could be wrong about this. It just seems like if a material component required something especially perceptible (like eating a bat eye), then that would be treated as a somatic component.

[Cikomyr2]

And yet, if a sorcerer stands there for 10 minutes holding a staff, and at some time during that period decides to cast Subtle spell with M component, anyone with access to Counterspell (yes, even the bug, if it gets Counterspell somehow... there are few potential ways to do that without affecting its mental capabilities) instantly knows a spell is being cast, and can trigger the Counterspell. There's no Arcana check or minimal ability score values, or any other requirement beyond the range and the ability to see the caster mentioned anywhere. If the sorcerer instead cast Subtle spell without M component, or used a magic item (which do remove the need for components unless specifically saying otherwise) to do so, Counterspell wouldn't be triggered, because the act of spellcasting would be imperceptible.

That means that whatever the sorcerer is doing in the moment he's casting a Subtle spell with M component is different enough from 'just holding a staff' that anyone... even an Int 1 overgrown bug or orc (which is a thing entirely possible to have as a PC) is able to tell the difference.

That's a bad interpretation of the rules if I've ever seen one. And I don't care if it's RAW, it's depriving the Subtle metamagic of its flavor.

[Asisreo1]

But that just brings us back to, "Why not just use Heat Metal?" It's on the bard list, and both Heat Metal and Invisibility use a 2nd level slot. Witch Bolt requires you to stick around, but with Heat Metal you can "cook and book" i.e. run away and boil your enemy to death while they chase you.



The bard might not have taken heat metal. Well, that and also invisibility is an evasion buff to the witchbolter, heat metal is a debuff if the target is holding an essential weapon or is wearing armor. The bard also doesn't have to use up their bonus action which they could use for stuff like healing word or bardic inspiration.

[Greywander]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMqE-xerANk :smallsmile:
Cook and book!


That's a bad interpretation of the rules if I've ever seen one. And I don't care if it's RAW, it's depriving the Subtle metamagic of its flavor.
Honestly, if I were to redo the magic system, I'd probably reorganize spell components into specific, non-overlapping categories, e.g. "you must have a free hand", "you need a spell focus", "breaks stealth", "draws attention to you (i.e. clearly supernatural, even to people who don't know magic)". The current components are just kind of a mess. Do verbal components break stealth? Why do both somatic and material components need a free hand? Some spells are clearly intended to be used in social settings (Charm Person, Suggestion, etc.) but have various components that would be clearly perceptible.

[Garfunion]

While some people have brought up the spell being used as force lighting. What about Ghostbusters? I’m sure that they were using the same spell with their proton packs.

Now I wish witch bolt was on the Artificer spell list.

[Mellack]

The bard might not have taken heat metal. Well, that and also invisibility is an evasion buff to the witchbolter, heat metal is a debuff if the target is holding an essential weapon or is wearing armor. The bard also doesn't have to use up their bonus action which they could use for stuff like healing word or bardic inspiration.

What is your sorcerer getting out of this invisibility? They still have their square known, both because they haven't been able to hide and because they have a streak of visible lightning arcing from them. So all opponents have is disadvantage to hit you. It doesn't stop the target from moving away and breaking the spell. It also now uses the bard's concentration as well. That means two spells, one first and one second level, both with concentration, to achieve 1d12 a round.

[Cikomyr2]

Ok wait.

What if it was a cantrip instead.

1d8 initial damage, and the next turns it cause automatic 1d6 if you maintain it.

Increase by 1d8/1d6 at 5th level, etc..

[Deathtongue]

Ok wait.

What if it was a cantrip instead.

1d8 initial damage, and the next turns it cause automatic 1d6 if you maintain it.

Increase by 1d8/1d6 at 5th level, etc..

Then you'd be better off just casting Fire Bolt repeatedly. For example, at around level 5 (cantrip and proficiency bonus upgrade) let's assume you don't fight monsters with a higher CR than 7, meaning the highest AC you generally encounter is 15; let's say 14 to account for the AC of other lower-CR monsters. You should have at least a +3 in your casting stat by then so, assuming no magical items, you should enjoy a +6 attack bonus. So you need a 8 or higher on the d20 to hit, so a 60% chance of rolling.

Witch Bolt over Two Rounds: (2d8 x .60) + (2d6) = 12.4 DPR
Fire Bolt over Two Rounds: (2d10 x .60) x 3 = 13.2 DPR

Witch Bolt over Three Rounds: (2d8 x .60) + (4d6) = 19.4 DPR
Fire Bolt over Three Rounds: (2d10 x .60) x 3 = 19.8. DPR

Note that this comparison is pretty favorable to Witch Bolt, because if you miss with Witch Bolt, you lose out on 1.6 DPR on subsequent rounds because you have to start all over. Also note that if your attack bonus is very high (for example, you have an attack bonus of +9, meaning you only need to roll a 5 or higher to hit; which would be doable at level 5 if you started with an 18 in your casting stat, bumped it up to 20, and found a Wand of the War Mage +1 or something) you're also better off just re-casting Witch Bolt over and over.

And of course there's also the other issues of Witch Bolt eating up your concentration, having a 30-foot range, needing action-babysitting not to fall behind in combat, and the more obvious problem how its bargain (trade actions in combat for assured damage) gets worse the more spell slots and magical items you gain. It's an incredibly bad spell, is what I'm saying.

[Asisreo1]

What is your sorcerer getting out of this invisibility? They still have their square known, both because they haven't been able to hide and because they have a streak of visible lightning arcing from them. So all opponents have is disadvantage to hit you. It doesn't stop the target from moving away and breaking the spell. It also now uses the bard's concentration as well. That means two spells, one first and one second level, both with concentration, to achieve 1d12 a round.

The bard might not need to reserve their concentration, they may be focused on using their vicious mockery anyways.

Them having disadvantage against attacks targeting them is pretty good. If you have around a 50% chance to dodge, that reduces your hit chance to 25%. And it gets better the higher your AC is (draconic). If you're a sorcerer, it doesn't hurt to have distant spell on it. It's also useful in those "dungeons" where there's "confined spaces." It's much more interesting to play on a white background void, though, instead of different terrain types that may limit one or more character's movement. If you take spell sniper, it's going to be hard to leave the reach at all.

And they can cast quickened spells after the witchbolt action as well.

[LudicSavant]

Ok wait.

What if it was a cantrip instead.

1d8 initial damage, and the next turns it cause automatic 1d6 if you maintain it.

Increase by 1d8/1d6 at 5th level, etc..

For most purposes that would be like a worse Fire Bolt that eats your Concentration.

Edit: Ninja'd

[Greywander]

The bard might not need to reserve their concentration, they may be focused on using their vicious mockery anyways.

Them having disadvantage against attacks targeting them is pretty good. If you have around a 50% chance to dodge, that reduces your hit chance to 25%. And it gets better the higher your AC is (draconic). If you're a sorcerer, it doesn't hurt to have distant spell on it. It's also useful in those "dungeons" where there's "confined spaces." It's much more interesting to play on a white background void, though, instead of different terrain types that may limit one or more character's movement. If you take spell sniper, it's going to be hard to leave the reach at all.

And they can cast quickened spells after the witchbolt action as well.
Okay, it's true that if you turn invisible (unless Greater Invisibility) then spamming a cantrip would break invisibility. So Witch Bolt might make sense. But if the enemy can't attack you, then they'll just attack someone else. Like the bard. And if the bard is using Vicious Mockery to give disadvantage anyway, do you really even need invisibility? At which point we're back to cantrip spamming being better.

I keep trying to think of a way to make this work, but it either relies on a contrived setup, spends a lot more resources than it's worth, or just ends up being worse than cantrip spam.

I do like the idea of making it a cantrip, actually. You need to get that initial hit in, but after that it's basically free damage. This also gives it a nice control aspect, as the target will try to run out of range or behind cover. I'd probably make it do 1d6 damage, scaling. Not strong, but considering that other cantrips can miss on subsequent attacks/saves, it should even out.

[Asisreo1]

Okay, it's true that if you turn invisible (unless Greater Invisibility) then spamming a cantrip would break invisibility. So Witch Bolt might make sense. But if the enemy can't attack you, then they'll just attack someone else. Like the bard. And if the bard is using Vicious Mockery to give disadvantage anyway, do you really even need invisibility? At which point we're back to cantrip spamming being better.

The enemies aren't targetting you because you're invisible. That was the point, to reduce your damage taken. The bard may not be engaging and mocking the same enemy that plans on engaging you. A bard should be in the back lines, unless your formation has broken, they should be meeting the fighter before they really get to engage with either of you.

[Mellack]

The enemies aren't targetting you because you're invisible. That was the point, to reduce your damage taken. The bard may not be engaging and mocking the same enemy that plans on engaging you. A bard should be in the back lines, unless your formation has broken, they should be meeting the fighter before they really get to engage with either of you.

As mentioned, you sorcerer can't be casting cantrips because that breaks invisibility. The bard has spent at least one action just to support your 1d12 damage. If you are in a dungeon instead of a "white room", that means there is probably obstructions that will break line of effect. A single pillar will do that. Can you put some numbers to any of your scenarios that show witch bolt to be more effective than using other common spells would be? So far anyone who as shown the actual maths has demonstrated WC to fall behind.

[Asisreo1]

As mentioned, you sorcerer can't be casting cantrips because that breaks invisibility. The bard has spent at least one action just to support your 1d12 damage. If you are in a dungeon instead of a "white room", that means there is probably obstructions that will break line of effect. A single pillar will do that. Can you put some numbers to any of your scenarios that show witch bolt to be more effective than using other common spells would be? So far anyone who as shown the actual maths has demonstrated WC to fall behind.

I'm not sure there's any real numbers I can put down. I can't put a percentage on whether there's a place to break LoS against witch bolt and I can't predict an ambiguous monster's behavior. The scenario didn't have much to do with damage, either. It's a case-by-case scenario. It's the issue with getting on forums and looking for numbers in all scenarios.

People say the best debuff on a creature is dead, but it goes both ways. A sorcerer that is knocked unconscious is worse than even a sorcerer that does nothing but 1d4 damage.

And it isn't really about the numbers to me, anyways. I appreciate the calculations but if we were truly interested in minmaxing damage, we may find ourselves with a build without access to witchbolt anyways, like maybe a cleric or paladin.

Besides, it should still be useful if you think you'll be unable to see your enemy like in the case of a drow's darkness. True strike then distant witch bolt to keep damage going even against a target you can't see.

I feel like this thread is beginning to invite people who'd rather state witchbolt is bad rather than contribute and give ways it could possibly be good.

[Mellack]

I'm not sure there's any real numbers I can put down. I can't put a percentage on whether there's a place to break LoS against witch bolt and I can't predict an ambiguous monster's behavior. The scenario didn't have much to do with damage, either. It's a case-by-case scenario. It's the issue with getting on forums and looking for numbers in all scenarios.

People say the best debuff on a creature is dead, but it goes both ways. A sorcerer that is knocked unconscious is worse than even a sorcerer that does nothing but 1d4 damage.

And it isn't really about the numbers to me, anyways. I appreciate the calculations but if we were truly interested in minmaxing damage, we may find ourselves with a build without access to witchbolt anyways, like maybe a cleric or paladin.

Besides, it should still be useful if you think you'll be unable to see your enemy like in the case of a drow's darkness. True strike then distant witch bolt to keep damage going even against a target you can't see.

I feel like this thread is beginning to invite people who'd rather state witchbolt is bad rather than contribute and give ways it could possibly be good.

Unfortunately, by RAW you cannot even use that True Strike to help you so your initial casting of Witch Bolt would be at disadvantage. That is a strike against both True Strike and Witch Bolt, which is why those spells are considered some of the worst.

As soon as you start casting a spell or using a special ability that requires concentration, your concentration on another effect ends instantly. (XGE 5)

A spellcaster can only know and/or prepare a limited number of spells. Sadly WC is so below par that there is little reason to have it take one of those precious slots. There is a point where trying to make it good is costing more resources than it is worth.

[elyktsorb]

The only reason I can remotely thing to take witch bolt is that it's a 1st level spell that if your a wild sorcerer, means you only have the chance of your wild surge going off once while casting and maintaining it. Which I guess is fair since at 2nd level if you did manage to roll that 'cast fireball centered on yourself' there's a pretty high chance of you wiping your entire party with that. But I also assume if your playing a wild mage you've already thrown caution to the wind on that front.

[Yuroch Kern]

I'm not sure there's any real numbers I can put down. I can't put a percentage on whether there's a place to break LoS against witch bolt and I can't predict an ambiguous monster's behavior. The scenario didn't have much to do with damage, either. It's a case-by-case scenario. It's the issue with getting on forums and looking for numbers in all scenarios.

People say the best debuff on a creature is dead, but it goes both ways. A sorcerer that is knocked unconscious is worse than even a sorcerer that does nothing but 1d4 damage.

And it isn't really about the numbers to me, anyways. I appreciate the calculations but if we were truly interested in minmaxing damage, we may find ourselves with a build without access to witchbolt anyways, like maybe a cleric or paladin.

Besides, it should still be useful if you think you'll be unable to see your enemy like in the case of a drow's darkness. True strike then distant witch bolt to keep damage going even against a target you can't see.

I feel like this thread is beginning to invite people who'd rather state witchbolt is bad rather than contribute and give ways it could possibly be good.

Spell Sniper as mentioned an immediate and multi-use feat, granting both a 60' range and ignoring everything but total cover. A Sorcerer could then grab Quicken and Distant spell Metamagic to have a 120' range, and/or combine it with Ray of Frost to mitigate leaving or rushing. It worked very well, and getting Mobility made it so I was mostly moving around and just letting the spell do it's thing. Also, XGE should be taken with a grain of salt. It may clarify RAW with concentration, but the whole splatbook seemed rushed and imbalanced. Take your own interpretation at your table on whether it's casting or cast spells. If official Sage Advice is constantly contradicting itself too, what use is a supplement?

[RSP]

And yet, if a sorcerer stands there for 10 minutes holding a staff, and at some time during that period decides to cast Subtle spell with M component, anyone with access to Counterspell (yes, even the bug, if it gets Counterspell somehow... there are few potential ways to do that without affecting its mental capabilities) instantly knows a spell is being cast, and can trigger the Counterspell. There's no Arcana check or minimal ability score values, or any other requirement beyond the range and the ability to see the caster mentioned anywhere. If the sorcerer instead cast Subtle spell without M component, or used a magic item (which do remove the need for components unless specifically saying otherwise) to do so, Counterspell wouldn't be triggered, because the act of spellcasting would be imperceptible.

That means that whatever the sorcerer is doing in the moment he's casting a Subtle spell with M component is different enough from 'just holding a staff' that anyone... even an Int 1 overgrown bug or orc (which is a thing entirely possible to have as a PC) is able to tell the difference.

{Scrubbed}

You seem to think “perceptible”=“definitively known”, which is not in anyway the case.

Let’s look at a few examples that show this:

A DC 25 trap is in a dungeon currently being explored by PCs. The highest Perception in the group is a +7. The trap is, therefore, perceptible. However, the PC with the +7 rolls a 5 on their Wis (Perception) check, and doesn’t notice the trap. If “perceptible”=“definitively known” then there’s no reason to roll the d20 because the PC would automatically notice the trap, as it is “perceptible.”

Next example: a Bard casts an S spell while in the area of effect of a Darkness spell. In the room is a Warlock with Devils Sight, and a Wizard. Since the Bard is casting an S component spell, the casting is “perceptible”. This point is further shown in that one of the two characters present, the Warlock with DS, can actually see through the Darkness spell and see the S component. The Wizard, however, cannot see the S component.

In your incorrect reading of the rule, the Wizard still automatically knows the Bard cast a spell, because the casting was “perceptible”, even though the Wizard couldn’t actually perceive it.

Both these examples show that “perceptible” does not equal “definitively known.”

Further, you seem to think the XGtE rule says something different than it does. From your previous post:


XGtE, p. 85:
”But what about the act of casting a spell? Is it possible for someone to perceive that a spell is being cast in their presence? To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component. The form of a material component doesn't matter for the purposes of perception, whether it's an object specified in the spell's description, a component pouch, or a spellcasting focus.

This rule doesn’t state “if there’s a component present, the spell is noticed.” It actually states the inverse: “if there are no components in a casting, it’s impossible to notice.”

You’re taking what it’s saying here, and assuming the inverse of what it’s saying is also true, but it’s not.

Now, this rule from XGtE isn’t separate and apart from the rest of the rules; it works with them. It infers that a casting is possibly noticed if there are V,S or M components present in its casting; and states that a casting is not able to be noticed if no components are present.

So to figure out what is noticed and what isn’t, we need to use other rules from the RAW. For instance, can a character know what they’re seeing/hearing is spellcasting (like the aforementioned GFB)? That’s covered by Intelligence: “Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason.” Moreover, deduction is described as the Investigation skill, so, for example, deducing that specific sounds are a spell, could very well fall under that skill.

A Wisdom check can “notice things about the environment.” So if there a question of whether something is noticed, like the components of a spell during a casting, Wisdom (Perception) could be used.

Other rules, such as lighting and cover, can come into play, as well as DM discretion as well, like distance from the caster being a factor in not perceiving something.

But again, so long as you read the rule incorrectly, and assume it says something that, in reality, it doesn’t, none of this matters. That’s why it’s important to take what it actually says, “To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component;” and to not assume it says other things it does not, such as “every casting with V,S, and/or M components is always noticed by everyone, and known to be spellcasting by everyone.”

[Chronos]

Believe me, we've all tried to come up with ways to make Witch Bolt good. We've tried many times, and even when we give the spell every benefit of the doubt, we always fail. The problem isn't that we're prejudiced against it; the problem is that it just isn't any good, even compared with other core options like Magic Missile or Chromatic Orb (which, yes, is in fact a core option).

Even if you assume that the enemy can't force the spell to end early, for whatever reason, it still does less damage than other options. Even if someone else casts Invisibility or Sanctuary on you after you cast it, you're not decreasing the damage the party takes at all, but you are decreasing the damage the party does, and expending more of the party's spell slots. The only way you can make it worthwhile to use is by assuming that the caster doesn't know any better options, and then you have to ask why they learned Witch Bolt instead of those better options.

[Tanarii]

The only way you can make it worthwhile to use is by assuming that the caster doesn't know any better options, and then you have to ask why they learned Witch Bolt instead of those better options.
Clearly you've never generated a warlock character with randomly generated spells. I believe the result was something like True Strike, Prestidigitation, Illusionary Script and Witch Bolt. 2 basically useless cantrips, one ritual I could cast once because gp component, and a single attack spell.

Since this was for a Pc I was going to play in AL, not an NPC, I decided random generation is all well and good but picked my spells instead. :smallamused:

[Asisreo1]

Unfortunately, by RAW you cannot even use that True Strike to help you so your initial casting of Witch Bolt would be at disadvantage. That is a strike against both True Strike and Witch Bolt, which is why those spells are considered some of the worst.

As soon as you start casting a spell or using a special ability that requires concentration, your concentration on another effect ends instantly. (XGE 5)

A spellcaster can only know and/or prepare a limited number of spells. Sadly WC is so below par that there is little reason to have it take one of those precious slots. There is a point where trying to make it good is costing more resources than it is worth.
So, for True Strike and Witch Bolt, I'll separate their instances of niche usefulness since they apparently do not have synergy.

Witch Bolt is still useful against a target you won't be able to see. Let's say you're fighting in darkness. Your cantrip options are limited. You could cast firebolt at disadvantage, doing a DPR of 2.78. Or, you could cast witchbolt first. The DPR is slightly higher on a three turn average assuming you lost it before round 2 since you could just default back to firebolt. If you can keep it on longer through Distant spell, at least 1 more round, your average DPR becomes 4.1 and the longer you keep it up, the higher your average DPR until it converges at 6.5.

True Strike can be useful when you have a truly limited resource you must expend. Maybe you have a spellscroll for chromatic orb or you intend to attack a creature with holy water. You can also use it to help with the spell "Plane Shift." If you're fighting a goblin boss with a tendency to stay in darkness and try to BA hide, you'd have a better chance to hit him by true striking first, then firebolting him. So basically, goblin bosses that like to keep their distance and stay in darkness.

A goblin boss has an AC of 17. If they're in darkness (trying to hide) they have advantage and you have disadvantage whether they successfully hid or not. If you do nothing but firebolt, your average DPR for 4 rounds is 1.38. If you true strike then firebolt, your average DPR for 4 rounds is 1.51

This is the case for a pure dark fight with no terrain. If there's three-fourth's cover or even half cover, then this strategy would be good for goblins. If it's three-fourth's cover, it may be necessary for creatures with only 12 AC if they like to hang in the shadows.

[RSP]

Witch Bolt is still useful against a target you won't be able to see. Let's say you're fighting in darkness. Your cantrip options are limited. You could cast firebolt at disadvantage, doing a DPR of 2.78. Or, you could cast witchbolt first. The DPR is slightly higher on a three turn average assuming you lost it before round 2 since you could just default back to firebolt. If you can keep it on longer through Distant spell, at least 1 more round, your average DPR becomes 4.1 and the longer you keep it up, the higher your average DPR until it converges at 6.5.

WB would still be at Disadvantage too, though, with the higher consequence of wasting the spell slot if you miss, whereas Firebolt doesn’t cost anything but the action.

[Mellack]

So, for True Strike and Witch Bolt, I'll separate their instances of niche usefulness since they apparently do not have synergy.

Witch Bolt is still useful against a target you won't be able to see. Let's say you're fighting in darkness. Your cantrip options are limited. You could cast firebolt at disadvantage, doing a DPR of 2.78. Or, you could cast witchbolt first. The DPR is slightly higher on a three turn average assuming you lost it before round 2 since you could just default back to firebolt. If you can keep it on longer through Distant spell, at least 1 more round, your average DPR becomes 4.1 and the longer you keep it up, the higher your average DPR until it converges at 6.5.

True Strike can be useful when you have a truly limited resource you must expend. Maybe you have a spellscroll for chromatic orb or you intend to attack a creature with holy water. You can also use it to help with the spell "Plane Shift." If you're fighting a goblin boss with a tendency to stay in darkness and try to BA hide, you'd have a better chance to hit him by true striking first, then firebolting him. So basically, goblin bosses that like to keep their distance and stay in darkness.

A goblin boss has an AC of 17. If they're in darkness (trying to hide) they have advantage and you have disadvantage whether they successfully hid or not. If you do nothing but firebolt, your average DPR for 4 rounds is 1.38. If you true strike then firebolt, your average DPR for 4 rounds is 1.51

This is the case for a pure dark fight with no terrain. If there's three-fourth's cover or even half cover, then this strategy would be good for goblins. If it's three-fourth's cover, it may be necessary for creatures with only 12 AC if they like to hang in the shadows.

You would still have disadvantage casting WC. If you have a +6 to hit, at disadvantage against the AC 17, there is a 75% chance you miss. That has cost you a spell slot. If we assume you hit, then compared to a firebolt you have you have done 1 point more of damage (6.5 avg vs 5.5).

You are saying that spending a spell slot instead of a resource-less cantrip gets you a small increase. That is not much payoff for using one of your few spells. You have also taken one of your very few known spells for a niche condition. If they instead would have cast Thunderwave or Burning hands they would have done more damage.

[Asisreo1]

You would still have disadvantage casting WC. If you have a +6 to hit, at disadvantage against the AC 17, there is a 75% chance you miss. That has cost you a spell slot. If we assume you hit, then compared to a firebolt you have you have done 1 point more of damage (6.5 avg vs 5.5).

You are saying that spending a spell slot instead of a resource-less cantrip gets you a small increase. That is not much payoff for using one of your few spells. You have also taken one of your very few known spells for a niche condition. If they instead would have cast Thunderwave or Burning hands they would have done more damage.
If you hit with witchbolt, you get a guaranteed 6.5 every consecutive turn if they don't break the spell. If they're in a situation where breaking the spell is difficult, then it's consistent 6.5 rather than 5.5 with disadvantage.

Conserving spellslots are nice but why cast any spells when you could use resourceless cantrips all the time? It really doesn't do you good to conserve your spellslots if you're action is more often than not just missing. You can find a way to gain advantage once in a turn, maybe a friendly wizard's familiar can spare an action or the bard has cast hold person on the goblinoid.

[Garfunion]

It’s funny this discussion about witch bolt could all be avoided if they just errata the ongoing damage to requires a bonus action to deal.

Or better yet in order to favor the sorcerer class, have the ongoing damage require the same action used to cast the spell.

[Asisreo1]

If you want to go pure nova as hard as you can, resources be darned, you can cast distant Witchbolt and BA cast your leveled spells repeatedly. It's expensive and you'll run out of fuel quickly but sometimes you have the opportunity to just go Nova and it's possible to rain d12's on your opponent while doing your other sorcerer stuff.

[Moreb Benhk]

If you want to go pure nova as hard as you can, resources be darned, you can cast distant Witchbolt and BA cast your leveled spells repeatedly. It's expensive and you'll run out of fuel quickly but sometimes you have the opportunity to just go Nova and it's possible to rain d12's on your opponent while doing your other sorcerer stuff.

Couldn't you achieve the same with a d12 cantrip?


Withbolt is the go-to spell for the wizard in our party, and it's been really painful. 90% of the time the target can easily just move out of range, unless they are in melee with the rest of us, which means they are usually dead by the third tick at the absolute latest. Even when everything lines up, it has the same feel of successfully cantripping the enemy (merely applying a modest amount of damage, no riders, nuffin). The main impact has actually been on the rest of the party - encouraging me to spread damage or to feel bad for attacking the obvious targets because I feel like I'm taking away the fun of the wizard, because when the target dies, the spell whiffs (no chance to retarget)

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

Well, that's a lot of words to say what I've already addressed about 2 pages earlier. Yes, normal sensory limitation still apply. I've assumed that's obvious and doesn't need mentioning, but apparently not. But adding further circumstances to otherwise white-room situation just to win an argument is.... eh.

[Asisreo1]

Couldn't you achieve the same with a d12 cantrip?


Withbolt is the go-to spell for the wizard in our party, and it's been really painful. 90% of the time the target can easily just move out of range, unless they are in melee with the rest of us, which means they are usually dead by the third tick at the absolute latest. Even when everything lines up, it has the same feel of successfully cantripping the enemy (merely applying a modest amount of damage, no riders, nuffin). The main impact has actually been on the rest of the party - encouraging me to spread damage or to feel bad for attacking the obvious targets because I feel like I'm taking away the fun of the wizard, because when the target dies, the spell whiffs (no chance to retarget)

You're not taking away from the wizard, at least in my eyes. It's better to focus down a single target than split the same damages. Also, a sorcerer doesn't have a d12 cantrip.

I can't fit witchbolt into a good wizard build, but it sounds like he enjoys using the spell, so you don't have to feel bad for him.

And a target surely can move out of witchbolt, but if they're engaged in melee or preoccupied, Should they? I mean, if you were in melee with someone like an orc and the spellcaster somewhere 10ft behind him casted a witchbolt, would you run away from the Orc because now you might take an extra 1d12 damage each round? And if you do, you're unable to do the damage to the orc because you're out of range. You could tank the OA and rush the spellcaster, but that gives the Orc more to beat you down. The orc is obviously a bigger threat than the d12 damage but you're still taking the damage.

[JNAProductions]

You're not taking away from the wizard, at least in my eyes. It's better to focus down a single target than split the same damages. Also, a sorcerer doesn't have a d12 cantrip.

I can't fit witchbolt into a good wizard build, but it sounds like he enjoys using the spell, so you don't have to feel bad for him.

And a target surely can move out of witchbolt, but if they're engaged in melee or preoccupied, Should they? I mean, if you were in melee with someone like an orc and the spellcaster somewhere 10ft behind him casted a witchbolt, would you run away from the Orc because now you might take an extra 1d12 damage each round? And if you do, you're unable to do the damage to the orc because you're out of range. You could tank the OA and rush the spellcaster, but that gives the Orc more to beat you down. The orc is obviously a bigger threat than the d12 damage but you're still taking the damage.

If the argument is "It's such a little amount of damage, you're better off tanking it than dealing with it," that sure sounds like a bad option.

[JackPhoenix]

Also, a sorcerer doesn't have a d12 cantrip.

While it's understandable that people miss one of the worst damaging cantrip options, Poison Spray does d12 damage.

[Temperjoke]

Witch Bolt's problem is two-fold, it's the action usage for the repeating damage, and the range/cover issue. The action usage issue can't be helped, but if you can prevent the target from moving, or if the target is not in position to get out of range or into total cover, then the spell becomes okay (not a great choice, just okay). If you have a partner assisting you to paralyze the enemy, or grapple them to keep them from moving, that would resolve some of the issue.

It's just a really situation-specific spell, and there are better options to pick from.

[Asisreo1]

If the argument is "It's such a little amount of damage, you're better off tanking it than dealing with it," that sure sounds like a bad option.
Sure, but you'd be tanking more damage than a continuous firebolt. It adds up and can be the most damaging 1st level spell when let fester but the DoT damage keeps going. It's like being poisoned in a video game.

[JNAProductions]

Sure, but you'd be tanking more damage than a continuous firebolt. It adds up and can be the most damaging 1st level spell when let fester but the DoT damage keeps going. It's like being poisoned in a video game.

At levels 1-4.

Starting at level 5, to outdamage Firebolt, you need to be hitting less than 60% of the time. Which, okay, that's not impossible or even all that unlikely-but that also means your initial Witch Bolt had that same miss chance.

[Moreb Benhk]

You're not taking away from the wizard, at least in my eyes. It's better to focus down a single target than split the same damages. Also, a sorcerer doesn't have a d12 cantrip.

I can't fit witchbolt into a good wizard build, but it sounds like he enjoys using the spell, so you don't have to feel bad for him.

And a target surely can move out of witchbolt, but if they're engaged in melee or preoccupied, Should they? I mean, if you were in melee with someone like an orc and the spellcaster somewhere 10ft behind him casted a witchbolt, would you run away from the Orc because now you might take an extra 1d12 damage each round? And if you do, you're unable to do the damage to the orc because you're out of range. You could tank the OA and rush the spellcaster, but that gives the Orc more to beat you down. The orc is obviously a bigger threat than the d12 damage but you're still taking the damage.

But again - if the target is embroiled in melee, they're often not around in 2-3 rounds, as they are taking hits from the rest of us. If a target is not in melee, all they have to do is be more than 30 ft away at some point (not even the end of their move) - which can often be accomplished with almost 0 impact on the rest of their actions.

[Asisreo1]

At levels 1-4.

Starting at level 5, to outdamage Firebolt, you need to be hitting less than 60% of the time. Which, okay, that's not impossible or even all that unlikely-but that also means your initial Witch Bolt had that same miss chance.
At level 5, just cast it again. You've got some spellslots to spare.

Ok, I can understand why some people wouldn't do that. But we might be getting too worked up on the fact that it can miss. It takes a spellslot and does nothing if missed, understood, but by level 5, it probably overstayed it's welcome in your spell list anyways. Swap it out for counterspell or dispel magic or major image. Having witchbolt once doesn't mean you have to have it forever. Hell, you could switch it for lightning bolt if you've got a lightning theme going on.

Oh, I found a use for True Strike again. If a moon druid can take True Strike (maybe magic initiate), they can turn into a Giant Spider and web someone with advantage their next turn. It's a recharge skill so missing it means you can't immediately use it again.

At high levels, if someone were to be so kind, you could true strike your enemy and your party member could True Polymorph you into something like a Death Knight or Balor. If he does so, you can now wreak Havoc with your first attack being at advantage. This goes extra if you went first in the initiative order or he couldn't quite polymorph you first.

[Mellack]

Sure, but you'd be tanking more damage than a continuous firebolt. It adds up and can be the most damaging 1st level spell when let fester but the DoT damage keeps going. It's like being poisoned in a video game.

As mentioned above, it is only more damage than a firebolt or some other cantrip for the first few levels, and even then it is only better than other spells if the target survives for several rounds. Considering that you likely need another character engaging it in melee so probably inflicting their own damage on the target, and that most fights only last 3-4 rounds total, that is unlikely. I love the visualization of the spell, but it is just so far behind the curve that it ruins the joy when it continuously falls flat.

[Yuroch Kern]

If you want to go pure nova as hard as you can, resources be darned, you can cast distant Witchbolt and BA cast your leveled spells repeatedly. It's expensive and you'll run out of fuel quickly but sometimes you have the opportunity to just go Nova and it's possible to rain d12's on your opponent while doing your other sorcerer stuff.

Don't forget, a successful WB setup really only expends a single slot. Sorcery points being what they are, you are not spending slots. Quicken, Distant, then Twin get this moving.

[Mellack]

If you want to go pure nova as hard as you can, resources be darned, you can cast distant Witchbolt and BA cast your leveled spells repeatedly. It's expensive and you'll run out of fuel quickly but sometimes you have the opportunity to just go Nova and it's possible to rain d12's on your opponent while doing your other sorcerer stuff.

Since you are trading out Witchbolt by level 5, your sorcerer has at most 4 sorcery points. If you spent 1 on distant, your can only quicken a single spell. Your nova is basically over by the end of round two.

[Asisreo1]

Since you are trading out Witchbolt by level 5, your sorcerer has at most 4 sorcery points. If you spent 1 on distant, your can only quicken a single spell. Your nova is basically over by the end of round two.
Isn't that how nova's are supposed to go?

[LudicSavant]

Ideally, the point of a nova is to burn resources in order to prevent Team Monster from doing something that carries a sufficient risk of being even more expensive to your party.

Basically, the tactical reason why novas work (when used with discretion) is because there's two sides to attrition: The resources you spend, and the costs incurred by the actions of Team Monster.

[Mellack]

Isn't that how nova's are supposed to go?

But was it an effective nova?

Scenario 1: Round 1 witchbolt hits, avg damage 6.5
Round 2, action sustain witchbolt for 6.5 damage, quicken chromatic orb for 13.5 damage
Total damage over those two rounds is 26.5 for cost of two sorcery points and two level 1 spells

Scenario 2: Round 1 chromatic orb for 13.5 damage
Round 2, chromatic orb for 13.5 damage
Total damage over two rounds is 27 for a cost of zero sorcery points and two level 1 spells.

Scenario 3: Round 1 Firebolt action for 5.5 avg damage, quicken chromatic orb for 13.5 damage
Round 2, chromatic orb for 13.5 damage
Total damage over two rounds is 32.5 for cost of two sorcery points and two level 1 spells

[Asisreo1]

But was it an effective nova?

Scenario 1: Round 1 witchbolt hits, avg damage 6.5
Round 2, action sustain witchbolt for 6.5 damage, quicken chromatic orb for 13.5 damage
Total damage over those two rounds is 26.5 for cost of two sorcery points and two level 1 spells

Scenario 2: Round 1 chromatic orb for 13.5 damage
Round 2, chromatic orb for 13.5 damage
Total damage over two rounds is 27 for a cost of zero sorcery points and two level 1 spells.

Scenario 3: Round 1 Firebolt action for 5.5 avg damage, quicken chromatic orb for 13.5 damage
Round 2, chromatic orb for 13.5 damage
Total damage over two rounds is 32.5 for cost of two sorcery points and two level 1 spells

Then how about this? You can use witchbolt while in a silenced area. You can also use it if you are blinded. Someone could cast silence in the area you're in and you can still use your witchbolt damage.

[Mellack]

Then how about this? You can use witchbolt while in a silenced area. You can also use it if you are blinded. Someone could cast silence in the area you're in and you can still use your witchbolt damage.

That is an advantage. However it is an extremely niche one.

[Asisreo1]

That is an advantage. However it is an extremely niche one.
Well, you could be fighting a spellcaster and silence needs to be cast in order to reduce the spellcaster's threat level. The bard could cooperate with you and let you cast witchbolt before he silences the area you'll be in. Maybe you can't move because you're grappled/in-melee/restrained or it would be more disadvantageous to move like a wall of fire or some other restrictive effect.

Although, I'd think any spellcaster that can prepare silence would since it's so debilitating to mages. Have the frontliner grapple and you can consistently get the damage off.

[LudicSavant]

That is an advantage. However it is an extremely niche one.

Also:

Catapult and Ice Knife can simply be cast while Silenced, no need for pre-casting it. And at level 1 even mundane attacks are still a decent option for casters.

[Moreb Benhk]

Then how about this? You can use witchbolt while in a silenced area. You can also use it if you are blinded. Someone could cast silence in the area you're in and you can still use your witchbolt damage.

But again, only if you are silenced after casting it. And if blinded you're still only effectively on level footing with firebolt - both operating at Disadvantage. I guess if things happen AFTER you cast it... I think that the fact that to justify this spell's existence as effective over a cantrip you basically have to have some fairly specifically timed niche situations speaks volumes for it.... the one single strength it has - that if it's on someone the damage is automatic (for an action).

Bear in mind cantripping is the baseline of effectiveness for casters - literally any use of spells should contribute more than cantrips. Even in the above situations you're probably more effective using other (possibly niche) spells or abilities of the same level to help your party out. Or just burning a turn to escape the silence or something.

Maybe if the damage was a bonus action. or Maybe if you had some way of switching targets... Or maybe if there was no distance limit... Like some kind of boost to its reliability, DPR, or niche use.

[RSP]

Well, that's a lot of words to say what I've already addressed about 2 pages earlier. Yes, normal sensory limitation still apply. I've assumed that's obvious and doesn't need mentioning, but apparently not. But adding further circumstances to otherwise white-room situation just to win an argument is.... eh.

But it’s not “normal sensory limitations” that “still apply”; it’s that the XGtE rule doesn’t say what you think it does, and that 5e has other rules that apply to the situation of being present when spellcasting occurs, including being able to deduce that spellcasting is occurring based off what’s being perceived (in our case, that a staff is being held).

But I’m glad we agree I won the argument.

[Chronos]

OK, so we've already agreed that once cantrips get upgraded at level 5, Witch Bolt isn't useful any more. And now, to make Witch Bolt useful, we're assuming that a teammate is casting a 2nd-level spell? So it's not useful at level 1 or 2, either. Just how many enemy spellcasters do you expect to be fighting at levels 3 or 4?

We're struggling here just to find any situation where it's useful. Every spell has some situations where it's useful. A spell needs more than that. It needs to be useful in enough situations, to be worth taking as one of your limited number of spell choices. Witch Bolt isn't.

[Asisreo1]

OK, so we've already agreed that once cantrips get upgraded at level 5, Witch Bolt isn't useful any more. And now, to make Witch Bolt useful, we're assuming that a teammate is casting a 2nd-level spell? So it's not useful at level 1 or 2, either. Just how many enemy spellcasters do you expect to be fighting at levels 3 or 4?

We're struggling here just to find any situation where it's useful. Every spell has some situations where it's useful. A spell needs more than that. It needs to be useful in enough situations, to be worth taking as one of your limited number of spell choices. Witch Bolt isn't.
Two separate situations. I mean, 2nd level spells come online at 3rd level. And even past 5th level, a cantrip you can't cast is worse than a witchbolt's action that you can.

You could keep witchbolt active if you're polymorphed or frightened. What doesn't get talked about is that you can choose to not use your action to do the damage. You can forgo your action without taking it, meaning witchbolt is still in effect. This means your witchbolt can stay active even with sanctuary or charmed.

[Asisreo1]

We're struggling here just to find any situation where it's useful. Every spell has some situations where it's useful. A spell needs more than that. It needs to be useful in enough situations, to be worth taking as one of your limited number of spell choices. Witch Bolt isn't.
Isn't that the whole point of this thread? I hope you don't think I'm trying to convince you that every spellcaster needs this spell. I'm just going through niche examples where using it is optimal compared to cantrips or spells.

It wouldn't surprise me if witchbolt was designed before they realized they wanted cantrips to be at-will. Or maybe they justify it with lightning being a rarely resisted damage type. Or that a silenced/gagged spellcaster can keep it going.

Oh, if you're a sorcerer, you can subtle cast it in a silenced area so you don't have to worry about the initial casting.

[KorvinStarmast]

Having seen Witch Bolt in play (both in AL and IMC), and the aftermath, and having discussed the aftermath with said players, here is what happens:
Caster casts it and hits. There is now a visible bolt of lightning to the creature. If it's big and tough, it beelines for the caster and whomps on them. If it's small and not so dangerous, it backs away to 31ft or behind cover and the lightning ends. The caster pouts in disappointment, because they were expecting round after round of damage.

And in their disappointment they go online, at which point numerous folks point out that in real life game play there is no reasonable use case for Witch Bolt for a PC, they swap it out.

Only in theoretical optimization threads do any use cases come up. Threads like this one where people throw out corner cases and expending resources (both permanent and temporary, both the characters and other PCs) that might, just might, almost allow it to catch up with other spells. Before level 5, at which point repeatedly casting a damaging cantrip is superior. Not to dump on a fun theoretical optimization for edge cases that will rarely if ever see actual play, but let's be clear that's what we are doing here.We killed a werewolf with witch bolt and sacred flame. Four person party, had just made level 2. Barbarian and Fighter grappled him (using help they had advantage on each check). Nobody had silvered weapons, nobody had magic weapons. The WW nearly killed the Fighter before it was all over. Witch bolt (thank goodness it hit) kept doing damage to it. Sacred flame was its usual not great self. If the DM had not rolled each round to see which of the PCs the WW was attacking (it worked out that he did not only attack the fighter) the Fighter would probably have died. 58 HP takes a while to whittle down when sacred flame has a save for 0 and Witch bolt does 1d12 ... I am pretty sure how the DM handled it was RAW. The "I punch him" on round 2 and subsequent by barbarian kept his rage up.

[Mellack]

Two separate situations. I mean, 2nd level spells come online at 3rd level. And even past 5th level, a cantrip you can't cast is worse than a witchbolt's action that you can.

You could keep witchbolt active if you're polymorphed or frightened. What doesn't get talked about is that you can choose to not use your action to do the damage. You can forgo your action without taking it, meaning witchbolt is still in effect. This means your witchbolt can stay active even with sanctuary or charmed.

Why can't you cast another spell when frightened?

You can choose not to use your action to do the damage, but you cannot use it for anything else either. The spell ends if you use your action for anything else. So you cannot even move twice or use an object.

[KorvinStarmast]

Why can't you cast another spell when frightened?
IIRC you can only use your action to dash; so if you have a bonus action spell I think you can cast it.
Or maybe that's the "fear" spell's specific limitation.


Frightened
• A frightened creature has disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls while the source of its fear is
within line of sight.
• The creature can’t willingly move closer to the source of its fear.


You can choose not to use your action to do the damage, but you cannot use it for anything else either. The spell ends if you use your action for anything else. So you cannot even move twice or use an object. Ah, I see what you are getting at. If you Dash under the fear spell's effects, then Witch Bolt goes dead.

While frightened by this spell, a creature must take the Dash action and move away from you by the safest available route on e ch of its turns, unless there is nowhere to move.

[Mellack]

That is specific to the fear spell, Asisreo said frightened.




Frightened
• A frightened creature has disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls while the source of its fear is within line of sight.
• The creature can’t willingly move closer to the source of its fear.

Nothing in there says you can't cast. If you using a saving throw spell there is not even any penalty.

[Asisreo1]

That is specific to the fear spell, Asisreo said frightened.




Nothing in there says you can't cast. If you using a saving throw spell there is not even any penalty.
You can cast another spell while frightened, but the cantrip firebolt will be at disadvantage. Still not much of a case for higher levels, but it's still a scenario. You can quicken a save spell and yadda yadda.

[Chronos]

Sacred Flame isn't "its usual disappointing self". Yes, it has a chance to do nothing (if the enemy makes their save), but that's true of every cantrip. Sacred Flame has a decently-large damage die and arguably the best damage type in the game (at least one of the top two); it's actually a pretty good cantrip.

And yes, there are situations where you can use Witch Bolt. That's not the question. Again, the question is whether it's the best option. Plenty of other spells could also have killed that werewolf, and some of them a lot easier.

[Moreb Benhk]

We killed a werewolf with witch bolt and sacred flame. Four person party, had just made level 2. Barbarian and Fighter grappled him (using help they had advantage on each check). Nobody had silvered weapons, nobody had magic weapons. The WW nearly killed the Fighter before it was all over. Witch bolt (thank goodness it hit) kept doing damage to it. Sacred flame was its usual not great self. If the DM had not rolled each round to see which of the PCs the WW was attacking (it worked out that he did not only attack the fighter) the Fighter would probably have died. 58 HP takes a while to whittle down when sacred flame has a save for 0 and Witch bolt does 1d12 ... I am pretty sure how the DM handled it was RAW. The "I punch him" on round 2 and subsequent by barbarian kept his rage up.

But if everything else had been set up the same spamming firebolt every round the result wouldn't have been statistically much different. Though story wise- it sounded like the guarenteed channel of the Witchbolt gave the party something to hold on for against a TPK.

[Asisreo1]

Sacred Flame isn't "its usual disappointing self". Yes, it has a chance to do nothing (if the enemy makes their save), but that's true of every cantrip. Sacred Flame has a decently-large damage die and arguably the best damage type in the game (at least one of the top two); it's actually a pretty good cantrip.

And yes, there are situations where you can use Witch Bolt. That's not the question. Again, the question is whether it's the best option. Plenty of other spells could also have killed that werewolf, and some of them a lot easier.
I don't believe the question was even whether it was the best option. I don't think a player is required to know the best options in all scenarios just to use a spell. Maybe a sorcerer player recognizes the high AC of an enemy they're fighting and they have a way to get distant witchbolt in. They probably didn't go online for the calculations and they aren't expected to go through it at the table. The question is if it's useful, and a spell can be a useful option without being the best.

I'm not even sure there's a tangible feeling of whether witchbolt was a good option. Most opponents don't move very much in the battlefield and the DM might not feel inclined to cut the sorcerer's fun just because the option is possible.

In actual play, there's too many variables. In some games, damage is hardly concrete as the DM may increase HP on the fly because they don't want combat to last too short or too long. In some games, the DM and other players couldn't afford Xanathar's and might be unaware they rule true strike + witchbolt is incompatibile. In some games, you're in one combat a day anyways so going nova is all you have to do. And in some games, you're unable to choose firebolt because the DM dislikes how strong the cantrip is.

We're in this whiteboard discussion about things but when real gameplay is introduced, all of what we think is good/bad/broken may just change.

[Skylivedk]

Sure, but you'd be tanking more damage than a continuous firebolt. It adds up and can be the most damaging 1st level spell when let fester but the DoT damage keeps going. It's like being poisoned in a video game.
Having Witch Bolt as a prepared spell is like being poisoned in a video game? Co-sign ;)


I don't believe the question was even whether it was the best option. I don't think a player is required to know the best options in all scenarios just to use a spell. Maybe a sorcerer player recognizes the high AC of an enemy they're fighting and they have a way to get distant witchbolt in. They probably didn't go online for the calculations and they aren't expected to go through it at the table. The question is if it's useful, and a spell can be a useful option without being the best.

I'm not even sure there's a tangible feeling of whether witchbolt was a good option. Most opponents don't move very much in the battlefield and the DM might not feel inclined to cut the sorcerer's fun just because the option is possible.

In actual play, there's too many variables. In some games, damage is hardly concrete as the DM may increase HP on the fly because they don't want combat to last too short or too long. In some games, the DM and other players couldn't afford Xanathar's and might be unaware they rule true strike + witchbolt is incompatibile. In some games, you're in one combat a day anyways so going nova is all you have to do. And in some games, you're unable to choose firebolt because the DM dislikes how strong the cantrip is.

We're in this whiteboard discussion about things but when real gameplay is introduced, all of what we think is good/bad/broken may just change.

I think you need more math and tables to figure out when using Witch Bolt is a good idea than vice versa. At least if the length of this thread is anything to go by.

I'm curious about this Xanathar's interaction, care to enlighten me?

@to the poster who had a Wizard using Witch Bolt on his team: I feel for you. I cringed when our cleric would use slots for guiding bolt instead of Bless/Shield of Faith after level 5. I guess I should have praised Waukeen for not putting Witch Bolt on his list.

@OP: what is it you want to achieve by optimising the PHB-version of Witch Bolt? I mean, if you like the flavour why not spend the crowd-sourced brains on how to bring the spell on par with other choices?

[Chronos]

Yes, in actual play, there are a lot of variables, and all of them end up working against Witch Bolt. All of the attempts to find cases where it's good start by assuming that the enemy can't move, and that the caster never loses concentration, and that the enemy has enough HP to require many rounds to kill, and so on. If any of those variables actually come into play, then Witch Bolt ends and it sucks, no matter what the rest of the situation looks like.

[Asisreo1]

There's nothing more aggravating than having a player look down on another with an elitist attitude because of how they choose their character. I'm sure your players aren't looking for your sympathies.

[Skylivedk]

There's nothing more aggravating than having a player look down on another with an elitist attitude because of how they choose their character. I'm sure your players aren't looking for your sympathies.
Then you either:
- invest a lot of yourself (and believe that others do the same) into your character sheets

OR

- believe that a person cannot recognise a lack of skill in one area without looking down on the person (I don't mind my friends say I suck at singing or playing DOTA; I do)

OR

- have not had great reasons to feel aggrieved (which is great!)

Personally, I'd much prefer if someone with experience told me after my first sessions in nWoD or Warhammer that I was endangering the group through bad choices rather than accidentally killing everybody because I didn't carry my weight. Also, I like to learn. That requires enough humbleness to recognise that I'm not probably 7 types of horrible when I try something for the first time.

[Yuroch Kern]

But if everything else had been set up the same spamming firebolt every round the result wouldn't have been statistically much different. Though story wise- it sounded like the guarenteed channel of the Witchbolt gave the party something to hold on for against a TPK.

Statistically, a Witchbolt that hits in this scenario is better than a spammed pre-5th level Firebolt.

[Asisreo1]

Then you either:
- invest a lot of yourself (and believe that others do the same) into your character sheets

OR

- believe that a person cannot recognise a lack of skill in one area without looking down on the person (I don't mind my friends say I suck at singing or playing DOTA; I do)

OR

- have not had great reasons to feel aggrieved (which is great!)

Personally, I'd much prefer if someone with experience told me after my first sessions in nWoD or Warhammer that I was endangering the group through bad choices rather than accidentally killing everybody because I didn't carry my weight.
I don't play online games alot because

1. Yes, I invest myself into what I do. If it wasn't personal, someone else can do it.

2. Recognizing a "lack of skill" is different than cringing or feeling pity on someone that's enjoying what they're doing. It's one thing to be supportive but constructive, it ruins the fun to just be an elitist. If someone said I suck at singing, I'd probably not want to do it again. If someone said I suck playing D&D, I'd probably want to stop.

3. "Endangering the group" is something like splitting the party or attacking an ancient dragon. It's not casting witch bolt. In fact, if someone missing a spellslot endangers the group so badly, how terrible is it for the spellcaster to get counterspelled? It's just not that big of a deal that they choose witchbolt and I think it's poor table manners to tell another player how they should build their character. If I'm the DM and I didn't restrict witchbolt, then I'm certainly not going to let a player do so.

[JNAProductions]

I don't play online games alot because

1. Yes, I invest myself into what I do. If it wasn't personal, someone else can do it.

2. Recognizing a "lack of skill" is different than cringing or feeling pity on someone that's enjoying what they're doing. It's one thing to be supportive but constructive, it ruins the fun to just be an elitist. If someone said I suck at singing, I'd probably not want to do it again. If someone said I suck playing D&D, I'd probably want to stop.

3. "Endangering the group" is something like splitting the party or attacking an ancient dragon. It's not casting witch bolt. In fact, if someone missing a spellslot endangers the group so badly, how terrible is it for the spellcaster to get counterspelled? It's just not that big of a deal that they choose witchbolt and I think it's poor table manners to tell another player how they should build their character. If I'm the DM and I didn't restrict witchbolt, then I'm certainly not going to let a player do so.

We can agree that you shouldn't be crapping on another player for suboptimal choices.

But at the same time, I see literally nothing wrong with telling a new or just not very op-savvy player "Hey, I know Witch Bolt looks cool, but it's a REALLY crappy spell."

[Skylivedk]

I don't play online games alot because

1. Yes, I invest myself into what I do. If it wasn't personal, someone else can do it.

A) there's a difference here. You can increase time and energy into something without increasing your sense of self-worth.
B) investing self-worth in pieces of information or in external validation such as "I'm this good at X" is not conducive to learning in the first case (since bring wrong is then something that hurts rather than brings growth) or a resilient state of mental health.
C) I also play football (with feet, not hands) even though I'm decidedly mediocre at it. I have a blast. I don't see how being bad at something necessitates that not being fun to do.



2. Recognizing a "lack of skill" is different than cringing or feeling pity on someone that's enjoying what they're doing. It's one thing to be supportive but constructive, it ruins the fun to just be an elitist. If someone said I suck at singing, I'd probably not want to do it again. If someone said I suck playing D&D, I'd probably want to stop.

D) nah, f that. I use earplugs, still sing when I bike. It gives me space on the bike lane to boot (#win)

E) some of my quickest and most profound developments have been spurred on by people telling me where I was not only lacking skill, but also oblivious to lacking skill (often due to lack of said skill)

F) if I'm cringing and they are having fun, I'm the person losing out, not themn. Of course, if I try to project my feelings of cringe onto them, that situation might change (and I'd be a dirtbag)



3. "Endangering the group" is something like splitting the party or attacking an ancient dragon. It's not casting witch bolt. In fact, if someone missing a spellslot endangers the group so badly, how terrible is it for the spellcaster to get counterspelled? It's just not that big of a deal that they choose witchbolt and I think it's poor table manners to tell another player how they should build their character. If I'm the DM and I didn't restrict witchbolt, then I'm certainly not going to let a player do so.

G) that's like your opinion, m'kay ;)

H) if my character had the skills and ability scores to notice and my character is the type to tell, I'd tell in character. Unfortunately, that's not always a good source since my character can also be dumb as a brick and give horrible advice (I tell new players that of I can see they are confused)

I) If the person is sensitive, I'll be more diplomatic.

J) fail fast, learn fast. It takes forever to learn how to snowboard if you are afraid of failing. It takes forever to learn how to box of your afraid of a punch. It takes forever to learn if you're afraid of negative feedback. The you here is the general you, not Asisreo.

K) you can definitely die from Witch Bolt instead of Bless. 1d4 to facing throws is more than your proficiency bonus on average and you probably really really really want to make that save against being possessed by a ghost.

M) I'd feel worse for letting someone part a character they end up hating because they can't make the gears click than pulling them aside and share about the birds and bees, I mean bless, cantrips and Witch Bolt.

N) I play with friends. They know I love them to pieces and would like them each to ride gold dragons and have clone bodies

[Asisreo1]

A) there's a difference here. You can increase time and energy into something without increasing your sense of self-worth.
B) investing self-worth in pieces of information or in external validation such as "I'm this good at X" is not conducive to learning in the first case (since bring wrong is then something that hurts rather than brings growth) or a resilient state of mental health.
C) I also play football (with feet, not hands) even though I'm decidedly mediocre at it. I have a blast. I don't see how being bad at something necessitates that not being fun to do.


I invest myself in my character sheet as both a personal piece of art as well as a statistic. I don't define myself by how good I play a character. I define the character by having it reflect just a little of myself.

I agree with C. Being bad at something doesn't necessitate whether you have fun. But if someone casts witchbolt or even puts it in their spellbook, it's suddenly doom and gloom.



D) nah, f that. I use earplugs, still sing when I bike. It gives me space on the bike lane to boot (#win)

Well, you're not cooperatively singing and the people you're singing with isn't constantly telling you how you suck every choir practice.


E) some of my quickest and most profound developments have been spurred on by people telling me where I was not only lacking skill, but also oblivious to lacking skill (often due to lack of said skill)

F) if I'm cringing and they are having fun, I'm the person losing out, not themn. Of course, if I try to project my feelings of cringe onto them, that situation might change (and I'd be a dirtbag)

If you're cringing, you're visibly shoeing distaste. Even if you keep it internalized, people can tell when someone is confused or want to say something.



G) that's like your opinion, m'kay ;)

H) if my character had the skills and ability scores to notice and my character is the type to tell, I'd tell in character. Unfortunately, that's not always a good source since my character can also be dumb as a brick and give horrible advice (I tell new players that of I can see they are confused)

I) If the person is sensitive, I'll be more diplomatic.

J) fail fast, learn fast. It takes forever to learn how to snowboard if you are afraid of failing. It takes forever to learn how to box of your afraid of a punch. It takes forever to learn if you're afraid of negative feedback. The you here is the general you, not Asisreo.

Thanks for patronizing me, but I know how to learn. How you learn is make mistakes, see the consequences, and adjust to avoid those consequences. How you don't learn is have someone pity you and telling you you're doing stuff wrong and tell them how to do things their way.


K) you can definitely die from Witch Bolt instead of Bless. 1d4 to facing throws is more than your proficiency bonus on average and you probably really really really want to make that save against being possessed by a ghost.

I mean, if you somehow got bless and Witch Bolt on the same class list (I know it's possible) and you expect to be making saving throw. I'm not saying witch bolt outclasses every spell in all situations. I've never even claimed it's worth being on your prepared spell list. I'm just doing what the title asks me to do. Find some sort of exploit to Witch Bolt.


M) I'd feel worse for letting someone part a character they end up hating because they can't make the gears click than pulling them aside and share about the birds and bees, I mean bless, cantrips and Witch Bolt.

N) I play with friends. They know I love them to pieces and would like them each to ride gold dragons and have clone bodies

If they end up hating a character and want to part, let them. It's not your job to tell people how to play unless they explicitly ask.

And of course, friendly banter at my table are fine. But a grand total of 0 of my IRL friends are able to discern the pros and cons of witchbolt and they're there for the ride. I usually play with strangers, though, and there isn't enough companionship between each other to justify someone saying they're bad at the game without any offense.

[Kvard51]

Well, obviously, if you cast a spell in front of someone who's blind and deaf, or a mile away, or behind a solid wall, he won't notice. Normal sensory limitations still apply. But if you're casting a spell with M component, even if you have Subtle metamagic? People watching you will know you're casting a spell. And if they have Counterspell, they can use it, without any chance to mistake your actions for anything else, or without the possibility of being decieved if you just wave your wand around.

Actually, the passage you quoted states that effects like subtle spell make component use “imperceptible”. That means they cannot be perceived.

[Asisreo1]

But again, only if you are silenced after casting it. And if blinded you're still only effectively on level footing with firebolt - both operating at Disadvantage. I guess if things happen AFTER you cast it... I think that the fact that to justify this spell's existence as effective over a cantrip you basically have to have some fairly specifically timed niche situations speaks volumes for it.... the one single strength it has - that if it's on someone the damage is automatic (for an action).

Bear in mind cantripping is the baseline of effectiveness for casters - literally any use of spells should contribute more than cantrips. Even in the above situations you're probably more effective using other (possibly niche) spells or abilities of the same level to help your party out. Or just burning a turn to escape the silence or something.

Maybe if the damage was a bonus action. or Maybe if you had some way of switching targets... Or maybe if there was no distance limit... Like some kind of boost to its reliability, DPR, or niche use.
Back on topic, you can empower Witch Bolt and re-roll your Charisma over the course of the spell. If you're worried about range, you can distance it at the same time.

[JackPhoenix]

Actually, the passage you quoted states that effects like subtle spell make component use “imperceptible”. That means they cannot be perceived.

Subtle does absolutely nothing to M component.

[Skylivedk]

But if someone casts witchbolt or even puts it in their spellbook, it's suddenly doom and gloom.
No, doom and gloom would be an upgrade. That would be doing something.



Well, you're not cooperatively singing and the people you're singing with isn't constantly telling you how you suck every choir practice.

Matter of fact, I have tried that as a kid. Back then I was also ok not singing at shows.


If you're cringing, you're visibly shoeing distaste. Even if you keep it internalized, people can tell when someone is confused or want to say something.

Yes? When that didn't work - with Guiding Bolt - I asked the guy if I could run the numbers with him as a portfolio exercise (he had a finance background). It worked.


Thanks for patronizing me, but I know how to learn. How you learn is make mistakes, see the consequences, and adjust to avoid those consequences. How you don't learn is have someone pity you and telling you you're doing stuff wrong and tell them how to do things their way.

I really tried to be explicit about it not being addressed at you. Sincerely, I have no intention of you feeling bad. Despite many years of practice, I am still a Witch Bolt in the worlds of mind reading (especially at a distance; so Witch Bolt) and fortune telling (much Witch Bolt). Not everybody likes to fall flat on their face as part of learning. My nephew needs a safe space (preferably alone) to build base while before learning in social settings.



I mean, if you somehow got bless and Witch Bolt on the same class list

I did mention it was Guiding Bolt and I owed Waukeen some thanks for Witch Bolt not having been an option. I've just traded all of my goodwill awayz so maybe that will suffice.



I know it's possible) and you expect to be making saving throw. I'm not saying witch bolt outclasses every spell in all situations. I've never even claimed it's worth being on your prepared spell list. I'm just doing what the title asks me to do. Find some sort of exploit to Witch Bolt.

Which is why I've asked OP Greywander what the point of the optimization exercise. What is the why? Is it flavour, something else? Or is it just because it's normally known as the worst spell in the game. Which it isn't. I mean, if that's the exercise, we have this sweet piece of work called Mordenkainen's Sword. Talk about cringe.



If they end up hating a character and want to part, let them. It's not your job to tell people how to play unless they explicitly ask.

That's just your opinion. I've no evidence for having people leave because of a lack of mechanical understanding be good. Also, how do you know I don't have the table role of helping new players grasp mechanics?

Also, it's a team game. In paint ball you tell each other to flank, in football to pass, press, man-mark etc. Why is this team game a team game where you can't say: hey dude(dess)/non-specified gender/automaton, if you play defensive midfield/support caster your role is to support the team, not shoot all the time. If you want to be in front, you can, just don't use Witch Bolt/shoot for the corner flag.[translation: you can play whichever role you want as long as you communicate that she actually play it... And don't use Witch Bolt]



And of course, friendly banter at my table are fine. But a grand total of 0 of my IRL friends are able to discern the pros and cons of witchbolt and they're there for the ride. I usually play with strangers, though, and there isn't enough companionship between each other to justify someone saying they're bad at the game without any offense.
I hope you on the other hand have a large variety of games and tons of fun. My groups tend to enjoy the encounters that are easy above recommended XP budgets. It also means that the learning curve can be a bit steep and mistakes punishing.

I have a Witch Bolt exploit. Give it for free to new players to see if they have learned the value of Action Economy and concentration slots. That's pretty powerful.

[Asisreo1]

That's just your opinion. I've no evidence for having people leave because of a lack of mechanical understanding be good. Also, how do you know I don't have the table role of helping new players grasp mechanics?

I've had players leave because one of the other players kept DM'ing them about their spell choices when they didn't ask. You're assuming the person who picked up Witch bolt doesn't know it's failings. They may be just as versed in the game as you and wants to play with witch bolt. Maybe they want to test it in play. You telling them the same thing the internet tells them doesn't help.


Also, it's a team game. In paint ball you tell each other to flank, in football to pass, press, man-mark etc. Why is this team game a team game where you can't say: hey dude(dess)/non-specified gender/automaton, if you play defensive midfield/support caster your role is to support the team, not shoot all the time. If you want to be in front, you can, just don't use Witch Bolt/shoot for the corner flag.[translation: you can play whichever role you want as long as you communicate that she actually play it... And don't use Witch Bolt]

Those are competitive games. The DM isn't having a competition with you, he's telling a story. If the DM wants witch bolt to be useful, he could easily introduce an enemy with resistance/immunity to fire and cold like an imp. Or have a displacer beast and the wizard can capitalize when it's displacement is deactivated.


I hope you on the other hand have a large variety of games and tons of fun. My groups tend to enjoy the encounters that are easy above recommended XP budgets. It also means that the learning curve can be a bit steep and mistakes punishing.

I run adventuring days by the book. 6-8 medium or hard encounters in a day. I have a high learning curve too and I don't care if their PC's live or die. My party likes to play unpopular classes and no matter how much I've threatened them with death, they've never died yet.


I have a Witch Bolt exploit. Give it for free to new players to see if they have learned the value of Action Economy and concentration slots. That's pretty powerful.
Or, you could just have them play a small one-shot with it in their inventory. I'm not sure if anyone besides me as a DM or one other person has even used witch bolt. We're either looking from an outsiders perspective or speculating. Well, I look at it from a game design perspective so I don't mind giving it to my sadistic devil while it uses invisibility.

[Skylivedk]

I've had players leave because one of the other players kept DM'ing them about their spell choices when they didn't ask. You're assuming the person who picked up Witch bolt doesn't know it's failings. They may be just as versed in the game as you and wants to play with witch bolt. Maybe they want to test it in play. You telling them the same thing the internet tells them doesn't help.
Except, I know who I'm playing with. You might be using theoreticals, I'm not. Even if it's a friend of a friend a mini session 0 solves this:
*Pleasantries*
*Beer*
*Where the campaign is*
"What's your experience with DnD?"
"And 5e?"
"Would you like help with anything? Sheets, stats, etc"
"Would you like help during the session?"

Cringe for me is not so much the mistakes, it's seeing 3 players lose characters they did backgrounds for, spent time in etc, because someone decided they would drop their concentration to play senator Palpatine, despite them choosing another role in the pre-session. In our encounters, the group is in danger of dying if somebody does something dumb. 3x deadly does that to you.


Those are competitive games. The DM isn't having a competition with you, he's telling a story. If the DM wants witch bolt to be useful, he could easily introduce an enemy with resistance/immunity to fire and cold like an imp. Or have a displacer beast and the wizard can capitalize when it's displacement is deactivated.

No, we are telling a story and sometimes we play a tactical minigame as part of the story. It's normally open world meaning sandbox-style. That also means the monsters don't change to fit our loadout. We scout to match our loadout to the enemies (or hope the element of surprise will get us through as we kick in the door).

If Emporor Snowflake Palpatine wanted to tell their own story rather than work together with the rest of the group, then it is not the group that's in the wrong for saying: "You are not carrying your weight and it was an egocentric move that almost got us all killed. Those disables are brutal and the damage you're dealing is insignificant".



I run adventuring days by the book. 6-8 medium or hard encounters in a day. I have a high learning curve too and I don't care if their PC's live or die. My party likes to play unpopular classes and no matter how much I've threatened them with death, they've never died yet.
And hence I understand our differences (also in the 4e monk thread). I can't remember the last time I DM'd not going past the XP thresholds. As a player, my DM started by using the books (ToA first, now Rise of Tiamat). Now he is throwing many times the size of encounters at us, and he's killed off all the major NPCs of Faerun so our characters can't get help.

We do play a lot of weird builds, but it's frowned upon to build weak on purpose.



Or, you could just have them play a small one-shot with it in their inventory. I'm not sure if anyone besides me as a DM or one other person has even used witch bolt. We're either looking from an outsiders perspective or speculating. Well, I look at it from a game design perspective so I don't mind giving it to my sadistic devil while it uses invisibility.
I've used it on fiends as well as a DM. Pretty cool flavour, atrocious spell. Like with Champion, Berserker and Purple Dragon Knight, I don't let players with no-little system mastery play those classes vanilla (they get buffed) and I more or less ban certain spells. The more experienced players AND the new player prefers feeling like they contribute. It feels great when the team can pull off moves together: whether it's combining works to set-up hazards/debuffs/buffs and movement.

I dislike trap options and Witch Bolt is just that. - hence my curiosity as to the purpose of OP with the exercise.

[Tanarii]

We killed a werewolf with witch bolt and sacred flame. Four person party, had just made level 2. Barbarian and Fighter grappled him (using help they had advantage on each check). Nobody had silvered weapons, nobody had magic weapons. The WW nearly killed the Fighter before it was all over. Witch bolt (thank goodness it hit) kept doing damage to it. Sacred flame was its usual not great self. If the DM had not rolled each round to see which of the PCs the WW was attacking (it worked out that he did not only attack the fighter) the Fighter would probably have died. 58 HP takes a while to whittle down when sacred flame has a save for 0 and Witch bolt does 1d12 ... I am pretty sure how the DM handled it was RAW. The "I punch him" on round 2 and subsequent by barbarian kept his rage up.
One anecdote doesn't (checks thread of conversation in question) oh okay never mind, carry on.

Seriously though, a werwolf is AC 12. In retrospect the automatic damage looks good after that first hit, but firebolt would have done just as well. And someone paid a hefty price for that shot ... they committed a known spell / spell book slot for Witch Bolt

On the other hand it sounds like you guys had an exciting and fun time. So I like your experience far more than the ones I've seen.

[Asisreo1]

Except, I know who I'm playing with. You might be using theoreticals, I'm not. Even if it's a friend of a friend a mini session 0 solves this:
*Pleasantries*
*Beer*
*Where the campaign is*
"What's your experience with DnD?"
"And 5e?"
"Would you like help with anything? Sheets, stats, etc"
"Would you like help during the session?"

We have session 0's. We had two session 0's to prepare, you'd be surprised how much people "forget" to say in those session 0's. And I wasn't even offered any beer.


Cringe for me is not so much the mistakes, it's seeing 3 players lose characters they did backgrounds for, spent time in etc, because someone decided they would drop their concentration to play senator Palpatine, despite them choosing another role in the pre-session. In our encounters, the group is in danger of dying if somebody does something dumb. 3x deadly does that to you.

So, you're assuming that a spell you don't agree with will completely ruin your group and it's survivability? Cool, that's not how typical sessions for the majority of tables go, though.


No, we are telling a story and sometimes we play a tactical minigame as part of the story. It's normally open world meaning sandbox-style. That also means the monsters don't change to fit our loadout. We scout to match our loadout to the enemies (or hope the element of surprise will get us through as we kick in the door).

Monsters don't change in my games either. I have imps, though, because imps exist. I don't even change where they appear, if they go where they are, they go. Doesn't change the fact it's possible the DM set it up in advanced.


If Emporor Snowflake Palpatine wanted to tell their own story rather than work together with the rest of the group, then it is not the group that's in the wrong for saying: "You are not carrying your weight and it was an egocentric move that almost got us all killed. Those disables are brutal and the damage you're dealing is insignificant".

If Margrave Emerson, who awakened to his blue dragon heritage, decided to get witch bolt because it makes sense and the group harasses him because he wasn't at 100% system mastery and wanted to play a good flavorful caster, that's textbook elitism. What that sounds like would be bullying, not constructive criticism. 2 DPR isn't going to kill the group and if he drops concentration he can still fall back on the precious optimal cantrip spams.


And hence I understand our differences (also in the 4e monk thread). I can't remember the last time I DM'd not going past the XP thresholds. As a player, my DM started by using the books (ToA first, now Rise of Tiamat). Now he is throwing many times the size of encounters at us, and he's killed off all the major NPCs of Faerun so our characters can't get help.

You're comparing your hardcore hellish pro campaign style to a somewhat challenging but otherwise chill campaign style of the majority of games. Most games aren't so hardcore that one bad spell choice is going to start a tpk and it shouldn't be exaggerated as if it is.


We do play a lot of weird builds, but it's frowned upon to build weak on purpose.


I've used it on fiends as well as a DM. Pretty cool flavour, atrocious spell. Like with Champion, Berserker and Purple Dragon Knight, I don't let players with no-little system mastery play those classes vanilla (they get buffed) and I more or less ban certain spells. The more experienced players AND the new player prefers feeling like they contribute. It feels great when the team can pull off moves together: whether it's combining works to set-up hazards/debuffs/buffs and movement.

So, that means they won't truly get system mastery, because despite the fact they're thrown swingy encounters that can kill within a round, you're still letting those without system mastery play and pretend like they are good.


I dislike trap options and Witch Bolt is just that. - hence my curiosity as to the purpose of OP with the exercise.
Then ban the spell. They can't choose it if it's not available. If you're an onlooker and you're so sure the witch bolt preparer will murder your character in cold-blood, take the DM aside and tell him the horrible visions of TPK that david the sorcerer is projecting. That way, the DM can reasonably resolve it.

OP is asking if anyone can scrounge around for a good use of witchbolt. It's fine at lower levels with niche uses like in darkness and so-on but at level 5, they are free to swap it out. The witch bolt, invisibility, option isn't bad if you're a frontliner with witchbolt, too. You're expected to be within 30ft, the attacker constantly has disadvantage, and you can chip while invisible until the spell ends. It's certainly not a nova tactic but it does the job slow-and-steady, especially if you already have high AC.

[Warlush]

I'll give all y'all a dollar if this thread will go ahead and die.

[Asisreo1]

I'll give all y'all a dollar if this thread will go ahead and die.
Deal. I have paypal, DM me and I'll send you my donation info.