D&D 5e Powergamer's Tactics Room: Showdown Series - 1st Level Blast Spells

[Bilbron]

There are 16 1st level blasts in D&D 5e, but there can be only one! Which spell is left standing in the end?

8:55

https://youtu.be/QG2xkfpLYTU

[Merudo]

Pretty sure that catapult doesn't work with nets (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/132902/can-one-use-the-catapult-spell-with-a-net-to-restrain-a-target) by RAW.

[Bilbron]

Pretty sure that catapult doesn't work with nets (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/132902/can-one-use-the-catapult-spell-with-a-net-to-restrain-a-target) by RAW.

So noted, seems to me that since it works when you "hit with a net", it should count, but if that's counter to the rules, my bad.

[Gtdead]

Catapult has potential when used with items like Alchemist's Fire but it's still open to DM interpretation and it has some monetary cost (although I'm not sure how much). For that reason I'd be inclined to not rate it higher than guiding bolt. Other than that your rankings are fair.

Edit: It's worthwhile to note that there are some spells like inflict wounds, chromatic orb and witch bolt that have some potential when used in tandem with class abilities (like Tempest's CD and Death Cleric's twinning) but they are situational.

[Waazraath]

But if you use catapult with stuff like alchemist fire, it's getting expensive quickly, you pay every time you use it - while chromatic orb was rated low among others because of a costly material component (even though you only need to spend it once)?

In general, these are just different spells for different situations, and can't be assessed in a vacuum. Touch or really short range spells are much better on a char with medium/heavy armor and holding a shield, or other defensive features, and should be assessed as such. Burning hands is better for a light cleric than for a (non-abjuration) wizard at low levels, not to mention something like Thunderwave for a tempest cleric that can maximize it. There's also the thing about what types of creatures you tend to face in your campaign, what average hp, what saves are common, etc. So I don't believe in these kinds of lists. Especially if they are sold as something for powergamers, cause a real optimizer will never just take catapult (or other 'top tier' spells) but makes the decision on what spell to pick/prepare based on context, campaign, party and other build features.

But don't mind me too much, it's a pet peeve that I dislike 'tier lists' unless there is a clear metric, something at least resembling objectivity in criteria on 'what is good', and contextual variables can be taken into account.

[noob]

By raw catapult allows to glue things to creatures or keep them static midair:


Choose one object weighing 1 to 5 pounds within range that isn’t being worn or carried. The object flies in a straight line up to 90 feet in a direction you choose before falling to the ground, stopping early if it impacts against a solid surface. If the object would strike a creature, that creature must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the object strikes the target and stops moving. When the object strikes something, the object and what it strikes each take 3d8 bludgeoning damage.
So you can use it to paralyse people by making them get over their carry capacity by throwing enough 5 pound items at them or alternatively you can make flying castles depending on if it is interpretation 1 or 2.

[Tanarii]

You're misusing tier. There are 4 Tiers in D&D 5e, and they denote character levels.

Didn't you say you're new to 5e? Wouldn't it be better to play it for a few years before attempting to make a "powergamer" series of videos? Nothing personal, it's just that you're like the dozenth time I've seen someone brand new to 5e come in and try to rate things in the system.

[Unoriginal]

You're misusing tier. There are 4 Tiers in D&D 5e, and they denote character levels.

Didn't you say you're new to 5e? Wouldn't it be better to play it for a few years before attempting to make a "powergamer" series of videos? Nothing personal, it's just that you're like the dozenth time I've seen someone brand new to 5e come in and try to rate things in the system.

I mean one doesn't have to wait years to be familiar with the edition, but yeah it's better to be familiar before making video guides on the subject.

From what I get OP didn't check the Background rules before giving character build advice.

[Snivlem]

I enjoyed the video, I think your presentation continues to improve, and i agree with most of your points, and you brought up some stuff i hadn't thought about as well.
Im not sold catapult is better than guiding bolt though. Also i think you are underselling dissonant whispers drasticly, you do realize it triggers attacks of opportunities, right? Together with a sneak attacking rogue and/or great weapon wielding barbarian/etc. it can drasticly out lass any other level 1 blast.

[ff7hero]

I enjoyed the video, I think your presentation continues to improve, and i agree with most of your points, and you brought up some stuff i hadn't thought about as well.
Im not sold catapult is better than guiding bolt though. Also i think you are underselling dissonant whispers drasticly, you do realize it triggers attacks of opportunities, right? Together with a sneak attacking rogue and/or great weapon wielding barbarian/etc. it can drasticly out lass any other level 1 blast.

Or if you take Warcaster and Booming Blade yourself.

[MaxWilson]

You're misusing tier. There are 4 Tiers in D&D 5e, and they denote character levels.

Didn't you say you're new to 5e? Wouldn't it be better to play it for a few years before attempting to make a "powergamer" series of videos? Nothing personal, it's just that you're like the dozenth time I've seen someone brand new to 5e come in and try to rate things in the system.

Not necessarily, as long as you have a good discussion/review group to rely on. Scott Meyers wasn't a world-class expert on C++ when he first wrote Effective C++ and Effective STL--he just had access to people who were.

[x3n0n]

Not necessarily, as long as you have a good discussion/review group to rely on. Scott Meyers wasn't a world-class expert on C++ when he first wrote Effective C++ and Effective STL--he just had access to people who were.

Good point!

I'm not the OP, but it seems like there are at least 2 ways to take advantage of others' thoughts:
* Continue to publish with his personal thoughts, then publish follow-ups based on commentary, or
* Find a core group to discuss the script in advance and potentially revise before publication.

[Bilbron]

But if you use catapult with stuff like alchemist fire, it's getting expensive quickly, you pay every time you use it - while chromatic orb was rated low among others because of a costly material component (even though you only need to spend it once)?In my view, Catapult has the OPTION to add a payload at a gold price, but you don't have to unless it's a Critical Threat encounter where you feel justified in expending the Non-renewable resource. Whereas with Chromatic Orb you MUST have the component.

[Bilbron]

You're misusing tier. There are 4 Tiers in D&D 5e, and they denote character levels.

Didn't you say you're new to 5e? Wouldn't it be better to play it for a few years before attempting to make a "powergamer" series of videos? Nothing personal, it's just that you're like the dozenth time I've seen someone brand new to 5e come in and try to rate things in the system.

Luckily for me there is no grammar police to incarcerate me for using words in a manner you find disagreeable! As long as my intent is sufficiently communicated, I'm satisfied with my choice of words.

If you have an issue with any of my takes, feel free to challenge them. As someone who is relatively new to the game, the number of players who clearly don't know jack about min-maxxing is quite alarming! Show me what you've got (don't just tell).


I mean one doesn't have to wait years to be familiar with the edition, but yeah it's better to be familiar before making video guides on the subject.

From what I get OP didn't check the Background rules before giving character build advice.

Wow, I got a rule wrong! Thanks for staying the execution.


I enjoyed the video, I think your presentation continues to improve, and i agree with most of your points, and you brought up some stuff i hadn't thought about as well.
Im not sold catapult is better than guiding bolt though. Also i think you are underselling dissonant whispers drasticly, you do realize it triggers attacks of opportunities, right? Together with a sneak attacking rogue and/or great weapon wielding barbarian/etc. it can drasticly out lass any other level 1 blast.

DW is definitely better than I have it currently rated if it forces OA. I was under the impression that such would count as forced movement and not trigger OA, but if that's incorrect, it deserves a higher rating.


Good point!

I'm not the OP, but it seems like there are at least 2 ways to take advantage of others' thoughts:
* Continue to publish with his personal thoughts, then publish follow-ups based on commentary, or
* Find a core group to discuss the script in advance and potentially revise before publication.

I prefer option 1. Getting people to take their time to contribute to a personal project is always problematic. Whereas critics abound, lol.

[MaxWilson]

DW is definitely better than I have it currently rated if it forces OA. I was under the impression that such would count as forced movement and not trigger OA, but if that's incorrect, it deserves a higher rating.

From PHB:

You can avoid provoking an opportunity attack by taking the Disengage action. You also don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction. For example, you don’t provoke an opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe’s reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy.

Someone moving via dissonant whispers doesn't qualify for this exclusion because their movement does use their reaction.

[Bilbron]

From PHB:

You can avoid provoking an opportunity attack by taking the Disengage action. You also don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction. For example, you don’t provoke an opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe’s reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy.

Someone moving via dissonant whispers doesn't qualify for this exclusion because their movement does use their reaction.So noted... that would increase it's rating, though not necessarily its ranking. A lot depends on party construction, playstyle, and preference. Personally I don't see any other 1st level blast beating Catapult for me unless it also came with no V component and no visible origin.

[MaxWilson]

So noted... that would increase it's rating, though not necessarily its ranking. A lot depends on party construction, playstyle, and preference. Personally I don't see any other 1st level blast beating Catapult for me unless it also came with no V component and no visible origin.

That's plausible. There aren't really any 1st level spells that I like for blasting at all, and Catapult is arguably better than most, although Thunderwave at low level also isn't terrible for its largish AoE and forced movement option. I'd rather disable someone with Tasha's than do a few HP of damage to them with a blasting spell, or kite them with Expeditious Retreat while I kill with a cantrip. One significant problem with Catapult is that you could potentially run into issues with resistance or immunity to non-magical weapons.


I prefer option 1. Getting people to take their time to contribute to a personal project is always problematic. Whereas critics abound, lol.

It might not take a whole lot of time to get contributions. Just take your notes on a given topic and either post them on a thread here prior to making the video, or share them with a trusted individual or three. That way you can get corrections on things like Dissonant Whispers which might change your mind before you make the video.

E.g. make a thread called "Powergamer's Tactics Room Early feedback [PEACH]: Best 2nd level spells" with notes like:

Blur: superfluous because you can Dodge, only use if you want to use your action for stuff like Extra Attack or Fireball.

Misty Step: excellent, can teleport through walls!

and then others can respond briefly with things like:

Blur: note, Dodge ends if your movement drops to 0 (grappled by monster, etc.), Blur does not. But note that Blur doesn't work on monsters with blindsight or truesight, which is about 25% of monsters, mostly highest-CR monsters.

Misty Step: can't teleport into heavy obscurement or through walls because Misty Step only works where you can see.

You don't need to get into any extended debates on such a thread (it's okay if you have a unique opinion), but if you want to make a thread like this before a video I'll probably read it and maybe comment.

[x3n0n]

I prefer option 1. Getting people to take their time to contribute to a personal project is always problematic. Whereas critics abound, lol.

Fair enough!

For what it's worth, if you find people here whose sensibilities align with yours, they may well be willing to share their opinions on the script, potentially via direct message, and for free.
The advantage to that is the ability to avoid publishing something that will draw mostly-predictable comments about rules nuances and non-standard terminology; by avoiding those, the comments that remain end up being much higher in quality overall.

Again, keep it up--it's nice to hear a fresh voice discussing interesting questions in a tight audio/video presentation.


E.g. make a thread called "Powergamer's Tactics Room Early feedback [PEACH]: Best 2nd level spells" with notes like:

I see "PEACH" around a lot (especially in the homebrew subforum), and haven't seen it in any of the acronym-definition threads yet--is there a board-wide reference for those?

[MaxWilson]

I see "PEACH" around a lot (especially in the homebrew subforum), and haven't seen it in any of the acronym-definition threads yet--is there a board-wide reference for those?

It stands for Please Evaluate And Critique Honestly. I don't think it's purely a GITPism, but I don't remember where I actually learned it.

[Unoriginal]

In my view, Catapult has the OPTION to add a payload at a gold price, but you don't have to unless it's a Critical Threat encounter where you feel justified in expending the Non-renewable resource. Whereas with Chromatic Orb you MUST have the component.

It's a 50gp component you can use for your whole adventuring career. Not really a bad investment.

[Bilbron]

That's plausible. There aren't really any 1st level spells that I like for blasting at all, and Catapult is arguably better than most, although Thunderwave at low level also isn't terrible for its largish AoE and forced movement option. I'd rather disable someone with Tasha's than do a few HP of damage to them with a blasting spell, or kite them with Expeditious Retreat while I kill with a cantrip. One significant problem with Catapult is that you could potentially run into issues with resistance or immunity to non-magical weapons.



It might not take a whole lot of time to get contributions. Just take your notes on a given topic and either post them on a thread here prior to making the video, or share them with a trusted individual or three. That way you can get corrections on things like Dissonant Whispers which might change your mind before you make the video.

E.g. make a thread called "Powergamer's Tactics Room Early feedback [PEACH]: Best 2nd level spells" with notes like:

Blur: superfluous because you can Dodge, only use if you want to use your action for stuff like Extra Attack or Fireball.

Misty Step: excellent, can teleport through walls!

and then others can respond briefly with things like:

Blur: note, Dodge ends if your movement drops to 0 (grappled by monster, etc.), Blur does not. But note that Blur doesn't work on monsters with blindsight or truesight, which is about 25% of monsters, mostly highest-CR monsters.

Misty Step: can't teleport into heavy obscurement or through walls because Misty Step only works where you can see.

You don't need to get into any extended debates on such a thread (it's okay if you have a unique opinion), but if you want to make a thread like this before a video I'll probably read it and maybe comment.

Honestly I don't like blast spells at all, let alone 1st level blasts which are always pretty high opportunity cost relative to cantrips. I carry some on scrolls 'cause I just like to be prepared for anything, but there's almost always something better I can do.

In regards to seeking feedback, such also carries an opportunity cost. The perfectionist in me would love to never make an error, but there are logistics to video creation and anything that introduces production "costs" leads to snowballing inefficiency. And frankly, my command of the rules is rather strong, so investing a lot of work to clean up the like 2 rules errors/misinterpretations I've committed so far is pretty OCD. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and all that.

[MaxWilson]

Honestly I don't like blast spells at all, let alone 1st level blasts which are always pretty high opportunity cost relative to cantrips. I carry some on scrolls 'cause I just like to be prepared for anything, but there's almost always something better I can do.

In regards to seeking feedback, such also carries an opportunity cost. The perfectionist in me would love to never make an error, but there are logistics to video creation and anything that introduces production "costs" leads to snowballing inefficiency. And frankly, my command of the rules is rather strong, so investing a lot of work to clean up the like 2 rules errors/misinterpretations I've committed so far is pretty OCD. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and all that.

Okay, that's fine. Good luck!

[Bilbron]

It's a 50gp component you can use for your whole adventuring career. Not really a bad investment.
In the long run, 50gp is nothing, just thought it might be problematic at like 1st or even 2nd level, and then once you're 3rd level you're adding 2nd level spells. It'd be worth it if the spell effect was significant, but it's not that impressive, imo.

[Unoriginal]

Wow, I got a rule wrong! Thanks for staying the execution.

Getting a rule wrong isn't a problem, and I'd never fault someone for that. Gods and angels know I get rules wrong all the time. Not checking the relevant section when one does a video/guide on the subject kinda is a problem, however, as it's influencing the people who are looking for advice and believe it.

It's like Matt Colville declaring that he didn't think Bugbears were stealthy in his video on goblinoids.



Honestly I don't like blast spells at all, let alone 1st level blasts which are always pretty high opportunity cost relative to cantrips. I carry some on scrolls 'cause I just like to be prepared for anything, but there's almost always something better I can do.

You're far from alone in this sentiment, but if you allow me to ask: why make a video on which of those blast spells is better, then? Wouldn't it be more relevant to your powergaming objectives to see which lvl 1 spells have the best results to opportunity cost ratio, and see if any blast spell manages to get in the lineup?

[Bilbron]

Getting a rule wrong isn't a problem, and I'd never fault someone for that. Gods and angels know I get rules wrong all the time. Not checking the relevant section when one does a video/guide on the subject kinda is a problem, however, as it's influencing the people who are looking for advice and believe it.

It's like Matt Colville declaring that he didn't think Bugbears were stealthy in his video on goblinoids.




You're far from alone in this sentiment, but if you allow me to ask: why make a video on which of those blast spells is better, then? Wouldn't it be more relevant to your powergaming objectives to see which lvl 1 spells have the best results to opportunity cost ratio, and see if any blast spell manages to get in the lineup?

1. The context here is that I was extolling the value of Perception, and I was unaware that custom backgrounds allowed anyone to take it. As such, I would argue that it's not obvious that the background rules are "relevant" to the Perception rules, and that was the source of my error. And in that context, my not knowing about the background rules had zero impact on the analysis of the Perception skill and my advice to maximize it. It merely meant that there was an easier way to increase it than I was aware of, so those who WERE aware of it gained additional means to leverage my advice.

2. Because I don't want to my production to be entirely about the playstyle and classes I prefer. This isn't Stealthy Control Wizard's Tactics Room. I also just thought it might get more views, tbh.

[Bilbron]

2. Because I don't want to my production to be entirely about the playstyle and classes I prefer. This isn't Stealthy Control Wizard's Tactics Room. I also just thought it might get more views, tbh.

Given that only like 5% of games are above level 10, I also want to focus on low and mid level stuff. And I acknowledge that people love blasting, so it seemed like a good video topic.

[Unoriginal]

1. The context here is that I was extolling the value of Perception, and I was unaware that custom backgrounds allowed anyone to take it.

It's not just custom Background, though. You can get Perception from those Backgrounds as well:

- Celebrity Adventurer’s Scion
- Far Traveler
- Sailor (including Baldur's Gate Sailor, Pirate and Revelry Pirate variants)
- Shipwright


As such, I would argue that it's not obvious that the background rules are "relevant" to the Perception rules, and that was the source of my error. And in that context, my not knowing about the background rules had zero impact on the analysis of the Perception skill and my advice to maximize it. It merely meant that there was an easier way to increase it than I was aware of, so those who WERE aware of it gained additional means to leverage my advice.

My point is that those who aren't aware of that, like new players who are looking for advice on youtube, may watch your video and conclude that Perception is great, but they don't want to play a Druid or a Rogue so they'll have to invest feats into it, and won't think of checking the Background section for more options since, as you pointed out, it's not obvious (especially for players who are used to a different edition).

Personally, and that engages only me, but I'm pretty glad when a guide informs me of something useful but not obvious.



2. Because I don't want to my production to be entirely about the playstyle and classes I prefer. This isn't Stealthy Control Wizard's Tactics Room.

Fair, but would you say that Stealthy Control Wizard is the option that allows for the most powergaming in this edition, or at least is in the top 3 for that?

[ff7hero]

I just want to say that anyone arguing that catapult has "no visual origin" at my table would get shut down right quick. The object flies directly from your position along an obvious path.

Maybe in some very specific conditions, say you're Hidden from a group and Catapult hits and instantly kills the first creature in it's path and none of the other creatures you're hiding from see their ally die. Something like that, yeah, casting Catapult doesn't instantly break Hidden.

But in most cases where the origin of a spell is in question, it will be very obvious.

[Bilbron]

It's not just custom Background, though. You can get Perception from those Backgrounds as well:

- Celebrity Adventurer’s Scion
- Far Traveler
- Sailor (including Baldur's Gate Sailor, Pirate and Revelry Pirate variants)
- Shipwright

My point is that those who aren't aware of that, like new players who are looking for advice on youtube, may watch your video and conclude that Perception is great, but they don't want to play a Druid or a Rogue so they'll have to invest feats into it, and won't think of checking the Background section for more options since, as you pointed out, it's not obvious (especially for players who are used to a different edition).

Personally, and that engages only me, but I'm pretty glad when a guide informs me of something useful but not obvious.

Fair, but would you say that Stealthy Control Wizard is the option that allows for the most powergaming in this edition, or at least is in the top 3 for that?

Yes, I wish I'd gotten that right about the backgrounds. Perfect is always better, no doubt. What I'm saying here is that if my point is "working on your Perception is advisable and it's not that easy to do it", the fact that it's easier to do it than I thought has nothing to do with the base advice. It's attacking a tangential statement relative to the main point. Thus, in my view, it's pointless nitpicking, more or less. Though accurate nitpicking, which I do acknowledge would have been better to get right.

Yes, I think Stealthy Control Wizard is probably #1, though I'm open to arguments otherwise. But there are 3 ultimate defenses in this game (as per my Defense video): Out of Range, Total Cover, and Hidden condition, and SCW leverages all of those. And Defense Wins Championships.

[MaxWilson]

I just want to say that anyone arguing that catapult has "no visual origin" at my table would get shut down right quick. The object flies directly from your position along an obvious path.

It doesn't have to be directly from your position.

Range: 60'

Choose one object weighing 1 to 5 pounds within range that isn’t being worn or carried. The object flies in a straight line up to 90 feet in a direction you choose before falling to the ground, stopping early if it impacts against a solid surface. If the object would strike a creature, that creature must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the object strikes the target and stops moving. When the object strikes something, the object and what it strikes each take 3d8 bludgeoning damage.

The range of Catapult is 60 feet, not Touch. And that's clearly not just a reference to how far you can make it go, because that distance is 90 feet. So, you can make something 60' feet from you travel another 90' feet in an arbitrary direction.

Whether the origin is obvious or not will depend on how big/bold/obvious the DM rules Somatic components have to be (e.g. if it looks like you're miming lassoing the object and then jerking it in the new direction with an invisible lasso, that's more obvious than if you're merely flicking a finger).

[Bilbron]

I just want to say that anyone arguing that catapult has "no visual origin" at my table would get shut down right quick. The object flies directly from your position along an obvious path.

Maybe in some very specific conditions, say you're Hidden from a group and Catapult hits and instantly kills the first creature in it's path and none of the other creatures you're hiding from see their ally die. Something like that, yeah, casting Catapult doesn't instantly break Hidden.

But in most cases where the origin of a spell is in question, it will be very obvious.

Catapult affects any object within 60'. I think it's fairly obvious that you don't use yourself as the point of origin if you're trying to remain Hidden.

[Bilbron]

Whether the origin is obvious or not will depend on how big/bold/obvious the DM rules Somatic components have to be (e.g. if it looks like you're miming lassoing the object and then jerking it in the new direction with an invisible lasso, that's more obvious than if you're merely flicking a finger).I would argue that, since you cannot be Hidden if they can see you at all, that it doesn't matter how grandiose the S components.

[Unoriginal]

Yes, I wish I'd gotten that right about the backgrounds. Perfect is always better, no doubt. What I'm saying here is that if my point is "working on your Perception is advisable and it's not that easy to do it", the fact that it's easier to do it than I thought has nothing to do with the base advice. It's attacking a tangential statement relative to the main point. Thus, in my view, it's pointless nitpicking, more or less. Though accurate nitpicking, which I do acknowledge would have been better to get right.

I feel like I'm not expressing my point properly, and I apologize for that. I'll try one last time, and then.

There is no issue with getting something wrong. There is no issue with leaving out something that one doesn't judge relevant or relevant enough to be included. However, you said yourself that got this wrong because you did not read the section about Backgrounds, due to the circumstances in which you started your campaign. Which means that you haven't read the whole PHB.

I am not saying that one must do everything perfectly. That'd be a ridiculous demand and nowhere near my place to do it. I am saying that one should have knowledge of the whole book before making guides about it. Because it has an impact on those who read/watch your work.

[ATHATH]

I haven't watched the video yet, but did you account for Catapult also dealing 3d8 damage to the net you launch with it on a successful hit?

[Bilbron]

I am saying that one should have knowledge of the whole book before making guides about it.Ah, this is where we'll have to agree to disagree. I feel like I'm plenty qualified to make videos that offer helpful takes, or I'd not be doing it!

[Aaron Underhand]

I've been listening to the series, and it's great to see another view of analysis of spells. Thanks to Bilbron for publishing.

I personally rate Thunderwave higher, because of the utility of forced movement - but if you're rating as blasts I can see the downgrading. Similarly I rate Magic Missile very highly - its real utility is often the ability to hit separate targets reliably. It can force a concentration save on multiple enemy casters, and I've used it to break allies out of hypnotic pattern, or give others an additional save. Edge cases I know but surprising how often I've found magic missile the best tool in the box.

[MaxWilson]

Ah, this is where we'll have to agree to disagree. I feel like I'm plenty qualified to make videos that offer helpful takes, or I'd not be doing it!

Thank you!

You at least got me to give Guiding Bolt another look when I go Cleric 1/Wizard X. I still probably won't cast it but at least now I'm thinking over the pros and cons.

I appreciate the text summaries that go with the videos. It helps the signal-to-noise ratio. I also appreciate that the videos are the right length. "If you have anything to say, say it; and when you get through, stop." (Brigham Young.)

[RogueJK]

but surprising how often I've found magic missile the best tool in the box.

It also has extra usefulness on things like Eldritch Knights with middling INT, or a caster with a different primary spellcasting stat that dipped a level or two of something like Wizard or Arcana Cleric and got access to Magic Missile that way.

Since it doesn't require a roll or save, it's totally independent of your spellcasting score. So that Bard dipping 1 level of Arcana Cleric with a 13 WIS, or that Eldritch Knight with an 8 INT, can still sling Magic Missiles just as well as a Wizard with 20 INT.

[Unoriginal]

I feel like I'm plenty qualified to make videos that offer helpful takes, or I'd not be doing it!

Not trying to insult you or anything of the like, but have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?


Ah, this is where we'll have to agree to disagree.

That is fair. I'll stop bothering you from now on.

[Bilbron]

Not trying to insult you or anything of the like, but have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?{Scrubbed}

[Aaron Underhand]

It also has extra usefulness on things like Eldritch Knights with middling INT, or a caster with a different primary spellcasting stat that dipped a level or two of something like Wizard or Arcana Cleric and got access to Magic Missile that way.

Since it doesn't require a roll or save, it's totally independent of your spellcasting score. So that Bard dipping 1 level of Arcana Cleric with a 13 WIS, or that Eldritch Knight with an 8 INT, can still sling Magic Missiles just as well as a Wizard with 20 INT.

Yes, in fact when analysing spells it's interesting how a character focusing on feats may have lower DC, and that can also change the ranking of spells. It's also fair to say that if you know the campaign and the table (DM style, and the rest of the party) spells which may of lesser utility suddenly become more important.

[MaxWilson]

Not trying to insult you or anything of the like, but have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

Tangent: Dunning-Kruger effect applies primarily to domains where the ability to perform well and the ability to recognize good performance are one and the same. (E.g. both English grammar and sense of humor, but not playing baseball.) I think this would applying to DMing, but probably not to playing as a player, because as a player I should be able to recognize when they're dying more often or having less impact than other player characters even if I don't understand HOW they are doing it. Or to put it differently, as a player I don't have to rely on my internal sense to know that I'm doing well--if I am consistently the one pulling the party's bacon out of the fire, objectively I am clearly doing something right.

So, I don't think Dunning-Kruger is at all relevant, except to DMing.

[RogueJK]

You at least got me to give Guiding Bolt another look when I go Cleric 1/Wizard X. I still probably won't cast it but at least now I'm thinking over the pros and cons.


It's also well worth considering for Divine Soul Sorcerers. It's a better option than comparable Sorcerer spells like Chromatic Orb, due to the range, rider, and Radiant damage. And a Twinned Upcast Guiding Bolt can be better than a Scorching Ray if attacking two enemies.

[MaxWilson]

It's also well worth considering for Divine Soul Sorcerers. It's a better option than comparable Sorcerer spells like Chromatic Orb, due to the range, rider, and Radiant damage. And a Twinned Upcast Guiding Bolt can be better than a Scorching Ray if attacking two enemies.

I don't see myself ever casting Scorching Ray on two enemies in the first place. Web is more my style. Nor would I upcast Guiding Bolt--the RoI is terrible, especially if you're Twinning it.

[N7Paladin]

It's so cool this forum is letting people advertise their youtube DND channels on so openly now! Can't wait to see what people post ☺️

Umm. I almost don't know where to begin, so I'll get the easiest stuff out the way.

Personally i would rate Magic Missile or Guiding Bolt as number 1 but differing opinions and all.

{Scrubbed}

2. Grammar matters in D&D. Maybe consider getting more experience under your belt before spreading information as factual when you may not have a more complete understanding of it, like another person said.

{Scrubbed}


Edit:

Not trying to insult you or anything of the like, but have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect

100% this.

{Scrubbed}

[RogueJK]

I don't see myself ever casting Scorching Ray on two enemies in the first place. Web is more my style. Nor would I upcast Guiding Bolt--the RoI is terrible, especially if you're Twinning it.

Even against 1 enemy, a 2nd level Upcast Guiding Bolt only does 1d6 less damage on average than Scorching Ray, but does Radiant instead of Fire damage, and gives Advantage on the next attack. I'd say that's worth trading 3.5 points of damage on average.

The only downside is that it's all or nothing, whereas Scorching Ray gives you 3 attempts to hit or miss potentially allowing you to do partial damage. But you can take advantage of that in some situations, for example by using Guiding Bolt when you have Advantage through something like the Help Action or while being Unseen. That one Guiding Bolt roll is then made with Advantage, rather than only 1/3 of the Scorching Rays having Advantage.

Guiding Bolt becomes even a bit more effective when fighting lots of certain enemies, like a campaign focused on battling Fiends, who have both Magic Resistance and Fire Resistance. So spells that require a save aren't so good, and Fire spells with attack rolls like Scorching Ray aren't so good, but Guiding Bolt really shines.


It's one solid option, not the solid option. But one that's certainly worth considering. Guiding Bolt definitely shouldn't be dismissed outright.

(Besides, we're discussing blast spells, so control spells like Web aren't even in the running. :smallwink:)

[x3n0n]

In regards to seeking feedback, such also carries an opportunity cost. The perfectionist in me would love to never make an error, but there are logistics to video creation and anything that introduces production "costs" leads to snowballing inefficiency. And frankly, my command of the rules is rather strong, so investing a lot of work to clean up the like 2 rules errors/misinterpretations I've committed so far is pretty OCD. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and all that.

Having reflected on this a bit...

It seems like the feedback you're getting on this board fits into a few categories:
* Accolades and appreciation
* Disagreement on opinions stated
* Corrections on (small) factual/rules issues
* Notes/suggestions on terminology (many uses of the word "tier" in D&D 5e to refer explicitly to PC level, including in the PHB)

I would have thought all of those would be useful in helping serve your audience in the long run, especially the last two.

What kind of feedback *are* you looking for from this group?

[MaxWilson]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Believe it or not, the feedback you're getting on your threads is overwhelmingly positive compared to the average for D&D videos (and you're also better than average at taking feedback, although clearly Unoriginal has inadvertently gotten under your skin). If you ever feel like you're under attack for your (relatively minor) mistakes, browse one of the other Powergaming YouTube threads on e.g. TreantMonk's and watch the fireworks.


* Notes/suggestions on terminology (many uses of the word "tier" in D&D 5e to refer explicitly to PC level, including in the PHB)

Opinion: in this specific context, I don't think it's confusing to use "tier" to refer to groupings of spells as opposed to groupings of PC levels. Frankly I don't really understand what Tanar'ri was objecting to.

[Dork_Forge]

Thanks for making the video, the on screen pop ups are helpful to follow along and review the information. Some thoughts on the content:

-The use of tiers is a poor choice, Tier 1-4 is game terminology and using it in videos will likely lead to confusion in new players (the prime audience for this kind of content)

-I have to completely disagree with cantrips becoming better than 1st level blasts at 5th level, simply gaining an additional die does not make them better (with them usually being worse at damage and secondary effects). If you value the strength to resource ratio at that point, then that is another matter, comparing spell to spell they certainly aren't better at this point.

-A con of Ice Knife is that it has no save, but you don't touch on (so I can't comment on your realisation of) that it's a dual chance spell. It's both to hit physical damage and then an aoe, having save for half would askew the balance of the spell greatly.

-Thunderwave seemed to have a con of no secondary effect on a save? I can't think of any spell that does a secondary effect on a save for half chassis, that's just not the game design

-The use of Catapult to launch nets might fly with some DMs but just doesn't work, the language 'hit' means to hit with an attack roll, as Catapult is a save based spell it wouldn't qualify for that in any way. Secondly the damage done to the net by the spell would likely destroy it outright, the constant need to for a 1-5lb object that is likely destroyed on use is a big drawback of Catapult and the nonmagical damage makes it scale exceptionally poorly

A final thought on the approach in general, assessing blast spells in a vacuum does not do them full justice in how they'll actually be used. Your approach of evaluation works for someone at 1st level (for the most part) or taking a blast spell just to have the option, someone actually wanting to be good at blasting would be building on those spells and that's an aspect that should be touched on. Some examples:

-Anything with elemental damage looks better on a Draconic Sorcerer, anything with Fire/Radiant looks better on a Celestial Warlock (Guiding Bolt is a great spell on a 6th level Celestial for example)

-Anything elemental can benefit greatly in terms of reliable damage with Elemental Adept

-Any aoe becomes a safer and more reliable casting option on an Evoker (and later on higher damage)

-Racial abilities tie into damage in different ways, like Fury of the Small and the Aasimar racial.

[x3n0n]

Opinion: in this specific context, I don't think it's confusing to use "tier" to refer to groupings of spells as opposed to groupings of PC levels. Frankly I don't really understand what Tanar'ri was objecting to.

It may have just been more obvious that "something weird" was going on this time because most, but not all, of the rating numbers were in the 1-4 range, which happens to align with the traditional D&D 5e tiers, but with an entirely different meaning.

I agree that it is not particularly confusing (unless one were then to start using the standard level-grouping "tiers" in the discussion of the spells themselves).

[MaxWilson]

-A con of Ice Knife is that it has no save, but you don't touch on (so I can't comment on your realisation of) that it's a dual chance spell. It's both to hit physical damage and then an aoe, having save for half would askew the balance of the spell greatly.

What do you mean "no save"? It's Dex save-for-none, if the initial attack hits. Am I misunderstanding you or are you saying that making it save-for-half would make it unbalanced?

[Unoriginal]

Tangent: Dunning-Kruger effect applies primarily to domains where the ability to perform well and the ability to recognize good performance are one and the same. (E.g. both English grammar and sense of humor, but not playing baseball.) I think this would applying to DMing, but probably not to playing as a player, because as a player I should be able to recognize when they're dying more often or having less impact than other player characters even if I don't understand HOW they are doing it. Or to put it differently, as a player I don't have to rely on my internal sense to know that I'm doing well--if I am consistently the one pulling the party's bacon out of the fire, objectively I am clearly doing something right.

So, I don't think Dunning-Kruger is at all relevant, except to DMing.

I can see your point, but writing guides for a RPG is a different domain from playing the RPG.

[Dork_Forge]

What do you mean "no save"? It's Dex save-for-none, if the initial attack hits. Am I misunderstanding you or are you saying that making it save-for-half would make it unbalanced?

I meant that part of the negative for Ice Knife is that the Cold damage isn't save for half, but it being save for half would make it disproportionately good and not follow general 5e design.

[MaxWilson]

I meant that part of the negative for Ice Knife is that the Cold damage isn't save for half, but it being save for half would make it disproportionately good and not follow general 5e design.

I don't think it would be disproportionately good in that case. Consider the case where there are 3 goblins together, and you can either Burning Hands them or Ice Knife the one in the middle. Assume you've got +5/DC 13.

Burning Hands is 3d6, save for half. With +2 on Dex saves, goblins will fail 50% of the time (taking 10.5 damage on average) and succeed 50% of the time (taking 5 damage on average after rounding down per 5E rules). Ignoring overkill for now, your average damage is 3 * (15.5/2) = 23.25.

With Ice Knife, you have to hit at +5 vs. AC 15, which happens 55% of the time. The rest of the time, your spell does nothing. The direct damage is 0.60 * d10 (because 5% of the time you crit), and the AoE damage is 0.55 * 3 * (0.50 * 2d6 + 0.50 * 2d6/2).

0.6 * 5.5 + 0.55 * 3 * (0.5 * 7 + 0.5 * 3.25) = 11.76, so Ice Knife winds up doing less than half as much damage as Burning Hands.

Compare this to RAW where Ice Knife in this situation does zero damage on a Dex save, so actually does

0.6 * 5.5 + 0.55 * 3 * (0.5 * 7 + 0.5 * 0.0) = 9.08 damage.

Conclusion: even if Ice Knife's AoE were save-for-half, you'd still lose a ton of damage due to the initial miss, and it wouldn't be disproportionately good at all. Arguably it's still underpowered. Although the fact that it's usable at range, unlike Thunderwave/Burning Hands, does help make up for the poor damage.

[Dork_Forge]

I don't think it would be disproportionately good in that case. Consider the case where there are 3 goblins together, and you can either Burning Hands them or Ice Knife the one in the middle. Assume you've got +5/DC 13.

Burning Hands is 3d6, save for half. With +2 on Dex saves, goblins will fail 50% of the time (taking 10.5 damage on average) and succeed 50% of the time (taking 5 damage on average after rounding down per 5E rules). Ignoring overkill for now, your average damage is 3 * (15.5/2) = 23.25.

With Ice Knife, you have to hit at +5 vs. AC 15, which happens 55% of the time. The rest of the time, your spell does nothing. The direct damage is 0.60 * d10 (because 5% of the time you crit), and the AoE damage is 0.55 * 3 * (0.50 * 2d6 + 0.50 * 2d6/2).

0.6 * 5.5 + 0.55 * 3 * (0.5 * 7 + 0.5 * 3.25) = 11.76, so Ice Knife winds up doing less than half as much damage as Burning Hands.

Compare this to RAW where Ice Knife in this situation does zero damage on a Dex save, so actually does

0.6 * 5.5 + 0.55 * 3 * (0.5 * 7 + 0.5 * 0.0) = 9.08 damage.

Conclusion: even if Ice Knife's AoE were save-for-half, you'd still lose a ton of damage due to the initial miss, and it wouldn't be disproportionately good at all. Arguably it's still underpowered. Although the fact that it's usable at range, unlike Thunderwave/Burning Hands, does help make up for the poor damage.

Both the range and mixed damage types is a plus in favour of Ice Knife that has to be balanced for, though your point of comparison is pretty tough on Ice Knife since Goblins have fairly high AC. If the point of comparison becomes Kobolds, Wolves, Zombies, Skeletons etc. then it shifts significantly.

[MaxWilson]

Both the range and mixed damage types is a plus in favour of Ice Knife that has to be balanced for, though your point of comparison is pretty tough on Ice Knife since Goblins have fairly high AC. If the point of comparison becomes Kobolds, Wolves, Zombies, Skeletons etc. then it shifts significantly.

Okay, let's talk Skeletons and Kobolds. Both have +2 to Dex saves, so the only difference is AC (12 and 13 respectively).

3 Kobolds, Ice Knife variant: 0.75 * 5.5 + 0.70 * 3 * (0.5 * 7 + 0.5 * 3.25) (14.88)
3 Kobolds, Ice Knife RAW: 0.75 * 5.5 + 0.70 * 3 * (0.5 * 7) (11.475).
3 Skeletons, Ice Knife variant: 0.70 * 5.5 + 0.65 * 3 * (0.5 * 7 + 0.5 * 3.25) (13.84)
3 Skeletons, Ice Knife RAW: 0.70 * 5.5 + 0.65 * 3 * (0.5 * 7) (10.68)
3 Skeletons/Kobolds, Burning Hands: 3 * 0.75 * 10.5 (23.25)

[Bilbron]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}
2. Grammar matters in D&D. Maybe consider getting more experience under your belt before spreading information as factual when you may not have a more complete understanding of it, like another person said.{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

1. I acknowledged my errors in regards to custom backgrounds, nets working with Catapult RAW, and that Dissonant Whispers didn't create OA. Not sure what else you want from me. Other criticisms I disagree with and will provide counterarguments. At no point have I been insulting or resorted to ad hominem attacks or other fallacies. I accept valid criticisms and provide counterarguments to what I perceive as invalid criticisms. I don't provide safe spaces, if that's what you're looking for.

2. Ah, so never make mistakes and always present a perfect product, otherwise sit down and shut up? Excellent advice, I'll try to keep that in mind.

3. Because she wanted to and I thought it would be fun. As they say "I don't know the secret to success, but the secret to failure is trying to please everybody."

Thanks for your comments and feedback.

[Bilbron]

Having reflected on this a bit...

It seems like the feedback you're getting on this board fits into a few categories:
* Accolades and appreciation
* Disagreement on opinions stated
* Corrections on (small) factual/rules issues
* Notes/suggestions on terminology (many uses of the word "tier" in D&D 5e to refer explicitly to PC level, including in the PHB)

I would have thought all of those would be useful in helping serve your audience in the long run, especially the last two.

What kind of feedback *are* you looking for from this group?

Just the accolades, please. My mental fortitude can't possibly withstand anything less.

In all seriousness, I like all of it. I especially value the corrections of factual/rules issues. Disagreements on opinions and notes/suggestions on terminology are fun to hash out, as well. I will certainly be evolving my approach and content going forward, and I do take all criticisms into account.

[Bilbron]

-I have to completely disagree with cantrips becoming better than 1st level blasts at 5th level, simply gaining an additional die does not make them better (with them usually being worse at damage and secondary effects). If you value the strength to resource ratio at that point, then that is another matter, comparing spell to spell they certainly aren't better at this point.

-A con of Ice Knife is that it has no save, but you don't touch on (so I can't comment on your realisation of) that it's a dual chance spell. It's both to hit physical damage and then an aoe, having save for half would askew the balance of the spell greatly.

-Thunderwave seemed to have a con of no secondary effect on a save? I can't think of any spell that does a secondary effect on a save for half chassis, that's just not the game design

-The use of Catapult to launch nets might fly with some DMs but just doesn't work, the language 'hit' means to hit with an attack roll, as Catapult is a save based spell it wouldn't qualify for that in any way. Secondly the damage done to the net by the spell would likely destroy it outright, the constant need to for a 1-5lb object that is likely destroyed on use is a big drawback of Catapult and the nonmagical damage makes it scale exceptionally poorly
1. I agree that they're are a tad inferior in isolation but I do indeed factor in the opportunity cost of slots when making this claim. Some compare better than others... a 2d12 (13 necrotic) Toll the Dead is pretty comparable to a 3d8 (13.5 variable) Chromatic orb or Guiding Bolt (14 radiant + debuff), but not too many cantrips can come close to replicating Magnify Gravity or Catapult.

2. This was mentioned in the notes. Many of the objections I've seen were referred to in the notes. I put them up because I value a short viewing time, but it has led to confusion.

3. Correct, I was just attempting to fully describe the effects and not calling out any particular benefit of lack thereof regarding any particular spell.

4. Yes, this has been pointed out to me, and would cause me to ding Catapult a .1 or so.

Thanks for your feedback.

[x3n0n]

In all seriousness, I like all of it.

Ok, I am apparently just misreading your tone, then; to my eye/inner-ear, you didn't seem to be enjoying much of it. :)

My favorite things about your videos so far are their concision, your unique voice, and the obvious consideration that's gone into them. I'm looking forward to seeing more, and would like them to succeed so that you continue to make them.

[Bilbron]

Ok, I am apparently just misreading your tone, then; to my eye/inner-ear, you didn't seem to be enjoying much of it. :)

My favorite things about your videos so far are their concision, your unique voice, and the obvious consideration that's gone into them. I'm looking forward to seeing more, and would like them to succeed so that you continue to make them.
If you're familiar with MBTI, I'm an INTP and in my 50 years of existence, misreadings of my robotic tone in dialectic have been abundant, lol. But I am always happy to be corrected if wrong, and very much enjoy dialectic (though I tend to put my scary game face on when serious about "winning" something).

Thanks for your kind words and feedback.

[Bilbron]

If you're familiar with MBTI, I'm an INTP and in my 50 years of existence, misreadings of my robotic tone in dialectic have been abundant, lol. But I am always happy to be corrected if wrong, and very much enjoy dialectic (though I tend to put my scary game face on when serious about "winning" something).

Thanks for your kind words and feedback.

One of the things I would like to do is interviews with DMs in regards to playing with a powergamer. I have 2 of my own DMs in line for a discussion of this sort. I always try to "fit in" in the interests of everyone having fun, but for me fun is being super powerful, and sometimes this doesn't always calibrate well. There was one "campaign" that ended after one session because the other players were so disheartened by the power I displayed that they didn't want to play anymore, which is something I felt horrible about, and is one reason I try not to "show off" and rarely go all out, trying to maximize the participation of my party (the other being a defense against scrying/intel, as not displaying one's full range of power is of excellent tactical benefit). One of the DMs is a professional creator who is really tuned in to the history of D&D and all its editions and the pros and cons of each, so should be very interesting, I hope. I'll slice up the vids by topic to create multiple ones in the 5-10 minute range.

I also feel compelled to point out that while I've only 1 year of experience with 5e, but I've played D&D for 41 years since 1st edition and have played many other game systems, and many DMs have remarked to me that I'm the most amazing min-maxxer they've ever seen, so I'm not exactly cutting these videos from the perspective of a newb.

[Unoriginal]

One of the things I would like to do is interviews with DMs in regards to playing with a powergamer. I have 2 of my own DMs in line for a discussion of this sort. I always try to "fit in" in the interests of everyone having fun, but for me fun is being super powerful, and sometimes this doesn't always calibrate well. There was one "campaign" that ended after one session because the other players were so disheartened by the power I displayed that they didn't want to play anymore, which is something I felt horrible about, and is one reason I try not to "show off" and rarely go all out, trying to maximize the participation of my party. One of the DMs is a professional creator who is really tuned in to the history of D&D and all its editions and the pros and cons of each, so should be very interesting, I hope. I'll slice up the vids by topic to create multiple ones in the 5-10 minute range.

I also feel compelled to point out that while I've only 1 year of experience with 5e, but I've played D&D for 41 years since 1st edition and have played many other game systems, and many DMs have remarked to me that I'm the most amazing min-maxxer they've ever seen, so I'm not exactly cutting these videos from the perspective of a newb.

If you don't mind me asking, what do you like about 5e?

[Bilbron]

If you don't mind me asking, what do you like about 5e?

I like how much thought they put into Bounded Accuracy, keeping the game pretty well balanced. I like that mobs of lower CR creatures can still pose a threat.

I like how well they balanced the classes. Wizards still rule over the course of 1000 battles but they always will because of their power combined with their utility, but the Concentration mechanic, a general nerfing of spells, and hardly any spell slots since you don't get bonus spells for high casting stat keeps us in check. Other classes have gotten way better with quasi-magical abilities bolstering their capabilities to close the gap and are legitimately powerful while retaining unique flavor and great "fun to play".

Attunement slots are nice to prevent "mechanics" and provide an element of strategy in the gear aspect of the game.

The Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic is elegant, although perhaps overly ubiquitous.

Criticisms:

Feats are too hard to get; making them substitutes for ASIs really devalues them. I wish these had separate paths, and really appreciate that my own DM lets us accumulate Inspiration and turn them in for +1 ASIs (20 Inspiration per) so that we can take Feats at our level ups.

Class progression is too cookie-cutter, though it seems Tasha's will address this.

Obscurement rules are weird, though I'm happy to be one of the few who knows how to leverage them to my advantage so mixed feelings there.

Hide/Stealth is weird and could be cleaner.

Summoning was horrible but the new suite of Summon spells in Tasha's largely fixes this to my satisfaction (love me some Summon Undead and Summon Aberrant).

Potions and scrolls are simplified in a way that's bad for players and makes them practically unusable, save for Potions of Healing and (depending on DM) 1st level scrolls.

It's still a d20 based game so the huge variability in dice rolling and the prevalence of the save-or-suck mechanic is somewhat tiresome and archaic in a modern gaming universe that has largely recognized that multiple dice creates a Guassian curve that results in much less variability and more stable game mechanics. But hey, it wouldn't be D&D without d20s.

[Ir0ns0ul]

I really liked the video and I must admit I was genuinely surprised by Catapult winning the podium.

My regular 1st level blast spells choices are Magic Missile and Thunderwave (specially if I’m a Evoker).

Once again, I loved the flow and video duration.

[Dork_Forge]

Okay, let's talk Skeletons and Kobolds. Both have +2 to Dex saves, so the only difference is AC (12 and 13 respectively).

3 Kobolds, Ice Knife variant: 0.75 * 5.5 + 0.70 * 3 * (0.5 * 7 + 0.5 * 3.25) (14.88)
3 Kobolds, Ice Knife RAW: 0.75 * 5.5 + 0.70 * 3 * (0.5 * 7) (11.475).
3 Skeletons, Ice Knife variant: 0.70 * 5.5 + 0.65 * 3 * (0.5 * 7 + 0.5 * 3.25) (13.84)
3 Skeletons, Ice Knife RAW: 0.70 * 5.5 + 0.65 * 3 * (0.5 * 7) (10.68)
3 Skeletons/Kobolds, Burning Hands: 3 * 0.75 * 10.5 (23.25)

In a that scenario Burning Hnads is better, I don't think that devalues Ice Knife or even disproves my point, besides the range and damage type advantages it has, Ice Knife is a spell that still works well as a bridge between single target and aoe, especially in terms of people looking to not catch party members in the crossfire.

My point of view maybe biased as I like playing cold mages and Ice Knife is a great spell for that, I still don't see the design sense in making it both save for half and an attack roll.



1. I agree that they're are a tad inferior in isolation but I do indeed factor in the opportunity cost of slots when making this claim. Some compare better than others... a 2d12 (13 necrotic) Toll the Dead is pretty comparable to a 3d8 (13.5 variable) Chromatic orb or Guiding Bolt (14 radiant + debuff), but not too many cantrips can come close to replicating Magnify Gravity or Catapult.

2. This was mentioned in the notes. Many of the objections I've seen were referred to in the notes. I put them up because I value a short viewing time, but it has led to confusion.

3. Correct, I was just attempting to fully describe the effects and not calling out any particular benefit of lack thereof regarding any particular spell.

4. Yes, this has been pointed out to me, and would cause me to ding Catapult a .1 or so.

Thanks for your feedback.

1) The opportunity cost in comparison to casting what is a big question here, though we'll have to disagree that Toll the Dead is comparable to something like Guiding Bolt. If you are the first to damage a creature then the damage drops to 9 and you have no other effect. So it's less damage, a worse damage type and doesn't come with a good rider like GB. If you want to compare straight cantrip to spell then Inflict Wounds is the best comparison point as it's nothing but necrotic damage, the gap there is also readily apparent: 13 (if wounded) vs 16.5. The numbers aren't big, but at this end of the game they won't be, it's a far cry from a blanket claim that cantrips are just better at this point as a whole.

2)...Was it? You list the burst AOE as a positive and then just say that the negative is save for no damage, holding up to the same standard as an entirely save spell, with no mention in the notes that mixed to hit/save being a pro or con. If you are seeing so many people raise points you feel were addressed in the notes, then perhaps the notes were not as clear as you think. (nor should you rely on on screen prompts, YT videos widely get used as on the side or podcast-like entertainment.

3) You listed it as a negative of the spell, that very clearly puts it as a judgement not a description, you even marked it in red which your notes tell us means "exceptionally negative." So do you consider it an exceptional negative of the spell or were you just detailing it?

4)This highlighted that you're actually assigning ratings to these spells,unless I missed it you never actually mentioned the rating system, the rating of any given spell or your methodology for what constitutes any give rating (be it an entire or decimal point).

You didn't quote or reply to what I said about your methodology of studying blast spells in a vacuum like this, I assume you either disagree or didn't know how to answer. When you mark your channel and series as "Powergamer's Tactics Room" you set a high bar for yourself, getting things wrong that you can just doublecheck beforehand is not unfair criticism, learn from it and produce better content.

A note about decorum, whilst you're doing vastly better in this discussion than Treantmonk for example did, I must highlight that unlike him you created this thread yourself. You have created multiple threads promoting your videos, be prepared for negative criticism and try to handle it well, we are trying to help you create better content. Blanketly referring to us as a collective and passing judgement on our emotional intelligence or twisting what we say into "or sit down and shut up?" is neither helping you or endearing you to a forum that you seem to primarily be participating in to promote your videos.

[N7Paladin]

1. At no point have I been insulting

2. Ah, so never make mistakes and always present a perfect product, otherwise sit down and shut up? Excellent advice, I'll try to keep that in mind.

3. Because she wanted to and I thought it would be fun. As they say "I don't know the secret to success, but the secret to failure is trying to please everybody."

Thanks for your comments and feedback.

{Scrubbed}

2. I neither said that, nor was that the whole of my point. I said, like others have suggested, to get more experience under your belt. Maybe play and DM a couple of years before releasing content like you are. By posting YT power play videos, you automatically give yourself some authority over the subject, which then will give reason for new or inexperienced players to think your information is all correct when there are a fair number of errors along the way. Get to know the game, its rules, content, more thoroughly before asserting some authority over it.

I'm not sure who it was that asked if you came here for acolytes or criticism, to which you jokingly said you cant really take criticism and only came here for the acolytes. {Scrubbed}


3. What I said in my rant was that it wasn't very responsible to have (I hope your) a kiddo on screen with you. I get she thought it'd be fun but hey, my nieces think it would be fun to pet every dog they see, and whilst it might be, it wouldn't be responsible of me to let them.

[Bilbron]

1) The opportunity cost in comparison to casting what is a big question here, though we'll have to disagree that Toll the Dead is comparable to something like Guiding Bolt. If you are the first to damage a creature then the damage drops to 9 and you have no other effect. So it's less damage, a worse damage type and doesn't come with a good rider like GB. If you want to compare straight cantrip to spell then Inflict Wounds is the best comparison point as it's nothing but necrotic damage, the gap there is also readily apparent: 13 (if wounded) vs 16.5. The numbers aren't big, but at this end of the game they won't be, it's a far cry from a blanket claim that cantrips are just better at this point as a whole.

2)...Was it? You list the burst AOE as a positive and then just say that the negative is save for no damage, holding up to the same standard as an entirely save spell, with no mention in the notes that mixed to hit/save being a pro or con. If you are seeing so many people raise points you feel were addressed in the notes, then perhaps the notes were not as clear as you think. (nor should you rely on on screen prompts, YT videos widely get used as on the side or podcast-like entertainment.

3) You listed it as a negative of the spell, that very clearly puts it as a judgement not a description, you even marked it in red which your notes tell us means "exceptionally negative." So do you consider it an exceptional negative of the spell or were you just detailing it?

4)This highlighted that you're actually assigning ratings to these spells,unless I missed it you never actually mentioned the rating system, the rating of any given spell or your methodology for what constitutes any give rating (be it an entire or decimal point).

You didn't quote or reply to what I said about your methodology of studying blast spells in a vacuum like this, I assume you either disagree or didn't know how to answer. When you mark your channel and series as "Powergamer's Tactics Room" you set a high bar for yourself, getting things wrong that you can just doublecheck beforehand is not unfair criticism, learn from it and produce better content.

A note about decorum, whilst you're doing vastly better in this discussion than Treantmonk for example did, I must highlight that unlike him you created this thread yourself. You have created multiple threads promoting your videos, be prepared for negative criticism and try to handle it well, we are trying to help you create better content. Blanketly referring to us as a collective and passing judgement on our emotional intelligence or twisting what we say into "or sit down and shut up?" is neither helping you or endearing you to a forum that you seem to primarily be participating in to promote your videos.
1. "it's a far cry from a blanket claim that cantrips are just better at this point as a whole."

The claim I actually made was "at 5th level cantrips more or less reach parity with 1st level blasts so you'll almost never want to use a 1st level slot at that point relative to a cantrip". A claim that I think holds up, despite admitting that in a vacuum I'd rather Guiding Bolt than Toll the Dead.

2. I try to keep the notes sparse as well, which I think works for the most part, but clearly at times I'm not communicating my process clearly. I will try to do better.

3. Yes, Save for 0 is exceptionally negative. I expect most AOE damage spells to be for 1/2. The description of "and no debuff" was to fully explicate the effects.

4. I thought I described it briefly at the beginning? I did eliminate the phrase "so tier 10 would be all ranks from 9.1 to 10, Tier 9 would be all ranks from 8.1 to 9, etc." as I thought it was obvious and could buy myself a few seconds. I will add this for my next video to clear up any confusion.

5. If I don't reply, that means I either generally agree and don't feel the need to comment or get the last word, or I think it tangential to what I perceive to be the main discussion and prefer to stay focused on that.

6. I welcome and appreciate all criticism, constructive or otherwise. I don't much like insults or ad hominem, though I know they are to be expected, nor do I give a pass to insults that are worded in a superficially polite manner ("my good man, your intellect is such that it's reminisicent of my beloved puppy" is still an insult and I will respond as such). My comment in that regard was in reply to a particular poster who chose a fallacious means of criticism by implying my analysis to be faulty because I am a stupid person who believes he's smart (technically an ad hom). Don't take it personally.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
2. I neither said that, nor was that the whole of my point. I said, like others have suggested, to get more experience under your belt. Maybe play and DM a couple of years before releasing content like you are. By posting YT power play videos, you automatically give yourself some authority over the subject, which then will give reason for new or inexperienced players to think your information is all correct when there are a fair number of errors along the way. Get to know the game, its rules, content, more thoroughly before asserting some authority over it.

I'm not sure who it was that asked if you came here for acolytes or criticism, to which you jokingly said you cant really take criticism and only came here for the acolytes. {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

3. What I said in my rant was that it wasn't very responsible to have (I hope your) a kiddo on screen with you. I get she thought it'd be fun but hey, my nieces think it would be fun to pet every dog they see, and whilst it might be, it wouldn't be responsible of me to let them.

1. Opinion noted. Thinking I'm right is often perceived as condescension or patronization by the snowflake generation, but believe it or not, I have as much right to believe that I'm right and you're wrong as you do, mutatis mutandis. Insulting my experience, when I've played this game for 41 years and DM'd many hundreds of hours, as if one year isn't enough to master 95% of the intricacies of a slightly altered game system, isn't something that I'm going to respond to with heart-eyes.

2. You most certainly did say that. Framing insults "nicely" are still insults, so don't act like I burst your bubble when I frame your lack of respect simply instead of in obfuscatory manner as you prefer.

3. Irresponsible in what way? Allowing her to have fun on a youtube video? Most have found it endearing... of course, there are always a couple of malcontents whom I believe are projecting their own issues.

[Unoriginal]

a slightly altered game system

Are you talking about your DM's take on 5e, or about 5e as a whole?


by the snowflake generation

Interesting insult, given you're the one making threads to advertise your youtube channel.

[Kane0]

Neat video, going to have to take a look at Magnify Gravity now.

[Bilbron]

Are you talking about your DM's take on 5e, or about 5e as a whole?

Interesting insult, given you're the one making threads to advertise your youtube channel.

5e as a whole. It's an adaption of a system I know well, and while I certainly don't claim to have mastered all of the nuances of its differences from other editions in a year, I feel comfortable offering and defending my take on a number of game topics. If I make a mistake or two along the way, I take that as merely an aspect of the human condition and not a indictment of my ability to create useful and interesting content, a stance that some are taking (at least when they're not pretending that I can't read what they're writing).

Is sharing my videos against the rules? My view is that I'm providing fodder for discussion, and that the threads created are value add, which I why I'm trying to respond to comments in substantive and diligent fashion. One post per video doesn't seem obnoxious, but do let me know. I'm an old man, and not clued in to the manners of most social media, if the reaction by younger folk is any indication.

[Corran]

Neat video, going to have to take a look at Magnify Gravity now.
You know what I dont like about this spell? That later on it competes with better spells, not for slots, but for the action in that same opportune timing. It looks to me like the spell I will want to usually cast when combat starts, in order to slow down some melee enemies' advancement and thus deny them the opportunity to attack (generally to take an affective action). But that timing is the same when I'll usually want to drop a fireball or a hypnotic pattern (or generally some other non-friendly AoE). It being a wizard-only spell makes it a little worse in my eyes too, since I could maybe justufy it a little more on, say, a careful sorcerer who bides their time for an effective use of a spell like hypnotic pattern, fear, or confusion. I guess it gets a lot better when combat takes place in, say, an open field, where you and the enemies can spot each other from a great distance and where there will be enough room to make your AoE's ineffective enough to not want to use high level slots on them (eg, it would be more easy to justify magnify gravity on two melee enemies that have not close in yet, than using a fireball on said two enemies; because the enemies have spread out enough and I cannot get more targets inside my AoE). But in a dungeon? Eh, maybe if I am using stealth combined with a lot of hit and run, but even then I dont fully see it.

I dont mean to say that it's a bad spell, heck, as far as 1st level blast spells go, I think it deserves to be up there with the best of them. But I am thinking that as we advance in levels, it will start losing value more quickly than some of the other options.

[Tanarii]

Frankly I don't really understand what Tanar'ri was objecting to.
Someone was a AD&D 2e player! This made me :smallsmile:


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I have no beef with the OP taking exception to my comment.

[Bilbron]

Someone was a AD&D 2e player! This made me :smallsmile:


I have no beef with the OP taking exception to my comment.

I do appreciate that... looking again at that exchange, I do feel like a touch of acidity was warranted as both basically implied that since I'd made an error I had no standing to make videos (especially as I'm pretty proud of the quality for a starter series... can only get better from here!), but a little tit for tat is what keeps things spicy. There's no ultimate ill will from my end towards anyone as a whole, but specific comments I think are fair game for reciprocation of tone/statement.


Someone was a AD&D 2e player! This made me :smallsmile:Ha ha, as a powergamer, that edition ruled. My favorite character ever (and only evil character ever) was from a 2e Dark Sun campaign... ah, I miss Subjective Reality! :smallbiggrin:

[MaxWilson]

Someone was a AD&D 2e player! This made me :smallsmile:

Whoops, sorry to misspell your name. You're right, I reflexively spell it that way. I love Blood War fluff.

"Is" might be more accurate than "was" though. I still like AD&D better than 5E for TTRPGing, especially for novices.

[Dork_Forge]

1. Opinion noted. Thinking I'm right is often perceived as condescension or patronization by the snowflake generation, but believe it or not, I have as much right to believe that I'm right and you're wrong as you do, mutatis mutandis. Insulting my experience, when I've played this game for 41 years and DM'd many hundreds of hours, as if one year isn't enough to master 95% of the intricacies of a slightly altered game system, isn't something that I'm going to respond to with heart-eyes.

So, what part of you thinks that it's okay to not only assume someone's age/generation, but to then label that entire group of people with a disrespectful moniker like 'snowflake?' You've taken people advising that more experience may be beneficial before creating such advisary content as insulting, yet feel entirely justified in your own tone and "acidity."

*You should bear in mind that the audience you're trying to gather on YT are most likely the social media using generation you so clearly disrespect.

If you would like to discuss the actual experience, then no, a year is not a long time to 'master 95% of the intricacies' as shown by the mistakes that have come up in this thread alone. Everyone makes mistakes, yes that is the human condition, but the cracks showing so early and readily in your mastery of the system is not promising for one trying to take a teacher's role for himself in said system. One rather obvious flaw in this is that your 'mastery' would be primarily theoretical in nature, given the amount of content currently in the game, or have you played (powergaming) all 12 classes and a bulk of their various subclasses? How many characters/classes have you played? Your DM experience sounds entirely prior edition from how you're talking, do you have much experience DMing in the edition you're actually talking about?

You refer to a slightly altered game system, do you genuinely believe that the difference between systems is so small? The D20 didn't even become the dominant resolution mechanic until 2000, that seems like a fairly significant shift (half way through your experience) for it to be a minor change. Here's a summary of changes just between 4e and 5e, that doesn't seem like slightly altered. (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/71594/what-are-the-major-differences-between-dd-4e-and-5e) If anything touting a heavy amount of experience in previous editions is more likely to confuse the matter rather demonstrate a strong grasp.


2. You most certainly did say that. Framing insults "nicely" are still insults, so don't act like I burst your bubble when I frame your lack of respect simply instead of in obfuscatory manner as you prefer.

No, they didn't, N7Paladin, like others, suggested it may be best to garner more experience in an edition before creating content aimed at a rules/system mastery approach. Reducing their post to what you did mostly serves to highlight how you took it, rather than how you were spoken to, I'd even venture as far as to say that the tone towards you has been far more polite and welcoming than the tone you have returned.


3. Irresponsible in what way? Allowing her to have fun on a youtube video? Most have found it endearing... of course, there are always a couple of malcontents whom I believe are projecting their own issues.

I won't touch the issue of how you choose to raise your daughter and what you deem acceptable exposure for her. I will however highlight the continued tone in this part of your post as well, you seem very fond of applying labels to people you don't know.

Overall here's a summary: I don't think your approach to advertising your channel breaks any rules (back to back posting does though) and yes it certainly generates discussion, but when met by advise and constructive criticism you have replied with a mixed bag to say the least. If you want to actually pursue a YT channel and forum exposure, than I'd advise you to try and be more civil and respectful of the people you are talking to, this is the internet and if you are taking this thread so personally then you really won't like what the future can hold for you.

If you want to pursue a guise of system master and powergamer extraordinaire then I advise you actually heed advice of people that have been playing, discussing and powergaming the system longer than you. Should you choose to not do that then at the very least you could research the rules more thoroughly before creating content based on them, or is immortalising basic rules mistakes not an 'opportunity cost' in your eyes?

[Bilbron]

If you want to pursue a guise of system master and powergamer extraordinaire then I advise you actually heed advice of people that have been playing, discussing and powergaming the system longer than you. Should you choose to not do that then at the very least you could research the rules more thoroughly before creating content based on them, or is immortalising basic rules mistakes not an 'opportunity cost' in your eyes?Always happy to listen to good advice, and truly appreciate rules corrections. But if it's just that you don't like my style, or think I'm a know-nothing, take a hike.

[Waazraath]

Always happy to listen to good advice, and truly appreciate rules corrections. But if it's just that you don't like my style, or think I'm a know-nothing, take a hike.

He is giving you good advice, only your telling him to take a hike...

[Unoriginal]

5e as a whole. It's an adaption of a system I know well, and while I certainly don't claim to have mastered all of the nuances of its differences from other editions in a year, I feel comfortable offering and defending my take on a number of game topics. If I make a mistake or two along the way, I take that as merely an aspect of the human condition and not a indictment of my ability to create useful and interesting content, a stance that some are taking (at least when they're not pretending that I can't read what they're writing).

Is sharing my videos against the rules? My view is that I'm providing fodder for discussion, and that the threads created are value add, which I why I'm trying to respond to comments in substantive and diligent fashion. One post per video doesn't seem obnoxious, but do let me know. I'm an old man, and not clued in to the manners of most social media, if the reaction by younger folk is any indication.

5e isn't "an adaptation of a system", it's a whole other system. Which is why I was saying reading the whole PHB would help you.

Posting your videos is within the rules, I was only commenting on how you were calling other snowflakes while you are the one promoting your own work to make it stand out more. That being said my advice would be to make one thread for your channel as a whole and make a new post there when there is new content.

Regardless, I apologize for my antagonistic attitude. We don't have to agree, but I certainly should have been more polite about it.

[Bilbron]

He is giving you good advice, only your telling him to take a hike...
Ha ha, if I agreed with you on the quality of his advice, I wouldn't be telling him to get lost. I'm happy to engage in dialectic in the spirit of intellectual honesty, but I've little tolerance for veiled insults and indignation when I respond with the respect that such comments are due.

As long as we're doling out advice, one shouldn't open with a veiled insult and suggestion that one quit a project for lack of skill, then expect a slavering response lacking in derision pretending that it's "helpful".

[Dork_Forge]

Ha ha, if I agreed with you on the quality of his advice, I wouldn't be telling him to get lost. I'm happy to engage in dialectic in the spirit of intellectual honesty, but I've little tolerance for veiled insults and indignation when I respond with the respect that such comments are due.

As long as we're doling out advice, one shouldn't open with a veiled insult and suggestion that one quit a project for lack of skill, then expect a slavering response lacking in derision pretending that it's "helpful".

Please point to where I insulted you, given you a veiled insult or suggested that you quit making videos altogether?

In fact please point to anyone that has told you that you should quit altogether or actually insulted you.

You dress up your sesquipedalian posts with fanciful vocabulary, but it doesn't help us find your manner anything but lacking. Moreover, I quite enjoy my time on this board so I won't be getting lost anytime soon thank you very much.

[Snivlem]

Honestly I don't like blast spells at all, let alone 1st level blasts which are always pretty high opportunity cost relative to cantrips. I carry some on scrolls 'cause I just like to be prepared for anything, but there's almost always something better I can do.


I agree, with one significant exception. 1st level blasts are hardly worth preparing... with one exception. Dissonant whispers. It can easily end up doing an additional 50 damage or more from opportunity attacks, which puts it high above other 1st level blasts. True, it is somewhat situational and somewhat rely on party composition, but unlike other blasts I think most bards will keep casting it for their full career, which I think should put it into a tier of its own as far as 1st level blasts go. It is certainly less situational than the "no verbal components"-advantage of Catapult.