Why aren't spells created equal?

[heavyfuel]

I think it's fair to say that some spells are straight up better than other spells at the same level. It's hard to justify Witch Bolt when you have access to Sleep. Equally as hard to justify Time Stop when you can now cast True Polymorph. I'd even place Fireball above Immolation, a 5th level spell.

So, if a spell level is a measure of how strong that spell is, why is it that some spells are considered so much better than others? Why is it that something like the Whispers of the Grave invocation something considered pretty weak to gain at level 9, when Master of Myriad Forms is considered better, but only available levels later?

This is a genuine question, though. Why is it?

[JNAProductions]

Because game designers aren’t perfect.

In Fireball’s case, that was intentionally made better, because it’s iconic.

But other spells? Witch Bolt wasn’t intended to suck-it just happened that way. Because humans mess up-a lot.

[MrStabby]

Some are unequal because they are circumstantial and it may depend on what comes up in a given campaign.

If you are fighting a rakshasa then fireball or counterspell wont be useful but lower.level spells very much might be.

[sophontteks]

Some spells just straight up don't work, like find trap and enthrall. There's a good amount of human error in them. In many other cases it just doesn't look like they were aiming to make them balanced. That's fine. Balanced can be boring. But it would be nice to remove the straight trap options.

[Unoriginal]

I think it's fair to say that some spells are straight up better than other spells at the same level. It's hard to justify Witch Bolt when you have access to Sleep. Equally as hard to justify Time Stop when you can now cast True Polymorph. I'd even place Fireball above Immolation, a 5th level spell.

So, if a spell level is a measure of how strong that spell is, why is it that some spells are considered so much better than others? Why is it that something like the Whispers of the Grave invocation something considered pretty weak to gain at level 9, when Master of Myriad Forms is considered better, but only available levels later?

This is a genuine question, though. Why is it?

A spell level is a range, not a point. Some spells are strong for their level, others are weak for their level.

Furthermore, as pointed out above, the creators aren't perfect. Even without counting the mistakes, sometime tactical considerations the spell-creator didn't think about or didn't think as relevant make a spell much more or much less useful than intended. Sleep is much less useful than Witch Bolt against two Ogres the group's frontliners can prevent from reaching the caster entirely, but against a bunch of low-HPs mooks Sleep is pretty great. It just happens that one situation is "any source of damage is nice" while the other is "a good AoE turns the table here", making Sleep more noticeable useful.

In-universe, the creators of the spells and the principles they relied on for their creation aren't equal in everything, either. Mordenkainen managed a feat when he created his Faithful Hound, but his Sword is pretty inferior to Bigby's famous force constructs, despite the similarities.

[Damon_Tor]

Because game designers aren’t perfect.

In Fireball’s case, that was intentionally made better, because it’s iconic.

But other spells? Witch Bolt wasn’t intended to suck-it just happened that way. Because humans mess up-a lot.

My understanding is that Witch Bolt isn't intended to be used by players, it's a spell designed to be used by NPCs against the players. It makes much more sense when you think about it in that context.

[Sigreid]

Some spells just straight up don't work, like find trap and enthrall. There's a good amount of human error in them. In many other cases it just doesn't look like they were aiming to make them balanced. That's fine. Balanced can be boring. But it would be nice to remove the straight trap options.

IMO find trap for example would be set right if it had a duration of at least an hour.

[DwarfFighter]

This is a genuine question, though. Why is it?

Really?

The real answer is: Spells are different and therefore they will be of different use in different circumstances. Suggestion is going to win you more friends than Fireball, after all.

Even if you had an offensive spell with identical properties except for damage type, one of those would be considered better than the other by applying a mix of objective and subjective preferences: A fireball-clone that deals force damage instead of fire would cause an upset in the community because of how uncommon are resistance and immunity to force damage!

But I guess you mostly care about spells that are used to in the same manner, as offensive hammers, right? Why spend a really difficult full minute with lvl 3 Witch Bolt to deal 30d12 lightning damage when you can deal 8d6 no-brain fire damage (save for half) with a Fireball? Well, sometimes you need to grind, sometimes you need to blast. You can't make that distinction by just looking at the numbers on the page, you gotta play the game to see what situations you get into.

-DF

[heavyfuel]

To answer some general points that have come up:

Yes, human error is a thing. The designers over/under estimating a spell's capabilities is definitely one of the reasons. But it doesn't explain everything.

Take Invocations, for example. I'm pretty sure it would be considered overpowered if level 9 Warlocks could pick an invocation of at-will Shield. So why isn't it overpowered that they can pick at will Jump? If Shield and Jump are both 1st level, they should have roughly the same power/versatility. So either Shield is underleveled or Jump is overleveled. And if so, why?

Also, it's obvious that spells having different uses doesn't mean that one is stronger than the other. Yeah, Suggestion is better in social situations than Fireball. That's so beside the point it shouldn't even merit an answer.

But, in a lot of cases, spells that serve similar purposes are still at odds. Magic Missile (plus cantrips) out-damages Witch Bolt in pretty much every scenario, except the super contrived ones people will point out trying to prove me wrong. MM and WB are both single target damage spells, but one is clearly superior to the other.

[Asisreo1]

Some spells just straight up don't work, like find trap and enthrall. There's a good amount of human error in them. In many other cases it just doesn't look like they were aiming to make them balanced. That's fine. Balanced can be boring. But it would be nice to remove the straight trap options.
Find Traps is a product of DMs playing differently than the designers intended.

How finding traps, in general, is supposed to work is that they must make a Wisdom (Perception) check to notice anything that seems off in the surroundings while it takes an Intelligence (Investigation) check to determine how exactly to disarm it. It then takes theives' tools or any action that would reasonably disarm the trap to disarm it.

The players should rarely ever know if something is a trap. They should just know that something odd is happening. Allow me to demonstrate with a Hidden Pit trap.

Step 1. The players walk into the room with the trap.

Step 2. The DM asks the party for their passive perception.

Step 3. The DM describes the room, if they beat the PP check, he includes the trap's visual description: "The 20 x 20 room holds military supplies. A tapestry of the kingdom of Leden is draped over the wall. A locked chest stands in the corner of the room. In the center of the room, there is a section of the floor with an unusually light amount of foot traffick."

Step 4. The players investigates the clean area. If they succeed a DC 15 Investigation check, they realize its actually a pit.

Step 5. The players decide what they want to do next.


Find Traps is a spell that skips 2, 3, & 4 for the purposes of finding traps. As soon as you cast it, you know that the floor is trapped but the tapestry, door, and chest are not. Its useful for exploration and can even detect invisible traps or hazards.

Unfortunately, DMs skimp out on mapmaking and trap-setting so it hardly matters in those games.

[stoutstien]

Mio the real big reason why there is such a big discrepancy across the spell list is because it's too darn big.

[SharkForce]

Sleep is much less useful than Witch Bolt against two Ogres the group's frontliners can prevent from reaching the caster entirely, but against a bunch of low-HPs mooks Sleep is pretty great. It just happens that one situation is "any source of damage is nice" while the other is "a good AoE turns the table here", making Sleep more noticeable useful.

nah, I'd still rather have sleep. once those ogres are whittled down, sleep could become an amazingly effective spell against them. witch bolt, if all the stars align perfectly for it, might manage to achieve "a little better than casting a cantrip"... but then again, it might not, even then.


Find Traps is a product of DMs playing differently than the designers intended.

How finding traps, in general, is supposed to work is that they must make a Wisdom (Perception) check to notice anything that seems off in the surroundings while it takes an Intelligence (Investigation) check to determine how exactly to disarm it. It then takes theives' tools or any action that would reasonably disarm the trap to disarm it.

The players should rarely ever know if something is a trap. They should just know that something odd is happening. Allow me to demonstrate with a Hidden Pit trap.

Step 1. The players walk into the room with the trap.

Step 2. The DM asks the party for their passive perception.

Step 3. The DM describes the room, if they beat the PP check, he includes the trap's visual description: "The 20 x 20 room holds military supplies. A tapestry of the kingdom of Leden is draped over the wall. A locked chest stands in the corner of the room. In the center of the room, there is a section of the floor with an unusually light amount of foot traffick."

Step 4. The players investigates the clean area. If they succeed a DC 15 Investigation check, they realize its actually a pit.

Step 5. The players decide what they want to do next.


Find Traps is a spell that skips 2, 3, & 4 for the purposes of finding traps. As soon as you cast it, you know that the floor is trapped but the tapestry, door, and chest are not. Its useful for exploration and can even detect invisible traps or hazards.

Unfortunately, DMs skimp out on mapmaking and trap-setting so it hardly matters in those games.

actually, you don't know that. the spell doesn't give you a location, it just tells you that somewhere in range that you can see, there is a trap. you still have to check the chest, you still have to check the tapestry, and you still have to check the door.

[Asisreo1]

nah, I'd still rather have sleep. once those ogres are whittled down, sleep could become an amazingly effective spell against them. witch bolt, if all the stars align perfectly for it, might manage to achieve "a little better than casting a cantrip"... but then again, it might not, even then.



actually, you don't know that. the spell doesn't give you a location, it just tells you that somewhere in range that you can see, there is a trap. you still have to check the chest, you still have to check the tapestry, and you still have to check the door.
It does still leaves much to be desired as intended, don't get me wrong. Its not entirely clear if it tells you the number of traps within the line of sight but it does tell you the general nature of the trap.

What that means is kinda up to the DM. He could be as explicit as "There's a pit trap with spikes somewhere." Or he could be as vague as "A hidden trap will activate by proximity."

Interestingly enough, its not on any spell list except for Druid, Cleric, and Ranger. I don't think its ever worth it on the Ranger though it could be somewhat flavorful. The Druid and Cleric has the versatility to take this spell, though, if they suspect they'll be facing alot of hidden threats in their adventure.

Also also, Find Traps doesn't really specify if it can detect harmful creatures that are indiscernable from its environment or an object. A generous DM could let the caster detect an ambush by invisible creatures like Stalkers or Pixies or by object-like creatures like Mimics and Animated Armors.

I don't think its wrong to do so.

[kingcheesepants]

Also worth noting are that a lot of spells are adapted from older editions or sometimes different settings and the rules don't always port over well leading to under/overpowered or really niche spells. True strike is a pretty good example of this, in 3e it gave a +20 insight bonus and there were a some more powerful spells that utilized spell attack rolls back then. However there's no such thing as an insight bonus anymore, 5e uses bonded accuracy and so a +20 to hit would be insane and spells that require an attack roll are few and most all of them are low level. So instead of an insight bonus it's advantage and there really isn't anything worthwhile to pair it with. It becomes doubly useless since there are other easier ways to get advantage that don't use up your entire action. Could the spell have been ported over in a more usable form? Almost certainly, but it's easy to understand how it got messed up. I think if you look at a lot of the most egregious examples of bad spells (either way too good or too bad) you'll see the same thing. Simulacrum wasn't nearly so OP before but in simplifying the spell for 5e it got a big buff, Weird was never great but it used to be okay at least, etc etc.

[lall]

Equality most likely wasn’t the designers’ top priority. Plus, spells don’t exist in a vacuum. I may vastly prefer a ‘lesser’ spell for a particular build.

[holywhippet]

Another reason is due to differences in what classes are meant to be capable of in order to maintain balance. Fireball, for example, isn't available to all spell casting classes. A bard can take it via magical secrets, but at the cost of not taking something else. They usually have to use weaker AoE spells instead.

[MaxWilson]

I think it's fair to say that some spells are straight up better than other spells at the same level. It's hard to justify Witch Bolt when you have access to Sleep. Equally as hard to justify Time Stop when you can now cast True Polymorph. I'd even place Fireball above Immolation, a 5th level spell.

So, if a spell level is a measure of how strong that spell is, why is it that some spells are considered so much better than others? Why is it that something like the Whispers of the Grave invocation something considered pretty weak to gain at level 9, when Master of Myriad Forms is considered better, but only available levels later?

This is a genuine question, though. Why is it?

In my spell research rules, it's because mediocre spells take less time, talent, gold, and luck to create than highly optimized, overpowered spells. A first level wizard could probably recreate Witch Bolt in a single week, but Find Familiar would be orders of magnitude harder and more expensive.

The PHB/DMG have essentially no spell research rules at all so you might as well adopt my explanation until proven otherwise, even if you're not using spell research rules. It makes sense, and explains the existence of awful spells and terrific spells alike.

[Valmark]

Spells within the same level being stronger or weaker then others can be either designer error, campaign-dependancy (meaning that depending on context spells can be stronger or weaker) and/or personal taste (as an example you say Whispers of the Dead is considered pretty weak when I think the opposite).

As far as spells being put on different levels... Well, obviously it's the designer's judgement on which one goes at which level. Spells with apparently bigger effects will need an higher level.

[Merudo]

I think it's fair to say that some spells are straight up better than other spells at the same level. It's hard to justify Witch Bolt when you have access to Sleep. Equally as hard to justify Time Stop when you can now cast True Polymorph. I'd even place Fireball above Immolation, a 5th level spell.

So, if a spell level is a measure of how strong that spell is, why is it that some spells are considered so much better than others? Why is it that something like the Whispers of the Grave invocation something considered pretty weak to gain at level 9, when Master of Myriad Forms is considered better, but only available levels later?

This is a genuine question, though. Why is it?

Because the Lead Rules Designer, Jeremy Crawford, is absolutely terrible at evaluating game balance.

Seriously - he's awful at it. Any experienced player visiting this forum is likely more capable of evaluating the balance of spells, subclasses, feats, and the likes than he is.

Without a lead designer with a strong grasp of game balance, the spells end up all over the place. The same spell level that offers you the OP Simulacrum also gives you junk like Mordenkainen’s Sword.

[Guy Lombard-O]

Why spend a really difficult full minute with lvl 3 Witch Bolt to deal 30d12 lightning damage when you can deal 8d6 no-brain fire damage (save for half) with a Fireball?

Whoa! 30d12?

Has there been some huge errata to Witch Bolt that I should know about?!?

[Theodoxus]

On top of the really great answers - and I love your take, MaxWilson - there is very little 'formulaic' construction around spell making. Beyond MW's notation of a lack of in-universe rules for it, there's also a very obvious lack of such rules for the designers to follow.

It kinda sorta works for damaging spells. They sorta follow a internal rule schema, until they don't. But utility spells are all over the place. Defensive spells tend to be overpowered for their level, but curative spells are massively underpowered for their level except for bloat exceptions (which get errata-nerfed anyway).

Then there's the 5E philosophy of upcasting, which is new to D&D and I think the devs (probably JC) thought that fixed everything. If a spell is underpowered at the level you get it, simply upcast it! I originally thought it was a pretty slick solution. I have come to loathe it. I want my Caster Level back, my automatically boosted spells like Magic Missile. And maybe make it a hybrid system, where you can upcast it, and not only does it Heighten the spell, but grants a different, new rider effect. All those "At Higher Level" could be re-written with something nifty happening at higher level than just affecting more targets or dealing/healing more damage.

[Hael]

There’s also class balance at stake. Certain spells are basically class features for all intents and purposes.

Also there are a number of spells that would essentially obsolete another classes strong point if they were ported as they once were. For instance, Wizards aren’t given many mass summon spells and many of their summons spells are counterbalanced by DM dependant wording. There’s a reason gate isn’t as strong as it was in previous editions and that their high lvl summons are mostly inferior to druids conjure animals, a third lvl spell.

I’m pretty sure a number of spells were actively nerfed and buffed as direct class buffs during play testing without regard for spell balance within their own tier.

[Asisreo1]

There’s also class balance at stake. Certain spells are basically class features for all intents and purposes.

Also there are a number of spells that would essentially obsolete another classes strong point if they were ported as they once were. For instance, Wizards aren’t given many mass summon spells and many of their summons spells are counterbalanced by DM dependant wording. There’s a reason gate isn’t as strong as it was in previous editions and that their high lvl summons are mostly inferior to druids conjure animals, a third lvl spell.

I’m pretty sure a number of spells were actively nerfed and buffed as direct class buffs during play testing without regard for spell balance within their own tier.
Precisely.

I consider spell lists when thinking about class balance and its the reason why so many spells can be difficult to balance from just a "this spell is this level" perspective.

Lets say I wanted to create a spell called "Divine Movement," which is just a teleportation spell but on the cleric's spell list. Let's say I modeled it after Misty Step and did something like BA able to teleport 15ft in a direction they choose. Basically half distance but doesn't require sight. Not broken, right?

Well, teleportation on clerics are extremely valuable because they don't have many means to do so. If a cleric gets swallowed or restrained, they'll usually have to either cast a 4th-level freedom of movement spell or find some other escape condition. If a cleric is trapped, they rarely have excellent mobility options to free themselves.

What does this mean? It means that every cleric will probably default to this spell. No cleric will not have it always prepared and it shores up a weakness that the arcane casters had over them.

[LudicSavant]

Why is it that something like the Whispers of the Grave invocation something considered pretty weak to gain at level 9, when Master of Myriad Forms is considered better, but only available levels later?

Eh? Who said Master of Myriad Forms is better than Whispers of the Grave? Many Faces can make disguises without eating your Concentration like Myriad does. And water breathing is just an all-day ritual that also does not eat your Concentration. And we have a thread about how good Whispers is on the front page right now.

Aside from that, occasionally imbalance is intentional, especially in the case of iconic "like a class feature" spells, but often it's just the result of the devs not doing a great job of balancing. I'm betting whoever made Witch Bolt just sort of failed to do the math there.


In my spell research rules, it's because mediocre spells take less time, talent, gold, and luck to create than highly optimized, overpowered spells. A first level wizard could probably recreate Witch Bolt in a single week, but Find Familiar would be orders of magnitude harder and more expensive.

The PHB/DMG have essentially no spell research rules at all so you might as well adopt my explanation until proven otherwise, even if you're not using spell research rules. It makes sense, and explains the existence of awful spells and terrific spells alike.

I really like when mechanics are narratively associated (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17231/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics-a-brief-primer) like this. That's a fun take: Fireball is as good as it is because generations of mages have been refining it to perfection. https://forums.giantitp.com/images/sand/icons/icon_thumbsup.png

Reminds me of the story Keith Baker had for 3.5e metamagic mechanics and Eberron's technological development.

[Snails]

There’s also class balance at stake. Certain spells are basically class features for all intents and purposes.

Hunter's Mark, for example, is basically a class feature for the Ranger to simply up damage, while falling short of being 100% reliable. That is shows up on the spell list for the Oath of Vengeance Paladin is pretty path defining, as well.

So, it is true that a few spells are simply better than is typical for spells of that level and that is an implied significant class feature. Eldritch Blast, Hunter's Mark, Hideous Laughter and Fireball are the obvious examples.

OTOH, some spells are simply weak because the designers shoehorned them into 5e mechanics without thinking carefully, often just keeping the spell level of a previous edition without serious consideration of where it fits in the new edition. For example, Protection from Energy and Flame Arrows would not be considered notably good if they were 2nd level instead of 3rd level.

[Veldrenor]

In addition to the other great ideas here, the idea of system mastery might also be at play. WotC has definitely talked about this in the past about why they intentionally create bad Magic: the Gathering cards. A newcomer to the game doesn't know yet that there are "good" spells and "bad" spells, and so they'll use whatever spells look neat to them. As they play, though, they'll get a feel for how the game works and the actual utility and power of the different spells. They'll learn the limitations of Witch Bolt, or the strength of Fireball. That increased knowledge is an accomplishment. Becoming more skilled at the game, understanding which spells are "good" and which are "bad" and how best to apply them, makes people feel good and smart.

[Galithar]

Whoa! 30d12?

Has there been some huge errata to Witch Bolt that I should know about?!?

I believe he mistakenly applied the damage increase to the damage on subsequent turns, which would actually make the spell a million times more powerful and very usable. Along the lines of heat metal except more damage, no target restriction, and a less resisted damage type.

[Asisreo1]

Witch Bolt was a difficult spell to balance anyways. There's no real guarantee that an enemy will just leave your range or threaten your concentration. Sure, they could, but its not like there's a mathematical formula to predict how often your character gets threatened or how likely your DM will have your enemies play 30ft ballerina.

The fact of the matter about the spell, however, is that if neither of those are forced, the spellcaster casted a 1st-level spell to have a better tier 1 cantrip. Having auto-hit and damage higher than firebolt is interesting and, if not for the other conditionals, would be a powerful tier 1 spell.

Now, you may be thinking "This only accounts for tier 1. Why bother taking a spell that gets shafted later?" Well, you can think of it like a temporary spell. Look at the characters with access to it. They are known casters that can switch their known spell upon level up (aside from wizards). As soon as they enter tier 2, they can safely retire that spell for maybe a second 3rd-level spell.

As for the restrictions themselves, make of them what you will. Its generally commonly accepted that a monster would prioritize getting rid of Witchbolt which seems ridiculous to me. If a fighter is engaged in combat with a monster and that monster has Witchbolt on him, that fighter is probably threatening 10 damage on the monster as an AoO. If they have a 65% chance of hitting, well, they take an average of 6.5 damage anyways. This isn't including any sort of fighting style/feats the fighter may have.

From the monster's PoV, its strictly worse to move out of the way. Look at what they're trading: they take their movement and 6.5 damage against the fighter's reaction to avoid what would have been 6.5 damage on the caster's whole action. The only reason a DM would move the creature in this scenario is to spite the caster.

The caster, however, is free to use their action for something like firebolt, ray of frost, or even another higher level spell slot. This isn't a good trade for the monster and they're better off keeping the witchbolt until the situation changes somehow.

[Luccan]

Witch Bolt was a difficult spell to balance anyways. There's no real guarantee that an enemy will just leave your range or threaten your concentration. Sure, they could, but its not like there's a mathematical formula to predict how often your character gets threatened or how likely your DM will have your enemies play 30ft ballerina.

The fact of the matter about the spell, however, is that if neither of those are forced, the spellcaster casted a 1st-level spell to have a better tier 1 cantrip. Having auto-hit and damage higher than firebolt is interesting and, if not for the other conditionals, would be a powerful tier 1 spell.

Now, you may be thinking "This only accounts for tier 1. Why bother taking a spell that gets shafted later?" Well, you can think of it like a temporary spell. Look at the characters with access to it. They are known casters that can switch their known spell upon level up (aside from wizards). As soon as they enter tier 2, they can safely retire that spell for maybe a second 3rd-level spell.

As for the restrictions themselves, make of them what you will. Its generally commonly accepted that a monster would prioritize getting rid of Witchbolt which seems ridiculous to me. If a fighter is engaged in combat with a monster and that monster has Witchbolt on him, that fighter is probably threatening 10 damage on the monster as an AoO. If they have a 65% chance of hitting, well, they take an average of 6.5 damage anyways. This isn't including any sort of fighting style/feats the fighter may have.

From the monster's PoV, its strictly worse to move out of the way. Look at what they're trading: they take their movement and 6.5 damage against the fighter's reaction to avoid what would have been 6.5 damage on the caster's whole action. The only reason a DM would move the creature in this scenario is to spite the caster.

The caster, however, is free to use their action for something like firebolt, ray of frost, or even another higher level spell slot. This isn't a good trade for the monster and they're better off keeping the witchbolt until the situation changes somehow.

You can't move out of range either, making it easier for the monster's allies to break your concentration and perhaps more importantly leaving yourself in melee range of said allies even if you maintain it. You also have to spend your action every round to maintain the spell, which means it basically eats everything you can be doing in combat except your bonus action and reaction. In tier 1 you might not even have a bonus action and you'll probably be spending your reaction on Shield since you're only ever 30ft from the front line. So Y
Uou're standing there pinging an enemy for 1d12 a round and it's not transferable after the foe drops, so it's not worth it except on something with a lot of HP*. You have to give up every tactical decision in order to use this spell to its maximum effect and all the casters that know it are in some way limited on the spells they pick-up. It's too niche and restrictive to be picked.

*As you pointed out this spell is not suited for higher than tier 1.

[LudicSavant]

Witch Bolt was a difficult spell to balance anyways. There's no real guarantee that an enemy will just leave your range or threaten your concentration. Sure, they could, but its not like there's a mathematical formula to predict how often your character gets threatened or how likely your DM will have your enemies play 30ft ballerina.

The fact of the matter about the spell, however, is that if neither of those are forced, the spellcaster casted a 1st-level spell to have a better tier 1 cantrip. Having auto-hit and damage higher than firebolt is interesting and, if not for the other conditionals, would be a powerful tier 1 spell.

Witch Bolt isn't really an "auto-hit." Yes, you don't need to roll on rounds 2+, but that doesn't change the fact that the damage was still contingent upon an all-or-nothing attack roll landing, and this affects the math accordingly.


To understand how bad Witch Bolt is, you have to understand how the math for it works. Some people seem to labor under the assumption that it deals 6.5 expected DPR on rounds after the first. But that's not really how it works, because that 6.5 damage is dependent on an event that doesn't have 100% probability: Landing the initial bolt on round one. The DPR calculation is less like Magic Missile and more like an all-or-nothing single target Damage Over Time effect that requires you to invest actions for every tick (e.g. even worse than Immolation).

So the real DPR formula is:
Round 1: (hit% * 6.5) + (crit% * 6.5)
Round 2: ((chance Witch Bolt hit on round 1 and remained active into the current round) * 6.5) + ((DPR of whatever you'd use if Witch Bolt wasn't active anymore) * (chance Witch Bolt missed on round 1 or got interrupted))
Round 3+: As round 2, except the chance that Witch Bolt is interrupted typically rises each round.

The result is that Witch Bolt is quite unattractive for a first level spell slot even if a designer were to assume that the tether is rarely broken.

[Asisreo1]

Witch Bolt isn't really an "auto-hit." Yes, you don't need to roll on rounds 2+, but that doesn't change the fact that the damage was still contingent upon an all-or-nothing attack roll landing, and this affects the math accordingly.



The result is that Witch Bolt is quite unattractive for a first level spell slot even if a designer were to assume that the tether is rarely broken.
Well I understand the mathematical side of it. I just purposefully ignored it because I wanted to assume that the designers themselves also would've ignored it.

The economical value of it is, probably, what it was meant to convey.

Its a gamble. You cast the spell, hope it lands for the round, then hope you can maintain the effect. If you do so, then you've become pretty economical with the slot used. You could've done 3d4+3 damage guaranteed but instead you gambled the xd12 damage of that spell slot.

The bad part about it isn't the damage, its that actions are usually valued higher than spell slots. Though, now that I typed that, its somewhat interesting since actions have so much lower value at lower levels than higher levels on the player's side because the potential uses for that action is incredibly limited compared to if you'd compare the action to higher level.

I'm still unsure if its worth it but I think the designers overcorrected simply because of what it could look like enhanced:

If a Draconic Sorcerer got his hands on Witchbolt, he can twin the spell with his draconic ancestry while the target creatures are under the effects of Web. This gives advantage on the initial hit, twins it for 19 average damage per round, gives disadvantage against attacks made by the enemy, and the Sorcerer has proficiency on his concentration save.

Seem like a niche scenario? Kinda, yeah. But the point is that this is a combo that the players themselves can easily come up with. All it takes is a wizard/2nd sorcerer for an extremely cheap way to rack up DoT damage, helping you save higher level slots for the rest of the adventure.

[Theodoxus]

It works on a Sith Sorcerer type Bladedancer build... Especially if said character took Mobile. (at 6th level Wizard+ Cast WB, next round attack and cast BB, and skip away without provoking an OA (thank you Mobile) all while keeping WB crackling away. Let the creature/DM decide if trying to escape the WB while also taking the extra BB damage is worth it (on top of any ally that might also be threatening. Even if the critter disengages, it's still taking a chunk of damage from your BB. If it doesn't move, rinse and repeat.

It's a bit niche, but that's the nice thing about Bladedancers, you're still a Wizard. You can do this playstyle one fight or game session and if you get bored (or the DM gets annoyed at your antics), pick a completely different playstyle with the same character the next day in game.

[Quietus]

Its a gamble. You cast the spell, hope it lands for the round, then hope you can maintain the effect. If you do so, then you've become pretty economical with the slot used. You could've done 3d4+3 damage guaranteed but instead you gambled the xd12 damage of that spell slot.

3d4+3 (10.5) with 100% accuracy, vs 1d12 (6.5) with a chance to miss. Compare apples to apples, this is a first level spell slot.


If a Draconic Sorcerer got his hands on Witchbolt, he can twin the spell with his draconic ancestry while the target creatures are under the effects of Web. This gives advantage on the initial hit, twins it for 19 average damage per round, gives disadvantage against attacks made by the enemy, and the Sorcerer has proficiency on his concentration save.

So you're assuming that someone else in your party is casting web, yes? Since both these spells are concentration. You're also assuming those targets don't escape the web (at which point they're close enough to potentially melee you), and that you're level 6, with a 22 Cha and blue dragon heritage, if I'm reading this right? Because 2x 6.5 is 13, +cha on one of those rolls. And this assumes that you've hit both attack rolls. Frankly, if the situation you've described works exactly how you've laid it out, it's not Witch Bolt doing the work, it's Web. You have a neutered shooting gallery and should be using basic ranged attacks/cantrips.


It works on a Sith Sorcerer type Bladedancer build... Especially if said character took Mobile. (at 6th level Wizard+ Cast WB, next round attack and cast BB, and skip away without provoking an OA (thank you Mobile) all while keeping WB crackling away. Let the creature/DM decide if trying to escape the WB while also taking the extra BB damage is worth it (on top of any ally that might also be threatening. Even if the critter disengages, it's still taking a chunk of damage from your BB. If it doesn't move, rinse and repeat.

It's a bit niche, but that's the nice thing about Bladedancers, you're still a Wizard. You can do this playstyle one fight or game session and if you get bored (or the DM gets annoyed at your antics), pick a completely different playstyle with the same character the next day in game.

If you have BB, at level 6 with a rapier, you are doing 2d8+dex if you hit - and you get a second attack for another 1d8+dex. Witch Bolt, barring an upcast (which only benefits the first attack, not subsequent hits) does 1d12, no modifier. BB will do more initial damage. And then on those following rounds, Witch Bolt does not keep "crackling away". You have to use your entire action, to do... 1d12 damage. You get to choose which you do, BB or WB.

[Tanarii]

Some are mistakes that somehow made it through play testing. That's especially damning for low level spells. True Strike & Witch Bolt are classic examples. But also Polymorph and Simulcrum.

Some the devs didn't seem to understand they don't work the way they're supposedly written to work very well, or RAI may have changed between when they were written and later on. Lots of things that are enchantments suffer from this, because charm was seemingly misunderstood, and spellcasting is obvious without subtle. E.g. Suggestion, Enthrall. But also Find Traps is a non-enchantment example.

Some are too open to DM interpretation. Suggestion (again), Phantasmal Force, Minor/Silent/Major illusions, Conjure spells with pick number by CR.

[Sigreid]

Some are mistakes that somehow made it through play testing. That's especially damning for low level spells. True Strike & Witch Bolt are classic examples. But also Polymorph and Simulcrum.

Some the devs didn't seem to understand they don't work the way they're supposedly written to work very well, or RAI may have changed between when they were written and later on. Lots of things that are enchantments suffer from this, because charm was seemingly misunderstood, and spellcasting is obvious without subtle. E.g. Suggestion, Enthrall. But also Find Traps is a non-enchantment example.

Some are too open to DM interpretation. Suggestion (again), Phantasmal Force, Minor/Silent/Major illusions, Conjure spells with pick number by CR.

For some, it's hard to predict all the ways thousands of people putting effort into breaking the game are going to come up with to break the game.

[Tanarii]

For some, it's hard to predict all the ways thousands of people putting effort into breaking the game are going to come up with to break the game.
True. But that doesn't apply to e.g. True Strike, Witch Bolt, Polymorph or Conjure Animals. The issues should have become immediately apparent to a large number of playtesters almost immediately.

It definitely applies to Minor/Silent/Major illusions, which I suspect they felt they had to intentionally leave vague and open to DM being the limiting factor on abuse. Possibly the same rationale for Suggestion and Phantasmal Force

[Witty Username]

Witch Bolt isn't really an "auto-hit." Yes, you don't need to roll on rounds 2+, but that doesn't change the fact that the damage was still contingent upon an all-or-nothing attack roll landing, and this affects the math accordingly.



The result is that Witch Bolt is quite unattractive for a first level spell slot even if a designer were to assume that the tether is rarely broken.

This. Essentially witch bolt has a similar average damage as a cantrip, because of that initial accuracy. X(y+y+y) = X *y+X*y+X*y and all that. Now, if you have things that boost accuracy then you have a disproportionate effect in comparison because it applies to the entire system so you could say it has advantages on some builds, but those builds would probably still prefer cantrips to witch bolt because of concentration, range, locking the action, and resource cost, assuming you can rely on the tether not being broken.

[zinycor]

I think it's fair to say that some spells are straight up better than other spells at the same level. It's hard to justify Witch Bolt when you have access to Sleep. Equally as hard to justify Time Stop when you can now cast True Polymorph. I'd even place Fireball above Immolation, a 5th level spell.

So, if a spell level is a measure of how strong that spell is, why is it that some spells are considered so much better than others? Why is it that something like the Whispers of the Grave invocation something considered pretty weak to gain at level 9, when Master of Myriad Forms is considered better, but only available levels later?

This is a genuine question, though. Why is it?

I mean... your comparisons aren't really fair. Sleep and witch bolt do different things, meant for different circumstances and purposes. Is like comparing a lettuce to a cake.

That's not to say witch bolt is good, but we should at least compare it to similar spells for the analysis.

[Unoriginal]

Interestingly, the in-universe reason for the existence of Melf's Minute Meteors is that Melf wanted to fix the flaws of the Fireball.

[Theodoxus]

If you have BB, at level 6 with a rapier, you are doing 2d8+dex if you hit - and you get a second attack for another 1d8+dex. Witch Bolt, barring an upcast (which only benefits the first attack, not subsequent hits) does 1d12, no modifier. BB will do more initial damage. And then on those following rounds, Witch Bolt does not keep "crackling away". You have to use your entire action, to do... 1d12 damage. You get to choose which you do, BB or WB.

Oh, right. Man, I changed WB to a Bonus Action to maintain so long ago, I totally forgot how awful it is baseline. My bad.


I mean... your comparisons aren't really fair. Sleep and witch bolt do different things, meant for different circumstances and purposes. Is like comparing a lettuce to a cake.

That's not to say witch bolt is good, but we should at least compare it to similar spells for the analysis.

There aren't any similar spells. I guess Chaos Bolt and Chromatic Orb, which for the same reason (need to hit with it) see about as much action at the tables I run. COs only advantage (albeit tiny) is you can pick the damage type if you're fighting something vulnerable to a specific energy type and you don't have a cantrip that deals the same damage type. Of course, the 50gp diamond makes it very unlikely to be a pick for a 1st level character anyway... CB's tiny advantage is range and the chance to strike a secondary target (especially if you use the very cheesy maximized Thunder damage ruling for a Tempest Cleric build).

[Morty]

Because game designers aren’t perfect.

In Fireball’s case, that was intentionally made better, because it’s iconic.

But other spells? Witch Bolt wasn’t intended to suck-it just happened that way. Because humans mess up-a lot.

That's more or less it. Spells should be equal in value, but they're not, because designers make mistakes. And because it's really hard to decide what "equal" even means when spells have such wildly disparate effects. There's also a difference between a spell that's situation and a spell that just doesn't compare to other available options and resources.

There's no excuse for making Fireball stronger because it's "iconic" and people "should" use it, though. I can't believe someone thought it was a good idea.


Find Traps is a product of DMs playing differently than the designers intended.

How finding traps, in general, is supposed to work is that they must make a Wisdom (Perception) check to notice anything that seems off in the surroundings while it takes an Intelligence (Investigation) check to determine how exactly to disarm it. It then takes theives' tools or any action that would reasonably disarm the trap to disarm it.

The players should rarely ever know if something is a trap. They should just know that something odd is happening. Allow me to demonstrate with a Hidden Pit trap.

Step 1. The players walk into the room with the trap.

Step 2. The DM asks the party for their passive perception.

Step 3. The DM describes the room, if they beat the PP check, he includes the trap's visual description: "The 20 x 20 room holds military supplies. A tapestry of the kingdom of Leden is draped over the wall. A locked chest stands in the corner of the room. In the center of the room, there is a section of the floor with an unusually light amount of foot traffick."

Step 4. The players investigates the clean area. If they succeed a DC 15 Investigation check, they realize its actually a pit.

Step 5. The players decide what they want to do next.


Find Traps is a spell that skips 2, 3, & 4 for the purposes of finding traps. As soon as you cast it, you know that the floor is trapped but the tapestry, door, and chest are not. Its useful for exploration and can even detect invisible traps or hazards.

Unfortunately, DMs skimp out on mapmaking and trap-setting so it hardly matters in those games.

I would say it happens because trap-finding is a boring, uninteresting layer of play that slows a session down to a crawl at the best of times. Making it take even longer by doing what you describe isn't something many people are going to do willingly.

[DarknessEternal]

OP, please come up with 100 new and unique spells which are all perfectly balanced against each other and against all other existing spells at every level and campaign type.

Start a new thread on this topic when you have done so.

[MaxWilson]

OP, please come up with 100 new and unique spells which are all perfectly balanced against each other and against all other existing spells at every level and campaign type.

Start a new thread on this topic when you have done so.

WotC didn't design all new spells for 5E either, they adapted a handful of AD&D spells and 3E spells.

The Book of Lost Spells from Frog God Games (https://www.froggodgames.com/product/book-of-lost-spells/) adapts another 708 spells. The balance isn't perfect (I think some of the Necromancy enhancements are questionable, Soul Shield is overpowered for a 2nd level spell, and Iron Core is stronger than I would prefer) but it's better than the PHB spells' balance (Polymorph, Simulacrum, Wall of Force, Aura of Vitality, Conjure Animals, Wish). I have given copies of that book to players to encourage them to think of their own spells to research, telling them "here are some examples of what might be possible for you to research."

[Asisreo1]

3d4+3 (10.5) with 100% accuracy, vs 1d12 (6.5) with a chance to miss. Compare apples to apples, this is a first level spell slot.

What I'm describing isn't apples to apples. What you're getting out of the spell slot is basically the initial hit as well as the damage that could potentially increase based on the damage dice increase for the slot expended.

Hold on, allow me to explain.

First, we're going to compare MM to WB and compare exactly how the damage works. Everyone says the damage is not 1d12*rounds but its To-hit%(1d12*rounds) which is obvious.

But lets actually calculate assuming that actions aren't a problem, no advantage is given, and concentration/range isn't threatened (alot, I know). How many rounds does it take for WB to equal MM?

Well, if the damage is %(1d12*rounds +1d12) and MM at level 1 is 10.5 and we assume % = .65, its simple to calculate. That is .65(6.5x+6.5)=10.5. simply, x = 1.48 or, rounding up, 2 rounds.

but there's something clearly missing, I hear you say. The MM caster would be casting something like firebolt while the WB caster does their second turn of WB, increasing the damage.

Well, the formula changes to .65(6.5x+6.5)=10.5+5.5x0.65(x-1)

Solve for x, we get x=4.153 or roughly 5 rounds.

So, after 5 rounds, WB did more damage than MM and FB spam. Unless you're having a fairly boring fight, this isn't very likely.

This is all just spell-spell comparison with no features/conditions boosting one over the other.



So you're assuming that someone else in your party is casting web, yes? Since both these spells are concentration. You're also assuming those targets don't escape the web (at which point they're close enough to potentially melee you), and that you're level 6, with a 22 Cha and blue dragon heritage, if I'm reading this right? Because 2x 6.5 is 13, +cha on one of those rolls. And this assumes that you've hit both attack rolls. Frankly, if the situation you've described works exactly how you've laid it out, it's not Witch Bolt doing the work, it's Web. You have a neutered shooting gallery and should be using basic ranged attacks/cantrips.

I am indeed assuming a wizard/2nd sorcerer is casting web, which is what I said previously.

However, the enemy requires taking an action to get out of web which means they likely can't retaliate immediately on their turn. Escaping the web is part of the challenge, especially since there's no guarantee they succeed anyways.

However, Twin Witch Bolt will dispatch them much quicker than cantrip spam, reducing the amount of turns, and therefore the amount of chances for them to escape.

And if they do escape, well your dpr is still ~.8x1d12+cha per round because there doesn't need to be a hit-check every round. The DPR uses the initial accuracy only.

[Tanarii]

However, Twin Witch Bolt will dispatch them much quicker than cantrip spam, reducing the amount of turns, and therefore the amount of chances for them to escape.
Meanwhile you've wasted a known spell on something that will only happen maybe once in level range 1-4, after which is becomes subpar to just casting cantrips no matter what, and you're definitely trading it out.

We (meaning the boards) have been down the path of attempting to justify True Strike and Witch Bolt many times. But no one has ever provided sufficient reason for actually spending the time to waste a known spell on it in a non-theory crafted actual game situation. Many of us have been on the "justifying it" side at one point or another, before coming to understand they're actually harmful in their currently printed version, as they are trap options.

There aren't many trap options in 5e. But True Strike and Witch Bolt qualify.

[ProsecutorGodot]

However, Twin Witch Bolt will dispatch them much quicker than cantrip spam, reducing the amount of turns, and therefore the amount of chances for them to escape.

Twin Witch Bolt seems especially bad, the spell ends on both if either one becomes an invalid target.

[Asisreo1]

Meanwhile you've wasted a known spell on something that will only happen maybe once in level range 1-4, after which is becomes subpar to just casting cantrips no matter what, and you're definitely trading it out.
Well, the thing about spells known specifically is that if something goes from decent to bad after a level up, you can simply swap it out for a better spell of higher level.

So a sorcerer going from level 4 to 5 can swap out Witchbolt for, say, Haste and grab the Fireball you were going to take anyways. If you want a second 3rd-level spell, you have to remove a lower level spell anyways.

So its not that swapping the spell hurts as bad. In fact, I'd say doing so would be more optimal. In a general sense.

But IDK why everytime I ever talk about Witchbolt, people are so quick to put words in my text. I never, ever said it was a good option or that its even worth taking as a spell. My point was how difficult it is to balance the spell because alot of its limitations are there to prevent something like stacking WB with another WB over again or having it stick to it.

I mean, my analysis literally tells you to ignore very likely restrictions because any one of them could easily eliminate the spell. It was all hypothetical.

I don't think WB was meant to be a permanent and iconic spell in any class list but I do see that it underperforms.

[Theodoxus]

WB would be my go-to spell if I were the Royal Gelatinous Cube Slayer.

[heavyfuel]

OP, please come up with 100 new and unique spells which are all perfectly balanced against each other and against all other existing spells at every level and campaign type.

Start a new thread on this topic when you have done so.

Sure thing. You will, of course, compensate me for my labor as a game designer like WotC did, right? I'll DM you my bank account info :smallwink:

[MaxWilson]

WB would be my go-to spell if I were the Royal Gelatinous Cube Slayer.

Witch Bolt is so bad that it's not good even against Gelatinous Cubes because it guarantees that you'll be in range to be engulfed: Witch Bolt ends if you're ever not within 30', and a cube can move 15' and then move another 15' as part of an Engulf.

[Theodoxus]

Witch Bolt is so bad that it's not good even against Gelatinous Cubes because it guarantees that you'll be in range to be engulfed: Witch Bolt ends if you're ever not within 30', and a cube can move 15' and then move another 15' as part of an Engulf.

Well, talking about metagaming! if a DM did that, so the GC ignored my mates also out to kill it to could prove how bad WB really is... well... we have a different problem :smallwink:

On top of that, their engulfing charge allows you to make a dex save to move out of the way to avoid the effect... provided there's sufficient room in the tunnel, you can maintain the spell without worry. (we're talking about a PC specifically built for killing GCs... I think human with Resilient: Dex would be a top choice.)

[ProsecutorGodot]

Well, talking about metagaming! if a DM did that, so the GC ignored my mates also out to kill it to could prove how bad WB really is... well... we have a different problem :smallwink:

Or it's scooping up all of you, it moves 15ft and engulfs everything in that path. The environment you would typically encounter one of these in ensures you'd all be reasonably clumped up for it.


On top of that, their engulfing charge allows you to make a dex save to move out of the way to avoid the effect... provided there's sufficient room in the tunnel, you can maintain the spell without worry. (we're talking about a PC specifically built for killing GCs... I think human with Resilient: Dex would be a top choice.)
Is there anything preventing the cube from forcing multiple saves if it still has movement after pushing you?

[JoeJ]

Well, talking about metagaming! if a DM did that, so the GC ignored my mates also out to kill it to could prove how bad WB really is... well... we have a different problem :smallwink:

Considering the cube's level of intellect, I'd expect it in combat to always move either toward the nearest detectable food or away from the greatest source of pain. Both at once, if the situation allows.

[Theodoxus]

Is there anything preventing the cube from forcing multiple saves if it still has movement after pushing you?

Only it's base 15' of movement. If I were to stand back 45' and ready to cast WB when the Cube moves to 30', and then on my turn make sure I'm always 25' away, it'll only be able to charge once a round. Yeah, even with a 16 Dex and Res: Dex for a +5 to the save at 1st level (which is a deadly encounter), I'm bound to eventually fail and get engulfed. But again, that's what my mates are for. I mean, it's a party built to take these things out..

But man, y'all are putting in a lot of brainpower to disenfranchise a joke reply.


Considering the cube's level of intellect, I'd expect it in combat to always move either toward the nearest detectable food or away from the greatest source of pain. Both at once, if the situation allows.

Wait, I thought WB was a terrible spell... you mean it's doing more damage than the rest of the team?!? Wow, my party sucks.

[ProsecutorGodot]

But man, y'all are putting in a lot of brainpower to disenfranchise a joke reply.

Witch Bolt doesn't even make a good joke.

If it's a joke, let it ride rather than doubling down on it after it wasn't received as one.

[MaxWilson]

But man, y'all are putting in a lot of brainpower to disenfranchise a joke reply.

Sorry about that, it just jumped out at me. If you'd said Black Pudding instead I wouldn't have said anything.

[Theodoxus]

Sorry about that, it just jumped out at me. If you'd said Black Pudding instead I wouldn't have said anything.

LOL - I can just imagine a Royal Black Pudding wrangler using WB to slice and dice until they're small enough for single serving cups.

[MaxWilson]

LOL - I can just imagine a Royal Black Pudding wrangler using WB to slice and dice until they're small enough for single serving cups.

If that actually worked, it would be a great way to produce food for a super-Nabassu (e.g. a True Polymorphed PC), but unfortunately 5E Black Puddings can only split twice (Large to Medium, then each of those can split once to Small).

[Theodoxus]

Eh, it's why I prefer spotted **** to black pudding...

[Willie the Duck]

Take Invocations, for example. I'm pretty sure it would be considered overpowered if level 9 Warlocks could pick an invocation of at-will Shield. So why isn't it overpowered that they can pick at will Jump? If Shield and Jump are both 1st level, they should have roughly the same power/versatility. So either Shield is underleveled or Jump is overleveled. And if so, why?

This does not follow. Spell levels do not indicate how powerful a spell would be if you were able to cast them at-will.

[Jerrykhor]

Why aren't races created equal? Why aren't classes created equal? Why aren't ANYTHING created equal?

Because life isn't fair.

[Tanarii]

This does not follow. Spell levels do not indicate how powerful a spell would be if you were able to cast them at-will.
In addition to being limited by using up 1/4 of available resources, Shield shares those resources with other 1st level spells. There's multiple contentions. At-will it's situationally not even a very serious action contention.

[Asisreo1]

Why aren't races created equal?
Uh oh...well, this has quickly become an awkward discussion.

[Luccan]

I think the balance of spells by level is mostly based on problems they solve. There's not a great need to directly compare Jump and Shield in a vacuum because they solve different problems. One certainly remains more relevant in the long term, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be a different level. It doesn't help that what makes Jump less impactful is there are superior movement options whereas nothing ever replaces +5 AC the moment you need it. If we got Better Shield at level 2 or 3 like we get better mobility spells, or didn't have Fly and Misty Step, they might seem more balanced.

[Glorthindel]

True. But that doesn't apply to e.g. True Strike, Witch Bolt, Polymorph or Conjure Animals. The issues should have become immediately apparent to a large number of playtesters almost immediately.


I think the problem with a lot of things, is often the playtesters are brought in too late in the day if fixing something is more than just a typo or an errant number. I was DM for a playtest group for the first edition of Dark Heresy, and there was a really stupid interaction* on a fairly iconic piece of equipment that despite being called out in every report I submitted (and talking to other testers, I wasn't the only one), it went unfixed and made it into the finished rulebook. The problem I suspect in that case, is that to fix it right meant changing something significant elsewhere in the rules, and the quick-fix solution might have upset die-hard fans, as it was changing the nature of the iconic item.

* The item was the Power Sword, a fairly iconic officer and commander weapon in Warhammer 40k, and one of the top tier weapons (and definitely the top tier sword) for anyone intending to be a melee combatant. In Dark Heresy, every weapon had a damage code which informed which critical hit table you rolled on for crits caused with the weapon. Being a power sword, this weapon had the E code (for energy) instead of the R code (for rending) that every other sword and blade-like item had. Fine, just flavour, right? Well, no - you see, the E code was mostly used for energy, plasma, and fire weapons (Lasguns, Plasma Guns, Flamers), and the reason each of these different damage types had different critical tables was to give more appropriate flavour to the critical effects, so the critical effects for the E category were very definitely flavoured more towards the effects suffered by someone set on fire or hit with a wave of intense heat. And right at the top of the critical chart for E crits was a nice entry that read "if the target is carrying any ammunition, there is a 50% chance it explodes...(game specific rules jargon)... If the target is carrying any grenades or missiles, one round after the damage was dealt they detonate where the targets body lays". Now, that really isn't the sort of possible effect you want your melee weapon inflicting, especially because, being the top-tier weapon weilded by likely a melee specialist, you are going to be hitting that top level crit with considerable regularity. So sorry, any of you DH melee players who got blown up by your power sword, I really did try to get it noticed!

[Sneak Dog]

Balance is hard. Overvalue it, and everything becomes formulaic and similar. Undervalue it, and heaps of options fall into disuse in favour of the outlying powerful ones.
Now add that you've nine spell levels to balance within and against each other, martials that work on a different scale but still need to be balanced against spell levels with and without feats.

That's without even adding the three different pillars of play, but just looking at combat. And with abandoning magical items as part of the equation.

Sadly, 5e didn't quite succeed here. And it's fair to expect or hope for better in an expensive system designed by talented professional game designers. Even if said expectations/hopes might be unrealistic. (Are they?)


Now, that really isn't the sort of possible effect you want your melee weapon inflicting, especially because, being the top-tier weapon weilded by likely a melee specialist, you are going to be hitting that top level crit with considerable regularity. So sorry, any of you DH melee players who got blown up by your power sword, I really did try to get it noticed!

As a power fist user in Rogue Trader, where the 'power weapons cause energy damage, and the energy crit table is volatile in close range' thing still exists, I thank you for your efforts.

[Willie the Duck]

I think the balance of spells by level is mostly based on problems they solve. There's not a great need to directly compare Jump and Shield in a vacuum because they solve different problems. One certainly remains more relevant in the long term, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be a different level. It doesn't help that what makes Jump less impactful is there are superior movement options whereas nothing ever replaces +5 AC the moment you need it. If we got Better Shield at level 2 or 3 like we get better mobility spells, or didn't have Fly and Misty Step, they might seem more balanced.

Another issue is that we are looking at the first level. As the floor (cantrips are going to interact with the rules differently, because they specifically are at-wills), level one is going to contain solutions to any problems the designers think magic should solve, that doesn't require a higher level. Jump can't be a level 0.5 spell, simply because it be deemed unequal to shield. It's also not easy to 'even them out,' even if that were a goal. Would reducing shield to +4 AC and make jump quadruple jumping distances actually make them equal?

EDIT: adding a second point --
Shield is also a good example of the pitfalls of trying to formulize spell power (or game power in general), based on how it worked in 3e. In 3e, magic items, particularly wands and scrolls, were priced based on a formula, one that worked based on spell level. A wand of <1st level spell> cast as a first level caster (spellcaster level influenced effect--like cantrips do in 5e--since the 'upcast for more effect' mechanic had not been adopted) cost the same if it were shield, jump, magic missile, shield of faith, divine favor, or cure light wounds. Some spells just weren't impressive when cast as a 1st level caster at the point where such wands were relatively cheap (a 1st level-caster magic missile, for example, probably wasn't worth spending the round casting). Others were (shield lasted a full minute and granted all the AC it ever would, cure light wounds was 1d8+1 compared to the 1d8+5 a higher level casting might reach). It highlighted to me that you really need to understand the context of things before assigning value.

[Osuniev]

In my spell research rules, it's because mediocre spells take less time, talent, gold, and luck to create than highly optimized, overpowered spells. A first level wizard could probably recreate Witch Bolt in a single week, but Find Familiar would be orders of magnitude harder and more expensive.

The PHB/DMG have essentially no spell research rules at all so you might as well adopt my explanation until proven otherwise, even if you're not using spell research rules. It makes sense, and explains the existence of awful spells and terrific spells alike.

Hey, this might not be the place to ask, but I'd love to read your spell research rules. One of my PC expressed an interest in developing her own spells...

On the subject of Spell Equality :
I personally feel Spells should NOT be equal, because real equality would make them less interesting. So the fact that Fireball is stronger than Lightning Bolt like 75 % of the time is fine. The fact that it's an area of effect spell that's often better against a solo opponent than single target spells of higher level is... annoying, but acceptable ?

HOWEVER, some spells (True Strike, Witchbolt, but also some others such as Mordenkainen's Sword or Melf Acid Arrow) are actually bad because developpers screwed up in obvious ways.

In my games, I DOUBLED Witch Bolt damage to 2d12. It's still not as good as Magic Missile in most cases, and the rare situations where it's really good (Twinned, the caster is somehow able to maintain concentration 3+ turns, the caster doesn't need the concentration for something else, the caster has advantage, the target cannot escape rage etc...) are convoluted enough that it's still less useful than many, many other spells (Sleep, Shield, Disguise Self, Unseen Servant, etc....) in the eyes of all of my players.

You could argue Witch Bolt shouldn't be as powerful as I made it. But the spell RAW is very, very, very bad, and that's definitely not intentional.

[diplomancer]

I'm not going to defend the trap options; they are traps and should be either eliminated or changed.

But I think it's perfectly alright to have, at least for spells up to 5th level, spells that are considerably more powerful than other spells of the same level; those spells are, in a way, the "must-haves", and if players don't get access to them at those levels they'd feel short-changed. But if ALL spells were balanced around the "must-haves", the increased versatility might make casters too powerful.

This way, the solution of having a few "must haves" per spell level, with the majority of spells falling behind them but somewhat balanced between each other gives the possibility of versatility to the casters (with the choice between the "average" spells), but without making them more powerful than they already are.

[MaxWilson]

Hey, this might not be the place to ask, but I'd love to read your spell research rules. One of my PC expressed an interest in developing her own spells...


They basically mirror AD&D spell research rules from the Complete Wizard's Handbook. The bulk of the rules are oriented around how to do the research, not how to design the spell (that's still a subjective judgment by DM and player based on analogy to existing spells).

Here goes though for those who care:


First step: Design. Propose a spell to the DM including components, casting time, AoE, effect, etc. DM will tell you if the spell is possible, and what the effective level of the spell is based on analogies to existing spells. You and the DM discuss any tweaks you'd like to make to the proposed spell to raise or lower the level, e.g. adding a concentration requirement might lower the effective level by perhaps -2 spell levels (based on looking at Protection From Evil vs. Magic Circle), whereas changing the casting time to a bonus action might raise it by +1 or +2 levels (based on looking at Misty Step vs. Dimension Door). Note: this is not necessarily the slot you will need to use to cast the spell. That's determined in step #3 below, slot optimization.

Second step: Acquire Library. Get access to a spell research library of the appropriate effective level. For a spell of effective level N, you need access to a research library worth at least N^2 * 1000 gp. (Half the money you spend on research adds to the permanent value of the library, as you buy esoteric treatises and arcane reference libraries, etc.) To research a 5th level spell, you need to invest 25,000 gp or more in building your research library, or join a magical college or organization that will grant you access to theirs.

Third step: Slot Optimization. Decide how heavily you want to optimize the spell relative to its effective level. This will affect the difficulty of research. If you don't care about the spell slot cost, you can use brute-force techniques to quickly and reliably research a spell that gets the job done but isn't usable by low-level mages. Drawmij's Instant Summons probably is 6th level because some lazy archmage brute-forced the spell research for his own personal one-off use--I'd call it effectively 4th level in power if you drop the ritual tag, 3rd once you consider the expensive material component. A PC could re-invent Drawmij's Instant Summons as an 3rd level non-ritual spell pretty easily, if they had a reason to. Conversely, Fireball is effectively about 5th level IMO but was optimized by someone long ago to be cast from a 3rd level slot--it would be hard to re-invent Fireball without raising the level. Spells cannot be optimized by more than 50% of their effective level--there are no 2nd level Fireballs allowed.

Fourth step: Trial and Error. Research the spell over the course of several weeks or months. You must spend all of your creative energies on research during this time, typically working eight to twelve hours a day and avoiding distractions like adventuring. Every week you must pay N*100 gp where N is the effective spell level (and half that money goes towards increasing the permanent value of your research library) and must make a successful Intelligence (Arcana) checks (no matter whether you're a wizard or sorcerer or cleric or warlock or whatever) of DC 10 + N + [optimization penalty], where the optimization penalty is 4 * [effective level - researched level]. After 2 failures, the version of the spell you're researching acquires a quirk which the DM will inform you of (an unintended change), unless you opt to start over. After 3 failures, the research has hit a dead end and must be started over from the beginning. Otherwise, after N successes, the spell research completes and you now know and/or have memorized the spell and can write it in your spellbook if you have one, discarding another spell you know or have memorized if you are over the limit for your current class/level.

Example:

For example, re-researching Fireball as a 4th level spell would require a level 5 research library (25,000 gp) and 5 weeks of successful DC 10 + 5 (effective level 5) + 4 (optimization penalty) = DC 19 Int (Arcana) checks at a cost of 500 gp per week, and each week of research increases the value of your library by 250 gp.

Re-researching a poison-based version of Melf's Acid Arrow (effective level 1, actual level 2) would require a level 1 research library (1000 gp) and 1 week with a DC 11 - 4 = DC 7 Int (Arcana) check, 1 success required, at a cost of 100 gp that week (with 50 gp going towards increasing the library's value).

[Valmark]

Fireball as a 5th level spell seems so hard to justify when put in comparison to Synaptic Static- Fireball has 1/4 more range (150 instead of 120) and can set things on fire as it's advantages (admittedly, the latter is also a disadvantage).

SS has a better save, an added Concentration-free debuff and a better damage type.

[DarknessEternal]

Sure thing. You will, of course, compensate me for my labor as a game designer like WotC did, right? I'll DM you my bank account info :smallwink:

Since you're going to come up with a dumpster fire that makes the Player's Handbook look like the Mona Lisa, no.

[MaxWilson]

Fireball as a 5th level spell seems so hard to justify when put in comparison to Synaptic Static- Fireball has 1/4 more range (150 instead of 120) and can set things on fire as it's advantages (admittedly, the latter is also a disadvantage).

SS has a better save, an added Concentration-free debuff and a better damage type.

Fireball can also damage unintelligent creatures like snakes.

Yeah, in the past I've actually put Fireball at 4.5, meaning it takes four weeks at 400 gp each but the DC is 16, not 14, because it's optimized by half a level (+4 DC per level of optimization). I think Cone of Cold is barely better (standard 5th level) and Synaptic Static is clearly better (5.5 or 6). There's definitely a conversation to be had between player and DM on deciding what's the fair, natural level.

[heavyfuel]

Since you're going to come up with a dumpster fire that makes the Player's Handbook look like the Mona Lisa, no.

"If you don't like it, do a better job"
"If it's a job, pay me"
"No, you'll do a bad job"

:smallconfused:

[Unoriginal]

"If you don't like it, do a better job"
"If it's a job, pay me"
"No, you'll do a bad job"

:smallconfused:

"If you don't like it, do a better job" can imply that the person saying it does not believe their interlocutor can actually do a better job.

Other times it is used as a "you're too lazy to do the job, so don't criticize those who do", but it seems it is not the case here.

[KorvinStarmast]

A spell level is a range, not a point. Some spells are strong for their level, others are weak for their level. The OP might as well ask "why aren't all cars created equal?"

Suggestion is going to win you more friends than Fireball, after all. Heh, that got me grinning.

... the real big reason why there is such a big discrepancy across the spell list is because it's too darn big. QFT

The PHB/DMG have essentially no spell research rules at all so you might as well adopt my explanation until proven otherwise, even if you're not using spell research rules. It makes sense, and explains the existence of awful spells and terrific spells alike. I like your take on this. I am quite biased, having grown up with spell research as an integral part of the game.

Because the Lead Rules Designer, Jeremy Crawford, is absolutely terrible at evaluating game balance. Mearls gets a share of the blame here. With that said, I get the idea that balance was not The Objective, it was A Supporting Objective for this edition (which appears to be where there is a sharp distinction between 4e and 5e).

But also Polymorph and Simulcrum. Polymorph is, like fireball iconic: it is powered down compared to some previous editions. Simulacrum doesn't come on line until leve 15. I am not too worried about Simulacrum, though I suspect it could use a tweak.

Conjure spells with pick number by CR. I think the objective there is variety and fun, not pure balance. In that, the design succeeds admirably. I have found that at the table, the spells are manageable, but I have decided to work with the players and have them make a top three or a top five list so that we know what's on tap; also, they have to create the smart cards for their own reference for a given beast. Can't wait until the Druid gets the woodland beings option; looking forward to that conversation.

[JoeJ]

Sure thing. You will, of course, compensate me for my labor as a game designer like WotC did, right? I'll DM you my bank account info :smallwink:

Sure. I'll pay you exactly the same way I pay the game designers at WotC. Once you release a finished product I'll look at it, and read some reviews. Then, if I decide I want it enough to pay your asking price, I'll pay.

[DarknessEternal]

"If you don't like it, do a better job"
"If it's a job, pay me"
"No, you'll do a bad job"

:smallconfused:

I'll just leave this here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)

[MaxWilson]

Sure thing. You will, of course, compensate me for my labor as a game designer like WotC did, right? I'll DM you my bank account info :smallwink:

Certainly I will. Just go ahead and DM me your bank account info ASAP please, kthxbye.


Suggestion is going to win you more friends than Fireball, after all.

Depends how you use it. Fireball at a Kender convention will win you more friends than Suggestion possibly could.


Polymorph is, like fireball iconic: it is powered down compared to some previous editions. Simulacrum doesn't come on line until leve 15. I am not too worried about Simulacrum, though I suspect it could use a tweak.

The big problem with Polymorph in 5E is not an iconic part--it's the fact that it gives you a whole pile of "new" HP, because when the spell ends you get your original HP back. If Polymorph simply excluded current HP from the list of what was changed by the spell, just like Polymorph Other does in AD&D, it would still be iconic and yet it wouldn't be a balance problem. Trading in a 7th level PC for a Giant Ape doing ~40 DPR in melee but with only ~70 HP left is a boost, but not as anomalously strong for a 4th level spell as trading in a 7th level PC for a Giant Ape doing ~40 DPR and with 152 extra HP, after which you get back the original PC undamaged.

[stoutstien]

I'll just leave this here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)

DK effect would be irrelevant in the discussion of compensation of time when the task would be impossible to determine until after completion. It would be impossible to prove if they would fail at the task or not.

[MaxWilson]

DK effect would be irrelevant in the discussion of compensation of time when the task would be impossible to determine until after completion. It would be impossible to prove if they would fail at the task or not.

DK effect is relevant any time the skill required to recognize success in an activity is the same skill required to succeed in the activity. E.g. Coaching baseball is not the same skill as playing baseball, but recognizing correct English grammar is 80%+ of the way towards using correct English grammar, so DK applies to English grammar but not coaching baseball.

DK therefore probably does apply to game balance design, to some extent, and person ABC expressing skepticism that person XYZ can do a good job at creating balanced spells could be based on ABC's reading of XYZ's prior statements about the balance of existing spells. It would be great to see XYZ's output before judging, but if XYZ refuses to do any work before receiving money, then all you can go off of is XYZ's prior statements about existing balance, and if those haven't been cogent and insightful then it's reasonable not to give them money.

[Willie the Duck]

We could stop beating around the bush and just recognize that DarknessEternal does not think Heavy Fuel would do a better job at creating balanced spells than the existing game designers. It could be seen as an insult, but honestly doesn't have to be (there are a lot more people who are fans of things than would be good at the making of the thing).


The big problem with Polymorph in 5E is not an iconic part--it's the fact that it gives you a whole pile of "new" HP, because when the spell ends you get your original HP back. If Polymorph simply excluded current HP from the list of what was changed by the spell, just like Polymorph Other does in AD&D, it would still be iconic and yet it wouldn't be a balance problem. Trading in a 7th level PC for a Giant Ape doing ~40 DPR in melee but with only ~70 HP left is a boost, but not as anomalously strong for a 4th level spell as trading in a 7th level PC for a Giant Ape doing ~40 DPR and with 152 extra HP, after which you get back the original PC undamaged.

It is definitely the specific implementation of many iconic spells that make them a problem, rather than the general concept. I'm not sure if leaving the HP alone would be enough ("go to the Monster Manual and pick the abilities of any from a lightly qualified list" is strong no matter what, especially if you do not limit yourself to the monster list that existed when the spell was balanced), but it would go a long way. Any of the Gate/Planar ____ spells can have DM-gated negotiation requirements added. Simulacrum could create a de-powered version of the target, or have them not have all the specific knowledge of the target (such that if you have an eyelash from someone, you effectively know all their passwords, activation words, and other secret knowledge) or both. Force Cage could have rules for breaking out of/through by mundane means (force being something of a trump card in most cases is a rather arbitrary decision to begin with). All of the summons and animates could have gates or restrictions or other bits and bobs that could keep them in line (the skeleton archer brigade or similar would be harder to abuse if it took the controller's action every round to command them, or something like that).

The OP might as well ask "why aren't all cars created equal?"
I think the objective there is variety and fun, not pure balance. In that, the design succeeds admirably. I have found that at the table, the spells are manageable, but I have decided to work with the players and have them make a top three or a top five list so that we know what's on tap; also, they have to create the smart cards for their own reference for a given beast. Can't wait until the Druid gets the woodland beings option; looking forward to that conversation.
This, I think, explains a lot of things about the game. Their priorities did not match ours. Given how unbalanced the weapons, armor, and various fighting setups are, I think that balance certainly wasn't priority #1.

[Pex]

Maybe it's a "go figure", but I don't have any problem with Fireball or Polymorph at all. It's possible for a spell to be objectively bad or too good, but more often the value depends on the user or not-user as the case may be. I don't like Sleep. Others do. I like Sacred Flame. Others don't. They're wrong, but oh well. I know they admitted they made Fireball a bit overpowered, but I do not find that mistake. It's not about POWER!. It gives the spellcaster player fun in casting a big boom spell, and that's a perfectly legitimate thing for the game designers to do.

[stoutstien]

DK effect is relevant any time the skill required to recognize success in an activity is the same skill required to succeed in the activity. E.g. Coaching baseball is not the same skill as playing baseball, but recognizing correct English grammar is 80%+ of the way towards using correct English grammar, so DK applies to English grammar but not coaching baseball.

DK therefore probably does apply to game balance design, to some extent, and person ABC expressing skepticism that person XYZ can do a good job at creating balanced spells could be based on ABC's reading of XYZ's prior statements about the balance of existing spells. It would be great to see XYZ's output before judging, but if XYZ refuses to do any work before receiving money, then all you can go off of is XYZ's prior statements about existing balance, and if those haven't been cogent and insightful then it's reasonable not to give them money.

The issue the "unique" clause in the original challenge of making 100 spells. One could take the DMG spell creation rules and make 100 damage spells alone using different damage types, duration, target size(aoe), and damage die sizes. Would that fullfil the order or is damage not unique? DK doesn't work well with subjective knowledge.
there is a term for it but for the life of me I can't think of it right now.

[Snails]

Another issue is that we are looking at the first level. As the floor (cantrips are going to interact with the rules differently, because they specifically are at-wills), level one is going to contain solutions to any problems the designers think magic should solve, that doesn't require a higher level. Jump can't be a level 0.5 spell, simply because it be deemed unequal to shield. It's also not easy to 'even them out,' even if that were a goal. Would reducing shield to +4 AC and make jump quadruple jumping distances actually make them equal?

That is a good point. There are many orthogonal kinds of problems. It will be difficult enough to get agreement that Magic Missile and Shield are "equal", but at least they are solving different problems within one kind of scenario (fighting), so we can roughly gauge how useful they are in many similar scenarios through play experience.

As for Jump specifically, if it could cast on 6 friends at once and had minor other improvements, that would offer new tactics to the whole party for dealing with difficult terrain, in a way that might compete with Fly in some situations.

[MaxWilson]

Maybe it's a "go figure", but I don't have any problem with Fireball or Polymorph at all. It's possible for a spell to be objectively bad or too good, but more often the value depends on the user or not-user as the case may be. I don't like Sleep. Others do. I like Sacred Flame. Others don't. They're wrong, but oh well. I know they admitted they made Fireball a bit overpowered, but I do not find that mistake. It's not about POWER!. It gives the spellcaster player fun in casting a big boom spell, and that's a perfectly legitimate thing for the game designers to do.

Honestly my big objection is that I'm increasingly dissatisfied with how poorly pure warriors scale, even with DMG magical gear. The fact that a 15th level Cavalier using a Flame Tongue longsword (one of the better magical items out there, for damage) does only 3 x d8+2d6+5ish (~50) damage per round, times hit rate (i.e. 24.15 DPR against a Goristro because they are AC 19 and fire-resistance Goristro), kind of bothers me.

Contrast that with a wizard abusing the biggest and best spells for 15th level (e.g. a wizard with three Planar Bound Armanites, each doing 20.15 DPR to that Goristro on average).

I don't mind that 5E makes magic items non-required, but as time goes on I feel like it's extremely under-ambitious in terms of what its very rare and legendary magic items do, except for Blackrazor. I think I want that Cavalier lusting after the possibility of someday growing to giant size (Huge) and using giant weapons (3d8 vorpal longsword +3) with giant Strength (Str 29, +9 to hit and damage) so he can do 3 x 3d8+12 damage (74.70 DPR to that Goristro with a pretty good chance each round of a insta-kill). Otherwise what is even the point of playing a high-level non-Sharpshooter Fighter? Another example: DMG Armor of Invulnerability that makes you immune to nonmagical damage for 10 minutes a day and resistant the rest of the time isn't cool enough IMO to be legendary, not when a wizard can just Magic Jar into a True Polymorph-created Goliath Werebear body and be immune all of the time.

Magic items shouldn't feel like small potatoes, but too many of them do, especially compared to the best spells. That doesn't seem right.

[JoeJ]

Another example: DMG Armor of Invulnerability that makes you immune to nonmagical damage for 10 minutes a day and resistant the rest of the time isn't cool enough IMO to be legendary, not when a wizard can just Magic Jar into a True Polymorph-created Goliath Werebear body and be immune all of the time.

OTOH, Armor of Invulnerability doesn't disappear forever with one Dispel Magic.

[Doug Lampert]

Fireball as a 5th level spell seems so hard to justify when put in comparison to Synaptic Static- Fireball has 1/4 more range (150 instead of 120) and can set things on fire as it's advantages (admittedly, the latter is also a disadvantage).

SS has a better save, an added Concentration-free debuff and a better damage type.

Do we know that Synaptic Snap is effective level 5? Maybe it was 6 and researched down.

For this to work, I think you'd need to have a mental idea of 5-10 "standard" spells of each effective level, these spells need not be of that level, just close.

The PHB is (hopefully) the most common spells, and for spells that have been known for a long time, the best spells should be the most common. So Max's method invites thinking that MOST of the PHB spells have an effective level one or more higher than their actual level. Which is fine, I don't want PC wizards to be able to routinely spend a few weeks to invent a better version of an iconic spell.

[MaxWilson]

OTOH, Armor of Invulnerability doesn't disappear forever with one Dispel Magic.

One non-Counterspelled Dispel Magic and a high roll on the d20, that is.

Look, it's totally fair game that Armor of Invulnerability is harder to destroy than a spell effect that the wizard created last night before he went to bed (True Polymorph, Magic Jar). What bugs me is that Armor of Invulnerability's effect is so much weaker. I feel like investing a year of effort into making legendary armor ought, for the sake of the game, to result in something much more mythically epic than "you take half damage from nonmagical weapons".

A couple of years ago I wouldn't have said this, but after renewed experience with how magic works in AD&D and what high-level fighters are like there and what the role of magic items are... I feel like 5E magic items are weak in exactly the same way 5E magic spells are mostly weak, but without the 5E wizard's ability to cherry-pick the few non-weak spells.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'll just leave this here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) "Climb every mountain, ford every stream ..."

Depends how you use it. Fireball at a Kender convention will win you more friends than Suggestion possibly could. QFT :belkar:

The big problem with Polymorph in 5E is not an iconic part--it's the fact that it gives you a whole pile of "new" HP, because when the spell ends you get your original HP back. White room theory crafting may focus on the HP pool (and if the concentration ends after one round, that's gone) but most players play it for the coolness of being King Kong for a few rounds. Or for an hour. :smallcool: I don't think it needs to be touched. And then there's the party optimization approach: the GiTP boards give Protection Fighting Style short shrift based on individual character optimization; but when it's party optimization, all of a sudden you discover that it's a fine fighting style. HP not taken Don't Have to Be cured, and Crits not landed don't have Crit implications. I am currently in two games where Paladins have that fighting style and it is uncanny how muchy damage is prevented by that skill, particularly if the target has a decent AC.

This, I think, explains a lot of things about the game. Their priorities did not match ours. Given how unbalanced the weapons, armor, and various fighting setups are, I think that balance certainly wasn't priority #1. "Match ours" needs to be more clearly defined as a small portion of the player base who engages in charop and takes a critical look at balance.

I don't like Sleep. Others do. I like Sacred Flame. Others don't. They're wrong, but oh well. I cackled. :smallcool:

Honestly my big objection is that I'm increasingly dissatisfied with how poorly pure warriors scale, even with DMG magical gear. The fact that a 15th level Cavalier using a Flame Tongue longsword (one of the better magical items out there, for damage) does only 3 x d8+2d6+5ish (~50) damage per round, times hit rate (i.e. 24.15 DPR against a Goristro because they are AC 19 and fire-resistance Goristro), kind of bothers me. At which point I once agian see the value in party optimization as the preferred approach. I have to be cautious when I begin to lean too hard on DPR or on Single PC optimization; but with that said, once 8th level spells, and for that matter 7th level spells, are in play it gets a lot weirder a lot faster.

Magic items shouldn't feel like small potatoes, but too many of them do, especially compared to the best spells. That doesn't seem right. I won't try to discuss the 5e items in any length, but I agree that the feel for some of the items is off based on my past edition experience. When I go back to Monsters and Treasure in Original D&D, before Greyhawk bloat hit, Magic Swords were all assumed to have a chance to be intelligent ... Magic Swords were a big deal and Magic Users were fully Vancian casters. (Granted, they too sought avidly for Staves and Wands - and magic rings. )

Magic items have been toned way down, and personal Magic power toned up a bit. For most classes ...

For this edition, the Magic Items seem about right ish, though a few stand out as quite powerful. (Constrictor Staff is a great support item if you have melee allies ...)

[MaxWilson]

White room theory crafting may focus on the HP pool (and if the concentration ends after one round, that's gone) but (1) most players play it for the coolness of being King Kong for a few rounds. Or for an hour. :smallcool: I don't think it needs to be touched. And then there's the party optimization approach: the GiTP boards give Protection Fighting Style short shrift based on individual character optimization; but when it's party optimization, (2) all of a sudden you discover that it's a fine fighting style. HP not taken Don't Have to Be cured, and Crits not landed don't have Crit implications. I am currently in two games where Paladins have that fighting style and it is uncanny how muchy damage is prevented by that skill, particularly if the target has a decent AC.

(1) If so, then there would have been no downside if it had been written not to change current HP--these players would still find King Kong just as cool because it lets them smite with mighty fists and throw big rocks. It's too late to touch it now (you'd have to touch wildshape too) but it's too bad it wasn't written that way. After all, that's how AD&D does Polymorph Self and it's still a cool spell for e.g. gaining alternate movement modes and unarmed attacks.

(2) IMO no, when it's party optimization time you discover Protection is still a bad fighting style, because it's information-inefficient and therefore action economy-inefficient--you have to decide to use it before the attack is made. If three skeletons shoot arrows at the mage, the Protection style paladin has to (fruitlessly) guess which one those arrows might be about to hit the mage, unlike e.g. an Interception style paladin or the mage himself using Shield. If an Armanite attacks the mage three times, or an Iron Golem attacks twice, you have the exact same dilemma. Protection Fighting Style is only good against something with one big attack, e.g. a Chasme.

IMO if you want to protect people it's much better to take Athletics proficiency and Defense style and just grapple (and/or shove prone) whatever it is you're trying to protect people from. Doesn't work on everything (e.g. wraiths can't be grappled) but is generally better than Protection style, and helps multiple PCs instead of one. (Helps you stay alive = helps the person who would otherwise be targeted by whatever you're grappling.)


Honestly my big objection is that I'm increasingly dissatisfied with how poorly pure warriors scale, even with DMG magical gear. The fact that a 15th level Cavalier using a Flame Tongue longsword (one of the better magical items out there, for damage) does only 3 x d8+2d6+5ish (~50) damage per round, times hit rate (i.e. 24.15 DPR against a Goristro because they are AC 19 and fire-resistance Goristro), kind of bothers me.


At which point I once agian see the value in party optimization as the preferred approach. I have to be cautious when I begin to lean too hard on DPR or on Single PC optimization; but with that said, once 8th level spells, and for that matter 7th level spells, are in play it gets a lot weirder a lot faster.

Party optimization is the lens I'm viewing it through, and it actually makes the disparity worse. E.g. from a single-PC perspective, maybe it's enough that you can build a 5E fighter who does a ton of Sharpshooter damage from afar, but from a party optimization perspective, it's actually significantly better to have a Lyrandar Warlock (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?627953-Ultimate-Summoner-Mini-guide-to-Lyrandar-(Mark-of-Storms)-warlocks-and-padlocks&p=24952885#post24952885) conjuring up Fire, Air or Earth Elementals and then spamming Synaptic Static and Eldritch Blast on top of that.

As a DM I'd like both options to be equally attractive to a party, and powerful magic weapons would do that, but they're not idiomatic for 5E.

[Willie the Duck]

"Match ours" needs to be more clearly defined as a small portion of the player base who engages in charop and takes a critical look at balance.


Well, that too. But even for people outside that group, 'the designers may or may not have screwed up, but they also probably do not share your priorities 100%' is a good thing to keep in mind.

[Merudo]

Another reason why the balance of spells is out of whack, is that the spell durations are heavily constrained by the designers. Beside a few exceptions, the only durations allowed by designers are 1 round, 1 minute, 10 minutes, 1 hour, 8 hours and 1 day.

There are spells that would be balanced with "non-standard" duration, but can't really work under the constrained duration. For example, True Strike & Color Spray would probably be balanced with a 2-5 rounds duration, but are near useless with a 1 round duration.

[KorvinStarmast]

(1) If so, then there would have been no downside if it had been written not to change current HP--these players would still find King Kong just as cool because it lets them smite with mighty fists and throw big rocks. It's too late to touch it now (you'd have to touch wildshape too) but it's too bad it wasn't written that way. Given that HP resource management is a thing, polymorph is yet another way to avoid "cleric is healbot" trope. :smallcool: Likewise Wild Shape.

(2) IMO no, when it's party optimization time you discover Protection is still a bad fighting style, All I can say is that at our tables, it's been a heck of a boon in removing the need to heal damage that wasn't taken. YMMV.

IMO if you want to protect people it's much better to take Athletics proficiency and Defense style and just grapple (and/or shove prone) whatever it is you're trying to protect people from. Which takes an action; protection is a reaction. And as you point out with the unead example, grapple is not an "I win" button. :smallcool:

Party optimization is the lens I'm viewing it through, and it actually makes the disparity worse. ... conjuring up Fire, Air or Earth Elementals and then spamming Synaptic Static and Eldritch Blast on top of that. You are talking tier 3, which is fifth level spells. Fighters get three attacks, and if one of them uses protection each round also can prevent damage. But, what I found in mid to late tier3 was that unless a PC had serious AC, the to hit bonus for higher CR monsters was such that the disadvantage often didn't matter - other than preventing a critical hit. And at those levels, particularly with fire giants, preventing crits is a substantial good deal
That said: your point on "it's information efficiency does not work well against mobs" isn't wrong, though. That's where cutting words has a clear edge - maybe Protection Fighting Style needs to work that way?
Then again, as conjure 8 wolves shows, the action economy is not great when mobs are thrown in as a general case.

As a DM I'd like both options to be equally attractive to a party, and powerful magic weapons would do that, but they're not idiomatic for 5E. We are left with home brewing or adapting what's there; it's doable, but I'd advise caution in terms of paying attention to party power and power gaps before up grading any magic items.

[MaxWilson]

All I can say is that at our tables, (A) it's been a heck of a boon in removing the need to heal damage that wasn't taken. YMMV.

...

(C) You are talking tier 3, which is fifth level spells. Fighters get three attacks, and if one of them uses protection each round also can prevent damage. But, what I found in mid to late tier3 was that unless a PC had serious AC, (B) the to hit bonus for higher CR monsters was such that the disadvantage often didn't matter. Your point on "it's information efficiency does not work well against mobs isn't wrong, though. Then again, as conjure 8 wolves shows, the action economy is not great when mobs are thrown in as a general case.

(A) + (B) leaves me confused when and whether Protection was useful to you. What's a typical case where Protection was a game-changer for your party? E.g. an Ice Troll that splits its three attacks among three PCs, so Protection is used to protect the squishiest? If so what really protected you was was the DM's mercy in deciding to split the attacks in the first place instead of focusing on the squishy.

(C), no, it's late Tier 2 (9th-10th level), five levels earlier than mid-to-late Tier 3. And even in Tier 3 where you're facing e.g. all three versions of Auril, or adult dragons, it's still better to have e.g. a summoner warlock than a Protection-style Fighter--in fact, a Protection-style Fighter is probably one of the worst choices because your ranged damage stinks, your melee damage is mediocre, and your ability to protect others is situational at best (only affects one attack per round, requires you to stay close to the squishy to get any use out of it instead of keeping the threats away from the squishy, mostly irrelevant unless target has fairly high AC relative to monster's to-hit).

From a party optimization standpoint, it's hard for me to think of a Tier 2+ situation not involving an anti-magic field when you'd ever want a Protection-style Fighter in your party more than the alternatives (e.g. Sharpshooter Fighter, or Paladin 1+/Warlock 7+).

My response moved to here: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?628226-Protection-Fighting-Style-and-Party-Optimization-Is-it-good&p=24960681#post24960681

[KorvinStarmast]

(A) + (B) leaves me confused when and whether Protection was useful to you. What's a typical case where Protection was a game-changer for your party? It's Always On. As to data points: while it has kept surprising me for the last three months, how often Protection Style stops a hit (but not always, to be sure) there wer four successful intercepts on this Saturday night during a single fight, including a crit turned into just a hit.

My PC benefited from two of those "don't take damage **and** don't have to save versus the rider effect." That's a double benefit. As we go up in level I expect more attacks to have rider effects. (And IIRC one of those attacks blocked was a Lair action ...)
Now, before you raise Opportunity Attack - which is a consideration on 'what can I do with a reaction' - The Enemy Doesn't Conveniently Move to Grant You an OA with your reaction in a great many cases.
(On the other hand, if I my bard does a dissonant whispers, they might - depends on the enemy's ability to save).

Since my brother's paladin group just got into Tier 2 seven sessions ago, the mostly Tier 1 and some lower Tier 2 basis for his continued success in preventing damage may wane as tier 2 progresses: we'll see. So far, so good. As inefficient as our sessions are time wise, the odds of that group ever hitting level 12 are kinda low.


From a party optimization standpoint, it's hard for me to think of a Tier 2+ situation not involving an anti-magic field when you'd ever want a Protection-style Fighter in your party more than the alternatives (e.g. Sharpshooter Fighter, or Paladin 1+/Warlock 7+). And that's a problem with theory crafting, but, in defense of that school of analysis, it's utility depends on the presented threat.
Totally.
Against some threats, like seven orcs launching a volley of long bow shots, not quite as good, to be sure.
Against a hydra with seven heads, similar issues.

[MaxWilson]

It's Always On. As to data points: while it has kept surprising me for the last three months, how often Protection Style stops a hit (but not always, to be sure) there wer four successful intercepts on this Saturday night during a single fight, including a crit turned into just a hit.

My response is here: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?628226-Protection-Fighting-Style-and-Party-Optimization-Is-it-good&p=24960702#post24960702

[Asisreo1]

Honestly my big objection is that I'm increasingly dissatisfied with how poorly pure warriors scale, even with DMG magical gear. The fact that a 15th level Cavalier using a Flame Tongue longsword (one of the better magical items out there, for damage) does only 3 x d8+2d6+5ish (~50) damage per round, times hit rate (i.e. 24.15 DPR against a Goristro because they are AC 19 and fire-resistance Goristro), kind of bothers me.

Contrast that with a wizard abusing the biggest and best spells for 15th level (e.g. a wizard with three Planar Bound Armanites, each doing 20.15 DPR to that Goristro on average).
Why is the fighter limited to only having a flametongue at level 15?

Assuming regular play, there should be Very Rare items as well as quite a few Major and Minor Rare and Very Rare Items.

Its obviously underwhelming when the fighter has the equipment expected of a level 5 character but when they have Potions of Fire Giant Strength, Potions of Growth, Oils of Sharpness, and a Nine Lives Stealer. Things get so much more interesting on the fighter's side as they can action surge chug potions and implement oils to boost their damage to 63 damage a turn with a hefty +17 to-hit for this encounter.

I mean, magic items aren't meant to be so firmly and closely held that they're never seen. Once a player gets them and uses them, they'll start to really shine.

While Casters can technically also use MI, different magic items benefit different characters more. A wizard has much less use off of Oils of Sharpness even though they can technically use them. And Fighters have much less uses for a Staff of Power.

But its somewhat disingenuous to say that magic items don't hold up to snuff if you only gave one all the way at level 15.

[x3n0n]

Why is the fighter limited to only having a flametongue at level 15?

Assuming regular play, there should be Very Rare items as well as quite a few Major and Minor Rare and Very Rare Items.

Its obviously underwhelming when the fighter has the equipment expected of a level 5 character but when they have Potions of Fire Giant Strength, Potions of Growth, Oils of Sharpness, and a Nine Lives Stealer. Things get so much more interesting on the fighter's side as they can action surge chug potions and implement oils to boost their damage to 63 damage a turn with a hefty +17 to-hit for this encounter.

I mean, magic items aren't meant to be so firmly and closely held that they're never seen. Once a player gets them and uses them, they'll start to really shine.

While Casters can technically also use MI, different magic items benefit different characters more. A wizard has much less use off of Oils of Sharpness even though they can technically use them. And Fighters have much less uses for a Staff of Power.

But its somewhat disingenuous to say that magic items don't hold up to snuff if you only gave one all the way at level 15.

For comparison, the DMG suggests these permanent magic items per character
* 1 uncommon acquired over all of tier 1
* 2 uncommon or rare acquired over all of tier 2
* 2 rare, very rare, or legendary acquired over all of tier 3
* 1 legendary acquired in tier 4

Xanathar's suggests a much freer hand with "major" items:
* 2 uncommon over all of tier 1
* 5 uncommon and a rare over all of tier 2
* 1 uncommon, 2 rare, 2 very rare, and a legendary over all of tier 3
* 1 rare, 2 very rare, and 3 legendary in tier 4

So even within published materials, there's significant variation in recommendations.

[MaxWilson]

Why is the fighter limited to only having a flametongue at level 15?

Assuming regular play, there should be Very Rare items as well as quite a few Major and Minor Rare and Very Rare Items.

Its obviously underwhelming when the fighter has the equipment expected of a level 5 character but when they have Potions of Fire Giant Strength, Potions of Growth, Oils of Sharpness, and a Nine Lives Stealer. Things get so much more interesting on the fighter's side as they can action surge chug potions and implement oils to boost their damage to 63 damage a turn with a hefty +17 to-hit for this encounter.

I mean, magic items aren't meant to be so firmly and closely held that they're never seen. Once a player gets them and uses them, they'll start to really shine.

I'm AFB but I chose Flametongue because it's one of the better damage-boosting items in the game. If you have other suggestions I'm open to them! I'm not so interested in consumables though like above Potion of Fire Giant Strength because they only increase nova, not baseline.

I don't think the Nine Lives Stealer longsword (+2 to hit and damage, with a limited chance of instakill on a crit and failed DC 15 Con save) is more impressive than a Flametongue longsword, although on a greatsword that +2 is more important because GWM.

[Tanarii]

I'm AFB but I chose Flametongue because it's one of the better damage-boosting items in the game. If you have other suggestions I'm open to them!I'm pretty sure Flame Tongue got knocked down a bit because fire resistance is so common, and because a flaming sword is so iconic.

Contrast to Frost Brand: Very Rare, +1d6 cold, Fire Resistance, puts out nearby fires, and sheds light when you're freezing to death.

[Witty Username]

I think it's fair to say that some spells are straight up better than other spells at the same level. It's hard to justify Witch Bolt when you have access to Sleep. Equally as hard to justify Time Stop when you can now cast True Polymorph. I'd even place Fireball above Immolation, a 5th level spell.

So, if a spell level is a measure of how strong that spell is, why is it that some spells are considered so much better than others? Why is it that something like the Whispers of the Grave invocation something considered pretty weak to gain at level 9, when Master of Myriad Forms is considered better, but only available levels later?

This is a genuine question, though. Why is it?

Well, context matters:
1. Most spells are not designed with being cast at will in mind, shield vs jump is a good example of jump being a situational spell for traversal problems while shield is a generally useful defensive spell and since about a 3rd of d&d is combat, generally jump will because some times maybe once a day while shield may be cast once or twice a combat possibly 6+ times a day. Also why no one is allowed to get cure wounds at will.

2. High level vs low level relevance is a factor, sleep may be the best combat spell at first level because groups of weak enemies are encountered most often as a threat at tier 1 play, while shield is one of your 2-3 spell slots you have over the course of a day but at high levels shield and mage armor are useful resource investments of slots you don't have as much use for anymore.

3. Spell lists are not created equal, you didn't have an example of this but it is still a factor. Why is say Synaptic Static better than Flame strike, one is a Wizard spell and one is a cleric spell. Since the lists tend to emphasis different values this translates to some spells being more powerful or less powerful depending on their list.

4. Utility vs power: take Master of Myriad Forms and Mask of Many Faces. Mask of Many Faces is almost always the better option because of the lack of concentration, but Master of Myriad Forms is still arguably the more powerful effect because of the form options like natural weapons and the physical transformation being harder to disprove. Probably the best example of this is Fireball vs Circle of Death, Circle of Death is more powerful but in a way that is often not useful(60ft radius is cool, but often unneeded).

[Galithar]

Well, context matters:
1. Most spells are not designed with being cast at will in mind, shield vs jump is a good example of jump being a situational spell for traversal problems while shield is a generally useful defensive spell and since about a 3rd of d&d is combat, generally jump will because some times maybe once a day while shield may be cast once or twice a combat possibly 6+ times a day. Also why no one is allowed to get cure wounds at will.



Slightly off topic here, but it is possible to get at-will Cure Wounds (setting specific).

A Mark of Healing Halfling gets Cure Wounds added to the spell list of their classes with the Spellcasting or Pact Magic feature. A level 18 Mark of Healing Wizard would be able to choose Cure Wounds for their spell mastery.

[JNAProductions]

Slightly off topic here, but it is possible to get at-will Cure Wounds (setting specific).

A Mark of Healing Halfling gets Cure Wounds added to the spell list of their classes with the Spellcasting or Pact Magic feature. A level 18 Mark of Healing Wizard would be able to choose Cure Wounds for their spell mastery.

Or a UA Theurgy Wizard. But that's UA.

[MaxWilson]

Slightly off topic here, but it is possible to get at-will Cure Wounds (setting specific).

A Mark of Healing Halfling gets Cure Wounds added to the spell list of their classes with the Spellcasting or Pact Magic feature. A level 18 Mark of Healing Wizard would be able to choose Cure Wounds for their spell mastery.

Also, Radiant Idols (CR 11) have at-will Cure Wounds, so anyone over level 11 can technically get it via True Polymorph, although getting access via Planar Binding is probably better. E.g. find a Purple Worm and True Polymorph it into a Radiant Idol and then Planar Bind it.

[JoeJ]

Also, Radiant Idols (CR 11) have at-will Cure Wounds, so anyone over level 11 can technically get it via True Polymorph, although getting access via Planar Binding is probably better. E.g. find a Purple Worm and True Polymorph it into a Radiant Idol and then Planar Bind it.

That would be a tough one: a radiant idol has +9 on charisma saves, and advantage vs. magic. I don't get why you'd start with a purple worm if what you want is a radiant idol, though. Are you assuming that purple worms are easier to find?

[MaxWilson]

That would be a tough one: a radiant idol has +9 on charisma saves, and advantage vs. magic. I don't get why you'd start with a purple worm if what you want is a radiant idol, though. Are you assuming that purple worms are easier to find?

Yeah, I'm assuming that big dumb monsters are relatively easy for a Tier 4 wizard to locate compared to Radiant Idols, in a known-dangerous Here There Be Dragons wasteland or something. If that's not true in your DM's gameworld, adjust accordingly, and/or use Wish (Resurrection) to revive a monster you once slew, as long as it's CR 11+. Hopefully you kept part of the body because you were thinking ahead.

Or perhaps you can True Polymorph something into a mind flayer tadpole and let it grow into a Neothelid, or make a Purple Wormling (CR 2) and hope it grows into a bigger Purple Worm.

[KorvinStarmast]

My response is here: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?628226-Protection-Fighting-Style-and-Party-Optimization-Is-it-good&p=24960702#post24960702 I have been mulling over a few of your points on the protection fighting style, and I think I may be seeing some very campaign dependent bits for my brother.
1. The party has been mostly dungeons and caves and is finishing the Shrine of Tamoachan: a dungeon crawly kind of thing. Some battle outdoors, yes, but mostly not and I am pretty sure that prot has rarely come up when the fighting has been more spread out
2. Party Optimization: this was a deliberate RP choice. My brother and my best friend from High School play two dragonborn who are brothers. A paladin and a sorcerer. There is a specific theme in "I protect my brother" so I think the paladin may bias his position in the battles to be able to protect his brother; with that said, a few times he has successfully protected the other melee combatants.
3. The party usually plays with about six people; I suspect that with only three, for example, his flexibility in positioning might be less.

As for the paladin who keeps saving my bard's behind, and our cleric's heavily armored body, it is usually when we are fighting in close quarters / indoors.

What I am seeing might be situational and thus it shades my perception.

[Goldlizard]

To answer some general points that have come up:

Take Invocations, for example. I'm pretty sure it would be considered overpowered if level 9 Warlocks could pick an invocation of at-will Shield. So why isn't it overpowered that they can pick at will Jump? If Shield and Jump are both 1st level, they should have roughly the same power/versatility. So either Shield is underleveled or Jump is overleveled. And if so, why?

Specifically? Those two spells have very different uses. Shield is a last defense for squishy spellcasters, using magic energy to hope they can repel an attack. Jump is a spell used to help traverse the world, and perform special feats of acrobatics. Jump is balanced because it has no combat application. Shield is balanced because it's useful in exactly one situation, and it uses a resource that you could spend on something else. which of those balancing factors does making Shield an at-will invocation remove?

[Unoriginal]

Jump is balanced because it has no combat application.

I agree with the rest of your points, but this isn't 100% true. It doesn't deals damage directly or the like, but Jump can have combat applications.

[Galithar]

I agree with the rest of your points, but this isn't 100% true. It doesn't deals damage directly or the like, but Jump can have combat applications.

Indeed. I've used it to circumvent difficult terrain and other hazards. 30 foot standing long jump can be very helpful if you are melee only. It's niche for sure, but has limited application. I would rarely say a Warlock is a good class to utilize it though.

[Unoriginal]

Indeed. I've used it to circumvent difficult terrain and other hazards. 30 foot standing long jump can be very helpful if you are melee only. It's niche for sure, but has limited application. I would rarely say a Warlock is a good class to utilize it though.

You could also use it to perform a 30ft belly drop on the enemy that knock both you and the enemy prone, with you and the opponent taking half the damage each.

Certainly niche but I know I would love to do it sometime.

[Doug Lampert]

Specifically? Those two spells have very different uses. Shield is a last defense for squishy spellcasters, using magic energy to hope they can repel an attack. Jump is a spell used to help traverse the world, and perform special feats of acrobatics. Jump is balanced because it has no combat application. Shield is balanced because it's useful in exactly one situation, and it uses a resource that you could spend on something else. which of those balancing factors does making Shield an at-will invocation remove?

Also, Jump is 1 minute no concentration. Cast it before the combat, and you have it for an entire combat at no cost but a single slot.

Having Shield up for an entire combat costs all your reactions, and a level 1 slot per round (something like 5 slots).

One of these is more expensive than the other. Shield and Jump are both level 1, but there are other factors that indicate that permanent or at-will shield effect is much stronger.

An appropriate comparison for jump as another possible at-will invocation needs to be something with a no concentration of at least one minute, or the costs aren't actually all that similar.

[diplomancer]

Also, Jump is 1 minute no concentration. Cast it before the combat, and you have it for an entire combat at no cost but a single slot.

Having Shield up for an entire combat costs all your reactions, and a level 1 slot per round (something like 5 slots).

One of these is more expensive than the other. Shield and Jump are both level 1, but there are other factors that indicate that permanent or at-will shield effect is much stronger.

An appropriate comparison for jump as another possible at-will invocation needs to be something with a no concentration of at least one minute, or the costs aren't actually all that similar.

Those are both good points; truth is all "at-will" invocations are not REALLY "at-will" if they involve concentration. For ALL of them, I'd drop the concentration requirement for high levels (12 or 15, probably).

[ProsecutorGodot]

Those are both good points; truth is all "at-will" invocations are not REALLY "at-will" if they involve concentration. For ALL of them, I'd drop the concentration requirement for high levels (12 or 15, probably).

I don't think I would, most (not all) spells that require concentration do for a good reason.

Being able to cast then without expending a slot (and in many cases, components) is a significant enough bonus.

[Unoriginal]

Those are both good points; truth is all "at-will" invocations are not REALLY "at-will" if they involve concentration. For ALL of them, I'd drop the concentration requirement for high levels (12 or 15, probably).

I don't see why you're saying they're not really "at-will".

The spell can be cast at-will, it doesn't mean it can be maintained.

[diplomancer]

I don't see why you're saying they're not really "at-will".

The spell can be cast at-will, it doesn't mean it can be maintained.

They are not really "at-will" because many times you'd like to cast them but can't because you are concentrating on something more important or long-lasting, and this something is NOT an "at-will". So the cost of using those at-will spells is giving up on some other spell. It's the reason why Mask of Many Faces is so much better than Master of Myriad Forms. Even if they were both available at similar levels (say, 5th level instead of 15th for Master of Myriad Forms), I'd say thas Mask of Many Faces is better.

In a recent thread, I think someone mentioned how they'd chosen Misty Visions for his Warlock and couldn't find many opportunities to use it, finally switching it out at level 9. I suspect the concentration requirement was the main "block" to him using the invocation more often; Warlocks have few slots and if they are Concentrating on a long duration spell they have to think long and hard before giving it up for the relatively minor benefits of 1st and 2nd level "at-will" spells that require concentration.

Compare it now to the non-concentration "at-will" invocations; you might as well just assume that they are always on. This conveys more the "at-will" feeling, at least to me.

[ProsecutorGodot]

They are not really "at-will" because many times you'd like to cast them but can't because you are concentrating on something more important or long-lasting

I understand what you mean, but that's not how the term "at will" is used typically. You are able to cast the spell at any time, whether you want to at all times doesn't impact that you can.

An 18th level Wizard might say they can cast shield at will, despite the spell only being cast as a reaction to being struck.

Monster stat blocks also list spells as at will, regardless of whether they take concentration (a quick example: yochlol cast detect thoughts at will) so it's safe to assume the designers use the typically recognized meaning.

With the terminology arguments out of the way, I'll reiterate that I still think concentration spells should take concentration regardless of how "at will" you can cast them, being able to recast it at any time is powerful. You might lose a concentration spell but think about the inverse, you'll never feel that bad about dropping detect thoughts for a better spell because you know you can simply reactivate it when you need it, which will almost certainly be after your new concentration spell has done it's work.

[Unoriginal]

Being able to cast a Concentration spell at-will removes the "if I cast a different Concentration spell I'm losing this one for the rest of the long/short rest" feeling, at the very least.

Since you can re-cast it for free.

[Tanarii]

In a recent thread, I think someone mentioned how they'd chosen Misty Visions for his Warlock and couldn't find many opportunities to use it, finally switching it out at level 9. I suspect the concentration requirement was the main "block" to him using the invocation more often; Warlocks have few slots and if they are Concentrating on a long duration spell they have to think long and hard before giving it up for the relatively minor benefits of 1st and 2nd level "at-will" spells that require concentration.They were probably trying to keep Hex up for very long durations. IMX that's not a particularly feasible or useful strategy. But then again, I'm used to warlocks where Con save proficiency is not an option.


Being able to cast a Concentration spell at-will removes the "if I cast a different Concentration spell I'm losing this one for the rest of the long/short rest" feeling, at the very least.

Since you can re-cast it for free.
It sounds like the context is a slotted concentration spell is being kept up for multiple fights, so at-will concentration spells during or in between fights have low value to that character.

[PhoenixPhyre]

They were probably trying to keep Hex up for very long durations. IMX that's not a particularly feasible or useful strategy. But then again, I'm used to warlocks where Con save proficiency is not an option.


It sounds like the context is a slotted concentration spell is being kept up for multiple fights, so at-will concentration spells during or in between fights have low value to that character.

I've had a warlock at basically every table I've ran in 5e (or very nearly). I think I've seen hex cast...twice? Maybe a couple more? Most of my warlocks don't even take it.

They do take the at-will detect magic in many, if not most cases. Although I do stretch detect magic (and a few of the other detect spells) to give a bit more info including residual auras (ie there was active magic on that thing/person), so that may be it.

What other long-duration concentration spells are there? Summons, hex, hunter's mark, ???

[Tanarii]

They do take the at-will detect magic in many, if not most cases. Although I do stretch detect magic (and a few of the other detect spells) to give a bit more info including residual auras (ie there was active magic on that thing/person), so that may be it.
Probably. Since that'd normally be the 'job' of someone ritually casting Identify.

I've actually seen Identify cast from a slot once by a Knowledge Cleric, because they needed to know what spell had just been cast on someone else. That's the only time I've seen it without a ritual I think.

[Unoriginal]

It sounds like the context is a slotted concentration spell is being kept up for multiple fights, so at-will concentration spells during or in between fights have low value to that character.

Aside from costing actions or bonus actions, is there anything better in a slot-costing Concentration spell lasting for multiple fights than in a slot-less Concentration spell that you can re-cast each fight?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Probably. Since that'd normally be the 'job' of someone ritually casting Identify.

I've actually seen Identify cast from a slot once by a Knowledge Cleric, because they needed to know what spell had just been cast on someone else. That's the only time I've seen it without a ritual I think.

I don't let it tell you what magic was there, just that at some point in the recent past there was magic. Usually for things like "hey, this ritual stuff here has been used recently. Something conjuration" or "the walls still glow with evidence of substantial evocation magic, but it's not present currently."

[diplomancer]

I've had a warlock at basically every table I've ran in 5e (or very nearly). I think I've seen hex cast...twice? Maybe a couple more? Most of my warlocks don't even take it.

They do take the at-will detect magic in many, if not most cases. Although I do stretch detect magic (and a few of the other detect spells) to give a bit more info including residual auras (ie there was active magic on that thing/person), so that may be it.

What other long-duration concentration spells are there? Summons, hex, hunter's mark, ???

It can be Hex, or summons, or Polymorph, or Suggestion, or Invisibility or even Spider Climb, which has been very useful so far to my Warlock.


Aside from costing actions or bonus actions, is there anything better in a slot-costing Concentration spell lasting for multiple fights than in a slot-less Concentration spell that you can re-cast each fight?
Well, the effect of course, which brings us back to the theme of the thread; not all spells are created equal.

[MaxWilson]

Aside from costing actions or bonus actions, is there anything better in a slot-costing Concentration spell lasting for multiple fights than in a slot-less Concentration spell that you can re-cast each fight?

In principle no, there's no reason the at-will spell can't be better, but in practice it's a choice between a strong concentration spell like Hypnotic Pattern, Danse Macabre or Summon Greater Demon vs. a weakish at-will spell like Levitate (self). Strong at-will spells like Synaptic Static simply aren't available as invocations.