What is blade ward good for, why is it better than the Dodge action?

[Man_Over_Game]

And I'm not talking about EK or Sorcerer Bonus Action Cantrips or anything. I'm talking about why a vanilla character without any weird casting shenanigans would ever want to cast Blade Ward.

Any suggestions?

[Segev]

It gives Resistance to you rather than Disadvantage to the attacker, so if you're already in a situation where the attacker has Disadvantage, it would be one more layer of defense. For example, if you're being shot at at long range. Or you're a rogue (arcane trickster, or multiclass) who used Cunning Action to dodge as a bonus action.

It's still a pretty bad cantrip.

[Amnestic]

It gives Resistance to you rather than Disadvantage to the attacker, so if you're already in a situation where the attacker has Disadvantage, it would be one more layer of defense. For example, if you're being shot at at long range. Or you're a rogue (arcane trickster, or multiclass) who used Cunning Action to dodge as a bonus action.

It's still a pretty bad cantrip.

CA is dash, disengage and hide. Doesn't have dodge. Monks can Step of the Wind (1 ki) to do it though.

Having Blur active would do it as well, or a Cloak of Displacement. Another situation might be when you're in a place where Dis/Ad isn't a factor, such as if you're both in total darkness or blinded and can't see.

[Warder]

If your AC is low and the enemy's attack bonus is high, disadvantage on the attack might not do much for you. There's nearly always a better option than Blade Ward, but it can be a better option than Dodge under some circumstances, at least.

[sayaijin]

There are benefits to resistance (Blade Ward) and benefits to giving your attacker disadvantage to their attacks (Dodge).

If you have low AC, then even with disadvantage your enemies are still likely to hit you, and you're better off getting resistance to damage. If you have high AC then giving them disadvantage is much more valuable.

All that to say, I don't think it's worth a cantrip slot, but it has a different use from Dodge.

[Mellack]

In addition to what is said above, if you are in a situation where they are almost guaranteed to hit you. If you only have a 12 AC and the attacker has a +9 to hit, resistance is going to serve you far better than disadvantage. It also has some synergy with times you want to get hit, but for little damage, such as with Armor of Agathys.

[JackPhoenix]

If your AC is low compared to the attacker's attack bonus, disadvantage may not account for much. Halving the damage received, well, you know how much reduction you're getting.

[Ionathus]

I know it hasn't specifically been mentioned, but if your enemy has a high enough to-hit bonus that dodging is unlikely to change much, they probably also will be rolling some chonky damage dice. Spending your action to halve a possible hit from a Skeleton for 1d6+2 damage isn't a good choice, but spending your action to halve a near-guaranteed hit from a Fire Giant for 4d10+SPLAT damage might be.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

As others have mentioned, dodging doesn't stack with anything else that imposes disadvantage, such as being frightened or restrained or similar.

I think damage resistance stacks with Uncanny Dodge, which halves the damage you take again, bringing it to 1/4 damage.

[Greywander]

Building on what others have said, there are basically three general situations where you'd want to use Blade Ward instead of dodging:

The enemy already has disadvantage on the attack, or you already have advantage on the DEX save.
Your AC or DEX save bonus are so low that even with dis/advantage you're likely to still get hit or fail the save.
You're expecting something besides an attack or DEX save, e.g. a CON save. These will rarely deal BPS damage, so Blade Ward probably won't help, but it might come up.

Blade Ward isn't a bad cantrip because you'd never use it, it's a bad cantrip because you have a limited number of cantrip slots and there are far more useful ones you could pick. If all wizards, sorcerers, etc. got Blade Ward for free, it would definitely be worth using from time to time, but I just can't see choosing it over an extra utility cantrip. I would pretty much always rather have things like Mage Hand, Minor Illusion, Prestidigitation, Mending, Mold Earth, Shape Water, or even Light.

Blade Ward starts to look a lot more appealing on a character who can either cast it as a bonus action, or can take some other kind of useful action as a bonus action (such as attacking or casting a spell). Resistance is pretty dope, so being able to give yourself resistance to basically all weapon damage while still being able to attack can be pretty potent.

[Xervous]

Getting more procs out of Armor of Agathys? Eh, probably crosses the weird boundary.

[LumenPlacidum]

People overvalue offense.

Having a strong offense on your side is essential to the mathematics of Dungeons and Dragons! However, as long as someone is dealing damage for your side, then there are going to be situations in which, in detail, defense is the better choice. So... the overvaluation of offense happens usually because people discount active defense entirely.

Let us consider an over-generalized situation that still allows us to evaluate and compare decisions. The party is facing a 200 hp foe. Each party member does 10 points of damage per round. For every round that the foe survives, it does 40 damage to the party. We are going to assume that the party has "enough" hp and that there are five PCs.

If the party gangs up on the foe, all choosing to go offense, then the party is doing 50 damage per round. At this damage rate, the party is going to suffer either 3 or 4 attacks, depending on initiative. Let's just deal with the higher number in each case (i.e. the foe damages before it can drop in a round). The party has taken 4 rounds of damage, or 160 damage, during this fight.

If the party mostly gangs up on the foe, but one character has pissed off the foe and knows that they are going to be the target, then that PC can cast Blade Ward. This lowers the party's damage to 40 per round, but also drops the foe's damage to 20 per round. At this new, lower rate, the foe survives for long enough to attack five times! But, at the lower 20 damage per round, the party suffers only 100 damage over the course of the fight.

This is a mathematical argument, but it clearly shows that there are going to be times where the ability to actively defend yourself is worth the opportunity cost in terms of extra damage dealt.



However, this is not typically the argument that people make against Blade Ward. The argument against Blade Ward largely centers around the idea that the defense of your team could be better augmented by casting something else, like Wall of Force or Entangle, or any of many other control spells that might prevent enemies from dealing damage at all. This is harder to deal with because it is related not just to the economies of the game, but also to the geometry of the game! Creating difficult terrain to prevent enemies from closing with your side is of little use when the enemies are already in among your allies, right? Rather than try to make a clean mathematical argument, I'm going to say that in the somewhat strange circumstance where your character is surrounded by foes but the party is not really in danger, where you know that a lot of damage is going to come in from many different vectors over the course of the next round, then Blade Ward is a good option for you. Your party can pressure the enemy HP. Crowd-control might hit you, and that's bad. Terrain manipulation probably isn't going to help you because you're already surrounded. This only applies if you don't have some other way to gain resistance to damage.

[micahaphone]

If you're in a crap situation where a big monster is going to smack you, and it's doubtful that it could possibly miss, then resistance is better than disadvantage. Like if a big demon lord with +15 to hit is coming after you, even with Shield a wizard's AC might only be 20 or 21 and you'll probably get hit anyway.

It's not my first choice for a cantrip, nor my second or third, but it is possible to get some use out of it.

[MaxWilson]

Building on what others have said, there are basically three general situations where you'd want to use Blade Ward instead of dodging:

The enemy already has disadvantage on the attack, or you already have advantage on the DEX save.
Your AC or DEX save bonus are so low that even with dis/advantage you're likely to still get hit or fail the save.
You're expecting something besides an attack or DEX save, e.g. a CON save. These will rarely deal BPS damage, so Blade Ward probably won't help, but it might come up.

Blade Ward isn't a bad cantrip because you'd never use it, it's a bad cantrip because you have a limited number of cantrip slots and there are far more useful ones you could pick. If all wizards, sorcerers, etc. got Blade Ward for free, it would definitely be worth using from time to time, but I just can't see choosing it over an extra utility cantrip. I would pretty much always rather have things like Mage Hand, Minor Illusion, Prestidigitation, Mending, Mold Earth, Shape Water, or even Light.

Blade Ward starts to look a lot more appealing on a character who can either cast it as a bonus action, or can take some other kind of useful action as a bonus action (such as attacking or casting a spell). Resistance is pretty dope, so being able to give yourself resistance to basically all weapon damage while still being able to attack can be pretty potent.

In addition to what Greywander also listed, there's also:


(1) You can't see your opponent (Dodge only works against visible creatures).
(2) You are grappled or restrained (Dodge doesn't work when your movement is zero).
(3) You have a damage-on-hit effect like Armor of Agathys or Fire Shield or Shadow of Moil up, so you want the enemy to hit you, but you don't want to take damage.
(4) You want something that will last longer than a single round (Dodge only affects your current round, Blade Ward gives benefits until the end of your next turn).
(5) The DM decides that monsters can detect Dodging PCs and will avoid targeting them, but that damage resistance from Rage or Blade Ward is not as obvious (either they don't know until they hit the resistant creature and do less damage than expected, or they don't realize it at all).


That's all I can remember off the top of my head. Bottom line: Dodge and Blade Ward are very different, and sometimes one fits your situation better than another. IMO it's a nice option to have, but it's not one that necessarily gets used a ton in actual play because there are alternatives (e.g. Misty Step + Dodge when grappled--Blade Ward would save you 3 spell points, but Misty Step + Dodge arguably leaves you safer, depending on situation).

[Man_Over_Game]

For those that think it may be too weak, just a thought, but what is your opinion if it made these changes:

Is now a Concentration spell that lasts 1 minute. Takes an Action to cast. Each turn for the duration, you can spend a Bonus Action to get resistances from from weapon damage types until the start of your next turn.

Wasn't the direction I was trying to take the thread, just a random thought I had that I think would make it a worthwhile but circumstantial tool. It's now both more expensive (BA and Action and Concentration on turn 1) while also being more efficient over time.

[thoroughlyS]

My personal fix is to make it touch range. That expands the cases where you want to use it, which is the main problem people have with it.

[kaervaak]

Another place where it is more useful than dodge is if you have static damage reduction like heavy armor master. Halving the damage of an attack and then subtracting 3 from it is quite potent.

If you're an eldritch knight, casting bladeward then making a bonus action attack is a solid tanking option.

If you have cast warding bond on an ally who is taking focused fire, casting bladeward can halve the damage you take whereas dodge would do nothing for you.

If you're affected by a Peace Cleric's protective bond and want to take the damage an ally would otherwise take, bladeward is better than dodging.

[J-H]

Because it can be Quickened by a Sorcerer as a good one-round defense, allowing him to focus on casting a levelled spell (vs. Misty Step which means the only offense is a cantrip).

[MaxWilson]

For those that think it may be too weak, just a thought, but what is your opinion if it made these changes:

Is now a Concentration spell that lasts 1 minute. Takes an Action to cast. Each turn for the duration, you can spend a Bonus Action to get resistances from from weapon damage types until the start of your next turn.

Way overpowered. Better and cheaper than Stoneskin, a 4th level spell.


Another place where it is more useful than dodge is if you have static damage reduction like heavy armor master. Halving the damage of an attack and then subtracting 3 from it is quite potent.

If your DM rules that this works, then great, but per PHB 197 this does not work:


Resistance and then vulnerability are applied after all other modifiers to damage. For example, a creature has resistance to bludgeoning damage and is hit by an attack that deals 25 bludgeoning damage. The creature is also within a magical aura that reduces all damage by 5. The 25 damage is first reduced by 5 and then halved, so the creature takes 10 damage. Multiple instances of resistance or vulnerability that affect the same damage type count as only one instance.

Stacking resistance with HAM results in deducting 3 HP and THEN halving damage, so resistance actually makes HAM less effective, in a way, not more.


If you have cast warding bond on an ally who is taking focused fire, casting bladeward can halve the damage you take whereas dodge would do nothing for you.

If you're affected by a Peace Cleric's protective bond and want to take the damage an ally would otherwise take, bladeward is better than dodging.

Both of these seem questionable to me. Warding Bond says, "each time it takes damage, you take the same amount of damage", but [AFB, so according to D&D Beyond] it doesn't say you take the same type of damage. Seems to me that it's just magic damage, not bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage that Blade Ward would help against. At minimum, check with your DM before assuming that these will work.

[stoutstien]

IMO if someone was looking to give BW more of a presence then maybe it could be moved to a reaction casting time.

[Tanarii]

Because it can be Quickened by a Sorcerer as a good one-round defense, allowing him to focus on casting a levelled spell (vs. Misty Step which means the only offense is a cantrip).
Other way around. Quicken the leveled spell, cast Blade Ward using the action.

[MaxWilson]

Other way around. Quicken the leveled spell, cast Blade Ward using the action.

But now we're back to the question of "why not Quicken the levelled spell and then Dodge/Dash/Hide as an action"?

However, Quickening Blade Ward and then taking the Attack action is sometimes useful.

[thoroughlyS]

Because it can be Quickened by a Sorcerer as a good one-round defense, allowing him to focus on casting a levelled spell (vs. Misty Step which means the only offense is a cantrip).
This doesn't work if playing with the official rules for spells cast using a bonus action.

Bonus Action
A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn. You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.
If you cast any spell (even a cantrip) using your bonus action, you are locked to cantrips only for the turn.

[Oerlaf]

Blade Ward akso works against magical attacks.

[Osuniev]

I find making it a range of Touch worked well at making it a situational, but tactical, option.

My Sorcerer likes using it through her familiar to protect the melee combattant (who would rather do several attacks than Dodge), especially when she doesn't want to spend the resources for a leveled spell and her cantrips are inefficient against the foes.

[thoroughlyS]

Blade Ward akso works against magical attacks.
So does the Dodge action.

[Segev]

For those that think it may be too weak, just a thought, but what is your opinion if it made these changes:

Is now a Concentration spell that lasts 1 minute. Takes an Action to cast. Each turn for the duration, you can spend a Bonus Action to get resistances from from weapon damage types until the start of your next turn.

Wasn't the direction I was trying to take the thread, just a random thought I had that I think would make it a worthwhile but circumstantial tool. It's now both more expensive (BA and Action and Concentration on turn 1) while also being more efficient over time.


My personal fix is to make it touch range. That expands the cases where you want to use it, which is the main problem people have with it.

Expanding use cases is the right approach, I think, though I'm unsure making it touch range is sufficient. Maybe if it also let you automatically succeed on concentration checks against damage its resistance applied to? Then it'd have a use as a means for a caster to sit and just maintain concentration on something important enough to devote his action to it. Still at risk from non-weapon-attacks, though, and that's another crippling problem with it: there are so many things it just does nothing against.

[Man_Over_Game]

Expanding use cases is the right approach, I think, though I'm unsure making it touch range is sufficient. Maybe if it also let you automatically succeed on concentration checks against damage its resistance applied to? Then it'd have a use as a means for a caster to sit and just maintain concentration on something important enough to devote his action to it. Still at risk from non-weapon-attacks, though, and that's another crippling problem with it: there are so many things it just does nothing against.

I kinda like the idea of Blade Ward being essentially the Magician's Shield. It basically blocks all the things that shields do. That's kinda what I was going for with the last idea, just not sure how to make it function as a shield.

I dunno, just seems kinda silly to make it cost an Action, when it circumstantially costs the enemy half of theirs in the best-case scenario.

If they did 20 damage with their attacks, and you dealt 10 damage with Firebolt, they'd be in a 10 point advantage.
If they did 20 damage with their attacks, and you blocked 10 damage with Blade Ward, they'd still be in a 10 point advantage.

The difference is, I don't have to risk wasting my turn if I cast Firebolt. My value for that round is no longer dependent on outside influences. It's the same reason you never use the Ready Action when you don't need to.

It's also worth noting that this is with the assumption that the enemy's turn is worth twice as much as my Firebolt. If I'm not expecting 2x more damage than I expect to deal, I'm better off just attacking.

[Mellack]

I don't like the idea of adding concentration. One of the main reasons I can think of to reduce the damage is to help you hold onto a concentration spell you already have up. I do like allowing it to target others. Would be a nice addition to be able to use it on characters that are somehow not able to properly defend themselves, such as paralyzed. Also useful to slap on the fighter type is they are holding a choke point. Would make it less niche.

[MaxWilson]

I kinda like the idea of Blade Ward being essentially the Magician's Shield. It basically blocks all the things that shields do. That's kinda what I was going for with the last idea, just not sure how to make it function as a shield.

I dunno, just seems kinda silly to make it cost an Action, when it circumstantially costs the enemy half of theirs in the best-case scenario.

If they did 20 damage with their attacks, and you dealt 10 damage with Firebolt, they'd be in a 10 point advantage.
If they did 20 damage with their attacks, and you blocked 10 damage with Blade Ward, they'd still be in a 10 point advantage.

The difference is, I don't have to risk wasting my turn if I cast Firebolt. My value for that round is no longer dependent on outside influences. It's the same reason you never use the Ready Action when you don't need to.

It's also worth noting that this is with the assumption that the enemy's turn is worth twice as much as my Firebolt. If I'm not expecting 2x more damage than I expect to deal, I'm better off just attacking.

Blade Ward is for exploiting asymmetries, like the situation where three enemies can do 60 damage, and you could deal 10 damage with Firebolt--you instead cut their damage in half to 30 with Blade Ward.

[Man_Over_Game]

Blade Ward is for exploiting asymmetries, like the situation where three enemies can do 60 damage, and you could deal 10 damage with Firebolt--you instead cut their damage in half to 30 with Blade Ward.

Yeah, but that value goes down really damn quick.

15% chance that DM decides that telegraphing an effect may deter you from being a target (which we'll say that decides to change the action of the enemy on a ~50/50, for a 7.5% total risk)
15% chance that you get caught out as a good target (so % chance this spell is relevant in an encounter), or % chance that you aren't a good target and decide to target someone squishier than you.
15% chance that they have an effect that ignores Blade Ward (elemental damage, conditions, spells, etc).

So, from my guess, Blade Ward is worth 66.8% of the damage it blocks, just based on risk alone.

Obviously these aren't factual numbers, but they are non-zero. There has to be a significant amount of efficiency from using it to ever be worthwhile, from what I can tell.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, but that value goes down really ---- quick.

15% chance that DM decides that telegraphing an effect may deter you from being a target (which we'll say that decides it on a 50/50, for a 7.5% total risk)
15% chance that you get caught out as a good target, so you get this cantrip as your ---- card.
15% chance that they have an effect that ignores Blade Ward (elemental damage, conditions, spells, etc).

So, from my estimates, Blade Ward is worth 66.8% of the damage it blocks, just based on risk alone.

Accepting your numbers for the sake of argument, this case it would still be good, no? 66.8% of 30 is 20.04, which is still more than the 10 damage you could inflict with Fire Bolt.

Besides, what does comparing Blade Ward vs. Fire Bolt have to do with Dodge vs. Blade Ward? I don't think anyone on this thread is envisioning Blade Ward as a spell you should spam every round.

[Man_Over_Game]

Accepting your numbers for the sake of argument, this case it would still be good, no? 66.8% of 30 is 20.04, which is still more than the 10 damage you could inflict with Fire Bolt.

Besides, what does comparing Blade Ward vs. Fire Bolt have to do with Dodge vs. Blade Ward? I don't think anyone on this thread is envisioning Blade Ward as a spell you should spam every round.

I'm trying to get its value as a cantrip. Almost every cantrip in the game is something that can be used frequently for good value. I'm just not sure when exactly Blade Ward would ever get its value to outperform any other choice when even something like Minor Illusion could get more value in preventing or preparing a situation.

Dodge was the closest thing to Blade Ward, for the sake of value, but that seems to show that it also falls short, as it is comparable, not better than Dodge, and still costs a Cantrip slot. That is, there's a good chance that someone who takes the Dodge Action isn't really thinking of "Damn, I shoulda picked Blade Ward for this circumstance..."

I've compared it to the most similar mechanic and Blade Ward didn't come out on top (it barely broke even before the Cantrip cost), so guess I'm comparing it to something of equal cost instead. For a more well-rounded evaluation, I guess.

Additionally, I guess there is one more percentage point that I didn't consider: The chance whether or not you think Blade Ward would get more value than Firebolt. In your example, the player is expecting 6x the amount of damage than what Firebolt would deal. That's like 60 incoming weapon damage, against your mage, in a single round. How often does that come up?

[quindraco]

I'm trying to get its value as a cantrip. Almost every cantrip in the game is something that can be used frequently for good value. I'm just not sure when exactly Blade Ward would ever get its value to outperform any other choice when even something like Minor Illusion could get more value in preventing or preparing a situation.

Blade Ward is a terrible cantrip, but it does protect you for longer than Dodge: Blade Ward ends at the end of your next turn, while Dodge ends at the beginning. If you take turn 1 to prep by casting Blade Ward, turn 2 you can also Dodge, and have both up at once. Not sure why you'd want to, but you can.

That said, I don't want to come off as defending it. There are plenty of bad cantrips - I flatly disagree with your assertion that most cantrips have good value - but Blade Ward is absolutely one of them. I'm just trying to help provide a situation in which it could conceivably do something Dodge can't. Blade Ward is like Poison Spray: a genuine waste of a cantrip slot.

[MaxWilson]

Additionally, I guess there is one more percentage point that I didn't consider: The chance whether or not you think Blade Ward would get more value than Firebolt. In your example, the player is expecting 6x the amount of damage than what Firebolt would deal. That's like 60 incoming weapon damage, against your mage, in a single round. How often does that come up?

Well, it depends on a number of factors. What's the mage's AC? Squishy mages get more value out of Blade Ward. What's the DM style? Deadlier fights mean higher monster DPR which means more potential value from Blade Ward, as long as the monster damage is physical (which players can probably mostly guess by looking at the monster). How much does the mage like to expose himself/how cautiously does he play?

I can tell you that ~50+ damage per round, potential, is extremely common in my games, although good defenses like good AC and Dodging and weapon resistance can of course cut that fraction significantly. In the level 6 adventure that I'm running via GITP right now (my first PbP), the players just got away from a monster which would do ~48 HP per round to a squishy AC 13 wizard, like the NPC wizard in the party (2x +8 for 3d10+12 with 20' reach, or 2x +13 for 3d10+7). Blade Ward would cut that in half to ~23 HP (due to rounding effects). Shield (AC 18) would cut it to ~33; the party barbarian would only take ~14 damage if he Raged against it while using a shield. I consider this quite a tough fight for level 6 but not due to the damage output (it's more the fact that the monster itself is very durable)--the potential damage output is very typical IME, because if you go any lower the game isn't interesting. Fighting six orcs at level 6 is not interesting; fighting twelve orcs is somewhat interesting, but that AC 13 wizard will take 78 HP of damage from them if they focus on him and he doesn't defend himself with magic!

Are there better defenses than Blade Ward? Yep. A squishy AC 13 wizard facing a bunch of potential damage probably wants to cast Misty Step or Dimension Door instead of Blade Ward. However, Blade Ward is free.

P.S. Cast Blade Ward before opening a dungeon door. It lasts until the end of your next turn, which means that on the turn when you open the door and look in the room, you can cast another spell and you're still protected. Note to self: NPC mage in current adventure should do this before letting anyone open giant fancy door.

[Dork_Forge]

Note to self: NPC mage in current adventure should do this before letting anyone open giant fancy door.

*squinting*

*Eyes widening*

*Panic setting in*

I left the stove on

[Selion]

It's extremely situational, but in conjunction with armor of agathys or spells like fire shied it can increase your retaliate ability.
Still a bad spell imho

[MaxWilson]

*squinting*

*Eyes widening*

*Panic setting in*

I left the stove on

That wasn't a comment on the adventure content, just a comment on roleplaying. :)

[Warder]

P.S. Cast Blade Ward before opening a dungeon door. It lasts until the end of your next turn, which means that on the turn when you open the door and look in the room, you can cast another spell and you're still protected.

That's pretty good! I hadn't thought about that. It doesn't salvage Blade Ward by any stretch, but at least makes it more likely that I'd pick it over some of the other bad cantrips like Poison Spray or Fire Bolt, if I had a slot to spare.

[MaxWilson]

That's pretty good! I hadn't thought about that. It doesn't salvage Blade Ward by any stretch, but at least makes it more likely that I'd pick it over some of the other bad cantrips like Poison Spray or Fire Bolt, if I had a slot to spare.

It's definitely not a great cantrip, but yeah, it's good for scenarios like that, or defending yourself from Skulks/Invisible Stalkers/anything in heavy obscurement, or a panic button to push when you're grappled (e.g. in a Tyrannosaurus Rex's mouth or a Kraken's tentacles), or when you think you might get paralyzed soon (e.g. fighting Yetis), etc.

To repeat the obvious: other defenses against these things are possible. In most cases, Dimension Dooring away from the threat is even better than Blade Ward... but Blade Ward is free(ish): doesn't eat a spell prepared slot or a spell slot, only a cantrip slot and your action. Out of all possible cantrips to take, it's usually not in my top 3 but it's probably in my top 7, depending on how many other defenses the (N)PC has.

[Segev]

Maybe it only protects against your Proficiency Bonus attacks, but it lasts a minute?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Expand it to cover all damage types, maybe? Then it becomes useful against non-attack-roll-based spells and effects, expanding its utility over Dodge.

[Man_Over_Game]

Maybe it only protects against your Proficiency Bonus attacks, but it lasts a minute?

Seems kinda obnoxious to track, tbh. The proficiency-per-long-rest trend that Tasha's added already seems a bit annoying, tracking a new set every few turns doesn't sound ideal.

The issue I keep running into is that it's pretty darn hard to balance. Resistance is something that scales, but nonmagical damage is something that doesn't, so how do you scale it correctly?

So I'm just thinking maybe it should give you X amount of THP or something. I dunno, I just think keeping resistances forces us to make it stay useless, when just converting it to a number bonus means we can come up with all sorts of ideas for it.

[Xetheral]

Accepting your numbers for the sake of argument, this case it would still be good, no? 66.8% of 30 is 20.04, which is still more than the 10 damage you could inflict with Fire Bolt.

Besides, what does comparing Blade Ward vs. Fire Bolt have to do with Dodge vs. Blade Ward? I don't think anyone on this thread is envisioning Blade Ward as a spell you should spam every round.

Since the thread is explicitly limited to classes without special casting, yeah, I don't think anyone is envisioning Blade Ward as a something to spam. Spamming Blade Ward makes a ton of sense for a Level 7-10 EK or a L6+ Bladesinger whenever they expect to draw disproportionate amounts of fire, since they get the resistance and can still deal half (or more than half, for a TWF BS) of their damage potential.

[Segev]

Seems kinda obnoxious to track, tbh. The proficiency-per-long-rest trend that Tasha's added already seems a bit annoying, tracking a new set every few turns doesn't sound ideal.

The issue I keep running into is that it's pretty darn hard to balance. Resistance is something that scales, but nonmagical damage is something that doesn't, so how do you scale it correctly?

So I'm just thinking maybe it should give you X amount of THP or something. I dunno, I just think keeping resistances forces us to make it stay useless, when just converting it to a number bonus means we can come up with all sorts of ideas for it.

THP that only apply to particular kinds of damage is a bit finicky compared to other THP. I wonder if we just need to abandon the concept of it being a "blade" ward entirely - that is, it applying to weapon damage.

If you made it just a reaction, it might be too good, but it would thematically work: give yourself resistance to an attack you know is about to hit. Maybe make it only affect one attack? Very much competing with shield for that reaction, though, albeit not costing a spell slot to use.

Making it "lesser shield" by making it a reaction that adds +5 to your AC against one attack, maybe could work. Though that completely changes its relationship with, say, the Dodge action, as discussed before.

[J-H]

Other way around. Quicken the leveled spell, cast Blade Ward using the action.


This doesn't work if playing with the official rules for spells cast using a bonus action.

If you cast any spell (even a cantrip) using your bonus action, you are locked to cantrips only for the turn.

Thanks. Haven't had a sorcerer at the table in over a year.


That's pretty good! I hadn't thought about that. It doesn't salvage Blade Ward by any stretch, but at least makes it more likely that I'd pick it over some of the other bad cantrips like Poison Spray or Fire Bolt, if I had a slot to spare.

Yeah, I didn't realize it lasted until the end of the caster's next turn either.

Poison Spray is actually pretty fun when it hits. You can go a long time as a wizard without making any attack rolls, and at low levels getting max damage on a 2d12 is pretty sweet. I like it and Acid Splash.

[Warder]

Yeah, I didn't realize it lasted until the end of the caster's next turn either.

Poison Spray is actually pretty fun when it hits. You can go a long time as a wizard without making any attack rolls, and at low levels getting max damage on a 2d12 is pretty sweet. I like it and Acid Splash.

That's fair, but I never pick cantrips for damage. A lot of people swear by Fire Bolt as the "default" attack cantrip, but I think it's one of the worst. It's a tiny damage increase over the other cantrips that all have useful riders attached to them, and doing single target damage really isn't my job as a caster most of the time. I'd much rather pick cantrips that have a greater chance of letting me meaningfully affect the battlefield rather than hope for 1 or 2 extra points of damage, if that makes sense.

[Man_Over_Game]

THP that only apply to particular kinds of damage is a bit finicky compared to other THP. I wonder if we just need to abandon the concept of it being a "blade" ward entirely - that is, it applying to weapon damage.

If you made it just a reaction, it might be too good, but it would thematically work: give yourself resistance to an attack you know is about to hit. Maybe make it only affect one attack? Very much competing with shield for that reaction, though, albeit not costing a spell slot to use.

Making it "lesser shield" by making it a reaction that adds +5 to your AC against one attack, maybe could work. Though that completely changes its relationship with, say, the Dodge action, as discussed before.

Hmm...as a reaction, reduce incoming B/P/S damage by your Spellcasting Modifier.

It's niche...but also not. This does have the distinct advantage of stopping Concentration from weak attacks, fits in almost any kit, make it use material components so that it doesn't stack too easily on melee combatants.

Honestly, the fact that Dodge and BW already have a lot of overlap is a good reason to drastically change one of the two, as it means you open up more content for players to play with (like the previously implausible Dodge + Bladeward combo), and Dodge is already pretty set-in-stone with stuff like Feats or the Monk Class.

[Dork_Forge]

That's fair, but I never pick cantrips for damage. A lot of people swear by Fire Bolt as the "default" attack cantrip, but I think it's one of the worst. It's a tiny damage increase over the other cantrips that all have useful riders attached to them, and doing single target damage really isn't my job as a caster most of the time. I'd much rather pick cantrips that have a greater chance of letting me meaningfully affect the battlefield rather than hope for 1 or 2 extra points of damage, if that makes sense.

The benefit of Firebolt is mostly that it's double the range of the ranged rider cantrips, the larger die is a side benefit really.

[Man_Over_Game]

The benefit of Firebolt is mostly that it's double the range of the ranged rider cantrips, the larger die is a side benefit really.

Firebolt also has the advantage for being useful outside of combat, where something like Ray of Frost or Booming Blade does not.

[Dork_Forge]

Firebolt also has the advantage for being useful outside of combat, where something like Ray of Frost or Booming Blade does not.

Way flashier to light your lamps with than Prestidigitation.

[MaxWilson]

Fun fact that I literally just now realized: did you know that as long as Blade Ward is active, you are immune to caltrops because 5e rounds damage down? You can Blade Ward + Expeditious Retreat** to dash at full speed over 60' of pre-placed caltrops in one round with zero chance of failing all twelve DC 15 Dex checks. A monster who tries to follow you at full speed is almost certain to fail. Caltrops are cheap and easy to pre-place (including via familiar or Unseen/Tiny Servant). Interesting, no?

** If you have Blade Ward active from a previous round you don't need Expeditious Retreat, you can just Dash.

Edit: ignore the above, Blade Ward only works against weapon attacks unless your DM rules otherwise, and caltrops aren't an attack.


Expand it to cover all damage types, maybe? Then it becomes useful against non-attack-roll-based spells and effects, expanding its utility over Dodge.

That will make Barbearians sad, compared to Eldritch Knights with War Magic and Blade Ward.

But I'm biased: I think Blade Ward is situationally-good enough as it is.


The issue I keep running into is that it's pretty darn hard to balance. Resistance is something that scales, but nonmagical damage is something that doesn't, so how do you scale it correctly?

Where does nonmagical damage come in? Blade Ward, unlike Stone Skin, works even against magical BPS damage like Iron Golem attacks.


Honestly, the fact that Dodge and BW already have a lot of overlap is a good reason to drastically change one of the two, as it means you open up more content for players to play with (like the previously implausible Dodge + Bladeward combo), and Dodge is already pretty set-in-stone with stuff like Feats or the Monk Class.

IMO Blade Ward and Dodge don't have all that much overlap. There's a ton of stuff that Blade Ward works against and Dodge doesn't (invisible enemies, monsters with built-in grappling, etc.), and a ton of stuff that Dodge works against but Blade Ward doesn't (enemies who deal primarily psychic or necrotic damage like Mummy Lords and Star Spawn, Fireballs, etc.).

[Merudo]

Blade Ward is a better alternative to taking the dodge action, if the enemy has a 55% chance or more to hit you.

If the enemy has a 55% chance to hit you, dodging decreases your chance of getting it to 30.25%, a 45% reduction in damage.

If the enemy has a 65% chance to hit you, dodging reduces damage by 35%.

If the enemy has a 75% chance to hit you, dodging reduces damage by 25%.

In all these cases, dodging is less effective than the Blade Ward cantrip, which reduces damage by 50%.

Now Blade Ward doesn't provide any bonus to Dexterity Saving Throws, but Dodge doesn't work against invisible enemies.

[sayaijin]

Blade Ward gives resistance for a round as an action which feels weak.
Fixes:
1) Making it a reaction would be too strong because then any spell casters who don't have other uses for their reaction suddenly get the barbarian schtick for a cantrip slot.
2) Making it a bonus action might be the sweet spot because it locks all non-sorcerer casters to cantrips.
3) Making it an action that lasts for a minute and blocks X damage from all b/p/s attacks, where X is proficiency bonus might be too good...unless it also took concentration.

[MaxWilson]

2) Making it a bonus action might be the sweet spot because it locks all non-sorcerer casters to cantrips.

Too strong. You're handing out the effect of Stoneskin (4th level), except better because it works against magical damage and doesn't cost any money or concentration, at the cost of only a bonus action. Eldritch Knights can now out-barbarian Barbarians with no real cost (only an opportunity cost: not getting a Crossbow Expert or PAM bonus attack).


3) Making it an action that lasts for a minute and blocks X damage from all b/p/s attacks, where X is proficiency bonus might be too good...unless it also took concentration.

Eh, maybe, if it costs concentration. In some ways it feels weaker than the existing Blade Ward so it might be okay in this form, although better to still offer both.

[Frogreaver]

Blade Ward is typically better when the enemy has a greater than 50% chance to hit you. It's typically worse when the enemy has below a 50% chance to hit you.

*Note Blade Ward also doesn't help on any elemental damage type whereas dodge can
*Outside of the above there are situations where the next hit would down you but with resistance it will take 2. In many of those circumstances bladeword is better at extending your life than the dodge action.

[Tanarii]

That's pretty good! I hadn't thought about that. It doesn't salvage Blade Ward by any stretch, but at least makes it more likely that I'd pick it over some of the other bad cantrips like Poison Spray or Fire Bolt, if I had a slot to spare.
I don't think I've ever seen someone refer to Fire Bolt as a bad cantrip before, let alone in the same category as Poison Spray. :smallconfused:

[MaxWilson]

I don't think I've ever seen someone refer to Fire Bolt as a bad cantrip before, let alone in the same category as Poison Spray. :smallconfused:

In context it's clear that it's bad (in that poster's meaning) in the context of applying useful conditions (like reduced movement or inability to regain HP) or affordances (providing light, making sounds, opening doors without having to stand next to them, cleaning the dishes and drying clothes without effort). Not everyone cares about the difference in damage between Nd8 and Nd10.

[wilhelmdubdub]

Maybe prior to a fight, lets say you aren't sure if there is going to be a fight or not you say out loud "I hold blade ward on myself" before the actual fight breaks out and you roll initiative. It's defensive so it shouldn't be considered an aggressive act during a parlay or a stand off. One player in our group took true strike on his elf arcane trickster, used to point at a guy prior to the fight breaking out to give himself advantage.

[Asisreo1]

In context it's clear that it's bad (in that poster's meaning) in the context of applying useful conditions (like reduced movement or inability to regain HP) or affordances (providing light, making sounds, opening doors without having to stand next to them, cleaning the dishes and drying clothes without effort). Not everyone cares about the difference in damage between Nd8 and Nd10.
Honestly, past tier 3, things must be getting pretty dicey if you're throwing out cantrips since 5e gives casters a healthy sum of spell slots by then. Cantrips really should only be usable when you've casted a bonus action spell at these levels.

Which is why cantrips like Minor Illusion, Prestidigitation, Mage Hand, Dancing Light, Mold Earth, and Shape Water are so good. They are at-will instantaneous utility which can have uses justifying their slot even at level 20 because their effects can still be decently unique and interesting compared to other cantrip options.

[Seramus]

Blade Ward is a terrible cantrip, but it does protect you for longer than Dodge: Blade Ward ends at the end of your next turn, while Dodge ends at the beginning. If you take turn 1 to prep by casting Blade Ward, turn 2 you can also Dodge, and have both up at once. Not sure why you'd want to, but you can.I've actually used it that way against traps. Suspect a trap exists? Need to run through a hallway with spike pits, poison darts, and worse? Thirty goblins going to get opportunity attacks while you dash past them? Blade Ward + Dodge is actually pretty good for those situations.

But they happen rarely, so it's just not worth it unless you're getting mileage from some other place, like an Agathys or Rebuke combo.

[verbatim]

One of the paradoxes of 5e is that there are lots of ways to increase the tankiness/survivability of your character but few ways to incentivize the DM into hitting them instead of teammates.

If you're playing a high AC build and want/need to tank hits for a round then dodging (especially against many lower level minions with weaker to hit bonuses) may result in DM's ignoring the character in a way that they might not have had you used Blade Ward instead.

On a purely psychological level I would estimate that the chances of a DM targeting you to make the Blade Ward matter are higher than the chances of the DM committing to an attack that needs to roll a 19 or a 20 with disadvantage to hit you.

On the flip side, I would wager that the chances of a DM avoiding targeting someone using Blade Ward because of its effect are lower than a DM not attacking someone because they used dodge.

[JackPhoenix]

In context it's clear that it's bad (in that poster's meaning) in the context of applying useful conditions (like reduced movement or inability to regain HP) or affordances (providing light, making sounds, opening doors without having to stand next to them, cleaning the dishes and drying clothes without effort). Not everyone cares about the difference in damage between Nd8 and Nd10.

Well, it's the only cantrip that can target objects. And set them on fire.

[Amnestic]

Well, it's the only cantrip that can target objects. And set them on fire.

Yeah but splitting those hairs leaves you in the same situation where Wall of Fire can't set things on fire but Lightning Bolt can.

[JackPhoenix]

Yeah but splitting those hairs leaves you in the same situation where Wall of Fire can't set things on fire but Lightning Bolt can.

Lightning Bolt can ignite things, but can't damage them otherwise. Fire Bolt can. That's actually pretty rare amongst spells. Most damaging spells only damage creatures.

[Man_Over_Game]

One of the paradoxes of 5e is that there are lots of ways to increase the tankiness/survivability of your character but few ways to incentivize the DM into hitting them instead of teammates.

I'd honestly say the opposite. There are plenty of ways to get someone to attack you (standing near them or just straight dealing damage are generally the most frequent), there aren't many telegraphed defensive powers that are worthwhile. Barbarians can't Dodge because it risks making them lose Rage, Monks don't Dodge because Flurry of Blows (or another BA use) is generally already being used for your other Monk features, Rogues don't Dodge because they can just Disengage and Dash if needed, Casters don't Dodge because they either don't foresee much incoming damage or because they have a better solution. The only classes I ever see take the Dodge Action (and even then, very rarely) are things like Fighters.

[MaxWilson]

Well, it's the only cantrip that can target objects. And set them on fire.

Prestidigitation.


I'd honestly say the opposite. There are plenty of ways to get someone to attack you (standing near them or just straight dealing damage are generally the most frequent), there aren't many telegraphed defensive powers that are worthwhile. Barbarians can't Dodge because it risks making them lose Rage, Monks don't Dodge because Flurry of Blows (or another BA use) is generally already being used for your other Monk features, Rogues don't Dodge because they can just Disengage and Dash if needed, Casters don't Dodge because they either don't foresee much incoming damage or because they have a better solution. The only classes I ever see take the Dodge Action (and even then, very rarely) are things like Fighters.

Sounds like a playstyle thing. I often see situations where Dodging would be useful, both in actual play and in combat challenges posted here on GITP. That doesn't always mean the players see the opportunity and use it, but it's there.

In particular, it's good when you're already grappling somebody (e.g. a paladin, cleric or medium-armored bard) and there are other enemies around, and it's good when you want to occupy space to give other PCs protected terrain (e.g. occupy a corner position so another PC can lie prone without monsters being able to approach to within 5' of them and lose disadvantage--helps protect the other PC's concentration). You can even do both at the same time--grapple a monster and use it to help block other monsters. Bottom line, Dodging helps create asymmetry for the players to exploit.

[Tanarii]

In context it's clear that it's bad (in that poster's meaning) in the context of applying useful conditions (like reduced movement or inability to regain HP) or affordances (providing light, making sounds, opening doors without having to stand next to them, cleaning the dishes and drying clothes without effort). Not everyone cares about the difference in damage between Nd8 and Nd10.
What context? Nothing in the post I quoted indicated any of that.

[MaxWilson]

What context? Nothing in the post I quoted indicated any of that.

The context of someone saying it's a bad cantrip. It's obvious they were not talking about single target DPR.

What else could it possibly mean?

[Warder]

What context? Nothing in the post I quoted indicated any of that.

Hi, context here! Max is referring to my followup post (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25045710&postcount=47), and they got the context right. Though "bad" is probably not the word I should've used - it's just one of the cantrips I'm the least likely to pick, unless I was playing a fire-themed caster or something that made picking it have some kind of narrative sense.

My approach to picking spells is that as a primary caster, it's my job to affect the battlefield in a meaningful way on each of my turns, even if I'm running low on spell slots. Fire Bolts don't satisfy that role, because they do bad, unreliable single target damage, and the slightly higher damage dice on them compared to other cantrips doesn't justify picking them. I'd much rather slow a target by 10 feet or get rid of their reaction (et al), even though I'll do 1-2 points less damage. It won't always be the best choice, but if I can keep an enemy from attacking an ally for one round, while doing a little bit of damage while I'm at it, then we're usually ahead. The martials do the big single target damage, and if I can keep them safe to do that, it's a win for everyone.

I know it's a controversial opinion, though! But I've argued against Fire Bolt before and I still stand by my stance. :smallwink:

[Frogreaver]

Hi, context here! Max is referring to my followup post (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25045710&postcount=47), and they got the context right. Though "bad" is probably not the word I should've used - it's just one of the cantrips I'm the least likely to pick, unless I was playing a fire-themed caster or something that made picking it have some kind of narrative sense.

My approach to picking spells is that as a primary caster, it's my job to affect the battlefield in a meaningful way on each of my turns, even if I'm running low on spell slots. Fire Bolts don't satisfy that role, because they do bad, unreliable single target damage, and the slightly higher damage dice on them compared to other cantrips doesn't justify picking them. I'd much rather slow a target by 10 feet or get rid of their reaction (et al), even though I'll do 1-2 points less damage. It won't always be the best choice, but if I can keep an enemy from attacking an ally for one round, while doing a little bit of damage while I'm at it, then we're usually ahead. The martials do the big single target damage, and if I can keep them safe to do that, it's a win for everyone.

I know it's a controversial opinion, though! But I've argued against Fire Bolt before and I still stand by my stance. :smallwink:

If I had to summarize my cantrip position:

1. Focus fire is still one of the best strategies
2. Cantrip effects with moderate damage and effects rarely have opportunities for the effect to really matter. 10ft slow is a good example here.
3. Even when there is an opportunity for the effect to be good, it’s likely not going to be on the enemy that’s being focus fired.

So I don’t think doing a d10 over a d8 is particularly important, but neither do I think 10ft slow is particularly important. I do think the slow effect would be more fun though as it feels powerful and apparent when it works. Whereas doing the next size damage die up is boring and consistent and it’s not like in play you’ll easily be able to discern the times that damage dice difference actually mattered.

[ad_hoc]

Dodge is all or nothing. Blade Ward limits the max damage the opponent can do.

For example - say you have 30hp and you know if you get hit you will take 30dmg, well Blade Ward might be better to survive whether hit or not.

It isn't always about reducing more average damage but can be about surviving longer.

The advantage to dodge in this situation is that it lowers the chances of critical hits.

[Man_Over_Game]

If I had to summarize my cantrip position:

1. Focus fire is still one of the best strategies
2. Cantrip effects with moderate damage and effects rarely have opportunities for the effect to really matter. 10ft slow is a good example here.
3. Even when there is an opportunity for the effect to be good, it’s likely not going to be on the enemy that’s being focus fired.

So I don’t think doing a d10 over a d8 is particularly important, but neither do I think 10ft slow is particularly important. I do think the slow effect would be more fun though as it feels powerful and apparent when it works. Whereas doing the next size damage die up is boring and consistent and it’s not like in play you’ll easily be able to discern the times that damage dice difference actually mattered.

Yeah...things die too quickly, fights end too soon, battlemaps are too small, movement is too cheap, etc. 9 times out of 10, a Paladin is spending his spell slots on Divine Smite in combat, not on any of the lower-level Smite spells, despite how tactical, engaging, or interactive those spells may be. That's not anyone's fault; bulking up the fights leads your players into boredom if they're not the type to enjoy long stretches of combat (as the number of rounds of combat don't always mesh well with human attention spans).

Damage is, unfortunately, the most valuable condition. I could block 50% of your damage this turn and kill you in two turns, or I can take a hit and kill you in one (leaving my actions free next turn). It's worth noting the most powerful spells in the game are the ones that either encourage more damage (Hold Person, Haste), or stall long enough so that you can deal damage to other things (Banishment).

I'd pick Ray of Frost more if it could consistently be used as a utility effect (some DMs don't see it that way), otherwise a 20 speed enemy is still probably going to reach you if 30 feet could (and a lot of melee enemies either have high speed or ranged weapons that deal 20% less damage than their melee attacks).

5e isn't a very tactical game, IMO. At least not without a lot of work.

[Segev]

Yeah...things die too quickly, fights end too soon, battlemaps are too small, movement is too cheap, etc. 9 times out of 10, a Paladin is spending his spell slots on Divine Smite in combat, not on any of the lower-level Smite spells, despite how tactical, engaging, or interactive those spells may be. That's not anyone's fault; bulking up the fights leads your players into boredom if they're not the type to enjoy long stretches of combat (as the number of rounds of combat don't always mesh well with human attention spans).

Damage is, unfortunately, the most valuable condition. I could block 50% of your damage this turn and kill you in two turns, or I can take a hit and kill you in one (leaving my actions free next turn). It's worth noting the most powerful spells in the game are the ones that either encourage more damage (Hold Person, Haste), or stall long enough so that you can deal damage to other things (Banishment).

I'd pick Ray of Frost more if it could consistently be used as a utility effect (some DMs don't see it that way), otherwise a 20 speed enemy is still probably going to reach you if 30 feet could (and a lot of melee enemies either have high speed or ranged weapons that deal 20% less damage than their melee attacks).

5e isn't a very tactical game, IMO. At least not without a lot of work.

In my admittedly-anecdotal experience, 5e is a tactical game when PLAYERS choose to use spells that make it so. Combats ending in too few rounds for things to matter are often at the expense of letting the enemy get off a few more attacks rather than slowing them down and prolonging the combat to prevent excess resource expenditure (where hp are also a resource).

What's curious to me is the notion that combat is, at once, too boring to extend too long (and I have found that to be the case), but also the only well-developed part of the game because apparently the social aspect shouldn't have in-depth mechanics and the exploration aspect just...doesn't...and it's viewed as 'punitive' if it does.

I get the impression that different mixes of player preferences are being heaped together, resulting in all three pillars being judged by the standards of those who like the pillar in question the least.

[DwarfFighter]

So does the Dodge action.

:+1:

A good time to use BW instead of Dodge (and we're assuming those two are your only options!) is when you want to guarantee a smaller hp loss.

If you have, say, 20 hp and are looking at losing up to 30 hp, reducing the loss to a maximum of 15 through Resistance guarantees you are still in the game.

A Dodge might reduce the damage you take to 0, but guaranteed survival, even though damaged, is safer than even a safe bet!

Also, BW will reduce Concentration check DCs.

-DF

[Man_Over_Game]

In my admittedly-anecdotal experience, 5e is a tactical game when PLAYERS choose to use spells that make it so. Combats ending in too few rounds for things to matter are often at the expense of letting the enemy get off a few more attacks rather than slowing them down and prolonging the combat to prevent excess resource expenditure (where hp are also a resource).

What's curious to me is the notion that combat is, at once, too boring to extend too long (and I have found that to be the case), but also the only well-developed part of the game because apparently the social aspect shouldn't have in-depth mechanics and the exploration aspect just...doesn't...and it's viewed as 'punitive' if it does.

I get the impression that different mixes of player preferences are being heaped together, resulting in all three pillars being judged by the standards of those who like the pillar in question the least.

I think a big part comes from the fact that Martials only really have enough combat tricks for about two rounds of combat, with those combat tricks only amplifying the equivalent of the Martials' Cantrips.

This is a deceptively big deal.

As a Caster, I can cast Fireball, and then cast Ray of Frost in the following turns, both using different mechanics and useful for different reasons.

However, as something like a Samurai Fighter, I do my "Attack with SUPER" combo, and then every turn after I'm doing "Attack with no SUPER". It feels like I'm doing less, because it's exactly less than what I was doing before. And without many class-based tools to change the circumstances of the fight, I can only expect things to get more boring than it was on Turn 1.

So for Martials, combat gets more boring over time, while it only gets *different* for Casters. Thinking about it, it's the same reason the "Once per Long Rest" invocations for Warlocks are the least-interesting invocations in the game, and why most folks stray from the Berserker Barbarian.

Not trying to get into the whole Caster vs. Martials debate (again), just wanted to explain something that otherwise isn't very obvious (as the thread is about spells, after all).

4e dealt with this by making Martials' "Cantrips" be interesting, tactical and diverse, and I think you always have more than one. A 4e, level 1 At-will is more complex than most level 3 5e turns for martials.

I don't think I've ever felt bored of combat as a 5e Caster, regardless of how much we fought, since I always had several options to adapt with. Martials...are generally limited to doing some variant of the thing they did in the last encounter/round.

I'll be honest, It does make me chuckle sometimes when folks complain about 4e making everyone feel like mages, as issues like this leave me wondering why that's a bad thing.

[Doug Lampert]

Yeah...things die too quickly, fights end too soon, battlemaps are too small, movement is too cheap, etc. 9 times out of 10, a Paladin is spending his spell slots on Divine Smite in combat, not on any of the lower-level Smite spells, despite how tactical, engaging, or interactive those spells may be. That's not anyone's fault; bulking up the fights leads your players into boredom if they're not the type to enjoy long stretches of combat (as the number of rounds of combat don't always mesh well with human attention spans).

Damage is, unfortunately, the most valuable condition. I could block 50% of your damage this turn and kill you in two turns, or I can take a hit and kill you in one (leaving my actions free next turn). It's worth noting the most powerful spells in the game are the ones that either encourage more damage (Hold Person, Haste), or stall long enough so that you can deal damage to other things (Banishment).

I'd pick Ray of Frost more if it could consistently be used as a utility effect (some DMs don't see it that way), otherwise a 20 speed enemy is still probably going to reach you if 30 feet could (and a lot of melee enemies either have high speed or ranged weapons that deal 20% less damage than their melee attacks).

5e isn't a very tactical game, IMO. At least not without a lot of work.

One thing I've played with in other systems is declaring that HP for enemies are almost entirely morale/unit cohesion, and thus giving most of the HP to a group of foes as a group resource, and only critical hits and special effects apply to individuals till the group's HP run out (for 5th edition the rule would be that crits don't double dice, instead they apply the full damage to both the individual's HP and to the group, since individual foes have fairly few HP as most went to the group, this means that most of the time it takes out the foe and damages the group).

Don't know how that would work with 5th ed. But it eliminates the ridiculous size of the focus fire advantage and encourages spreading attacks and effects around.

Solo style monsters don't give any HP to their "group" and also don't care as much if the group runs out of HP. Thus a dragon with four kobold allies, targeting the kobolds doesn't demoralize the dragon, but targeting the dragon may well demoralize the kobolds.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah...things die too quickly, fights end too soon, battlemaps are too small, movement is too cheap, etc. 9 times out of 10, a Paladin is spending his spell slots on Divine Smite in combat, not on any of the lower-level Smite spells, despite how tactical, engaging, or interactive those spells may be. That's not anyone's fault;

It's the paladin's fault if he spends 90% of his magic on the least-efficient, least-effective way to spend it. If you'd said 20% I wouldn't quibble (maybe he is smiting only on crits, yielding a moderately okay amount of damage per slot), but 90% is clearly a tactical mistake. Wrathful Smite, Thunderous Smite, Aura of Vitality are all far better uses of a spell slot than non-critical Divine Smite is.

E.g. Thunderous Smite for 2d6 plus a good chance of knocking the enemy away and prone (so you have all melee PCs attacking with advantage, and your choice of kiting it, or grappling it to keep it prone) is better than 2d8 radiant unless you can't afford the noise. Wrathful Smite for d6 psychic + a chance at control and action denial is better than 2d8 radiant unless the target is too weak to spend concentration on (like a single orc) or immune to fear. Aura of Vitality for 20d6 (70) healing is far superior to 4d8 (18) radiant damage.

[Man_Over_Game]

It's the paladin's fault if he spends 90% of his magic on the least-efficient, least-effective way to spend it. If you'd said 20% I wouldn't quibble (maybe he is smiting only on crits, yielding a moderately okay amount of damage per slot), but 90% is clearly a tactical mistake. Wrathful Smite, Thunderous Smite, Aura of Vitality are all far better uses of a spell slot than non-critical Divine Smite is.

E.g. Thunderous Smite for 2d6 plus a good chance of knocking the enemy away and prone (so you have all melee PCs attacking with advantage, and your choice of kiting it, or grappling it to keep it prone) is better than 2d8 radiant unless you can't afford the noise. Wrathful Smite for d6 psychic + a chance at control and action denial is better than 2d8 radiant unless the target is too weak to spend concentration on (like a single orc) or immune to fear. Aura of Vitality for 20d6 (70) healing is far superior to 4d8 (18) radiant damage.

A lot of folks aren't just interested in the damage, but also the Concentration/Miss factor of the Smite spells. Say I have a 20% chance to both miss and lose Concentration on that spell due to incoming damage (as I'm a melee combatant), why should I spend a known spell selection for something I can basically do with less risk and more damage?

Not to mention that the targets best focused with special effects are the largest threats, who also have the highest chance of saving against the special effects. On weaker targets, the extra + guaranteed damage means you can expect them to stop being a threat that much sooner through damage.

I agree with Aura of Vitality, it doesn't have the same cost-per-round as Divine Smite or Spell Smites, but I wasn't counting your Aura spells when I said that. However, This does lead into another reason why the Smite Spells aren't used: they interfere with your good Concentration spells. The fact that you can spend the spell and have the enemy still save against the rider effect kinda wastes the point, and it's not like you can afford to bump your Charisma too high as a MAD melee character that scales with feats.

[Frogreaver]

It's the paladin's fault if he spends 90% of his magic on the least-efficient, least-effective way to spend it. If you'd said 20% I wouldn't quibble (maybe he is smiting only on crits, yielding a moderately okay amount of damage per slot), but 90% is clearly a tactical mistake. Wrathful Smite, Thunderous Smite, Aura of Vitality are all far better uses of a spell slot than non-critical Divine Smite is.

E.g. Thunderous Smite for 2d6 plus a good chance of knocking the enemy away and prone (so you have all melee PCs attacking with advantage, and your choice of kiting it, or grappling it to keep it prone) is better than 2d8 radiant unless you can't afford the noise. Wrathful Smite for d6 psychic + a chance at control and action denial is better than 2d8 radiant unless the target is too weak to spend concentration on (like a single orc) or immune to fear. Aura of Vitality for 20d6 (70) healing is far superior to 4d8 (18) radiant damage.

It’s really common for Paladins to have bonus action attacks though and so the trade off isn’t just the difference between less damage and effect of the smite spell, but against losing a bonus action attack and the extra damage of the divine smite compared to the smite spell.

Then add on the risk that you may miss and lose concentration on the smite spell before your next turn.

Add the risk that the smite spell target may not even fail its saving through.

Add on the fact that these spells interfere with other concentration spells like hunters mark or haste.

I’m not sure that those smite spells are necessarily better in many circumstances than the standard divine smite approach.

I’d even go so far as to suggest that divine smite on non-crits is actually a very efficient use of resources because Killing enemies earlier in the fight due to front loaded damage also leads to fewer attacks against the party.

[Xetheral]

I think a big part comes from the fact that Martials only really have enough combat tricks for about two rounds of combat, with those combat tricks only amplifying the equivalent of the Martials' Cantrips.

This is a deceptively big deal.

As a Caster, I can cast Fireball, and then cast Ray of Frost in the following turns, both using different mechanics and useful for different reasons.

However, as something like a Samurai Fighter, I do my Attack +1 combo, and then every turn after I'm doing Attack. It feels like I'm doing less, because it's exactly less than what I was doing before. Without many ways to change the circumstances, I can only expect things to get more boring.

So for Martials, combat gets more boring over time, while it only gets *different* for Casters.

Not trying to get into the whole Caster vs. Martials debate (again), just wanted to explain something that otherwise isn't very obvious (as the thread is about spells, after all).

4e dealt with this by making Martials' "Cantrips" be interesting, tactical and diverse, and I think you always have more than one. A 4e, level 1 At-will is more complex than most level 3 5e turns for martials.

I don't think I've ever felt bored of combat as a 5e Caster, regardless of how much we fought, since I always had several options to adapt with. Martials...are generally limited to doing some variant of the thing they did in the last encounter/round.

I'll be honest, It does make me chuckle sometimes when folks complain about 4e making everyone feel like mages, as issues like this leave me wondering why that's a bad thing.

It's possible to build a martial that has an engaging menu of options to choose from each round in a long combat, but one has to really try to do it. Basically you have to mix the subclasses that have the most round-by-round options (e.g. Battlemaster, Thief) with the feats that give new in-combat options (e.g. GWM/SS, Healer, Mobile, Tavern Brawler). Then buy a bunch of niche items (e.g. caltrops, acid, nets, the expensive DMG poisons) so that you have them available for the odd situations where they'd be useful.

I used that approach as a player in a megadungeon campaign, and if anything I ended up with more round-by-round decision points than the casters had, no matter how long a combat ran. (Although I also dipped one level of Cleric, so that character wasn't a pure martial.)

[MaxWilson]

I'd pick Ray of Frost more if it could consistently be used as a utility effect (some DMs don't see it that way), otherwise a 20 speed enemy is still probably going to reach you if 30 feet could (and a lot of melee enemies either have high speed or ranged weapons that deal 20% less damage than their melee attacks).

5e isn't a very tactical game, IMO. At least not without a lot of work.

Ray of Frost is better when combined with a source of forced movement (like Repelling Blast) and a way to exploit that forced movement (Spike Growth, Wall of Fire, Evard's Black Tentacles, etc.). As a DM it's so frustrating (in a good way) when your beefy Trolls, Giants, Star Spawn Hulks, etc., have to run through a damage + difficult terrain area effect like Evard's Black Tentacles in order to get to the PCs (who may be hiding behind partial or total cover to avoid ranged attacks). But thuggy monsters like Fire Giants aren't found to let a little 3d6 damage stop them from charging through difficult terrain, they'll force their way through, right?

Now imagine you broke free with your action, you've lost only 19 of your 162 HP, and you just spent your 30' of movement to move forward 15' out of the Black Tentacles.

And now assume wizard hits you with Ray of Frost, reducing your movement to only 20', while a warlock blasts you 10' to 20' back into the Black Tentacles where you fail your Dex save and get stuck again, taking 3d6 damage (and by RAW have to make ANOTHER Dex save and / or take 3d6 more damage at the start of your next turn, before you can even attempt to break free). Now even if you do break free you can only move 10', leaving you vulnerable to the same attack routine as nauseum. Frustrating, no?

(One counterplay, for a smart and experienced giant, is to drop prone after getting out to impose disadvantage on ranged attacks for a round, but not all giants will realize this is a good move, and it still has some downsides like leaving you in a much worse position if you get hit again despite the disadvantage. Another counterplay is to ready a thrown boulder, at disadvantage and enemy partial cover, and wait for the wizard or warlock to show themselves or the spell duration to expire. I'm not actually sure how effective that one is (depends on AC) but it's an option.)


*snip valid points* and it's not like you can afford to bump your Charisma too high as a MAD melee character that scales with feats.

Well that's interesting. IMO and IME with experienced players, bumping Charisma to 20 ASAP is the paladin's top priority, because Aura of Protection is the Paladin's raison detre, the reason why you're a paladin instead of a fighter.

I wonder how much this playstyle difference is responsible for our differing conclusions. It's hard for me to believe that Cha 16 Wrathful Smite would somehow not be worth using against a big monster, but maybe if someone is running a Cha 14 Paladin against a big monster with good Wisdom, Strength, and magic resistance I can see why you'd avoid Thunderous and Wrathful Smite.

RE: your point about concentration, I concede that concentration is a real rate limiter on Wrathful Smite/etc. in my experience, if the Paladin is concentrating on other spells like Magic Weapon, Enlarge (if paladorc), Expeditipus Retreat, or Blur. But that still means he's not spending 90% of his magic on Divine Smite because actual spells are better! It just changes which spells he uses.

[Man_Over_Game]

It’s really common for Paladins to have bonus action attacks though and so the trade off isn’t just the difference between less damage and effect of the smite spell, but against losing a bonus action attack and the extra damage of the divine smite compared to the smite spell.

Then add on the risk that you may miss and lose concentration on the smite spell before your next turn.

Add the risk that the smite spell target may not even fail its saving through.

Add on the fact that these spells interfere with other concentration spells like hunters mark or haste.

I’m not sure that those smite spells are necessarily better in many circumstances than the standard divine smite approach.

Lol, we are on the same page, I guess.

I've always wondered what to do with Divine Smite to make Smite spells more interesting. I kinda like the idea of making it so that when you cast a spell with a Paladin Spell Slot, you get a bonus to your AC and To Hit equal to to the spell level until the start of your next turn.


It's possible to build a martial that has an engaging menu of options to choose from each round in a long combat, but one has to really try to do it. Basically you have to mix the subclasses that have the most round-by-round options (e.g. Battlemaster, Thief) with the feats that give new in-combat options (e.g. GWM/SS, Healer, Mobile, Tavern Brawler). Then buy a bunch of niche items (e.g. caltrops, acid, nets, the expensive DMG poisons) so that you have them available for the odd situations where they'd be useful.

I used that approach as a player in a megadungeon campaign, and if anything I ended up with more round-by-round decision points than the casters had, no matter how long a combat ran. (Although I also dipped one level of Cleric, so that character wasn't a pure martial.)

That's pretty good!

My current build for the same goal is the Ancestral Guardian, leveraging kiting and mobility. Since things like kiting around allies vs. defending them through melee engagements, throttling expected incoming damage vs. how much HP I have compared to the rest of my team, and the fact that mobility is always relevant when you sometimes do and don't want to get attacked, there's a lot to think about and do every turn (as long as I don't burn through my Rages somehow).

Stuff like Echo Knight, PAM, Mobile, thrown weapons, or Monk levels just add to the mix in making it a consistently tactical combatant.

I like Thief, but I have a hard time coming up with uses for his Fast Hands other than "I cast Melee Healing Word" or "I make this small patch of Difficult Terrain", but I'm not a very clever person. I'd really look forward to seeing someone who knew how to leverage it well.

[Frogreaver]

Ray of Frost is better when combined with a source of forced movement (like Repelling Blast) and a way to exploit that forced movement (Spike Growth, Wall of Fire, Evard's Black Tentacles, etc.). As a DM it's so frustrating (in a good way) when your beefy Trolls, Giants, Star Spawn Hulks, etc., have to run through a damage + difficult terrain area effect like Evard's Black Tentacles in order to get to the PCs (who may be hiding behind partial or total cover to avoid ranged attacks). But thuggy monsters like Fire Giants aren't found to let a little 3d6 damage stop them from charging through difficult terrain, they'll force their way through, right?

Now imagine you broke free with your action, you've lost only 19 of your 162 HP, and you just spent your 30' of movement to move forward 15' out of the Black Tentacles.

And now assume wizard hits you with Ray of Frost, reducing your movement to only 20', while a warlock blasts you 10' to 20' back into the Black Tentacles where you fail your Dex save and get stuck again, taking 3d6 damage (and by RAW have to make ANOTHER Dex save and / or take 3d6 more damage at the start of your next turn, before you can even attempt to break free). Now even if you do break free you can only move 10', leaving you vulnerable to the same attack routine as nauseum. Frustrating, no?

(One counterplay, for a smart and experienced giant, is to drop prone after getting out to impose disadvantage on ranged attacks for a round, but not all giants will realize this is a good move, and it still has some downsides like leaving you in a much worse position if you get hit again despite the disadvantage. Another counterplay is to ready a thrown boulder, at disadvantage and enemy partial cover, and wait for the wizard or warlock to show themselves or the spell duration to expire. I'm not actually sure how effective that one is (depends on AC) but it's an option.)



Well that's interesting. IMO and IME with experienced players, bumping Charisma to 20 ASAP is the paladin's top priority, because Aura of Protection is the Paladin's raison detre, the reason why you're a paladin instead of a fighter.

I wonder how much this playstyle difference is responsible for our differing conclusions. It's hard for me to believe that Cha 16 Wrathful Smite would somehow not be worth using against a big monster, but maybe if someone is running a Cha 14 Paladin against a big monster with good Wisdom, Strength, and magic resistance I can see why you'd avoid Thunderous and Wrathful Smite.

RE: your point about concentration, I concede that concentration is a real rate limiter on Wrathful Smite/etc. in my experience, if the Paladin is concentrating on other spells like Magic Weapon, Enlarge (if paladorc), Expeditipus Retreat, or Blur. But that still means he's not spending 90% of his magic on Divine Smite because actual spells are better! It just changes which spells he uses.

Taking your black tentacles example: there’s an incredibly low chance of that sequence happening.

You used 2 spells
You require 2 cantrips cast and 2-3 attack rolls to hit
You require a failed save.

That’s nearly a whole parties round of actions and you accomplished having a 20% chance or so of getting the giant stuck in the tentacles.

I’m sure it feels great when it happens, but is that actually a good strategy? Were there not 2 better spells you could have cast in that situation? Maybe fear? Maybe command? And if there were then doesn’t this just turn into another example of how slow by 10ft and knock back 10ft effects aren’t actually that useful in most circumstances?

[Man_Over_Game]

And if there were then doesn’t this just turn into another example of how slow by 10ft and knock back 10ft effects aren’t actually that useful in most circumstances?

The Fathomless Warlock pulls this off really affordably, for those not familiar.

At level 1, you can summon/control a tentacle as a BA that moves 30 feet and attacks for cold damage that slows the target by 10 feet. Can be summoned a number of times equal to Proficiency, tentacle can't be attacked and lasts 1 minute.

Add in Lance of Lethargy (EB now slows by 10 feet) and Repelling Blast (EB now knocks back by 10 feet) and you now have a level 2 kiting build that essentially reduces an enemy's speed by 30 every turn with hardly any cost. It looks pretty dope.

[EDITED IN BA]

[Frogreaver]

The Fathomless Warlock pulls this off really affordably, for those not familiar.

At level 1, you can summon/control a tentacle that moves 30 feet and attacks for cold damage that slows the target by 10 feet. Can be summoned a number of times equal to Proficiency, tentacle can't be attacked and lasts 1 minute.

Add in Lance of Lethargy (EB now slows by 10 feet) and Repelling Blast (EB now knocks back by 10 feet) and you now have a level 2 kiting build that essentially reduces an enemy's speed by 30 every turn with hardly any cost. It looks pretty dope.

I can get behind something like that. Seems like a legit solid combo.

[MaxWilson]

Taking your black tentacles example: there’s an incredibly low chance of that sequence happening.

You used 2 spells
You require 2 cantrips cast and 2-3 attack rolls to hit
You require a failed save.

That’s nearly a whole parties round of actions and you accomplished having a 20% chance or so of getting the giant stuck in the tentacles.

I’m sure it feels great when it happens, but is that actually a good strategy? Were there not 2 better spells you could have cast in that situation? Maybe fear? Maybe command? And if there were then doesn’t this just turn into another example of how slow by 10ft and knock back 10ft effects aren’t actually that useful in most circumstances?

2 spells? What's the second spell?

It's actually quite a high chance of it happening, closer to 60% chance of catching a giant each round than 0%. Rolling right now as if against a level 9 party (DC 17/+9 to hit) vs. two CR 9 Fire Giants:

One giant rolls Dex 18+3, saves, Dashes all the way through the 20' difficult terrain plus 20' out the other side, leaving his back leg 5' away from the tentacles.

The other giant rolls a 3+3 and gets caught 5' into it (with his back 10' still outside the tentacles), takes 3d6=13 damage. Uses his action to make a strength check, 14+7 succeeds, moves forward another 10' then runs out of movement.

Wizard rolls 7+9, misses.

Warlock rolls 3+9, misses, 12+9, hits for d10+5 = 8 damage. Fire Giant is blasted 10' back into the tentacles (now his back leg is 5' in and he's adjacent to his buddy, blocking his movement), rolls a Dex save 17+3 and succeeds.

Now the Fire Giant #1 starts his turn and has to make a SECOND Dex save, somehow rolls 17+3 and manages it, moves 30' forward and attacks a PC. The second Fire Giant rolls a Dex save, 16+3, and moves 5' more through difficult terrain and 20' more out the other side, ending with his back leg 5' from the tentacles. Then he takes an action. Suppose that that action is something other than Dash (e.g. he Attacks a PC too). Then he can't move any more.

Now the wizard casts Ray of Frost again (18+9 hits, 2d8=6 points of damage) and the warlock zaps for (15+9 hits, d10+5=9 points of damage; natural 20 crits for 2d10+5=19 HP), pushing him back 20' so he is now fully within the tentacles. Makes a Dex save, 4+3 fails, takes 3d6=13 points of damage.

Now the first giants acts (attacks a PC), and the second giant starts its turn in the tentacles and takes another 3d6=11 HP of damage. It tries to break free with a strength check, 3+7 fails, and it ends its turn still stuck in the tentacles.

All this time the other PCs are attacking giant #1 right back. It's round #3 of combat and the giants have spent 3 of their 6 actions not Multiattacking, while taking 8 damage to giant #1 and 71 HP to Giant #2. Players have spent 3 wizard actions, 2 warlock actions, and a wizard spell slot to achieve this (unless the warlock cast the Tentacles). And the giants got lucky on their Dex saves (17+3, 17+3, 16+3)--normally they wouldn't even get those 3 Multiattacks, more like 1 or 2.

You just saved the party 80-150 HP of damage while inflicting 80 more HP of damage. The bulk of the work in this case was done by the warlock, because dice, but Ray of Frost provided an additional level of safety that made it more reliable (e.g. even if Giant #2 had made his Str check on round #3 he would still have been unable to exit the tentacles completely).

Believe me when I say on behalf of the giants that the situation is frustrating, like fighting gnats that just won't die properly, while standing in quicksand.

[verbatim]

There aren't many telegraphed defensive powers that are worthwhile. Barbarians can't Dodge because it risks making them lose Rage, Monks don't Dodge because Flurry of Blows (or another BA use) is generally already being used for your other Monk features, Rogues don't Dodge because they can just Disengage and Dash if needed, Casters don't Dodge because they either don't foresee much incoming damage or because they have a better solution. The only classes I ever see take the Dodge Action (and even then, very rarely) are things like Fighters.

Dodge is decent on high AC cleric and Bladesinger builds focused on maintaining concentration on things like Spirit Guardians or Tasha's summon spells.

[Frogreaver]

2 spells? What's the second spell.

It's actually quite a high chance of it happening. Rolling right now as if against a level 9 party (DC 17/+9 to hit) vs. two CR 9 Fire Giants:

One giant rolls Dex 18+3, saves, Dashes all the way through the 20' difficult terrain plus 20' out the other side, leaving his back leg 5' away from the tentacles.

The other giant rolls a 3+3 and gets caught 5' into it (with his back 10' still outside the tentacles), takes 3d6=13 damage. Uses his action to make a strength check, 14+7 succeeds, moves forward another 10' then runs out of movement.

Wizard rolls 7+9, misses.

Warlock rolls 3+9, misses, 12+9, hits for d10+5 = 8 damage. Fire Giant is blasted 10' back into the tentacles (now his back leg is 5' in and he's adjacent to his buddy, blocking his movement), rolls a Dex save 17+3 and succeeds.

Now the Fire Giant #1 starts his turn and has to make a SECOND Dex save, somehow rolls 17+3 and manages it, moves 30' forward and attacks a PC. The second Fire Giant rolls a Dex save, 16+3, and moves 5' more through difficult terrain and 20' more out the other side, ending with his back leg 5' from the tentacles. Then he takes an action. Suppose that that action is something other than Dash (e.g. he Attacks a PC too). Then he can't move any more.

Now the wizard casts Ray of Frost again (18+9 hits, 2d8=6 points of damage) and the warlock zaps for (15+9 hits, d10+5=9 points of damage; natural 20 crits for 2d10+5=19 HP), pushing him back 20' so he is now fully within the tentacles. Makes a Dex save, 4+3 fails, takes 3d6=13 points of damage.

Now the first giants acts (attacks a PC), and the second giant starts its turn in the tentacles and takes another 3d6=11 HP of damage. It tries to break free with a strength check, 3+7 fails, and it ends its turn still stuck in the tentacles.

All this time the other PCs are attacking giant #1 right back. It's round #3 of combat and the giants have spent 3 of their 6 actions not Multiattacking, while taking 8 damage to giant #1 and 71 HP to Giant #2. Players have spent 3 wizard actions, 2 warlock actions, and a wizard spell slot to achieve this (unless the warlock cast the Tentacles). And the giants got lucky on their Dex saves (17+3, 17+3, 16+3)--normally they wouldn't even get those 3 Multiattacks, more like 1 or 2.

Thought you were using another damaging affect with it for overlapping area. But we can ignore that part if that’s not what you intended.

So a PC will hit on a 9+. That’s 60% to hit. Based on your earlier claim you need at least 2 attacks to hit for all the cantrip effects. That means you have a 36% chance of that occurring. You have an 85% chance if the giant failing the dex save. That leaves you with a 30.6% chance if the combo working at level 9. Lower the party to level 7 and you would have an 18.75% chance of all that occurring.

Do you disagree?

[MaxWilson]

Thought you were using another damaging affect with it for overlapping area. But we can ignore that part if that’s not what you intended.

So a PC will hit on a 9+. That’s 60% to hit. Based on your earlier claim you need at least 2 attacks to hit for all the cantrip effects. That means you have a 36% chance of that occurring. You have an 85% chance if the giant failing the dex save. That leaves you with a 30.6% chance if the combo working at level 9. Lower the party to level 7 and you would have an 18.75% chance of all that occurring.

Do you disagree?

I disagree that you need all the cantrip effects. The cantrips work in tandem such that landing some of the cantrip effects, some of the time, is enough to put the enemy in a world of hurt, as the example combat shows. Never put all your eggs in one basket of you can avoid it.

Having 2+ of 3 attacks hit, at 60% probability per attack, is 64% probability (0.6 * (1-0.4^2) + 0.4 * (0.6^2)), not 36%.

And the Giant has a 65% probability of failing a Dex save, not 85%, but when blasted by the warlock he has to make two Dex saves in a row (as the example shows), which puts his chance of failure at 87.5%.

If the warlock is a full warlock instead of a dip, and has Grasp of Hadar for even more slowdown, it gets even worse for the giants. I didn't assume that case but it's not difficult to achieve if a player prioritizes it.

[Frogreaver]

I disagree that you need all the cantrip effects. The cantrips work in tandem such that landing some of the cantrip effects, some of the time, is enough to put the enemy in a world of hurt, as the example combat shows. Never put all your eggs in one basket of you can avoid it.

Having 2+ of 3 attacks hit, at 60% probability per attack, is 64% probability (0.6 * (1-0.4^2) + 0.4 * (0.6^2)), not 36%.

And the Giant has a 65% probability of failing a Dex save, not 85%, but when blasted by the warlock he has to make two Dex saves in a row (as the example shows), which puts his chance of failure at 87.5%.

If the warlock is a full warlock instead of a dip, and has Grasp of Hadar for even more slowdown, it gets even worse for the giants. I didn't assume that case but it's not difficult to achieve if a player prioritizes it.

So I’m a bit frustrated. You started with an example of using 2 different cantrips and evards which is what I based my reply on and now you are changing the example by claiming you don’t actually need both cantrips. You actually only need EB. So I agree - any calculations I did or statements I made regarding the original claim don’t apply here.

[MaxWilson]

So I’m a bit frustrated. You started with an example of using 2 different cantrips and evards which is what I based my reply on and now you are changing the example by claiming you don’t actually need both cantrips. You actually only need EB. So I agree - any calculations I did or statements I made regarding the original claim don’t apply here.

I apologize if I wasn't clear enough. As the example illustrated, the idea is to use multiple effects in tandem to increase the probability of putting the enemy in a bad situation. Ray of Frost provided an extra layer of reliability in the example combat that made it even harder/less likely for the enemy to break out of the tentacle AoE and escape the action economy drain + damage. Fire Bolt wouldn't have done that; it would only have added 2 extra points of damage even if the giants weren't immune to fire.

The same thing applies to a greater or lesser extents to AoEs like Silence, Sickening Radiance, and Spike Growth, and the vicinity of AoEs like Wall of Fire. Reducing enemy movement (on some rounds) increases your window of opportunity to exploit them.

Do you understand my meaning now? Any questions?

[LumenPlacidum]

I might keep Blade Ward the same, but have it apply to all damage types and also prevent forced movement (disperses the force or something)

[Frogreaver]

I might keep Blade Ward the same, but have it apply to all damage types and also prevent forced movement (disperses the force or something)

I like it.

[Segev]

I think a big part comes from the fact that Martials only really have enough combat tricks for about two rounds of combat, with those combat tricks only amplifying the equivalent of the Martials' Cantrips.

This is a deceptively big deal.

As a Caster, I can cast Fireball, and then cast Ray of Frost in the following turns, both using different mechanics and useful for different reasons.

However, as something like a Samurai Fighter, I do my "Attack with SUPER" combo, and then every turn after I'm doing "Attack with no SUPER". It feels like I'm doing less, because it's exactly less than what I was doing before. And without many class-based tools to change the circumstances of the fight, I can only expect things to get more boring than it was on Turn 1.

So for Martials, combat gets more boring over time, while it only gets *different* for Casters. Thinking about it, it's the same reason the "Once per Long Rest" invocations for Warlocks are the least-interesting invocations in the game, and why most folks stray from the Berserker Barbarian.

Not trying to get into the whole Caster vs. Martials debate (again), just wanted to explain something that otherwise isn't very obvious (as the thread is about spells, after all).

I know at least one player who is perfectly happy to have her BDF running in and hitting things, and having her tactical decisions be mostly about WHO to hit round after round. Zealot Barbarian worked well for her. Her biggest tactical decision was whether to Rage or not when in a fight during a dungeon crawl.

I'm playing a Rogue 1 / Monk 4 (5 now, but I haven't gotten into a fight since the level-up yet), and my tactical decisions mostly center around whether to spend ki on flurry and on whether to grapple or to just hit things. Except I'm highly mobile, so I like to jump around a lot and thus positioning is an important tactical choice for me. I do have a fog bottle (eversmoking bottle that does fog instead of smoke) that I don't use often because it's a hindrance to those who aren't me, so I suppose that's a tactical choice, but it's not based on my classes.

Even without the choice to spend ki or not, "move, make sure I get in position to do as much with my action and bonus action as possible," is a lot of tactical play. At least to me.