UA Raulothim’s Psychic Lance is insane as written. Here's why.

[nathanv]

Let's talk about why this spell is insane.

Quick rundown: 4th level spell, bard/sor/warlock/wiz, instantaneous, 1 action. Let's skip to the effect to see what we're dealing with:


The target must succeed on an Intelligence saving throw or take 10d6 psychic damage and be incapacitated until the start of your next turn. ...The damage increases by 1d6 for each slot level above 4th.

Nice damage, nice rider, nice save! No concentration, incapacitation blocks even legendary actions, etc. Worthless upcast, but whatever, there are situations where this would be a good use of a Warlock's maxed slots anyhow. Okay, that's nice. Maybe even very nice! But that's not *insane.*

Let's look at the start.


You unleash a shimmering lance of psychic power from your forehead at a creature that you can see within range. Alternatively, you can utter the creature’s name.

Huh, two different means of targeting it. That's pretty unusual. First way is to target a creature I can see within range. What are the details of the second way? Assuming I know the name? (Btw: not full name? Not true name? Just "name"?)


If the named target is within range, it gains no benefit from cover or invisibility as the lance homes in on it.

So it gains no benefit from cover. Of course, save spells aren't affected by cover except *total* cover, right? Which puts them in that tiny category of spells that can shoot through force walls and stuff. Such a tiny category that the only other spell in it is Sacred Flame.

So since this is an alternative to the other way of casting, and sight isn't specified, we don't need sight. Not sure what they mean by the target gaining no benefit from invisibility, because there is no benefit to invisibility other than not being able to be seen-- this isn't an attack roll spell, there's no advantage/disadvantage. Maybe they don't know their own rules? Can't blame them, the rules are a little weird. Maybe they meant the target gains no benefit from being hidden?

So not only is this spell in the tiny category of spells that can ignore cover, it's also in the tiny category of save spells that can ignore sight. (To my knowledge, acid blast is the only other one.) The Venn diagram intersection of those two tiny categories contains only this one spell.

So what can you do with a spell that ignores cover and doesn't require sight? Duh. Shoot through walls. Blink through one with a readied move, or misty step to your familiar's vision-- no problem, we're still dealing damage the next turn. Or be a new UA fairy and climb through a 1" crack in the caves, nothing is following you. You can still do damage. This is the only damage spell in the game that can do that. Barring x-ray specs.

That's not the end of the spell though.


If the named target isn’t within range, the lance dissipates,and the spell slot is not expended.

Huh. So I only need to know the target's name-- I don't even have to know that they're around! Not only is this a good base spell, that I can use to shoot through walls (or anything else!), but it's also a constant Locate Hostile 120'.

So let's say I'm doing this adventure, and I know there's a vampire in town, and I know his name-- let's just call him "Strom"-- but I don't know where he *is*. So I wake up at dawn and start walking the streets. 30', cast. 30', cast. Etc. No slot cost. When I get within 120' of Strom, BOOM! What if he's in a coffin in the basement? What if he's buried? Let's say buried. No problem, I ignore total cover, I can shoot through the earth as easily as I shoot through anything else. I have not only bypassed this extremely common mystery, I have initiated combat with a powerful spell effect.

That makes me think. What should we do about initiative for this combat? Surprise? I had absolutely no awareness of buried Strom, so I guess I'm surprised-- well, unless I have one of numerous features that protect me and/or my party from surprise by fiat. But Strom had no possible awareness of me either! So I guess he's surprised? Both parties are completely surprised (barring features?)

So if I have, say, the alert feat, then not only did I find Strom trivially, but also, I don't even care if he saved! He's surprised, which is just as good as incapacitated. Wonder what spell I should cast? Do I have any other fourth level spell slots?

Because there is one fourth level spell I know that will lock a single target down. That spell is *this* spell, which grants the incapacitated condition, targeting a save generally considered the best, and it does damage at the same time. So as long as me and my party can keep successfully casting this spell, Strom has no chance to retaliate-- he has no chance to even run away!

That's pretty nasty. My party and I just by-passed the whole adventure. We went straight to the BBEG and killed him without him ever getting a chance to act. To tell you the truth, we never even *saw* him.

Okay, but let's say for a second that I *don't* know somebody's name. Well, that's a little like any other spell with a condition: if you don't meet the conditions that make it favorable, you don't cast the spell. Hold Person is a good spell even if it can only target humanoids. Only here, the spell is good even when I don't meet the conditions. Just not *insanely* good.

Although let's not forget, this is single-target damage and status. We're not casting it on nameless orcs. We're casting it on the important bad guys. And it seems that those important bad guys always want us to know their names from nearly the start (from the cover of the book!) so it's not a big limit.

But we're also at 4th level spells. We are really close to the level where "ask DM for a hint" spells start working: Contact Other Plane. Legend Lore. Those spells should solve any problems we have with finding important names.

[ATHATH]

Which is probably why this spell didn't make it into Tasha's, effectively making it disowned by WotC.

Also, to do this, you have to know your target's name, which you won't in 90% of situations ("hey, orcish assassin #5, would you mind telling me your name?"). Ever read Death Note?

Admittedly, Light didn't have access to divination spells, but if you have access to divination spells, you can probably just... ask where and when the optimal place and time to ambush your target(s) will be (or when/where you'll next encounter them).

[Arkhios]

So it gains no benefit from cover. Of course, save spells aren't affected by cover except *total* cover, right? Which puts them in that tiny category of spells that can shoot through force walls and stuff. Such a tiny category that the only other spell in it is Sacred Flame, an attack roll spell.

http://5e.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sacredFlame.htm and my copy of Player's Handbook disagrees with this statement.

...

Other than that, yeah, the spell has a lot of issues as written. I would make a wild guess and assume the designers are (or were) experimenting with new spellcasting methods (or even new spell components!?) to better implement psionics within the spellcasting system as we know it, instead of re-inventing the wheel for a parallel magic system to co-exist with spellcasting and pact magic. I could be wrong, but I'd say it's reasonable deduction. (at least, being called Raulothim's Psychic Lance and dealing psychic damage, the spell strongly suggests psionics. Also, Raulothim was an Emerald Dragon from Ruathym, Forgotten Realms who, according to his 3.5 statistics, was considered a 19th level Psion and a 10th level wizard).

[Kane0]

Which is probably why this spell didn't make it into Tasha's, effectively making it disowned by WotC.


Wasnt this UA after Tasha's?

But anyways, yeah its a pretty nuts spell.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Wasnt this UA after Tasha's?

But anyways, yeah its a pretty nuts spell.

I believe its in draconic options

[ATHATH]

Wasnt this UA after Tasha's?

But anyways, yeah its a pretty nuts spell.
If it is, I stand corrected- "Psychic" in the name of the spell must have confused me.

[Arkhios]

Wasnt this UA after Tasha's?

But anyways, yeah its a pretty nuts spell.


I believe its in draconic options

Indeed, it is. Tasha's is older than the Draconic Options UA.

[quindraco]

Which is probably why this spell didn't make it into Tasha's, effectively making it disowned by WotC.

Also, to do this, you have to know your target's name, which you won't in 90% of situations ("hey, orcish assassin #5, would you mind telling me your name?"). Ever read Death Note?

Admittedly, Light didn't have access to divination spells, but if you have access to divination spells, you can probably just... ask where and when the optimal place and time to ambush your target(s) will be (or when/where you'll next encounter them).

There are multiple definitions of the word "name", and since this is 5E, the rules definition of "name" is whatever the dictionary says. That's why no-one knows whether soulknife blades look like stars or mirages, since the dictionary lists two wildly different definitions for the word "shimmer".

Here's the top, number one (of multiple) definitions of the word "name" in this arbitrarily chosen dictionary I found: "a word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is known, addressed, or referred to". That makes this orc's name "orcish assassin #5", because they were addressed that way by the speaker.

Your "name" can be whatever you're known by - regardless of whether it's a "pen name"/pseudonym or a nickname thrust upon you by others. It can be whatever you're legally registered as in your birth country. It can be whatever you think of yourself as inside your own head. And so on. There's no one true definition of it and 5E hates giving actual rules definitions. So this spell will behave wildly differently under different DMs, with no way for PCs to predict and no way for DMs to fathom what WOTC's intended guidance/balance is.

[Kane0]

There are multiple definitions of the word "name", and since this is 5E, the rules definition of "name" is whatever the dictionary says. That's why no-one knows whether soulknife blades look like stars or mirages, since the dictionary lists two wildly different definitions for the word "shimmer".

Here's the top, number one (of multiple) definitions of the word "name" in this arbitrarily chosen dictionary I found: "a word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is known, addressed, or referred to". That makes this orc's name "orcish assassin #5", because they were addressed that way by the speaker.

Your "name" can be whatever you're known by - regardless of whether it's a "pen name"/pseudonym or a nickname thrust upon you by others. It can be whatever you're legally registered as in your birth country. It can be whatever you think of yourself as inside your own head. And so on. There's no one true definition of it and 5E hates giving actual rules definitions. So this spell will behave wildly differently under different DMs, with no way for PCs to predict and no way for DMs to fathom what WOTC's intended guidance/balance is.

The way i would rule it is 'would the creature specifically acknowledge you if you used that name'
Sort of like the shovel test for mold earth

[Jakinbandw]

The way i would rule it is 'would the creature specifically acknowledge you if you used that name'
Sort of like the shovel test for mold earth

I wounder how many people have the name 'Stupid'? (You know the old, "Hey, Stupid!" "WHAT!?").

Actually, what happens if two people in range have the same name?

[Ettina]

I'd rule that if you could use that name to call them with the Gate spell, it works for Raulothim's Psychic Lance.


When you cast this spell, you can speak the name of a specific creature (a pseudonym, title, or nickname doesn't work).

[quindraco]

I wounder how many people have the name 'Stupid'? (You know the old, "Hey, Stupid!" "WHAT!?").

Actually, what happens if two people in range have the same name?

A GM would be justified in having all targets of the same name be targeted (much like twinning the spell) or in letting the caster pick (defining name in terms of who you meant when you said the name, rather than target interpretation) or in letting the active turn controller pick (a la Xanathar's rules for resolving simultaneous effects).

[Amnestic]

Big bads start deliberately taking the names of major adventurers to avoid the spell and to ruin reputations. Genius.

Caster Bob can't target your big bad when they're also called Caster Bob.

[Kurt Kurageous]

This is now another reason why I'm going to continue to ignore UA as I have done for the last four years.

I'll start with the 10d6. One spell slot higher than fireball, gets one more die than fireball overcast at 4th.

Yeah, so what FB is AoE, which will generally hit 3-4 targets around a point you can see. Can't see the point/target? This is reconnaissance by fire in a way no other spell works, hitting a creature through walls...

Fireball has a rarely effective rider (unworn things burn), while this has the best possible rider. Fireball save DEX (rarely below +1 for creatures) this INT (rarely above +1).

I don't expect this spell will see canon as is. I think it was written by someone trying to promote the subclass, not actually write for balance. And how is this in any way draconic? Except that it's a fire...dumpster variety.

[nathanv]

and my copy of Player's Handbook disagrees with this statement.

Oops! Fixed.

[verbatim]

Big bads start deliberately taking the names of major adventurers to avoid the spell and to ruin reputations. Genius.

Caster Bob can't target your big bad when they're also called Caster Bob.

In previous editions Asmodeus had the ability to change devils true names at will. If your party pissed him off they could suddenly find themselves dealing with an abundance of Assassin Devils and Orthon's who share the same name as the spellcaster.

[Segev]

For sake of this argument, I feel it important to note that it doesn't say you target the creature whose name you say. It says "if you know the target's name."

So if Strom the baker, Strom the vampire, and Strom the party's barbarian are all in 120 feet of you when you cast the spell on "Strom," you still are choosing a specific target and it won't target the wrong Strom. It isn't, mechanically, using the name "Strom" to pick a target; mechanically, it's allowing you to target a creature whose name is Strom because you know that that's his name.

Put another way: the name, narratively, is the mystical connection you're using, but you still have a particular target in mind.

I would also add that, if you do not have a particular target in mind, you can't just use an arbitrary name to see if anybody has that name within 120 feet. Moreover, you DO need to know the target's name, not merely guess a name and hope it's the name of the target. While I would frown at any DM who tries to make this a "you're not 100% positive Bob's real name is Bob" game, even though Bob's real name is, in fact, "Bob," I would expect that wanting to target "the thief who picked my pocket" by guessing the thief's name is "Bob" would fail, even if the thief's name WAS Bob, because you ARE just guessing.

Likewise, it's not a Divination spell, so targeting "the thief who picked my pocket, because I know it was you, Bob," will target the Bob you THINK did it, even if you're wrong. You had a particular target in mind and knew his name.

In other words, it will never find "the orc assassin who tried to kill me" based solely on that information; you'd have to know that that orc was, in fact, named "Gog." "Gog, the orc assassin who tried to kill me," is sufficient to target him, even if you're wrong and he never tried to kill you but you're still thinking it's that particular orc named Gog.

[quindraco]

For sake of this argument, I feel it important to note that it doesn't say you target the creature whose name you say. It says "if you know the target's name."

So if Strom the baker, Strom the vampire, and Strom the party's barbarian are all in 120 feet of you when you cast the spell on "Strom," you still are choosing a specific target and it won't target the wrong Strom. It isn't, mechanically, using the name "Strom" to pick a target; mechanically, it's allowing you to target a creature whose name is Strom because you know that that's his name.

Put another way: the name, narratively, is the mystical connection you're using, but you still have a particular target in mind.

I would also add that, if you do not have a particular target in mind, you can't just use an arbitrary name to see if anybody has that name within 120 feet. Moreover, you DO need to know the target's name, not merely guess a name and hope it's the name of the target. While I would frown at any DM who tries to make this a "you're not 100% positive Bob's real name is Bob" game, even though Bob's real name is, in fact, "Bob," I would expect that wanting to target "the thief who picked my pocket" by guessing the thief's name is "Bob" would fail, even if the thief's name WAS Bob, because you ARE just guessing.

Likewise, it's not a Divination spell, so targeting "the thief who picked my pocket, because I know it was you, Bob," will target the Bob you THINK did it, even if you're wrong. You had a particular target in mind and knew his name.

In other words, it will never find "the orc assassin who tried to kill me" based solely on that information; you'd have to know that that orc was, in fact, named "Gog." "Gog, the orc assassin who tried to kill me," is sufficient to target him, even if you're wrong and he never tried to kill you but you're still thinking it's that particular orc named Gog.

So in this scenario, how do you determine whether or not the orc is named Gog? I gave examples in an earlier post in this thread, but I'll give them specificity here:

The orc in question was named Gogarrug by his parents, but the midwife misspelled the name on his birth certificate and it was never fixed, so legally, his name is Gagorrug. Gogarrug's friends call him Gog, which he hates, but he knows they mean him when they say it; in his own head, he thinks of himself as Gar. Some people around town call him Pigface, and while many people do this, he's not aware of it. He attacks a wizard, who responds, "Jerk! Take this!" and casts the spell.

What's the orc's name?

Gogarrug?
Gagorrug?
Gog?
Gar?
Pigface?
Jerk?

[BerzerkerUnit]

I'd like to note the spell says the target gains no benefit from "cover" which is usually distinct from "total cover" or "full cover." I think the reference to invisibility is a clue to authorial intent here, indicating cover that still affords you a view of the target or an effect that totally obscures it.

Cover usually provides a +2 bonus to saves (I think limited to dexterity). Author may have been confused or overlooked it or this might be a hold over from an earlier draft.

I think harshing on how much damage the spell does is a poor point of critique and handwaiving that it's likely to do 1/3rd to 1/4 the damage of a lower level spell isn't the best start.

I doubt anyone running the spell right now is under the assumption the intent was blind nuking npcs through bunker walls. "defeating" a vampire you don't actually know the location of or path to isn't a thing that can happen by RAW, even with this poorly written spell.

It's clear it zeroes in on a named target that might have some level of cover or that you cannot see because of invisibility or that's totally obscured. Nothing indicates it ignores the normal requirements for line of effect except an extraordinarily generous reading of the term cover which I addressed above.

[Darc_Vader]

I'd like to note the spell says the target gains no benefit from "cover" which is usually distinct from "total cover" or "full cover." I think the reference to invisibility is a clue to authorial intent here, indicating cover that still affords you a view of the target or an effect that totally obscures it.

Cover usually provides a +2 bonus to saves (I think limited to dexterity). Author may have been confused or overlooked it or this might be a hold over from an earlier draft.

I think harshing on how much damage the spell does is a poor point of critique and handwaiving that it's likely to do 1/3rd to 1/4 the damage of a lower level spell isn't the best start.

I doubt anyone running the spell right now is under the assumption the intent was blind nuking npcs through bunker walls. "defeating" a vampire you don't actually know the location of or path to isn't a thing that can happen by RAW, even with this poorly written spell.

It's clear it zeroes in on a named target that might have some level of cover or that you cannot see because of invisibility or that's totally obscured. Nothing indicates it ignores the normal requirements for line of effect except an extraordinarily generous reading of the term cover which I addressed above.

Cover is broken up into 1/2 Cover(+2 to AC and Dex saves), 3/4 Cover(+5 to both) and Full Cover(Can’t be directly targeted). If they meant it to not work against creatures with Full Cover, then they would have had to word it as ‘they gain no benefit from half or 3/4 cover’. As written it would apply to all types of cover.

[Segev]

So in this scenario, how do you determine whether or not the orc is named Gog? I gave examples in an earlier post in this thread, but I'll give them specificity here:

The orc in question was named Gogarrug by his parents, but the midwife misspelled the name on his birth certificate and it was never fixed, so legally, his name is Gagorrug. Gogarrug's friends call him Gog, which he hates, but he knows they mean him when they say it; in his own head, he thinks of himself as Gar. Some people around town call him Pigface, and while many people do this, he's not aware of it. He attacks a wizard, who responds, "Jerk! Take this!" and casts the spell.

What's the orc's name?

Gogarrug?
Gagorrug?
Gog?
Gar?
Pigface?
Jerk?
All valid questions, and specifically not answered. The rules don't specify what the "true name" is. This means the DM has to rule. I will note that my post which you quoted said nothing about how to rule on that; I was addressing that you have to have the target in mind AND know its name, as opposed to just guessing a name and having no target or a target whose name you do not know in mind.

To answer the question in terms of how I'd rule it? I'd probably go with, barring a setting conceit of True Names being mystically set in some specific fashion, whatever the orc in question thinks of himself as. So, in this case, Gar. "What he really thinks of himself as" is going to be its own possibly-fraught question, but reasonable players and DMs can be reasonable about this.

In Batman Beyond, for example, we know that targeting the elderly and reclusive millionaire who lives in Wayne Manor with this spell using the name "Bruce Wayne" would fail, because that's not the name he thinks of as "himself."

[nathanv]

Check out https://media.wizards.com/2017/podcasts/dnd/DnDPodcast_01_19_2017.mp3 . The intent behind Sacred Flame was ignoring total cover-- ignoring line of fire. It used language that was more limited than Lance.

If you look at rpg SE posts asking about Sacred Flame, you'll see some disagreement among those answering. I think it is unappealing to many people to use Sacred Flame in conjunction with X-ray vision for damage free from retaliation. It's unappealing to me too-- hence this post, DnD shouldn't be moving toward anything that does that. Note that the people answering that you can't do it homed in on the limited language of Sacred Flame that is not present for Lance.

I do wish that developers gave us more insight into intent than they do. I think trying to rely on strict rules for a game like DnD is a bad idea, and if we had ideas about intent, we could make better rulings for a lot of situations. Not everybody agrees with me on that front. I consider the podcast to be a way that we can link the language that's being used with designer intent.

For this spell, I believe that the intent was to target someone by virtue of their name only, without regard to targeting restrictions; I think the "invisible" language was probably made without a clear understanding of their rules (said misunderstanding is apparent in language used going back to PHB.) I think their intent was to prevent the DM saying, "You can't target them because they're hidden." That's still redundant, but it makes sense as a clarification. I think the intention absolutely *was* blind-nuking, but without considering bunkers-- without considering different play than straight dungeon crawls full of goblins, or considering players' ingenuity, ability to shape and manipulate when and where they fight. I think it was just a poorly considered spell. They white-roomed it once, it turned out okay, they punched out for the day.

Obviously, every DM can make their own decisions regarding how this spell works. They don't have to use the spell. They may have already made the spell with homebrew! I hope that easy respecs are offered to players when the PC vision and the DM vision disagree.

I looked for spells with similar effects (single target, instantaneous damage) for a point of comparison, but gave up quickly-- it seemed to me that the damage is reasonable for its level and intended purpose. I'm not harshing on the damage, like I said, it's certainly not insane. Can you tell me which spells you're referring to that do 3 or 4x the damage? Hopefully not area of effect, or damage over time, which are good for different purposes than Lance? The closest comparison I found before giving up was Phantasmal Killer: 4D10 concentration DOT + frighten on a 4th level spell, repeated Wis saves to end effect and take no damage, you get 2 save attempts before any damage dealt in my interpretation. 4D10 is 22, 10D6 is 35, but these are hard to compare for a lot of reasons. As it should be!

[Lord Vukodlak]

Check out https://media.wizards.com/2017/podcasts/dnd/DnDPodcast_01_19_2017.mp3 . The intent behind Sacred Flame was ignoring total cover-- ignoring line of fire. It used language that was more limited than Lance.

If you look at rpg SE posts asking about Sacred Flame, you'll see some disagreement among those answering. I think it is unappealing to many people to use Sacred Flame in conjunction with X-ray vision for damage free from retaliation. It's unappealing to me too-- hence this post, DnD shouldn't be moving toward anything that does that. Note that the people answering that you can't do it homed in on the limited language of Sacred Flame that is not present for Lance.

I do wish that developers gave us more insight into intent than they do. I think trying to rely on strict rules for a game like DnD is a bad idea, and if we had ideas about intent, we could make better rulings for a lot of situations. Not everybody agrees with me on that front. I consider the podcast to be a way that we can link the language that's being used with designer intent.

For this spell, I believe that the intent was to target someone by virtue of their name only, without regard to targeting restrictions; I think the "invisible" language was probably made without a clear understanding of their rules (said misunderstanding is apparent in language used going back to PHB.) I think their intent was to prevent the DM saying, "You can't target them because they're hidden." That's still redundant, but it makes sense as a clarification. I think the intention absolutely *was* blind-nuking, but without considering bunkers-- without considering different play than straight dungeon crawls full of goblins, or considering players' ingenuity, ability to shape and manipulate when and where they fight. I think it was just a poorly considered spell. They white-roomed it once, it turned out okay, they punched out for the day.

Obviously, every DM can make their own decisions regarding how this spell works. They don't have to use the spell. They may have already made the spell with homebrew! I hope that easy respecs are offered to players when the PC vision and the DM vision disagree.

I looked for spells with similar effects (single target, instantaneous damage) for a point of comparison, but gave up quickly-- it seemed to me that the damage is reasonable for its level and intended purpose. I'm not harshing on the damage, like I said, it's certainly not insane. Can you tell me which spells you're referring to that do 3 or 4x the damage? Hopefully not area of effect, or damage over time, which are good for different purposes than Lance? The closest comparison I found before giving up was Phantasmal Killer: 4D10 concentration DOT + frighten on a 4th level spell, repeated Wis saves to end effect and take no damage, you get 2 save attempts before any damage dealt in my interpretation. 4D10 is 22, 10D6 is 35, but these are hard to compare for a lot of reasons. As it should be!

Blight deals 8d8 damage which is comparable to 10d6, and its save for half vs save for none. BUT Lance targets Int saves instead of Con so on average its probably going to deal more damage except against plant creatures.

Then we have its rider incapacitation which certainly wins out over Frightened from phantasmal killer
And this is before know thy name stuff.



I don't expect this spell will see canon as is. I think it was written by someone trying to promote the subclass, not actually write for balance. And how is this in any way draconic? Except that it's a fire...dumpster variety.
*Its for Gem Dragons which are psychic

[Tanarii]

Given it says it homes in on a target, it's pretty clear it means it goes around corners, not through walls.

[quindraco]

Given it says it homes in on a target, it's pretty clear it means it goes around corners, not through walls.

That's the same thing. PHB p204.

[JackPhoenix]

So in this scenario, how do you determine whether or not the orc is named Gog? I gave examples in an earlier post in this thread, but I'll give them specificity here:

The orc in question was named Gogarrug by his parents, but the midwife misspelled the name on his birth certificate and it was never fixed, so legally, his name is Gagorrug. Gogarrug's friends call him Gog, which he hates, but he knows they mean him when they say it; in his own head, he thinks of himself as Gar. Some people around town call him Pigface, and while many people do this, he's not aware of it. He attacks a wizard, who responds, "Jerk! Take this!" and casts the spell.

What's the orc's name?

Gogarrug?
Gagorrug?
Gog?
Gar?
Pigface?
Jerk?

Whatever the GM says it is. Nobody else involved is real, so they don't have any say in it.


That's the same thing. PHB p204.

Not true. Assuming it works like that, someone locked in a room with no opening would be safe. As would someone in a position where the available path(s) between the caster and the target lies outside the spell's range. Fireball goes around corners too, but it can't get you if the only path between the point of origin and the target lies outside its area.

If it ignores walls completely, none of that matters.

[nathanv]

It would matter, if that's what home meant (to evade obstacles), but it's not what home means, so it doesn't:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/home : : to move to or toward an objective by following a signal or landmark —usually used with on or in; to proceed or direct attention toward an objective

Of course, nobody should be in the habit of just believing some dude on the internet over what they previously thought correct, so if you disagree, it might make sense to check in with somebody in real life that you trust on matters of usage.

[Tanarii]

That's the same thing. PHB p204.
Thats funny. You're quoting the page that proves my point. :smallamused:

[Witty Username]

Its single target though, as a 4th level spell. And saving throw so it will break against legendary resistance.
Because of that I am not sure if this has a spot over hypnotic pattern, slow, or confusion.

I think it would be the best blast spell at 4th level, but the best 4th level blast is currently upcast fireball as I understand it. But again only single target.

I think this would be fine as is.

[Theodoxus]

Both Acid Splash and Sacred Flame require sight to the target. Neither work against total cover because you don't have LOS to your target. Line of Effect, yes; Line of Sight, no: spell fails. It doesn't matter if the spell itself ignores cover - that's immaterial to the fact that you can't see the target in the first place.

Neither spell says "if you know the square a target is in" or any such thing. "Flame-like radiance descends on a creature that you can see within range." Tell me how you see your target in a locked room with no windows or hiding in a sealed barrel/box?

[JackPhoenix]

Both Acid Splash and Sacred Flame require sight to the target. Neither work against total cover because you don't have LOS to your target. Line of Effect, yes; Line of Sight, no: spell fails. It doesn't matter if the spell itself ignores cover - that's immaterial to the fact that you can't see the target in the first place.

There are cases where you can see the target even thought it has total cover. Force walls or transparent materials (even glass windows) grant cover, but don't break LoS.


Neither spell says "if you know the square a target is in" or any such thing. "Flame-like radiance descends on a creature that you can see within range." Tell me how you see your target in a locked room with no windows or hiding in a sealed barrel/box?

Familiar in the room relaying targetting information, divination magic. Not that either would help with Acid Splash, that one doesn't ignore cover.

[Deathtongue]

Even if you use the most generous interpretation of 'it goes straight through cover AND you don't need to know its exact name' I just find it merely good. 10d6 plus a round of incapacitation to a single-target as an intelligence save that ignores cover (even total cover) and line-of-sight targeting is nothing to sneeze at -- and honestly should be the benchmark for direct-damage spells going forward -- but it's also not encounter-crushingly good like other L4 spells such as Banishment or Polymorph or Resilient Sphere or Gravity Sinkhole or upcast Fly or upcast Summon Undead. Fear or Watery Sphere can win an encounter for you on their own. This will not.

[Chronos]

This isn't the only spell that can damage a target without being able to reach them. Dream can also do that, albeit at a level higher and with its own restrictions.

What really makes this one nuts, in my opinion, is the clause that if the targeting fails, the spell slot isn't used. No other spell has anything like that.

[Deathtongue]

This isn't the only spell that can damage a target without being able to reach them. Dream can also do that, albeit at a level higher and with its own restrictions.

What really makes this one nuts, in my opinion, is the clause that if the targeting fails, the spell slot isn't used. No other spell has anything like that.

What's so insane about that? How does that help the party approach a victory state in a way they couldn't if that clause wasn't there? That would be really scary for something like a Terminator android assassin who doesn't quite know where their hidden target is, but I don't really see that helping PCs win typical combat or adventuring setups.

[Theodoxus]

Adventuring group gets a bounty on some guy (we'll be optimistic and say "bad guy"). All the pertinent information is provided, including his birth and nick names (just to cover all the bases). The party knows the general direction the guy is in, but not exactly where his hide out is. Party consists of two people who know the spell, so they split up, walking 200' apart from each other, to cover more ground but have a bit of overlap (just in case). They spam Psychic Lance as they walk the grid until they finally hit paydirt because suddenly one (or possibly both if they're very lucky) casters lose a 4th level spell slot.

Replace bounty with anyone else the party might have made an enemy of early in their career and these murderhobos are cleaning up their enemies list, scorched earth style.

I mean, if you're cool with that, great. I think it's super cheesy myself.

[Tanarii]

What really makes this one nuts, in my opinion, is the clause that if the targeting fails, the spell slot isn't used. No other spell has anything like that.
More than anything else, it's terrible precedent.

OTOH that's UA for you. Quite possibly they know it's bad precedent, but put it in just to see what player feedback they'd get to the idea.

[Deathtongue]

Adventuring group gets a bounty on some guy (we'll be optimistic and say "bad guy"). All the pertinent information is provided, including his birth and nick names (just to cover all the bases). The party knows the general direction the guy is in, but not exactly where his hide out is. Party consists of two people who know the spell, so they split up, walking 200' apart from each other, to cover more ground but have a bit of overlap (just in case). They spam Psychic Lance as they walk the grid until they finally hit paydirt because suddenly one (or possibly both if they're very lucky) casters lose a 4th level spell slot.

Replace bounty with anyone else the party might have made an enemy of early in their career and these murderhobos are cleaning up their enemies list, scorched earth style.

I mean, if you're cool with that, great. I think it's super cheesy myself.I don't think that tactic is particularly cheesy. It's actually a pretty stupid and wasteful way to adventure. What do you think the opposition is doing while you're just going around repeatedly chanting verbal components? Or say you actually get a hit and realize you lost a spell slot, therefore you're in the right vicinity. Now what? How are you now going to capitalize on that? You could just keep casting the spell, but, again, it's 10d6 damage and incapacitation for one target from a 4th-level spell slot. If that happened to a PC, I'd expect them to use that time to buff up, heal the damage if they could, and then sally forth. If not outright try to get the jump on some doofus searching for them in such a conspicuous fashion.

It's scary as a tool for a Terminator assigned to kill Sarah and John Connor, but that's because they greatly outmatch their targets and their only option is to hide and run. This is not the case for D&D, in which the opposition is often more than a match for your wasteful bounty-hunting plan and even if you do decide blowing all of your 4th-level spell slots is a reasonable price to kill one CR5+ bounty -- you have their friends to deal with.

[nathanv]

Pardon me regarding acid splash. Original printing didn't require sight, but it's been errata'd since. It always has require line of fire (blocked by total cover.) So it's not really relevant to the discussion.

Yes, dream is another spell that does something kinda similar (although did you ever notice it doesn't ignore cover? RAW, it only works if there's nothing between you) but it's not quite the same. You need more than a week to kill anyone, and there are decent defenses far below the level of mind blank, and the condition is generally more difficult (knowing them vs having their name.)