About Encounter-Long Damage Spells.

[Speely]

So I really like spells like Spiritual Guardians, Moonbeam, and Cloud of Daggers for the way they emphasize positioning, movement, and threat, among other things.

However, they add quite a few dice rolls to encounters, especially when you have PCs who devote their Concentration to having these spells up all the time.

RAW, every time someone enters or starts their turn in these doomscapes, damage is rolled again. I am toying with the idea that only the first instance of rolling damage for the spell applies, and that is the damage done for the rest of the duration of the spell whenever it is applicable. I.E, when you first do damage with the spell, that casting determines the potency, so no other damage rolls are needed. Only saves to determine any possible half damage.

This both speeds up combat and reflects that the original casting sets the potency of the spell.

I can't see a downside to this, and in fact it provides some direction for the caster. Was the original casting not great for damage? Maybe reconsider.

Was it awesome? Lean into it.

What do y'all think? I feel like it's easier to manage and opens up some dynamics for builds that might otherwise just coast on one strategy for encounters. That said, I might be missing something, which is why I am coming to you, dear people who are smarter than I. :)

Edit: I realize that Moonbeam and Cloud of Daggers are more single-target-oriented, but this could work for things like Spike Growth as well.

[loki_ragnarock]

I think that's a perfectly valid table rule that will speed up play.

But... it will also make applications of the spell *extremely* swingy. When you roll a bunch of times, the damage averages out. When you roll once it can range from bupkis to OMG levels of damage for an entire encounter. Moonbeam does an average of 11 points per instance over the course of an encounter, but this could be 2 per instance for an encounter or 20 per instance for an encounter... which will mess with the balance of your encounter design a smidge.

So long as you're comfortable with that, right on.

[Willowhelm]

As a player I would find it deeply irritating to have my upcast spirit guardians do minimal damage for a whole fight.

If I found the additional dice rolling a pain, I’d suggest going with average damage. It has all the benefits of the fixed damage and removes the swingyness and disappointment.

[Speely]

I think that's a perfectly valid table rule that will speed up play.

But... it will also make applications of the spell *extremely* swingy. When you roll a bunch of times, the damage averages out. When you roll once it can range from bupkis to OMG levels of damage for an entire encounter. Moonbeam does an average of 11 points per instance over the course of an encounter, but this could be 2 per instance for an encounter or 20 per instance for an encounter... which will mess with the balance of your encounter design a smidge.

So long as you're comfortable with that, right on.

The swinginess is why I am asking. I think I like it because of that, but would players?

At the very least, it adds potential explosiveness to that initial damage roll, which I feel is something 5E thrives on.

[Speely]

As a player I would find it deeply irritating to have my upcast spirit guardians do minimal damage for a whole fight.

If I found the additional dice rolling a pain, I’d suggest going with average damage. It has all the benefits of the fixed damage and removes the swingyness and disappointment.

Thanks for this! It's an interesting option... having the damage be averaged would keep things sped up but make it more dependable... a known quantity before casting. Completely different feel at the table than my "roll well and be a god/roll poorly and waste a spell slot and action" approach.

[PhantomSoul]

Thanks for this! It's an interesting option... having the damage be averaged would keep things sped up but make it more dependable... a known quantity before casting. Completely different feel at the table than my "roll well and be a god/roll poorly and waste a spell slot and action" approach.

A middle ground could be best -- rolling is fun, and while dependability is a perk it can easily feel... predictable and boring? The spellcaster rolling once for each round could be a middle ground; the spellcaster could roll at the start of their turn and "set" the damage for that round, rolling again on their next turn.

[Speely]

A middle ground could be best -- rolling is fun, and while dependability is a perk it can easily feel... predictable and boring? The spellcaster rolling once for each round could be a middle ground; the spellcaster could roll at the start of their turn and "set" the damage for that round, rolling again on their next turn.

This was my first thought when brainstorming this, and I kinda just kept going with it maybe a bit too much. I think this is a good middle ground. One damage roll per round (on the caster's turn or the first time damage is applied after) seems like a sweet spot.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Have the player roll the damage in his turn, and that’s the damage for anyone triggering it until the players next turn.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I tend to split the difference, having them roll once per round (on the turn when someone first takes the damage).

[Speely]

I tend to split the difference, having them roll once per round (on the turn when someone first takes the damage).

Right on! This is what I am going with. Thanks for helping to get me there :)

[PhantomSoul]

If using roll20, a simple macro could mean still getting random damage each instance while not having it take too long (a click, maybe with one input option for upcasting)

[Speely]

If using roll20, a simple macro could mean still getting random damage each instance while not having it take too long (a click, maybe with one input option for upcasting)

I guess I should have stated that I play at a table that does not use roll20, but instead does almost everything analog.

[PhantomSoul]

I guess I should have stated that I play at a table that does not use roll20, but instead does almost everything analog.

I'd guessed (since you talked about time for rolls), but realised after my earlier comment that it wasn't a confirmed assumption! :)

[Speely]

I'd guessed (since you talked about time for rolls), but realised after my earlier comment that it wasn't a confirmed assumption! :)

Tbf, I use apps for almost everything when DMing. My players just love to roll, and I get it. Feels good :)

[Schwann145]

Keep in mind, getting to roll dice is half of the fun of D&D.

Combat isn't supposed to be over quickly and easily; combat is 80% of the game.

Maybe your table is different, but in most (if not all) of the tables I've played at, taking away the dice rolling is the quickest way to bored players. Rolling the dice means interacting with the game in a very tangible way, a way that simply describing things doesn't do well.

Just some things to consider. :)

[Speely]

Keep in mind, getting to roll dice is half of the fun of D&D.

Combat isn't supposed to be over quickly and easily; combat is 80% of the game.

Maybe your table is different, but in most (if not all) of the tables I've played at, taking away the dice rolling is the quickest way to bored players. Rolling the dice means interacting with the game in a very tangible way, a way that simply describing things doesn't do well.

Just some things to consider. :)

100% agree that rolling dice is AT LEAST half the fun of D&D. That's why I made this thread!! I am in the (maybe) minority that embraces that D&D is a combat game with ribbons.

That said, I am not trying to take away dice rolls so that players aren't rolling dice with this... It's more of a "hey, you are going to have to potentially roll a lot of dice, so how can we make this better for the table?" kind of thing.

Rolling dice for an action is fun . Rolling for a result is fun. Rolling again and again and again for the same effect seems like a bit much, and doesn't add anything useful imo.

[Aalbatr0ss]

Who in their right mind would maintain concentration for a second turn on a moonbeam that they know is doing 3 damage? The player should just drop it and cast a new spell. Conversely, once they get a spell going stronger than average they keep it going at all cost.

It changes the game a bit. Not necessarily a problem if you’re ok with that. But full casters could really work this. Especially a land druid or wizard with arcane recovery or a similar feature. Casters with sustained spells usually end the day with some high level slots to spare.

[Jervis]

I recommend once per round and having that damage apply to every creature that takes it until the start of the players next turn. Gives a caster something to do if a action is involved and reduces the problem of rolling bad the first time while still letting them roll.

[Willowhelm]

Who in their right mind would maintain concentration for a second turn on a moonbeam that they know is doing 3 damage? The player should just drop it and cast a new spell. Conversely, once they get a spell going stronger than average they keep it going at all cost.

It changes the game a bit. Not necessarily a problem if you’re ok with that. But full casters could really work this. Especially a land druid or wizard with arcane recovery or a similar feature. Casters with sustained spells usually end the day with some high level slots to spare.

Someone with no more spell slots or someone who is concerned with the non-dpr aspects of the spell.

I know in curse of strahd I didn’t have spare moonbeam spell slots and I valued the shapechanger reversion a lot when I was using it.

[Corran]

If you roll low (eg on spirit guardians), it will present you with a dilemma. Do I use more actions and resources to try give it another go, or do I stick with it? I guess abandoning for casting something else could also be another option. Hmm, it feels more gamy than tactical. If it were up to me and I had the option, I'd stick with rolling, so I dont have to think about questions that are not particularly interesting.

[sambojin]

I'm a bit of a "balance of overpowered" kinda guy, so I'd go "Roll once for the spell, if you roll under the average, then it's the average".
(Edit: average minus1 rounded-down. Still a good base with most DoT spells)

It means you can never have a bad spell, it always does something for your spell slot, but you can have a very good spell if you roll well (with only one roll).

Yes, this is significantly better than rolling every round, as mathematically all your damage-over-time spells will be slightly over average over many casts of them, and No, spell casters don't need the boost. But whatever. It's quick, and that's what you wanted (and the PC still gets to roll, just on the "is this an awesome spell?" side of things, instead of "did I just waste a spell slot?" side of it).


((You could go average-minus1-rounded-down if you wanted, so the base isn't a true boost, and the roll really matters. It's a slightly underwhelming but good spell, or an averagely-good to great one at that point. I'd go this way. A reasonable but not amazing base, but a very high potential ceiling, all with one roll. The PCs will still love using them, but it saves some rolls. Moon Beam starts at 10 damage but can be max, Spirit Guardians starts at 12 damage but can be max. Still very good uses of spell slots, even for a 2-4 round combat. Excellent, if you roll well, and the enemy doesn't save too often. As a player, it's tactically nice to know if you're controlling a death-beam/ kill-zone, or a flashlight/ tickle-them-pink area as well. But it always does something this way, so you're not afraid to cast the spell))

(((We always average-damage/ no-roll for summons/ conjures, and have them 4-max per spell slot (so you may as well try for the good CR conjures, unless there's good reason not to), which speeds things up a lot too. It also allows a bit more leeway on getting the thing you asked for from conjures as well, because there will never be tonnes of them)))

Tldr; rolling high is amazeballs, rolling low isn't a waste. And players love rolling high. Use the system above^
It always tickles a fair bit. And it's a known amount of death-beam/ kill-zone, to any enemies in that area.

[Chronos]

Quoth PhantomSoul:

A middle ground could be best -- rolling is fun, and while dependability is a perk it can easily feel... predictable and boring? The spellcaster rolling once for each round could be a middle ground; the spellcaster could roll at the start of their turn and "set" the damage for that round, rolling again on their next turn.
This is what my group does, and it works fine. And it comes up a lot: One of the players loves playing a cleric, and Spirit Guardians is his most-used spell.

[sithlordnergal]

Someone with no more spell slots or someone who is concerned with the non-dpr aspects of the spell.

I know in curse of strahd I didn’t have spare moonbeam spell slots and I valued the shapechanger reversion a lot when I was using it.

That's gonna be an edge case at best to be honest. If you're fighting a boss and toss out a Moonbeam as a last hail mary, then its either a fight you need to retreat from, or a fight that's about to be over.


As for OP, have them roll the first time damage procs in a round, then use that for the rest of the round, its what I tend to do. It allows for dice rolling, which is fun, and keeps the spell from becoming insanely swingy, but its good for lowering the total number of dice rolls.

[Kane0]

How would this interact with empower spell metamagic?

[JonBeowulf]

How would this interact with empower spell metamagic?
Empowered Spell would work the same way it always does - burn a sorc point to reroll up to your CHA mod of dice and live with the consequences.

[Kane0]

Sounds like a good deal to me, if I can empower the first roll of say Wall of Fire or Cloudkill and have that number be the same for every instance inflicted.