Should Bane not grant a save?

[Segev]

The thread on invocations vs Pact Magic got me thinking of how lame the Invocations that grant once/day spells, particularly those that require a pact magic slot to use on top of being once per day. Thief of Five Fates is one such. Bane is already a lame spell; making it once per day at such a high investment cost is tough.


But that got me thinking about why it is so lame: bless is just better because it is guaranteed to at least provide its bonus. Bane not only could fail to do anything if the -1d4 never pushes the target from success to failure, but the targets get a Charisma save.

Because bane already only modifies die rolls, does it really need to offer a saving throw to avoid its effects? Or would house-ruling it to not offering a save make it overpowered?

[titi]

The thread on invocations vs Pact Magic got me thinking of how lame the Invocations that grant once/day spells, particularly those that require a pact magic slot to use on top of being once per day. Thief of Five Fates is one such. Bane is already a lame spell; making it once per day at such a high investment cost is tough.


But that got me thinking about why it is so lame: bless is just better because it is guaranteed to at least provide its bonus. Bane not only could fail to do anything if the -1d4 never pushes the target from success to failure, but the targets get a Charisma save.

Because bane already only modifies die rolls, does it really need to offer a saving throw to avoid its effects? Or would house-ruling it to not offering a save make it overpowered?

I'd be more comfortable upgrading the die, because if bane doesn't have the save, that means npc that know the spell can cast it on the players, and unavoidable debuff does not sounds fun for the players

[stoutstien]

I said if you were going to try to remove the saving throw you probably need to reduce it to a single Target.

I'm personally actually a really big fan of bane. It's better mitigation then Ray of enfeeblement and he's one of the few debuff spells that isn't directly tied to a condition.

I don't think I've ever cast it over a second level spell slot because at that point you're better off jumping up but that's a common pattern for third level spells in general.

[Frogreaver]

ThereÂ’s a few additional considerations.

1. Bless does nothing if the pc it is cast on isnÂ’t attacking, which depending on party comp may only leave 1-2 good bless targets.

2. As an example. Going from 50% chance to be hit to 37.5% chance to be hit has a higher proportional value than going from 50% to 62.5% chance to hit.

3. Lowering enemy saves is usually stronger than increasing PC saves.

4. Enemies you bane should be the most dangerous attackers but those should probably also be the targets you focus fire on (barring casters, etc). So thereÂ’s a bit of negative synergy there.

That said the inconsistency of bane really kills it for me despite its average case probably being about as impactful as blesses. Also, worth noting - bless can be precast before some combats, bane not so much.

Maybe change bane to a bonus action?

[KorvinStarmast]

The thread on invocations vs Pact Magic got me thinking of how lame the Invocations that grant once/day spells, particularly those that require a pact magic slot to use on top of being once per day. Thief of Five Fates is one such. Bane is already a lame spell; making it once per day at such a high investment cost is tough.


But that got me thinking about why it is so lame: bless is just better because it is guaranteed to at least provide its bonus. Bane not only could fail to do anything if the -1d4 never pushes the target from success to failure, but the targets get a Charisma save.

Because bane already only modifies die rolls, does it really need to offer a saving throw to avoid its effects? Or would house-ruling it to not offering a save make it overpowered? I'd suggest "don't try to fix what isn't broken."

Quite a few creatures have low charisma, and thus poor charisma saves. I have discovered that in tier 1 and in selected tier 2 play, Bane is handy in a lot of situations. And you have to keep your concentration up. But all said and done, I prefer bless as a spell since I like making my team mates feel more powerful. Personal taste.

Not so much in higher level play as Cha scores go up quite a bit for many creatures.

[Mastikator]

I'd maybe increase the number of targets to 4 or 5. And have upcasting increase the dice, d6 for 3rd and 4th level, d8 for 5th and 6th, d10 for 7th and 8th, and d12 for 9th level.

[solidork]

I think removing the save wouldn't suddenly make it a must pick for everyone, but it would definitely be a force multiplier for certain parties or builds. One of the biggest issues with Bane is that while you're concentrating on it you can't cast another concentration spell to try and take advantage of the enemies' weakened saves. If you've got a way to apply status effects and still keep Bane up, or a party that can take good advantage of the penalty, I think it's a decently good use of a 1st level slot.

If you're a Chain Pact Warlock you can be forcing saves vs Poisoned (or even Unconscious) every round as a bonus action. If you've got an allied cleric who likes to wade in with Spirit Guardians, that's a lot of attacks and saving throws to effect.

[Segev]

I'd suggest "don't try to fix what isn't broken."

I have the most evidence - anecdotal, but still, the most - to counter this point, so I will respond directly while I think about the other responses: In my experience, it is "broken" in that bane is a spell I have literally never seen anybody use in a game. We all take a look at it and at bless, and recognize that bane has so many chances to literally do nothing that it isn't worth taking, while bless has fewer points of failure. Your point about enemies having low Charisma is okay, but that doesn't stop them from rolling well on the Charisma save anyway. It's just not worth the resources in spell slot, let alone action economy, it costs for the risks of doing effectively nothing. It also costs your ongoing Concentration, which couples to the "they could hit/save anyway, even with the penalty" / "they wouldn't have hit/saved even without the penalty" issue hard enough that questioning whether you're better off with a different thing to Concentrate on, even if they all failed their saves.

It's akin to a custom spell a DM gave one of my PCs. IT sounds cool, and even offers no save at all, but I have yet to cast it because it costs a first level spell slot and an action. It makes it so that the target will take the same damage he deals on his next attack before the end of his next turn, up to a maximum of 10 hp of damage. On the one hand, it's 10 damage that the target can't avoid except by not doing damage to anybody. Not awful damage for a first level spell slot, especially with no save. On the other, avoiding it only requires doing something that doesn't deal damage with its action. Or doing a very low-damage attack first and then following up with its bigger attack. (Multiattack enemies that divide their damage between multiple attacks can be nasty, here.) I am unsure how it compares to a "save for half" or an "attack roll" spell that does an average of 10 damage, but it feels like it does too little to be a real deterrent, and also doesn't do the damage in enough of a preventative fashion. It's probably as good as direct damage early in a fight, but it won't, for example, put something down before that something does more damage to your allies, even if it goes down AFTER dealing that damage. On the other hand, it is 10 damage that is only avoidable if the target chooses to avoid dealing damage. So I really don't know if I'm being unfair to the spell or not, but I have never cast it because it's never seemed like it's as good an option as just throwing a cantrip for 2d6 or 2d8 damage (when you consider its spell slot cost).

Which is just to point out how I think, really, and maybe mitigate my criticism of bane seeming like too much of a gamble on its action and spell slot cost.

[Atranen]

I've found bane pretty weak in play; it's short range, so your concentration may be under threat (esp at low levels before you have a feat to defend it), and there's the save, so you often won't get three enemies. And the best defense is a good offense, so if your allies kill them faster with bless (or you use concentration for spirit guardians etc) you'll be better off.

Stripping the save entirely will make it strong, because there aren't many ways to do that reliably, and saving throw effects are so devastating. But, the worst save effects require concentration too, so it needs some teamwork to land. Plus you have to be close to the target.

I think it's fine as a strong level 1 or solid level 2 spell without the save. I could see decreasing the number of targets too.

[Oramac]

I personally quite like bane, but mostly for thematic reasons rather than mechanical reasons. I can't say I've tried it, but IMO I don't think removing the Cha save would make it OP at all. Minus 1d4 to attacks/saves isn't a big enough range to matter all that often, especially to creatures with high attack/save bonuses.

That said, I can see the other side of the coin, where it would certainly not be fun for the party to be targeted by a no-save bane cast by an enemy. On the other OTHER side, it would absolutely incentivize the party to focus fire and generally use better tactics, so it's not all bad.

[OvisCaedo]

Bane might just be in a kind of bad spot for the game's design. Debuffs to enemy saves are often something at a premium in the system, so a low level effect that impacts them has to have limits. But then those limits might make it not worth using to start with. Concentration competing with many of the things you'd want to take advantage of is a significant limit to start with, but in a multi-caster party (or, I guess, with a monk or anything else with strong save-based effects), a first level slot is theoretically a pretty cheap force multiplier.

Of course, since then the team also released Silvery Barbs, so. Maybe their newer design philosophy wouldn't price bane's effect so highly.

I think a lot of first level spells kind of fall into a similar spot of "the effect type might be too strong for a first level spell, so it's burdened with enough limits to make it useless". Witch bolt also often feels this way; how many of its overkill drawbacks can be removed before it becomes too much?

[Tanarii]

I have the most evidence - anecdotal, but still, the most - to counter this point, so I will respond directly while I think about the other responses: In my experience, it is "broken" in that bane is a spell I have literally never seen anybody use in a game.
Anecdotal is anecdotal. I've saw it used somewhat regularly, both in my campaign and in AL. It's less common than bless on martials. But still a nice combo spell as a precursor to another more important spell. As well as incidentally providing damage mitigation.

It is kind of weird that Bless (generally speaking) boosts physical offense and magic defense, but Bane hurts enemy physical offense and magic defense. From a design perspective it might be better if Bless boosted all party offense and Bane hurt all enemy offense.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Unpopular opinion--more spells should be "save or nothing". Don't give me the "but my spell slots" stuff--we all know that the way the game is played, spell slots rarely are the binding constraint beyond the very lowest levels. Casting a big spell should be gambling--a high chance of doing something great in exchange for a chance to do nothing at all that turn[2]. I get it. Spending your turn doing nothing effective is a drag. But it's one everyone faces--ask KorvinStarmast about all the times he's whiffed with attacks even after getting Extra Attack. And since the payout is much higher with spells when they work...

So I think bane's fine as it is. With 3 targets and CHA not being a good save most of the time[1], you've got a decent chance of landing a fairly severe debuff on at least one of the targets. It's also a great spell for enemies to use on the PCs--it's a significant debuff, but not hard control (like hold person).

[1] Exceptions are dragons and fiends.
[2] Ok, for a little more measured take, reliability should trade off with power. Currently, all the push is to make casters more reliable without constraining their power. If casters are going to innately have more power and versatility than martials, they need to have way less reliability. Or we can (my preferred option) reduce the power and versatility to something more sensible in exchange for more reliability.

[bayjorntreeroot]

Bane also has the problem of only landing on one or two targets, which is relarely worth it unless it's a high value target.

I think no save is fine, though I also think it might work to allow up to three attempts on the same creature.

[Keltest]

Honestly I think the real issue with Bane isn't anything to do with the spell itself, because even just 1d4 off of a save is potentially pretty lethal. The problem is the casters that get access to it have so many other competing uses for their concentration that lower level spells just don't get the chance.

[stoutstien]

Bane also has the problem of only landing on one or two targets, which is relarely worth it unless it's a high value target.

I think no save is fine, though I also think it might work to allow up to three attempts on the same creature.

It actually has more impactful on low priority targets you otherwise aren't able to directly deal with.

Last time I used it in game was against a bunch of quicklings that got summoned by some form of hag. Based on the initiative and positioning, there was no way that I was going to eliminate or stop more than one of them before they swarmed our fighter. *She was cursed so fey irrationally want her dead*

I think it turned 5 hits into misses over the encounter before I lost concentration. Hag hugs suck.

[sithlordnergal]

I think Bane is fine as it is, but its also one of those spells where the more you optimize, the better it becomes. If your AC is high enough that a monster has a 50% chance or less to hit you, Bane is AMAZING, because usually the monster matches your AC, or gets 1 point above it. You go from being hit 50% of the time, to 40%. Those are some pretty good odds.

It also lowers saving throws, something very few things can do. And again, if you optimize for the highest Save DC possible for your abilities, then most monsters will only just barely succeed, and Bane can easily turn that success into a failure.

That said, it can be pretty garbage if you're not optimized. If your enemy has an 80% chance to hit you, dropping it to a 70% chance is nice...but its not going to help you very much. Same holds true with spell saves. Its only worthwhile if you're dropping the chance to be hit or the chance of the target making a save below 50%


EDIT: I will give a special shout out to Lore Bards though. They have some special synergy with Bane since they can stack Bane and Cutting Words on an attack.

[Aaron Underhand]

I wonder if just shifting to only saving at the end of their turn so it guarantees one round of effect, might be a reasonable balance...

[RogueJK]

Bless does nothing if the pc it is cast on isnÂ’t attacking, which depending on party comp may only leave 1-2 good bless targets.

Bless is potentially useful on anyone, since it grants +1d4 to attacks and all saves. That save bonus is equivalent (on average) to standing in the Aura of Protection of a 16 CHA Paladin, and nobody's complaining that a Paladin's Aura "does nothing"! ;) Plus, it doesn't require you to stay near anyone to benefit from it.

Granted, it's best used on allies who could utilize both sides of it. But even if some of the recipients aren't making attack rolls, that's still +1d4 to a Concentration check on a key spell, or to a WIS save to avoid a nasty save-or-suck effect, or to a DEX save to halve/avoid that big AoE damage, etc.

[Tanarii]

I wonder if just shifting to only saving at the end of their turn so it guarantees one round of effect, might be a reasonable balance...
Oh I like that!

[KorvinStarmast]

I have the most evidence - anecdotal, but still, the most - to counter this point, so I will respond directly while I think about the other responses: In my experience, it is "broken" in that bane is a spell I have literally never seen anybody use in a game.
And I have.
I was somewhat surprised to see how useful it was in Tier 1. However, that was in a five-character party that included two other casters (one full and one half) so this may have colored my experience. I was using Sacred Flame (which requires a save) and/or Toll the Dead (which requires a save) as my follow on attacks usually.

Do I think bless is better? Yes. But bless is also one of the very best spells in the game; still see it used in Tier 3.
But I also prefer bless for a table-social reason - buffs seem to make the players at the table enjoy getting a boost.

[KorvinStarmast]

Oh I like that! They only roll the save once. once failed, the debuff lasts until concentration fails or spell ends. If bane is used on the PCs and they get no save until after a turn full of debuff, is that a good idea?
I imagine DM's will vary in opinion on that.

Grant you, Otto's Dance inflicts the condition for a turn before any save is allowed, but that's a sixth level spell.

[Atranen]

Unpopular opinion--more spells should be "save or nothing". Don't give me the "but my spell slots" stuff--we all know that the way the game is played, spell slots rarely are the binding constraint beyond the very lowest levels. Casting a big spell should be gambling--a high chance of doing something great in exchange for a chance to do nothing at all that turn[2]. I get it. Spending your turn doing nothing effective is a drag. But it's one everyone faces--ask KorvinStarmast about all the times he's whiffed with attacks even after getting Extra Attack. And since the payout is much higher with spells when they work...

I've seen a lot of systems switching from 'the enemy rolls to save' to 'you roll for your spell to work'. Dungeon Crawl Classics, Shadowdark, whitehack in a sense, some homebrew I've played...

and every time I try it, I think it works way better. At least when Korvin swings and misses, he got to roll the attack. Save spells are boring because you wait a while for your turn, say "I cast sacred flame", the DM rolls, and nothing happens. You don't even get to roll and blame your cursed dice for failing you.


I wonder if just shifting to only saving at the end of their turn so it guarantees one round of effect, might be a reasonable balance...

This hits the balance point nicely imo. I'm in favor of this change.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've seen a lot of systems switching from 'the enemy rolls to save' to 'you roll for your spell to work'. Dungeon Crawl Classics, Shadowdark, whitehack in a sense, some homebrew I've played...

and every time I try it, I think it works way better. At least when Korvin swings and misses, he got to roll the attack. And I get to curse the dice. Maybe I need to melt one of them in the microwave as a deterrent to the others ... no, wait, we use an online roller, that's not gonna work. :smallyuk:

[Segev]

Unpopular opinion--more spells should be "save or nothing". Don't give me the "but my spell slots" stuff--we all know that the way the game is played, spell slots rarely are the binding constraint beyond the very lowest levels.

Are levels 7-10 "the very lowest levels?" Because I feel the pinch with full casters' spell slots even then, except on days where I was cautious about not using magic. And then, I am not so much "not feeling the pinch" as I am pre-emptively hoarding my spell slots "just in case," leaving me struggling to find ways to use long-duration spells and cantrips. I am fond of illusionists for this reason; the eventual permanent major image is a very strong tool with Malleable Illusions, letting me save spell slots for those crucial moments.

[AdAstra]

What I'd consider with Bane would be removing Concentration. It's a weak enough effect that it is likely fine, probably allowing the target another save at the end of every turn. Upping the number of concentration-less debuffs is tricky, but Blindness/Deafness manages to be usable without being so good that everyone takes it.

[Frogreaver]

Bless is potentially useful on anyone, since it grants +1d4 to attacks and all saves. That save bonus is equivalent (on average) to standing in the Aura of Protection of a 16 CHA Paladin, and nobody's complaining that a Paladin's Aura "does nothing"! ;) Plus, it doesn't require you to stay near anyone to benefit from it.

Granted, it's best used on allies who could utilize both sides of it. But even if some of the recipients aren't making attack rolls, that's still +1d4 to a Concentration check on a key spell, or to a WIS save to avoid a nasty save-or-suck effect, or to a DEX save to halve/avoid that big AoE damage, etc.

Thanks Captain Obvious!

[elyktsorb]

I don't like using Bane. It's usually best to use at lower levels, but at those levels it has the most chance of failing on random creatures even if they don't have good Charisma scores.

If Bane were to have no save I'd probably use it more, but then it turns into this possible game of Bane just canceling out Bless in a way. So I'm not sure it should have no save. I'd say that Bane should get to target more people for having a save.

[Kane0]

I think it would be in a better position without concentration, or maybe some other tweak like bonus action cast and longer range.
It is a solid spell, just overshadowed by bless (easy to make a direct conparison, and also top-of-the-class in its spell level) so I wouldnt want to make it that much better.

[DarknessEternal]

Unpopular opinion--more spells should be "save or nothing". Don't give me the "but my spell slots" stuff--we all know that the way the game is played, spell slots rarely are the binding constraint beyond the very lowest levels. Casting a big spell should be gambling--a high chance of doing something great in exchange for a chance to do nothing at all that turn[2].

Most "great" spells already are save of nothing. There's nothing "great" about save for half damage.

[Tanarii]

I've seen a lot of systems switching from 'the enemy rolls to save' to 'you roll for your spell to work'. Dungeon Crawl Classics, Shadowdark, whitehack in a sense, some homebrew I've played...

and every time I try it, I think it works way better. At least when Korvin swings and misses, he got to roll the attack. Save spells are boring because you wait a while for your turn, say "I cast sacred flame", the DM rolls, and nothing happens. You don't even get to roll and blame your cursed dice for failing you.
PC spells that target saves are a pain in the ass for me as a DM. I already have to roll enough dice, And not particularly fun for caster players either. Definitely something that was better in 4e.

[Pex]

I disagree with the premise of Bane being a bad spell. I find it a good spell that has proven its worth many times. My personal favorite use was on a hydra. One failed save and all its heads had -1d4 to attacks for the entire combat. In general -1d4 to attacks has made many enemies miss the party. It's the same thing as buffing everyone +1d4 AC. You use it to debuff enemy attacks. Debuffing enemy saves is gravy.

I wouldn't spend an invocation on it because I find it inefficient to spend an invocation to cast a spell once per day using a warlock spell slot. It would have nothing to do with Bane.

[Amnestic]

If the invocation were changed to "You add Bane to your list of spells known. Once per long rest you can cast this without expending a spell slot." it'd probably see more use.

All of the not-at-will 'cast a spell' invocations* could probably be changed to that format tbh. Debatable if they should also include an auto-upcast to your highest level pact magic slot (up to 5th) as well or if they'd just stay 'low'.

* The ones that aren't already 'at will' are: Compulsion, Confusion, Water Breathing, Conjure Elemental, Slow, Polymorph, Bestow Curse, Bane, Freedom of Movement, Animate Dead


PC spells that target saves are a pain in the ass for me as a DM. I already have to roll enough dice, And not particularly fun for caster players either. Definitely something that was better in 4e.

You could get the players to roll the enemy saves, and then you just add the relevant mods afterwards. That does rely on such rolls being "open" though. Mine are, though I know some DMs prefer saves etc. being 'hidden'.

[Kane0]

Yeah its what I do.

[JonBeowulf]

Bane is one of those spells that is a victim to removing the concept of "casting spells backwards" or whatever it was called in early editions. Bane and Bless used to be a package deal. That's gone, so now its gotta try to prove its worth all on its own.

It's not very good as-is, but I'd hate to be in a low-level party facing a handful of undead with a couple acolytes throwing modified Banes at us. As a DM, I'd have to be very careful with a modified version. I think changing it to be a better stand-alone spell brings too many risks to low-level parties.**

**Not that I mind. I miss the old days of killing PCs fairly easily because adventuring was a dangerous occupation in 2e, 1e, and BECMI.

[Tanarii]

You could get the players to roll the enemy saves, and then you just add the relevant mods afterwards. That does rely on such rolls being "open" though. Mine are, though I know some DMs prefer saves etc. being 'hidden'.
There are too many players that lose their mind when the "wrong person" rolls the dice. Be it DM for a PC, or player for an NPC/monster. The belief in who rolls the dice informs the luck is very strong.

House ruling it to work the other way around d is sorta okay for a single group of players campaign, although you do have to be careful about accounting for roll high/roll low differences.

It really just needs to be baked into the system.


I disagree with the premise of Bane being a bad spell. I find it a good spell that has proven its worth many times. My personal favorite use was on a hydra. One failed save and all its heads had -1d4 to attacks for the entire combat. In general -1d4 to attacks has made many enemies miss the party. It's the same thing as buffing everyone +1d4 AC. You use it to debuff enemy attacks. Debuffing enemy saves is gravy.
I feel like we need four spells here:
1) buff AC and saves
2) buff Save DC and attack rolls
3 & 4) debuff those things

[Atranen]

You could get the players to roll the enemy saves, and then you just add the relevant mods afterwards. That does rely on such rolls being "open" though. Mine are, though I know some DMs prefer saves etc. being 'hidden'.

I've tried this, and it just doesn't sing the same way. I roll everything openly anyway. There's something about a good roll making *your character* successful cast a difficult spell and pull it off with enough force to overwhelm the enemies defenses.

"He did a bad job of dodging so you get him" doesn't strike the same chord.

[stoutstien]

There are too many players that lose their mind when the "wrong person" rolls the dice. Be it DM for a PC, or player for an NPC/monster. The belief in who rolls the dice informs the luck is very strong.

House ruling it to work the other way around d is sorta okay for a single group of players campaign, although you do have to be careful about accounting for roll high/roll low differences.

It really just needs to be baked into the system.


I feel like we need four spells here:
1) buff AC and saves
2) buff Save DC and attack rolls
3 & 4) debuff those things

I've been toying with a format where the GM doesn't roll dice besides for reaction/ instinct checks but ran into issues implementing at the system level. Basically PCa roll to attack and roll to defend against *mostly* static numbers of npc stat blocks.

Much faster resolution but had some resistance from players who are used to unilateral resolution mechanics.

**Bane's effects would be amazing as a subclass/class rider rather than a spell. Monks throwing ppl off balance with FoBs would actually make not focus firing a valid option **

[Sindeloke]

Bane's effects would be amazing as a subclass/class rider rather than a spell. Monks throwing ppl off balance with FoBs would actually make not focus firing a valid option

Yeah, I was just reading this thread and thinking, if the problem is with Five Fates in particular, an obvious solution is to change the invocation, specifically, into "when you use eldritch blast and successfully damage one or more targets, you may spend a spell slot to inflict bane on those targets with no saving throw afforded" or whatever.

[Chronos]

I don't think that "but what if the monsters cast it on the players?" is a good argument. If players sometimes debuff monsters, then monsters should sometimes debuff players. And Bane is a good debuff, game-wise, to stick the players with, because it never takes away their choice: It's no fun for anyone when a player is taken out of the action entirely with something like Tasha's Laughter, or worse, Confusion or Domination, because those take away player agency... but Bane doesn't do that.

On a separate note, I also think that the "once per day use a spell slot to cast this spell" invocations are also bad and should be improved, because that's at least one limitation too many, and possibly two (compared to the invocations that let you cast a spell at will).

[KorvinStarmast]

I also think that the "once per day use a spell slot to cast this spell" invocations are also bad and should be improved, because that's at least one limitation too many, and possibly two (compared to the invocations that let you cast a spell at will). Yeah, that was not great design. I'd rather "once per day cast this spell" or the "at will" invocation. (I use that a lot with my disguise self on my Celestial Lock).

[Segev]

Honestly, given bane's limitations - particularly the Concentration requirement - it might be "fine" to let the invocation let it be cast at will without a spell slot.

[Tanarii]

I don't think that "but what if the monsters cast it on the players?" is a good argument. If players sometimes debuff monsters, then monsters should sometimes debuff players. And Bane is a good debuff, game-wise, to stick the players with, because it never takes away their choice: It's no fun for anyone when a player is taken out of the action entirely with something like Tasha's Laughter, or worse, Confusion or Domination, because those take away player agency... but Bane doesn't do that.
Let's try this again after I successfully roll for reading comprehension :)

Agreed. There are lots of spells in the PHB that are clearly designed for the monsters to cast on the PCs, not for PCs to cast on the monsters.

[Kane0]

There are lots of spells in the PHB that are clearly designed for the monsters to cast on the PCs, not for PCs to cast on the monsters.

Shame they're in the Player book and not the DM one then, like those DMG subclasses for villains (oathbreaker and death domain) with no indication of being designed as such. It would be unfortunate if players made such a mistake as choosing a spell from their list that wasn't supposed to be for them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Shame they're in the Player book and not the DM one then, like those DMG subclasses for villains (oathbreaker and death domain) with no indication of being designed as such. It would be unfortunate if players made such a mistake as choosing a spell from their list that wasn't supposed to be for them.

Do I detect some sarcasm? :smallwink:

But seriously, I agree. Seems there are three types of abilities:

1. Those for monster use only. They belong in monster stat blocks, not the PHB. Yes, even the "spells". I'd not even make these spells per se, just abilities. Yes, that might mean redesigning counterspell and dispel magic to not rely on things being explicitly "spells". Feature, not bug.
2. Those for PC use (predominantly or only). Put them in the PHB.
3. Those for use by anyone. Also put them in the PHB.

[Tanarii]

Shame they're in the Player book and not the DM one then, like those DMG subclasses for villains (oathbreaker and death domain) with no indication of being designed as such. It would be unfortunate if players made such a mistake as choosing a spell from their list that wasn't supposed to be for them.
The PHB has all the spells in the game. That's the way it is.

Also to your specific example, like PrCs, if you put something in the DMG that players can theoretically use, they do anyway. And if you make it so players outright can't, there's much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

All that said ... I don't think the devs intended to design said spells that way. Just turns out they did. :smallamused:

[Eldariel]

IME Bane is somewhat valuable if you have a lot of spellcasters. Stuff with repeat saves, especially against targets with advantage, though it does of course involve a lot of resources against a single target. Cha saves is the big thing: it's very rare to be able to target Cha (especially on low levels) and especially lots of the "monstrous" creatures aside from Aberrations have low Cha. Then you can follow up with a bunch of Elk rams or Snake poison or Summon Undead poison+paralysis or multi-fesr or whatever SoL spell.

We've also had it against e.g. Manticores on low levels as an attack debuff, and it completely hosed them without repeat saves; PC AC is high and monster bonuses typically fairly low meaning the EHP gain vs. multiattackers is very high.

I don't think it's strictly worse than Bless or anything; enemies typically have lowish AC making hit boosts relatively less worthwhile, PCs meanwhile have high AC making attack debuffs more efficient. And PCs can design to always be able to target saves should they want to, while monsters might or might not have the ability. Thus Bane is more controllable in two senses; while having a save sucks, it's pretty great against the plethora of low Cha brawler types and comboes with some stuff where few things do (e.g. Command Undead-kinda abilities).

[Kane0]

Out of curiosity, how many creatures from CR 0 to 15 actually do have a Cha save higher than +2?

[Derges]

What if Bane gave a save at a different time?
Start/end of the target's turn or after it was triggered?

It would give more chances to shake the effect but better opportunities to do something first.

[Mastikator]

Out of curiosity, how many creatures from CR 0 to 15 actually do have a Cha save higher than +2?

Basically all of the dragons, many celestials, a few incorporeal undead and a small number of fiends. Basically don't bane the dragons and you should stick most of your landings, actually.

Edit- also a few aberrations. Mind flayers have +6 in charisma saves. Beholder has +8

[KorvinStarmast]

The PHB has all the spells in the game. That's the way it is.
{snip}
I don't think the devs intended to design said spells that way. Just turns out they did. :smallamused: The PHB includes the basic game engine (it takes the "Basic Rules" and adds a lot of other player options on top of it).
It is a resource for all players (to include the DM). You can say that it is both Player-facing and DM-facing.
DMG and MM are DM-facing books.

If you don't do that (make the PHB the shared resource) as with the AD&D 1e DMG, there are a bunch of "secret rules" in the game engine that only the DM has.
It has been decided, long since, that such an approach isn't as good a one as "no secret rules" as a basic premise.
As to the wailing and gnashing of teeth: sometimes, an occasional "quit whining" suggestion goes a long way. Granted, it is usually better to couch it as "are you here to play or to argue?"

Out of curiosity, how many creatures from CR 0 to 15 actually do have a Cha save higher than +2? A few, to include all angels.

Basically all of the dragons, many celestials, a few incorporeal undead and a small number of fiends. Basically don't bane the dragons and you should stick most of your landings, actually. That is what I found also.

Edit- also a few aberrations. Mind flayers have +6 in charisma saves. Beholder has +8
Succubi / Incubi have a decent Charisma save as well, and they are often encountered in Tier 1.

[Chronos]

Although, with succubi, especially in Tier 1, the challenge isn't actually beating them in a fight; it's in realizing that you're dealing with a succubus at all. It really annoys the DM when the paladin spontaneously decides to use Divine Sense when you rescue that damsel in distress.

[stoutstien]

If I recall Cha has a high variance if you look at everything but for lower CR its pretty consistently lower than +1 as far as save mods go and "good" aligned creatures have higher Cha saves.

Not quite as consistently low as INT but low enough you can calculate it as 60-65% success rate and being save and stick (no opportunity to repeat save) that's not bad odds for an effect that is about on par as action free dodge for the party. *Assuming the party has halfway decent AC *

[PhoenixPhyre]

If I recall Cha has a high variance if you look at everything but for lower CR its pretty consistently lower than +1 as far as save mods go and "good" aligned creatures have higher Cha saves.

CHA saves are:

* Really really bad for CR < 1. Like...negative.
* Generally around +1-3 (averaged over all monsters of a CR) below CR 10
* Increasing to ~+6 (averaged over all monsters of a CR) between CR 10 and 20
* High (+10 or higher) above that, almost entirely driven by the fact that virtually every CR 20+ is either a dragon (high CHA) or an arch devil/demon lord (also high CHA).

It's certainly a better save to target (except for dragons and some outsiders) than WIS or CON. It's similar to DEX (which is the worst of the 3 "big saves").

[stoutstien]

CHA saves are:

* Really really bad for CR < 1. Like...negative.
* Generally around +1-3 (averaged over all monsters of a CR) below CR 10
* Increasing to ~+6 (averaged over all monsters of a CR) between CR 10 and 20
* High (+10 or higher) above that, almost entirely driven by the fact that virtually every CR 20+ is either a dragon (high CHA) or an arch devil/demon lord (also high CHA).

It's certainly a better save to target (except for dragons and some outsiders) than WIS or CON. It's similar to DEX (which is the worst of the 3 "big saves").

Yep Cha is a good target besides:

Dragons

Celestials (even the summoned versions)

Anything that have legendary saves (due to LS and the fact it's almost a 1 to 1 ratio of having a high Cha saves and LS)

Anything that is brain themed


For everything else it's at least 60% chance to land.

[Unoriginal]

If we removed the save, would it die?

[Atranen]

CHA saves are:

* Really really bad for CR < 1. Like...negative.
* Generally around +1-3 (averaged over all monsters of a CR) below CR 10
* Increasing to ~+6 (averaged over all monsters of a CR) between CR 10 and 20
* High (+10 or higher) above that, almost entirely driven by the fact that virtually every CR 20+ is either a dragon (high CHA) or an arch devil/demon lord (also high CHA).

It's certainly a better save to target (except for dragons and some outsiders) than WIS or CON. It's similar to DEX (which is the worst of the 3 "big saves").

Fiends and such also have magic resistance, giving them an additional buff. Low level ones and some demons remain weak vs CHA despite that, but I wouldn't try it on most devils.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Fiends and such also have magic resistance, giving them an additional buff. Low level ones and some demons remain weak vs CHA despite that, but I wouldn't try it on most devils.

Yeah. I'd avoid it for dragons, fiends, and celestials. Pretty much anyone else is going to be ok. It's a way more reliable save than CON.

[Kane0]

Sounds like a perfectly cromulent spell then

[KorvinStarmast]

Sounds like a perfectly cromulent spell then Indeed. It's not "the easy button" and it doesn't work versus all foes, but in play I've found it to work better than I expected.
Similarly, hypnotic pattern is really good against some foes, but against others (with adv versus charm or immune to charm) it's not great or it's a wasted slot.

[Bardon]

Thanks Captain Obvious!


Not quite sure why you're having a go at them, they only pointed out that your statement that "Bless does nothing if the pc it is cast on isnÂ’t attacking" isn't correct.

[Psyren]

I think it's fine for a 1st-level spell that targets Charisma.

In addition, most classes that can access it either have or can easily grab Silvery Barbs, if you truly want it to stick.

[Segev]

I think it's fine for a 1st-level spell that targets Charisma.

In addition, most classes that can access it either have or can easily grab Silvery Barbs, if you truly want it to stick.

If you have silvery barbs and only care about one creature failing saves, you can skip Bane and just use silvery barbs.

[Eldariel]

It naturally multitargeting off a 1st level slot is great though as is not having iterative saves.

[Witty Username]

Honestly, given bane's limitations - particularly the Concentration requirement - it might be "fine" to let the invocation let it be cast at will without a spell slot.

I do agree with the idea that 1st level spells for invocations could be at will, generally.
For Thief of Five Fates, it should target up to 5 creatures, otherwise the title is rude.

Bane is fine though, I have cast it before and it can be very effective. Like should spells that inflict poisoned or frightened conditions not require a save?
Bane is good for debuffing enemies in of itself, and setting up follow up effects like harder control or AoE damage.

[Kane0]

Bane is good for debuffing enemies in of itself, and setting up follow up effects like harder control or AoE damage.

Which it should be stated is a pretty big ask for your average warlock. They tend not to have the pact magic slots spare to spend on combo setup, though they can make great use of the opening if someone else like the cleric or bard uses it to help make one of their limited 'nukes' land properly.

[Frogreaver]

Not quite sure why you're having a go at them, they only pointed out that your statement that "Bless does nothing if the pc it is cast on isnÂ’t attacking" isn't correct.

And I’m just pointing out that’s so obvious it didn’t need said.

[Witty Username]

Which it should be stated is a pretty big ask for your average warlock. They tend not to have the pact magic slots spare to spend on combo setup, though they can make great use of the opening if someone else like the cleric or bard uses it to help make one of their limited 'nukes' land properly.

That is an issue with the invocation though, not the bane spell.
Fiendish resilience is a good invocation, not because the false life spell is any better, but because it is at will rather than once per long rest.

For warlock, bane at will would be the fix I would use, not adjusting the spell.