What spells do you consider useless?

[MrCharlie]

BTW MrCharlie, I enjoyed your remarks on Find the Path. You argued cogently.

On this point I do not think you have a strong argument.

If you mean "will be noticed" instead of "potentially capable of being noticed," it isn't beyond debate at all. It's frankly quite unclear. There are plenty of spells like Friends and Charm Person and Mislead and Suggestion which rely for much on their impact on the implication that the spell has at least a chance to go undetected until much later. E.g. Friends says, When the spell ends, the creature realizes that you used magic to influence its mood and becomes hostile toward you., but if casting Friends were always noticed by the target this clause would be essentially redundant. Of course it realizes you used magic, it saw you cast the spell!

I suspect it's kind of like the Stealth rules: the 5E designers probably expected DMs to make case-by-case rulings based on the particular spell. Enthrall is probably one they expected to be more unobtrusive.

I remember a scenario where my players were competing with each other for NPC votes to see who would become the sheriff of their new space colony. Enthrall is basically a "everybody listen to ME, not those other guys" spell, and would have been useful in that scenario, and presumably in other noncombat scenarios as well like entertainment, so you can certainly justify it as a roleplaying pick for a bard who's a performer--kind of like a wizard picking up Fabricate because he's a tradesman/maker.

60 feet is relatively close, and if casting a spell ends stealth-which it does-it ought to be detectable in general. Xanathars provides rules for noticing spells, and enthrall qualifies under them and spades. But Enthrall is even more blatant-everyone suddenly wonks out and stares at you? If you're in a crowd someone is going to put two and two together, and if your talking to guards it will depend on how competent the guards are and how close you are. But in situations where people try to apply enthrall or imagine it can be applied I don't see justifying it being unnoticeable.

As for the first part of your argument; Charm person explicitly changes what someone feels towards you, knowledge that they were charmed or not. Suggestion likewise simply works. Even if they recognize the spell being cast, they can't use this knowledge. The reason why it says that they realize something changed is because there are situations where a target wouldn't be able to hear or see you cast, but they would know their personality changed when the spell ended. Friends is similar. Mislead invokes the fact that a lot of other wizard spells are subtle-they know you cast something, but since when does a wizard not cast something in combat? They don't know you cast mislead, just that you cast a spell-hence why it being noticed isn't an issue.

I'm not saying someone will know exactly what you did, just that they will be able to put two and two together and, if you are standing in front of you, know that you cast a spell. You can't cast it without being perceived, and I can't imagine an NPC acting passively after a spell was cast and their behavior changed. And my other point was that Enthrall isn't worth this effort; it's effect is purely mediocre and absolutely worthless compared to simply charming someone or using suggestion. The only plus is the AOE, and good luck making that work.

I remember a scenario where my players were competing with each other for NPC votes to see who would become the sheriff of their new space colony. Enthrall is basically a "everybody listen to ME, not those other guys" spell, and would have been useful in that scenario, and presumably in other noncombat scenarios as well like entertainment, so you can certainly justify it as a roleplaying pick for a bard who's a performer--kind of like a wizard picking up Fabricate because he's a tradesman/maker.

That's similar to the scenario I'd remembered-if you're allowed to enthrall someone, using magic to do so isn't going to raise any eyebrows. But most PCs aren't traveling politicians and most campaigns don't involve scenarios like that.

If Bards didn't have limited spells known, I'd argue that this was a situational use where the spell was worth it. As it is, it's rare enough I'm 100% confident that almost any other spell would be worth it-particularly because a Bard can just use his astronomical skills to do the same thing.

Since this conversation is getting out of topic (but I am interested in continuing it), I am putting my answer in a spoiler.

Spoiler

Show

I agree that the components are noticeable. I would not agree that this automatically means everyone knows you are casting a spell. For example, the cantrip friends implies (strongly IMO) that the S component is the act of applying make up, and the material component is (clearly) a mirror. Would you rule that everyone automatically knows you are casting a spell at that point? I would not, and I cannot see how I am contradicting any RAW when I do. Enthrall is one (of the few) spell(s) where I would be willing to extend that benefit, as I think that the description (but more importantly, the purpose) of the spell allows some room to interpret that the nature of your action can go unnoticeable (at the very least to the uninitiated and of course under the right circumstances, eg as part of a performance). To be fair, a few more things weight in to my decision, such as that enthrall is strictly (or mostly, if you prefer) an out of combat spell, not very powerful in the first place, and not in the sorcerer's list. That's why for example I would allow myself to be inconsistent when I would be ruling this way for enthrall, but differently for suggestion (for which one could make the same argument that I made, regarding the spell description).

Qualify this restriction.

Why? Drawing attention is the point of the spell anyway. Why do you presume that we also need a way to divert attention afterwards?

Provide the RAW I am contradicting then.

Debatable. But even if that was the case, I think it's the main reason why you find this spell useless. I am not interested to change your mind regarding how you run your game world, or what to expect from campaigns you are playing in. But keep in mind that how the world reacts is something there are not rules for intentionally.


Charm person and suggestion do not (potentially) impose disadvantage on the perception checks of multiple people. Are there situations where you could use charm person or suggestion instead of enthrall for similar gain? Sure. The fact that you cannot think of situations where enthrall would have the upper hand, stems from how the game worlds you are used to would react to spellcasting, and from your reluctance to accept that witnessing the components of a spell being cast does not necessarily equate to knowing that a spell is being cast.


Nothing in the spell gives them reason to make a connection (as opposed to how charm person specifically suggests). They might have suspicions, or they might not. Up to the GM (and perhaps to any rolls you might had to make).

Once again, that holds true for certain games, it's so very very obviously not a default assumption. And yet you always come back to it. That's why I am saying that you are thinking this spell is useless because of how you are used to playing or running the game.

I am not overstating anything. I agree that situations where enthrall would be extremely effective will be rare, and in many such cases perhaps there is a better course of action that does not even involve using it (ie you can go about your plan without needing to have someone draw attention). And sure, it is somewhat DM dependent. I'd say it's more campaign dependent, though we are probably talking about the same thing here. You wont be needing enthrall too much if your campaign revolves around fighting beasts in the wilderness, or generally around combat. It's an out of combat spell after all. The only other DM dependent thing I see about it, is how the DM rules on the act of casting the spell, and how the DM has the world react to spellcasters. Though from what you've said so far, I can safely assume that these were not the kind of stuff you had in mind where you talked about DM-dependency.

Sometimes ideas come more easily once you have the option available. Cause that alone kind of forces you to think of solutions to problems but only in term of your available tools. Based on your comments so far (regarding your specific way of playing/running the game), I dont doubt at all that there were almost no situations where enthrall would help you in your previous campaigns. To be honest, I am surprised there was even one such potential occasion. Enthrall basically facilitates your teammates when checks against npcs' perception are required, in an out of combat scenario. I dont think this is a particularly rare occurrence. Personally I view it as an upgrade (personal taste; I am not arguing if it's better or not) to charm person. It's essentially my city spell for a (not very lawful) bard. It will give me something to do in the city, give me incentive to seek out and interact with certain npc types (that perhaps might be able to help me down the road) especially if I dont have a thief in the group (but even if I had), a source of extra coin if all go smoothly (or a source for trouble if things go poorly). And who knows, every once in a while I might even come across a situation where a (few) failed perception check(s) might yield me something greater than a cut from the valuables stolen.

That's why I would only be using it after I had glibness, so that I can fool or the zone of truth spells heading my way. After etherealness too, cause casting a spell in public will probably put me in jail.
Sure, using enthrall to strengthen a picking -pockets scheme can get you into trouble. So does the act of picking pockets, or using thieves' tools for breaking into somewhere you are not supposed to be. Or using deception to lie to powerful creatures. Or going into dungeons for that matter. Are these skill and tool proficiencies and actions based on them worthless because they carry some risk? Of course not. And I know that you agree with that general point. Why you are singling out enthrall though? Only one reason. Because you think the risk is too great for what you gain. Why do you think that the risk is so great? Because.... ''You've drawn attention to yourself, so be prepared for some pointed questions once the theft is noticed if the authorities are vaguely competent.'' ... because of the way you are used to running and playing the game.


That's a downside I can agree too (ie about having limited spell picks).


That's not how math work. It's like saying that I didn't really need the advantage because my to-hit was already a high one. The spell always helps you, cause the outcome is unknown before you roll the dice. I will agree with the point I think you are trying to make, that is that the boost it gives you will be a relatively small one.



Not necessarily, but sure, that's one of the benefits.


Sneaking (as in using the stealth skill, cause I am assuming that's what you meant) is just one of the options. It is equally likely that you might just want to steal something (which might even be important; eg a set of keys, hunging from the belt of one of the guards, just for a brief moment so that you can outline it onto wax before trying to put them back, or that map that the adventurers two tables to your right are focusing on for the past hour, which might not even be too important but damn it, you have to know what it is, and if it leads to treasure, you might as well steal it and go do this side quest before them, etc). It's a spell that can help you under situational circumstances realize a goal (which may or may not be important) when you also want violence not to be your first option. The ability to use it to affect multiple different people at the same time is what keeps it relevant in certain situations over the generally more useful spells like suggestion. And the fact that (IMO) there is room for DM calls regarding its casting is what keeps it relevant again over generally more powerful spells like hypnotic pattern (that a bard also gets, coincidentally). Not sure what you mean by ''being in a losing position''. Violence might be the back up option as a choice. But even if it's not by choice but by necessity, then surely you can see how the value of out of combat spells goes up.

You have to further support this position if you are to convince me. As a reminder, I am not arguing this is a good spell. I am arguing that it's not a useless one.

ps: Enthrall has some value mainly because of lacking detailed rules about ability checks. It's perfectly logical for me to assume that a good performance check could result in similar benefits to what enthrall gets me, but in the absence of a RAW way to achieve it, certain spells like enthrall exist partly to cover that lack of rules.

First, I really don't like the line-by-line reply, nor the spoiler. Just my opinion here.

To begin; The RAW you are contradicting is the Xanathar's guide to everything, page 85. This section deals with perceiving spells, and it simply says that casting a spell is perceivable if it has a verbal, material, of somatic component. Now, people interacting with the spell can identify the specific spell with a fairly high DC-although if 20 people are there then someone is going to make it on average-but they know a spell has been cast regardless. It doesn't say that they know it's a spell, but it's strongly implied that being "perceivable" involves some knowledge that it is magic-but I really, really cannot stress enough how unbelievable it is that a person in a high fantasy setting would not recognize magic like this.

I can sit here and argue this more, but the fact remains that your argument requires a specific game-world for enthrall to work-and enthrall stops working if this world doesn't exist. I could have said that enthrall is worthless if everyone is deaf, but instead I'm saying that enthrall is worthless unless people don't care about being charmed or don't recognize spells being cast. That's why I feel that this point is worth repeating. The DM needs to be playing in your court to make the spell work like you're saying it does.

Without a way to get away, withdraw attention, or end the spell safely, you've just made a situation where you obviously cast a spell on someone without any explanation. While this may not be illegal in your campaign world, it is hard to imagine situations where this is acceptable to someone-the few that exist would be situations where people want to be enthralled (a Bardic performance), but then why are you casting the spell? Roleplaying? If your using it to then accomplish something illegal-which all of your suggests seem to be doing-then once that is discovered you've got problems because you made yourself noticeable.

As for "well, suggestion and charm person don't let you impose disadvantage on..." I'm unamused. In most situations where enthrall could be used to distract someone, charm person accomplishes that task and suggestion just removes them from the situation-"Close your eyes and count to a million" is a valid suggestion, and is significantly better than enthrall. So is "Walk south until you're on another continent". Charm person just lets you use your skills to effectively distract them, which is, again, well within the bounds of what a successful skill check can do-or you can rely on their charmed condition letting you leverage something more significant, like guards leaving their posts, the guy you're pickpocketing "lending" you money, or any number of other situations. The only thing limiting them is targets, but as your number of enthrall targets increases so does the chance that someone fails-and then, again, you've just cast a spell on them.

And the idea that I just can't think of enthrall situations is insulting. No, I'm not missing something, I'm just not selectively creating situations for it to work. The number of situations where you can cast a spell, visibility and audibly, to distract someone without there being a consequence and accomplish anything of note are almost nill. I run and play in campaigns with heavy roleplaying, usually in intrigue settings-and enthrall is still completely useless. There simply aren't any safe ways to use it to distract people.

Again, this is predicated on not having a situation where you can enthrall people with impunity-but hell, let's assume you can, then you've still only given disadvantage to a check that could have been avoided with other spells, or at least almost certainly accomplished with a performance or deception check anyway. Having a spell in the game to have a "sure thing" is, in this case, irrelevant, given that it's not a sure thing; the check and saves still get made. And I don't think the argument that "we don't know if a skill check can do that" is reasonable. It's almost the textbook usage of performance to distract the guards so the party can sneak past.

A final word; I can well imagine situations where you've found enthrall useful because of your DM interpretation, but in those situations your DM is stretching to make your choices meaningful. A performance check would do the same thing without requiring mental gymnastics to construct just the right type of setting where it can be used safely. And if a spell is this limited-it is useless. I don't think there is actually a spell that would fit that definition as you're providing it-you can always stretch to fit a situation where you can use it-but it's so godawful and the situation is so rare that this is a pointless discussion.

[Telok]

As has been pointed out, this requires several assumptions to be made about the setting and spell (all spellcasting is recognized even by regular people, magic is considered inherently dangerous and probably illegal, the casting of Enthrall is something obviously magical to these people and not a speech or song as might be justified by the description). Also, this is one of those cases where a strict mechanical effect plays to its strengths; it just distracts people, it doesn't leave them slackjawed idiots just standing around. If being distracted is enough to get someone hanged, I'd probably worry the town was actually being magically influenced by something dangerous

The assumptions required are that people know generally what spell casting looks like, know if they"ve made/failed a save, and know that mind control magic exists. Generally I think that we can assume that most people don't like mind control being used on them.

[Yuroch Kern]

I've told my players awhile ago that Enthrall is the "Pull Aggro" spell. As WoW players, they LOVE it. The Bard tries to use it as a crowd distraction spell, and much like a movie theater, making your save doesn't always mean you notice everyone else anyway. Despite whether or not you can disguise the casting, the angry mob is commonplace for a Bard that fails, so the scenario still fits. The spell synergizes well with Thaumaturgy too. Still niche, but if you understand limitations, spells can be used effectively anyway, even "useless" ones. Personally, any fortune-telling spell is next to useless as pure DM-interpretation is difficult to quantify and adjucate.

[diplomancer]

The assumptions required are that people know generally what spell casting looks like, know if they"ve made/failed a save, and know that mind control magic exists. Generally I think that we can assume that most people don't like mind control being used on them.

And 2 of those assumptions are a setting assumption, and the 3rd is a metagaming assumption. None of them are part of the game rules. They all fall within the DM's purview; whatever he rules, goes. Whatever he rules, it's not a houserule.

As I've stated before, a Bard singing and playing on his lute fulfills all the requirements for spell components, with the possible exception of those very few spells (like burning hands) that specify what the somatic component looks like; the singing fulfills the vocal component, the strumming fulfills the somatic component, and the lute fulfills the material component.

In fact, if there is ANY mechanical benefit to have a musical instrument as an arcane focus instead of just using a component's pouch, this is it. Instruments usually requiee 2 hands, and are terrible to use during battle, unlike the other arcane foci.

[Yuroch Kern]

And 2 of those assumptions are a setting assumption, and the 3rd is a metagaming assumption. None of them are part of the game rules. They all fall within the DM's purview; whatever he rules, goes. Whatever he rules, it's not a houserule.

As I've stated before, a Bard singing and playing on his lute fulfills all the requirements for spell components, with the possible exception of those very few spells (like burning hands) that specify what the somatic component looks like; the singing fulfills the vocal component, the strumming fulfills the somatic component, and the lute fulfills the material component.

In fact, if there is ANY mechanical benefit to have a musical instrument as an arcane focus instead of just using a component's pouch, this is it. Instruments usually requiee 2 hands, and are terrible to use during battle, unlike the other arcane foci.

Cheers, my dude. \m/

[MaxWilson]

While a 20 casting stat is probably realistic for a 9th-level full-caster, it might be a bit optimistic for a paladin, who also wants to pump their combat stat (Str or Dex), and also would like a number of feats.

Paladins get a lot of benefit from maxing Cha, and it goes well with multiclassing. I've seen more Cha 20 Paladins than Str 17-20 Paladins.

[Corran]

First, I really don't like the line-by-line reply, nor the spoiler. Just my opinion here.

To begin; The RAW you are contradicting is the Xanathar's guide to everything, page 85. This section deals with perceiving spells, and it simply says that casting a spell is perceivable if it has a verbal, material, of somatic component.

It will help if you are quoting the rules you are referring to. The casting of the spell can indeed be perceptible. What the rules don't clarify, but instead leave it to the GM's judgement, is if witnessing the casting of the spell automatically equates to knowing that a spell is indeed being cast (which was what I said in my previous post and I wanted to get your answer to that, instead of having to backtrack). Knowing what spell is being cast (and by logical extension if a spell is being cast at all; notice how the absence of this logical extension only plays in favor of my argument here, since the absence of rules requires the GM to step in and rule), is handled by a check. The GM calls for checks when doing so makes sense.

Do you agree?
If not, provide the RAW that confirm your implication, that witnessing the casting of the spell always and under any circumstances leads to actual knowledge of that a spell is indeed being cast. (Hint: They don't exist)

Now, people interacting with the spell can identify the specific spell with a fairly high DC-although if 20 people are there then someone is going to make it on average-but they know a spell has been cast regardless.

You are within the RAW when ruling this way. I wouldn't rule this way (for reasons that have nothing to do with the discussion in this thread), and I am within the RAW too when doing so.

But I have to mention this once again, because you keep doing it. ''The spell is useless because of how I run the game'' is a position I don't care to discuss, because there is nothing worth discussing about it, other than saying that I do agree. Enthrall would indeed be (almost entirely) useless in your games. So would other things (eg the spell disguise self, deception and slight of hand checks, etc), if the above is an indication of how often and how much you are generally calling for (opposed) checks. But I digress.

It doesn't say that they know it's a spell, but it's strongly implied that being "perceivable" involves some knowledge that it is magic-but I really, really cannot stress enough how unbelievable it is that a person in a high fantasy setting would not recognize magic like this.

So what if they do know that a spell is being cast? Would it be so unbelievable or so worthy of suspicion if the bards of a high fantasy setting (your words) enhanced their performance gigs with magic? I can certainly imagine a bard using all sorts of performance enhancing magic to up his show, from minor illusion and thaumaturgy (how is this not a bard cantrip, I will never know) to stuff like enthrall, enhance ability and major image. They are bards, after all. And not just your average mundane street performer. Just how the person doing card tricks around the corner could be an actual illusionist, and not just someone with a very good slight of hand check.

Look, I am not trying to tell you how to run your game or how to build your fantasy world. I am only stating (in response to your comments), that your way of running things is not the default one or even necessitated by the RAW.

I can sit here and argue this more, but the fact remains that your argument requires a specific game-world for enthrall to work-and enthrall stops working if this world doesn't exist.

Really? You think I am the one doing this?

I could have said that enthrall is worthless if everyone is deaf, but instead I'm saying that enthrall is worthless unless people don't care about being charmed or don't recognize spells being cast. That's why I feel that this point is worth repeating. The DM needs to be playing in your court to make the spell work like you're saying it does.

You are essentially saying (and I am paraphrasing) that enthrall is worthless in your games because of how your game world is structured and programmed to react to certain things. With which I would agree. You are also slowly softening your position (again, paraphrasing) from ''this contradicts the RAW'' to ''this in fact falls under DM's discretion but a DM has to be naïve to allow it''. With which I would not agree, but I do think it's a step in the right direction, at least to what concerns this particular conversation.

Without a way to get away, withdraw attention, or end the spell safely, you've just made a situation where you obviously cast a spell on someone without any explanation.

House rules! Heh.
Pending any proof of that, I'll repeat what I said earlier. You are within RAW when ruling this way, and I am within RAW when ruling differently.

While this may not be illegal in your campaign world, it is hard to imagine situations where this is acceptable to someone-the few that exist would be situations where people want to be enthralled (a Bardic performance)...

You are playing heavily to the name of the spell while ignoring the actual effect and how it could be put into use without raising (m)any eyebrows (GM call, logically heavily influenced by pc's actions). As far as I can understand, there are two main reasons why you keep clinging to this idea. First, you assume that spellcasting is automatically known for what it is under any circumstances (at least when V,S or M components are involved). This is also influenced by how you call for checks. Secondly, your game worlds run off the assumption that magic used as part of some performance gig is something unusual and something to be wary about.

I can see how these assumptions make the spell useless. Can you see how lacking these assumptions is not contradicting RAW, and furthermore, how lacking these assumptions raises the value of this spell?

but then why are you casting the spell? Roleplaying? If your using it to then accomplish something illegal-which all of your suggests seem to be doing-then once that is discovered you've got problems because you made yourself noticeable.

That's for the player to decide. It's up to them to figure out creative or effective uses for their spells/skills/etc.

As for "well, suggestion and charm person don't let you impose disadvantage on..." I'm unamused. In most situations where enthrall could be used to distract someone, charm person accomplishes that task and suggestion just removes them from the situation-"Close your eyes and count to a million" is a valid suggestion, and is significantly better than enthrall. So is "Walk south until you're on another continent".

Sure. If you can weave your suggestion into your character's actions so that its casting may pass off as inconspicuous or at the very least as harmless, I'd agree. For reasons I already mentioned previously, I would not allow that to be the case. The other limitation is the number of people you can affect at the same time.

Charm person just lets you use your skills to effectively distract them, which is, again, well within the bounds of what a successful skill check can do-or you can rely on their charmed condition letting you leverage something more significant, like guards leaving their posts, the guy you're pickpocketing "lending" you money, or any number of other situations.

Eh, I am not sure I would agree with how you would have charm person work, at least without any further context. But that's not very relevant. The point is, that (unfortunately) there is not RAW way in which using your skills (as in, ability checks), would guarantee disadvantage on perception checks. At least within the context of a (mostly) social situation. Would I be willing to rule that a good performance check can do the same thing that enthrall does? Sure. That would not make enthrall obsolete. It would although make it redundant enough, for me to consider homebrewing the spell into giving you a bonus to your performance checks or something like that. In the absence of rules we might need to step in an create some of our own. But in doing so, there will probably be existing rules that we might need to tweak, in this case the enthrall spell.

The only thing limiting them is targets, but as your number of enthrall targets increases so does the chance that someone fails-and then, again, you've just cast a spell on them.

They might not even know. The spell effect can be explained away as a natural reaction to what might be happening (and unlike similar-ish spells like charm person there is no clauses after the fact). The casting of the spell could very well be incorporated as part of some performing act you are doing already (''scaramoush, scaramoush, pingo bongo fandago!'' he sang and the clapped his hands), which may or may not alert anyone that a spell is indeed being cast. Even if it is obvious that a spell is indeed being cast, would enthrall be necessarily any different or more worthy of rousing suspicion if I am already enhancing my performance with stuff like minor illusion (power slide which causes sparks to spring forth from my guitar). After all, I am just a performer trying to impress an audience. The answers to such questions are meaningless without additional context, and surely depend a lot on GM's discretion as much as the circumstances under which all this is happening. If you want to call ''house rules'', then you also need to provide the actual rules that restrict you to ruling in the way that coincidentally also makes (the only) sense to you.

And the idea that I just can't think of enthrall situations is insulting. No, I'm not missing something, I'm just not selectively creating situations for it to work. The number of situations where you can cast a spell, visibility and audibly, to distract someone without there being a consequence and accomplish anything of note are almost nill. I run and play in campaigns with heavy roleplaying, usually in intrigue settings-and enthrall is still completely useless. There simply aren't any safe ways to use it to distract people.

There is nothing to be insulted by. Saying that there might be other people who can figure out more creative uses for one spell is not cause for insult. To be fair, I dont believe that you cant see what little value this spell has because of a lack of creativity. I believe that your experience, preferences and expectations of a dnd game is what makes this spell seem useless to you, because you can only think about its uses under the prism of how things would work out in one of your games. People do that all the time around here. I do that quite often as well. However, an argument that essentially boils down to ''this feature is bad in general because it is worthless in my games'', is not a serious argument.

Again, this is predicated on not having a situation where you can enthrall people with impunity-but hell, let's assume you can, then you've still only given disadvantage to a check that could have been avoided with other spells, or at least almost certainly accomplished with a performance or deception check anyway. Having a spell in the game to have a "sure thing" is, in this case, irrelevant, given that it's not a sure thing; the check and saves still get made. And I don't think the argument that "we don't know if a skill check can do that" is reasonable. It's almost the textbook usage of performance to distract the guards so the party can sneak past.

Sure. If you can use skill checks to replicate spell effects (which I dont find an inherently bad idea) to a substancial effect, then certain spells might have to be altered if they are to remain part of the game. Is it a textbook use of performance to impose disadvantage on perception checks? Or to even deny perception checks? And sure, there will be many occasions where you can rely better on some other spell (or on some entirely different course of action that may not even involve spellcasting) to fulfill the aim that enthrall would help you accomplish. But can you not think of situations where enthrall would be the better option? I am sure you can. So what if they are niche or if they dont happen often in your games? The latter is not a measure of a spell's value in general. And as for the former, no one here is arguing that enthrall is a must-have.

A final word; I can well imagine situations where you've found enthrall useful because of your DM interpretation, but in those situations your DM is stretching to make your choices meaningful. A performance check would do the same thing without requiring mental gymnastics to construct just the right type of setting where it can be used safely. And if a spell is this limited-it is useless. I don't think there is actually a spell that would fit that definition as you're providing it-you can always stretch to fit a situation where you can use it-but it's so godawful and the situation is so rare that this is a pointless discussion.

I am not stretching anything, nor do I engage in mental gymnastics. That's your view of it, but it's clearly not mine. Am I attempting to create situations that are somewhat tailor-made to uses of enthrall, and provide them as examples? I sure do. It's a quick and easy way to prove that something is not useless. Am I trying to create a setting where enthrall would not be useless? Hardly. I am just contradicting your game world (unreasonable IMO) assumptions by just saying that this is not how I would run my game world, and somewhere in there trying to explain that how you run your game world (in the sense of npc reactions, consequences, and the like) is not decided by RAW, but by the GM. I agree with the point you are making about how skill checks should be more important than what some DM's would give them credit for in the absence of RAW, and this is obviously a factor that influences how spells like charm person, suggestion, enthrall, etc, end up power-wise.

[Tanarii]

Enthrall can be counterspell when cast as long as the spell components are perceptible.

Faking the spell components and not actually casting the spell won't allow someone to counterspell. Neither will a Bard singing and playing their instrument.

Counterspell is pretty good indication of which interpretation of RAW is the correct one. Of course, so is the developer clarification, albeit unofficially.

You don't have to use either. It totally nerfs a lot of illusion and enchantment spells (and a few others) to make spelkcasting identifiable and the V and S components in addition to the spell text. Or conversely it hugely buffs some of them to crazy levels to make them not. Depends on your POV.

Or you can just stand outside audible range, which is about 30ft IRL, and somewhere where they won't instantly notice your somatic components.

[Mukade]

Heat Metal.

I actually had a Wand of it made in a 5e game. And never again did we face an opponent in metal armor and the DM ruled repeatedly that stuff like swords and daggers had wooden hilts and so could be held without issue.

So, I consider it a useless spell, it might be useful if a DM didn't seemingly deliberately deny you chances to use it; but that was not the case.
Pretty sure once I sold it he threw like 8 full-plate greatsword warriors at us too.

The bard I'm DMing for uses heat metal as basically his signature spell. Have used it on a belt buckle, to get a night hag to remove her belt (where the thing that lets her go ethereal was stashed). Used it on a door handle to stop enemies escaping a room. Grappled a noblewoman's hand to the table and used it on her ring, for intimidation (accidentally initiated a combat). Maybe I'm overly generous but seems like your DM was trying to deny you usefulness..

[diplomancer]

Enthrall can be counterspell when cast as long as the spell components are perceptible.

Faking the spell components and not actually casting the spell won't allow someone to counterspell. Neither will a Bard singing and playing their instrument.

Counterspell is pretty good indication of which interpretation of RAW is the correct one. Of course, so is the developer clarification, albeit unofficially.

You don't have to use either. It totally nerfs a lot of illusion and enchantment spells (and a few others) to make spelkcasting identifiable and the V and S components in addition to the spell text. Or conversely it hugely buffs some of them to crazy levels to make them not. Depends on your POV.

Or you can just stand outside audible range, which is about 30ft IRL, and somewhere where they won't instantly notice your somatic components.

You can just as easily rule that those who learn how to counterspell (a very small minority of people the world over) are specially attuned to when a spell is being cast and can notice it automatically within range. It's having this skill that allows them to counterspell in the first place. Heck, a DM could rule, without houseruling, that you can't counterspell if you don't see the spell being cast, i.e, if the caster was able to somehow hide his spellcasting from the counterspeller, be it through deception, invisibility, hiding, or just plain cover..

By RAW, spells are perceptible. Whether and how they are perceived is a separate question, mostly up to the DM.

Developers clarification is that it is explicitly up to the DM.

[Telok]

Another way to check on the usefulness of "social" spells like Enthrall is to consider how you'd run them against the party.

If an npc bard-ish caster were to throw Enthrall at a crowd containing the pcs what happens? Does the npc get subtle spell for "performing" the spell? Can the champion and thief recognize spell casting? Do the pcs know if they've had to save versus mind control? Can they evem notice that their fellow party members just suddenly can't take their eyes off the npc?

It will also depend on how you rule npcs vs pcs. Are pcs special and only they get to know about spell casting? What if there's an npc knight or mage in the crowd? How about the town mayor? Where's the cut off between special pc perogative to make saves or arcana checks, and the npcs ability to do the same?

[Satori01]

There are a number of spells which are at least passable as a DM tool but worth less to PCs.

Dream is useful for a PC. A Familiar can be chosen to be the messenger, freeing up the PC.

Do people just read the texts of spells without imagining what the spell effect would be like?

Not being able to go back to sleep after a nightmare is not uncommon.

Now imagine you are trapped in a nightmare not generated by your own mind, but by an enemy trying to hurt you. You can’t wake up, you are trapped. You also remember the nightmare perfectly upon waking.

Also folks there is this:
On a failed save, echoes of the phantasmal monstrosity spawn a nightmare that lasts the duration of the target’s sleep and prevents the target from gaining any benefit from that rest. In addition, when the target wakes up, it takes 3d6 psychic damage.

So the night before a gladiatorial duel against the evil Emperor Commodus, you cast Dream and disrupt his sleep. The duel is set for dawn, and can not be delayed without forfeiture, which is a loss of Face/Prestige.

Commodus, for these reasons CAN NOT just go back to sleep, and push back the duel start time.

Commodus probably has a level of Exhaustion as well.
Now, imagine, (if you can), doing this for a week.

Not sleeping is lethal to humans folks, in real life.

I’m sorry, but if causing your foe to spend 16 hours of a 24 hour day trying to sleep, instead of trying to be an effective foe, is worthless in you game; then your games are quite different from the games I play in.

Those games also sound dull, lifeless and boring AF.

[TigerT20]

Dream is useful for a PC. A Familiar can be chosen to be the messenger, freeing up the PC.

Do people just read the texts of spells without imagining what the spell effect would be like?

Not being able to go back to sleep after a nightmare is not uncommon.

Now imagine you are trapped in a nightmare not generated by your own mind, but by an enemy trying to hurt you. You can’t wake up, you are trapped. You also remember the nightmare perfectly upon waking.

Also folks there is this:
On a failed save, echoes of the phantasmal monstrosity spawn a nightmare that lasts the duration of the target’s sleep and prevents the target from gaining any benefit from that rest. In addition, when the target wakes up, it takes 3d6 psychic damage.

So the night before a gladiatorial duel against the evil Emperor Commodus, you cast Dream and disrupt his sleep. The duel is set for dawn, and can not be delayed without forfeiture, which is a loss of Face/Prestige.

Commodus, for these reasons CAN NOT just go back to sleep, and push back the duel start time.

Commodus probably has a level of Exhaustion as well.
Now, imagine, (if you can), doing this for a week.

Not sleeping is lethal to humans folks, in real life.

I’m sorry, but if causing your foe to spend 16 hours of a 24 hour day trying to sleep, instead of trying to be an effective foe, is worthless in you game; then your games are quite different from the games I play in.

Those games also sound dull, lifeless and boring AF.

I've been thinking this. There's also the fact that NPCs aren't aware of the existence of long rests, and may not even know that Dream is a spell or it has been cast on them.
How many times have you woken up in the morning, to find yourself exhausted by a nightmare, and then just... go back to sleep? Like sure, you might fall back to sleep for maybe up to an hour, but people actually do things. They don't exist in a vacuum, they have jobs and children and commitments and religions and bowling clubs (bowling in the mornng may be the reason why they're being tormented by a spellcaster)

[sithlordnergal]

I've been thinking this. There's also the fact that NPCs aren't aware of the existence of long rests, and may not even know that Dream is a spell or it has been cast on them.

How many times have you woken up in the morning, to find yourself exhausted by a nightmare, and then just... go back to sleep? Like sure, you might fall back to sleep for maybe up to an hour, but people actually do things. They don't exist in a vacuum, they have jobs and children and commitments and religions and bowling clubs (bowling in the mornng may be the reason why they're being tormented by a spellcaster)

Well...first off, everyone is aware that Long Rests exist. They may not know its called a "Long Rest", but they would certainly know "Hey, if I rest for about 8 hours, I feel much better and I can do all my stuff again". They aren't so dumb that they wouldn't notice that they don't feel refreshed. They'd be exhausted still, and it can be reasonably assumed that they'd know they did not get a refreshing sleep.

As for falling back asleep, I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding. A long rest does not require you to sleep in order to gain its benefits. Otherwise Warlocks with Aspect of the Moon, Undead, and Constructs would be unable to take Long Rests since they cannot sleep. All it requires is that you take 8 hours of downtime, where you only do light activities. This can include sleeping, but it can also include reading, talking, eating, ect. You could have a nightmare, read for an hour, make some food and eat for the next half hour, then sleep for another 6.5 hours.

[Skylivedk]

Dream is useful for a PC. A Familiar can be chosen to be the messenger, freeing up the PC.

Do people just read the texts of spells without imagining what the spell effect would be like?

Not being able to go back to sleep after a nightmare is not uncommon.

Now imagine you are trapped in a nightmare not generated by your own mind, but by an enemy trying to hurt you. You can’t wake up, you are trapped. You also remember the nightmare perfectly upon waking.

Also folks there is this:
On a failed save, echoes of the phantasmal monstrosity spawn a nightmare that lasts the duration of the target’s sleep and prevents the target from gaining any benefit from that rest. In addition, when the target wakes up, it takes 3d6 psychic damage.

So the night before a gladiatorial duel against the evil Emperor Commodus, you cast Dream and disrupt his sleep. The duel is set for dawn, and can not be delayed without forfeiture, which is a loss of Face/Prestige.

- snip -

I’m sorry, but if causing your foe to spend 16 hours of a 24 hour day trying to sleep, instead of trying to be an effective foe, is worthless in you game; then your games are quite different from the games I play in.

Those games also sound dull, lifeless and boring AF.

If you start building empires, commanding armies and fight threats on and from multiple planes then having your Warlock spam Dream can become viable. He can short rest the slots right back while having caused major set backs for enemy Wizards and their ability to act.

Niche late-tier case maybe, but pretty much my campaign at the moment. At bit like Clone and upcasted Planar Binding which I doubt many play around with.

I wouldn't argue for Dream being a good spelk though; and if it is (like in my campaign) odds are you know.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Witch bolt must have helluva Stealth check since it hasn't been mentioned yet.

Power word kill is pretty damn bad. Mordenkainen's nail cleaner.

Level 8 spells are overall pretty underwhelming on most classes (ie on Warlock I'd probably rather have a 7th level spell more: that's very very bad). There's a couple of good ones (antipathy, mind blank come to mind), but the rest of them are not worth a higher slot than forcecage.

Blindness/deafness has its uses as a concentration less debuff (when upcast)

Demiplane is 8th level. I'm a fan of it.




As for worst spells, yeah PWK is a pretty bad spell. It's a trap spell, because it looks awesome to just point at someone and say "DIE!" and have them die, but just actually winds up being using your one 9th level spell slot to kill a minion-level enemy.

I'm also generally harsher on higher levels that are sub par, because there are fewer high level spell slots to use so there's no room to use sub-par spells. And, at the same time, I feel increasingly less effective and valuable as I level up after around level 10 or 11 or so, so there's more pressure to make my one level 9 spell slot one with good effect.

[MaxWilson]

Demiplane is 8th level. I'm a fan of it.

As for worst spells, yeah PWK is a pretty bad spell. It's a trap spell, because it looks awesome to just point at someone and say "DIE!" and have them die, but just actually winds up being using your one 9th level spell slot to kill a minion-level enemy.

And the worst part is, PWK is ubiquitous on WotC-authored archmages, along with the equally-feeble Time Stop. Why?!? [shakes fist]

I don't know if they're deliberately picking bad spells to keep CR low, or if they think these are good spells that archmages would and should actually learn, but to me it reads like a tremendous lack of respect for their own NPCs. "Hi, I'm Mordenkainen, and today I prepared Power Word Kill and Time Stop instead of Wish and Shapechange, because I'm in love with uselessness!"

[HPisBS]

As for worst spells, yeah PWK is a pretty bad spell. It's a trap spell, because it looks awesome to just point at someone and say "DIE!" and have them die, but just actually winds up being using your one 9th level spell slot to kill a minion-level enemy.

To be fair, it's one of the only ways to end a lvl 20 moon druid's constant wildshaping. It's also good to finish off anything with super high saves and AC.

Kinda like Disintigrate, but with a higher hp threshold.

Edit: If there were any way around Time Stop's ending early limitation, it'd be much, much better. (Like some sort of Delayed Spell Metamagic.) But even then, it still wouldn't be as good as other 9th level spells.

[Asisreo1]

Edit: If there were any way around Time Stop's ending early limitation, it'd be much, much better. (Like some sort of Delayed Spell Metamagic.) But even then, it still wouldn't be as good as other 9th level spells.

For Time Stop, it seems you may be able to get away with Create Undead and Animate Dead since they effect uncarried objects (corpses).

Force cage + cloudkill is classic.

Having the time to buff for concentration & effect an object & deal damage all at once isn't bad. It's not spam delayed fireball good for NOVA or stacking hella buffs good but it's not horrible. A spellcaster at 9th level may just have more than one 9th-level spell known and it's possible for them to grab them all so it's not a huge waste of known spells.

[Tanarii]

And the worst part is, PWK is ubiquitous on WotC-authored archmages, along with the equally-feeble Time Stop. Why?!? [shakes fist]

Because it instakills kills a Con 12 or lower 20th PC Wizard or sorcerer? Or a 17th or lower Con 12 PC Cleric, rogue, monk, or warlock? Taking out a Pc fighter might take more damage first. But PCs have relative few hit points.

[MaxWilson]

Because it instakills kills a Con 12 or lower 20th PC Wizard or sorcerer? Or a 17th or lower Con 12 PC Cleric, rogue, monk, or warlock? Taking out a Pc fighter might take more damage first. But PCs have relative few hit points.

Hooray, you spent a 9th level spell slot and a 3rd-5th level spell slot to preemptively counteract a 3rd level Revivify spell or neutralize a 4th level Death Ward, target's choice. (PWK + Counter-Counterspell, since I assume you're not going to risk having your 9th level spell wasted by a Counterspell.)

Why would an NPC specialize in killing PCs in close-range PWK combat anyway? If you want to mess with PCs you're much better off Wishing their enemies back to life and introducing them to each other, followed by offers of a group Teleport. PWKing one PC out of four is a terrible use of an action + spell slots for an archmage with no bodyguards, which is apparently the only kind of archmage WotC writes.

[Yora]

Feign Death arguably has some synergies with Magic Jar, if you want to bring your original body along in case of Antimagic Fields. This relies though on the DM treating your catatonic body as a separate "creature" from you-in-the-possessed body. Reasonable but not necessarily RAW.

I think feign death is meant as a last ditch escape spell for NPCs. You just have to hope the players don't stab you just to be sure, and leave your body behind.
Being able to suspend poisons and diseases for an hour is pointless, as bards, clerics, and druids get lesser restoration at a lower level.

[Tanarii]

Hooray, you spent a 9th level spell slot and a 3rd-5th level spell slot to preemptively counteract a 3rd level Revivify spell or neutralize a 4th level Death Ward, target's choice. (PWK + Counter-Counterspell, since I assume you're not going to risk having your 9th level spell wasted by a Counterspell.)

Why would an NPC specialize in killing PCs in close-range PWK combat anyway? If you want to mess with PCs you're much better off Wishing their enemies back to life and introducing them to each other, followed by offers of a group Teleport. PWKing one PC out of four is a terrible use of an action + spell slots for an archmage with no bodyguards, which is apparently the only kind of archmage WotC writes.

Dude, you're not thinking like a player. Instant death / one shot spells with no save scare the bejeebus out of them. PWK is a scary spell to PCs and their players. Players aren't emotionless tactical robots. Well, most of them aren't

[kazaryu]

Dude, you're not thinking like a player. Instant death / one shot spells with no save scare the bejeebus out of them. PWK is a scary spell to PCs and their players. Players aren't emotionless tactical robots. Well, most of them aren't

another thing thats extremely important to note. as has already been hinted at. PC's effective HP is much, much higher than their actual HP. since most of them have strong defensive measures. PWK ignores literally all of them except for counter spell and antimagic field. (although tbf, if you know you're going against an archmage, just AMF and let your barb **** 'em). Its not 'useless'. its somewhat niche, but definitely not useless.

[Tanarii]

another thing thats extremely important to note. as has already been hinted at. PC's effective HP is much, much higher than their actual HP. since most of them have strong defensive measures. PWK ignores literally all of them except for counter spell and antimagic field. (although tbf, if you know you're going against an archmage, just AMF and let your barb **** 'em). Its not 'useless'. its somewhat niche, but definitely not useless.

Any spell that is close to useless or extremely niche for players will be judged on that standard. And thats not completely unreasonable.

But I almost exclusively DM. And I dont use NPC casters much. I'm trying to force myself to look at spells in thesee threads from a DMs perspective, with an eye towards future encounter ideas.

Although PWK is outside of the levels I typically run games for.

[Asisreo1]

Dude, you're not thinking like a player. Instant death / one shot spells with no save scare the bejeebus out of them. PWK is a scary spell to PCs and their players. Players aren't emotionless tactical robots. Well, most of them aren't

It's darn near game-changing if there was only one cleric in the game and he was targeted. Maybe the Druid or Bard has something to say about death but the cleric insta-dying will always cause panic.

[Zuras]

It's darn near game-changing if there was only one cleric in the game and he was targeted. Maybe the Druid or Bard has something to say about death but the cleric insta-dying will always cause panic.

Well sure, but why didn’t the Cleric have Death Ward on themselves if they were the only one capable of rezzing folks?

Besides which, the topic is useless spells, not ones unlikely to be worth their spell slot, and I don’t think anyone reasonable would argue instakilling enemies is useless. Given the way casting works in 5e vs AD&D, the power word spells lack their primary reason for existing (single segment casting time) anyway, but it doesn’t have another spell that is strictly better.

Anyone who can would have Wish loaded into their 9th level slot, regardless of what else they have prepared, but the mental load of running that optimally for any foe besides a big bad I’ve already spent 3 sessions RP’ing and living in their headspace is too much.

[Asisreo1]

Well sure, but why didn’t the Cleric have Death Ward on themselves if they were the only one capable of rezzing folks?

He did, the lich just casted dispel magic before and when the cleric tried to reapply, the lich casted counterspell.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Melf's Acid Arrow.

Let me explain just how mathematically terrible this spell is. Imagine for a moment if we gave Melf's Acid Arrow a massive buff: it now deals all its damage on one turn, and hits automatically! So basically just a straight 6d4 (15) damage.

Oh wait, an upcast Magic Missile does 4d4+4 (14), has a better damage type, range, and combos better with various things? Guess a super-buffed version of Melf's Acid Arrow already exists.

Acid Arrow can combo with twin spell, But that's about it.
I could see a wand of acid arrow being useful as the up-scaling damage is 1d4 on the primary and secondary. So each additional charge would add 2d4 instead of 1d4+1.

But if you really want to shame Acid Arrow. A 2nd level Chromatic Orb deals 4d8(18) and you get to pick the element from a list.

Blindness/Deafness seems pretty garbage, since it's the same level as hold person and arguably is just a ****tier version of it. I mean sure it has less target restrictions but it also targets CON. I think this spell would be way better if it both Blinded and Deafened at the same time instead of you choosing just 1 effect.

How about a spell that makes the entire party invisible to one target? You really under estimate how debilitating blindness is.

Blindness/deafness is situational, but awesome when it is needed. I see it as a spell for shutting down caster types. Spellcasters are often not that tough and a con save will be tough for them to make in a way that something like a wisdom save wouldn't be.

What do you call a blind beholder? Easy pickings. Even if you only blind it for a round that's three eye ray's and possibly some more from its legendary actions. If it can't see you it can't target you with an eye ray.

[Asisreo1]

Acid Arrow can combo with twin spell, But that's about it.
I could see a wand of acid arrow being useful as the up-scaling damage is 1d4 on the primary and secondary. So each additional charge would add 2d4 instead of 1d4+1.

But if you really want to shame Acid Arrow. A 2nd level Chromatic Orb deals 4d8(18) and you get to pick the element from a list.

Druids don't get access to Magic Missile or Chromatic Orb, but a swamp Druid gets access to Acid Arrow.