Results 61 to 90 of 91
-
2021-04-23, 07:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2014
- Location
- Los Angeles
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
PWK's additional effect is that it bypasses death gates and a whole bunch of high level shenanigans (for example, it can poof a Moon Druid 20 without breaking their Wildshape).
It doesn't even deal damage, it just applies the status effect "dead" if a character does not have 101+ hit points (even if it would take far, far more than 101 damage to reduce them to zero, let alone kill them).
PWK even bypasses temporary hit points and Arcane Ward.Last edited by LudicSavant; 2021-04-23 at 08:06 PM.
Originally Posted by ProsecutorGodot
Nerull | Wee Jas | Olidammara | Erythnul | Hextor | Corellon Larethian | Lolth | The Deep Ones
-
2021-04-23, 08:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
That's not an meaningfully different effect--hit a Moon Druid with PWK or 400 points of damage and you get the same effect in either case: a dead body.
And again, my point was that PhantomSoul didn't just say "has an additional effect", he or she said "something beyond single-target damage to offer (like being optionally multi-target or opening up action economy options [even better without concentration], not-so-coincidentally!)." It seems clear that PWK isn't that.
-
2021-04-23, 09:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2014
- Location
- Los Angeles
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
Originally Posted by ProsecutorGodot
Nerull | Wee Jas | Olidammara | Erythnul | Hextor | Corellon Larethian | Lolth | The Deep Ones
-
2021-04-23, 09:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
- Location
- Avatar By Astral Seal!
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
I have a LOT of Homebrew!
Spoiler: Former AvatarsSpoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Linkele
Spoiler: Individual Avatar Pics
-
2021-04-23, 09:44 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
-
2021-04-23, 10:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2014
- Location
- Los Angeles
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
Exactly.
Magic Missile, Crown of Stars, and Power Word Kill are all spells that fill the single target damage role.
Saying "Magic Missile can target multiple creatures if you want, so it's not a single target damage spell!" is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the spells are good at dealing single target damage.
We're already on the same page there. I would consider PWK as contributing to the single target damage niche, just as I do for Magic Missile, Scorching Ray, Crown of Stars, Spiritual Weapon, and Extra Attack.
PhantomSoul's exact quote is "have something beyond single-target damage."
The ability to bypass Invulnerability and other such gates is something beyond single-target damage.Last edited by LudicSavant; 2021-04-23 at 11:31 PM. Reason: brevity
Originally Posted by ProsecutorGodot
Nerull | Wee Jas | Olidammara | Erythnul | Hextor | Corellon Larethian | Lolth | The Deep Ones
-
2021-04-23, 11:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
The exact quote is "something beyond single-target damage to offer (like being optionally multi-target or opening up action economy options [even better without concentration], not-so-coincidentally!)."
The ability to potentially bypass Invulnerability in an extremely niche scenario (while also doing absolutely zero in the much, much more likely case of a target that turns out to have 101+ HP) is probably not something PhantomSoul will consider "like being multi-target or opening up action economy options."
-
2021-04-24, 01:16 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2014
- Location
- Los Angeles
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
Indeed it is. And it remains the case that, like being optionally multi-target or opening up action economy options, doing no damage and directly applying a status effect directly is doing something beyond single-target damage.
Whether you think PhantomSoul thinks that or not, or whether you think it is a big something or a little something or a general something or a niche something, does not actually change the truth value of that statement.Originally Posted by ProsecutorGodot
Nerull | Wee Jas | Olidammara | Erythnul | Hextor | Corellon Larethian | Lolth | The Deep Ones
-
2021-04-24, 01:22 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
You're very attached to your own perspective. I had thought before that you were trying to be helpful to PhantomSoul, but you're so insistent here on answering your own question on your own terms instead of PhantomSoul's terms that I just don't know what you're doing. In any case it's clear that my input isn't helping, so I'll just shut up and let you do your thing.
-
2021-04-24, 01:31 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2019
- Gender
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
Well, even if we accept that PWK has no additional effect other than (pseudo-) single target damage, that still leaves the list of high-level spells satisfying the "no additional effect" criteria frightfully small. I don't have the comfort to go through the spell list right now, but I doubt I'd get more than 2-3 additional cases in that manner. What else is there, disintegrate? Or does breaking force obstacles count as an additional effect? Because personally, I'd never prepare it or PWK for the sake of dealing damage. I'd prepare something of the kind as backup for force effects or if I expect/know I'll fight a demilich or archdruid or something and want to trivialize any issues.
But this also discounts something like mental prison, which deals more damage than disintegrate even without accounting for the included conditions. Should mental prison be excluded as a single-target blast because it also restrains on top of outdamaging disintegrate? Should meteor swarm be excluded because its damage can potentially hit the boss' friends if he has any?
It hardly seems indicative when analyzing the question at hand. Sure, if you only count PWK, disintegrate and upcast blight as single target high-level spell damage,then said damage sucks, but it also misrepresents the situation.
-
2021-04-24, 02:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2014
- Location
- Los Angeles
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
Last edited by LudicSavant; 2021-04-24 at 02:23 AM.
Originally Posted by ProsecutorGodot
Nerull | Wee Jas | Olidammara | Erythnul | Hextor | Corellon Larethian | Lolth | The Deep Ones
-
2021-04-24, 03:13 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2017
- Location
- Montevarchi, Italy
- Gender
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
-
2021-04-24, 03:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2014
- Location
- Los Angeles
Originally Posted by ProsecutorGodot
Nerull | Wee Jas | Olidammara | Erythnul | Hextor | Corellon Larethian | Lolth | The Deep Ones
-
2021-04-24, 03:43 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2019
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
Just to add another perspective reading over this thread, it seems like Phantom's point was there aren't many high spells that are one shot (like a fireball) single target damage spells, that people use primarily for the damage. Disintegrate is the only spell I can even think of off the top of my head that fits that criteria (PW:K is ticky tack, but I can see the argument) and several people have pointed out they have it for other contingencies than dealing damage, which is the point.
To be honest, I am having a hard time of thinking of one shot single target damage spells in general. Chromatic Orb... and cantrips?
[Goes to look at spell sheets]
Power Word: Kill - see above - 9th
Finger of Death - used to make zombies - 7th level
Disintegrate - see above - 6th level
Enervation - Not one shot, but locked to a single target - 5th level
Blight - 4th level
Phantasmal Killer - also frightens - 4th level
Melf's Acid Arrow - 2nd level
Mind Spike - also has tracking - 2nd level
Scorching Ray - rays can be split - 2nd level
Catapult - throws object - 1st level
Chromatic Orb - 1st level
Ice Knife - secondary aoe - 1st level
Magic Missile - missiles can be split - 1st level
Ray of Sickness - also poisons creature - 1st level
I think that is all of the Wizard's spells that could remotely be considered one shot single target effects pre-Tasha's. That is a surprisingly short list, there is more first level spells than 5th through 9th combined, and most of the 5th through 9th level spells aren't primarily used/considered for their damage (Disintegrate is probably the main debatable one).
If the point was there isn't many good choices for high single target damage, it's a reasonable argument.
-
2021-04-24, 03:57 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2017
- Location
- Montevarchi, Italy
- Gender
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
I think the point (at least the one Phantom originally replied to) is that it doesn't have to be single targeting spells as long as they can produce good single target damage.
As an extreme example take Meteor Swarm. Would you say that it's not good at inflcting damage to one person (40d6) because it's an AoE?
Or a Summon that deals good damage- it doesn't count as single target damage because it's a summon spell?
In addition Phantom explicitely called out spells dealing damage over multiple turns in one of their first replies so it's not even a matter of Istantaneous casting.
-
2021-04-24, 04:23 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2019
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
Oh I agree, it's not unreasonable to use AOE spells for what is single target damage. I do think the relative lack of good single target damage spells of 3rd level or above is interesting. It kind of slots in with what I was saying in a different thread about spell balance. Then again any single target one shot spell that is good solely for its damage would likely end up over powered or at least tread directly on the martial niche, because it would need to do in the 100+ damage range to start to feel worth it.
-
2021-04-24, 05:00 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2017
- Location
- Montevarchi, Italy
- Gender
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
Agreed- which is indeed doable (a wizard built accordingly can easily match that damage and more, probably at least Grave clerics too, I'm no expert) but if a spell had that much damage by itself -and nothing else- I'm still not sure I'd take it.
Take Harm- on most characters that spell is bad and it's almost just damage (14d6 targeting Con isn't actually a lot at that level, turns out). Even as a cleric that can force vulnerability on the enemy I might not use it (although hearing the sound of 28 dice rolling is so satisfying).
Although unsure if it'd overshadow martials- spending a daily high level slot to deal damage should indeed surpass a martial's damage (substantially) which usually doesn't have as much heavy investment in terms of reusable resources. Usually.
And even then they (martials) tipically have better sustained dpr (with a few notable exceptions like accordingly built warlocks, Ludic's build on the first page is an example).
-
2021-04-24, 05:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2019
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
Most builds that can do it are pretty gimmicky. I am not a fan of the nuclear wizard, it's clearly an abuse of the rules, that's why it is so anomalous amongst casters. As for raw damage assuming we are talking something like fire I mean 100+ (which is roughly 30d6) would be a starting point for a level 6 spell. 9th level spells would probably need to be double that to be viable. Meteor Swarm is an army killer, even though is does the most raw damage in a spell by far, it's still roughly only half the HP of an adult dragon, much less an ancient one.
When casters can cook the swarms with a single spell, and have as many save or suck effects as they do, the primary role of martials becomes burning down the big guys. So I am actually fine with casters not being able to enter that niche as well. The ways they can try and get in tend to involve sustained damage from buffs, which feels right.
-
2021-04-24, 07:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2017
- Location
- Montevarchi, Italy
- Gender
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
If it interests you even ignoring wether the MM combo works or not this showcases just how good said nuclear wizard can be (and even then the MM combo is tecnically valid, at worst if you aim one dart at a second enemy it becomes valid under almost any reading).
Casters in general can indeed dish out heavy pain, even if they probably need different investments (I imagine a subclass geared towards offense will have an easier time then one that does not).
Even just the new summon spells (at least some of them) can alone match the typical damage of most martials! Possibly surpass it.
So to put it short they can already enter the niche- just not by straight up brainlessly throwing a big damage spell (at least not all of them).
Again, this coming from me- I'm no optimizer, somebody actually competent would probably know better. I can only look at the work others did.Last edited by Valmark; 2021-04-24 at 07:51 AM.
-
2021-04-24, 09:05 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2014
- Location
- Los Angeles
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
Indeed. More elaboration on this further in this post.
You can enter said niche with every full caster class, and you can do it while being super versatile too.
Note that the "build on the first page" Valmark was talking about isn't the Nuclear Wizard. It was a Warlock that was good at just about everything (single target damage, AoE damage, battlefield control, buffing, debuffing, healing, tanking, scouting, and more). It wasn't even a damage-focused subclass or anything, and yet it still easily fills the niche, able to focus down bosses before they even get a turn.
Also, before you declare something "clearly an abuse of the rules" you should be aware that the devs have gone on record saying that's precisely how it's supposed to work.
You appear to want it to be the case that martials have a role they are exclusively good at. But 5e doesn't really work like that -- there isn't role protection in this edition. If you want to fill the "focus down the boss" niche as a full caster, WotC has been happy to provide us with myriad tools to do exactly that as any caster class.
It's just, like Valmark said, not as brainless as "cast a single spell and nothing else." Why? Because high single target damage potential throughout 5e is generally designed to be combo-oriented.
Just as a Fighter's big focus damage comes from combinations of Fighting Styles, subclass features, action economy boosters like Action Surge, and feats like GWM or Sharpshooter, so too does a caster's focus damage come from combinations (like using Scorching Ray as a delivery mechanism for on-hit effects, or invocations to make Eldritch Blast dangerous, or any of a hundred other examples).
If one only looks at the base damage of an individual spell in a vacuum, they're going to have a very inaccurate picture of the kind of damage casters can dish out, as surely as if your idea of Fighter damage potential was just looking at the damage die on a weapon table (instead of, say, GWM + PAM + Fighting Style + Action Surge + Battle Master Maneuvers + etc).
Likewise, if a person thinks of a character class as determining their role (like "Wizards are always squishy controllers" or "Clerics are always healbots" or "Fighters are always melee tanks"), then they're going to also get a very inaccurate picture of what can be done with the game. D&D 5e is not designed like a "Holy Trinity" RPG, and as such you cannot assume a character's role just from knowing their class. Two characters made with the same class (and even subclass) can fill entirely different party roles from each other, and both can be not only viable, but optimized enough to defeat several Deadly encounters per day (beyond overkill for any published module).Last edited by LudicSavant; 2021-04-24 at 09:26 AM.
Originally Posted by ProsecutorGodot
Nerull | Wee Jas | Olidammara | Erythnul | Hextor | Corellon Larethian | Lolth | The Deep Ones
-
2021-04-24, 09:31 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
40d6 is 240 damage max, on a DEX save, and with half of it being fire. And that uses up your one 9th level spell slot.
I've never seen a single person argue that Meteor Swarm would be good if used as a single-target-spell.
-
2021-04-24, 09:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
Yes, that's why I only said I think PhantomSoul wouldn't count PWK (it seems very different from the X and Y given) instead of saying I know. Bypassing Invulnerability in a very, very niche situation (why not just Dispel it instead?) is not much at all like the kind of extra tactical richness they implied they're interested in, whereas Mental Prison is. Disintegrate, hard to say, depends.
-
2021-04-24, 11:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
Reminds me of how the 4e Disintegrate didn't disintegrate.
-
2021-04-24, 12:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2019
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
Frankly I don't care what the designer has to say. When you have an effect like MM interactions with Empowered Evocation and Hexblade's Curse where your system is producing significantly more powerful results in one specific situation than it does in most other cases, that is indicative of broken or unbalanced system. And that doesn't get into the Simulacrum cheese later on.
Also, based on both your and @Valmark's response, I wasn't clear in my previous post. I have no problem with casters doing good single target by using sustained spells and abilities (that is the right way to do it). I was musing it was probably good thing they aren't good at single target damage with spells that are one shot effects (as it would likely have a negative effect on the feel of encounters). As far as role protection goes I actually think flexibility in roles is a good. I like 5e as a system for many reasons, that is one of them (the Nuclear Wizard on the other hand, along with Simulacrum, seems like a perversion of the system, which should be "nuked".)
For the record, the warlock from the first page is actually the kind of characters I like playing, characters who may not be the pure best at one thing, but flex to do lots of things pretty well and can adapt themselves to what the party needs. I also tend to like my widgets and useful decisions so I prefer casters (whether full or half) as well.
-
2021-04-24, 01:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2014
- Location
- Los Angeles
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
Valmark's not crazy here.
A level 17 Champion using Sharpshooter/Crossbow Expert/Action Surge against AC 19 (let alone more for bosses) is less damage than a Meteor Swarm even when they succeed on the save. It's a decent chunk of burst.
And that's of course your damage floor for the round, not even close to the ceiling -- you've still got your bonus action, you Concentration, your familiar and any other minions, possibly a Simulacrum, class features, and/or feats. And of course they could actually fail the save. You don't just have a spell in a vacuum any more than a Fighter has a hand crossbow in a vacuum.
Is that the main reason you prepared Meteor Swarm? Nah, definitely not, and I'm sure Valmark knows that. Is it sometimes worth using to make sure the enemy disappears this turn, if you don't have an even higher burst option prepared? Yeah.Last edited by LudicSavant; 2021-04-24 at 01:33 PM.
Originally Posted by ProsecutorGodot
Nerull | Wee Jas | Olidammara | Erythnul | Hextor | Corellon Larethian | Lolth | The Deep Ones
-
2021-04-24, 01:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2017
- Location
- Montevarchi, Italy
- Gender
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
To be fair if you don't like the MM etc. (Which isn't even the only way) it doesn't mean they aren't good at it.
Unless you mean they aren't good without investment (as in, without actually thinking how to make high damage in one round) in which case I would tend to agree. There are still some cases like (first example that comes to mind) a Sheperd druid and a DM that gives not-useless beasts. Playing it the straight-forward way can still deal heavy damage in a single round to one target (which is usually when it deals the highest damage before the enemies find countermeasures) with little optimization needed beyond 'I use the spell the subclass is basically built around'.
Note: With "useless" I mean stuff like giving weak, lower CR creatures or even ones not adapt to the area (squids on ground moving at 5 feet), it's tipically fine otherwise. Notable exception with animals relying on poison against poison-immune foes (most of their damage comes from the rider, so they are functionally weak without it. Usually)
Ironically if I'm not wrong that warlock is optimized for something (and is great at it). Healing.
If you check one of the example battles the synopsis is basically "whatever the enemies can't outheal the party" if I recall well xD
Basically this. I wasn't saying that's what I'm going to use as a first option or prepare it for single targets, but if what I need is to blast X enemy down that's a pretty usable option that doesn't require much in the way of thought.
The last thing I feel is especially important: even a new player (let's pretend a new player that has gotten to 20 without developing much tactical insight beyond 'don't blast your friends'*) can take a look at it and go 'Dang, that's sweet' and use it accordingly and feel satisfied.
*It looks like it's a joke but a friend of mine who has been playing dnd for years still mistakes 'radius' with 'diameter'. He has been forbidden from using Fireballs.Last edited by Valmark; 2021-04-24 at 01:46 PM.
-
2021-04-24, 02:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2019
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
Agreed.
I think we can broadly categorize caster damage.
- Nuclear Wizard Cheese
- Non-Concentration single target damage - think fireball/magic missile
- Concentration based single target damage - think spirit guardians/crown of stars
- Trapping a creature in concentration based damage spell - requires multiple spells (often multiple casters to pull off)
- Non-concentration duration spells - think spiritual weapon (not sure if there is another)
When I think of single target caster damage I think of options 2, 3 or 5.
Though even without option 1, which I fully agree with you on there is still option 4 and while more resource intensive it really shines - but isn't very achievable till level 9ish.Last edited by Frogreaver; 2021-04-24 at 02:28 PM.
-
2021-04-24, 02:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2017
- Location
- Montevarchi, Italy
- Gender
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
Crown of Stars is non Concentration too- I'd also add trapping them with non-concentration damage spells (arguably harder though). An example would be Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound together with something to keep the enemy still (which is likely a Concentration spell until higher levels unless a party member helps out).
-
2021-04-24, 02:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
Opinion: what makes Nuclear Wizard feel like cheese isn't the result, it's that you get there via a very subtle rules interaction that feels like it shouldn't matter but for some reason does: the interaction between "simultaneous" and PHB guidance on how to roll AoE damage (roll once, apply multiple times) to bypass the PHB errata which changed Empowered Evocation to work on only one damage roll per round.
Empowered Evocation (p. 117). “The
damage roll” has been changed to “one
damage roll.”
"Beginning at 10th level, you can add your Intelligence modifier (minimum of +1) totheone damage roll of any wizard evocation spell that you cast."
It is WEIRD that Jeremy Crawford apparently thought Scorching Ray needed to be nerfed, but Magic Missile did not.
Personally I think the game is better without that errata, although restricting it to the round you cast it instead of every round would be fine. ("...any wizard spell you cast, on the turn that you cast it.") Then Evokers get a straightforward damage bonus which is useful for Scorching Ray/Magic Missile/Melf's Minute Meteors with no subtle readings required, and groups who like to roll Chain Lightning damage individually for each target get the same results as those who follow the PHB guidance on rolling only one, and ditto for those who like to roll Nd4+N for Magic Missile instead of (1d4+1)*N, etc.
Subtle details of how you roll your damage just shouldn't matter that much!
-Max
Grappling works too. If a PC is already a fan of grapple / prone to grant advantage and force disadvantage, a Hound is basically just free damage on top of that at the cost of an action and a spell slot. The grappler can even reuse the Hound after the first enemy is dead, by dragging another target closer to the Hound. This is effectively a no-concentration damage buff to the grappler, so they don't have to just flail away with a shield bash for mediocre damage (d4+Str, no proficiency bonus).
Could be a wildshaped druid instead of a grappler per se, or even a Polymorphed Giant Ape using its +9 to Athletics (which might be why the wizard can't use a Concentration spell for damage, if he's the Polymorph caster).
MFH isn't fantastic as a combat spell but for a 1 action no-concentration spell, it's better than it looks. And it stacks with itself too--you can cast one every round in a long, tough fight.Last edited by MaxWilson; 2021-04-24 at 03:06 PM.
-
2021-04-28, 03:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2021
Re: Is spell dmg worth at high levels?
LudicSavant,
This build is amazing...I love how thought out everything is and the balance between damage and support is exactly what I have been looking for...I know it is a big ask...could you possibly do a more thorough breakdown (level by level) in the style of your other builds? Thanks so much for what you do :D