Overestimated/Underestimated Spells

[cookieface]

I have a love/hate relationship with Levitate. It's a spell that sounds like a good all-arounder in theory, but in my experience can be frustrating to utilize in practice. When it comes online at 3rd level, it's potentially handy, but in it quickly loses its luster.

As an exploration tool, it's not nearly as useful as something like Fly or Spider Climb. The slow ascending/descending and lack of horizontal movement makes it less useful than either of those other options in various situations.

It does have some additional utility as a save-or-suck offensive spell, and I like that it's "one and done" with no subsequent saves. But most melee enemies will tend to have a decent CON anyway. So it can be hard to get it to stick, especially in Tier 1 when your spell DC isn't the greatest. Plus you quickly end up with better things to spend your Concentration in combat on.

Altogether, I think it's sometimes worth taking for a brief window (like Levels 3 and 4), but it typically ends up being swapped out rather quickly for something else.

It makes Air Genasi very fun to play in tier one, as they can utilize it from the get-go. Personal favorite usage: Levitate a small party member, then drag them around like a balloon if you need to escape quickly. (Other uses include keeping it Ready to act like a makeshift Feather Fall, or lifting a melee attacking enemy so that it can no longer reach you while dealing with other creatures, or -- my favorite use -- Hold Person but still allows your target to talk for negotiation/interrogation purposes.)

[Sorinth]

My one gripe with Plant Growth is that it's a 100 ft radius, that area is colossal. It's impossible to place that in a shaped or deliberate way, I hope you have no allies that are trying to move through that area, or won't have to go through it later.

Because it's instantaneous and the plants themselves are nonmagical, you can't dispel the effect, I hope you brought a lawnmower with you.

When you cast the spell you can exclude areas of any shape/size. So you can actually create a path for you and your allies if you want.

[MrStabby]

This one is likely going to be controversial...

[OVERESTIMATED] Guidance: Don't get me wrong, guidance is a great spell and if ever given the option I will always take it. However, I think it is considered better than it is by people purely because it require concentration. Sure it's great on a Druid, but they have so many long term concentration spells that have a better use.

[UNDERESTIMATED] Longstrider: Maybe this was just me who underestimated it until recently. I ran into a situation where I had level 2 spells slots, but not level 2 spells due to multiclassing and I upcast Longstrider before some clear upcoming combat. It was amazing giving the tank 10 extra feet of mobility, it made a gigantic difference in combat.

Oh good shout on guidance. I mean its still good, just not as awesome as often assumed.

Maybe it's all the recent threads on kiting enemies but I'll put out Plant Growth as one of the more underrated spells. It's a huge area, creates double difficult terrain, and is not concentration.

This is another spell listed as underrated, but I had thought was widely thought of as being very highly regarded? Either way, an awesome spell.

[Underestimated] Levitate: on an ally it is Nearly a sure way to get them out of harm's way. On an light (ie. non-huge and some large) enemy with a crappy ranged attack it is a save or die, as you pelt them to death when you've cleaned up the rest of their team. On a sorcerer with twin you can save 2 allies, pick your most vulnerable ally and most threatening light enemy, or just try to levitate 2 enemies.

I've checked over monsters and most often if they don't have spells all they have for ranged attacks are javelins. If you start the encounter asking roughly how many they have it sort of locks the DM into a limit on how many rounds they'll have a crappy ranged attack.

I have always found levitate to be less good than it looks. It looks like a cheap control spell but I find a Con save is pretty easy to make much of the time and most enemies either pack a ranged attack OR are very well placed to pass the save. It is also, in most encounters, not enough to protect you from counterattacks so your concentration is still likely to go down (unlike say wall of force or hypnotic pattern that are high impact enough that they also protect you from harm).

Agreed. Similarly, while it's perhaps a bit less "underrated" than Plant Growth, Sleet Storm tends to get overlooked at times. Probably since it doesn't do actual damage. Large 40' radius, difficult terrain, prone for further movement limitation, heavy obscurement, and forced Concentration saves. It's a great option to break up large packs of enemies into more manageable chunks, and is especially useful to drop on top of enemy spellcasters who either need to Concentrate and/or who need to see their targets.

(However, it's a Concentration spell, unlike Plant Growth.)

So sleet storm is good... but I put it into the bucket of spells that are good but just out-competed by all the really, really good level 3 spells. If you are a druid - is it better than conjure animals/Plant growth? If you are a sorcerer/wizard is it better than fireball, hypnotic pattern, fear, counterspell, dispel magic etc.? I have a lot of sympathy - I can keep listing the awesome stuff about this spell (concentration save that is actually tough to pass - though for many fireball would do the same, obscurement with no save, difficult terrain with no save), but I just never find it quite good enough.

[micahaphone]

When you cast the spell you can exclude areas of any shape/size. So you can actually create a path for you and your allies if you want.

... I owe my players an apology, they cast Plant Growth in a trade depot built in a hollowed out stalagtite, so almost everything was slowed down, creating a hectic situation during a tense diplomacy effort. and neither me nor my players noticed that very important detail in the spell description.

[Snails]

Spirit Guardians - you didn't comment on the most relevant part of Spirit Guardians, the fact that its party safe. If you roll low init as a wizard and the sides have collided, you can't Fireball whereas you can almost always Spirit Guardians as a cleric. I strongly disagree with your assessment on this one. A cleric upcasting Spirit Guardians and then dodging the rest of the combat is often a perfectly viable strategy.

That is a very good point. Spirit Guardians may or may not be the first choice spell, but it may be super efficient if my cleric rolls a very low initiative and finds the battlefield to be a confusing mess by the time his turn arrives.

I have been feeling that Spirit Guardians is overrated. But my experience may be skewed because I am playing a Tempest Cleric. Even in confusing fights I can usually employ Destructive Wrath + upcast Shatter to leave a pair of enemies teetering and easily finished off by my teammates.

[Snails]

I find Bless to be overrated, for clerics. While Bless is a fine spell, the fact that it requires a cleric's Concentration, can mean that when the straits are dire, the cleric's Concentration is better served on some other effect.

Bless is a great spell for a Paladin to use.

I also think Bane is underrated as a spell.

It is true that Bless is often not the best spell for a given encounter. However, it is almost always a very good choice that comes at an attractively affordable resource cost. The effect is not spectacular, but simply makes other PCs more reliable. It feels like a sure thing.

Bless is popular because it is a safe choice that you are unlikely to regret casting in a confusing situation. In contrast, it is not unusual to cast Spiritual Weapon or Spirit Guardians or Hold Person and regret burning that spell slot for that combat.

[MrStabby]

That is a very good point. Spirit Guardians may or may not be the first choice spell, but it may be super efficient if my cleric rolls a very low initiative and finds the battlefield to be a confusing mess by the time his turn arrives.

I have been feeling that Spirit Guardians is overrated. But my experience may be skewed because I am playing a Tempest Cleric. Even in confusing fights I can usually employ Destructive Wrath + upcast Shatter to leave a pair of enemies teetering and easily finished off by my teammates.

It is true that Bless is often not the best spell for a given encounter. However, it is almost always a very good choice that comes at an attractively affordable resource cost. The effect is not spectacular, but simply makes other PCs more reliable. It feels like a sure thing.

Bless is popular because it is a safe choice that you are unlikely to regret casting in a confusing situation. In contrast, it is not unusual to cast Spiritual Weapon or Spirit Guardians or Hold Person and regret burning that spell slot for that combat.

I think these two posts go hand in hand.

Spirit Guardians is great, but fireball can do much of the same in less time and without concentration. Shatter is a bit less efficient but is still good. Concentration limits the cleric hard.

But most clerics don't get blasting spells. SG is good enough though but the opportunity cost of forgoing bless is steep.

If bless were not so good, SG would look better. As it is, I still rate it as one of the best cleric spells.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

It is true that Bless is often not the best spell for a given encounter. However, it is almost always a very good choice that comes at an attractively affordable resource cost. The effect is not spectacular, but simply makes other PCs more reliable. It feels like a sure thing.

Bless is popular because it is a safe choice that you are unlikely to regret casting in a confusing situation. In contrast, it is not unusual to cast Spiritual Weapon or Spirit Guardians or Hold Person and regret burning that spell slot for that combat.

I had a player with a Cleric 1/ Wizard 14ish come out of a fight with Tiamat saying basically that; with all the options he had, he would have been just better off upcasting Bless on the 5 characters for the encounter rather than what he tried (can't remember what at the moment). That was in a party with 3 martials who were making numerous attacks per round though. The sheer number of saves the party had to make in that battle was a factor too.
It's pretty hard for me to read spell X is overrated when the point of comparison is Bless.

[Pex]

I had a player with a Cleric 1/ Wizard 14ish come out of a fight with Tiamat saying basically that; with all the options he had, he would have been just better off upcasting Bless on the 5 characters for the encounter rather than what he tried (can't remember what at the moment). That was in a party with 3 martials who were making numerous attacks per round though. The sheer number of saves the party had to make in that battle was a factor too.
It's pretty hard for me to read spell X is overrated when the point of comparison is Bless.

Even a good spell can be the best spell ever when the situation is right. Bless is wonderful against foes who force a lot of saving throws or at least force saves you cannot afford to miss. When fighting a beholder or mindflayer, Bless can be crucial. Other times a different spell is the best spell ever. Playing a Cleric I had cast Bane against a Hydra, one creature but multple heads meant multiple attacks all at -1d4 to hit. The party suffered hardly a scratch. It is a feature of spellcasting in general for the right spell at the right time to win the day. That does not make a spell that was of no use in one combat never to be the best spell ever in another combat. Playing an Artificer in a different campaign no one complained I had cast Fairie Fire when we were battling Invisible Stalkers.

[shipiaozi]

No, but without actual context using the numbers, the question of "+1 attack or +1 damage" is insanely hard to analyze. Reason being, what are the required AC to hit? If the game typically has most characters with an AC of 5, for example, then the +1 to hit os almost meaningless because an AC of 5 is hit by anyone level 1 or higher as long as they have a 16 in a score. So it would literally be meaningless.

This is an extreme example, but its part of what people in this thread are saying: without the actual context of calculating the average AC of enemies and actually describing the effects of what a spell can do, then the math behind your responses don't make any sense. It has been done before, which is why people now say yes, a +1 to attack rolls is better than a +1 to damage in most cases, because the math has been thoroughly explained. Your numbers, as much as they may make sense to you, are not thoroughly explained, so it just confuses people.

For example, in your assertion that Bless grants a +7.5 on attack rolls: this is factually untrue. If you cast Bless on a fighter, who used to be able to add 5 to a roll of a d20, then their range of results is 6 to 25. If Bless was cast, the range does NOT get an average of 7.5. You could never, EVER, get a roll of 30, for example, even though 25 + 7 should equal 32. But this quite literally can NEVER happen. If you had three such fighters and cast bless so each were affected, NONE OF THEM can still reach a roll of 30 with bless, let alone 32: therefore, Bless DOES NOT grant +7.5 to attack rolls. These numbers do not make sense to be quantified this way.

This is what people are saying about your math not making any sense. There are attack rolls, saving throws, ability checks, and any can be at advantage or disadvantage, or modifiers like Bless or Bane can change the numbers around.

But the odd assertions of thing that have no mathematical basis that has been thoroughly explained, like Haste granting a +1 to saves, has yet to be explained. You seem to act that it DOES add saves, but people don't see this benefit, however you obtained it. So people are bringing up the fact that with invisibility granted by Greater Invisibilty spell, you get virtually infinite AC because a target that doesn't know your square on the battlefield, regardless of their typical stats, cannot hit you, so GI grants a arbitrarily high AC that cannot be beaten. This has some logical grounds, while Haste giving +1 to saves still makes no sense. If the reason it does so is because it gives advantage on Dex saves, this is still wrong, as it never boosts Stength, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma saves. So it does not give +1 to saves, because 5 saves are completely unaffected. So the best way to write how Haste benefits saves is not that it adds +1 to all saves, but instead tell it like it is: it grants advantage to Dexrerity saves only. This is a phrase that makes sense to 100% of all people knowledgeable about 5th edition, whereas the +1 to saves makes sense to mostly just you, as to everyone else that phrase means something drastically different.

Sorry, on my phone, so please forgive typos. I hope the message is easy enough to understand, though.

"+1 damage vs +1 attack roll" is a realistic question and quite easy to answer. Tasha has a Fighting Style feat which is attack roll+2 or damage roll+2 in most cases. They need to compete with +2STR/DEX feat. One don't need to argue with any special condition from AC5 to AC15 to AC25, he should consider average AC and damage to decide how good the feat is.

Given some examples, to compare bless and haste we could transform bless into a single target spell to make the comparison easier. For haste, I decide on average a dps attack 3 times per turn with 60% chance to hit, so one extra attack = +4 attack roll, wis save > con save > dex save > all other saves combined so I estimate +4.5 dex save roughly equals to +1 all save. The idea is simple: transform different effects to simliar effect to compare them, that's the central idea of my optimazition. I don't think any argument with any special condition are justify as reasons to estimate any effect, nor should any "difference" could be a reason to stop comparison.

Find Familiar: Sending the familiar to its death is just a loss. You don't need the familiar to die to use it to be useful- the fact that it isn't a big cost doesn't mean it isn't.
Keep in mind also that it takes at least an hour to cast it (without ritual, otherwise more) and lastly... Some players actually like their familiar and don't treat it as an expendable minion.
But regardless, is widely known to be one of the best spells.
Again, making your familiar die doesn't accomplish anything but a loss. If you can't use it without the familiar dying it doesn't mean it's the best way to use it.

Familiar is easy to die when send to help/DB, too many players afraid their familiar get killed and don't use them in combat.
BTW, use familiar to absorb one attack is not a bad choice, that's how cheap familiar in 5e.

[QUOTE=Valmark;25041039]
Swift Quiver gives two bonus attacks and is online by the second round. Again, read the spell.[QUOTE=Valmark;25041039]

Swift Quiver need bonus action to cast, so you lost 1 attack in turn 1, turn 2 is just get back the attack caster lost in turn 2, only in turn 3+ you get 1 more attack per turn.

Uhm... Faerie Fire is completely different from Entangle and Bless. Different save, different effects, different uses, tipically different lists.

Command has some clear limitations, this before considering something like the fact that a Wall of Force (random example) could shut down many more enemies then Command without a save.
And even then Command is also considered to be one of the best spells.

Tasha's summons have completely different roles when compared to the multi-summoning spells, and also figure special abilities.
In addition it's also false that they deal less damage period- the Conjure spells tipically have far less accuracy, as such their damage decreases steeply against higher ACs.

Spirit Guardians has better damage type, no friendly fire debuffs and deals damage over time- which means that eventually it'll beat out Fireball (assuming the enemies don't die earlier, of course).
Takes three turns to beat a Fireball if you don't upcast. Spirit Guardians scales much better since the improved damage is applied repeatedly.

Haste gives +2 AC and then... Completely different stuff from what you're claiming. Read the spell before deciding if it's under or overrated.
Greater Invisibility has, among other stuff, the added advantage of making you immune to sight effects- as a rapid example you could cast spells without being counterspelled.

Animal Shapes is good for utility but unless you have lots of minions to transform it's nearly useless for damage. Assuming you can even hurt the enemy due to non-magical attacks.
And it takes an 8 level slot. That is a LOT for a caster.

Faerie Fire though boosts all the attackers unlike Bless and Entangle is a spell you use for entirely different purposes and targets.

You claim that everything can be turned into an integer and yet there is no accounting for Faerie Fire revealing invisibility or Haste giving a free Dash or Disengage or whatever other example.

You make same mistakes again and again in one post.
Ofc spells are "different", but "different" doesn't mean they can't being compared. Extra attack could transform into +attack roll, extra hp or any other effect to compare, a easy example is +4-5
Are you honest think "different save" "immune to sight effects" or other trival difference could greatly change the overall value of a spell? These endless tiny advantages or disadvantages should be ignored to make us focus on core of comparison.

[Valmark]

"+1 damage vs +1 attack roll" is a realistic question and quite easy to answer. Tasha has a Fighting Style feat which is attack roll+2 or damage roll+2 in most cases. They need to compete with +2STR/DEX feat. One don't need to argue with any special condition from AC5 to AC15 to AC25, he should consider average AC and damage to decide how good the feat is.

Given some examples, to compare bless and haste we could transform bless into a single target spell to make the comparison easier. For haste, I decide on average a dps attack 3 times per turn with 60% chance to hit, so one extra attack = +4 attack roll, wis save > con save > dex save > all other saves combined so I estimate +4.5 dex save roughly equals to +1 all save. The idea is simple: transform different effects to simliar effect to compare them, that's the central idea of my optimazition. I don't think any argument with any special condition are justify as reasons to estimate any effect, nor should any "difference" could be a reason to stop comparison.

The problem with this optimization is that it completely discards anything that isn't numbers, then also turns numbers in different ones without a real sense (at least none that you explained).

It basically ensures you'll have a wrong view of stuff- and if a new player comes around and doesn't know what's what they risk having their fun ruined because they follow your advice and do stuff thinking it'll work as you say. Otherwise it'd be fine, everybody's got their opinions.

Familiar is easy to die when send to help/DB, too many players afraid their familiar get killed and don't use them in combat.
BTW, use familiar to absorb one attack is not a bad choice, that's how cheap familiar in 5e.

Swift Quiver need bonus action to cast, so you lost 1 attack in turn 1, turn 2 is just get back the attack caster lost in turn 2, only in turn 3+ you get 1 more attack per turn.

You make same mistakes again and again in one post.
Ofc spells are "different", but "different" doesn't mean they can't being compared. Extra attack could transform into +attack roll, extra hp or any other effect to compare, a easy example is +4-5
Are you honest think "different save" "immune to sight effects" or other trival difference could greatly change the overall value of a spell? These endless tiny advantages or disadvantages should be ignored to make us focus on core of comparison.

It's cheap only if it absorbs an attack (if it's an AoE it's just a loss) and only if you have enough money to not care.
And, you know, you could just learn how to use it without making it die.

You only lose an attack if you have a bonus action attack already, which means having specific feats or class features.

No, an extra attack can't be rapresented as a bonus to attack rolls. They are intrinsecally different- if only because a bonus to attack rolls doesn't mean you can actually hit twice.

No, because they change a lot. Having an Int save instead of Dex save (for example) is going to make the spell stronger against loads of more enemies. Or having to avoid allies vs having an AoE that doesn't harm allies.

[Eldariel]

"+1 damage vs +1 attack roll" is a realistic question and quite easy to answer. Tasha has a Fighting Style feat which is attack roll+2 or damage roll+2 in most cases. They need to compete with +2STR/DEX feat. One don't need to argue with any special condition from AC5 to AC15 to AC25, he should consider average AC and damage to decide how good the feat is.

This is an appeal to authority fallacy. You assume WotC has done their balancing right in equating +2 to attack rolls to +2 to damage, which is generally not the case (hit bonus is better up until very extreme cases). Indeed, this is one of the reason bows are so much better than other attacking options, because the +2 to attack bonus amounts to close to +4 to damage with Sharpshooter. It's generally the case that you can't take "1 feat = 1 ASI" or any assumptions behind the system at face value since many of those are asymmetric: there are differences in value between the options.

[Protolisk]

"+1 damage vs +1 attack roll" is a realistic question and quite easy to answer. Tasha has a Fighting Style feat which is attack roll+2 or damage roll+2 in most cases. They need to compete with +2STR/DEX feat. One don't need to argue with any special condition from AC5 to AC15 to AC25, he should consider average AC and damage to decide how good the feat is.

Given some examples, to compare bless and haste we could transform bless into a single target spell to make the comparison easier. For haste, I decide on average a dps attack 3 times per turn with 60% chance to hit, so one extra attack = +4 attack roll, wis save > con save > dex save > all other saves combined so I estimate +4.5 dex save roughly equals to +1 all save. The idea is simple: transform different effects to simliar effect to compare them, that's the central idea of my optimazition. I don't think any argument with any special condition are justify as reasons to estimate any effect, nor should any "difference" could be a reason to stop comparison.

Well, yes, average AC does indeed help, but that's exactly the context we are trying to talk about. However, misconstruing what spells actually do, and getting faulty ideas from them, is going to result in faulty conclusions.

For instance, even at low levels, you could face an Ogre one battle, and a Quickling the next. Their CRs are close, and both may be fought at fairly low levels, so one could compare them. One has low AC and abysmal Dexterity, but a high amount of health and Constitution. The other has insane Dexterity granting a much higher AC, and Evasion features with attacks at disadvantage against them except in specific circumstances, but their health is abysmal to compensate. You would not fight these two the same way, and thus the spells you use are different. That is what people mean by saves being different. You will hardly ever catch a Quickling with a Dex save at a low level, and even if you do you might do very little, while using Dex saves against an Ogre is the best idea because its really hard for them to escape it. And the reverse is true for Constitution saves, as that is the Quicklings relative weak point but Ogres will barely feel it.

To try and equate all saves as the same and try to average it all out is to be reductive to the point of absurdity. They are all saves, yes, but certain spells will work better against different creatures because of the difference in those saves.

Imagine you are a farmer, and you have horses, cows, dogs, and chickens. You want to make good fences to keep them in. You find that a short wire fence keeps chickens in astoundingly well and for a great price, so you start to think "Wow, this fence holds in this animal really well! I should probably use it for all my animals since its such a great fence." Then, once you build multiple enclosures for your other animals with the same style of fence, you find that your horses just walked over them, the cows tore the wire down, and the dogs dug under them. Such a fence really only worked for a single scenario. Just because one tool was a great idea for one circumstance, does not mean it was a good idea for all other circumstances.

To bring it back, just because a spell provides a great bonus to one save, does not mean that it provides a good bonus for all others. This is why your "Advantage on Dexterity saves can be equivalent to +1 to all saves" is a faulty conclusion, as it is too abstracted to have any meaning.

So when you ask:

Are you honest think "different save" "immune to sight effects" or other trival difference could greatly change the overall value of a spell? These endless tiny advantages or disadvantages should be ignored to make us focus on core of comparison.

Then the only answer is undoubtedly yes, the differences is what makes the spells have different use cases, and that they should not be ignored or abstracted down to a single numerical value.

I could try to refute every assertion you make extensively, but that is the crux of it: most of your assertions come across as far too reductive to extract any real value out of them. Other forum-goers pointed out similar issues, and I could try and tell you Bless already can function as a single target spell (it's just a 1d4 on attacks and saves, which doesn't average out to +7.5. You can choose one target or more, but to treat one small bonus to three targets as the exact same as triple the bonus to one target is too reductive to analyze sufficiently) or that multiple attacks do not translate to a bonus on attack rolls (in fact, they compound one another, which means they are synergistic, not simply additive. At best, you would try and multiply, or use exponential functions) but I'll stop there. I do like some of the conclusions you come to, but the reasoning for them is not something I can agree with and I wouldn't try to optimize based on your logic.

[noob]

Well, yes, average AC does indeed help, but that's exactly the context we are trying to talk about. However, misconstruing what spells actually do, and getting faulty ideas from them, is going to result in faulty conclusions.

For instance, even at low levels, you could face an Ogre one battle, and a Quickling the next. Their CRs are close, and both may be fought at fairly low levels, so one could compare them. One has low AC and abysmal Dexterity, but a high amount of health and Constitution. The other has insane Dexterity granting a much higher AC, and Evasion features with attacks at disadvantage against them except in specific circumstances, but their health is abysmal to compensate. You would not fight these two the same way, and thus the spells you use are different. That is what people mean by saves being different. You will hardly ever catch a Quickling with a Dex save at a low level, and even if you do you might do very little, while using Dex saves against an Ogre is the best idea because its really hard for them to escape it. And the reverse is true for Constitution saves, as that is the Quicklings relative weak point but Ogres will barely feel it.

To try and equate all saves as the same and try to average it all out is to be reductive to the point of absurdity. They are all saves, yes, but certain spells will work better against different creatures because of the difference in those saves.

Imagine you are a farmer, and you have horses, cows, dogs, and chickens. You want to make good fences to keep them in. You find that a short wire fence keeps chickens in astoundingly well and for a great price, so you start to think "Wow, this fence holds in this animal really well! I should probably use it for all my animals since its such a great fence." Then, once you build multiple enclosures for your other animals with the same style of fence, you find that your horses just walked over them, the cows tore the wire down, and the dogs dug under them. Such a fence really only worked for a single scenario. Just because one tool was a great idea for one circumstance, does not mean it was a good idea for all other circumstances.

To bring it back, just because a spell provides a great bonus to one save, does not mean that it provides a good bonus for all others. This is why your "Advantage on Dexterity saves can be equivalent to +1 to all saves" is a faulty conclusion, as it is too abstracted to have any meaning.

So when you ask:


Then the only answer is undoubtedly yes, the differences is what makes the spells have different use cases, and that they should not be ignored or abstracted down to a single numerical value.

I could try to refute every assertion you make extensively, but that is the crux of it: most of your assertions come across as far too reductive to extract any real value out of them. Other forum-goers pointed out similar issues, and I could try and tell you Bless already can function as a single target spell (it's just a 1d4 on attacks and saves, which doesn't average out to +7.5. You can choose one target or more, but to treat one small bonus to three targets as the exact same as triple the bonus to one target is too reductive to analyze sufficiently) or that multiple attacks do not translate to a bonus on attack rolls (in fact, they compound one another, which means they are synergistic, not simply additive. At best, you would try and multiply, or use exponential functions) but I'll stop there. I do like some of the conclusions you come to, but the reasoning for them is not something I can agree with and I wouldn't try to optimize based on your logic.

Having varied spells that allows to adapt to the situation is a good thing and it is why a spell that counters invisibility and also adds advantage(faerie fire) can be useful if you were not going to take (or were not going to be able to take) other spells that counters invisibility or why a save or lose spell that targets a con save can still be useful even if you already have an overall superior save or lose spell that also targets an int save.

[Mitchellnotes]

Are you honest think "different save" "immune to sight effects" or other trival difference could greatly change the overall value of a spell? These endless tiny advantages or disadvantages should be ignored to make us focus on core of comparison.

Yes, very much yes. This is why the UA Lore wizard was Horribly broken. Being able to change a spell to target what would clearly be a weak save is insanely powerful. Take good old fireball. Changing fireball to target int, which is often a very bad save for many monsters, makes it incredibly powerful. If you just had synaptic static doing the damage it does at 5th level targeting an int save it would be a decent to good spell. That it also adds strong riders onto the damage elevates it to being an incredibly powerful spell.

Part of the key aspect of a spell is the save it targets. Does it have an effect that is worthwhile for creatures that would typically have poor saves of that nature? For instance, if feeblemind targeted constitution, save that is typically not great for spell casters, it would be extraordinarily good (as it is, it's still pretty good). Being able to shut down a caster targeting a save they are typically poor in would make it an incredible spell. On the other hand, blindness, which is a pretty good spell in that it gives disadvantage, scales pretty well, and doesn't require constitution, isn't deemed as good as it could be as who you want to use it on (typically melee users) are generally going to have good constitution saves (and most things typically don't have bad con saves). Because of this, while it isn't a great spell, it is still pretty good at shutting down certain types of melee/ranged attackers (the fast, agile kind).

You can't ignore how the effects align with the saves that are connected to them to gauge how good an overall spell would be, it is a part of the overall package.

[shipiaozi]

It's cheap only if it absorbs an attack (if it's an AoE it's just a loss) and only if you have enough money to not care.
And, you know, you could just learn how to use it without making it die.

That's why I said most players underestimated Find Familiar and don't use it correctly. The best way to spend gold in 5e is to summon familiar to die if you could. Spend 1500 gold on 150 familiar is even much better than Simulacrum.

No, an extra attack can't be rapresented as a bonus to attack rolls. They are intrinsecally different- if only because a bonus to attack rolls doesn't mean you can actually hit twice.

No, because they change a lot. Having an Int save instead of Dex save (for example) is going to make the spell stronger against loads of more enemies. Or having to avoid allies vs having an AoE that doesn't harm allies.

Extra attack could be represent as a bonus to attack roll, a bonus to AC, extra spell slot or any other effects. That's optimization, one need to choose from different effects and compare them.

You are still make the same mistake again.

This is an appeal to authority fallacy. You assume WotC has done their balancing right in equating +2 to attack rolls to +2 to damage, which is generally not the case (hit bonus is better up until very extreme cases). Indeed, this is one of the reason bows are so much better than other attacking options, because the +2 to attack bonus amounts to close to +4 to damage with Sharpshooter. It's generally the case that you can't take "1 feat = 1 ASI" or any assumptions behind the system at face value since many of those are asymmetric: there are differences in value between the options.

I never assume WotC done balancing right, in fact +1 attack roll is about 10-15%(not 100% lol) better than +1 damage. I use Tasha feats as an example to show "+1 damage vs +1 attack roll" is a realistic problem and anyone could easily calculate a close result by appoint average attack roll and damage roll. 1 ASI is not 1 feat, for example casters' ASI only worth about 0.5 feat and they should not pick ASI in most builds.
BTW, hand crossbow are on par with two-hands PAW or Shield + Staff. You think crossbow is best weapon probably because 1) There are more bad melee builds, such as melee warrior, melee rogue or Paladin 2/Sorcerer X 2)Warrior is the best weapon class and very suitable to be ranged.

Yes, very much yes. This is why the UA Lore wizard was Horribly broken. Being able to change a spell to target what would clearly be a weak save is insanely powerful. Take good old fireball. Changing fireball to target int, which is often a very bad save for many monsters, makes it incredibly powerful. If you just had synaptic static doing the damage it does at 5th level targeting an int save it would be a decent to good spell. That it also adds strong riders onto the damage elevates it to being an incredibly powerful spell.

Part of the key aspect of a spell is the save it targets. Does it have an effect that is worthwhile for creatures that would typically have poor saves of that nature? For instance, if feeblemind targeted constitution, save that is typically not great for spell casters, it would be extraordinarily good (as it is, it's still pretty good). Being able to shut down a caster targeting a save they are typically poor in would make it an incredible spell. On the other hand, blindness, which is a pretty good spell in that it gives disadvantage, scales pretty well, and doesn't require constitution, isn't deemed as good as it could be as who you want to use it on (typically melee users) are generally going to have good constitution saves (and most things typically don't have bad con saves). Because of this, while it isn't a great spell, it is still pretty good at shutting down certain types of melee/ranged attackers (the fast, agile kind).

You can't ignore how the effects align with the saves that are connected to them to gauge how good an overall spell would be, it is a part of the overall package.

First, "different save" is quite different from "choose a save", "different save" only means +1 or +2 DC at best.
Second, UA lore Wizard is among the worst 5 wizard subclass, gain almost nothing before lv14. Their lv2 class ability is a worse version of "free Heightened Spell", with 75%/50% failed rate your "incredibly powerful" fireball deal 21 damage instead of 17.5. I would not call a +1 weapon(15% DPR increase + 5% magic weapon, close to your 20% damage increase) makes weapon attack "incredibly powerful".

[JNAProductions]

Hold Person targeting Strength or Dexterity.

Fail once, and you’re stuck.

Ship, you’ve not made any good arguments for yourself here.

[Vulryn]

snippidy

While some statements (not many though) are true, your argumentation is found lacking.

Made-up numbers without mathematical proof or backup will not convince anyone, my friend.

[cookieface]

(...)the UA Lore wizard was Horribly broken(...)

Holy cow, I had never seen the Lore Wizard before this comment and just looked it up. Was it released as a joke?? Absurdly powerful to change both save AND damage type in the same casting. And then once you get to tier three it practically makes preparing spells moot. Insane subclass.

[Mitchellnotes]

First, "different save" is quite different from "choose a save", "different save" only means +1 or +2 DC at best.
Second, UA lore Wizard is among the worst 5 wizard subclass, gain almost nothing before lv14. Their lv2 class ability is a worse version of "free Heightened Spell", with 75%/50% failed rate your "incredibly powerful" fireball deal 21 damage instead of 17.5. I would not call a +1 weapon(15% DPR increase + 5% magic weapon, close to your 20% damage increase) makes weapon attack "incredibly powerful".

Correct, choosing a save is much better than different save, but, you are wrong in that it means "+1 or +2 DC at best." In fact, way off. Most conventional wisdom with spell selection encourages having spells that target a variety of different saves so that you can effectively "choose a save." Spells that target Int and Cha are the most rare, Dex saves tend to be focused on damage, Con and Wis saves tend to be the most common "save or suck," Str saves are often focused on restraining or are movement focused (with non-damage dex being in there as well). This is why synaptic static is again widely considered very good. Not only are there not many Int save spells, but it is a good spell for what it does with that save. Banishment is also typically considered a good spell because it is hard removal if the creature fails its save, and it is Cha focused which rounds out that aspect.

Of course, the non-save spells are going to be pretty much top tier for the guaranteed effect (wall of force, etc), and you could make an argument that you are better off always going for the guaranteed thing (i like to think of it as the XCom argument), but that is a different conversation than what you are engaging in. How would you "numerically capture" spells that just work? Is that a +3, +5? You really just can't, and again, it goes back to the idea that trying to convert everything into a standard formula just doesn't work well for a dynamic a game as this is.

[nickl_2000]

Holy cow, I had never seen the Lore Wizard before this comment and just looked it up. Was it released as a joke?? Absurdly powerful to change both save AND damage type in the same casting. And then once you get to tier three it practically makes preparing spells moot. Insane subclass.

It was Unearthed Arcana, a test subclass. The unearthed arcana program did it's job in that it never saw print and was disintegrated.

[Valmark]

That's why I said most players underestimated Find Familiar and don't use it correctly. The best way to spend gold in 5e is to summon familiar to die if you could. Spend 1500 gold on 150 familiar is even much better than Simulacrum.

Extra attack could be represent as a bonus to attack roll, a bonus to AC, extra spell slot or any other effects. That's optimization, one need to choose from different effects and compare them.

You are still make the same mistake again.

I never assume WotC done balancing right, in fact +1 attack roll is about 10-15%(not 100% lol) better than +1 damage. I use Tasha feats as an example to show "+1 damage vs +1 attack roll" is a realistic problem and anyone could easily calculate a close result by appoint average attack roll and damage roll. 1 ASI is not 1 feat, for example casters' ASI only worth about 0.5 feat and they should not pick ASI in most builds.
BTW, hand crossbow are on par with two-hands PAW or Shield + Staff. You think crossbow is best weapon probably because 1) There are more bad melee builds, such as melee warrior, melee rogue or Paladin 2/Sorcerer X 2)Warrior is the best weapon class and very suitable to be ranged.

First, "different save" is quite different from "choose a save", "different save" only means +1 or +2 DC at best.
Second, UA lore Wizard is among the worst 5 wizard subclass, gain almost nothing before lv14. Their lv2 class ability is a worse version of "free Heightened Spell", with 75%/50% failed rate your "incredibly powerful" fireball deal 21 damage instead of 17.5. I would not call a +1 weapon(15% DPR increase + 5% magic weapon, close to your 20% damage increase) makes weapon attack "incredibly powerful".

You have yet to say why it's better to make the familiar die then to use it without dying.
The statement about the Simulacrum seems objectively false- aside from the fact that it can do much more then a familiar if you make one of someone capable of ritual casting Find Familiar then you'll have doubled the number of familiars you can have.

Optimization is not "Take something, turn it into something completely different". It's like saying that Greater Restoration gives +100 hp. It does nothing like that.
And you still haven't explained your system to transform things.

Only you mentioned crossbows.

Uhm... Just no about the DCs. Take a small Red Wyrmling- targeting it's Intelligence instead of Constitution is already equivalent to a +5.

[micahaphone]

I'm curious about what quests and dungeons you go into where repeatedly stopping for 70 minutes to recast find familiar is a viable strategy.

I remember reading about casting touch spells through your familiar and being excited to do sneaky high risk casting remotely, but there's not actually that many offensive touch spells that you'd be excited to throw out in combat, worth risking the familiar. Bestow Curse is the most notable I can think of.

Otherwise, risking your familiar in combat only seems worthwhile if you can guarantee the enemy has no AOE, no ranged attackers, or that you're okay absorbing a single hit in exchange for the long cast time.

[PhantomSoul]

This thread (well, threads sharing this OP poster I suppose) never fails to... something. The math and logic are just nonsensical.

Uhm... Just no about the DCs. Take a small Red Wyrmling- targeting it's Intelligence instead of Constitution is already equivalent to a +5.

And that's not even that big... the MEDIAN is that a monster's minimum and maximum bonuses to their saving throws are 6 apart (standard deviation 2.63; mean 5.8). And this difference gets bigger with level, meaning the more options you have the more effectively you can make use of it. There are tons of monsters with a range larger than 10. Sibriex even has a range of 17!

[Ninja Bear]

Extra attack could be compare with bonus to hit, for example, when a character could attack 3 times per turn and have 60% chance to hit, one extra attack is very close to +4 attack roll.
Haste/GI are quite bad, Twinned haste/GI is decent and have effect on par with lv1-2 bless.

So, analogous scenario:
We are comparing two prospective melee characters, each with 10DEX. The first character is given plate armor, and has 18AC. The second is given a shield, and has 12AC. On this basis we conclude that shields are underpowered and overestimated, since the effect of the shield is 1/4 the effect of the plate armor.
Have we made a proper comparison by resolving each of the "plate armor effect" and the "shield effect" to a number before we compare them?

Haste and the various "get advantage" spells should assume bless as a baseline just as the shield user should assume that he has armor as a baseline, since the whole point is that they stack. "Is bless+haste worth two concentration slots, and a L1 and L3 spell" is a different question than "bless or haste" -- looking at the naked haste user is as odd as looking at the naked shield user and saying "this requires you to give up a stronger weapon for less AC, go plate over shield."

[sithlordnergal]

I'm...gonna have to disagree with almost all of these...

[Underestimated]Find Familiar: Too many players still afraid of get familiar killed, in fact familiar should be killed every day or even more than once per day. The extra help action or Dragon's Breath is quite useful in combat, and a wizard who does not send his familiar to death would lost a lot of power in early game. Don't worry about the cost, 10gp per familiar is a better deal than Simulacrum and probably the best way to spend your gold in adventure.

First, this is probably the least underestimated spell in the game. Its basically an entire class feature rolled up into a spell. It can be used for everything from aiding in battle to scouting to taking things. And due to the wording of the spell, you can do some crazy things. For example, you don't need a line of sight when you dismiss and resummon your Familiar. Meaning you could dismiss it as an action, then resummon your familiar on the other side of a door...as an action. You can then scout via looking through your familiar's eyes and such. That said, having it die every day is a bit ineffective, though I can see why a DM would target it.

[Overestimated]Faerie Fire: Horrible spell, the effect is less than 50% of a true good lv1 spell such as Bless or Entangle. Don't waste t1 character's spell slot on Faerie Fire.

100% disagree. Faerie Fire is probably one of the most useful support spells by far. First off, its a spell that effects objects, which is niche but handy. Second, it provides advantage on all attacks against a creature being effected by it. Meaning its a huge boon for Rogues, far more so than Bless, since now you don't have to use your Cunning Action to hide or hope you have an ally next to your target. Finally, it cancels out invisibility, which is exceptionally helpful if your DM likes to use Invisibility a lot and rules that if a creature is invisible then you don't automatically know where they are. Even if they rule that you know where the creature is, the wording of the spell allows you to keep the advantage against the Invisible creature. Now, is it the "best support spell ever"? No, not really...but I don't think Bless fits that either.

[Underestimated]Command: Probably the best control spell in 5e, deals more damage via OA than some damage spell while require no concentration. Don't forget move close to enemy after casting the spell to trigger your own OA.

This is similar to Find Familiar...I've never seen Command be rated as a poor spell. Its generally seen as an excellent control spell, right up there with things like Tasha's Hideous Laughter and Dissonant Whisper.

[Overestimated]Tasha Summons: Tasha Summons are decent spells that fits certain roles, but they are far weaker than CRB summon spells that dominate T2-T3 games. LV4 or lv6 Tasha Summons usually deal about half damage of lv3-5 CRB summon spells, avoid using them if your class have a good alternative.

I don't think anyone overestimates these spells. Everyone knows Conjure X is by and far stronger than any Summon Spell. The thing is DMs are more willing to allow Tahsa's summons to be used over Conjure X. They also won't nerf the Summon spells like they do with Conjure X.

[Overestimated]Spirit Guardians: Cleric have the worst spell list in game that even their best lv3 spell is quite weak. A delayed fireball with concentration and much worse range? Hopefully Cleric could get some decent spells in new book.

I...feel like you're using Spirit Guardians wrong if you think its over estimated. Its perfect for a frontline character, like Clerics tend to be. It deals a decent amount of damage, causes difficult terrain, its damage types are rarely resisted, and to top it off you can exclude your allies from it. The only real downside is that its Concentration, but even then that's not a huge issue. Toss this spell on a tank and jump into the middle of a group of enemies, and then watch as they start to drop.

[Overestimated]Haste and Greater Invisibility: Bless give +7.5 attack roll and +7.5 all saves, Haste give +5 attack roll, +2 AC and +1 all saves before we consider the risk. Greater Invisibility give +4.5 attack roll and +4.5 AC. It is very clear the lv3 spell and lv4 spell perform worse than bless, they both provide little help for their spell levels.

I think the problem you're having is that you're mixing a static bonus, like what Bless gives, with spells that give a varied bonus. For example, Haste can be more or less effective depending on who you cast it on. Casting Haste on, say, a Wizard, is generally a poor choice. It won't really do much at all for a Wizard. However, toss Haste on a Paladin, and now that Paladin can potentially Smite three times in a turn. If they're a Soradin with Quicken Spell and Booming Blade, they get 4 attacks with it. Soradins are especially deadly with this spell, since they have the potential of dealing 117 damage in a round from dice alone with a Longsword. Sure, it takes all of their resources to do it, but still, that's a huge hit, and something you can't do with Bless.

Same goes for Greater Invisibility. The fact that you can cast and attack with Greater Invisibility makes it an exceptionally strong and versatile defensive spell. Most spells require you to see your target, and being Invisible gives you a ton of advantages. These range from disadvantage on attacks against you and advantage against your targets, to enemies not knowing where you are and being unable to attack you at all.

[Overestimated]Swift Quiver: No idea why some players view this unplayable spell as a good spell. It does nothing until turn 3 and all it did is 1 extra attack per turn.

I have no idea what you're on about. First, the spell starts going to work on turn two. Sure, you can't use it round one...but then that's how most buff spells end up working. After that you're making two extra attacks with your bonus action. Second, you need to reread this spell. It gives you a bonus action attack that lets you attack twice, and you don't need to use the Attack Action to use it. Meaning you can toss it on a Bard, cast some spell, then use your Bonus Action to attack twice. Its also a 5th level spell, so you could toss it into a Ring of Spell Storing, hand it over to a Fighter, Rogue, or Warlock, and watch them go to town with it.

[Underestimated]Animal Shapes: The ultimate summon spell that transform all familiars, mount and summons into CR4. Wish and Foresight are only two lv9 spells that could compete with, Bard should pick this spell as lv18 extra spell in most team.

Sadly this is a spell that looks far stronger than it actually is:

First, it really only works if you have a large group of allies. For example, if you cast Conjure X and have 8 CR 1/4 creatures, you could turn them into 8 CR 4 beasts, or if you have a Necromancer that has a small army of Zombies and Skeletons following you around, or if you have a small army of peasants to use.

Next, this is an 8th level spell. By the time you get this, most creatures you're facing won't really care about a ton of CR 4 beasts. They generally have resistance to non-magical damage, which is what the new beast forms do, immunity to Poison, which is what Beasts usually use to supplement their damage, and usually have an AoE that deals enough damage to kill those CR 4 beasts in 1 to 2 rounds. this is why I feel most classes that make heavy use of the Conjure X or Animate Dead spells fall behind at higher levels.

Sure, you could bring an army of low CR creatures with you...but what use is that army if they all die to an 8th level spell. And that's not conjecture either, that's from personal experience. I once played a Tier 4 AL game where the final fight involved a crop ton of zombies. I'm talking well over 20 zombies, with two Wizards, some special fighters, even a Shield Guardian...My Druid cleared out all the zombies in the room with one Sunburst.

[MaxWilson]

Warlocks: just....frustrating. capping at level 5 is infuriating cause its just short of 3x attacks

On the other hand, level 5 is just perfect for summoning elementals, Vrocks, and Chasmes.

Sadly this is a spell that looks far stronger than it actually is:

First, it really only works if you have a large group of allies. For example, if you cast Conjure X and have 8 CR 1/4 creatures, you could turn them into 8 CR 4 beasts, or if you have a Necromancer that has a small army of Zombies and Skeletons following you around, or if you have a small army of peasants to use.

Next, this is an 8th level spell. By the time you get this, most creatures you're facing won't really care about a ton of CR 4 beasts. They generally have resistance to non-magical damage, which is what the new beast forms do, immunity to Poison, which is what Beasts usually use to supplement their damage, and usually have an AoE that deals enough damage to kill those CR 4 beasts in 1 to 2 rounds. this is why I feel most classes that make heavy use of the Conjure X or Animate Dead spells fall behind at higher levels.

Sure, you could bring an army of low CR creatures with you...but what use is that army if they all die to an 8th level spell. And that's not conjecture either, that's from personal experience. I once played a Tier 4 AL game where the final fight involved a crop ton of zombies. I'm talking well over 20 zombies, with two Wizards, some special fighters, even a Shield Guardian...My Druid cleared out all the zombies in the room with one Sunburst.

You forgot to mention that most CR 4 beasts are Huge and therefore ineligible as Animal Shapes. In practice, Giant Scorpion (CR 3) is about as good as this spell gets. It's quite good, but not as good as it looks on paper.

[quindraco]

I'm curious about what quests and dungeons you go into where repeatedly stopping for 70 minutes to recast find familiar is a viable strategy.

I remember reading about casting touch spells through your familiar and being excited to do sneaky high risk casting remotely, but there's not actually that many offensive touch spells that you'd be excited to throw out in combat, worth risking the familiar. Bestow Curse is the most notable I can think of.

Otherwise, risking your familiar in combat only seems worthwhile if you can guarantee the enemy has no AOE, no ranged attackers, or that you're okay absorbing a single hit in exchange for the long cast time.

I use mine for the Help action, primarily. But I'm an Elf, so if the party is taking a long rest, I guaranteed have time to resummon my familiar. Might be different for filthy non-Elves.

I should also point out that in combat, if it comes up, I put myself between the owl and danger. His job isn't to absorb a single strike, it's being a force multiplier for my bow.

[KorvinStarmast]

Was it released as a joke??

Yes. The company's name is Wizards of the Coast, not Monks of the Coast.

The unearthed arcana program did it's job in that it never saw print and was disintegrated.

That it was, with extreme prejudice.

I use mine for the Help action, primarily. {snip} His job isn't to absorb a single strike, it's being a force multiplier for my bow.

Yep. Tacticians know how to get the most out of their assets.
Shipiaozi?
Not so much, since they are not a tactician.

[Jon talks a lot]

Yes. The company's name is Wizards of the Coast, not Monks of the Coast.

That it was, with extreme prejudice. Yep. Tacticians know how to get the most out of their assets.
Shipiaozi?
Not so much, since they are not a tactician.

I told myself I wouldn't get involved in this thread again, but amen to that!