What is blade ward good for, why is it better than the Dodge action?

[Seramus]

Blade Ward is a terrible cantrip, but it does protect you for longer than Dodge: Blade Ward ends at the end of your next turn, while Dodge ends at the beginning. If you take turn 1 to prep by casting Blade Ward, turn 2 you can also Dodge, and have both up at once. Not sure why you'd want to, but you can.

I've actually used it that way against traps. Suspect a trap exists? Need to run through a hallway with spike pits, poison darts, and worse? Thirty goblins going to get opportunity attacks while you dash past them? Blade Ward + Dodge is actually pretty good for those situations.

But they happen rarely, so it's just not worth it unless you're getting mileage from some other place, like an Agathys or Rebuke combo.

[verbatim]

One of the paradoxes of 5e is that there are lots of ways to increase the tankiness/survivability of your character but few ways to incentivize the DM into hitting them instead of teammates.

If you're playing a high AC build and want/need to tank hits for a round then dodging (especially against many lower level minions with weaker to hit bonuses) may result in DM's ignoring the character in a way that they might not have had you used Blade Ward instead.

On a purely psychological level I would estimate that the chances of a DM targeting you to make the Blade Ward matter are higher than the chances of the DM committing to an attack that needs to roll a 19 or a 20 with disadvantage to hit you.

On the flip side, I would wager that the chances of a DM avoiding targeting someone using Blade Ward because of its effect are lower than a DM not attacking someone because they used dodge.

[JackPhoenix]

In context it's clear that it's bad (in that poster's meaning) in the context of applying useful conditions (like reduced movement or inability to regain HP) or affordances (providing light, making sounds, opening doors without having to stand next to them, cleaning the dishes and drying clothes without effort). Not everyone cares about the difference in damage between Nd8 and Nd10.

Well, it's the only cantrip that can target objects. And set them on fire.

[Amnestic]

Well, it's the only cantrip that can target objects. And set them on fire.

Yeah but splitting those hairs leaves you in the same situation where Wall of Fire can't set things on fire but Lightning Bolt can.

[JackPhoenix]

Yeah but splitting those hairs leaves you in the same situation where Wall of Fire can't set things on fire but Lightning Bolt can.

Lightning Bolt can ignite things, but can't damage them otherwise. Fire Bolt can. That's actually pretty rare amongst spells. Most damaging spells only damage creatures.

[Man_Over_Game]

One of the paradoxes of 5e is that there are lots of ways to increase the tankiness/survivability of your character but few ways to incentivize the DM into hitting them instead of teammates.

I'd honestly say the opposite. There are plenty of ways to get someone to attack you (standing near them or just straight dealing damage are generally the most frequent), there aren't many telegraphed defensive powers that are worthwhile. Barbarians can't Dodge because it risks making them lose Rage, Monks don't Dodge because Flurry of Blows (or another BA use) is generally already being used for your other Monk features, Rogues don't Dodge because they can just Disengage and Dash if needed, Casters don't Dodge because they either don't foresee much incoming damage or because they have a better solution. The only classes I ever see take the Dodge Action (and even then, very rarely) are things like Fighters.

[MaxWilson]

Well, it's the only cantrip that can target objects. And set them on fire.

Prestidigitation.

I'd honestly say the opposite. There are plenty of ways to get someone to attack you (standing near them or just straight dealing damage are generally the most frequent), there aren't many telegraphed defensive powers that are worthwhile. Barbarians can't Dodge because it risks making them lose Rage, Monks don't Dodge because Flurry of Blows (or another BA use) is generally already being used for your other Monk features, Rogues don't Dodge because they can just Disengage and Dash if needed, Casters don't Dodge because they either don't foresee much incoming damage or because they have a better solution. The only classes I ever see take the Dodge Action (and even then, very rarely) are things like Fighters.

Sounds like a playstyle thing. I often see situations where Dodging would be useful, both in actual play and in combat challenges posted here on GITP. That doesn't always mean the players see the opportunity and use it, but it's there.

In particular, it's good when you're already grappling somebody (e.g. a paladin, cleric or medium-armored bard) and there are other enemies around, and it's good when you want to occupy space to give other PCs protected terrain (e.g. occupy a corner position so another PC can lie prone without monsters being able to approach to within 5' of them and lose disadvantage--helps protect the other PC's concentration). You can even do both at the same time--grapple a monster and use it to help block other monsters. Bottom line, Dodging helps create asymmetry for the players to exploit.

[Tanarii]

In context it's clear that it's bad (in that poster's meaning) in the context of applying useful conditions (like reduced movement or inability to regain HP) or affordances (providing light, making sounds, opening doors without having to stand next to them, cleaning the dishes and drying clothes without effort). Not everyone cares about the difference in damage between Nd8 and Nd10.

What context? Nothing in the post I quoted indicated any of that.

[MaxWilson]

What context? Nothing in the post I quoted indicated any of that.

The context of someone saying it's a bad cantrip. It's obvious they were not talking about single target DPR.

What else could it possibly mean?

[Warder]

What context? Nothing in the post I quoted indicated any of that.

Hi, context here! Max is referring to my followup post, and they got the context right. Though "bad" is probably not the word I should've used - it's just one of the cantrips I'm the least likely to pick, unless I was playing a fire-themed caster or something that made picking it have some kind of narrative sense.

My approach to picking spells is that as a primary caster, it's my job to affect the battlefield in a meaningful way on each of my turns, even if I'm running low on spell slots. Fire Bolts don't satisfy that role, because they do bad, unreliable single target damage, and the slightly higher damage dice on them compared to other cantrips doesn't justify picking them. I'd much rather slow a target by 10 feet or get rid of their reaction (et al), even though I'll do 1-2 points less damage. It won't always be the best choice, but if I can keep an enemy from attacking an ally for one round, while doing a little bit of damage while I'm at it, then we're usually ahead. The martials do the big single target damage, and if I can keep them safe to do that, it's a win for everyone.

I know it's a controversial opinion, though! But I've argued against Fire Bolt before and I still stand by my stance.

[Frogreaver]

Hi, context here! Max is referring to my followup post, and they got the context right. Though "bad" is probably not the word I should've used - it's just one of the cantrips I'm the least likely to pick, unless I was playing a fire-themed caster or something that made picking it have some kind of narrative sense.

My approach to picking spells is that as a primary caster, it's my job to affect the battlefield in a meaningful way on each of my turns, even if I'm running low on spell slots. Fire Bolts don't satisfy that role, because they do bad, unreliable single target damage, and the slightly higher damage dice on them compared to other cantrips doesn't justify picking them. I'd much rather slow a target by 10 feet or get rid of their reaction (et al), even though I'll do 1-2 points less damage. It won't always be the best choice, but if I can keep an enemy from attacking an ally for one round, while doing a little bit of damage while I'm at it, then we're usually ahead. The martials do the big single target damage, and if I can keep them safe to do that, it's a win for everyone.

I know it's a controversial opinion, though! But I've argued against Fire Bolt before and I still stand by my stance.

If I had to summarize my cantrip position:

1. Focus fire is still one of the best strategies
2. Cantrip effects with moderate damage and effects rarely have opportunities for the effect to really matter. 10ft slow is a good example here.
3. Even when there is an opportunity for the effect to be good, it’s likely not going to be on the enemy that’s being focus fired.

So I don’t think doing a d10 over a d8 is particularly important, but neither do I think 10ft slow is particularly important. I do think the slow effect would be more fun though as it feels powerful and apparent when it works. Whereas doing the next size damage die up is boring and consistent and it’s not like in play you’ll easily be able to discern the times that damage dice difference actually mattered.

[ad_hoc]

Dodge is all or nothing. Blade Ward limits the max damage the opponent can do.

For example - say you have 30hp and you know if you get hit you will take 30dmg, well Blade Ward might be better to survive whether hit or not.

It isn't always about reducing more average damage but can be about surviving longer.

The advantage to dodge in this situation is that it lowers the chances of critical hits.

[Man_Over_Game]

If I had to summarize my cantrip position:

1. Focus fire is still one of the best strategies
2. Cantrip effects with moderate damage and effects rarely have opportunities for the effect to really matter. 10ft slow is a good example here.
3. Even when there is an opportunity for the effect to be good, it’s likely not going to be on the enemy that’s being focus fired.

So I don’t think doing a d10 over a d8 is particularly important, but neither do I think 10ft slow is particularly important. I do think the slow effect would be more fun though as it feels powerful and apparent when it works. Whereas doing the next size damage die up is boring and consistent and it’s not like in play you’ll easily be able to discern the times that damage dice difference actually mattered.

Yeah...things die too quickly, fights end too soon, battlemaps are too small, movement is too cheap, etc. 9 times out of 10, a Paladin is spending his spell slots on Divine Smite in combat, not on any of the lower-level Smite spells, despite how tactical, engaging, or interactive those spells may be. That's not anyone's fault; bulking up the fights leads your players into boredom if they're not the type to enjoy long stretches of combat (as the number of rounds of combat don't always mesh well with human attention spans).

Damage is, unfortunately, the most valuable condition. I could block 50% of your damage this turn and kill you in two turns, or I can take a hit and kill you in one (leaving my actions free next turn). It's worth noting the most powerful spells in the game are the ones that either encourage more damage (Hold Person, Haste), or stall long enough so that you can deal damage to other things (Banishment).

I'd pick Ray of Frost more if it could consistently be used as a utility effect (some DMs don't see it that way), otherwise a 20 speed enemy is still probably going to reach you if 30 feet could (and a lot of melee enemies either have high speed or ranged weapons that deal 20% less damage than their melee attacks).

5e isn't a very tactical game, IMO. At least not without a lot of work.

[Segev]

Yeah...things die too quickly, fights end too soon, battlemaps are too small, movement is too cheap, etc. 9 times out of 10, a Paladin is spending his spell slots on Divine Smite in combat, not on any of the lower-level Smite spells, despite how tactical, engaging, or interactive those spells may be. That's not anyone's fault; bulking up the fights leads your players into boredom if they're not the type to enjoy long stretches of combat (as the number of rounds of combat don't always mesh well with human attention spans).

Damage is, unfortunately, the most valuable condition. I could block 50% of your damage this turn and kill you in two turns, or I can take a hit and kill you in one (leaving my actions free next turn). It's worth noting the most powerful spells in the game are the ones that either encourage more damage (Hold Person, Haste), or stall long enough so that you can deal damage to other things (Banishment).

I'd pick Ray of Frost more if it could consistently be used as a utility effect (some DMs don't see it that way), otherwise a 20 speed enemy is still probably going to reach you if 30 feet could (and a lot of melee enemies either have high speed or ranged weapons that deal 20% less damage than their melee attacks).

5e isn't a very tactical game, IMO. At least not without a lot of work.

In my admittedly-anecdotal experience, 5e is a tactical game when PLAYERS choose to use spells that make it so. Combats ending in too few rounds for things to matter are often at the expense of letting the enemy get off a few more attacks rather than slowing them down and prolonging the combat to prevent excess resource expenditure (where hp are also a resource).

What's curious to me is the notion that combat is, at once, too boring to extend too long (and I have found that to be the case), but also the only well-developed part of the game because apparently the social aspect shouldn't have in-depth mechanics and the exploration aspect just...doesn't...and it's viewed as 'punitive' if it does.

I get the impression that different mixes of player preferences are being heaped together, resulting in all three pillars being judged by the standards of those who like the pillar in question the least.

[DwarfFighter]

So does the Dodge action.

:+1:

A good time to use BW instead of Dodge (and we're assuming those two are your only options!) is when you want to guarantee a smaller hp loss.

If you have, say, 20 hp and are looking at losing up to 30 hp, reducing the loss to a maximum of 15 through Resistance guarantees you are still in the game.

A Dodge might reduce the damage you take to 0, but guaranteed survival, even though damaged, is safer than even a safe bet!

Also, BW will reduce Concentration check DCs.

-DF

[Man_Over_Game]

In my admittedly-anecdotal experience, 5e is a tactical game when PLAYERS choose to use spells that make it so. Combats ending in too few rounds for things to matter are often at the expense of letting the enemy get off a few more attacks rather than slowing them down and prolonging the combat to prevent excess resource expenditure (where hp are also a resource).

What's curious to me is the notion that combat is, at once, too boring to extend too long (and I have found that to be the case), but also the only well-developed part of the game because apparently the social aspect shouldn't have in-depth mechanics and the exploration aspect just...doesn't...and it's viewed as 'punitive' if it does.

I get the impression that different mixes of player preferences are being heaped together, resulting in all three pillars being judged by the standards of those who like the pillar in question the least.

I think a big part comes from the fact that Martials only really have enough combat tricks for about two rounds of combat, with those combat tricks only amplifying the equivalent of the Martials' Cantrips.

This is a deceptively big deal.

As a Caster, I can cast Fireball, and then cast Ray of Frost in the following turns, both using different mechanics and useful for different reasons.

However, as something like a Samurai Fighter, I do my "Attack with SUPER" combo, and then every turn after I'm doing "Attack with no SUPER". It feels like I'm doing less, because it's exactly less than what I was doing before. And without many class-based tools to change the circumstances of the fight, I can only expect things to get more boring than it was on Turn 1.

So for Martials, combat gets more boring over time, while it only gets *different* for Casters. Thinking about it, it's the same reason the "Once per Long Rest" invocations for Warlocks are the least-interesting invocations in the game, and why most folks stray from the Berserker Barbarian.

Not trying to get into the whole Caster vs. Martials debate (again), just wanted to explain something that otherwise isn't very obvious (as the thread is about spells, after all).

Spoiler: An aside, regarding 4e

Show

4e dealt with this by making Martials' "Cantrips" be interesting, tactical and diverse, and I think you always have more than one. A 4e, level 1 At-will is more complex than most level 3 5e turns for martials.

I don't think I've ever felt bored of combat as a 5e Caster, regardless of how much we fought, since I always had several options to adapt with. Martials...are generally limited to doing some variant of the thing they did in the last encounter/round.

I'll be honest, It does make me chuckle sometimes when folks complain about 4e making everyone feel like mages, as issues like this leave me wondering why that's a bad thing.

[Doug Lampert]

Yeah...things die too quickly, fights end too soon, battlemaps are too small, movement is too cheap, etc. 9 times out of 10, a Paladin is spending his spell slots on Divine Smite in combat, not on any of the lower-level Smite spells, despite how tactical, engaging, or interactive those spells may be. That's not anyone's fault; bulking up the fights leads your players into boredom if they're not the type to enjoy long stretches of combat (as the number of rounds of combat don't always mesh well with human attention spans).

Damage is, unfortunately, the most valuable condition. I could block 50% of your damage this turn and kill you in two turns, or I can take a hit and kill you in one (leaving my actions free next turn). It's worth noting the most powerful spells in the game are the ones that either encourage more damage (Hold Person, Haste), or stall long enough so that you can deal damage to other things (Banishment).

I'd pick Ray of Frost more if it could consistently be used as a utility effect (some DMs don't see it that way), otherwise a 20 speed enemy is still probably going to reach you if 30 feet could (and a lot of melee enemies either have high speed or ranged weapons that deal 20% less damage than their melee attacks).

5e isn't a very tactical game, IMO. At least not without a lot of work.

One thing I've played with in other systems is declaring that HP for enemies are almost entirely morale/unit cohesion, and thus giving most of the HP to a group of foes as a group resource, and only critical hits and special effects apply to individuals till the group's HP run out (for 5th edition the rule would be that crits don't double dice, instead they apply the full damage to both the individual's HP and to the group, since individual foes have fairly few HP as most went to the group, this means that most of the time it takes out the foe and damages the group).

Don't know how that would work with 5th ed. But it eliminates the ridiculous size of the focus fire advantage and encourages spreading attacks and effects around.

Solo style monsters don't give any HP to their "group" and also don't care as much if the group runs out of HP. Thus a dragon with four kobold allies, targeting the kobolds doesn't demoralize the dragon, but targeting the dragon may well demoralize the kobolds.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah...things die too quickly, fights end too soon, battlemaps are too small, movement is too cheap, etc. 9 times out of 10, a Paladin is spending his spell slots on Divine Smite in combat, not on any of the lower-level Smite spells, despite how tactical, engaging, or interactive those spells may be. That's not anyone's fault;

It's the paladin's fault if he spends 90% of his magic on the least-efficient, least-effective way to spend it. If you'd said 20% I wouldn't quibble (maybe he is smiting only on crits, yielding a moderately okay amount of damage per slot), but 90% is clearly a tactical mistake. Wrathful Smite, Thunderous Smite, Aura of Vitality are all far better uses of a spell slot than non-critical Divine Smite is.

E.g. Thunderous Smite for 2d6 plus a good chance of knocking the enemy away and prone (so you have all melee PCs attacking with advantage, and your choice of kiting it, or grappling it to keep it prone) is better than 2d8 radiant unless you can't afford the noise. Wrathful Smite for d6 psychic + a chance at control and action denial is better than 2d8 radiant unless the target is too weak to spend concentration on (like a single orc) or immune to fear. Aura of Vitality for 20d6 (70) healing is far superior to 4d8 (18) radiant damage.

[Man_Over_Game]

It's the paladin's fault if he spends 90% of his magic on the least-efficient, least-effective way to spend it. If you'd said 20% I wouldn't quibble (maybe he is smiting only on crits, yielding a moderately okay amount of damage per slot), but 90% is clearly a tactical mistake. Wrathful Smite, Thunderous Smite, Aura of Vitality are all far better uses of a spell slot than non-critical Divine Smite is.

E.g. Thunderous Smite for 2d6 plus a good chance of knocking the enemy away and prone (so you have all melee PCs attacking with advantage, and your choice of kiting it, or grappling it to keep it prone) is better than 2d8 radiant unless you can't afford the noise. Wrathful Smite for d6 psychic + a chance at control and action denial is better than 2d8 radiant unless the target is too weak to spend concentration on (like a single orc) or immune to fear. Aura of Vitality for 20d6 (70) healing is far superior to 4d8 (18) radiant damage.

A lot of folks aren't just interested in the damage, but also the Concentration/Miss factor of the Smite spells. Say I have a 20% chance to both miss and lose Concentration on that spell due to incoming damage (as I'm a melee combatant), why should I spend a known spell selection for something I can basically do with less risk and more damage?

Not to mention that the targets best focused with special effects are the largest threats, who also have the highest chance of saving against the special effects. On weaker targets, the extra + guaranteed damage means you can expect them to stop being a threat that much sooner through damage.

I agree with Aura of Vitality, it doesn't have the same cost-per-round as Divine Smite or Spell Smites, but I wasn't counting your Aura spells when I said that. However, This does lead into another reason why the Smite Spells aren't used: they interfere with your good Concentration spells. The fact that you can spend the spell and have the enemy still save against the rider effect kinda wastes the point, and it's not like you can afford to bump your Charisma too high as a MAD melee character that scales with feats.

[Frogreaver]

It's the paladin's fault if he spends 90% of his magic on the least-efficient, least-effective way to spend it. If you'd said 20% I wouldn't quibble (maybe he is smiting only on crits, yielding a moderately okay amount of damage per slot), but 90% is clearly a tactical mistake. Wrathful Smite, Thunderous Smite, Aura of Vitality are all far better uses of a spell slot than non-critical Divine Smite is.

E.g. Thunderous Smite for 2d6 plus a good chance of knocking the enemy away and prone (so you have all melee PCs attacking with advantage, and your choice of kiting it, or grappling it to keep it prone) is better than 2d8 radiant unless you can't afford the noise. Wrathful Smite for d6 psychic + a chance at control and action denial is better than 2d8 radiant unless the target is too weak to spend concentration on (like a single orc) or immune to fear. Aura of Vitality for 20d6 (70) healing is far superior to 4d8 (18) radiant damage.

It’s really common for Paladins to have bonus action attacks though and so the trade off isn’t just the difference between less damage and effect of the smite spell, but against losing a bonus action attack and the extra damage of the divine smite compared to the smite spell.

Then add on the risk that you may miss and lose concentration on the smite spell before your next turn.

Add the risk that the smite spell target may not even fail its saving through.

Add on the fact that these spells interfere with other concentration spells like hunters mark or haste.

I’m not sure that those smite spells are necessarily better in many circumstances than the standard divine smite approach.

I’d even go so far as to suggest that divine smite on non-crits is actually a very efficient use of resources because Killing enemies earlier in the fight due to front loaded damage also leads to fewer attacks against the party.

[Xetheral]

I think a big part comes from the fact that Martials only really have enough combat tricks for about two rounds of combat, with those combat tricks only amplifying the equivalent of the Martials' Cantrips.

This is a deceptively big deal.

As a Caster, I can cast Fireball, and then cast Ray of Frost in the following turns, both using different mechanics and useful for different reasons.

However, as something like a Samurai Fighter, I do my Attack +1 combo, and then every turn after I'm doing Attack. It feels like I'm doing less, because it's exactly less than what I was doing before. Without many ways to change the circumstances, I can only expect things to get more boring.

So for Martials, combat gets more boring over time, while it only gets *different* for Casters.

Not trying to get into the whole Caster vs. Martials debate (again), just wanted to explain something that otherwise isn't very obvious (as the thread is about spells, after all).

Spoiler: An aside, regarding 4e

Show

4e dealt with this by making Martials' "Cantrips" be interesting, tactical and diverse, and I think you always have more than one. A 4e, level 1 At-will is more complex than most level 3 5e turns for martials.

I don't think I've ever felt bored of combat as a 5e Caster, regardless of how much we fought, since I always had several options to adapt with. Martials...are generally limited to doing some variant of the thing they did in the last encounter/round.

I'll be honest, It does make me chuckle sometimes when folks complain about 4e making everyone feel like mages, as issues like this leave me wondering why that's a bad thing.

It's possible to build a martial that has an engaging menu of options to choose from each round in a long combat, but one has to really try to do it. Basically you have to mix the subclasses that have the most round-by-round options (e.g. Battlemaster, Thief) with the feats that give new in-combat options (e.g. GWM/SS, Healer, Mobile, Tavern Brawler). Then buy a bunch of niche items (e.g. caltrops, acid, nets, the expensive DMG poisons) so that you have them available for the odd situations where they'd be useful.

I used that approach as a player in a megadungeon campaign, and if anything I ended up with more round-by-round decision points than the casters had, no matter how long a combat ran. (Although I also dipped one level of Cleric, so that character wasn't a pure martial.)

[MaxWilson]

I'd pick Ray of Frost more if it could consistently be used as a utility effect (some DMs don't see it that way), otherwise a 20 speed enemy is still probably going to reach you if 30 feet could (and a lot of melee enemies either have high speed or ranged weapons that deal 20% less damage than their melee attacks).

5e isn't a very tactical game, IMO. At least not without a lot of work.

Ray of Frost is better when combined with a source of forced movement (like Repelling Blast) and a way to exploit that forced movement (Spike Growth, Wall of Fire, Evard's Black Tentacles, etc.). As a DM it's so frustrating (in a good way) when your beefy Trolls, Giants, Star Spawn Hulks, etc., have to run through a damage + difficult terrain area effect like Evard's Black Tentacles in order to get to the PCs (who may be hiding behind partial or total cover to avoid ranged attacks). But thuggy monsters like Fire Giants aren't found to let a little 3d6 damage stop them from charging through difficult terrain, they'll force their way through, right?

Now imagine you broke free with your action, you've lost only 19 of your 162 HP, and you just spent your 30' of movement to move forward 15' out of the Black Tentacles.

And now assume wizard hits you with Ray of Frost, reducing your movement to only 20', while a warlock blasts you 10' to 20' back into the Black Tentacles where you fail your Dex save and get stuck again, taking 3d6 damage (and by RAW have to make ANOTHER Dex save and / or take 3d6 more damage at the start of your next turn, before you can even attempt to break free). Now even if you do break free you can only move 10', leaving you vulnerable to the same attack routine as nauseum. Frustrating, no?

(One counterplay, for a smart and experienced giant, is to drop prone after getting out to impose disadvantage on ranged attacks for a round, but not all giants will realize this is a good move, and it still has some downsides like leaving you in a much worse position if you get hit again despite the disadvantage. Another counterplay is to ready a thrown boulder, at disadvantage and enemy partial cover, and wait for the wizard or warlock to show themselves or the spell duration to expire. I'm not actually sure how effective that one is (depends on AC) but it's an option.)

*snip valid points* and it's not like you can afford to bump your Charisma too high as a MAD melee character that scales with feats.

Well that's interesting. IMO and IME with experienced players, bumping Charisma to 20 ASAP is the paladin's top priority, because Aura of Protection is the Paladin's raison detre, the reason why you're a paladin instead of a fighter.

I wonder how much this playstyle difference is responsible for our differing conclusions. It's hard for me to believe that Cha 16 Wrathful Smite would somehow not be worth using against a big monster, but maybe if someone is running a Cha 14 Paladin against a big monster with good Wisdom, Strength, and magic resistance I can see why you'd avoid Thunderous and Wrathful Smite.

RE: your point about concentration, I concede that concentration is a real rate limiter on Wrathful Smite/etc. in my experience, if the Paladin is concentrating on other spells like Magic Weapon, Enlarge (if paladorc), Expeditipus Retreat, or Blur. But that still means he's not spending 90% of his magic on Divine Smite because actual spells are better! It just changes which spells he uses.

[Man_Over_Game]

It’s really common for Paladins to have bonus action attacks though and so the trade off isn’t just the difference between less damage and effect of the smite spell, but against losing a bonus action attack and the extra damage of the divine smite compared to the smite spell.

Then add on the risk that you may miss and lose concentration on the smite spell before your next turn.

Add the risk that the smite spell target may not even fail its saving through.

Add on the fact that these spells interfere with other concentration spells like hunters mark or haste.

I’m not sure that those smite spells are necessarily better in many circumstances than the standard divine smite approach.

Lol, we are on the same page, I guess.

I've always wondered what to do with Divine Smite to make Smite spells more interesting. I kinda like the idea of making it so that when you cast a spell with a Paladin Spell Slot, you get a bonus to your AC and To Hit equal to to the spell level until the start of your next turn.

It's possible to build a martial that has an engaging menu of options to choose from each round in a long combat, but one has to really try to do it. Basically you have to mix the subclasses that have the most round-by-round options (e.g. Battlemaster, Thief) with the feats that give new in-combat options (e.g. GWM/SS, Healer, Mobile, Tavern Brawler). Then buy a bunch of niche items (e.g. caltrops, acid, nets, the expensive DMG poisons) so that you have them available for the odd situations where they'd be useful.

I used that approach as a player in a megadungeon campaign, and if anything I ended up with more round-by-round decision points than the casters had, no matter how long a combat ran. (Although I also dipped one level of Cleric, so that character wasn't a pure martial.)

That's pretty good!

My current build for the same goal is the Ancestral Guardian, leveraging kiting and mobility. Since things like kiting around allies vs. defending them through melee engagements, throttling expected incoming damage vs. how much HP I have compared to the rest of my team, and the fact that mobility is always relevant when you sometimes do and don't want to get attacked, there's a lot to think about and do every turn (as long as I don't burn through my Rages somehow).

Stuff like Echo Knight, PAM, Mobile, thrown weapons, or Monk levels just add to the mix in making it a consistently tactical combatant.

I like Thief, but I have a hard time coming up with uses for his Fast Hands other than "I cast Melee Healing Word" or "I make this small patch of Difficult Terrain", but I'm not a very clever person. I'd really look forward to seeing someone who knew how to leverage it well.

[Frogreaver]

Ray of Frost is better when combined with a source of forced movement (like Repelling Blast) and a way to exploit that forced movement (Spike Growth, Wall of Fire, Evard's Black Tentacles, etc.). As a DM it's so frustrating (in a good way) when your beefy Trolls, Giants, Star Spawn Hulks, etc., have to run through a damage + difficult terrain area effect like Evard's Black Tentacles in order to get to the PCs (who may be hiding behind partial or total cover to avoid ranged attacks). But thuggy monsters like Fire Giants aren't found to let a little 3d6 damage stop them from charging through difficult terrain, they'll force their way through, right?

Now imagine you broke free with your action, you've lost only 19 of your 162 HP, and you just spent your 30' of movement to move forward 15' out of the Black Tentacles.

And now assume wizard hits you with Ray of Frost, reducing your movement to only 20', while a warlock blasts you 10' to 20' back into the Black Tentacles where you fail your Dex save and get stuck again, taking 3d6 damage (and by RAW have to make ANOTHER Dex save and / or take 3d6 more damage at the start of your next turn, before you can even attempt to break free). Now even if you do break free you can only move 10', leaving you vulnerable to the same attack routine as nauseum. Frustrating, no?

(One counterplay, for a smart and experienced giant, is to drop prone after getting out to impose disadvantage on ranged attacks for a round, but not all giants will realize this is a good move, and it still has some downsides like leaving you in a much worse position if you get hit again despite the disadvantage. Another counterplay is to ready a thrown boulder, at disadvantage and enemy partial cover, and wait for the wizard or warlock to show themselves or the spell duration to expire. I'm not actually sure how effective that one is (depends on AC) but it's an option.)



Well that's interesting. IMO and IME with experienced players, bumping Charisma to 20 ASAP is the paladin's top priority, because Aura of Protection is the Paladin's raison detre, the reason why you're a paladin instead of a fighter.

I wonder how much this playstyle difference is responsible for our differing conclusions. It's hard for me to believe that Cha 16 Wrathful Smite would somehow not be worth using against a big monster, but maybe if someone is running a Cha 14 Paladin against a big monster with good Wisdom, Strength, and magic resistance I can see why you'd avoid Thunderous and Wrathful Smite.

RE: your point about concentration, I concede that concentration is a real rate limiter on Wrathful Smite/etc. in my experience, if the Paladin is concentrating on other spells like Magic Weapon, Enlarge (if paladorc), Expeditipus Retreat, or Blur. But that still means he's not spending 90% of his magic on Divine Smite because actual spells are better! It just changes which spells he uses.

Taking your black tentacles example: there’s an incredibly low chance of that sequence happening.

You used 2 spells
You require 2 cantrips cast and 2-3 attack rolls to hit
You require a failed save.

That’s nearly a whole parties round of actions and you accomplished having a 20% chance or so of getting the giant stuck in the tentacles.

I’m sure it feels great when it happens, but is that actually a good strategy? Were there not 2 better spells you could have cast in that situation? Maybe fear? Maybe command? And if there were then doesn’t this just turn into another example of how slow by 10ft and knock back 10ft effects aren’t actually that useful in most circumstances?

[Man_Over_Game]

And if there were then doesn’t this just turn into another example of how slow by 10ft and knock back 10ft effects aren’t actually that useful in most circumstances?

The Fathomless Warlock pulls this off really affordably, for those not familiar.

At level 1, you can summon/control a tentacle as a BA that moves 30 feet and attacks for cold damage that slows the target by 10 feet. Can be summoned a number of times equal to Proficiency, tentacle can't be attacked and lasts 1 minute.

Add in Lance of Lethargy (EB now slows by 10 feet) and Repelling Blast (EB now knocks back by 10 feet) and you now have a level 2 kiting build that essentially reduces an enemy's speed by 30 every turn with hardly any cost. It looks pretty dope.

[EDITED IN BA]

[Frogreaver]

The Fathomless Warlock pulls this off really affordably, for those not familiar.

At level 1, you can summon/control a tentacle that moves 30 feet and attacks for cold damage that slows the target by 10 feet. Can be summoned a number of times equal to Proficiency, tentacle can't be attacked and lasts 1 minute.

Add in Lance of Lethargy (EB now slows by 10 feet) and Repelling Blast (EB now knocks back by 10 feet) and you now have a level 2 kiting build that essentially reduces an enemy's speed by 30 every turn with hardly any cost. It looks pretty dope.

I can get behind something like that. Seems like a legit solid combo.

[verbatim]

There aren't many telegraphed defensive powers that are worthwhile. Barbarians can't Dodge because it risks making them lose Rage, Monks don't Dodge because Flurry of Blows (or another BA use) is generally already being used for your other Monk features, Rogues don't Dodge because they can just Disengage and Dash if needed, Casters don't Dodge because they either don't foresee much incoming damage or because they have a better solution. The only classes I ever see take the Dodge Action (and even then, very rarely) are things like Fighters.

Dodge is decent on high AC cleric and Bladesinger builds focused on maintaining concentration on things like Spirit Guardians or Tasha's summon spells.

[MaxWilson]

Taking your black tentacles example: there’s an incredibly low chance of that sequence happening.

You used 2 spells
You require 2 cantrips cast and 2-3 attack rolls to hit
You require a failed save.

That’s nearly a whole parties round of actions and you accomplished having a 20% chance or so of getting the giant stuck in the tentacles.

I’m sure it feels great when it happens, but is that actually a good strategy? Were there not 2 better spells you could have cast in that situation? Maybe fear? Maybe command? And if there were then doesn’t this just turn into another example of how slow by 10ft and knock back 10ft effects aren’t actually that useful in most circumstances?

2 spells? What's the second spell?

It's actually quite a high chance of it happening, closer to 60% chance of catching a giant each round than 0%. Rolling right now as if against a level 9 party (DC 17/+9 to hit) vs. two CR 9 Fire Giants:

One giant rolls Dex 18+3, saves, Dashes all the way through the 20' difficult terrain plus 20' out the other side, leaving his back leg 5' away from the tentacles.

The other giant rolls a 3+3 and gets caught 5' into it (with his back 10' still outside the tentacles), takes 3d6=13 damage. Uses his action to make a strength check, 14+7 succeeds, moves forward another 10' then runs out of movement.

Wizard rolls 7+9, misses.

Warlock rolls 3+9, misses, 12+9, hits for d10+5 = 8 damage. Fire Giant is blasted 10' back into the tentacles (now his back leg is 5' in and he's adjacent to his buddy, blocking his movement), rolls a Dex save 17+3 and succeeds.

Now the Fire Giant #1 starts his turn and has to make a SECOND Dex save, somehow rolls 17+3 and manages it, moves 30' forward and attacks a PC. The second Fire Giant rolls a Dex save, 16+3, and moves 5' more through difficult terrain and 20' more out the other side, ending with his back leg 5' from the tentacles. Then he takes an action. Suppose that that action is something other than Dash (e.g. he Attacks a PC too). Then he can't move any more.

Now the wizard casts Ray of Frost again (18+9 hits, 2d8=6 points of damage) and the warlock zaps for (15+9 hits, d10+5=9 points of damage; natural 20 crits for 2d10+5=19 HP), pushing him back 20' so he is now fully within the tentacles. Makes a Dex save, 4+3 fails, takes 3d6=13 points of damage.

Now the first giants acts (attacks a PC), and the second giant starts its turn in the tentacles and takes another 3d6=11 HP of damage. It tries to break free with a strength check, 3+7 fails, and it ends its turn still stuck in the tentacles.

All this time the other PCs are attacking giant #1 right back. It's round #3 of combat and the giants have spent 3 of their 6 actions not Multiattacking, while taking 8 damage to giant #1 and 71 HP to Giant #2. Players have spent 3 wizard actions, 2 warlock actions, and a wizard spell slot to achieve this (unless the warlock cast the Tentacles). And the giants got lucky on their Dex saves (17+3, 17+3, 16+3)--normally they wouldn't even get those 3 Multiattacks, more like 1 or 2.

You just saved the party 80-150 HP of damage while inflicting 80 more HP of damage. The bulk of the work in this case was done by the warlock, because dice, but Ray of Frost provided an additional level of safety that made it more reliable (e.g. even if Giant #2 had made his Str check on round #3 he would still have been unable to exit the tentacles completely).

Believe me when I say on behalf of the giants that the situation is frustrating, like fighting gnats that just won't die properly, while standing in quicksand.

[Frogreaver]

2 spells? What's the second spell.

It's actually quite a high chance of it happening. Rolling right now as if against a level 9 party (DC 17/+9 to hit) vs. two CR 9 Fire Giants:

One giant rolls Dex 18+3, saves, Dashes all the way through the 20' difficult terrain plus 20' out the other side, leaving his back leg 5' away from the tentacles.

The other giant rolls a 3+3 and gets caught 5' into it (with his back 10' still outside the tentacles), takes 3d6=13 damage. Uses his action to make a strength check, 14+7 succeeds, moves forward another 10' then runs out of movement.

Wizard rolls 7+9, misses.

Warlock rolls 3+9, misses, 12+9, hits for d10+5 = 8 damage. Fire Giant is blasted 10' back into the tentacles (now his back leg is 5' in and he's adjacent to his buddy, blocking his movement), rolls a Dex save 17+3 and succeeds.

Now the Fire Giant #1 starts his turn and has to make a SECOND Dex save, somehow rolls 17+3 and manages it, moves 30' forward and attacks a PC. The second Fire Giant rolls a Dex save, 16+3, and moves 5' more through difficult terrain and 20' more out the other side, ending with his back leg 5' from the tentacles. Then he takes an action. Suppose that that action is something other than Dash (e.g. he Attacks a PC too). Then he can't move any more.

Now the wizard casts Ray of Frost again (18+9 hits, 2d8=6 points of damage) and the warlock zaps for (15+9 hits, d10+5=9 points of damage; natural 20 crits for 2d10+5=19 HP), pushing him back 20' so he is now fully within the tentacles. Makes a Dex save, 4+3 fails, takes 3d6=13 points of damage.

Now the first giants acts (attacks a PC), and the second giant starts its turn in the tentacles and takes another 3d6=11 HP of damage. It tries to break free with a strength check, 3+7 fails, and it ends its turn still stuck in the tentacles.

All this time the other PCs are attacking giant #1 right back. It's round #3 of combat and the giants have spent 3 of their 6 actions not Multiattacking, while taking 8 damage to giant #1 and 71 HP to Giant #2. Players have spent 3 wizard actions, 2 warlock actions, and a wizard spell slot to achieve this (unless the warlock cast the Tentacles). And the giants got lucky on their Dex saves (17+3, 17+3, 16+3)--normally they wouldn't even get those 3 Multiattacks, more like 1 or 2.

Thought you were using another damaging affect with it for overlapping area. But we can ignore that part if that’s not what you intended.

So a PC will hit on a 9+. That’s 60% to hit. Based on your earlier claim you need at least 2 attacks to hit for all the cantrip effects. That means you have a 36% chance of that occurring. You have an 85% chance if the giant failing the dex save. That leaves you with a 30.6% chance if the combo working at level 9. Lower the party to level 7 and you would have an 18.75% chance of all that occurring.

Do you disagree?

[MaxWilson]

Thought you were using another damaging affect with it for overlapping area. But we can ignore that part if that’s not what you intended.

So a PC will hit on a 9+. That’s 60% to hit. Based on your earlier claim you need at least 2 attacks to hit for all the cantrip effects. That means you have a 36% chance of that occurring. You have an 85% chance if the giant failing the dex save. That leaves you with a 30.6% chance if the combo working at level 9. Lower the party to level 7 and you would have an 18.75% chance of all that occurring.

Do you disagree?

I disagree that you need all the cantrip effects. The cantrips work in tandem such that landing some of the cantrip effects, some of the time, is enough to put the enemy in a world of hurt, as the example combat shows. Never put all your eggs in one basket of you can avoid it.

Spoiler: Also your math is a little bit wrong

Show

Having 2+ of 3 attacks hit, at 60% probability per attack, is 64% probability (0.6 * (1-0.4^2) + 0.4 * (0.6^2)), not 36%.

And the Giant has a 65% probability of failing a Dex save, not 85%, but when blasted by the warlock he has to make two Dex saves in a row (as the example shows), which puts his chance of failure at 87.5%.

If the warlock is a full warlock instead of a dip, and has Grasp of Hadar for even more slowdown, it gets even worse for the giants. I didn't assume that case but it's not difficult to achieve if a player prioritizes it.