Incite Greed: a hidden gem? ;)

[diplomancer]

Is it as good as I think it is? Is it just overshadowed by Hypnotic Pattern, which does not allow for repeated saves? If
that's the case, I'd point out 2 things:

1- In a way, Hypnotic Pattern is easier to break, as it can be broken by an Action, or by damage from any source. Meaning a smart enemy with multiattack, or, worse, an AoE, can break off several of its allies with one action. It's even worse if your DM does "chain breaks", where creature A, who made the save, breaks B, who immediately breaks C, and so on (DMs, don't do that; even though a 3rd level spell slot and one character's turn is a reasonable trade off for one turn of all the enemies, your players will be pissed off). On the other hand, Incite Greed is only broken by a successful save or if you or your allies damage the target.

2- Hypnotic Pattern is not on the Cleric list, Incite Greed is (weirdly, not on the Bard list- though that's probably a good thing, given Instrument of the Bards). This is specially good, not only because Clerics don't have any other spell that does something similar, but also because Clerics are not squishy, and can easily be built to be tanks, which works very well with the movement control aspect of the spell. Cast it, have the enemies surround you, and pick them off one by one, focus-firing on those who make their saves. Or just have them all in fireball formation, move away on your turn, then Boom (really, there are too many uses of having most of your enemies in a tight cluster that can be exploited here, that's just a very obvious one. If you're very tanky and have a buddy that can cast Wall of Force, you can even have them all surround you, cast spirit guardians, and start Dodging. Don't try it if your DM uses flanking, though).

So, is it a hidden gem (pun intended) of a spell?

Edit: the spell also raises an interesting question: it's commonly argued that breaking Hypnotic Pattern, at least for intelligent creatures, is not metagaming. The reason for that is that if a battle companion of yours was obviously magically distracted during a fight, you'd naturally want to "shake him out of it", preferably harmlessly, damaging him if need be. But wouldn't the same thought apply to Incite Greed? If your battle companion is stupidly staring at a gem during combat, you'd want to shake him out of it too. Except, in this case, you can't. So, unless the monster knows the spell's effects, they should, perhaps, try to shake their companions out of it. If your DM has your foes doing it for Hypnotic Pattern and not doing it for Incite Greed, he's metagaming.

[LostBenefit]

It is a useful spell and on par with Hypnotic Pattern (HP), if not better, but the only issue is that it's in Acquisitions Incorporated, a sourcebook that needs to be purchased, whereas HP is included in the Basic Rules.

[diplomancer]

It is a useful spell and on par with Hypnotic Pattern (HP), if not better, but the only issue is that it's in Acquisitions Incorporated, a sourcebook that needs to be purchased, whereas HP is included in the Basic Rules.

It's somewhat amusing that the main problem with the spell would be its real-world cost 😜. If it's in fact on par with Hypnotic Pattern or better, it's a very goodspell.

On the other hand, Acquisitions Incorporated was free a few months ago in D&DBeyond, and it can be easily found online, so I'm not sure if that's the reason. Being in a costly splatbook has definitely not impaired the popularity of Silvery Barbs or of Gift of Alacrity.

[Chronos]

Just being comparable to Hypnotic Pattern is already a mark against it, because the core rules already include three spells that fill that same basic niche (Hypnotic Pattern, Fear, Slow). So even if all four of those spells fill slightly different niches, and even if they were all perfectly balanced against each other, it'd mean that Incite Greed would only be picked 1/4 of the time, by that subset of the player base who even has access to it. An area-effect Wis save-or-lose is something that's needed, but we probably don't need three or four of them.

[yisopo]

@ Diplomancer

Regarding the first point ("Hypnotic Pattern is easier to break") I think it is table-dependant. In general Hypnotic Pattern is pragmatically more difficult to break, but I can see some DM can play in a way it is like you say. To me Hypnotic Pattern is better in general, and way better for a non-tanky wizard. Even if I could not take Hypnotic Pattern (and Fear and Slow), I won't take Incite Greed for the wizard I'm actually playing.

But the important point is the second one: Hypnotic Pattern, Fear and Slow are not in the cleric list. Moreover, Incite Greed is perfect for the stereotypical tanky cleric.

[AttilatheYeon]

I believe for the spell to work, the gem cant be hidden. Doesn't the spell say it needs to be displayed? 😂

[Thunderous Mojo]

I’ve only seen the spell’s description from the internet, (which of course may be inaccurate), but Incite Greed seems to be confusingly written.

First off, Hypnotic Pattern is broken with damage. Incite Greed is canceled by the caster and their colleagues doing “anything harmful” to the subject.

Make a harsh comment at the expense of the subject, and the spell is broken. The category of “anything harmful” is incredibly broad.

Then: “While an affected creature is within 5 feel of you, it cannot move, but simply stares greedily at the gem you present.”

Note the spell doesn’t say the subject is Incapacitated, and thus by RAW can still act. While the Charmed Condition prohibits the subjects from attacking the caster or using harmful spells on the caster, they can still take Actions and Reactions.

A subject could fail their Wisdom Saving Throw, and still Dispel the spell effect.

I do not think it is a good spell. It is a bootleg copy of Hypnotic Pattern, and fails to successfully use the Conditions described in the 5e rules, which renders the spell being dependent upon table rulings, in a manner that Hypnotic Pattern avoids.

Hypnotic Pattern, concisely details exactly what the spell does.

[diplomancer]

I’ve only seen the spell’s description from the internet, (which of course may be inaccurate), but Incite Greed seems to be confusingly written.

First off, Hypnotic Pattern is broken with damage. Incite Greed is canceled by the caster and their colleagues doing “anything harmful” to the subject.

Make a harsh comment at the expense of the subject, and the spell is broken. The category of “anything harmful” is incredibly broad.

Then: “While an affected creature is within 5 feel of you, it cannot move, but simply stares greedily at the gem you present.”

Note the spell doesn’t say the subject is Incapacitated, and thus by RAW can still act. While the Charmed Condition prohibits the subjects from attacking the caster or using harmful spells on the caster, they can still take Actions and Reactions.

A subject could fail their Wisdom Saving Throw, and still Dispel the spell effect.

I do not think it is a good spell. It is a bootleg copy of Hypnotic Pattern, and fails to successfully use the Conditions described in the 5e rules, which renders the spell being dependent upon table rulings, in a manner that Hypnotic Pattern avoids.

Hypnotic Pattern, concisely details exactly what the spell does.

I don't think it's confusingly written. Right before the sentence you've quoted it says "While charmed in this way, a creature can do nothing but use its movement to approach you in a safe manner." Casting Dispel Magic or any other spell is certainly "doing something". Yes, they could have said incapacitated, but maybe they thought that the incapacitated condition prevented moving? (It's a common mistake). As it is, I suppose the one action they could take is the Dash action, in the case that their movement speed was particularly low, or the Disengage action, since it says "approach you in a safe manner".

As to the "anything harmful" clause, I suppose they wanted to include harmful conditions as well, so if you or one of your allies cast Blindness/Deafness at one of the charmed creatures that would break the charm? It would be a pretty adversarial move for a DM to go "well, you're attacking his allies (the other charmed enemies, or those who resisted the spell), and that's harmful to him". The more ambiguous situation would be if you or an ally attacked the charmed creature but missed. It wouldn't break Hypnotic Pattern, but I think it wouldn't be a bad ruling from a DM if he decided it broke Incite Greed (specially relevant if, instead of a regular attack, it was a failed shove into a deadly hazard). It also prevents some possible abuse (or things that could be considered abuse- my Bard had a lot of manacles to start clapping on those who failed the save against Hypnotic Pattern, but just tying them with regular ropes also would not break the spell... well, it would break Incite Greed).

Is it a bootleg copy of Hypnotic Pattern? That's a fair criticism, but the fact that it also has movement implications makes it different enough to be useful in different circumstances (if there are hazards around and you can lead a lot of enemies closer to it, the spell can be really golden), and for different types of casters (i.e, Incite Greed is better the tankier you are, a less tanky caster won't want to cast it).

[Decoy69]

Incite Greed also doesn't (have to) effect allies.
"...choose any number of creatures within range that can see you." Vs "Each creature in the area who sees the pattern..."

So there's that to consider.

[diplomancer]

Incite Greed also doesn't (have to) effect allies.
"...choose any number of creatures within range that can see you." Vs "Each creature in the area who sees the pattern..."

So there's that to consider.

Good point. No friendly fire is considered a big advantage of Slow in the Hypnotic Pattern/Fear/Slow face-off, and Incite Greed also has it.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I don't think it's confusingly written. Right before the sentence you've quoted it says "While charmed in this way, a creature can do nothing but use its movement to approach you in a safe manner."

That is the beginning of the spell. Once the target(s) arrive at the gem, then they stare longingly at the gem, but are not Incapacitated, so can still act while staring longingly at the gem.

Not having to target friendlies is nice, but at the same time, the caster’s allies cannot directly do anything harmful to the subjects of the spell.

Someone with Telekinesis could also rip the gem out the Caster’s hand, the Charmed Condition is likely not preventing that action, as no damage is done,

If a DM elects to determine that such an course of action counts as harming the charmer, then Incite Greed suffers the same issues as I described above.

The spell is in an official book, the spell should reference the 5e conditions, for clarity..But the reality it is a 3rd Party Produced book, like SCAG.

[diplomancer]

That is the beginning of the spell. Once the target(s) arrive at the gem, then they stare longingly at the gem, but are not Incapacitated, so can still act while staring longingly at the gem.

Not having to target friendlies is nice, but at the same time, the caster’s allies cannot directly do anything harmful to the subjects of the spell.

Someone with Telekinesis could also rip the gem out the Caster’s hand, the Charmed Condition is likely not preventing that action, as no damage is done,

If a DM elects to determine that such an course of action counts as harming the charmer, then Incite Greed suffers the same issues as I described above.

The spell is in an official book, the spell should reference the 5e conditions, for clarity..But the reality it is a 3rd Party Produced book, like SCAG.

No, it's not "the beginning of the spell". It's "while charmed in this way". Unless the charmed condition is broken, the targets can do nothing but move closer to the caster, and once they get there, they also can't move anymore, only stare.

I do grant that the spell is unclear on what happens if the gem is taken from the caster, or if the caster throws the gem down a volcano for that matter, but it's not the first spell that needs DM adjudication, and, to me at least, the question is not whether it breaks the spell (it doesn't), but whether the charmed creatures keep around the caster or go after the gem. I'd say, RAW, they stay around the caster, staring in the direction of wherever the gem went (and the spell is less powerful that way), but it does break the in-game fantasy of the spell a bit.

[Thunderous Mojo]

No, it's not "the beginning of the spell". It's "while charmed in this way". Unless the charmed condition is broken, the targets can do nothing but move closer to the caster, and once they get there, they also can't move anymore, only stare.

While that may be the intent that is not what they wrote.
The spell as written has two stages.

Stage 1: Target is Charmed and can only walk towards the gem.
Stage 2: Once the Target arrives at the gem, they are still Charmed, but not Incapacitated.

If the spell’s Author used the clearly defined 5e term, Incapacitated, there is no doubt as to the operation of the spell.

Stage 1 also has some open questions, such as what happens if the target can not see the caster?

[diplomancer]

While that may be the intent that is not what they wrote.
The spell as written has two stages.

Stage 1: Target is Charmed and can only walk towards the gem.
Stage 2: Once the Target arrives at the gem, they are still Charmed, but not Incapacitated.

No, that's simply not what the spell says.

"While charmed in this way, a creature can do nothing but use its movement to approach you in a safe manner. While an affected creature is within 5 feel of you, it cannot move, but simply stares greedily at the gem you present."

Is the creature still Charmed? Yes. Then he can do nothing but move towards the caster in a safe way. Is he so close to the caster that he cannot move any closer? Then he can simply stare greedily at the gem. Nowhere does the spell say that once he reaches the caster the target can do anything else. The first clause still applies, except they can't move any closer to the caster (since they're as close as the game rules allow)

If the spell’s Author used the clearly defined 5e term, Incapacitated, there is no doubt as to the operation of the spell.

There IS no doubt as to the operation of the spell, at least not regarding this point. Would it be better if they'd used the word "incapacitated"? Yes. But conditions are a useful short-hand, not magic words, you don't NEED to use them to describe the effects of a spell. Your reasoning is "the spell does not say that the targets are Incapacitated, therefore they can take actions" even though the spell explicitly says the targets can do nothing while charmed by the spell.

Stage 1 also has some open questions, such as what happens if the target can not see the caster?

If the creature cannot see the caster at the moment of casting, it's not a valid target (that's in the spell text). If it's afterwards, DM decides, as he decides corner cases for everything in the game. Were I the DM, I'd either have the target move to the spot where he last saw the caster, or simply have him stay in place, not moving, looking around for the gem. After all, he still can do nothing, as he's still Charmed.

[Chronos]

Another possible interpretation would be that, while under the effects of the spell, the victim can magically sense where the gem and/or caster is (whichever one is the objective of the attraction), and so if the caster disappears (invisible or teleport or whatever) after the initial casting, the victim still keeps moving towards the gem/caster.

[noob]

Incite greed just like hypnotic pattern requires targets to be able to see.
That is a notable constraint.

[Segev]

One more bit of weirdness: what happens if you put the gem down and walk away? The spell says the targets approach you, but when they are when five feet of you, they stare longingly at the gem you present. Is it required you retain hold on the gem? The spell doesn't say so. Are they to walk up to you and then turn to stare at wherever you left the gem? That's highly counterintuitive for a "long for the gem" effect. Do they actually walk towards the gem, wherever it is, and stare at it when nearby? The spell doesn't say that, but rather that they approach the caster/"you."

If you manage to whammy more targets than there are five foot squares around you, what happens when others try to move closer than five feet and they can't?

Also, nothing stops you from moving while the spell is in effect unless you permit the targets to surround you and block your paths of egress. You could lead people a fair distance in one minute.

[noob]

One more bit of weirdness: what happens if you put the gem down and walk away? The spell says the targets approach you, but when they are when five feet of you, they stare longingly at the gem you present. Is it required you retain hold on the gem? The spell doesn't say so. Are they to walk up to you and then turn to stare at wherever you left the gem? That's highly counterintuitive for a "long for the gem" effect. Do they actually walk towards the gem, wherever it is, and stare at it when nearby? The spell doesn't say that, but rather that they approach the caster/"you."

I think a legitimate ruling a gm could add on the spot is "the spell breaks when you lose the gem"
It would not be rules as written but it would make sense.

[Segev]

I think a legitimate ruling a gm could add on the spot is "the spell breaks when you lose the gem"
It would not be rules as written but it would make sense.

Why, though? It is the gem, not your for which the targets long.

[diplomancer]

Why, though? It is the gem, not your for which the targets long.

I think the spell would be too powerful if they followed the gem, which is why it says they follow the caster. So if the caster throw the gem away, they would still go around the caster (while looking at the gem)

I'd rule it like this for 3 reasons:
1- the spell is powerful enough as it is without giving the caster that option:
2- that IS the RAW of the spell, whatever the "logic" of the spell may be, which bring us to:
3- balance + RAW trumps "logic".

That said, if my DM thought otherwise, I'd be fine with that (specially as it makes the spell more powerful).

[noob]

Why, though? It is the gem, not your for which the targets long.

The spell likely assumes you are carrying the gem since the people go toward you then look at the gem.
If you were not carrying the gem, people going toward you in order to look at the gem would not make as much sense.
What might make the spell dysfunctional is that the gem is a material component meaning that it is consumed by the spell.(does a consumed component still exists?)

[Jophiel]

What might make the spell dysfunctional is that the gem is a material component meaning that it is consumed by the spell.(does a consumed component still exists?)

Consumed components still exist (look at the Raise Dead spells) but it explicitly says so in the components section.

I would rule that the caster presenting the gem is part of the requirements for the spell. Stop presenting the gem (tossing it away, etc) and the spell stops.

[diplomancer]

The spell likely assumes you are carrying the gem since the people go toward you then look at the gem.
If you were not carrying the gem, people going toward you in order to look at the gem would not make as much sense.
What might make the spell dysfunctional is that the gem is a material component meaning that it is consumed by the spell.(does a consumed component still exists?)

Material components are not consumed unless the spell explicitly says so. The gem is not consumed.

[Segev]

Consumed components still exist (look at the Raise Dead spells) but it explicitly says so in the components section.

I would rule that the caster presenting the gem is part of the requirements for the spell. Stop presenting the gem (tossing it away, etc) and the spell stops.

You can present something without being in the same space as it. You could display it on a pedestal, for example.

"Presenting the Great Houdini!" the announcer might say, and the announcer is not physically holding Houdini. At least, not usually; that might be part of the act, but....

[diplomancer]

You can present something without being in the same space as it. You could display it on a pedestal, for example.

"Presenting the Great Houdini!" the announcer might say, and the announcer is not physically holding Houdini. At least, not usually; that might be part of the act, but....

At the moment of casting, he has to be holding the gem, that's the general requirement for material components.

I'd also say that "presenting the gem" is only strictly necessary when casting the spell, not once the spell is cast.

[Jophiel]

You can present something without being in the same space as it. You could display it on a pedestal, for example.

The player is certainly welcome to try that pedantry and find out how well it works

[Chronos]

As written, the caster only needs to present the gem, and the victims only need to be able to see, at the moment the spell is cast, and the victims then follow the caster no matter what happens to the gem.

But I think it would be a very reasonable houserule to say that the caster must continue to present the gem, and the victims must continue to be able to see it, for the duration. If the caster is no longer holding the gem, or the caster or gem is no longer visible to the victims, then the spell ends.

Another oddity in this spell is that the victims apparently can't use any special abilities (such as Misty Step) to try to get closer. By contrast, with the Fear spell, victims are allowed to use special abilities that accomplish the same goal of getting away from the caster. Incite Greed might still allow the victims to take the Dash action, but I'm unsure even about that.

[Segev]

The player is certainly welcome to try that pedantry and find out how well it works

The DM is already inviting that pedantry when he says "presenting" must be done by the caster the whole time. The spell is just poorly specified.

[Jophiel]

The DM is already inviting that pedantry when he says "presenting" must be done by the caster the whole time. The spell is just poorly specified.

Sure, then the solution is to ask the DM how they want to rule it, not to get cute with "Well, ack-shually 'presenting' can mean .." when it's clear from the spell context (holding the gem) what's meant. Thankfully, the way it'd go at my table would be, if they said they wanted to toss the gem, I'd warn that it'll break the effect and that would be the end of it. No silly dictionary debates required.

[diplomancer]

But I think it would be a very reasonable houserule to say that the caster must continue to present the gem, and the victims must continue to be able to see it, for the duration. If the caster is no longer holding the gem, or the caster or gem is no longer visible to the victims, then the spell ends.

I don't think it's a good idea to have a 3rd level mass spell be mass dispelled by a 2nd level one (I.e Darkness), and, as you've pointed out, that's not what the spell says, though it could be argued that it is what the spell might imply. But by RAW, creatures follow caster, whatever happens to the gem. Maybe they stay around asking "hey, where's that beautiful gem, I want it".

Another oddity in this spell is that the victims apparently can't use any special abilities (such as Misty Step) to try to get closer. By contrast, with the Fear spell, victims are allowed to use special abilities that accomplish the same goal of getting away from the caster. Incite Greed might still allow the victims to take the Dash action, but I'm unsure even about that.

With 30' range, there will be very few creatures who will need it, unless there are things like difficult terrain. I'd say both the Dash action (towards the caster only), and arguably the Disengage action, are allowed by the spell.