Incite Greed: a hidden gem? ;)

[noob]

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".



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.

In a dungeon the difficult terrain might be a tough man with the sentinel feat in which case misty step becomes a lot more interesting.

[Thunderous Mojo]

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)

Again, the spell does not specify that the targets are Incapacitated, which means they have actions available to them. This is the same issue that bedevils a strict reading of the Imprisonment spell. Some of the Imprisonment options do not render the target inactive, which means actions are still available.

As written, the spell has stages, with slight differences between the two.
One can chose to make the inferences that you are Diplomancer, but others, (such as myself), will not make those same inferences.

Which means that Hypnotic Pattern, is the more generally useful spell, as Hypnotic Pattern is more clearly written, and thus more likely to be ran the same way from table to table.

As our discussion on how to parse Incite Greed demonstrates no such accord applies Incite Greed.

[diplomancer]

Again, the spell does not specify that the targets are Incapacitated, which means they have actions available to them. This is the same issue that bedevils a strict reading of the Imprisonment spell. Some of the Imprisonment options do not render the target inactive, which means actions are still available.

As written, the spell has stages, with slight differences between the two.
One can chose to make the inferences that you are Diplomancer, but others, (such as myself), will not make those same inferences.

Which means that Hypnotic Pattern, is the more generally useful spell, as Hypnotic Pattern is more clearly written, and thus more likely to be ran the same way from table to table.

As our discussion on how to parse Incite Greed demonstrates no such accord applies Incite Greed.

You're the one making the inference, and it's precisely the inference that I pointed out as false. "The spell does not say 'Incapacitated', therefore the target can take actions", even though the spell explicitly says "while charmed in this way, the target can do nothing", as if Incapacitated was a magic word that needs to be used in order for the spell to work. Conditions are a short hand, you don't need to use them, it's just convenient to do so, and it saves space.


It's also quite possible that the devs did not want to say Incapacitated, because they wanted the targets to be able to Dash or Disengage to move towards the caster safely, which is the only thing they can do while charmed by the spell (that, and stare at the gem once close to the caster). We don't know if that's the case, but it shows the problems of arguing from silence.

Yes, you can say at your table that the target can do something, but then you are not following the spell's clear text, which says "While charmed in this way, the target can do nothing". Taking an Action is not "doing nothing". But I suppose our conversation is doomed to repetition:
"It does not say target's Incapacitated"
"It says target can do nothing"
"It does not say target's Incapacitated"
"It says target can do nothing"

Rinse and repeat, though I would point out that I'm arguing from the spell text, and you are arguing from silence.

As to Hypnotic Pattern being more universally applicable, see my first post. In some tables, it's a win button. In other tables, where the DM does chain breaks, it's one round of the opponents actions (which is still very good, but not a win button). No consistency there. And it's worse than with Incite Greed, because, unlike Incite Greed, both DMs are following the spell's text; or, worse, it could even happen with the same DM, if he got tired of the win button.

[Chronos]

Chain breaks aren't as big a problem for Hypnotic Pattern as they're usually made out to be. The party is naturally going to be focusing on the enemies that aren't affected. It's possible that all of the enemies that made their save get taken out before they're able to act. It's possible that one saves and wakes another, but then both of them are taken out before they can wake anyone else. It's possible that one wakes another but then one of the two is taken out, and then the next turn the remaining one unaffected enemy wakes one and then another enemy falls, and so on. And even in the worst case, the spell still costs Team Enemy as many actions as there are enemies that fail their save, because any action spent on waking another enemy is an action spent not attacking the party.

[diplomancer]

Chain breaks aren't as big a problem for Hypnotic Pattern as they're usually made out to be. The party is naturally going to be focusing on the enemies that aren't affected. It's possible that all of the enemies that made their save get taken out before they're able to act. It's possible that one saves and wakes another, but then both of them are taken out before they can wake anyone else. It's possible that one wakes another but then one of the two is taken out, and then the next turn the remaining one unaffected enemy wakes one and then another enemy falls, and so on. And even in the worst case, the spell still costs Team Enemy as many actions as there are enemies that fail their save, because any action spent on waking another enemy is an action spent not attacking the party.

Here's the thing. Once you're broken out, you have your action, and can take it immediately to break the next one, and so forth. And many enemies share initiative. So no, players are not able to stop them. If one makes the save, all of those on the same initiative can be broken out immediately, and the last one to be broken free still has his full action. Heck, depending on initiative order, they can even "game it", so that the one with more powerful actions gets broken last. Whether more will break out will depend on initiative order, and so the spell gets unreliable (if the DM plays it that way)

So the situation is usually not "monster 1 breaks out monster 2, party can attack monsters 1 and 2 before monster 2 takes his action", but "monster 1 breaks out monster 2 who breaks out monster 3, etc, party gets to act after all monsters break out." Caster exchanged his Action and a 3rd level slot for almost awhole ound of the monster's actions, a reasonable trade, but less powerful than it seems at first glance (or less powerful than it is with a DM who does not do chain breaks, which gets back to my main point of Hypnotic Pattern being table-dependent)

[Witty Username]

Here's the thing. Once you're broken out, you have your action, and can take it immediately to break the next one, and so forth.

My only 2 cents:
That is arguably against RAW, as monsters that share initiative don't take sequential turns. In theory the monsters that are incapacitated are obligated to start and end their turns(since they have nothing to do) as they come up in initiative order.

Reading over Incite Greed, it is a good cleric spell, I prefer the range on hypnotic pattern and enemies moving closer to the caster is something of a liability, as for metagaming, shaking a creature, sometimes works, doing harm, sometimes works, breaking concentration always works.


Hm, if a DM wants to get checky with it, have enemies fake the charm effect and lumber towards the caster until they get close enough to dump a bunch of damage. It is probably not a optimal tactic, but it will scare the pants off of the caster.

[Segev]

My only 2 cents:
That is arguably against RAW, as monsters that share initiative don't take sequential turns. In theory the monsters that are incapacitated are obligated to start and end their turns(since they have nothing to do) as they come up in initiative order.

Technically, the overlapping turns means they can take any part of their turns during each others' turns. So if two start the turn incapacitated and a third does not, the third can shake one of the others out of it, and that one can shake the remaining one out of it, and the last one can act, and then all can use up any remaining movement or take any bonus actions, all before any of their turns end. Their turns all end, together, when they are all done acting and moving.