|
Post by friartook on May 18, 2015 13:35:30 GMT
Another 5e spellcasting question: should ability modifiers be added to spell damage? I'm specifically thinking of cantrips here; spell that seem designed to replace melee attacks for casters. Most spell descriptions do not say to add ability modifiers, just wondering if there is a more general rule on this, or if its just spell by spell.
|
|
|
Post by DMC on May 18, 2015 15:35:38 GMT
Another 5e spellcasting question: should ability modifiers be added to spell damage? I'm specifically thinking of cantrips here; spell that seem designed to replace melee attacks for casters. Most spell descriptions do not say to add ability modifiers, just wondering if there is a more general rule on this, or if its just spell by spell. As far as I know, the damage listed in the description is all there is unless it states otherwise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2015 17:13:21 GMT
There's a handful of class features that can add ability score modifier to damaging spells, but not the spells themselves.
Reflecting on it, I find it slightly odd that healing spells often do add the modifier. Or at least inconsistent. In the same way dragon sorcerers and evocation wizards get their mod added to certain classes of damaging spells, other classes (I'll put forth lore bard, land druid and life cleric, devotion paladin) ought to have had a feature granting their mod to healing spells.
That's for the sake of consistency, though. I know 'party healer' is already an unpopular role, and that consistency would make it even more unattractive, so I don't blame the devs for their choice.
|
|
|
Post by friartook on May 18, 2015 20:59:58 GMT
There's a handful of class features that can add ability score modifier to damaging spells, but not the spells themselves. Reflecting on it, I find it slightly odd that healing spells often do add the modifier. Or at least inconsistent. In the same way dragon sorcerers and evocation wizards get their mod added to certain classes of damaging spells, other classes (I'll put forth lore bard, land druid and life cleric, devotion paladin) ought to have had a feature granting their mod to healing spells. That's for the sake of consistency, though. I know 'party healer' is already an unpopular role, and that consistency would make it even more unattractive, so I don't blame the devs for their choice. I am unreasonably upset about the discrepancy between Cure Wounds and Inflict Wounds. I've been thinking about house ruling them back to their 3.5 versions, but I've got enough stuff to track. As for the "party healer" role, I feel like they did a good job spreading that out by making Cure Wounds more accessible to classes like the Bard and the Ranger. My group has never owned a heal potion and does very little on the fly healing during combat. Whether that's because of my poor encounter design, the inexperience of the players, or just the skill of the players, I don't know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2015 21:47:54 GMT
It's easier to break something than put it back together. What's your beef with Inflict/Cure Wounds precisely? -- In-combat spell slot healing is less efficient than other resources, in most circumstances. Since damage below 0 HP is not tracked (except as death save failures), you risk wasting some of that healing. Ex: Homeboy is at 15/45 HP, and the Monster does 2d8+4 damage, so he's at risk of dying in one hit. Preesto casts Cure Wounds for 10 HP to Homeboy. Monster attacks for 20 HP, reducing Homeboy to 5. Daknife sneak attacks Monster, killing it on his turn. Now if Preesto had simply let Monster reduce Homeboy to 0, and cast Cure Wounds for 10 HP after the fight, Homeboy would be at 10 HP instead of 5. The threshold is in determining how valuable Homeboy's conscious presence on the battlefield is. In the above example, Monster was almost dead already, evidence by Daknife killing him in one attack. It was a 'mistake' to heal Homeboy. However, if Homeboy had the highest AC and the fight was going to last another three rounds, his chance of mitigating Monster's damage is a bigger contribution than the 5 extra HP he could've had if Preesto saved his spell slot til end of combat. This is a very white-room example though, and doesn't take into account the availability of rests/hit dice, and other features. edit: Point of all this was that it's hard to tell if your players aren't using healing because they're inexperienced or because they're pros, until not using it costs them dearly!
|
|
|
Post by joatmoniac on May 19, 2015 23:29:02 GMT
I assume that Friartook's discrepancy is the same that I see in that a level 1 Cleric could cast Cure Wounds for 1d8 + mod (+ 1d8 per additional spell slot level) for healing, but another level 1 Cleric could cast Inflict Wounds for 3d10 (+ 1d10 per additional spell slot level) for damage. Essentially allowing for an average of 4.5 + mod healing per round v. an average of 16.5 damage per round. There is of course the need for Inflict Wounds to be a successful melee spell attack, but the fact that a level 1 Cleric walks around with a potential 30 damage in one round seems absolutely crazy compared to the old ways of both spells scaling in a similar fashion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 1:06:58 GMT
While I believe Inflict Wounds is a little OP, it's just that... a little OP. Take into consideration a few points. First, it's necrotic damage, the second most common form of resistance/immunity.
Then compare Inflict Wounds against other spells in the cleric spell list. Bless can cause more indirect damage by causing near misses to hit, and mitigate more incoming damage with close saving throws than Inflict Wounds and Cure Wounds combined, provided the fight lasts more than a couple rounds. A guiding bolt does 3d8, and combined with the indirect damage from a miss-turned-hit caused by advantage, may well exceed 30 points.
Third, also related to the Cleric spell list, they don't have a lot of fantastic options in the damage department, but the devs still want to the class to be attractive to people who like strikers. Inflict Wounds is one of those spells that makes the striker cleric attractive. It's okay that it's a little OP, because the cleric lacks the diversity of damaging options available to other caster strikers. I think they deserve a nice nuclear option every now and then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 1:11:00 GMT
Also, DMs should feel free to disallow certain (good) clerics from having access to it because their god forbids it. We're talking painful, life-disrupting necromancy here. This is not a spell wielded by most good guys, and should be no more likely to appear in the cleric's prepared spells than Animate Dead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 21:12:48 GMT
Also also, as I pointed out to myself on another board... Certain spells in 5e intentionally fall outside the recommended damage ranges for their level, because they are 'iconic spells.' Fireball is the prime example, which gets 8d6 instead of 6d6. I think Inflict Wounds falls nicely into this theme.
I probably sound like I'm defending the spell against your opinions. That's not my intent, just more to explain why I don't feel so strongly about the disparity between Inflict and Cure Wounds.
|
|
|
Post by friartook on May 20, 2015 21:39:20 GMT
As I initiated this conversation, I should probably throw my 2cp in.
I wanted to check my fact to make sure before I posted, but time keeps on keeping on and I'm super busy so...
By beef: I recall Cure Wounds and Inflict Wounds as being inverse spells in 3.5. I remember them basically being the same spell, but one is powered by positive energy, the other negative. So Inflict Wounds would heal undead and Cure Wounds would hurt them, with the reverse being true of living creatures. This inverse dynamic made sense to me, so reading the spell description of 5e Inflict Wounds flabbergasted me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 22:18:43 GMT
Well, I did like how in Final Fantasy you could cast white magic on undead types to cause damage. Go Rosa!
|
|
Samuel Wise
Demigod
Ready to Help...
Posts: 989
Favorite D&D Class: Warlock
Favorite D&D Race: Mousefolk
|
Post by Samuel Wise on May 21, 2015 0:17:35 GMT
Well, I did like how in Final Fantasy you could cast white magic on undead types to cause damage. Go Rosa! I am so glad that someone else respects the white magic class. Too often does the black mages get chosen, healing is so incredibly useful in FF. I guess this question would be related to this article: are clerics considered to be the White Mage equivalent in D&D? Can a cleric focus on healing magic or is any magic class able to do that? What would be the best path to take when constructing a healer?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2015 7:42:47 GMT
Any full caster class with access to Cure Wounds/Healing Word is sufficient as a heal bot. Life domain cleric if you really want to focus on that. The level 17 ability is just absurd (max healing on all spells, instead of rolling dice). Go hill dwarf, so you can dump strength and still get around in heavy armor, plus the extra HP.
Then just cast Spirit Guardians, wade into combat and dodge every round. Cast a heal as needed. Also cast Spiritual Weapon if you can spare the slots.
Personally, I prefer the sexiness of bard healers to the superior healing of a life domain cleric.
|
|
|
Post by friartook on May 21, 2015 13:11:40 GMT
Personally, I prefer the sexiness of bard healers to the superior healing of a life domain cleric. Agreed. The healing is a lot more spread out in 5e (as compared to 3.5; 4e was ridiculous...what's the real world (or even fantasy world) equivalent of a "healing surge"? *scrunches up face and tenses every muscle in his body...amazingly, the paper cut on his finger begins to close up...). Druids can heal, Bards can as well as Rangers and Paladins as they level up. I like it, Cleric never appealed to me as a class because it was expected you'd be a heal-bot. Folks would get upset if you chose anything else.
|
|
|
Post by joatmoniac on May 22, 2015 22:13:53 GMT
I think that Friartook and I were focusing on the fact that at Level 1 Dmg can greatly exceed both healing and maximum hit points greatly, haha. Even a Human Barbarian with a CON of 20 (from crazy stat rolling, or power point buy, who knows) and Tough as their Feat choice granting 17 HP to start could be killed almost twice over by a single 1st level spell. On the other hand Cure Wounds at best could give 13 HP back at 1st level. The other thing is the craziness that would likely be an outright death due do massive damage and no death saves allowed. Guiding Bolt is a great example of a good version in the nuclear arms race of spells, haha. I think it does 4d6 and the advantage definitely gives it a slight edge over Inflict Wounds. All that to say that D&D 5E is terrifyingly lethal at low levels, haha. I can definitely see both sides, and feel that it takes a good DM to not just throw Bugbears and evil Clerics at your low level party, haha! Bugbears with a level of Cleric ... *shudder*
|
|