Inflict Wounds = Underrated?

[jgsugden]

It is solid damage for a first level spell, but you'll only care about it for a short while.

About 15 to 20% of the damage dealt by this spell will exceed 20 points when cast as a first level spell. That is the range when you start to see it be a solo kill on first level PCs when used against them (negative max HP taken in damage). So it is solid, but not too exciting. Upgraded versions pale compared to other damage spells - 8d10 at 6th level is pretty weak.

There are a few first level ranged spells that deal 3d8 (Chromatic orb with a ranged attack, Catapult with a save) that generally would appeal to spellcasters more, but are generally only available to wizards and sorcerers.

By 11th level, you'll generally get more bang out of a cantrip than inflict.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's swingy. Generally speaking, that makes it good for monsters and bad for PCs. In any given encounter, the monsters are very likely to lose regardless, but taking a big risk has a chance of paying off. To contrast, the PCs are probably going to win as long as they don't do anything stupid, and taking an unnecessary risk qualifies for that.

 

[Ancalagon]

In the game I run, the cleric of knowledge used it at lot at low level. Ever since level 5, with cantrips becoming better and potent 3rd level spells it's been sort of displaced. But that's ok I think.

 

[Warpiglet]

I like it in niche situations. Low level it is a potent spell.

Later if up cast it can be 'ok'--but if you have two levels of wizard (necromancer) and you kill something with it it can heal three points a level which is nice especially if you only have a level of cleric to obtain it.

I am obsessed with the flavor of this and vampiric touch....combined with two levels of wizard/necromancer, it could be cool.