D&D 5E Witch Bolt as a cantrip?

[Taronkov]

So I have a theory about why the "It's so easy to break away from" isn't really an issue...

1) Unless your opponent is a caster themselves, why would they think "Hey if I just move a few feet further away surely this won't effect me anymore"? I mean sure dive behind cover is a viable thought process but I think most people and monsters as written in the book would try to close and kill the user. It's not honestly that much different than trying to close with an archer shooting arrows at you.

2)Concentration isn't really that hard to maintain on average. Sure the enemy might close and hit you but does anyone play a caster with less than a +2 con modifier(yes I know some obviously do) because I'm guessing they are the minority. Meaning you succeed 40% of the time so you should get a couple of rounds in of the spell minimum.

3)If I'm casting this spell(again this is me personally) I'm going to be casting it most likely on someone locked in combat with another person. Why you ask? So that if they decide they want to hit me they have to run away from someone else and risk an opportunity attack to do so. I mean why would you walk up to someone, un-engaged in the combat yet and cast this? That is basically just risking wasting your spell slot.

I honestly don't see a single problem with this spell as written. Take the combat caster feat at 4th level for advantage on concentration checks(because it's amazing) and this spell quickly becomes a solid spell for regular use even if you're somehow standing completely in the front(or ambushed while skulking in the back). Obviously some peoples experiences have differed but with some basic tactics and the DM not metagaming the enemy logic for "I'll just move 35' away and end the spell" I think the spell as written is solid.

 

[famousringo]

So I have a theory about why the "It's so easy to break away from" isn't really an issue...

1) Unless your opponent is a caster themselves, why would they think "Hey if I just move a few feet further away surely this won't effect me anymore"? I mean sure dive behind cover is a viable thought process but I think most people and monsters as written in the book would try to close and kill the user. It's not honestly that much different than trying to close with an archer shooting arrows at you.

2)Concentration isn't really that hard to maintain on average. Sure the enemy might close and hit you but does anyone play a caster with less than a +2 con modifier(yes I know some obviously do) because I'm guessing they are the minority. Meaning you succeed 40% of the time so you should get a couple of rounds in of the spell minimum.

3)If I'm casting this spell(again this is me personally) I'm going to be casting it most likely on someone locked in combat with another person. Why you ask? So that if they decide they want to hit me they have to run away from someone else and risk an opportunity attack to do so. I mean why would you walk up to someone, un-engaged in the combat yet and cast this? That is basically just risking wasting your spell slot.

I honestly don't see a single problem with this spell as written. Take the combat caster feat at 4th level for advantage on concentration checks(because it's amazing) and this spell quickly becomes a solid spell for regular use even if you're somehow standing completely in the front(or ambushed while skulking in the back). Obviously some peoples experiences have differed but with some basic tactics and the DM not metagaming the enemy logic for "I'll just move 35' away and end the spell" I think the spell as written is solid.

1. Granted, the range/cover issue is a little meta, but it's still a limitation that other attack spells don't need to deal with. Magic Missile does 10.5 very reliable points of damage, no waiting, while Witch Bolt does maybe 6.5 if it hits and then maybe another 6.5 if the target hasn't broken it or died a round later. The MM caster also gets an action to follow up with a cantrip for maybe 5.5 damage more while the WB is maintained. Or anything else you can do with an action.

2. No this is a huge deal. Not so much because it's hard, but because concentration is so valuable. If you cast Witch Bolt, you aren't going to maintain Hex or Hold Person or Enlarge or any other awesome spell. A cantrip can do nearly as much damage as holding Witch Bolt (and by level 5, more) without consuming precious concentration.

3. Actually, driving off an enemy is the only real use I can think of for Witch Bolt. If you actually wanted to kill the target, a wizard or sorcerer would be better off with Magic Missile, and a warlock would be better off with Hex + EB.

 

[dd.stevenson]

Only the original damage scales with spell level. After that, it's 1d12 per round, requiring concentration, actions, range, and puts a big target on you.

Yeah, the language is unfortunately very clear: "When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the initial damage increases by 1d12 for each slot level above 1st."

Which sucks--I'd rather have a better spell with no scaling options, or turn this thing into a cantrip.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I've only seen it used in play a couple of times, but each time it was actually very effective. The target was already engaged with the melee fighters, and would've had to not only break off, but also move through most of the rest of the party, to reach the wizard. Nor was there a lot of cover to hide behind, as this was a large dungeon chamber with most of the features (furniture, etc.) also a ways away, past the party.

Witch bolt may be highly situational, and I can see it become less and less effective at higher levels, but right now, with a low-level party and in the right circumstances, it's actually proven to be quite potent.

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

I think my Warlock might give Witch Bolt a second look now that our Wizard has Evard's Black Tentacles. One the one hand, if a target is restrained by Evard's already, Witch Bolt might be overkill. On the other, it might be a good idea to put down them down before they break loose.

 

[Gadget]

So I have a theory about why the "It's so easy to break away from" isn't really an issue...

1) Unless your opponent is a caster themselves, why would they think "Hey if I just move a few feet further away surely this won't effect me anymore"? I mean sure dive behind cover is a viable thought process but I think most people and monsters as written in the book would try to close and kill the user. It's not honestly that much different than trying to close with an archer shooting arrows at you.

As I said in my reply up above: yes, one must be careful not to meta game opponents with this spell, but it is not like doing any of those things is something that a victim of the spell is unlikely to try anyway. Yes, this can be useful when the target is otherwise engaged, but when someone is shooting a continuous stream of electricity at you, trying one of those actions is not out of the blue genius on the target's part or necessarily meta gaming on the DM's part.

But I agree that this limitation is is over-emphasized and not the main weakness of the spell, just one that most attack spells don't have and thus another nail in the coffin, so to speak.

2)Concentration isn't really that hard to maintain on average. Sure the enemy might close and hit you but does anyone play a caster with less than a +2 con modifier(yes I know some obviously do) because I'm guessing they are the minority. Meaning you succeed 40% of the time so you should get a couple of rounds in of the spell minimum.

I also agree concentration is not the issue per se, it's just--as someone said above--that there are usually better things to use your concentration on. Add to this the fact that it is not merely concentration, but your action on future rounds that you are committing to when you cast this spell. That really tends to weigh it down. The previously mentioned hypothetical archer gets to make a discrete decision each round to attack you (along with having to make new attack role each time, admittedly). He does not commit his action on future rounds by shooting at you the first round. In many type of short, fluid D&D combats, this is huge. Of course the WB caster does not have to continue the action on future rounds as well, but then much of the potential of the spell is 'wasted'.

3)If I'm casting this spell(again this is me personally) I'm going to be casting it most likely on someone locked in combat with another person. Why you ask? So that if they decide they want to hit me they have to run away from someone else and risk an opportunity attack to do so. I mean why would you walk up to someone, un-engaged in the combat yet and cast this? That is basically just risking wasting your spell slot.

Yes, the spell is best used on someone already engaged, that is true, and a good tactic. But why not just MM the victim + damage cantrip on subsequent rounds for better damage and more flexibility? It's also useful if someone is staked out just waiting for you to attack them as well. Typical D&D combat favors applying the most HP attrition the quickest, and with WP not offering anything other than pure damage, trickled out over multiple rounds, there are usually better options.

Now if it added something like causing the target to loose a reaction each round it was maintained, that would at least give it a little bit of added omph (maybe not enough?). It would strengthen it's niche of using it on engaged targets, except now it gives the added benefit of allowing your allies to disengage easier without fears of retaliation.

I honestly don't see a single problem with this spell as written. Take the combat caster feat at 4th level for advantage on concentration checks(because it's amazing) and this spell quickly becomes a solid spell for regular use even if you're somehow standing completely in the front(or ambushed while skulking in the back). Obviously some peoples experiences have differed but with some basic tactics and the DM not metagaming the enemy logic for "I'll just move 35' away and end the spell" I think the spell as written is solid.

The problems you're refuting are only indirect or minor problems with the spell. Yes, requiring concentration is not a bad thing, it is a question of if there are better things to use your concentration on. It allows multiple rounds of damage for one attack role, but that damage is relatively weak and commits your future actions as well as your concentration. It also makes the initial attack roll much more of an all or nothing proposition than most attack spells, so you really want advantage on that roll. Then there is the minor limitation of the target moving out of range, getting behind cover, etc. None of these things are fatal by themselves, but add them all together, and you have a spell that seems only good for torturing helpless people.

"And now, young Skywalker, you die!"

 

[CapnZapp]

The fact you can create a situation where Witch Bolt does not suck does not mean it does not suck.

It still remains a spell you would not want to prepare/know, since it is so very corner case.

A spell with that name and that description could have been so much fun, if it only were better.

We're not trying to make the spell overshadow Sleep or Magic Missile here. We're just trying to make the spell into something fun, something you might actually want to take/prepare/know.

 

[Uller]

I'm definitely not a fan of WB. As others have said, it has a cool name and description but it's implementation leave it wanting. IMO, spells that are meant for Warlocks should scale in interesting ways because that's kind of their shtick.

What if the scaling was changed from +d12 on initial damage to one additional target per level? Or one extra target AND +1d12? Or you could spread the initial damage around and then maintain the +1d12 on each original target? That's probably the best implementation.

So change the wording for At Higher Levels to something like:

When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, you create one additional witch bolt for each level above first. Each bolt can target a different creature within range. If a creature is targeted by more than one bolt it takes an additional 1d12 damage on the initial damage.

Or something like that...

So a 7th level caster facing an Ogre and a goblin could hit the Ogre for up to 3d12 and the goblin for 1d12. Then maintain it on both for 1d12...

Keep in mind folks that the maintaining the damage for the cost of an action is important to warlock because it gives them something to do that doesn't cost them a spell. IMXP, our warlock doesn't like to use spell slots because he doesn't know when he'll get a short rest.

 

[Uller]

We tried my suggested "fix" tonight. My kids and I are playing through HotDQ and are on Episode 3...

Witch Bolt got used twice by the sorcerer character. Once as a 1st level slot and once with a 2nd level one, basically two acolytes had cast Bane on most of the party so he wanted to hit both of them to try to break the concentration. He hit them both, broke concentration on one of them and killed them both the next round (but was attacked a few times to try to break concentration on witch bolt). It didn't seem all that overpowered and added a dimension to the spell.

 

[Sezarious]

I like the idea of a magic missile cantrip. Just a single missile at 1d4+1 force damage. Range of 30 feet, use it to do final blows to enemies. 2 missiles at 5th, 3 at 10th, 4 at 15th, 5 at 20th. Or to keep it from being overpowered at greater levels, keep the damage the same.