D&D 5E Is Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting a good spell?

[Bacon Bits]

As I've said elsewhere, the best thing about ADHW is the fact that it deals necrotic damage. That makes it pretty good against fiends, celestials, and elementals, which often resist other damage types but rarely resist necrotic.

The area of effect is not particularly large. The range is not particularly far. The damage is not particularly high. The only things the spell really does well is: 1) target plants and water elementals (flavor more than anything; this is so narrow as to be useless), and 2) avoid constructs and undead (many of whom are already immune to necrotic damage). Now, how often is that going to be of use to a PC? Not that often. In almost every instance, undead and constructs will be opponents, not allies. That makes it fairly unimpressive.

This is a fine spell for a Necromancer with an army of undead. Which is to say, this is a fine spell for NPCs. It's a little over leveled -- cloudkill could probably do an equal job in most cases -- so outside of unusual campaigns where the DM allows PC to run about with armies of undead or constructs I'd peg it as mediocre or very special purpose.

In previous editions, ADHW was great because you pick whatever targets you wanted, it had a huge range, a huge area, and it dealt nonelemental damage. Now it doesn't do any of that. It's closer in power to chain lightning, firestorm, and circle of death. In a perfect situation it might be as powerful as other 8th level spells, but if sunburst is what an 8th level spell is supposed to do (12d6 (42) radiant + blind for 1 minute + dispel darkness) or incendiary cloud (a cloudkill that deals 10d8 fire damage each round for up to 10 rounds), then I don't see what this spell actually offers a PC outside of fairly narrow scenarios.

Still, it's not the only instance of wonky spells.

Finger of death, a 7th level spell, has a range of 60 feet, targets a single creature. It deals 7d8+30 (61.5) necrotic damage with a Con save for half. There is no spell level scaling. If the target is a humanoid and is killed by the spell (n.b., it doesn't say reduced to 0 hp, it says killed) it rises as a zombie under your control.

Disintegrate, a 6th level spell, has a range of 60 feet, targets a single creature, object, or creation of magical force. On a hit, up to a 10 foot cube is disintegrated, a magical force creation is destroyed, and a creature takes 10d6 + 40 (75) force damage (Dex save for half negates). A creature reduced to 0 hp disintegrates (sans magic items) and can only be restored with a wish or true resurrection spell. For each level about 6th, the spell deals an additional 3d6 (10.5) damage.

Disintegrate is a better damage type, more versatile, higher damage, lower level, a generally better save ability and scales very well. Finger of death lets you farm for CR 1/4 creatures and deals damage on a successful save.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I would say, "I eagerly await your analysis." but I can respect your preference to not bring your work into your hobby. I don't really have a horse in this race; I just thought it would be fun to do a bit of direct comparison and see which came out on top. Based on that, I consider ADHW not a bad spell but a niche one.

That's the thing. My analysis doesn't need to go farther than, "You're assuming by your methodology several things that are not given, including but not limited to: every monster will be encountered an equal number of times in an equal number of individual creatures, that there wouldn't be more than 7 targets in a 30ft cube/radius, the environment is white room for each scenario, etc etc. Secondly, your definitions of what is "better" or "good" is based on subjectivity, not objectivity."

You're making a classic, and very basic mistake of basic analysis. You're taking many assumptions without looking into context, and applying them as some sort of mathematical formula when an objective formula simply cannot exist because the number of impactable factors are infinite. Therefore, it is impossible for you to say with any sort of accuracy that one spell is "objectively" anything over another. Especially when some of your metrics are subjective by definition (what is "good" to one person is not "good" to another). I also can't figure out why you keep using "to hit" when talking about saves. There is no "hit". It's either "fail save, make save for half, or no effect".

And that's really my big beef with things like this. You (general you, not you specifically even though this particular example is you), have a list of biases, and you arbitrarily throw together a bunch of numbers that fall apart at the most basic level of scrutiny of the methodology, and act like it's some objective truth. It's something that seems to plague our hobby in particular. "Oh! Look at these formulas with all the maths! Just ignore all the things like how and where and what is actually going on in the game...."

For example, using your example, as soon as you start putting in more than 7 creatures in the same area of effect, AHW suddenly soars way above chain lightning. Or maybe in a campaign your PCs happen to face a lot more creatures vulnerable to necrotic/not resistant to lightning. Or any other number of scenarios.

Basically, all the time spent throwing in variables and arbitrarily assigning values is a giant waste of your time in a game where there are an infinite number of possible scenarios that can turn your formula on its head. If you like doing that, then knock yourself out. But don't try to pretend there's any real accuracy there.

 

[Eric V]

I'd say it would be good to compare it with other 8th level damaging spells.

Horrid Wilting: Range 150, 30-ft cube; 10d8 (45) necrotic, Constitution save, plant and water creatures have disadvantage to save, does not affect undead or constructs.

Sunburst: Range 150, 60-ft radius burst; 12d6 (42) radiant, Constitution save, blinds on a failed save, undead and oozes have disadvantage to save, dispels darkness created by a spell.

Incendiary Cloud: Range 150, 20=ft radius; 10d8 (45) fire, Dexterity save, Cloud can persist for 1 minute with concentration and repeat the damage to any creature entering or ending its turn in the cloud, moves 10 ft away from you at the start of your turn, heavily obscures the area. Can be dispersed by a moderate wind such as that caused by the 2nd level gust of wind spell.

As has been mentioned Horrid Wilting is useful for Necromancers. Send in their undead servants, cast horrid wilting, have your undead mop up.

Sunburst has a far larger radius, deals comparable damage (1 die less than the DMG recommendation) and blinds enemies. A powerful spell with a great added effect. Undead and oozes are almost guaranteed to be affected. Evokers can protect their allies from the spell.

Incendiary cloud has a chance to cause great amounts of damage unless your opponents have some one who specialises in elemental air magic. Provides some control for the battlefield if you are willing to spend your concentration on it. Depending on terrain, enemies other than those originally caught, might be able to maneuver around it and completely avoid the damage.

Looking at these three spells, if I was a wizard choosing between them for my two spells when I reach 15th level, I would probably choose Sunburst and Incendiary Cloud unless I was playing a necromancer with an undead army. The added blindness effect of Sunburst and the sustainability of the cloud would make them better choices in my opinion.

The riders on Sunburst and Incendiary Cloud are better, and more universally useful, hence they are better spells. ADHW just doesn't measure up to them. As one of the few 8th level spells one can cast, it needs to be more universally useful. Oh well. It was great in 2e. At least it didn't get hit as much as Time Stop.

 

[Eric V]

As I've said elsewhere, the best thing about ADHW is the fact that it deals necrotic damage. That makes it pretty good against fiends, celestials, and elementals, which often resist other damage types but rarely resist necrotic.

The area of effect is not particularly large. The range is not particularly far. The damage is not particularly high. The only things the spell really does well is: 1) target plants and water elementals (flavor more than anything; this is so narrow as to be useless), and 2) avoid constructs and undead (many of whom are already immune to necrotic damage). Now, how often is that going to be of use to a PC? Not that often. In almost every instance, undead and constructs will be opponents, not allies. That makes it fairly unimpressive.

This is a fine spell for a Necromancer with an army of undead. Which is to say, this is a fine spell for NPCs. It's a little over leveled -- cloudkill could probably do an equal job in most cases -- so outside of unusual campaigns where the DM allows PC to run about with armies of undead or constructs I'd peg it as mediocre or very special purpose.

In previous editions, ADHW was great because you pick whatever targets you wanted, it had a huge range, a huge area, and it dealt nonelemental damage. Now it doesn't do any of that. It's closer in power to chain lightning, firestorm, and circle of death. In a perfect situation it might be as powerful as other 8th level spells, but if sunburst is what an 8th level spell is supposed to do (12d6 (42) radiant + blind for 1 minute + dispel darkness) or incendiary cloud (a cloudkill that deals 10d8 fire damage each round for up to 10 rounds), then I don't see what this spell actually offers a PC outside of fairly narrow scenarios.

Still, it's not the only instance of wonky spells.

Finger of death, a 7th level spell, has a range of 60 feet, targets a single creature. It deals 7d8+30 (61.5) necrotic damage with a Con save for half. There is no spell level scaling. If the target is a humanoid and is killed by the spell (n.b., it doesn't say reduced to 0 hp, it says killed) it rises as a zombie under your control.

Disintegrate, a 6th level spell, has a range of 60 feet, targets a single creature, object, or creation of magical force. On a hit, up to a 10 foot cube is disintegrated, a magical force creation is destroyed, and a creature takes 10d6 + 40 (75) force damage (Dex save for half). A creature reduced to 0 hp disintegrates (sans magic items) and can only be restored with a wish or true resurrection spell. For each level about 6th, the spell deals an additional 3d6 (10.5) damage.

Disintegrate is a better damage type, more versatile, higher damage, lower level, a generally better save ability and scales very well. Finger of death lets you farm for CR 1/4 creatures.

Your analysis of ADHW is spot on. Great spell for NPCs.

The bolded part above is incorrect, though: The Dex save for Disintegrate is a save for full or none, not half. That being the case, I could see someone taking FoD for the surefire damage.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Your analysis of ADHW is spot on. Great spell for NPCs.

The bolded part above is incorrect, though: The Dex save for Disintegrate is a save for full or none, not half. That being the case, I could see someone taking FoD for the surefire damage.

Oh, fair enough. I misread disintegrate's save. That helps explain why the damage is so high.

Also, wow, does that spell combo well with restrain and stun effects.

 

[CapnZapp]

As I've said elsewhere, the best thing about ADHW is the fact that it deals necrotic damage. That makes it pretty good against fiends, celestials, and elementals, which often resist other damage types but rarely resist necrotic.

The area of effect is not particularly large. The range is not particularly far. The damage is not particularly high. The only things the spell really does well is: 1) target plants and water elementals (flavor more than anything; this is so narrow as to be useless), and 2) avoid constructs and undead (many of whom are already immune to necrotic damage). Now, how often is that going to be of use to a PC? Not that often. In almost every instance, undead and constructs will be opponents, not allies. That makes it fairly unimpressive.

This is a fine spell for a Necromancer with an army of undead. Which is to say, this is a fine spell for NPCs. It's a little over leveled -- cloudkill could probably do an equal job in most cases -- so outside of unusual campaigns where the DM allows PC to run about with armies of undead or constructs I'd peg it as mediocre or very special purpose.

In previous editions, ADHW was great because you pick whatever targets you wanted, it had a huge range, a huge area, and it dealt nonelemental damage. Now it doesn't do any of that. It's closer in power to chain lightning, firestorm, and circle of death. In a perfect situation it might be as powerful as other 8th level spells, but if sunburst is what an 8th level spell is supposed to do (12d6 (42) radiant + blind for 1 minute + dispel darkness) or incendiary cloud (a cloudkill that deals 10d8 fire damage each round for up to 10 rounds), then I don't see what this spell actually offers a PC outside of fairly narrow scenarios.

Still, it's not the only instance of wonky spells.

Finger of death, a 7th level spell, has a range of 60 feet, targets a single creature. It deals 7d8+30 (61.5) necrotic damage with a Con save for half. There is no spell level scaling. If the target is a humanoid and is killed by the spell (n.b., it doesn't say reduced to 0 hp, it says killed) it rises as a zombie under your control.

Disintegrate, a 6th level spell, has a range of 60 feet, targets a single creature, object, or creation of magical force. On a hit, up to a 10 foot cube is disintegrated, a magical force creation is destroyed, and a creature takes 10d6 + 40 (75) force damage (Dex save for half). A creature reduced to 0 hp disintegrates (sans magic items) and can only be restored with a wish or true resurrection spell. For each level about 6th, the spell deals an additional 3d6 (10.5) damage.

Disintegrate is a better damage type, more versatile, higher damage, lower level, a generally better save ability and scales very well. Finger of death lets you farm for CR 1/4 creatures.

Thank you.

This is the kind of comparison I expected from the thread.

Horrid is clearly outperformed.

As a NPC spell, however, it has its uses. But so does almost every spell, simply by the virtue of the spell coming into play far before PCs get to use it.

Take the Power Words for example.

When you the hero gets each of these, the hp thresholds are fairly unimpressive. Why cast Power Word Kill when you can reliably just deal 100 points of damage?

But as an NPC spell, it's something else. Not only do heroes have fewer hit points than almost any other creature of comparable power (most creatures that can match a player character will have DOUBLE his hp), the NPC will often be the BBEG and thus enjoy a significant level lead on the characters.

Roughly speaking, instead of a 150 hp character trying to use PWK at 300 hp monstrosities...

...you'll have 150 hp BBEGs using it against 100 hp heroes.

That fact alone takes the spell from mediocre brown into excellent sky blue territory!

 

[CapnZapp]

In 4e, Horrid Wilting slowed and weakened its targets. Would people consider the spell to be comparable to other 8th level spells if it did the same in 5e by causing those who fail their save to gain 2 levels of exhaustion (disadvantage on ability checks and half speed)?

Or simply slow and weaken targets?

Yes, Horrid would have felt much more appropriate with those riders.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sure. I just avoid exhaustion if I can.

Saying "slowed as per the spell" works for me.

Creates a kind of de facto condition that's fairly easy to use.

Plus, the expectation is for slow and Slow to not stack. You could still hit an exhausted character with a Slow spell.

 

[Cognomen's Cassowary]

You're taking many assumptions without looking into context, and applying them as some sort of mathematical formula when an objective formula simply cannot exist because the number of impactable factors are infinite. Therefore, it is impossible for you to say with any sort of accuracy that one spell is "objectively" anything over another.

. . .

And that's really my big beef with things like this. You (general you, not you specifically even though this particular example is you), have a list of biases, and you arbitrarily throw together a bunch of numbers that fall apart at the most basic level of scrutiny of the methodology, and act like it's some objective truth.

Uh . . . no, I have not done that. I couched my conclusions in conditionals. I have been very careful not to proclaim any absolutes about the goodness or badness of the spell, and I have been clear that I am making generalizations. I have yet to use the word "objective" or its derivatives. I haven't even called what I have done "analysis." I have made my methodology plain so that anybody reading it can decide for him- or herself how applicable my conclusions are to his or her character and game, and I have said that there is no accounting for context and DM tendency.

For example, using your example, as soon as you start putting in more than 7 creatures in the same area of effect, AHW suddenly soars way above chain lightning. Or maybe in a campaign your PCs happen to face a lot more creatures vulnerable to necrotic/not resistant to lightning. Or any other number of scenarios.

Yes, I said that ADHW will do more damage against seven or more enemies, though I don't understand why you continue to fixate on the numerical portion of my comparison. Yes, there are situations where ADHW is a (subjectively) better spell than chain lightning, as I have stated previously. There are, however, more situations where chain lightning is (subjectively) better, and I consider that to make it better on the whole, and that's my point in making generalizations. Coming at this as a sorcerer player whose character does not have a thematic school, gains only one spell per level, and will never have more than fifteen total, I find those kinds of generalizations very helpful, since having the perfect spell for every job is not an option. As a general and subjective rule, I prefer the spell that will have more application in more situations, if only because I have not yet worked up the nerve to "objectively" select my spells by random roll.

I use "to hit" as shorthand, since I am often talking about both ability scores and armor class. I can see where I've been inconsistent, so I will edit for clarity. If I confused you, I apologize. If you're just being peevish, I don't care.

Incendiary Cloud: Range 150, 20=ft radius; 10d8 (45) fire, Dexterity save, Cloud can persist for 1 minute with concentration and repeat the damage to any creature entering or ending its turn in the cloud, moves 10 ft away from you at the start of your turn, heavily obscures the area. Can be dispersed by a moderate wind such as that caused by the 2nd level gust of wind spell.

I think that that bolded portion is too quickly overlooked with 5e's (somewhat dodgy) vision rules.

WIZARD: . . . so that's forty-five damage to all the archers who failed the save, and half to those who succeeded. That's the end of my turn.
DM: All right, the archers are now in a heavily obscured area, so all of you looking at them are effectively blinded. They have advantage on their attacks.

 

[Cognomen's Cassowary]

It's a bit of a gray area, no pun intended. Officially, per the errata, this is the rule:

Vision and Light (p. 183). A heavily
obscured area doesn’t blind you, but you
are effectively blinded when you try to see
something obscured by it.

That works fine for an area of darkness, since a character standing in the darkness need not have trouble seeing characters in a lighted area. However, if you read it to mean that both parties are effectively blinded when looking into or out of a cloud of fog, the blindness more or less cancels out, with each side gaining both advantage and disadvantage. The only difference from normal sight in that case is that neither side can actually have advantage or disadvantage on an attack, since any number of one cancels out any number of the other.

The question which is left to the DM to answer is whether a creature has to be within the "heavily obscured area" to be obscured by it. In the case of darkness, the answer to that should be "yes," since two parties in lighted areas should be able to launch arrows at each other normally even with darkness between them. In the case of fog, though, you wouldn't expect two parties in clear patches on opposite sides of the obscurity to be able to fire away at each other. That's why I call the rule dodgy; we've got one where we need two.

In my game, I would play by common-sense rules, but that devalues certain spells like fog cloud. I could see a DM saying that you have to actually be within the obscured area to be obscured, and that you can see out normally, just to make it a single, consistent rule between darkness and fog.