Yes, and as Zard is saying, if 3rd level spells are the Comparison Bar for it to stop being OP, that is a dang good 1st level spell. Few other 1st level spells can boast to be as good as a 3rd level, because they are specifically designed to not be that good. Otherwise, they would be 3rd level spells instead of 1st. Off the top of my head, Shield and Misty step stay useful for a long while, but many other spells stop being useful as you get ones that do all the same stuff and more.
D&D 5E Analyzing Bless
- Thread starter FrogReaver
- Start date
Yes, and as Zard is saying, if 3rd level spells are the Comparison Bar for it to stop being OP, that is a dang good 1st level spell. Few other 1st level spells can boast to be as good as a 3rd level, because they are specifically designed to not be that good. Otherwise, they would be 3rd level spells instead of 1st. Off the top of my head, Shield and Misty step stay useful for a long while, but many other spells stop being useful as you get ones that do all the same stuff and more.
To be fair, solo games do exist. And, even in a game with a standard party of four to five, its not unheared of to have a private side session or three for things that happen without the full party. Parties of one do happen.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Totally agree. The point is not whether parties of 1 happen. It's who believe any d&d effectiveness rating is going to apply the same to a party of 1 as to a party of more than 1. Especially when the conversation topic is buff spells. Bringing a party of 1 into the mix was silly and did more to harm is point than to help it.
Hi,
I'm saying that Bless is sometimes a better casting than SG, and (now I'm suggesting that) this is ok.
What if I want to enhance people's saves against a threat? What if I want to increase damage? And better than SG too: How good is SG when enemy archers are keeping their distance? As for "you didn't show that bless was not situationally better than them," of course I didn't. Sometimes Bless *is* situationally better.
Um, that is a comment. You're calling me silly. That's fine, I can take it. It isn't an objection at all. Based on the thread title, noting a rather uncommon but not vanishingly rare circumstance seems reasonable. But of course, that isn't the only circumstance I mention, which you do notice:
I don't know what you are doing with this. The comparison that matters is between casting Bless and doing something else.
What matters is the benefit compared to some other action. But the point itself is also not correct: A Cleric casting Bless using a 1st level slot on a party with 50 people (large number used to illustrate the situation) will increase the party's damage by a much smaller percentage than on a party with 6, 3 of whom are strong attackers. Nevertheless, if the intention is to use Bless offensively, the chance of *having* sufficient strong attackers and even optimized attackers increases with party size. BTW, the canonical 4-character party C/F/R/W has only two good targets for offensive applications.
I have a hard time figuring out when you're arguing or agreeing. It also seems that you started off upset and contentious. Like this:
Yes. That's what I enjoy. Got it in one.
We do. I'm not sure how you thought I missed the point.5. If you were saying that bless is good when attacking with disadvantage because you have a lower effective chance to hit pre d4 bless dice then I misunderstood and I am sorry. Looks like we both agree here as well
Hmm. There's a great conversation in here, and if we can stop agreeing with each other so violently, maybe we can have it! My idea of OP is something that makes all other alternatives silly. To the extent that good alternatives can be found, a feature isn't overpowered. Is GWM/PAM overpowered? It is certainly good! But the extra protection of sword-n-board is also really good, especially if the GM uses the DMG charts for generating treasure. (Hard to get great armor, but not hard to upgrade shields.) There are feats for shields too. Or, a Fighter might prefer Sharpshooting from range. And there's something to be said for a well-built assassin using none of these feats, especially with some strategic multi-class. And some folks thing casters rule. So it's obvious for a Hulk Smash fighter, but that's not the only good choice. I'm also ok with a class having a powerful signature ability, and I think it's great if that kicks in early, to better define the class. Bless is a likely signature ability for the classic support class! It is very good, even excellent, available 2/day at level 1, yet a cleric will often need to cast something else. I think that's fine. Bless isn't the only first level spell that is often the perfect action even for high level characters. Shield comes to mind. And there are Warlock guides out there that suggest Misty Step is often worth a 5th level slot! I think the thread began with the suggestion that Bless wasn't really all that great. Have we come full circle?
You don't understand me correctly.
I'm saying that Bless is sometimes a better casting than SG, and (now I'm suggesting that) this is ok.
Well, you're making assumptions about my stance and are missing what I'm saying. I list those situations to show that those other spells are often much better than Bless, which itself often very good. Bless does not overshadow SG or Revivify. (I suspect a cleric will want to hold a 3rd level slot open for the latter, just in case, rather than upcast Bless. Having a Revivify in reserve makes other characters more comfortable to go all out... it's a damage enhancer even when left uncast!) As for Bless being situationally better than Revivify, of course it is: What if I don't have a 3rd level slot?
What if I want to enhance people's saves against a threat? What if I want to increase damage? And better than SG too: How good is SG when enemy archers are keeping their distance? As for "you didn't show that bless was not situationally better than them," of course I didn't. Sometimes Bless *is* situationally better.
Maybe I shouldn't be so quick to respond to your posts? Anyway, Ken
Zardnaar
Legend
Bless in a 3rd level slot also gets 5 people usually the whole party. Its a toss up with spiritual guardians and thats one fo the best level 3 spells, I think bless is probably better than a few of them.
The other thing is you have a lot of spell slots and clerics do meh damage anyway. Even if bless enables 1 hit that would have missed the cleric in effect is coming out ahead of their relative puny attack.
Except it does matter to effectiveness. Party size and composition are both two interrelated factors that matter to the spells effectiveness. As much as someone might want to analyze the spell in the vacuum of a white room combat, actual play tends to involve many more variables that have a direct effect upon spells and their use. Size is one of those variables. Enemy, terrain, surprise, party composition (classes) and more all matter.
Flamestrike
Legend
In a system with bounded accuracy where players go from +2 at first level to +6 at 17th level, adding +1d4 to every single attack and saving throw is ridiculously potent. In a party of five it ensures at least one or two extra attacks land every single round that would ordinarily have missed. It also ensures several passed saving throws throughout the combat.
Even with a bonus of +2, it is the equivalent of two ability score increases for every single member of the party in their primary attacks stat, and on the same for every single ability score for saves.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Don't go overboard zard. If you can hit more than 1 enemy the spirit guardians is much better than an upcast bless. Keep in mind add bless to the wizard and cleric isn't going to do much for to party damage.
Zardnaar
Legend
Blessing yourself makes it much more likely you can keep bless up. Spiritual Guardians is often interupted I have noticed unless the cleric take warcaster/resilient.
Similar Threads
