D&D 5E What is the most powerful spell?

[Yaarel]

Charm Person (see Awaken).

The effectiveness of the Charmed condition depends on DM discretion. The following are useful considerations.

Personally, I have players roleplay any social encounter with a creature. If negotiating, the players make whatever proposals. Typically, negotiations are auto-win, or auto-fail, depending on how persuasive the proposal is, and how in sync it is with what the creature wants anyway. Only if there is significant doubt about how the creature might respond, do I bother to quantify the challenge. The attitude of the creature determines how likely the creature is to be helpful: friendly, indifferent, or hostile. But in all attitudes, the desires, ideals, and interests of the creature remain the central consideration.

The social skill checks only come into play if trying to pressure the creature to do something it doesnt want to do. But even then the creatures own conflictive desires are the central consideration. The desire to not do something is weighing against the desire to be a good friend, the desire to obtain gold or the desire to fulfill an ideal, or so on.

So it is the complex desires of the charmed creature that come into play if quantifying a challenge.

Generally, a charmed creature is ‘friendly’, and a friendly creature wants to be helpful − but remains sane.



The benefit of the Charmed condition is: the charmed creature cannot attack you, and you have the *advantage* with social ability checks, if any.

The benefit of the Charmed Person spell is: the creature automatically has a friendly attitude toward you − even if it was hostile just 6 seconds ago! So the creature wants to be helpful. But as a friend, expects you to be helpful too. Friendship requires reciprocity.



The 5e version of Charm Person disappoints many because: ‘When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you.’ The assumption is, after realizing the manipulation, the formerly charmed creature will become hostile again.

However, there can be positive outcomes too, despite the realization of the charm.



The Awaken 5 spell is instructive. The awakened creature gains sapience and becomes a person. Initially the awakened creature is treated as charmed by the awaker. ‘The awakened beast or plant is charmed by you for 30 days or until you or your companions do anything harmful to it. When the charmed condition ends, the awakened creature chooses whether to remain friendly to you, based on how you treated it while it was charmed.’



This rule of thumb should apply to all uses of Charm:

When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you. The formerly charmed creature decides whether to remain friendly to you, based on how you treated it while it was charmed.

So the creature knows you were a dick for charming it, but it can get over that, depending on how respectful you were.

The Charm Person spell can even be an asset. If the creature was initially hostile, you can choose to avoid combat by charming it. Maybe even have it do an important favor for you. When the charm wears off, may want to continue the friendship, especially if you return the favor. Sincerely apologize, and explaining your reason for the charm.

Consider Charm Person a useful tool to ‘break the ice’ with someone indifferent, or to repair a relationship with someone hostile.

The trick to charm is, when they are a friend to you, make sure you are being a friend in return.

 

[Yaarel]

The History skill should probably include linguistics.

For example, any expert in Elven cultures must necessarily know the Elven language, probably Sylvan too.

So, if an adventurer comes a cross a letter written in Elven, the adventurer can make an Intelligence History skill check to read it.

Some texts are easier to read than others. A text might be difficult because its language is archaic or dialectic, technical or obscure, or its content terse or vague. Where a text is difficult, the DM can assign it a difficulty class. And a successful d20 skill check versus this DC is necessary to comprehend the text.

The point is, adventurers can use skills to decipher a written language, or to figure out what someone who doesnt speak the language is trying to express and mime. The Comprehend Languages spell is dispensable.

The spell is of marginal utility for a 1st-level spell slot. It probably belongs in the ‘Perhaps Skill Check’ category of the Minor Spells.

For now, Comprehend Languages remains in the 1st Level Spells, but I am mulling moving it to Minor Spells.



The ability to master a new language, is one of the options for Downtime. This might count as proficiency, then afterward expertise, when making a History check relating to the cultures of that language. Or something like that. In any case, History is an appropriate skill for linguistic checks.

 

[Yaarel]

Remarkably, the 1st-level spell Hideous Laughter is better than the 6th-level spell Irresistible Dance. The first denies action, the latter only denies move. Both allow advantage against the target, laughing because of prone.

 

[Caliban]

Remarkably, the 1st-level spell Hideous Laughter is better than the 6th-level spell Irresistible Dance. The first denies action, the latter only denies move. Both allow advantage against the target, laughing because of prone.

You seem to be overlooking a few things.

There is no initial save for Irresistible Dance - you can try to break out after it's cast on you, but it will automatically affect you unless you are immune to it. Since Irresistible Dance doesn't make you prone it gives ranged attacks and ranged spell attacks advantage against you (Hideous Laughter gives them disadvantage due to you being prone). Plus, Irrisistable Dance gives you disadvantage on Dex saves, Hideous Laughter doesn't. Also, Hideous Laughter grants a save with advantage every time the target takes damage, as well as an automatic save at the end of their turn, and any creature with an Int of 3 or less is immune to it.

So Irresistible Dance affects a larger group of targets, has no initial save, is harder to break out of (only one save a round vs multiple possible saves a round for Hideous Laughter), and makes it easier for ranged attacks to hit them (Hideous Laughter makes it harder), and make it easier for Dex saves spells to affect them.

 

[Gadget]

I largely agree about Hideous Laughter and Irresistible Dance. As is stands, Irresistible Dance could stand to affect more targets as a step to bring it in line with its level. On bonus it has over Hideous Laughter is that the target must spend an action to make a save, it is not automatic every turn. So the target at least looses an action. Also, the target does not get an additional save with advantage when it takes damage, as with Hideous Laughter. These mitigating factors, IMHO, don't justify the five level difference in spell levels between the two spells though.

 

[Caliban]

I largely agree about Hideous Laughter and Irresistible Dance. As is stands, Irresistible Dance could stand to affect more targets as a step to bring it in line with its level. On bonus it has over Hideous Laughter is that the target must spend an action to make a save, it is not automatic every turn. So the target at least looses an action. Also, the target does not get an additional save with advantage when it takes damage, as with Hideous Laughter. These mitigating factors, IMHO, don't justify the five level difference in spell levels between the two spells though.

I think the "Irresistible" part is a big factor. There is no save against the initial effect, which turns it into a very reliable bit of battlefield control (especially against creatures with Legendary saves). That, and the disadvantage on Dex saves and giving advantage (instead of disadvantage) to ranged attacks.

 

[Yaarel]

I largely agree about Hideous Laughter and Irresistible Dance. As is stands, Irresistible Dance could stand to affect more targets as a step to bring it in line with its level. On bonus it has over Hideous Laughter is that the target must spend an action to make a save, it is not automatic every turn. So the target at least looses an action. Also, the target does not get an additional save with advantage when it takes damage, as with Hideous Laughter. These mitigating factors, IMHO, don't justify the five level difference in spell levels between the two spells though.

The spelled dancing creature can still use the action to attack, simply do so with disadvantage. Thus the spell is comparable to other low-level spells and features that impose a disadvantage. Moreover, a dancing spell caster that uses the action to cast a spell can do so easily, at full power. Hideous Laughter is better because it simply denies action in the first place.
[MENTION=284]Caliban[/MENTION]. I agree the no-save for the first turn of Irresistible Dance is significant. But all this does is deny a move. But attacks are still possible, especially dangerous spells.

 

[Caliban]

The spelled dancing creature can still use the action to attack, simply do so with disadvantage. Thus the spell is comparable to other low-level spells and features that impose a disadvantage. Moreover, a dancing spell caster that uses the action to cast a spell can do so easily, at full power. Hideous Laughter is better because it simply denies action in the first place.

[MENTION=284]Caliban[/MENTION]. I agree the no-save for the first turn of Irresistible Dance is significant. But all this does is deny a move. But attacks are still possible, especially dangerous spells.

*shrug* You only seem to consider a few specific metrics when measuring a spells power. If you don't understand how to use the spells effectively, then your rating system is meaningless.

 

[Yaarel]

*shrug* You only seem to consider a few specific metrics when measuring a spells power. If you don't understand how to use the spells effectively, then your rating system is meaningless.

That argument leads to madness. A broken dagger would therefore rank as a 9th level spell, because MacGyver could do something amazing with it.

The fact is, some spells are generally more effective more often in more situations, than other spells are. It is possible to seriate them, and their relative values are obvious often enough. Some spells belong at a higher level. Some spells belong at a lower level.

Some spells seem to be doing similar things with approximately the same effectiveness, and these spells belong in the same level.

 

[Caliban]

That argument leads to madness. A broken dagger would therefore rank as a 9th level spell, because MacGyver could do something amazing with it.

The fact is, some spells are generally more effective more often in more situations, than other spells are. It is possible to seriate them, and their relative values are obvious often enough. Some spells belong at a higher level. Some spells belong at a lower level.

Some spells seem to be doing similar things with approximately the same effectiveness, and these spells belong in the same level.

And the fact is I gave you a whole list of differences between the two spells, and your only take away was "a spellcaster can still cast spells, therefore it is useless". As if only spellcasters are a threat.

As far as I can tell, you only seem to consider spells in isolation, and seem to downgrade them based on using the spell in a sub-optimal way. You don't seem to give any consideration to how spells can be used in combination with other spells, or with other party members.

Based on that, I don't think your spell ratings for non-damaging spells are very useful.