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

[UngeheuerLich]

Still a bit disappointing. But not as much as aghanazims scorcher which used to last for a second round in 2e.
More to the point: a fine spell for a necromancer who gets somwthing out of necromantic spells.
A little rider however would have been nice.

 

[Ancalagon]

... does it affect undead? Because if you can blast a party in a furious fight with your skeletons with that, hit the PCs but leave your minions unaffected, that would be pretty good .

 

[Bacon Bits]

I would still take the range, AoE, and targeting from 3.5e Horrid Wilting.

It's level 8. Hardly anyone will cast it anyways. Make it worth thinking about.

 

[Nikosandros]

... does it affect undead? Because if you can blast a party in a furious fight with your skeletons with that, hit the PCs but leave your minions unaffected, that would be pretty good .

Constructs and undead are immune.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

.
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.

While you are completely right with all you said about analysis and arbitrary numbers, I don't think the time is wasted.
What it may help for is deciding which spell has a higher probability of being useful if you have no information about the DM or campaign you will play with.
If you chose a spell that only works against very few monsters and nothing against others, you might better select a more general tool. If you then encounter only monsters the other spell is more effective against, that is bad luck and still happens frequently.
ADHW however is coming sooo late in your career, you know probably if it is worth to have a special tool for special situations or not and thus the spell just has to be good enough to be better in those situations.

 

[Sacrosanct]

While you are completely right with all you said about analysis and arbitrary numbers, I don't think the time is wasted.
What it may help for is deciding which spell has a higher probability of being useful if you have no information about the DM or campaign you will play with.
If you chose a spell that only works against very few monsters and nothing against others, you might better select a more general tool. If you then encounter only monsters the other spell is more effective against, that is bad luck and still happens frequently.
ADHW however is coming sooo late in your career, you know probably if it is worth to have a special tool for special situations or not and thus the spell just has to be good enough to be better in those situations.

That post was from a while ago and I don’t recall the exact context. So for simplicity and diplomacy’s sake, you are absolutely correct.

 

[Immoralkickass]

Just a note, Treantmonk rated this spell as red, and I agree with him. The spell is bad AND boring, there's no sugarcoating it.

Next week: People defending Immolation with reasons.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That post was from a while ago and I don’t recall the exact context. So for simplicity and diplomacy’s sake, you are absolutely correct.

Yay. I won the internet...

Sent from my GT-I9506 using EN World mobile app

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Just a note, Treantmonk rated this spell as red, and I agree with him. The spell is bad AND boring, there's no sugarcoating it.

Next week: People defending Immolation with reasons.

I would question treantmonks absolute authority there.
His ratings are not always good.
I agreed earlier that the spell could have been a bit more interesting.
After the upgrade in xanathar however the damage at least is more appropriate. As a necromancer you may add riders. Or even better as death cleric necromancer multiclass.
It is good to have a more unusual damage type which may pierce through common defenses. If I chose blindly which elemental defense to raise before a combat against wizards, it is fire. As we know every wizard uses fireball.
The creature that resist necrotic can be used as allies. A death cleric can also make you immune or at least resistant to necrotic damage.
The added rider that all normal plants wither in the cube can be used to great effect against creatures hiding. Not burning down a building may also be useful sometimes.

Immolation however is bad. I really don't understand that while you are burning you don't at least suffer from the same disadvantage as if heat metal was used on you, i.e. disadvantage on everything.

 

[CapnZapp]

I would question treantmonks absolute authority there.
His ratings are not always good.
I agreed earlier that the spell could have been a bit more interesting.
After the upgrade in xanathar however the damage at least is more appropriate. As a necromancer you may add riders. Or even better as death cleric necromancer multiclass.
It is good to have a more unusual damage type which may pierce through common defenses. If I chose blindly which elemental defense to raise before a combat against wizards, it is fire. As we know every wizard uses fireball.
The creature that resist necrotic can be used as allies. A death cleric can also make you immune or at least resistant to necrotic damage.
The added rider that all normal plants wither in the cube can be used to great effect against creatures hiding. Not burning down a building may also be useful sometimes.

Immolation however is bad. I really don't understand that while you are burning you don't at least suffer from the same disadvantage as if heat metal was used on you, i.e. disadvantage on everything.

He gave the original spell a garbage rating.

He is entirely correct.

Why WotC would spend time and effort on changing the spell, and MAYBE have it climb up into orange/mediocre status, is still baffling however.



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app