Bard Faerie Fire in Tier 1

[FrogReaver]

In my experience, they serve different functions. I'll do all the rigorous stuff for you, since you're obviously not interested in putting too much thought into this. First, your Orc scenario. Four Orcs, and you Dissonant Whispers one. What happens?

Well, you have 65% chance of success, assuming the Bard's Spell Save DC is 14 and your using the standard CR 1/2 Orc Stat Block. So 65% of the time, you will deal 3d6 damage and Fear said singular Orc. 35% of the time you deal half that damage and that's it. The average damage of 3d6 is 10.5 and the average damage of 3d6/2 is 5(yeah, dice math is weird). You can find the average damage that you can expect from casting this spell by using a very simple equation.

(10.5*0.65) + (5*0.35) = 8.575 and a 65% Fear chance.

Faerie Fire is slightly less likely to hit each individual Orc, as they have +1 to Dex Saves vs their +0 to Wis Saves, which is what Dissonant Whispers targets. So, Faerie Fire has a 60% chance to affect each target and a 40% chance to not affect each target. Iterative probability, yada, yada.

1-(0.4^4) = 0.9744 or a 97.44% chance to grant advantage on at least one target. An 82.08% chance of hitting two. A 47.52% chance of hitting three. And a 12.96% chance to hit all four.

Orcs have 13 AC and our non-casters have +6 to Hit (for simplicity, I'm assuming everyone has 18 in their primary attacking stat. Same goes for all my Bard calculations). This means advantage will increase the average DPR of every non-spellcaster in the party by ~25% and a flat +21% chance To Hit (the extra 4% to Damage vs. Hit Chance comes from the potential to crit. Most Parties have 2-3 non-casters, but let's assume 2 just to be fair. Let's go with a Level 2 Fighter w/ a Greatsword and a Warlock using Eldritch Blast + Hex.

They deal 8.05 + 9.38 = 17.43 total DPR.
17.48 * 0.25 = a 4.37 increase to the party's damage per round. If the Faerie Fire stays in play for 2 rounds, it will have contributed a bit more damage than Dissonant Whispers - the 65% chance to Fear. After three rounds, it will have contributed significantly more to damage than Dissonant Whispers would have. Now imagine if you have three Attack Roll-based classes in your party, some of whom, like Moon Druid or Battlemaster, can CC on a successful hit. And your Rogue will love you.

Which is kinda the hidden, true majesty of Faerie Fire. Your party will appreciate you for it, because it makes them do things better.

And as someone else mentioned, one targets Dex and the other targets Wis. One is a single target damage and CC. The other is an indirect AoE Buff/Debuff. Go play a Bard, take both spells, and see what I mean. Theorycrafting in these super limited scenarios will only take you so far. And I have no idea why you think you can generalize the entire experience of playing Tier 1 with this four Orc scenario. And, I've tried to hold back from asking this, cause I feel it's rude, but I have no idea if you have ever played any of the classes your talking about, or even if you've played 5e at all. (I'll believe you if you tell me you have. I just want to make sure we're on the same page in, at the very least, that regard.)

I hate math.

EDIT: Also, for those of you who are confused by the seemingly hyperbolic exasperation, there's some baggage from another thread here.

Convenient of you to ignore even a single OA for the DW user.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This now makes four times I've written out responses to this thread, then decided it was too snarky and started over.

But, yeah, in some situations FF can be a great spell. And in some situations it's not the best choice.

Working as intended.

 

[FrogReaver]

This now makes four times I've written out responses to this thread, then decided it was too snarky and started over.

But, yeah, in some situations FF can be a great spell. And in some situations it's not the best choice.

Working as intended.

What specific typical kinds of situations in tier 1 is it better than dissonant whispers?

 

[BluejayJunior]

I'd take Faerie Fire over Dissonant Whisper for a group of enemies. Especially after Autumn Bask's exceptional analysis.
Even in your example, DW maybe kills one orc if 1-2 melee party members are next to it and have their reactions. But FF makes multiple orcs easier to kill for multiple party members. It's a more impactful long term benefit vs. something quick and flashy.
But you seem to have your mind made up on this anyway.

 

[Mistwell]

Although I disagree with the conclusion of the OP, it is noteworthy that fearyfire has the opportunity cost of your first action in combat and the risk it does nothing at all.
Bless for example could be precast and can't miss. On the otherhand the effect can be quite powerful and also has additional uses so it seems on par, but it no way a spell you should always cast without thinking.
It is very powerful if you get the drop on you ememies and a lot less so if the enemy swarms you before you get to act.
In my opinion that is how a spell should be designed.

Comparing it to Bless is unfair. Bless is a cleric-only spell, and hands down one of the best low level spells in the game. Faerie Fire is a bard and druid only spell, neither of which can even cast bless. They're not designed with a Bless baseline because they're not even on the same lists! Plus Bless is a buff while FF is a debuff, so if you wanted to cross-list compare spells, Bane would be your comparison not Bless.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'd take Faerie Fire over Dissonant Whisper for a group of enemies. Especially after Autumn Bask's exceptional analysis.
Even in your example, DW maybe kills one orc if 1-2 melee party members are next to it and have their reactions. But FF makes multiple orcs easier to kill for multiple party members. It's a more impactful long term benefit vs. something quick and flashy.
But you seem to have your mind made up on this anyway.

Damage now > damage later. Even a little less damage now > a little more damage later. It must be significantly more damage later to make up for not having the damage now.

This is because the number of attacks prevented by killing the first few enemies faster is a difficult advantage to overcame.

 

[Mistwell]

So what you are saying is that if DW works 1 orc is likely instantly dead. A decent chance of instantly killing 1 enemy of 4 is much better than granting advantage to a few IMO

And I disagree with your opinion. It might be more fun from a selfish perspective to kill one rather than debuff many, but the debuff to many will benefit the party more in all likelihood. It's like giving a +5 to all attacks for your allies against multiple foes. That's huge. But someone already did the math for you, you had a minor quibble but pretended it was a refutation of his entire analysis when it was not, and then you dismissed it because it was more convenient than admitting it still meant FF did more damage overall on average.

I am getting the sense this is not a thread where you want other people's views, but is instead a thread for you to tell other people why you're right and everyone else just a poopy pants. But to be clear this is not white rooming for me, I played the bard, I had both spells, and FF was in fact usually the better choice over and over again. And the experience of many many people who played a bard comes to the same conclusion. You can of course come to the opposite conclusion, but unless people see you actually taking people's experience with this issue seriously (when you apparently never even played with it) then it's pretty rational for people to be dismissive back at you.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Comparing it to Bless is unfair. Bless is a cleric-only spell, and hands down one of the best low level spells in the game. Faerie Fire is a bard and druid only spell, neither of which can even cast bless. They're not designed with a Bless baseline because they're not even on the same lists! Plus Bless is a buff while FF is a debuff, so if you wanted to cross-list compare spells, Bane would be your comparison not Bless.

I can compare it. Bless serves a different pupose: lower enemy chance to hit and to increase chance of a failed saving throw.
Bless and faery fire have the same purpose: increasing your chance to hit.
Of course it is a bit unfair, and still, I can point out why bless has less opportunity cost to cast in some circumstances. As already discussed at length, to be a good cast, you need to do enough damage later to actually be better than magic missile (guaranteed damage immediately). The cost gets higher if you remember that casting bless delays spiritual weapon and so on.

Faery fire actually is still a good spell. Your accuracy increase is higher than the one of bless. It can also potentially affect the whole party.
But it is important to compare it to one of the best spells in the game to better know its limits.

 

[BluejayJunior]

Damage now > damage later. Even a little less damage now > a little more damage later. It must be significantly more damage later to make up for not having the damage now.

This is because the number of attacks prevented by killing the first few enemies faster is a difficult advantage to overcame.

I agree that damage now is better than damage later. That's why I would rather hit the orcs with faerie fire on the first round of combat to allow my party members advantage from the start, rather than wait until the perfect set up of an orc next to 2 characters to hit it with DW to try to get it to provoke OAs.
In your exact scenario where there is already an orc next to characters and they haven't already killed it, then maybe DW will be better. But FF will be more beneficial to the battle as a whole.

 

[5ekyu]

And I disagree with your opinion. It might be more fun from a selfish perspective to kill one rather than debuff many, but the debuff to many will benefit the party more in all likelihood. It's like giving a +5 to all attacks for your allies against multiple foes. That's huge. But someone already did the math for you, you had a minor quibble but pretended it was a refutation of his entire analysis when it was not, and then you dismissed it because it was more convenient than admitting it still meant FF did more damage overall on average.

I am getting the sense this is not a thread where you want other people's views, but is instead a thread for you to tell other people why you're right and everyone else just a poopy pants. But to be clear this is not white rooming for me, I played the bard, I had both spells, and FF was in fact usually the better choice over and over again. And the experience of many many people who played a bard comes to the same conclusion. You can of course come to the opposite conclusion, but unless people see you actually taking people's experience with this issue seriously (when you apparently never even played with it) then it's pretty rational for people to be dismissive back at you.

Agreed.

preference driven assumptions to drive scope restricted cases and myopic "analysis"... yup.