Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9467063" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Simply put, while I recognize the value here (if you can get 30 damage from a 3rd-level spell slot, that's pretty solid), I don't see the gushing appeal, where this spell is rated as almost universally &quot;excellent,&quot; while other spells with similar limitations aren't. Frex, the Celestial patron's guardian of faith is ranked as barely passable, despite being 60-70 damage so long as enemies do in fact move within 10' of the guardian (meaning, a 25' wide corridor)--and whether enemies pass or fail their save, they still take damage, plus the guardian keeps going if enemies pass their saves.I guess the optimization guides are expecting you to pair it with other sources of non-AC damage mitigation, so that the THP last longer? It still always seemed like a risky bet. That said, I think I may have under-valued it somewhat because I thought you dealt damage equal to the THP you currently have, rather than a fixed 5 (times slot level) every hit.For comparison though, I have an 8th level Warlock right now, so I don't quite have access to the maximum level spell slots and am still working with just the two you start with. My flaming sphere and sickening radiance have both done far, far more than 40 damage from a single casting. Admittedly, that is with concentration...but the point still stands that the slot usage is simply more efficient.I can certainly see why this is a good spell, one worth having on hand. But I don't see why it is so effusively, overwhelmingly praised as being OMG AWESOME. It's good. It's not THAT good.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9467063, member: 6790260"] Simply put, while I recognize the value here ([I]if[/I] you can get 30 damage from a 3rd-level spell slot, that's pretty solid), I don't see the gushing appeal, where this spell is rated as almost universally "excellent," while other spells with similar limitations aren't. Frex, the Celestial patron's [I]guardian of faith[/I] is ranked as barely passable, despite being 60-70 damage so long as enemies do in fact move within 10' of the guardian (meaning, a 25' wide corridor)--and whether enemies pass or fail their save, they still take damage, [I]plus[/I] the guardian keeps going if enemies pass their saves. I guess the optimization guides are expecting you to pair it with other sources of non-AC damage mitigation, so that the THP last longer? It still always seemed like a risky bet. That said, I think I may have under-valued it somewhat because I thought you dealt damage [I]equal to the THP you currently have[/I], rather than a fixed 5 (times slot level) every hit. For comparison though, I have an 8th level Warlock right now, so I don't quite have access to the maximum level spell slots and am still working with just the two you start with. My [I]flaming sphere[/I] and [I]sickening radiance[/I] have both done far, far more than 40 damage from a single casting. Admittedly, that is with concentration...but the point still stands that the slot usage is simply more efficient. I can certainly see why this is a good spell, one worth having on hand. But I don't see why it is so effusively, overwhelmingly praised as being OMG AWESOME. It's good. It's not THAT good. [/QUOTE]

Verification