D&D 5E Bless and Bane spell

[briareios]

Simple question. Bless (and Bane) add 1d4 to ALL Attacks and save or only to 1 attack or 1 save then end?

 

[KarinsDad]

All attacks. All saves.

That could theoretically be 15, 20, or more attacks and saves. But for practical purposes, it's probably more like 5 to 10 max, depending on PC level and encounter difficulty.

 

[Paraxis]

Since both are concentration spells, the caster becomes a priority target of any intelligent opponents so depending on the targets and initiative order the spell might not even give the modifier once.

Each time the caster takes damage he must make a Con save DC 10 or half the damage whichever is higher or lose concentration of the spell.

So cleric goes, blesses his teammates then an enemy goes and attacks the cleric, he fails to maintain and what was potentially an encounter long buff of significant impact is now a wasted spell slot.

 

[Agamon]

Since both are concentration spells, the caster becomes a priority target of any intelligent opponents so depending on the targets and initiative order the spell might not even give the modifier once.

In any game I ran, they'd have to be pretty intelligent. It's not like Bless or Bane creates an obvious in-game effect. I might see an opposing cleric maybe noticing or someone with super-tactical "Admiral Thrawn" type insight. It's like being made more or less lucky, not supercharged with glowing power.

Otherwise, I just feel like I'm using GM metagame knowledge that most GMs don't like players using.

 

[KarinsDad]

In any game I ran, they'd have to be pretty intelligent. It's not like Bless or Bane creates an obvious in-game effect. I might see an opposing cleric maybe noticing or someone with super-tactical "Admiral Thrawn" type insight. It's like being made more or less lucky, not supercharged with glowing power.

Otherwise, I just feel like I'm using GM metagame knowledge that most GMs don't like players using.

Agreed.

On the other hand, many clerics are melee types. So, there are going to be some combats where the cleric gets pounded on anyway.

 

[Paraxis]

IMHO any non animal intelligence level opponent could and should make an intelligence (arcana) check to know the function of a spell they can see being cast whether there is a visible effect or not.

If a caster waves his hands around and says magic words, you know something is up.

 

[Prism]

IMHO any non animal intelligence level opponent could and should make an intelligence (arcana) check to know the function of a spell they can see being cast whether there is a visible effect or not.

If a caster waves his hands around and says magic words, you know something is up.

Yeah. I might make the DC quite hard but give advantage on spells that the character knows/casts. This type of check can benefit the pcs as much as the monsters when we play

 

[Juriel]

In any game I ran, they'd have to be pretty intelligent. It's not like Bless or Bane creates an obvious in-game effect. I might see an opposing cleric maybe noticing or someone with super-tactical "Admiral Thrawn" type insight. It's like being made more or less lucky, not supercharged with glowing power.

Otherwise, I just feel like I'm using GM metagame knowledge that most GMs don't like players using.

I dunno... Would PCs just get Baned without a clue as to where it came from, or would they get told the orc Shaman gesticulated and pointed a gnarly finger at them, and then they were baned? With all the verbal and somatic components casting requires, it's not exactly stealthy.

Unless we're talking like animals, they don't know any better. But anything with Int 6 or more, I'm pretty sure cause and effect (and superstitions about shamanistic dancing doing stuff) are within their ballpark of understanding.

 

[Agamon]

IMHO any non animal intelligence level opponent could and should make an intelligence (arcana) check to know the function of a spell they can see being cast whether there is a visible effect or not.

If a caster waves his hands around and says magic words, you know something is up.

This is what I get for posting when I should be sleeping. Yeah, I'd allow an Arcana check, but it would probably have a hard DC if there was no visual effect.

 

[Bryk]

I'm going to use passive arcana checks for stuff like this. Essentially, if a passive check covers it, and it isn't actively taking an action to do it, then you can know it. If you have to focus on thinking about something(active, then you have to roll).

For instance, if a creature has a base arcana of 10, they'd know what concentration spells are, plain and simple. Any creature with a base passive unskilled intelligence check of 10 would know well enough to not just mindlessly attack the nearest target. That is just to "know" automatically, if that isn't sufficient and a creature is curious etc, they can take their action to make a roll to determine if they can figure it out.

I think it keeps things moving along, and allows for fun game play.