D&D 5E (2024) Circle Casting is gonna break a lot of games

[SkidAce]

But that example is a REALLY inefficient use of their resources. If players are making those choices, the only way circle casting will "break" games is by making combats a lot harder on players who can't math.

I'll be watching it...

 

[ECMO3]

I see you still are ignoring how SG does damage over time, and to multiple targets. And now suddenly are factoring in saves but aren't factoring in attack roll misses. Interesting...

I did factor in attack rolls and misses and critical hits and I did factor in multiple targets - those multiple targets being the two bad guys that would be inside your expanded SG.

If you cast regular spirit guardians and then on the Fighters turn if he goes and makes 2 attacks here are the possibilities:

1. Hits 0 times (25% chance) - 0 damage
2. Hits 1 time (50% chance) - 23 damage (12 slashing from the attack + 11 Radiant from SG)
3. Hits 2 times (25% chance) - 47 damage (24 slashing from the attack + 23 Radiant from SG)

This isn't a cherry picked example. This is a common encounter type.

This is what you picked to show your point and it actually shows the opposite.

SG is a weak play for this scenario anyway, circle SG is just a weaker play. If your Cleric is going to use a 3rd level slot upcast Hold Person or upcast Command are the best plays here IMO depending on initiative order.

If the initiative order is Cleric first or if it is Fighter first and Cleric last, then the best Cleric play IMO is upcast HP targeting the Cult Fanatic and one of the Hobs. If it is any other initiative the best play is upcast Command targeting the Fanatic and 2 Hobs. I think both of those are going to generally be more effective than SG in this scenario.

So you accused me of cherry picking, then literally had to ignore several of the links (literally every other one) I provided to find one that supported you? That's rich. Also doesn't prove your claim.

The math that follows does prove my claim - in the scenario you provided to prove your point it is mathematically extremely unlikely that you will get SG damage round over round.

This is not true at all, but another assumption. I said earlier about the red flags.

Yeah I expected this. That is why I said in there you tell me what assumptions you want me to make and I will mathematically show you are still wrong. I think my assumptions are reasonable, if you don't like my assumptions, then you pick the assumptions for the scenario that you laid down.

Unless the assumption is stupid enemy or unrealistic PC builds/gear, then I am confident the math will show in my favor.

Go ahead, tell me what assumptions you want me to use!

 

[Zardnaar]

I did factor in attack rolls and misses misses and critical hits and I did factor in multiple targets - those multiple targets being the two bad guys that would be inside your expanded SG.

On the Fighters turn if he goes and makes 2 attacks here are the possibilities:

1. Hits 0 times (25% chance) - 0 damage
2. Hits 1 time (50% chance) - 23 damage (12 slashing + 11 Radiant)
3. Hits 2 times (25% chance) - 47 damage (24 slashing + 23 Radiant)





This is what you picked to show your point.

SG is a weak play for this scenario anyway circle SG is just a weaker play. If your Cleric is going to use a 3rd level slot upcast Hold Person or upcast Command are the plays here depending on initiative.

IF the initiative order is Cleric first or if it is Fighter first and Cleric last, then the best play IMO is upcast HP targeting the Cult Fanatic and one of the Hobs. If it is any other initiative the best play is upcast command targeting the Fanatic and 2 Hobs. Both of those are going to be much more effective than SG.



The math that follows does prove my claim - in the scenario you provided to prove your point it is mathematically extremely unlikely that you will get SG damage round over round.



Yeah I expected this. That is why I said in there you tell me what assumptions you want me to make and I will mathematically prove you wrong. You don't like my assumptions, then you pick the assumptions for the scenario that you laid down!

Unless the assumption is stupid enemy or unrealistic PC builds/gear, then I am confident the math will show in my favor.

Go ahead, tell me what assumptions you want me to use!

My assumptions are a lot easier.

Generally its can you do something better in PHB and how likely it matters in a real game.

1. Long range. So barely matters in real games.

2. Extended spells. Some cleric ones sure. Extended foresight who cares its not even a broken 9th level spell.

3. Increasing spell area. This could be situationally useful. Would need to see it though. Its not hard to meet the cleric around with spirit guardians for example.

Its a feat right? Wouldn't warcaster be better 90% of the time?

 

[ECMO3]

Its a feat right? Wouldn't warcaster be better 90% of the time?

It is not a feat. Any two casters can Circle a spell as long as they are within 30 feet.

The issue with it is the action cost, the spell slot cost (for some uses), the risk of losing concentration and the initiative/flow/timing costs.

The guy earlier was talking about expanded SG and sure in some highly situational scenarios that will be better. But just think; even if the other PC had nothing better to do on their turn, instead of circling it they could cast it with the smaller area and then walk around getting a bunch of enemies on the casters first turn. So is it really better to use more spell slots more actions and risk losing concentration during the casting just to increase the AOE to something you could have evffectively got with movement after casting on your turn anyway? It is going to be very rare that this is a big tactical advantage.

 

[Clint_L]

The thing with white room examples is that you can come up with a scenario where almost any spell or combination of spells, abilities, etc. can seem OP, and that is true of circle casting as well. But when you start mathing out more typical situations, I'm not seeing it as particularly impressive. I can see situations where it might be fun and advantageous, but I'm just not seeing how it will be "game breaking," per the thread's title. Mostly, I think it'll be used for flavour or for when the DM wants to justify some over the top magic effect for story purposes.

And even when you look at some of the white room examples...they aren't that great. At all. Some of them seem pretty sub-par, to be honest, once you run the math.

I think it's because some of the effects people are describing are really big and flamboyant, which sort of disguises the fact that the numbers aren't actually that good or useful in typical game situations ("X now has a range of a mile!!!" "Okay, but the biggest room in the dungeon is 80 feet."). To me, it's kind of the reverse of weapon masteries - when those were introduced a lot folks were like "they're okay, not that powerful, nice little bonus." But if you did the math most masteries were actually amazing, a much bigger power boost than widely anticipated (and than widely appreciated even now).

 

[Horwath]

Yup, I'm going to require casters to be trained (a feat) in this esoteric arcane ability to participate.

talk about a feat that no one will take?
what else will the feat give?

 

[ECMO3]

To me, it's kind of the reverse of weapon masteries - when those were introduced a lot folks were like "they're okay, not that powerful, nice little bonus." But if you did the math most masteries were actually amazing, a much bigger power boost than widely anticipated (and than widely appreciated even now).

Agreed. The biggest "shortfall" of weapon masteries is that they are frequently forgotten. Players forget they hit the bad guy last round and have advantage due to vex this round or they forget to call for the topple save after they hit with their first attack using extra attack and end up attacking a second time without advantage.

 

[Distracted DM]

Agreed. The biggest "shortfall" of weapon masteries is that they are frequently forgotten. Players forget they hit the bad guy last round and have advantage due to vex this round or they forget to call for the topple save after they hit with their first attack using extra attack and end up attacking a second time without advantage.

It's funny how true this is. We play A5E , but someone wanted to make a 5e24 character with weapon masteries... They have yet to remember to use them (and this is an optimizer character-build-loving player). It's early days in the game, so it could just be an adjustment thing, but still... Funny.

 

[Horwath]

Agreed. The biggest "shortfall" of weapon masteries is that they are frequently forgotten. Players forget they hit the bad guy last round and have advantage due to vex this round or they forget to call for the topple save after they hit with their first attack using extra attack and end up attacking a second time without advantage.

problem is that weapon masteries have limited usage, sure you will always try to use your primary weapon, but it would be better if they are made as BM maneuvers.
So you can pick between few options after every attack.

also it would help if Weapon master feat is not pathetically weak. 3 or 4 masteries for feat would be OK.

 

[ECMO3]

problem is that weapon masteries have limited usage, sure you will always try to use your primary weapon, but it would be better if they are made as BM maneuvers.
So you can pick between few options after every attack.

I don't see this as an issue in play, especially if you are a fighter as you get a bunch of weapon masteries and at level 9 the ability to use ones other than the one for that weapon. More often than not I have more masteries than I have weapons when playing a fighter.

The limited number can be an issue for a Rogue, Ranger or Paladin, but I think that is part of making the Fighter and Barbarian unique.

also it would help if Weapon master feat is not pathetically weak. 3 or 4 masteries for feat would be OK.

The feat is very weak, but it is worth considering for a Bladelock, Valor Bard or Bladesinger and if you are not going to take the feat you really should consider multiclassing for mastery.