'Cure Wounds' is D&D's Most Popular Spell

It's been a while since I've posted a data update from D&D Beyond (we've already seen the most common adventures, classes by tier, and subclasses, and more). This time it's the turn of spells, as the D&D Beyond developers reveal the post popular spells both overall and broken down by class.

​

The most popular spell is cure wounds. These spells are either picked as a known spell or is explicitly prepared from all spellcasters. Most skew to lower levels because most D&D games are played at lower levels.

​

 

[Mistwell]

Wait, I'm confused. I thought we were talking about level 5 warlocks, so that ad_hoc could maximize the number of spells of level 3+ that warlocks get relative to other casters. Now you want to switch to level 2-4 warlocks, so you can minimize the number of invocations. Can we get on the same page, please? I understand that levels 6 and higher simply don't exist, but I'm not clear on where we are in the 2-5 range.

OK fine, 1/3 of your choices rather than 50%. That doesn't change the premise of what I am saying.

 

[Dausuul]

I mean, the vast majority of players don't really understand nor care about character optimization. Especially not when presented with the option: Do you want to use Force Lightning? Because this is basically Force Lightning.

I suspect it's because witch bolt is one of the spells recommended in the PHB for a "Quick Build" warlock.

Personally, I think eldritch blast makes a much better proxy for Force Lightning. But I guess it depends on whether you prefer your Force Lightning to deal force damage or lightning damage.

 

[Dausuul]

OK fine, 1/3 of your choices rather than 50%. That doesn't change the premise of what I am saying.

Actually, it substantially undercuts what you're saying. Two non-AB invocations is far less limiting than one.

In addition, there is my other point which you ignored: By allowing you to deal martial-level damage with at-will attacks, AB gives you a lot more flexibility in how you use your spell slots. You don't have to rely on them to keep up on damage, which means you can afford to use them out of combat now and then.

 

[abirdcall]

Oh, come on. It's one invocation slot. It does not "vastly" diminish anything. There is certainly an opportunity cost, but it is hardly "vast." Furthermore, it gives you far more flexibility in using your spell slots - see below.


The problem with this is that while you get "gas" far cheaper than traditional casters, your tank is tiny. If you are relying too heavily on your spell slots to do all the work, it is very easy to run dry and find yourself empty at a critical moment. Nor can you concentrate all that firepower where it counts.

You cannot assume that every day is going to be precisely average. How many leveled spells are you going to cast per combat? If you go with the average and cast one per fight, and the DM throws a sequence at you where you have three battles in rapid succession culminating in a boss fight, you will enter that boss fight with nothing left in the tank. Not only that, but if you ever want to use any of those spell slots for non-combat purposes, it comes out of your combat "budget."

Having a powerful at-will attack - either eldritch blast with Agonizing Blast, or a weapon attack with Thirsting Blade - frees you from relying on your very limited spell slots. You can rely on your at-will option in the easy fights, and conserve your spell slots for when you really need them.

So because one day may have 4 big fights in a row, not taking EB and Agonizing Blast to end up doing a few less damage creates a severely weakened character?

Come on.

 

[Mistwell]

Actually, it substantially undercuts what you're saying. Two non-AB invocations is far less limiting than one.

I disagree. 1/3 of your choices is a very meaningful opportunity cost. I don't think that's a controversial position.

In addition, there is my other point which you ignored: By allowing you to deal martial-level damage with at-will attacks, AB gives you a lot more flexibility in how you use your spell slots. You don't have to rely on them to keep up on damage, which means you can afford to use them out of combat now and then.

You can do that even without Agonizing Blast. It's not THAT huge a jump in damage, and as any people have demonstrated, you don't even need Eldritch Blast to do martial-level damage with at-will attack on a Warlock. See for example Treantmonk's Hexblade build.

 

[Dausuul]

I disagree. 1/3 of your choices is a very meaningful opportunity cost. I don't think that's a controversial position.

Meaningful? Of course it is meaningful. That is not controversial. What is controversial is the claim that it "vastly diminishes the depth and flexibility of your PC."

You can do that even without Agonizing Blast. It's not THAT huge a jump in damage, and as any people have demonstrated, you don't even need Eldritch Blast to do martial-level damage with at-will attack on a Warlock. See for example Treantmonk's Hexblade build.

Hmm, let's have a look at that build... Improved Pact Weapon off the bat. Thirsting Blade at 5th. There go two of your three invocation slots. What happened to depth and flexibility?

 

[Mistwell]

Meaningful? Of course it is meaningful. That is not controversial. What is controversial is the claim that it "vastly diminishes the depth and flexibility of your PC."


Hmm, let's have a look at that build... Improved Pact Weapon off the bat. Thirsting Blade at 5th. There go two of your three invocation slots. What happened to depth and flexibility?

I'd say that build has a lot of flexibility, but in addition you're becoming a moving target. You claimed AB was needed to let you use your spells for utility. I showed you one of many builds where EB isn't even used, and yet he STILL uses his spells for utility. You are well aware my point was not "let's all slavishly follow just this build" but rather was "your claim about AB being necessary to keep up with martial-type damage is flawed".

I am getting tired of the back and forth and the sub-quoting. It's looking petty. I don't want to play this silly t1t-for-tat game with you Dausuul, particularly since I feel you're not addressing the premise of my arguments but are instead trying to nit pick individual points and substitute that for an actual discussion about the thesis. Can we stop that please?

 

[Dausuul]

I am getting tired of the back and forth and the sub-quoting. It's looking petty. I don't want to play this silly t1t-for-tat game with you Dausuul, particularly since I feel you're not addressing the premise of my arguments but are instead trying to nit pick individual points and substitute that for an actual discussion about the thesis. Can we stop that please?

Fair. I will go back to my original point that started this debate. Summarizing a couple of my posts:

Eldritch blast is significantly better than other attack cantrips. By itself, it is already in the top tier (1d10 damage, good range, damage type that is resisted by almost nothing); but, in addition, it has growth potential that no other cantrip does, because Agonizing Blast can be used to boost its damage output by 55-90%.

Note that this was about attack cantrips. A hexblade's pact weapon will match or even outperform eldritch blast. I have never claimed or suggested otherwise. But a weapon attack is not a cantrip, unless you are using green-flame blade or booming blade, and I do believe eldritch blast is superior to those spells, though not by nearly as large a margin.

Now, as the debate shifted, I put forward another claim, which I'll summarize as:

While there is an opportunity cost to Agonizing Blast, that opportunity cost--while significant--is not huge, and it is more than offset by the flexibility gained from not having to burn your few spell slots compensating for lack of damage.

A hexblade can certainly substitute Thirsting Blade for Agonizing Blast here. Either way, you are using an invocation slot to boost your at-will damage. I contend that this is a worthwhile investment that--assuming you want to contribute significantly in combat--increases flexibility rather than decreasing it.

Of course, if you don't want to contribute significantly in combat, all this is moot and your choice of attack cantrips (or weapon attacks) is irrelevant.

So: There are my theses. If you would like to state yours, we can go from there and disregard the previous back-and-forth.