Yup : )
I was told to have my mind prepared for level 2 spells, because there was a huge change that we get to level 2.
If you have any comments on my cantrips I would be happy to hear it : )
D&D 5E Fire Bolt vs other Wizzard offensive cantrips
- Thread starter Inoeex
- Start date
Yup : )
I was told to have my mind prepared for level 2 spells, because there was a huge change that we get to level 2.
If you have any comments on my cantrips I would be happy to hear it : )
I was going to point out that one of the balancing factors between Fire Bolt and other cantrips like Acid Splash is that Fire Bolt suffers disadvantage if an enemy gets adjacent to you before you cast it, while the 'save or take damage' cantrips can be cast while an enemy is adjacent without penalty. Then I saw this:
Oh, the glorious odor of cheese. Sadly, it works a little differently than the writer envisions.
First off, the various Image spells create 'objects, creatures, or visible manifestations'. In a later post, the writer compares the created illusion with Darkness, but the intent of the Image definition is that the illusion be something tangible, and darkness is not tangible ("An illusory object made by minor illusion is meant to be like a stool or a rock, not an atmospheric effect....The system doesn't treat light or darkness as an object. An object is something tangible.", Jeremy Crawford, 16 Sep 2015 (from Twitter))
The caster gets around this problem by proposing an opaque dome rather than a 'zone of darkness', but that just creates other problems...
As far as I'm aware, there is nothing in the rules, either in the description of the Image spells or in the general spellcasting rules, that says that a caster is immune to the effect of his own spells, including illusion spells. You can automatically Dispel your own spells (see Dispel Magic), but not automatically ignore the effects of them. Since the caster would not be able to spend an action to interact with the illusion until his next round, the caster would be unable to see through it on the round he cast it.
You might argue that this violates common sense, and that someone who creates an illusion should be aware that the creation is an illusion -- but if a caster is immune to his own illusion spells, would that mean he can ignore the effect of his own Silence spell (a 2nd level illusion spell)?
Note as well the phrases "[p]hysical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion...If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the creature can see through the image...." As noted by other posters, the first time something physically interacts with the illusion, the illusion is revealed and it stops limiting every creature in the combat (including the caster) at that point. Simply having an enemy walk through the illusionary dome would reveal it to everyone in the combat, and it would cease having any effect on the combat immediately.
General rule of thumb: if the interpretation of a low-level spell seems way out of balance for its power level, then the interpretation is wrong.
--
Pauper
Oh, the glorious odor of cheese. Sadly, it works a little differently than the writer envisions.
First off, the various Image spells create 'objects, creatures, or visible manifestations'. In a later post, the writer compares the created illusion with Darkness, but the intent of the Image definition is that the illusion be something tangible, and darkness is not tangible ("An illusory object made by minor illusion is meant to be like a stool or a rock, not an atmospheric effect....The system doesn't treat light or darkness as an object. An object is something tangible.", Jeremy Crawford, 16 Sep 2015 (from Twitter))
The caster gets around this problem by proposing an opaque dome rather than a 'zone of darkness', but that just creates other problems...
As far as I'm aware, there is nothing in the rules, either in the description of the Image spells or in the general spellcasting rules, that says that a caster is immune to the effect of his own spells, including illusion spells. You can automatically Dispel your own spells (see Dispel Magic), but not automatically ignore the effects of them. Since the caster would not be able to spend an action to interact with the illusion until his next round, the caster would be unable to see through it on the round he cast it.
You might argue that this violates common sense, and that someone who creates an illusion should be aware that the creation is an illusion -- but if a caster is immune to his own illusion spells, would that mean he can ignore the effect of his own Silence spell (a 2nd level illusion spell)?
Note as well the phrases "[p]hysical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion...If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the creature can see through the image...." As noted by other posters, the first time something physically interacts with the illusion, the illusion is revealed and it stops limiting every creature in the combat (including the caster) at that point. Simply having an enemy walk through the illusionary dome would reveal it to everyone in the combat, and it would cease having any effect on the combat immediately.
General rule of thumb: if the interpretation of a low-level spell seems way out of balance for its power level, then the interpretation is wrong.
--
Pauper
One could argue that smoke is not only something that you physically interact with, but something whose interaction is very apparent. Anyone whose ever waved a mosquito out of their face near a camp fire would know how smoke looks when someone moves around within it's boundary.
Which raises the question, does illusory smoke displace when you move through it like regular smoke?
Creamsteak
Explorer
Firebolt, like many other fire spells, is just a straight-up damage cantrip. It's going to be good at that.
Poison Spray or whatever can do slightly more damage, but you practically need spell sniper to make it hit anything.
Acid does slightly more average damage if you can get two targets with it.
On the opposite end of the scale, you've got much lower damage cantrips that have really strong utility.
It seems fairly reasonable to me as it is.
Poison Spray or whatever can do slightly more damage, but you practically need spell sniper to make it hit anything.
Acid does slightly more average damage if you can get two targets with it.
On the opposite end of the scale, you've got much lower damage cantrips that have really strong utility.
It seems fairly reasonable to me as it is.
Leatherhead
Possibly a Idiot.
Well, a smoke bomb isn't exactly regular smoke out of a fire pit, and arrows are known for being aerodynamic. Such a displacement would be hard to spot in the middle of combat from 100' away or so. And that's assuming that they are looking for such things to begin with.
Keep in mind, (dis)advantage is meant to be handed out for such things, in order to facilitate roleplay in the middle of combat. And if you get a bit tired of smoke everywhere, you could simply stop using so many mook archers against your party to target the back row. Such minor tricks don't hold much traction for melee grunts, and monsters of significant consequence tend to have abilities to mitigate these things.
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
Creating a stationary region of heavy obscurement is pretty in-line with other 1st level spells like Fog Cloud, and the mobile heavy obscurement which is Darkness.
Of course, you don't need magic to pull this off. Heavy foliage works as heavy obscurement too. It's probably more likely to get used against the PCs than by them, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Limited visibility is a very powerful environmental effect in 5E. Ironically, under 5E rules, concealment is sometimes even better than cover. Strange but true. (Naturally you'd prefer to have both.)
Sword of Spirit
Legend
Well I'm glad to see that plenty of people think ray of frost is fine, so maybe it's not objectively weak. Myself, I'm still having a hard time with it. Every other standard attack cantrip I can get behind--but ray of frost just seems the weakest to me. I suppose what people said about it being useful for support makes sense...but I guess that's not how I see a wizard thinking in terms of blasting spells. I tend to create characters in a vacuum, rather than to be part of a party. (And when I think of an NPC wizard, I don't think he picks his precious cantrips knowing he's going to leading a bunch of minions at some future evil scheming day.) Sure, if I'm a wizard that likes cold I'd probably go with what I want, but there's still that nagging feeling that I'm kind of getting ripped off.
pming
Legend
Hiya!
My suggestion would be entirely based on the type of game your DM likes to run. If he/she is a hard-core "if it's not in the book forget it!" type of DM...then yeah, Fire Bolt is probably the "best" for damage.
However, if he/she is more loose and "would that be a cool story/campaign thing?" type of DM...then no...unless you are only looking at damage dealing aspects of the spell.
Ray of Frost? One of my players had his caster (wizard? can't remember...) cast Ray of Frost on the rusted iron bolts to a big dungeon door...then immediately cast Fire Bolt on it. The intent was stated as trying to 'break/weaken' the metal enough to allow the party to get through the door. I said yes, and the player (and other players) enjoyed the "outside-the-box" type of thinking. I let a Wizard PC cast "Thunderwave" (or whatever that spell was called), specifically to try and cause a section of an obviously unstable corridor to collapse in order to block it off from a rather horrible monster coming down the hallway. Yup, I let that work too (after some dice rolls; it worked too well, collapsing much more of that area of the dungeon...and then some!). Again, cool visuals and outcomes. I encourage my players to use stuff (spells, abilities, items, whatever) in unusual ways to try and overcome things. It's FAR more fun then just looking at "the numbers" and concluding something can't be done because that's what the rules say. Ick.
So...talk to your DM and find out how he/she feels about using spells "for stuff they weren't intended". Then use that to maybe rethink your characters choices.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
My suggestion would be entirely based on the type of game your DM likes to run. If he/she is a hard-core "if it's not in the book forget it!" type of DM...then yeah, Fire Bolt is probably the "best" for damage.
However, if he/she is more loose and "would that be a cool story/campaign thing?" type of DM...then no...unless you are only looking at damage dealing aspects of the spell.
Ray of Frost? One of my players had his caster (wizard? can't remember...) cast Ray of Frost on the rusted iron bolts to a big dungeon door...then immediately cast Fire Bolt on it. The intent was stated as trying to 'break/weaken' the metal enough to allow the party to get through the door. I said yes, and the player (and other players) enjoyed the "outside-the-box" type of thinking. I let a Wizard PC cast "Thunderwave" (or whatever that spell was called), specifically to try and cause a section of an obviously unstable corridor to collapse in order to block it off from a rather horrible monster coming down the hallway. Yup, I let that work too (after some dice rolls; it worked too well, collapsing much more of that area of the dungeon...and then some!). Again, cool visuals and outcomes. I encourage my players to use stuff (spells, abilities, items, whatever) in unusual ways to try and overcome things. It's FAR more fun then just looking at "the numbers" and concluding something can't be done because that's what the rules say. Ick.
So...talk to your DM and find out how he/she feels about using spells "for stuff they weren't intended". Then use that to maybe rethink your characters choices.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
JiffyPopTart
Bree-Yark
5e encourages creativity.
Let your winter wizard take Fire Bolt only call it Cold Snap and change the damage type to cold. Similarly let the fire wizard take Ray of Frost and instead call it Hot Foot and do fire damage along with slowing the opponent.
Don't be so hung up on ONLY using exactly what is printed in the book.
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
Hahaha!
I prefer for all evil NPC wizards to be inclined towards megalomaniac far-planning. It's why they go into wizardry in the first place. If you think it's weird and obsessive how parents raise their kids with expectations of going to Harvard, just wait till you meet a wizard who has spent his life genuinely expecting to become the world's next Evil Overlord when his plans come to fruition.
Makes for fun fireworks when the wannabe Evil Overlords collide with each other's plans.
Similar Threads
