D&D 5E Is Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting a good spell?

[Mephista]

I think Horrid Wilting is in line with the standards Necromancy has had since old editions, BUT those old standards are now grossly unfair.

Necromancy school has an "elephant in the room" type problem. It's always done less damage than evocation, but it made up with it's undead. however since recent editions of D&D have not so subtle push PCs to be good, or at least neutral, that pretty much nerfs a significant portion of the Necromancy School for PCs, who the balance of the spell schools are really the only ones the school balances MATTER for, since NPC casters get whatever abilities they need via the DM.

IMHO I definitely understand why WOTC would want to keep PCs from having masses of Undead at their beck and call, but the Necromancy School should get SOMETHING to make up for that! It doesn't need to out damage Evocation, but it shouldn't lag THAT far behind either if players are being strong armed into not using the main part of the school.

"Not a good act" != "an evil act"

"5 days a month (ie - when I go into a dungeon)" != "frequently" in the context of things that can be done multiple times per day.

That's my argument anyway.

Well, first, let me say that making undead is not just a non-good act, its a flat out evil one by the book, because the implication is that you are summoning dark spirits that hate the living to inhabit the dead bodies in a perverse summoning effect. Its like using magic to summon imps to serve you - just with undead instead of fiends.

That said? Who says you can't play an evil character? Being LE isn't a detriment to play.


I agree with Scorpio's initial assessment, though. Necromantic spells seem to be sub-par compared to evocations, even when both deal direct damage. It seems to have always been the case. Not sure why.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Maybe Abi-Dalzim recognized it wasn't an effective high-level spell when he named it. That's why he called it horrid wilting. Maybe somewhere there's another spell, same level, that uses d12s! Abi-Dalzim's Awesome Wilting.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Well, first, let me say that making undead is not just a non-good act, its a flat out evil one by the book, because the implication is that you are summoning dark spirits that hate the living to inhabit the dead bodies in a perverse summoning effect. Its like using magic to summon imps to serve you - just with undead instead of fiends.

There's no mention of dark spirits at all. Apparently negative energy compels skeletons to attack living creatures. Which would suggest that any and all negative energy spells should be evil... but they're not.
It's all very confusing.

 

[CapnZapp]

Maybe Abi-Dalzim recognized it wasn't an effective high-level spell when he named it. That's why he called it horrid wilting. Maybe somewhere there's another spell, same level, that uses d12s! Abi-Dalzim's Awesome Wilting.

Considering how Meteor Storm goes from ten to forty(!) dice at level 9, a version of Abi Dalzim's Horrid Wilting that would actually be an attractive use for an eight level slot would be 12d12 untyped damage no save no resistance to up to four creatures within the 150 ft range, your choice no risk of friendly fire. That is, cast the spell, deduct ~78 hp from each monster, done. No ifs no buts. No defense. That's an 8th level spell.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Considering how Meteor Storm goes from ten to forty(!) dice at level 9...

I'm not sure that elevating other spells to the level of those which WotC decided to arbitrarily boost beyond their own suggestions to DMs for custom spells is the best way to address the disparity - seems less harmful to game balance to bring fireball, lightning bolt, and meteor swarm down to match the guidelines in the DMG like other spells do.

horrid wilting is basically right on those guidelines, which say an 8th level spell should do around 13d6 damage if it affects multiple targets.

meteor swarm is 26d6 over those guidelines, for reasons I recall be mentioned as a deliberate attempt to make the "classic" spells more attractive.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sure, but as long as there are outliers (spells above the DMG mark) there is no reason to use any other.

Besides, I'm not sure it's a good strategy to use spells above 5th level for something as simplistic as damage.

Basically, if the power of discrete effects rise exponentially, damage spells need to do that too, if you are going to use them.

I'm not so sure Meteor Storm can do much less damage than the listed value if it wants to justify being a ninth level spell.

Basically, that DMG table is probably overestimating the value of direct damage.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

as long as there are outliers (spells above the DMG mark) there is no reason to use any other.

I do not accept that as a fact.

I'm not sure it's a good strategy to use spells above 5th level for something as simplistic as damage.

I'm not sure it is either, but I am sure that it works better as a strategy in 5th edition than it has worked in most of the prior editions.

 

[CapnZapp]

I do not accept that as a fact.

That's alright.

The problem is that Abi Dhalzim seems to share that opinion insofar that he absolutely ignores Meteor Strike.

Look, the fact it follows some DMG guideline is poor comfort to a spell that everybody thinks is lame and few will ever use.

Your position is theoretically upstanding, but until you get wotc to errata Meteor Storm down to 18d6 or so, the fact remains; Horrid is a waste of its space.

You'd think it wouldn't matter so much if Horrid regained some of its past notoriety since Meteor Storm will still remain the more unbalanced spell...

 

[Gadget]

I'm fine with evocation spells being better at direct damage than other schools spells, that is evocation's shtick. I would like to see other schools get a shtick to compensate and I think the answer is right there in the cantrips. Chill Touch prevents healing for a round, which is a nice effect, especially for a cantrip. If most necromancy school spells did something similar, it would be okay even if the damage was lower. If it gave a level of exhaustion on a failed save, for instance. Or lowered the targets max hit points on a failed save, or prevented healing until a short rest. Some of these options probably would be overpowered, but this is an eighth level spell we're talking about.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think it's quite possible that people choose spells based on theme, rather than max DPR. Especially if there's not that much of a difference. If I'm playing a necromancer, I am not going to throw around fireballs instead of AHW just because of a minor DPR boost. It wouldn't feel right. It would feel like metagaming in direct conflict of what my theme was. Also, context of the encounter matters. I think there's a lot more creatures resistant to fire than there are resistant to necrotic.