D&D 5E (2014) Is Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting a good spell?

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I mean, Aaron and CapnZapp, how many 15th level or higher wizards have you played?

I've played one, but I am DM of 300 sessions to every 1 session in which I am a player historically speaking - so it is more relevant to say that I have DMed campaigns containing 15th level or higher wizard characters, both PC and NPC, more than a dozen times in each 2nd and 3rd edition, once in 4th edition, and am heading towards three games that reach at least that level and possess wizard or wizard-like spellcasters in 5th edition at current, plus expecting to see even more in the future because it neither takes as long real-time as 2e nor falls apart mathematically to the same degree as 3e.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I've played one, but I am DM of 300 sessions to every 1 session in which I am a player historically speaking - so it is more relevant to say that I have DMed campaigns containing 15th level or higher wizard characters, both PC and NPC, more than a dozen times in each 2nd and 3rd edition, once in 4th edition, and am heading towards three games that reach at least that level and possess wizard or wizard-like spellcasters in 5th edition at current, plus expecting to see even more in the future because it neither takes as long real-time as 2e nor falls apart mathematically to the same degree as 3e.

And in those 5e games, is it your experience that AHW is somehow broken, or otherwise a bad spell? And in those games, has meteor swarm turned out to be a "normal" spell, or one that was overpowered in your actual gameplay 5e experiences?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

And in those 5e games, is it your experience that AHW is somehow broken, or otherwise a bad spell?

No. My experience has been that it is not broken, or bad in any way.

And in those games, has meteor swarm turned out to be a "normal" spell, or one that was overpowered in your actual gameplay 5e experiences?

That's the trickier point.

Meteor swarm is overpowered. It's intentionally at more than double the damage suggested for 9th level spells in the DMG - but that's not the only part of the story, there is also what other spells exist at that spell level which the spell must appear at least somewhat worth choosing in comparison.

That point is one I am sure that CapnZapp will not agree with me on, since I find horrid wilting to be comparable in benefit to other spells of its same level, and all of those spells certainly over-shadowed as they should be by the spells of meteor swarm's level.

Yet, if meteor swarm weren't as damaging as it currently is, it might not appear to be a worthy choice next to wish, foresight, and even time stop (assuming on that last one that the player of the character using it is talented at finding the opportune moments to use it and choosing the opportune use of the actions granted by it).

I think, however, that the design of 9th level spells was deliberate in being over-the-top, much like the other features in the game which are gained only at the last few levels, the majority of which are also over-the-top - making the "end game" levels deliberately into a much higher power level across the board for reasons I might sum up as "game is basically over, so why not get a little wild with it?"

 

[Sacrosanct]

No. My experience has been that it is not broken, or bad in any way.

Thank you. I'd be curious to hear from others with the same experience. I'm guessing the majority fall on these lines as well.

I think, however, that the design of 9th level spells was deliberate in being over-the-top, much like the other features in the game which are gained only at the last few levels, the majority of which are also over-the-top - making the "end game" levels deliberately into a much higher power level across the board for reasons I might sum up as "game is basically over, so why not get a little wild with it?"

I agree, as I mentioned above. I can't speak for 4e since I didn't really play it, but end game spells have always been over the top. I wouldn't be surprised if it was that way on purpose, since the people who play end game are usually the ones who skip right to it, and want that over the top ultra powerful stuff as their preferred style of play. I haven't hardly ever seen people who play starting at level 1 and follow a normal progression hit end game levels. The PCs are usually retired and a new PC in a new campaign is done long before then.

 

[Celtavian]

That isn't the case, you are just using that accusation as an excuse to ignore anything I say which you might not like to actually think about.

Shouting me down as some apologist that can see no wrong in the game doesn't actually give your opinion more weight or make it seem more reasonable.

Unless it is true and the Capn doesn't want to engage with someone that can't admit flaws in a system because a few players use something.

Abu's is weak for an 8th level spell. It's more on par with 6th level spells. It's not even debatable. The math of the spell is weak for its level.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Undead don't kill people, necromancers kill people!

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Undead don't kill people, necromancers kill people!

. . . with undead.

Although on the thread topic, as has been pointed out, Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting is a very nice spell for a necromancer to have: - you can drop it into the middle of a melee where your undead minions are fighting without risking harming them at all. In fact if you have to, you can drop it on yourself without risking too much given your resistance to its damage.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Unless it is true and the Capn doesn't want to engage with someone that can't admit flaws in a system because a few players use something.

It isn't at all true, and here is the incontrovertible proof: I believe that there are some flaws in the design of 5th edition.

That I don't agree that the flaws present are the flaws that someone else believes are present doesn't change that, despite someone's choice to attack me by making the false claim made above rather than to discuss what things are viewed as flaws and entertain view points other than one's own.

Abu's is weak for an 8th level spell. It's more on par with 6th level spells. It's not even debatable. The math of the spell is weak for its level.

This entire string of statements are false, as I've already shown proof of by comparing the damage that horrid wilting does (10-80 to multiple targets) with the suggested damage of an 8th level spell according to the DMG guidelines (13-78 to multiple targets).

 

[CapnZapp]

You can point to the DMG table how much you want. Still doesn't change the facts.

As an upslotted level four spell, okay.

As one of very few eight level spells? Nope, completely underwhelming.

Making it a 6th level spell (while keeping the damage intact) like suggested above is on the right track for making it an iconic desirable spell.

Look, that table completely ignores the opportunity cost of a PC taking the spell (as one of very few choices).

Only dealing baseline damage is something you handle through upscaling previous spell choices. Taking Abu completely forgoes the potential that is an 8th level spell choice.

That baseline damage would be appropriate for what in 3e was called spell-like abilities. As something you simply got as you reached 15th level (or hit dice), it would be a solid if unspectacular ability to have (say "cast Horrid 1/day")

But asking a spellcaster to choose it over the alternatives? Nope.

This thread should show you that there's something decidedly meh about the idea.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

As one of very few eight level spells? Nope, completely underwhelming.

I, and others, disagree.

Look, that table completely ignores the opportunity cost of a PC taking the spell (as one of very few choices).

Proof?

Only dealing baseline damage is something you handle through upscaling previous spell choices.

Says who?

This thread should show you that there's something decidedly meh about the idea.

All it shows me is that there are some folks that view options as either being "top tier" or "worthless" rather than allowing for their to be a "good enough" in between the two.