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

[CapnZapp]

You seem to think we're having this discussion based on what you think personally.

Unless you meet my actual arguments, why not simply say "I like the spell but I see how and why people conclude it's not a good spell"

It's not your preference we're discussing.

It's your insistence the designers did a good job, a job there is no reason to criticize.

If you were to say "look, I agree the spell doesn't offer anything else but perfunctory performance but no bells and whistles. It's not actively bad, but there is nothing to suggest why somebody should take it except in a very few cases" we could simply agree on the basics.

Then I would say "I expected more; I am disappoint", you could say "I'm mostly happy it isn't overpowered" and we could move on.

You don't have to step up and defend WotC over and over again.

It is alright if one of these threads should conclude in general agreement WotC did less than us gamers hoped for.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It is alright if one of these threads should conclude in general agreement WotC did less than us gamers hoped for.

I think the forums might actually break if that happened. It might even cause the singularity.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You seem to think we're having this discussion based on what you think personally.

You mean you think you aren't discussing what you think personally?

Unless you meet my actual arguments, why not simply say "I like the spell but I see how and why people conclude it's not a good spell"

Why do you not simply say "I don't like the spell but I can see how it fits into the guidelines that are laid out in the rule-books even if I don't like those guidelines either."?

It's your insistence the designers did a good job, a job there is no reason to criticize.

That is a lie you keep telling.

You don't have to step up and defend WotC over and over again.

That's not what I am doing.

It is alright if one of these threads should conclude in general agreement WotC did less than us gamers hoped for.

I agree the game isn't perfect. I agree the game has flaws.

I do not agree with you what those flaws are.

It is alright if one of these threads could remain a discussion between two equals, rather than involve you attempting to undermine me as a person - and apparently get away with that atrocious behavior that damages the very community here, since you've been around so very long and haven't been removed or learned not to answer another person disagreeing with mud-slinging.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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

Still waiting for CapnZapp to answer this.

 

[Cognomen's Cassowary]

Since the purpose of ADHW is nuking an area without harming your own undead pets, the best comparison seems to me to be chain lightning, which similarly allows you to harm enemies in an area without hurting your minions. So.

In casting time, range, components, and duration, they are equal. ADHW fills a thirty-foot cube, for a 900 square-foot footprint and an impressive 27,000 cubic-foot volume. Chain lightning as an eighth-level spell damages six targets within thirty feet of the center-most target, notionally giving it a circular footprint of roughly 2827 square feet and an 84,823 cubic-foot volume . . . if we can conceive of chain lightning as a sphere. I think that is a bit disingenuous due to the limited number of targets, and chain lightning also stipulates that the central creature be visible to the caster, while ADHW has no visibility requirement. I would thus call size and targeting a wash between the two, with each having its advantages.

That brings us to damage. In raw terms, they have the same damage, 10d8 (average 45). If we apply multipliers based on the commonness of resistance, immunity, and vulnerability, necrotic (0.962) is superior to lightning (0.936). However, the type of saving throw forced is more important. The Con save of ADHW is generally much harder to deal full damage against than the Dex of CL. If you have exactly a 60% chance to deal full damage across all ability scores and AC against all enemies in the Monster Manual, your chance to deal full damage against Con is about 47.0%, while your chance to deal full damage Dex is just above 66.5%. Both spells deal half damage on a successful save. Thus:

45*0.962=43.2 damage to failed saves, and 43.2/2=21.6 to successful saves, makes
43.2*0.47+21.6*0.53=31.8 damage to the average victim of ADHW

compared to:
45*0.936=42.1 damage to failed saves, and 42.12/2=21.1 to successes, makes
42.1*0.665+21.1*0.335=35.1 damage to the average target of CL

Since chain lightning targets six creatures, its average total damage is 35.1*6=210.6. ADHW would have to encompass 210.6/31.8=6.62 enemies to equal it. Other considerations: chain lightning will not damage non-undead, non-construct PCs and NPCs; ADHW will. Chain lightning can be scaled down as far as sixth level if there are fewer targets; ADHW cannot. ADHW cannot deal damage to enemy undead and constructs, while CL can. Conversely, ADHW disadvantages plants and water elementals (the average damage rises to 35.5 against those targets), but CL has no advantages against particular types of enemies.

From all of that, I would conclude that, for a sorcerer with a very limited number of spells known and limited options for reanimating the dead, Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting is a bad spell. For most wizards, it is also bad, though not quite as bad. For a wizard who can consistently cast ADHW on at least seven enemies without encompassing non-undead, non-construct allies, and who uses undead minions with enough frequency that higher-damage spells like vitriolic sphere and erupting earth would be detrimental, and who doesn't give up too much in his spellbook for it, Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting is better than chain lightning, which makes it very good.

 

[Eric V]

Since the purpose of ADHW is nuking an area without harming your own undead pets, the best comparison seems to me to be chain lightning, which similarly allows you to harm enemies in an area without hurting your minions. So.

In casting time, range, components, and duration, they are equal. ADHW fills a thirty-foot cube, for a 900 square-foot footprint and an impressive 27,000 cubic-foot volume. Chain lightning as an eighth-level spell hits six targets within thirty feet of the center-most target, notionally giving it a circular footprint of roughly 2827 square feet and an 84,823 cubic-foot volume . . . if we can conceive of chain lightning as a sphere. I think that is a bit disingenuous due to the limited number of targets, and chain lightning also stipulates that the central creature be visible to the caster, while ADHW has no visibility requirement. I would thus call size and targeting a wash between the two, with each having its advantages.

That brings us to damage. In raw terms, they have the same damage, 10d8 (average 45). If we apply multipliers based on the commonness of resistance, immunity, and vulnerability, necrotic (0.962) is superior to lightning (0.936). However, the type of saving throw forced is more important. The Con save of ADHW is generally much harder to hit than the Dex of CL. If you have exactly a 60% chance to hit across all ability scores and AC against all enemies in the Monster Manual, your chance to hit Con is about 47.0%, while your chance to hit Dex is just above 66.5%. Both spells deal half damage on a successful save. Thus:

45*0.962=43.2 damage to failed saves, and 43.2/2=21.6 to successful saves, makes
43.2*0.47+21.6*0.53=31.8 damage to the average victim of ADHW

compared to:
45*0.936=42.1 damage to failed saves, and 42.12/2=21.1 to successes, makes
42.1*0.665+21.1*0.335=35.1 damage to the average target of CL

Since chain lightning hits six targets, its average total damage is 35.1*6=210.6. ADHW would have to hit 210.6/31.8=6.62 targets to equal it. Other considerations: chain lightning will not hit non-undead, non-construct PCs and NPCs; ADHW will. Chain lightning can be scaled down as far as sixth level if there are fewer targets; ADHW cannot. ADHW cannot deal damage to enemy undead and constructs, while CL can. Conversely, ADHW disadvantages plants and water elementals (the average damage rises to 35.5 against those targets), but CL has no advantages against particular types of enemies.

From all of that, I would conclude that, for a sorcerer with a very limited number of spells known and limited options for reanimating the dead, Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting is a bad spell. For most wizards, it is also bad, though not quite as bad. For a wizard who can consistently cast ADHW on at least seven enemies without hitting non-undead, non-construct allies, and who uses undead minions with enough frequency that higher-damage spells like vitriolic sphere and erupting earth would be detrimental, and who doesn't give up too much in his spellbook for it, Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting is better than chain lightning, which makes it very good.

To the OP: It's a bad spell and the above is why. Nice objective analysis.

Were I playing a necromancer I'd probably still take it for style reasons, but mechanically it's not a good spell.

It's also not a good spell, regardless of how many people play high level wizards.

Fortunately, like 4e, 5e allows one to choose objectively inferior choices like this and still be likely to defeat whatever encounter the DM made using the (sketchy) encounter-building rules, so wilt away!

 

[Sacrosanct]

To the OP: It's a bad spell and the above is why. Nice objective analysis.

Except for all the the arbitrary figures thrown about. I do system analysis for a job, and any time you have just one arbitrary figure, the analysis is the definition of "not good", but comes to "best guess." We have a saying in the testing world for things like this, "Garbage in, garbage out."

You're also using completely subjective criteria when defining what is 'mechanically good". With all this subjective and arbitrary stuff being slung about, can we stop using words like "objective"? Because it's not.

 

[Eric V]

Except for all the the arbitrary figures thrown about. I do system analysis for a job, and any time you have just one arbitrary figure, the analysis is the definition of "not good", but comes to "best guess." We have a saying in the testing world for things like this, "Garbage in, garbage out."

You're also using completely subjective criteria when defining what is 'mechanically good". With all this subjective and arbitrary stuff being slung about, can we stop using words like "objective"? Because it's not.

So, where are the numbers that show it's good?

Not "Nice for rp purposes" which I already said it was.

The numbers that show it's good enough to be chosen as one's (very few) 8th level spells.

 

[Sacrosanct]

So, where are the numbers that show it's good?

Not "Nice for rp purposes" which I already said it was.

The numbers that show it's good enough to be chosen as one's (very few) 8th level spells.

I'm not the one making a claim that it's "objectively mechanically good/not good." That's how things work in real life. If you make a claim, especially one where you're declaring objectivity and using numbers to back your argument, then it's on you to ensure you're using non-arbitrary data and good methodology, not on other people to prove you wrong.

I've already said that "good" is subjective, so you can throw out any phrases of "objective" right there. And if I look at a spell that does X, Y, and Z that has a significant (another subjective measure) positive impact to my game table, then I'll define it as "good."

 

[Cognomen's Cassowary]

Except for all the the arbitrary figures thrown about.

For the multiplier related to resistances, I used the information available here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/show...stances-Immunities-Vulnerabilities-and-Damage. For each type of damage, I began at 430, which is the number of stat blocks in the monster manual, from which I subtracted 0.5 for each resistant enemy and 1 for each immune enemy. I added 1 for each vulnerable enemy. I then divided the total for each damage type by 430 to arrive at the final percentage.

The multipliers for save chance are a little more complicated. I found the median AC and ability modifier of every challenge rating (fun fact: dexterity is the only one that trends downward), to which I added the median save proficiency for each ability at each CR. [That, I think, is the weakest aspect of the process, since proficiency is an on-off toggle, so the median is limited to uncommon (+0), semi-common (+half proficiency), or common (+proficiency). I may yet explore using the mean instead, but that comes with its own set of problems.] Thus having a median defensive-modifier for AC and each ability at each CR, I determined what kind of "to hit" mod would be needed to deal full damage to each, at each CR, with 60% of attacks and save-forcing effects. I used 60% because that is the "standard" assumed by many class guides. I found the mean of the needed modifier for each ability and AC across all CRs [using the mean here may also be a problem], to create an index for each, thus abstracting across all levels to find a relative value for each ability and AC. These indices say nothing useful in game terms but remain proportional to each other. I could thus establish a percentage chance to deal full damage when targeting each, across all levels, relative to an overall chance of 60%. (For the curious, the numbers are, from top to bottom, Int 71.0%, AC 67.6% [I raise this to 72.6% in calculations due to the chance to crit], Dex 66.5%, Wis 57.1%, Str 56.3%, Cha 54.4%, Con 47.0%.)

I will be the first to admit that it is not perfect, and there is no way to account for context and a DM's tendencies, but I consider it less arbitrary than, "I think there's a lot more creatures resistant to fire than there are resistant to necrotic."--though that "best guess" happens to be right. Even if you find fault with my methods (and I don't doubt that you will), you cannot claim that targeting Con is generally better than targeting Dex. If you have fought a reasonable number of enemies above CR1, you will know from experience that that is not the case.

Besides that, the "arbitrary" numbers don't actually have a huge impact--if anything, they allow that ADHW is fairly competitive with CL. It can be better in the right circumstances. Its major deficiency is the rarity of those right circumstances, which is why I phrased my conclusion the way that I did. Though I think that ADHW pales in comparison to CL, it is the difficulty of use rather than the damage difference that convinces me. It can still be effective in the right hands.

I do system analysis for a job, and any time you have just one arbitrary figure, the analysis is the definition of "not good", but comes to "best guess." We have a saying in the testing world for things like this, "Garbage in, garbage out."

I would say, "I eagerly await your analysis." but I can respect your preference to not bring your work into your hobby. I don't really have a horse in this race; I just thought it would be fun to do a bit of direct comparison and see which came out on top. Based on that, I consider ADHW not a bad spell but a niche one.