Zardnaar
Legend
Opportunity cost. At best it's + 3 ac for a precious feat vs a single spell when you get multiple ones and can recall 3 of then at level 5.
Worst case scenario just suck up a meh ac to level 4 or so.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E Overrated Wizard Spells
- Thread starter BigBadDM
- Start date
Opportunity cost. At best it's + 3 ac for a precious feat vs a single spell when you get multiple ones and can recall 3 of then at level 5.
Worst case scenario just suck up a meh ac to level 4 or so.
Swarmkeeper
Hero
Some more on this topic... although it's not exclusive to wizard spells...
Gladius Legis
Legend
Yeah. There are several spells that suck for the PCs but are very nasty against the PCs. Power Word: Kill also comes to mind there.It's not that great for use by PCs. Disintegration at 0 hp makes it very nasty* AGAINST PCs.
*Unless the GM reads Jeremy Crawford on Twitter.
Since I'm coming here from the Frylock thread where the legal discussion is getting hot and heavy:
When the math is against you, pound on actual gameplay.
When actual gameplay is against you, pound on the math.
When both are against you, pound on the keyboard.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
One thing I'm surprised no one has brought up is the value of having both shield and mage armor. It is a heavy slot cost, but in my experience once you get past the first few levels a 3 point increase in armor makes shield much more effective. It's inevitable that things will get past the front line once in a while, and shield taking you up to ac 17-18 isn't enough to stop most enemies once you pass level 5 because they need a decent chance to hit the front line. Add to that the diminishing value of level 1 slots for other purposes, and its less a choice of mage armor or utility/offense and more a choice of mage armor or 1 more shield/absorb elements. I'd much rather have shield bring me up to ac 20-21 than only be useful against enemies that roll low. Also keep in mind that if your dm is strict about the rules, he will only tell you he hit rather than what he rolled, so with mage armor up, your remaining shields will be much less likely to be wasted.
I think this is one of the disputed points.
The value of Shield varies with whether the GM chooses to roll in front of players or behind screen.
Note - both are legal choices - no rule dictates it.
JEC has said in his games if someone has abilities that are like "decide after roll but before resukt" he gives them the roll since that is part of the thing of the ability - after the roll but before is meaningless if you dont show the roll.
Shield simply says after hit, not after roll and JEC has confirmed that RAW seeing the roll is not required but i have never seen a gm making open rolls pull attacks vs shield users behind the screen. The rule for shield doesnt require either hidden roll or revealed roll.
I dont think i have even seen them not inform the shield user on the quality of the hit like they normally would.
So, in my play and play i have seen, the number of times shield did not cancel a hit was nil.
I would say flat out, if your gm hides attack rolls from shield users but shows them to say folks with say choices like Combat Inspiration or Cutting Words to see the roll before deciding - then drop shield as an option. If the GM doesnt show any of those rolls, you got bigger issues to worry about.
My analysis based on my gameplay experience plus math is stated in the above posts. But in summary...
The frequency of hits to misses by Mage Armor for tier-1 mage means by the time i am hit enough to make Mage Armor better than Shield my low level mages are screwed on the damage anyway.
Mage Armor only beats Shields in losing anyway situations.
Having shield as an emergency use when it gets desperate but mostly planning on using those slots for much better spells like Fog, Image, Charm etc that can affect .more thab just "hits" has proven to be much more viable a strategy.
That may mean, yes, an "evil GM" has a complex situation etc and i have AC 12 vs AC 15 but in my experience those kinds of battles and setups are even better cases for having those other spells burning my slots. Mage Armor wont win us that fight as much as the other options will.
By tier-2 and beyond, other options start looking better anyway.
Hmm, have to respectfully disagree. Find familiar is just too good to be considered overrated.
1. Incredibly low cost and opportunity cost. You don't have to prepare it, just have a bit of time to cast it. But once you cast it, no concentration. And it's around until it dies or until you recast it to get a different form.
2. Makes a great scouting spell, unbeatable really at 1st level. You get scouting by air, dark places (caves etc.), even under water.
3. In combat, it can take the help action, meaning you and others get advantage against that target. If the familiar gets swatted, well that's an attack that would have otherwise gone against a PC -so even there it served a great purpose (and it can be re summoned with an hours time and 10gp)
And that's before getting into any spells cast through it.
As for the actual OP:
Cure wounds is overrated - at least during combat. Since it takes an action, there is generally too many other things the cleric can do to aid in a fight than to lightly band aid someone, especially one at a time. Life clerics do get quite a bit more mileage out of it though.
Sorcerers Apprentice
Hero
Cure wounds isn't overrated, the consensus has always been that it's a pretty "meh" spell in 5e. Something has to be rated high in the first place before it can be called overrated!
Probably true, though we've had people here stating witchbolt is overrated - and that's a certified stinker.
Similar Threads
