Witch Bolt - The Emporer Strikes Back

[ClaytonCross]

Not that my opinion matters but playing a warlock right now...The biggest issue I have with the spell is concentration. Most of the time the first round damage would be a useful damage bump and dropping the continual damage per action each round would not be an issue but since it breaks all your concentration spells its almost like it cost 2 spells to use it making it not worth the cost.

I personally would remove concentration but end the spell if the caster takes any damage (no save), or uses there action for anything else. A kind of sudo concentration. This means the warlock does not lose other concentration spells to use mediocre damage attack but the spell maintains is first turn damage and its flavor 1d12 per turn with the use of an action which is low compared to other options but there is no attack or save so your just getting free damage until your hit or do something else. I would also clarify that "on hit" abilities like hex only effect the initial hit with an attach roll so you can't bump that continual damage.

Again that's just my take on it.

 

[Eltab]

Allowing Witch Bolt to remain active and re-targetable when your original target runs behind cover seems to be the major conceptual problem.

I can see leaving the lightning bolt "running", chewing up the tree my victim ... err original target ... hid behind, until IT falls too. If some fool runs through the bolt, it zaps him immediately and follows him instead of whatever it was previously attached to.
If the target hides behind a house, I'm not sure how to have that work: my bolt is blasting the outside wall.

5e doesn't have the "electrocuted" condition, maybe we should create it. Target falls prone, makes all DEX saves at a penalty (or with Disadvantage), <what else?> . Attach this condition to Witch Bolt, and inflict it on the target upon a successful attack roll. (Lightning spells only need apply - but a dragon breath attack with this would be something to ponder.)

 

[TwoSix]

Make it 60', and have the scaling be one extra target for every spell level, and it becomes pretty decent.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Make it 60', and have the scaling be one extra target for every spell level, and it becomes pretty decent.

Ooh, I like that scaling idea.

 

[Gadget]

I've felt like the spell just needs to have a longer "leash range" than its original range. Like, you still need to be within 30 feet to cast it, but it doesn't break until the target moves out beyond, say, 60 feet. Once breaking the arc is non-trivial, I think it becomes much more versatile.

Honestly I think the issue is purely range. With longer range it becomes a decent spell

Make it 60', and have the scaling be one extra target for every spell level, and it becomes pretty decent.

It seems a longer range is something that is desired and I agree that it would improve the spell, but I remain somewhat dubious that it would really bring the spell up to par by itself. I get that if you hit someone farther out, there is that much more time to blast them before they close (or retreat out of range), but they do not have to merely get out of range, they could get behind cover to break the leash as well. Given the relatively low upfront damage, opportunity cost of Concentration and action demand to sustain, I'm not sure it would be worth it. I like the idea of the leash extending beyond the initial range as well; it allows one to target someone just within range without them immediately jumping back out of range.

I'm intrigued by the idea of having it scale by adding additional targets, I assume this is in lieu of the scaling upfront damage? Or in addition to it? Which brings us to:

I'd like for every damage roll to scale, like with good old flaming sphere. But that's kinda insane with a d12 damage die. Maybe extra levels just give +1 damage instead of a whole extra die. On the other hand, I've seen a wizard use those up-front d12s to just obliterate a monster with lightning vulnerability, and that was kind of cool.

Hmm. Briefly thinking about it, mechanically and thematically, perhaps we could drop the damage down to 1D10 and have it increase per round to a maximum of 3D8 (Turn 1 = 1D10, Turn 2 2D10, Turn 3+ = 3D10).

So, the first turn it performs less favourably compared to other damage dealing 1st level spells and becomes decent when sustained, with the cost being the range, the investment of action/focus on single target.

Eh. Or something similar - not sure how casting it at a higher level would benefit it. Hmm..

I like the idea of it increasing damage as time goes on, but I am concerned with both the balance and, conversely, the fact that combats in 5e do tend to be relatively short, 3-5 rounds or thereabouts. And how it scales in higher level slots does becoms a concern as well.

I was also thinking, what if the spell transferred energy in both directions? Make it evocation/necromancy (if it isn't already) and for each round of damage dealt beyond the first, the caster receives half of the damage rolled in temp HP that last the following 24 hours...kinda more "Vampire's Bolt" than "Witch" but I like the flavor, and giving a necromantic low level effect to something besides Chill Touch.

I believe the spell Enervation in Xanathar's Guide does just that, as it was obviously modeled on Witch Bolt. It is a 5th level spell.

I’d like it if it had a debuff component. Grappled is maybe too strong and finicky, maybe cut speed in half and prevent reactions? Maybe keep the short leash, but require a save or check to move out of range?

I agree. What if the range was kept the same, but the leash extended to 60' and reactions were prevented? I really like the half speed addition as well, but I'm concerned that may be a little too good. Though, come to think of it, I might prefer the half speed to the prevention of reactions. Makes it harder to break the tether.

 

[steeldragons]

I believe the spell Enervation in Xanathar's Guide does just that, as it was obviously modeled on Witch Bolt. It is a 5th level spell.

Enervation has been around since at least 2e. Witch Bolt appeared, afaik, in 5e. So the "obviously modeled on" is the other way 'round, if they are in fact connected, at all.

(Started out as a 4th level spell, iirc)

 

[houser2112]

Enervation has been around since at least 2e. Witch Bolt appeared, afaik, in 5e. So the "obviously modeled on" is the other way 'round, if they are in fact connected, at all.

(Started out as a 4th level spell, iirc)

Enervation was indeed 4th level at least as far back as 3.0. Not sure about earlier editions.

 

[jrowland]

My 2cp:

I think it vastly improves if its more modeled on Spritual weapon, or Flaming Sphere e.g.

Keep Concentration, keep limited range, maybe drop damage to d6's (like sneak attacks and other 'rider' damage), but make it a bonus action to continue the damage (action on initial cast). Stipulate that this bonus action counts as casting a spell (to prevent spell stacking, but allowing a cantrip in subsequent rounds). I'll have to check (so please don't crucify if I mess the next bit up), but it should end at the end of the casters turn if the target is out of range, allow a caster to close range if the target moved out on their turn.

I think the issue with the spell is action-economy: Choosing to maintain this spell or casting/doing something else with more oomph. Usually the answer is do something else (especially eldritch blast warlocks). Making it a bonus allows you to Dash and Move and still do damage if the target is running away.

end 2cp

 

[Gadget]

Enervation has been around since at least 2e. Witch Bolt appeared, afaik, in 5e. So the "obviously modeled on" is the other way 'round, if they are in fact connected, at all.

(Started out as a 4th level spell, iirc)

You are incorrect. While D&D has had an Enervation spell in editions past, the current implementation for 5e uses the Witch Bolt mechanics, almost word for word, to produce the effect. These mechanics are, afaik, new to 5e.

 

[steeldragons]

You are incorrect. While D&D has had an Enervation spell in additions past, the current implementation for 5e uses the Witch Bolt mechanics, almost word for word, to produce the effect. These mechanics are, afaik, new to 5e.

And since Enervation came first, then the mechanics, as written for 5e, are first applicable to Enervation...not the other way around. Something that objectively comes "after" [i.e., the Witch Bolt spell which they, I'll take your word for it, modeled after the mechanics they rewrote for Enervation in 5e] can not be taken as the thing that "came first" [i.e., Enervation which has been a spell in D&D since 2e].

To suggest one does/it can is...as pure an inversion of logic as I have ever seen. You are correct that 5e is very "tight" in their verbiage. Things that do the same (or even similar) effects are going to have/use the same phrasing. That, in no reasonable way, translates to 'so, they based Enervation off of Witch Bolt.'