Treantmonk evaluates 4th level spells

[Teaguethebean]

W/rt Phantasmal Killer, it's not a good spell, but frightened is a reasonably impactful condition. It can easily prevent an enemy from attacking at all, and even if they can attack it will impose disadvantage.

Man you will be impressed by cause fear a level one spell

[Corran]

Essentially, various casters tend to be able to deal with Wall of Force better than they can deal with things like, say, Portent Banishment. Given that said spellcasters tend to be one of the most threatening things in the entirety of D&D (seriously, "beware his powers" is good advice), any tool that helps out in this matchup is noteworthy.

In fact, landing Banishment on an enemy caster will stop their Banishment/Wall of Force/whatever they're concentrating on (if they're native to the plane you're on, of course).

Haha, it's funny not thinking how a spell you intend on using against enemies could just as well be used against you so effectively. Thanks for pointing that out.

And since this is a temple of knowledge...

Spoiler: help an initiate out

Show

What can a wizard use to protect themselves against banishment, aside from counterspell which is one obvious option. Can we do anything with contingency or some other spell?

Edit:

Man you will be impressed by cause fear a level one spell

Just want to say my opinion on this (even if your comment was not for me). Cause fear is lackluster (at least IMO), not because frightened is a bad condition, but because frightening an enemy will rarely make up for all the other downsides of this spell ( targets one enemy, save every round, concentration).

[Draken]

Haha, it's funny not thinking how a spell you intend on using against enemies could just as well be used against you so effectively. Thanks for pointing that out.

And since this is a temple of knowledge...

Spoiler: help an initiate out

Show

What can a wizard use to protect themselves against banishment, aside from counterspell which is one obvious option. Can we do anything with contingency or some other spell?

Edit:

Just want to say my opinion on this (even if your comment was not for me). Cause fear is lackluster (at least IMO), not because frightened is a bad condition, but because frightening an enemy will rarely make up for all the other downsides of this spell ( targets one enemy, save every round, concentration).

Forbiddance should technically prevent Banishment from being used, but denying this particular effect is more the province of Dimensional Anchor which... Uh, hasn't been printed for 5th edition yet.

[MaxWilson]

If you were playing a wizard and had every intention of taking wall of force at level 9, would you forgo taking banishment at level 7? I am tempted to say that I would take both

Sure, I would forego it. I can think of a bunch of other spells that would be higher on my list: Conjure Minor Elementals, Dimension Door, Evard's Black Tentacles, Polymorph, Fabricate, Arcane Eye, Greater Invisibility, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, perhaps Fire Shield and Confusion. I only get four of them, and the choice is already going to be painful. Polymorph, Evard's Black Tentacles, Dimension Door, Fabricate perhaps? No way am I going to ditch one of those four for Banishment.

============================

And now that I checked Grasping Vine in the middle of reviewing the spells, I must ask how a player was using that to chuck people off cliffs? It can only pull so the cliff would need to be between the vine and the target, that is a very tight fit, specially considering the vine can't move.

He asked if he could cast it to pull the cyclops off the cliff, with the vine coming out of the cliff face and reaching up and back over, and I shrugged and said, "Sure."

By strict RAW the vine would be growing out of the ground at the bottom of the cliff instead (since the spell effect is defined in 2D terms not 3D terms) and it should have reached up dozens or hundreds of feet in the area and over the cliff to grab the giant--but there's a DM for a reason. It made more sense to just agree with the player's suggestion and let it work. In game mechanical terms there is no difference though--either way you get to pick a location and pull the enemy toward it.

[Pex]

Twinning banishment. Throw away all your metamagics for a chance to take two things out of the fight. That's 4 metamagics for something that may do nothing at all on a bad roll.
Polymorph and greater invisibility never fail. Twinning those is never going out of style.

I don't hold that a monster can make its saving throw to negate means a spell is garbage to have. Even Treantmonk said that even though he doesn't like that either the spell should still be potent in its effect which Banishment does. Attacking Charisma is the cherry. I've played two sorcerers with the spell and have never regretted it. Treantmonk may think it over rated, but that's not the same thing as saying never have it.

[Teaguethebean]

Just want to say my opinion on this (even if your comment was not for me). Cause fear is lackluster (at least IMO), not because frightened is a bad condition, but because frightening an enemy will rarely make up for all the other downsides of this spell ( targets one enemy, save every round, concentration).

Oh I know it is a lackluster spell it was in response to a poorly thought out defense for phantasmal killer

[Corran]

Forbiddance should technically prevent Banishment from being used, but denying this particular effect is more the province of Dimensional Anchor which... Uh, hasn't been printed for 5th edition yet.

Sure, I would forego it. I can think of a bunch of other spells that would be higher on my list: Conjure Minor Elementals, Dimension Door, Evard's Black Tentacles, Polymorph, Fabricate, Arcane Eye, Greater Invisibility, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, perhaps Fire Shield and Confusion. I only get four of them, and the choice is already going to be painful. Polymorph, Evard's Black Tentacles, Dimension Door, Fabricate perhaps? No way am I going to ditch one of those four for Banishment.

Ah... I know that I am in uncharted waters when I see spells that I don't remember exactly what they are doing (forbiddance and fabricate). *opens a wizard's guide*
Thank you both for your input.

[MaxWilson]

Oh I know it is a lackluster spell it was in response to a poorly thought out defense for phantasmal killer

If you thought that was a "defense" of phantasmal killer you must have missed the multiple places where I said it's not a good spell.

Frightened is a pretty good condition to inflict. That doesn't make Phantasmal Killer a good spell. Phantasmal Killer would be a good spell if it were an Int save though.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Oh no, you polymorphed your tank into a Giant Ape.
Animal Friendship...

Doesn't work, a giant ape has an intelligence of 7, anything 4 or above and the spell fails

[Merudo]

Treantmonk, I've noticed you sometimes rate a spells without taking account every spell list it's on.

I think "bad" spells might actually be alright for a given class if said class lacks similar options.

Examples:
- Confusion: rated 3rd worst level 4 spell because it is worst than Slow/Fear/Hypnotic Pattern/Stinking Cloud. However, Druids have access to none of these alternative spells, so Confusion has some uses for them.
- Catnap: rated worst level 3 spell because it is worst than Rope Trick. However, only Wizards get access to Rope Trick
- Healing Word: on the overrated list, because the Familiar/Goodberries combo is superior. But said combo is not available to Clerics

When giving a "worst" or "overrated" rating to a spell, I think it is best to consider the classes for which the spells has the most value.

[Citan]

"In practice" you're probably not going to have 4 fellow PCs all specializing in the same element (e.g. everyone with Greenflame Blade), and if your party is doing it deliberately... there are still much better synergies you could build your party around. Elemental Bane would be cool if it inflicted vulnerability to a damage type, and it is nice that the druid can pick it up whenever it's likely to be needed, but it's still pretty marginal. Not useless, but not worth building a party around, and seldom even worth memorizing IMO.

YMMV.

I'm sorry but your "in practice" argument bears no weight.
The thing is, there is no need to have all PC specializing. No need *at all*
Every caster will usually have at least two elemental cantrips.
A Paladin or a Rogue usually try to get as many OA as possible, and it's easy for both to get Warcaster to pair with damaging spell/cantrip.
Druids and Wizards get Conjure Minor Elemental and Conjure Elemental.

So technically just 2 guys properly set up could enough to work up 8d6 more damage per round. Or you could simply upcast EB to affect two creatures then use abilities that can affect several creatures.
And even outside of this obviously particular use-case...

I don't see many casters (apart from Warlock) not picking Firebolt or Ray of Frost because those are the best go-to cantrips for ranged attacks.
I don't see many Sorcerers or Wizards either not picking Chromatic Bolt precisely because it's an adaptative spell.
I see even less Eldricht Knights and Arcane Tricksters not picking Booming Blade at least, possibly GreenFlame Blade.
And between...
- Chromatic Bot, Shatter, Burning Hands, Dragon Breath, Absorb Elements and Ice Knife which are easy to get for most casters,
- Elemental Weapon or added elemental damage as class features (like Nature Cleric, Tempest Cleric etc)
- Magic weapons you can get, although elemental ones are mostly rare IIRC...
You have plenty of combinations of characters and build that would immediately benefit of Elemental Bane without having to discuss and decide on one particular element to focus on in session 0.

You are basically taking the thing in reverse:
Elemental Bane is NOT about specializing a whole party around one particular trick (which would be extremely dangerous).
It's about using a single spell to enhance a subset of abitilites...
- Whenever the usual party tactics won't work (ex usual tactic is Polymorphing or Holding bad guy, tough luck this one has high WIS, or just gangbang with weapon attacks, too bad this one is resistant or has high defense).
- Or whenever one or two particular member, which party usually relies on heavily to deal damage (typical opti example: Rogue with Booming Blade and Warcaster, Paladin with smite spells), would be half as efficient because resistance.
- Or whenever it's important to kill a few creatures as quickly as possible yet party wants to conserve resources overall (as I demonstrated, Elemental Bane is roughly equivalent to a "two-ranks" upgrade of every cantrip, class feature or 1st to 4th spell, including Elemental Weapon or even Flame Arrows -we finally found a niche use for this one, yay o/-).

That's why the spell is probably useless in a full-martial party (except bunch of particular cases like Storm Herald Barbarian / Eldricht Knight / Arcane Trickster / 4E Monk), probably worth picking in a balanced 4+ party (just one other Druid or Wizard makes it worth if they go Conjurer), and totally great when you can project at least 4 instances of added damage in a round. And those can be fairly common occurences considering all above.

If Elemental Bane was worthless, then what to say about Crusader's Mantle? It's a 3rd level spell...
- non-scalable
- only adding 1d4 damage, of a type that can have synergy with only some Clerics and Warlocks basically (at least it's rarely resisted),
- not doing anything against damage resistance creatures may have otherwise...
- and requiring everyone to stay within 30 feet (which amounts to a big middle finger towards all guys that try to stay out of danger, typically casters).
Yet it can great in melee parties especially those with many attacks, or with conjured minions.

Same spirit with Elemental Bane: party buff that scales extremely well. Only two differences are that...
- EB is more reliant on party numbers.
- But EB is also much easier to use whatever kind of party you are in. :)

[ProsecutorGodot]

Treantmonk, I've noticed you sometimes rate a spells without taking account every spell list it's on.

I think "bad" spells might actually be alright for a given class if said class lacks similar options.

Examples:
- Confusion: rated 3rd worst level 4 spell because it is worst than Slow/Fear/Hypnotic Pattern/Stinking Cloud. However, Druids have access to none of these alternative spells, so Confusion has some uses for them.
- Catnap: rated worst level 3 spell because it is worst than Rope Trick. However, only Wizards get access to Rope Trick
- Healing Word: on the overrated list, because the Familiar/Goodberries combo is superior. But said combo is not available to Clerics

When giving a "worst" or "overrated" rating to a spell, I think it is best to consider the classes for which the spells has the most value.

I agree with this, however I feel the need to point out that my positive experience with Catnap in particular has come from the fact that the Gloom Stalker Ranger in my party, where I played the Wizard, allowed me to use Catnap to give us prep time after the short rest inside the Rope Trick.

My secondary point in this is that, just to be fair, some subclasses gain access to these combos listed. Gloom Stalker Ranger gets Rope Trick. Arctic Land Druids get access to slow. Sadly for clerics my only solution requires bare minimum of feats (Magic Initiate Druid, Ritual Caster Wizard) or multiclassing to acquire goodberry + find familiar.

In fact, something I hadn't even thought of at the time was that Catnap can cast itself for free using Arcane Recovery. It's not a concentration spell and there's nothing saying that the caster can't target themselves with it. I know the spell is niche but I wouldn't say it's the absolute worst.

SNIP

I'm not sure if comparing Elemental Bane to Crusader's Mantle is making a good case towards defending it, even as a niche spell. In either case where you could choose to either target a single creature with Elemental Bane (because upcasting Elemental Bane is something I can't consider realistic) or cast Crusader's Mantle, I would rather have Crusader's Mantle.

A few things to point out in your example however:
-Crusader's Mantle only applies to weapon attacks, your casters aren't making use of it regardless
-Elemental Bane doesn't interact with Damage Immunities.
-Elemental Bane only activates on the specific damage type you chose, once per turn.
-Elemental Bane does nothing if the target saves
-Crusader's Mantle scales with extra attack, saying that Crusader's Mantle is non scaleable but advocating for Elemental Bane scaling with multiple attacks is poor form
-Crusader's Mantle is always going to be a good damage type and the enemies have no choice but to take the damage unless they're immune (only 1 monster in 5E is totally immune to radiant damage)
-Crusader's Mantle can split its damage against multiple targets
-You bring up a party strategy being foiled by a high Wisdom Target, however those spells cause the target to be completely helpless on a success. Elemental Bane gives a minor benefit and targets an equally "poor" save

I would say that this in practice example does have merit because Elemental Bane is significantly harder to make consistent use of without building a group around it (which isn't as simple as you're suggesting, since it requires the martials to have cantrips and/or War Caster and the casters to have very specific spells), whereas Crusader's Mantle would be equally or more useful with just 2 martial characters with extra attack, no investment beyond leveling your class necessary.

Edit: to expand on my point, I had briefly considered taking Elemental Bane as my new 4th level spell in the ongoing SKT campaign (the same one mentioned above) but quickly thought better of it. The reasoning for taking it was to help out our Blaster Sorcerer (Red Dragon Bloodline) in our next endeavor into Fire Giant territory. The cost of my concentration and the fact that our party doesn't share a common elemental type (except for Thunder and Fire damage) as well as targeting what I knew was a strong save on the giants part was enough to steer me in another direction. It's not worth my concentration and I can deal or enable more damage in other, less costly ways.

[Treantmonk]

Treantmonk, I've noticed you sometimes rate a spells without taking account every spell list it's on.

For the purpose of this series, I'm rating spells against each other by spell level alone. I figure in theory, a 5th level spell on one list should be as good as a 5th level spell on another list. Though that might just be my viewpoint.

I think "bad" spells might actually be alright for a given class if said class lacks similar options.

I disagree. If a class isn't supposed to have access to "good" spells of a certain type, then maybe don't give them access to spells at that type at all, rather than throwing them some bad options that players may not realize are bad until they've used them for awhile.

- Healing Word: on the overrated list, because the Familiar/Goodberries combo is superior. But said combo is not available to Clerics

To be clear, I still recommend Healing Word as a spell choice. I don't think it's overrated because Goodberry is better, I think it's overrated because THIS is not a unique opinion.

Considering people actually think that, I'm betting you would agree it HAD to be my most overrated spell for level 1.

[Zalabim]

While some spells are better than others, there should be no case of a spell being made better or worse because of the spell list it's on. Fireball does more damage because it's fireball, for example. This point is usually in answer to ranger and paladin spells. As a notable example, swift quiver is totally in line with haste and won't make your bard into the best archer in the game.

Confusion: The area is small, but like slow it doesn't have to deal with charm or fear immunity and it eclipses slow for outright denying the victim control of their action 80% of the time. There's even a chance to cause friendly fire with it. A slowed enemy can still move at half speed and attack every turn, or otherwise try to defend themselves. If Confusion is bad at its level it's only because the 4th level competition is too fierce. I'm sure there's something else that actually deserves this spot. I'm tempted to give Grasping Vine two spots at the moment.

Sorcerers are limited in spells. They can take Polymorph, but Banishment is also valuable. Heighten spell offers a chance for the opponent to fail the save, but in my opinion the stronger option is to Twin it. It's like giving the DM disadvantage even though two creatures make one save. True you can upcast which is why Banishment is good for its own sake, but Twinning helps the Sorcerer conserve his higher level spell slots. Over rated or not, for Sorcerers Banishment is worth knowing.

Banishment is in the somewhat unique case of being more expensive to Twin it than to upcast it. It does take time to switch your 4th level slot and sorcery points into a 5th level slot, however. Once you do that, it's 7 sorcery points to make a 5th level slot, or 8 sorcery point value if you cast a twinned 4th level spell.

He asked if he could cast it to pull the cyclops off the cliff, with the vine coming out of the cliff face and reaching up and back over, and I shrugged and said, "Sure."

By strict RAW the vine would be growing out of the ground at the bottom of the cliff instead (since the spell effect is defined in 2D terms not 3D terms) and it should have reached up dozens or hundreds of feet in the area and over the cliff to grab the giant--but there's a DM for a reason. It made more sense to just agree with the player's suggestion and let it work. In game mechanical terms there is no difference though--either way you get to pick a location and pull the enemy toward it.

The spell only has a 30' range, and has to originate from a space on the ground that you can see. You have to be able to see the creature you want to pull as well. It's just a really bad spell all around. It works entirely off of bonus actions though, so it's an option a ranger can use without interrupting their normal attacks at all. It's just not worth a 4th level slot. Maybe 2nd level, as a concentration-required, shorter ranged, immobile, pulling version of the excellent spiritual weapon. I don't think it would overshadow gust of wind as a second level spell.

[Draken]

I have of late been considering the idea that a spell should either demand your concentration or your repeated actions, but never both. As a general fix to a number of terrible spells.

[MaxWilson]

The spell only has a 30' range, and has to originate from a space on the ground that you can see.

A fair point about range. The cliff was something like 80' high (I forget exactly) so the ground at the bottom would have been out of range I guess.

I don't regret the ruling but I can see now how it meaningfully diverges from the rules as written, and therefore makes the spell technically worse.

[tieren]

Personally, I'd allow the vine to be at the very edge of the cliff and pull things over, call it their momentum carrying them over.

[Pex]

Banishment is in the somewhat unique case of being more expensive to Twin it than to upcast it. It does take time to switch your 4th level slot and sorcery points into a 5th level slot, however. Once you do that, it's 7 sorcery points to make a 5th level slot, or 8 sorcery point value if you cast a twinned 4th level spell.

??

It only costs 4 to twin Banishment. You can't twin it if you upcast it. Your choice is twin Banishment or use a 5th level slot for the same effect. At 7th and 8th level twinning Banishment is phenomenal. Even 9th level is a good time to do it since you only have one 5th level spell slot itching for your first 5th level spell. It becomes niche cases to upcast Banishment at high level play. Good to do when you need it but not as standard operating procedure. Twinning Banishment could be. Game circumstances of course can influence things. I'm not saying every Sorcerer must have Banishment or else you're doing it wrong. I just find the spell more valuable to Sorcerers than other spellcasters for twinning purposes.

[Citan]

I would say that this in practice example does have merit because Elemental Bane is significantly harder to make consistent use of without building a group around it (which isn't as simple as you're suggesting, since it requires the martials to have cantrips and/or War Caster and the casters to have very specific spells), whereas Crusader's Mantle would be equally or more useful with just 2 martial characters with extra attack, no investment beyond leveling your class necessary.

Edit: to expand on my point, I had briefly considered taking Elemental Bane as my new 4th level spell in the ongoing SKT campaign (the same one mentioned above) but quickly thought better of it. The reasoning for taking it was to help out our Blaster Sorcerer (Red Dragon Bloodline) in our next endeavor into Fire Giant territory. The cost of my concentration and the fact that our party doesn't share a common elemental type (except for Thunder and Fire damage) as well as targeting what I knew was a strong save on the giants part was enough to steer me in another direction. It's not worth my concentration and I can deal or enable more damage in other, less costly ways.

I'd like to point out that I DID stress that Crusader's Mantle scales with number of weapon attacks.
But precisely the fact it works only on weapon attacks and requires everyone in a 30 feet sphere is a big downside to me.

Especially on that part...
"I would say that this in practice example does have merit because Elemental Bane is significantly harder to make consistent use of without building a group around it "
It's funny how from the same facts we come to such opposite conclusions.
Elemental Bane works consistently well with 90% of party compositions, precisely because so many classes get elemental damage one way or another.

I mean, I demonstrated pretty neatly I think how you can use Elemental Bane with whatever (mostly) character you have in your group.
Crusader's Mantle however is mostly worthless for all casters and all ranged attackers.

[Deathtongue]

Here's my problem with Elemental Bane. It targets Constitution. The worst save in the game to target save for a small handful of higher-CR spellcasters. If you're targeting Constitution with a 4th level spell, it better take the target out of the game entirely. It does not do that. It pierces resistance and allows people to do 2d6 extra damage a turn. Not per damage instance, per turn. Flaming Sphere and Melf's Minute Meteors beat it on several metrics (being redeployable, can target more than one creature, targets a better save) and neither are exactly a game-changer.

I don't know where this idea came from that spells have to have some hidden use that we just don't see. This game printed Mordenkainen's Sword, that mentality should've been permanently shattered years ago.

[MaxWilson]

I mean, I demonstrated pretty neatly I think how you can use Elemental Bane with whatever (mostly) character you have in your group.

I don't think you did this, or at least you didn't do a good job of showing why anyone else should share your thinking. Mostly you just told us about what spells your group picks, and not in a way which adds up to that easy +8d6 damage/round you mentioned originally. Quoting the key section:

I don't see many casters (apart from Warlock) not picking Firebolt or Ray of Frost because those are the best go-to cantrips for ranged attacks.
I don't see many Sorcerers or Wizards either not picking Chromatic Bolt precisely because it's an adaptative spell.
I see even less Eldricht Knights and Arcane Tricksters not picking Booming Blade at least, possibly GreenFlame Blade.
And between...
- Chromatic Bot, Shatter, Burning Hands, Dragon Breath, Absorb Elements and Ice Knife which are easy to get for most casters,
- Elemental Weapon or added elemental damage as class features (like Nature Cleric, Tempest Cleric etc)
- Magic weapons you can get, although elemental ones are mostly rare IIRC...
You have plenty of combinations of characters and build that would immediately benefit of Elemental Bane without having to discuss and decide on one particular element to focus on in session 0.

So, let's say you've got a group with a Booming Blade/Sharpshooter EK, an Ancestor Barbarian, a Moon Druid, and a Bardlock. The hypothetical bardlock is trying to decide between Elemental Bane and Crusader's Mantle. How in the world is Elemental Bane going to yield +8d6 damage/round? It's not (Edit: see *** for niche exception). Even if you choose fire and the Moon Druid chucks Produce Flame and the Bardlock decides to engage with Greenflame Blade instead of Agonizing Repelling Eldritch Blast (a questionable decision), you're spending your concentration and a spell slot to get +4d6 damage per round, not +8d6. Crusader's Mantle isn't terrific, but it straightforwardly adds about +6d4 right off the bat (~two attacks each for EK/Barb/wildshaped Moon Druid) with an extra +8d4 if the Moon Druid has any conjured animals. And you don't have to discount the spell effects based on the chance of the enemy succeeding on its save or there being multiple enemies, because Crusader's Mantle is a buff to your allies, not a curse to a single enemy.

You've illustrated your thinking pretty clearly, and I'm glad you did that, but not cogently. Now I understand why we don't agree, but I don't expect your argument to persuade anyone else ****.

Spoiler: Footnotes ***

Show

*** Edit: I acknowledge that Elemental Bane could be pretty nice if you summon Magma Mephits. 8 Magma Mephits spamming 8 Heat Metals for 2d8+2d6 per turn is obviously better than 8 Magma Mephits spamming Heat Metal for only 2d8 per turn, even before you add in Greenflame Blade + Produce Flame from the druid + bardlock. But a tactic which is strong only against an enemy with enough metal objects on them for 8 Heat Metals is... pretty niche.

**** I have to think about the Magma Mephit use case some more but I think it is too niche to persuade me that "you can use Elemental Bane with whatever (mostly) character you have in your group," especially when you start counting the opportunity cost of spending TWO concentration spells and a 6th level spell slot for a combo relying on a bunch of fragile 22-HP minions.

Crusader's Mantle however is mostly worthless for all casters and all ranged attackers.

Nitpick: this is not correct. If I have 20 skeleton archers within 30' of me shooting arrows at a dragon, 20 skeletons all get +1d4 radiant damage per hit. Ditto for an EK shooting arrows. It's true that ranged attackers have a motivation to spread out and so are less likely to all benefit from the same Crusader's Mantle, but it is false to equate that with it being "mostly worthless" to "all ranged attackers".

In general, it's just easier to get lots of weapon attacks (Crusader's Mantle) than it is to get lots of elemental attacks (Elemental Bane). And Crusader's Mantle doesn't rely on there being one big tough target who nevertheless fails its Con save.

[Citan]

I don't think you did this, or at least you didn't do a good job of showing why anyone else should share your thinking. Mostly you just told us about what spells your group picks, and not in a way which adds up to that easy +8d6 damage/round you mentioned originally. Quoting the key section:



So, let's say you've got a group with a Booming Blade/Sharpshooter EK, an Ancestor Barbarian, a Moon Druid, and a Bardlock. The hypothetical bardlock is trying to decide between Elemental Bane and Crusader's Mantle. How in the world is Elemental Bane going to yield +8d6 damage/round? It's not (Edit: see *** for niche exception). Even if you choose fire and the Moon Druid chucks Produce Flame and the Bardlock decides to engage with Greenflame Blade instead of Agonizing Repelling Eldritch Blast (a questionable decision), you're spending your concentration and a spell slot to get +4d6 damage per round, not +8d6. Crusader's Mantle isn't terrific, but it straightforwardly adds about +6d4 right off the bat (~two attacks each for EK/Barb/wildshaped Moon Druid) with an extra +8d4 if the Moon Druid has any conjured animals. And you don't have to discount the spell effects based on the chance of the enemy succeeding on its save or there being multiple enemies, because Crusader's Mantle is a buff to your allies, not a curse to a single enemy.

You've illustrated your thinking pretty clearly, and I'm glad you did that, but not cogently. Now I understand why we don't agree, but I don't expect your argument to persuade anyone else ****.

Spoiler: Footnotes ***

Show

*** Edit: I acknowledge that Elemental Bane could be pretty nice if you summon Magma Mephits. 8 Magma Mephits spamming 8 Heat Metals for 2d8+2d6 per turn is obviously better than 8 Magma Mephits spamming Heat Metal for only 2d8 per turn, even before you add in Greenflame Blade + Produce Flame from the druid + bardlock. But a tactic which is strong only against an enemy with enough metal objects on them for 8 Heat Metals is... pretty niche.

**** I have to think about the Magma Mephit use case some more but I think it is too niche to persuade me that "you can use Elemental Bane with whatever (mostly) character you have in your group," especially when you start counting the opportunity cost of spending TWO concentration spells and a 6th level spell slot for a combo relying on a bunch of fragile 22-HP minions.

Nitpick: this is not correct. If I have 20 skeleton archers within 30' of me shooting arrows at a dragon, 20 skeletons all get +1d4 radiant damage per hit. Ditto for an EK shooting arrows. It's true that ranged attackers have a motivation to spread out and so are less likely to all benefit from the same Crusader's Mantle, but it is false to equate that with it being "mostly worthless" to "all ranged attackers".

In general, it's just easier to get lots of weapon attacks (Crusader's Mantle) than it is to get lots of elemental attacks (Elemental Bane). And Crusader's Mantle doesn't rely on there being one big tough target who nevertheless fails its Con save.

Well, as usual you don't really try to project, just reducing other's argument in a way that helps your own view by trying to pick the extreme opposite and presenting it as a general case.

Ok, nevermind.

Let's pick what I think everyone will agree as being an archetypal group. Obviously level 7-8. ;)
Wizard (Diviner or Evoker), Rogue (Thief or Arcane Trickster), Fighter (Eldricht Knight), Cleric (Tempest or Life).
For this group, Elemental Bane wouldn't be in the spells to keep prepared "by default". Only the EK, Wizard itself and possibly Cleric (if Tempest) or Rogue (if Magic Initiate) could get some work of it.

What could be affected? Booming Blade (Rogue/Fighter), GreenFlameBlade (Rogue), Create Bonfire (Fighter) and Flame Strike (Cleric, which usually has better spending of slots anyways). So, useless? Nope.

It's still worth having in the book (reminder: nobody forces you to *prepare* it every single day) for whenever you expect to be fighting fire-resistant or thunder-resistant enemies or just want to be on the safe side.
Booming Blade: instead of 50% reduction, you get at the very least 50% *increase* (lvl 8: 1d8+5 (weapon) + 1d8 (thunder)), and another 50% increase on enemy's turn thanks to the rider. Because now enemy moving would take 2d8+2d6.
Conversely, this also means the "you'd rather not move" soft control effect is *much* more efficient.
So with just one guy with one easy to get cantrip, you give at least 4d6 extra damage (Rogue or Fighter + yourself), possibly 6d6.
If you upcast Elemental Bane to target 2 creatures, you can quickly rack up to 10d6 (yourself using low-level AOE is simple enough).

GreenFlameBlade: same basic 50% increase, which could amount to much more with an upcast Elemental Bane thanks to the collateral damage.
And you as a Wizard probably got a fire cantrip too so same as previous.

--
Now let's consider another classic party: Paladin, Eldricht Knight, Nature Cleric, Wizard.
Paladin could use Searing Smite, now dealing 3d6 damage until CON save (if you used Elemental Bane, I figure you consider chances of failing save are high enough ;)).
Eldricht Knight could grapple him over a Create Bonfire while smaking it.

Let's figure what happens at level 9.
Paladin gets Elemental Weapon, so fire/ice/lightning are legit. Eldricht Knight could mix up War Magic to get extra damage from a cantrip among Booming Blade / GreenFlameBlade / Shocking Grasp / Ray of Frost while still getting one weapon attack. Nature Cleric gets extra damage that he can choose from with a weapon attack. Yourself as a Wizard can reasonably spend one or two Chromatic Bolts.
So three of party can use Elemental Bane with all elements, only the EK will feel a bit cranked unless he used one of its many feats to get Magic Initiate.
And the ONLY choice here are:
- Wizard picks and prepares Elemental Bane (normally not a big deal unless no chance to learn extra spells).
- Paladin prepares Elemental Weapon (which is honestly a sensible thing to do usually whenever you don't know what you'll face the next day).
And I honestly could find ways to crank up similar damage mostly whatever party combination you get unless you only pick purely martial ones.
So much for "you just told your group's choices" (which is by the way terribly wrong, I've been pulling back everything I read around here in addition to people around me).

As I said... You just don't try to see the synergy.
And I find very funny that you try to refute my argument of "it's too niche" with the nichest use-case that may exist for Crusaders' Mantle (yeah, sorry, undead armies led by PC is NOT normal).

I can completely respect an opinion like "I'll always prefer try my luck on a debuff spell" (because that is personal taste, nothing to say to that) or "I'll always rather try a group debuff" (because having full waste is very frustrating, at least you'll have some effect, and I can perfectly back that)...
But saying that "Elemental Bane is useless" or "Elemental Bane requires a very specific party" is just blinding oneself. It's the opposite: Elemental Bane is useless only with a few specific cases of party composition.

Oh, by the way, on your example (congrats on finding probably the most disparate party, I did mention that martial heavy parties were the less fitting and you put a non-Storm Herald Barbarian in here, a Sharpshooter with Booming Blade -which means basically it's a ranged martial, without elemental ability and Booming Blade as a simple afterthought): if party considers thunder damage is the way to go, have the Fighter comes up and close to use Booming Blade, you're already 2d6 or 4d6 in. Bardlock (I'll guess Hexblade because it's the obvious optimal choice) will certainly have picked Booming Blade whatever Pact he chooses. So just do the same.
Enemy doesn't move? 4d6 extra damage. Enemy moves? 6d6 (since riders don't stack). On only 2 people. Or you could use another thunder damage cantrip/spell if it's better for situation.
If fire was the way to go? EK can use Firebolt or Create Bonfire or GreenFlame Blade and one Sharpshooter shoot with War magic (reminder: you're supposedly fighting an enemy with a reason to use Elemental Bane, like being resistant to weapon damage or very high HP and/or dangerous close-quarter abilities), while Bardlock uses GreenFlame Blade or Firebolt. Druid can conjure up some Minor Elemental then use Produce Flame, or keep up a Flaming Sphere, if high enough level could stack this with a Fire Elemental Shape.
Maths? 2d6 (EK) + 2d6 (Warlock) + 2d6 (Druid) + 2d6 (conjuration). Buff that with 50% or 100% increase as soon as Warlock gets autoupcast as a level 5 spell (2 creatures), depending on other cantrips and spells party has.

Here's my problem with Elemental Bane. It targets Constitution. The worst save in the game to target save for a small handful of higher-CR spellcasters. If you're targeting Constitution with a 4th level spell, it better take the target out of the game entirely. It does not do that. It pierces resistance and allows people to do 2d6 extra damage a turn. Not per damage instance, per turn. Flaming Sphere and Melf's Minute Meteors beat it on several metrics (being redeployable, can target more than one creature, targets a better save) and neither are exactly a game-changer.

I don't know where this idea came from that spells have to have some hidden use that we just don't see. This game printed Mordenkainen's Sword, that mentality should've been permanently shattered years ago.

Yeah, it's true, targeting CON is a pain.
This is certainly one flaw (the only one in fact) of the spell.

But who cares really? The single-target spells that are in practice "accurate enough" to be reliable against most enemies and "sustainable enough" to last can be counted on probably no more than two hands: basically only spells that target INT and CHA.
Blindness targets CON and gives a save every turn. But people still use it because sometimes a turn is enough.
Hold Person targets WIS which is better, but it gives a save every turn. And you still have no certainty of success. Yet people still use it because one turn of better offense and defense is (usually) worth the shot.
Hypnotic Pattern targets WIS, and ends whenever targets suffers damage (among other things) which makes it fairly unreliable in practice unless whole party is ready and in ability to shut off anyone succeeding on the save. Yet many *many people* try their luck because it's still quite a few actions wasted on enemy side usually.
Elemental Bane caters to different situations: ONE fail is all you need. And ONE fail is something that can be helped with unless you have no knowledge at all about enemies nor any character with save-altering spell/feature.
And pulling the "it's save or nothing" card against it honestly hilarious considering this is the case of at least 50% of debuff spells, including the most appreciated ones like...
- Polymorph (which renders that enemy harmless, but ultimately delays the actual dealing with it)
- Banishment (same)
- Phantasmal Force (which can be a bit unreliable or limited depending on player and DM).
So, in reality, every day of adventuring, casters waste a chunk of slots, sometimes because of inaccurate assessment of enemy weaknesses, sometimes because of sheer bad luck... And still people enjoy very much playing casters even without being Diviner Wizard / Sorcerer.

I'd like to stress that I'm not saying anything like "Elemental Bane is great and should be used as often as possible".
To be honest, as a Wizard, my first reflex would never be Elemental Bane, rather a Slow or Wall. Because those usually have *some* effect so I won't fear wasting a slot (although in practice the results may be of little interest to party).
But it does have enough utility to be kept either permanently as a Wizard (because you can afford it), as a Druid (same, especially Shepherd or Moon) or as a conscious design choice as a Warlock (because you have enough people in party with elemental tools or because you consider having enough ways to make good use of it yourself).

And it becomes a shiny big tool in parties made by optimizing people: let's recall the number of threads around here about Warcaster Booming Blade Rogues, GWM+Warcaster Booming Blade/GreenFlameBlade Eldricht Knights, Twinning Booming Blade / Chromatic Bolt single/dual/tri-classed Sorcerer, HexbladesWarlocks/DevotionOrVengeancePaladins to quote the most prominent ones.

[MaxWilson]

And I find very funny that you try to refute my argument of "it's too niche" with the nichest use-case that may exist for Crusaders' Mantle (yeah, sorry, undead armies led by PC is NOT normal).

That wasn't a refutation of "it's niche." That was a correction to "mostly worthless for... all ranged attackers."

We apparently both agree that Crusader's Mantle is not great, but if I want to demonstrate use cases I'll point not only to necromancers but also to fighters, barbarians, druids (especially Shepherd), and anyone fighting zombies or vampires. It's niche and definitely not terrific but its utility is not restricted to just necromancers.

But saying that "Elemental Bane is useless" or "Elemental Bane requires a very specific party" is just blinding oneself...

I'd like to stress that I'm not saying anything like "Elemental Bane is great and should be used as often as possible".
To be honest, as a Wizard, my first reflex would never be Elemental Bane, rather a Slow or Wall...
But it does have enough utility to be kept either permanently as a Wizard (because you can afford it), as a Druid (same, especially Shepherd or Moon) or as a conscious design choice as a Warlock (because you have enough people in party with elemental tools or because you consider having enough ways to make good use of it yourself).

I'd never pick Elemental Bane on level-up, but if I got it for free as a wizard, as loot instead of a level-up pick, sure, I'd keep it. In that scenario it's basically free, costs me only time and gold. I think we both agree that it's not useless to have in your spell list. But it isn't great and I would rarely even prepare it.

[Chaosmancer]

If Elemental Bane was worthless, then what to say about Crusader's Mantle? It's a 3rd level spell...
- non-scalable
- only adding 1d4 damage, of a type that can have synergy with only some Clerics and Warlocks basically (at least it's rarely resisted),
- not doing anything against damage resistance creatures may have otherwise...
- and requiring everyone to stay within 30 feet (which amounts to a big middle finger towards all guys that try to stay out of danger, typically casters).
Yet it can great in melee parties especially those with many attacks, or with conjured minions.

Same spirit with Elemental Bane: party buff that scales extremely well. Only two differences are that...
- EB is more reliant on party numbers.
- But EB is also much easier to use whatever kind of party you are in. :)

I could be remembering wrong but Elemental bane has a saving throw and affects only a single target. Meaning even in the best circumstance you're only ganking a single opponent.

Crusaders Mantle is a buff, so no save and it doesn't care about the number of enemies. Only about if you are within the aura.

I can see a big difference in the tactics of those spells

Edit: I see I should have reloaded the page before posting.

I can see where the damage of Elemental bane stacks if everyone has elemental damage. But even if you can (and you can't always unless the group has coordinated, because while the fighter CAN get magic initiate for green flame, they took mobile to get in melee quicker or some other strategy)

However, it still doesn't change that single target. I'd say its rare to have a lot of mid level fights with only a single important target, because too many spells end that fight and the damage inequity is too big.

[Zalabim]

??

It only costs 4 to twin Banishment. You can't twin it if you upcast it. Your choice is twin Banishment or use a 5th level slot for the same effect. At 7th and 8th level twinning Banishment is phenomenal. Even 9th level is a good time to do it since you only have one 5th level spell slot itching for your first 5th level spell. It becomes niche cases to upcast Banishment at high level play. Good to do when you need it but not as standard operating procedure. Twinning Banishment could be. Game circumstances of course can influence things. I'm not saying every Sorcerer must have Banishment or else you're doing it wrong. I just find the spell more valuable to Sorcerers than other spellcasters for twinning purposes.

You're forgetting about Font of Magic which all sorcerers have access to.

[Jerrykhor]

Elemental Bane may be bad, but no way its worse than Grasping Vine. Like many have said, Elemental Bane is a very niche spell whose mileage depends on the team setup and enemy type.

But Grasping Vine has to take the No.1 spot. The spell is just horrible mechanically, and fluff wise. The vine pulls a creature nearer to itself.... and cannot hold on to it. Not even a basic debuff such as grappled, restrained or whatever. Nothing. You know, things that Lv1 spells do. It just pulls you in and lets go, so that it can pull you again. It doesn't even make sense! So it does no damage, hogs your concentration AND bonus action, and it pulls the target. But its not even forced movement a la Dissonant Whispers. Its essentially a glorified Thorn Whip.

And no, I disagree that Banishment is overrated. When spells with repeated saves are the norm, Banishment stands out for being one of the few 'Fail once, suck forever' spell. Its only weakness being Concentration, but its one where it made sense to balance out this otherwise incredibly overpowered spell that can hard CC a creature no matter how big, how strong or how fast it is.

[tchntm43]

I just started watching your videos. Really cool stuff. I've never really thought about how spells can be used in combination to be more than the sum of the parts (i.e. Goodberry + Find Familiar), and I'm not really sure how I never considered that since I've also been playing Magic since 1994.

I'm not really sure there are useless spells (i.e. Illusionary Script). One aspect of my personal DM philosophy is that it's my job to make my player's decisions relevant. If someone in my group thinks Illusionary Script is a cool spell to take, it'll be up to me to have some element of the story involve a part where using that spell (if they realize it) would be helpful. As part of the process in planning out my dungeons and role-playing scenarios, I'm going to look at what the party has for items and skills, and add content that gives them the opportunity to use what they have.

[EvilAnagram]

For the purpose of this series, I'm rating spells against each other by spell level alone. I figure in theory, a 5th level spell on one list should be as good as a 5th level spell on another list. Though that might just be my viewpoint.

The designers have explained in multiple D&D Beyond videos that they disagree. Damaging spells from divine classes, for example, are intentionally less damaging than arcane spell lists because they want the classes to have different feels. This extends into having different disabling and buffing spells available to different classes. Sure Otiluke's Resilient Sphere is nice, but my sorcerer can't use it. She can use a Heightened Banishment to end a fight with a Gorristro with an 80% chance of success, however. Well, 92.5% with Bend Luck.

Your position just doesn't mesh with the design goals of the game.

[MaxWilson]

The designers have explained in multiple D&D Beyond videos that they disagree. Damaging spells from divine classes, for example, are intentionally less damaging than arcane spell lists because they want the classes to have different feels.

Not that I didn't suspect this already, but... what a huge disconnect between the designers who said this and the writers of the 5E DMG spell creation guidelines.

[EvilAnagram]

Not that I didn't suspect this already, but... what a huge disconnect between the designers who said this and the writers of the 5E DMG spell creation guidelines.

Here is the video, if you're interested.