Mixing
Does this cantrip have a fair risk/reward balance?
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
One of my players is a demonologist and requested a cantrip related to the field. So I took a crack at it and came up with the following thinking that an attack on the mind was fitting:
Three-Word Curse: Nails
Enchantment cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, M (a fragment of ram horn)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
You speak in a demonic tongue slowly cursing the mind of a creature you can see within range. If the target can hear you (though it need not understand you), it must succeed a Wisdom saving throw to end the spell. On each of your turns for the duration, you may use your action to have the target attempt the Wisdom saving throw again. The spell ends if you use your action to do anything else. On the third failed attempt by the target, it experiences the feeling of several nails piercing their skull simultaneously and takes 5d8 psychic damage, and the spell then ends.
The spell's damage increases by 1d8 when you reach 5th level (6d8), 11th level (7d8), and 17th level (8d8).
Does the risk of wasting the invested time balance the high damage reward?
dnd-5e spells homebrew balance cantrips
edited 19 hours ago
V2Blast
18.1k248114
asked 20 hours ago
Luckee
463
New contributor
Luckee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
One of my players is a demonologist and requested a cantrip related to the field. So I took a crack at it and came up with the following thinking that an attack on the mind was fitting:
Three-Word Curse: Nails
Enchantment cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, M (a fragment of ram horn)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
You speak in a demonic tongue slowly cursing the mind of a creature you can see within range. If the target can hear you (though it need not understand you), it must succeed a Wisdom saving throw to end the spell. On each of your turns for the duration, you may use your action to have the target attempt the Wisdom saving throw again. The spell ends if you use your action to do anything else. On the third failed attempt by the target, it experiences the feeling of several nails piercing their skull simultaneously and takes 5d8 psychic damage, and the spell then ends.
The spell's damage increases by 1d8 when you reach 5th level (6d8), 11th level (7d8), and 17th level (8d8).
Does the risk of wasting the invested time balance the high damage reward?
dnd-5e spells homebrew balance cantrips
edited 19 hours ago
V2Blast
18.1k248114
asked 20 hours ago
Luckee
463
New contributor
Luckee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Welcome to RPG.SE. Please take the tour and visit the help to get a feel for how a Q&A site in the SE format works best. thanks for your question, and have fun.
– KorvinStarmast
19 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
One of my players is a demonologist and requested a cantrip related to the field. So I took a crack at it and came up with the following thinking that an attack on the mind was fitting:
Three-Word Curse: Nails
Enchantment cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, M (a fragment of ram horn)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
You speak in a demonic tongue slowly cursing the mind of a creature you can see within range. If the target can hear you (though it need not understand you), it must succeed a Wisdom saving throw to end the spell. On each of your turns for the duration, you may use your action to have the target attempt the Wisdom saving throw again. The spell ends if you use your action to do anything else. On the third failed attempt by the target, it experiences the feeling of several nails piercing their skull simultaneously and takes 5d8 psychic damage, and the spell then ends.
The spell's damage increases by 1d8 when you reach 5th level (6d8), 11th level (7d8), and 17th level (8d8).
Does the risk of wasting the invested time balance the high damage reward?
dnd-5e spells homebrew balance cantrips
edited 19 hours ago
V2Blast
18.1k248114
asked 20 hours ago
Luckee
463
New contributor
Luckee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
One of my players is a demonologist and requested a cantrip related to the field. So I took a crack at it and came up with the following thinking that an attack on the mind was fitting:
Three-Word Curse: Nails
Enchantment cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, M (a fragment of ram horn)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
You speak in a demonic tongue slowly cursing the mind of a creature you can see within range. If the target can hear you (though it need not understand you), it must succeed a Wisdom saving throw to end the spell. On each of your turns for the duration, you may use your action to have the target attempt the Wisdom saving throw again. The spell ends if you use your action to do anything else. On the third failed attempt by the target, it experiences the feeling of several nails piercing their skull simultaneously and takes 5d8 psychic damage, and the spell then ends.
The spell's damage increases by 1d8 when you reach 5th level (6d8), 11th level (7d8), and 17th level (8d8).
Does the risk of wasting the invested time balance the high damage reward?
dnd-5e spells homebrew balance cantrips
dnd-5e spells homebrew balance cantrips
edited 19 hours ago
V2Blast
18.1k248114
asked 20 hours ago
Luckee
463
New contributor
Luckee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 19 hours ago
V2Blast
18.1k248114
asked 20 hours ago
Luckee
463
New contributor
Luckee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 19 hours ago
V2Blast
18.1k248114
edited 19 hours ago
V2Blast
18.1k248114
edited 19 hours ago
V2Blast
18.1k248114
18.1k248114
asked 20 hours ago
Luckee
463
New contributor
Luckee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 20 hours ago
Luckee
463
asked 20 hours ago
Luckee
463
463
New contributor
Luckee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Luckee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Luckee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Welcome to RPG.SE. Please take the tour and visit the help to get a feel for how a Q&A site in the SE format works best. thanks for your question, and have fun.
– KorvinStarmast
19 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Welcome to RPG.SE. Please take the tour and visit the help to get a feel for how a Q&A site in the SE format works best. thanks for your question, and have fun.
– KorvinStarmast
19 hours ago
1
1
Welcome to RPG.SE. Please take the tour and visit the help to get a feel for how a Q&A site in the SE format works best. thanks for your question, and have fun.
– KorvinStarmast
19 hours ago
Welcome to RPG.SE. Please take the tour and visit the help to get a feel for how a Q&A site in the SE format works best. thanks for your question, and have fun.
– KorvinStarmast
19 hours ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
21
down vote
The risk/cost is too high
The cost is:
- Concentration
- Three Actions
This is a rather high investment to start with, but there is also the risk:
- The target needs to fail 3 saves
- These have to be consecutive
Below level 5 the damage potential of this spell (5d8) is higher than other cantrips (3d12 with toll the dead is the next), but on higher levels it seriously starts to lag behind. Other cantrips also get +1dX, but they can be used 3x as often.
Add to this the aforementioned risk. Requiring 3 saves already gives this a low chance to succeed, but to achieve that on 3 consecutive rolls plunges the chance of success even deeper. The effective time/action investment will be way over 3 because of needing to restart on any successful save. This spell will extremely rarely do anything, especially considering that most combats do not last for even 10 turns (usual is 5-8 in my experience).
All in all this spell is so risky I would dare to call it near useless and the damage progression is miscalculated.
Recommendations
If you want to preserve the "three word" aspect, imitate spells like contagion and do not require the failed saves to be consecutive, but end the spell with 3 successful ones (also not necessarily consecutive). A mechanic resembling death saves. And either do not require any further action investment (like other such spells) or make it a bonus action. Also, I would advise you to make it a higher level spell, not a cantrip.
If you want to just make a more thematically appropriate cantrip, reskinning an existing one would be much easier to do and to balance.
edited 19 hours ago
V2Blast
18.1k248114
answered 19 hours ago
Szega
36.8k4152187
What you are proposing is a en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_binomial_distribution and its not much of an improvement. Assuming the target fails their saving throws 60% of the time you still only have a 55% chance of success after 10 rounds. How many combats have you seen that went more than 5?
– Dale M
16 hours ago
1
@DaleM I see that I was not completely clear, since with my propsed method, the spell cannot go on for 10 rounds. It must be over after the 5th roll (2*fail+2*success, last decides). My calculations for 60% fail chance give a 68.256% chance for the spell to deal damage.
– Szega
13 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
The other answers give a good picture on why the spell is, from a mechanical perspective, too weak. I will touch on that too, but also a couple of game design points that might help yiu understand why this spell won't work very well.
From a purely mechanical point of view, "succeed on more rolls to inflict more damage" is a workable concept. The expected damage output should be very high compared to normal cantrips to offset the fact that for normal cantrips, two successes (for three castings) inflict 2/3 of the damage one would inflict on three hits, while the "all-or-nothing" approach of the three word curse would inflict no damage unless all rolls succeeded. (Or failed, from the saving creature's POV)
However, mechanical balance isn't enough to make a cantrip good. I forecast problems relating to the use of this spell in tables.
It should be used early...
Suppose you're fighting a group of nasties and choose to use TWC. Three rounds later, you may have a chance to deal 5d8 damage ...if the combat is still going on. Many encounters last for a surprisingly small number of rounds, so TWC: Nails would probably find itself used mostly as an opener, because it might not get a chance to fire later on and 5d8 against an enemy weakened by the action already would be more likely to be an overkill.
...but early turns are too valuable to waste
Removing enemies from the encounter during the first turns is very valuable in DnD, strategically, because every removed enemy shifts the action economy to favor the PCs. Removing enemies during the first turns is something TWC: Nails can't do, but since it has little use later in the combat too, it's an inadvisable spell to use regardless.
Inaction is boring
This is the worst part to me. TWC: Nails will have the player essentially skipping three turns in order to have a chance to deal relatively massive damage. Assuming the spell dealt enough damage to be mechanically appealing, you'd be promoting an extremely boring style of gameplay to your players --- don't do that. As a general rule, make fun choices strong and strong choices fun, so players don't feel tempted to min-max themselves into something boring.
Poor party synergy
Especially assuming the cantrip gets the damage buff to make it mechanically competitive, another problem sets in --- it's overkill against many types of enemies. To avoid wasting that sweet damage, it encourages the players to not target the enemy targeted with TWC. Reserving enemies for oneself gets stale fast and can cause a lot of tension among the players, and can also result in very swingy outcomes: if the spell fails, you're gonna wish you had put in some damage instead of trusting the dice.
Bookkeeping
The spell forces an additional bookkeeping need for the players or the GM. It's a minor issue, but still one more thing I'd change.
Overall
The spell seems like something that might be a workable concept in a computer game where turns can be executed in mere seconds. However, in DnD, I think even the part where you have to idle during combat to have a chance to deal damage is unacceptable. The spell's concept is neat, but ultimately just a gimmick that can't be the sole justification of its existence.
If you want to preserve the "three strikes", I recommend the following changes:
- make the spell deal some damage on every failed save
- don't require the saves to be consecutive
- the third failed save deals extra damage
- no concentration needed
It's still not my favorite kind of spell, but it's more flexible in its use than before and far less swingy.
answered 11 hours ago
kviiri
30.8k7114182
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Probability
Your proposed mechanism requires 3 consecutive failed saves starting with the first. As such, the 1 minute duration is irrelevant - it will all be over in at most 3 rounds.
D&D aims to have a "hit rate" (including failed saving throws) of about 60%. assuming that your target has this chance of failing their saving throw, chaining 3 of these together gives a 21.6% success rate.
In addition, you are proposing that this requires concentration. So, unlike every other damaging cantrip it is not certain that it will "go off" and it means you can't be concentrating on anything else.
Damaging cantrips
Damaging cantrips are for a spellcaster what making an attack is for a martial class - the default action to take when you have no better options. Specifically:
- They don't use up resources (e.g. spell slots)
- They use up 1 action
- They are all or nothing in terms of damage
- They scale with character level, either by increasing in damage or adding additional targets
Saving throw cantrips
There are 4 cantrips in the PHB that have a saving throw:
$$begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
hline
textbf{Spell}& textbf{Range} & textbf{Damage} & textbf{Expected*} & textbf{Save} &textbf{Extra} \ hline
textit{Acid Splash} & text{60} & text{1d6 acid} & 2.1text{ or }4.2 & text{Dex} & text{Up to 2 targets within 5 feet} \ hline
textit{Poison Spray} & text{10} & text{1d12 poison} & 3.9 & text{Con} & text{} \ hline
textit{Sacred Flame} & text{60} & text{1d8 radiant} & 2.7 & text{Dex} & text{} \ hline
textit{Vicious Mockery} & text{60} & text{1d4 psychic} & 1.5 & text{Wis} & text{Disadvantage on next attack roll} \ hline
textit{TWC: Nails} & text{60} & text{5d8 psychic} & 1.62 & text{Wis} & text{Takes 3 rounds w/- concentration} \ hline
end{array}$$
- Expected damage assuming the target needs to roll an 13 or better to save (60% success rate) and dividing by 3 for your cantrip because it takes 3 rounds.
So, given these comparisons, would you chose this cantrip? By the way, this is at levels 1-4 - the spell only gets worse after than in comparison.
Use one of these as a model
Make it the same as Sacred Flame only with psychic damage and your flavour text.
Or reduce the range and do more damage like Poison Spray or reduce the damage and allow it to affect more people like Acid Splash or reduce the damage and give it an effect like Vicious Mockery.
Whatever you do, you need to drop the multi-round nature of the effect - that's not how cantrips work.
edited 14 hours ago
V2Blast
18.1k248114
answered 14 hours ago
Dale M
98.6k19251442
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Way too weak.
Most foes will be dead before it does anything. And even if the target fails every save, it is 3 actions for 22.5 damage or 7.5 damage/action.
Unlike most attacks, you have to hit 3 times for it to do anything.
If the foe fails 60% of the time that is a 21.6% chance it does anything. If they fail 80% of the time, your chance of it doing damage is about 50-50. This is horrible.
3 turn delay, horrible accuracy, mediocre effect, bad scaling.
Three-Word Curse: Nails
Enchantment cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, M (a fragment of ram horn)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
You speak a word in a demonic tongue slowly cursing the mind of a creature you can see within range who can hear you. The target creature must make a Wisdom saving throw or suffer the curse of this spell. Creatures under the curse feel nails surrounding their skull in all directions.
Whenever a creature fails any saving throw against this spell, they suffer disadvantage on their next attack before the start of your next turn.
While a creature is under the effects of this curse, you may spend an action to utter the second or third word of the curse.
When the 2nd word is uttered, the creature must make a Wisdom saving throw or suffer 1d8 damage as they feel nails being tapped into their skull on all sides. Passing a save against the 2nd word does not end the spell.
After the 3rd word is uttered the curse ends. The target must make a Wisdom save or suffer 4d8 damage and feel nails slam into their skull from all sides.
You may only utter the 3rd word after a creature has failed a save against the 2nd word.
The spell's damage increases by 1d8 when you reach 5th level, 11th and 17th level. This applies to the damage from both the 2nd and 3rd word.
I did a few things.
I added disadvantage on attacks. Like viscious mockery.
I moved some damage up to the 2nd curse word.
I doubled the rate of damage scaling (by having it apply twice).
You can now utter the first word of the curse and hold it in reserve with concentration.
Succeeding in a save against the 2nd word doesn't remove the curse. The caster can try again and again until it takes hold.
The curse now has an effect right away (disadvantage). If you hit "twice" you get damage similar to Viscious Mockery, and 3 times to deal decent damage.
Ignoring concentration, this ability is now stronger than Viscious Mockery. Add in concentration and it looks more reasonable.
edited 11 mins ago
KorvinStarmast
70.9k17224390
answered 1 hour ago
Yakk
6,3601038
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
21
down vote
The risk/cost is too high
The cost is:
- Concentration
- Three Actions
This is a rather high investment to start with, but there is also the risk:
- The target needs to fail 3 saves
- These have to be consecutive
Below level 5 the damage potential of this spell (5d8) is higher than other cantrips (3d12 with toll the dead is the next), but on higher levels it seriously starts to lag behind. Other cantrips also get +1dX, but they can be used 3x as often.
Add to this the aforementioned risk. Requiring 3 saves already gives this a low chance to succeed, but to achieve that on 3 consecutive rolls plunges the chance of success even deeper. The effective time/action investment will be way over 3 because of needing to restart on any successful save. This spell will extremely rarely do anything, especially considering that most combats do not last for even 10 turns (usual is 5-8 in my experience).
All in all this spell is so risky I would dare to call it near useless and the damage progression is miscalculated.
Recommendations
If you want to preserve the "three word" aspect, imitate spells like contagion and do not require the failed saves to be consecutive, but end the spell with 3 successful ones (also not necessarily consecutive). A mechanic resembling death saves. And either do not require any further action investment (like other such spells) or make it a bonus action. Also, I would advise you to make it a higher level spell, not a cantrip.
If you want to just make a more thematically appropriate cantrip, reskinning an existing one would be much easier to do and to balance.
edited 19 hours ago
V2Blast
18.1k248114
answered 19 hours ago
Szega
36.8k4152187
What you are proposing is a en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_binomial_distribution and its not much of an improvement. Assuming the target fails their saving throws 60% of the time you still only have a 55% chance of success after 10 rounds. How many combats have you seen that went more than 5?
– Dale M
16 hours ago
1
@DaleM I see that I was not completely clear, since with my propsed method, the spell cannot go on for 10 rounds. It must be over after the 5th roll (2*fail+2*success, last decides). My calculations for 60% fail chance give a 68.256% chance for the spell to deal damage.
– Szega
13 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
21
down vote
The risk/cost is too high
The cost is:
- Concentration
- Three Actions
This is a rather high investment to start with, but there is also the risk:
- The target needs to fail 3 saves
- These have to be consecutive
Below level 5 the damage potential of this spell (5d8) is higher than other cantrips (3d12 with toll the dead is the next), but on higher levels it seriously starts to lag behind. Other cantrips also get +1dX, but they can be used 3x as often.
Add to this the aforementioned risk. Requiring 3 saves already gives this a low chance to succeed, but to achieve that on 3 consecutive rolls plunges the chance of success even deeper. The effective time/action investment will be way over 3 because of needing to restart on any successful save. This spell will extremely rarely do anything, especially considering that most combats do not last for even 10 turns (usual is 5-8 in my experience).
All in all this spell is so risky I would dare to call it near useless and the damage progression is miscalculated.
Recommendations
If you want to preserve the "three word" aspect, imitate spells like contagion and do not require the failed saves to be consecutive, but end the spell with 3 successful ones (also not necessarily consecutive). A mechanic resembling death saves. And either do not require any further action investment (like other such spells) or make it a bonus action. Also, I would advise you to make it a higher level spell, not a cantrip.
If you want to just make a more thematically appropriate cantrip, reskinning an existing one would be much easier to do and to balance.
edited 19 hours ago
V2Blast
18.1k248114
answered 19 hours ago
Szega
36.8k4152187
What you are proposing is a en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_binomial_distribution and its not much of an improvement. Assuming the target fails their saving throws 60% of the time you still only have a 55% chance of success after 10 rounds. How many combats have you seen that went more than 5?
– Dale M
16 hours ago
1
@DaleM I see that I was not completely clear, since with my propsed method, the spell cannot go on for 10 rounds. It must be over after the 5th roll (2*fail+2*success, last decides). My calculations for 60% fail chance give a 68.256% chance for the spell to deal damage.
– Szega
13 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
21
down vote
up vote
21
down vote
The risk/cost is too high
The cost is:
- Concentration
- Three Actions
This is a rather high investment to start with, but there is also the risk:
- The target needs to fail 3 saves
- These have to be consecutive
Below level 5 the damage potential of this spell (5d8) is higher than other cantrips (3d12 with toll the dead is the next), but on higher levels it seriously starts to lag behind. Other cantrips also get +1dX, but they can be used 3x as often.
Add to this the aforementioned risk. Requiring 3 saves already gives this a low chance to succeed, but to achieve that on 3 consecutive rolls plunges the chance of success even deeper. The effective time/action investment will be way over 3 because of needing to restart on any successful save. This spell will extremely rarely do anything, especially considering that most combats do not last for even 10 turns (usual is 5-8 in my experience).
All in all this spell is so risky I would dare to call it near useless and the damage progression is miscalculated.
Recommendations
If you want to preserve the "three word" aspect, imitate spells like contagion and do not require the failed saves to be consecutive, but end the spell with 3 successful ones (also not necessarily consecutive). A mechanic resembling death saves. And either do not require any further action investment (like other such spells) or make it a bonus action. Also, I would advise you to make it a higher level spell, not a cantrip.
If you want to just make a more thematically appropriate cantrip, reskinning an existing one would be much easier to do and to balance.
edited 19 hours ago
V2Blast
18.1k248114
answered 19 hours ago
Szega
36.8k4152187
The risk/cost is too high
The cost is:
- Concentration
- Three Actions
This is a rather high investment to start with, but there is also the risk:
- The target needs to fail 3 saves
- These have to be consecutive
Below level 5 the damage potential of this spell (5d8) is higher than other cantrips (3d12 with toll the dead is the next), but on higher levels it seriously starts to lag behind. Other cantrips also get +1dX, but they can be used 3x as often.
Add to this the aforementioned risk. Requiring 3 saves already gives this a low chance to succeed, but to achieve that on 3 consecutive rolls plunges the chance of success even deeper. The effective time/action investment will be way over 3 because of needing to restart on any successful save. This spell will extremely rarely do anything, especially considering that most combats do not last for even 10 turns (usual is 5-8 in my experience).
All in all this spell is so risky I would dare to call it near useless and the damage progression is miscalculated.
Recommendations
If you want to preserve the "three word" aspect, imitate spells like contagion and do not require the failed saves to be consecutive, but end the spell with 3 successful ones (also not necessarily consecutive). A mechanic resembling death saves. And either do not require any further action investment (like other such spells) or make it a bonus action. Also, I would advise you to make it a higher level spell, not a cantrip.
If you want to just make a more thematically appropriate cantrip, reskinning an existing one would be much easier to do and to balance.
edited 19 hours ago
V2Blast
18.1k248114
answered 19 hours ago
Szega
36.8k4152187
edited 19 hours ago
V2Blast
18.1k248114
edited 19 hours ago
V2Blast
18.1k248114
edited 19 hours ago
V2Blast
18.1k248114
18.1k248114
answered 19 hours ago
Szega
36.8k4152187
answered 19 hours ago
Szega
36.8k4152187
answered 19 hours ago
Szega
36.8k4152187
36.8k4152187
What you are proposing is a en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_binomial_distribution and its not much of an improvement. Assuming the target fails their saving throws 60% of the time you still only have a 55% chance of success after 10 rounds. How many combats have you seen that went more than 5?
– Dale M
16 hours ago
1
@DaleM I see that I was not completely clear, since with my propsed method, the spell cannot go on for 10 rounds. It must be over after the 5th roll (2*fail+2*success, last decides). My calculations for 60% fail chance give a 68.256% chance for the spell to deal damage.
– Szega
13 hours ago
add a comment |
What you are proposing is a en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_binomial_distribution and its not much of an improvement. Assuming the target fails their saving throws 60% of the time you still only have a 55% chance of success after 10 rounds. How many combats have you seen that went more than 5?
– Dale M
16 hours ago
1
@DaleM I see that I was not completely clear, since with my propsed method, the spell cannot go on for 10 rounds. It must be over after the 5th roll (2*fail+2*success, last decides). My calculations for 60% fail chance give a 68.256% chance for the spell to deal damage.
– Szega
13 hours ago
What you are proposing is a en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_binomial_distribution and its not much of an improvement. Assuming the target fails their saving throws 60% of the time you still only have a 55% chance of success after 10 rounds. How many combats have you seen that went more than 5?
– Dale M
16 hours ago
What you are proposing is a en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_binomial_distribution and its not much of an improvement. Assuming the target fails their saving throws 60% of the time you still only have a 55% chance of success after 10 rounds. How many combats have you seen that went more than 5?
– Dale M
16 hours ago
1
1
@DaleM I see that I was not completely clear, since with my propsed method, the spell cannot go on for 10 rounds. It must be over after the 5th roll (2*fail+2*success, last decides). My calculations for 60% fail chance give a 68.256% chance for the spell to deal damage.
– Szega
13 hours ago
@DaleM I see that I was not completely clear, since with my propsed method, the spell cannot go on for 10 rounds. It must be over after the 5th roll (2*fail+2*success, last decides). My calculations for 60% fail chance give a 68.256% chance for the spell to deal damage.
– Szega
13 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
The other answers give a good picture on why the spell is, from a mechanical perspective, too weak. I will touch on that too, but also a couple of game design points that might help yiu understand why this spell won't work very well.
From a purely mechanical point of view, "succeed on more rolls to inflict more damage" is a workable concept. The expected damage output should be very high compared to normal cantrips to offset the fact that for normal cantrips, two successes (for three castings) inflict 2/3 of the damage one would inflict on three hits, while the "all-or-nothing" approach of the three word curse would inflict no damage unless all rolls succeeded. (Or failed, from the saving creature's POV)
However, mechanical balance isn't enough to make a cantrip good. I forecast problems relating to the use of this spell in tables.
It should be used early...
Suppose you're fighting a group of nasties and choose to use TWC. Three rounds later, you may have a chance to deal 5d8 damage ...if the combat is still going on. Many encounters last for a surprisingly small number of rounds, so TWC: Nails would probably find itself used mostly as an opener, because it might not get a chance to fire later on and 5d8 against an enemy weakened by the action already would be more likely to be an overkill.
...but early turns are too valuable to waste
Removing enemies from the encounter during the first turns is very valuable in DnD, strategically, because every removed enemy shifts the action economy to favor the PCs. Removing enemies during the first turns is something TWC: Nails can't do, but since it has little use later in the combat too, it's an inadvisable spell to use regardless.
Inaction is boring
This is the worst part to me. TWC: Nails will have the player essentially skipping three turns in order to have a chance to deal relatively massive damage. Assuming the spell dealt enough damage to be mechanically appealing, you'd be promoting an extremely boring style of gameplay to your players --- don't do that. As a general rule, make fun choices strong and strong choices fun, so players don't feel tempted to min-max themselves into something boring.
Poor party synergy
Especially assuming the cantrip gets the damage buff to make it mechanically competitive, another problem sets in --- it's overkill against many types of enemies. To avoid wasting that sweet damage, it encourages the players to not target the enemy targeted with TWC. Reserving enemies for oneself gets stale fast and can cause a lot of tension among the players, and can also result in very swingy outcomes: if the spell fails, you're gonna wish you had put in some damage instead of trusting the dice.
Bookkeeping
The spell forces an additional bookkeeping need for the players or the GM. It's a minor issue, but still one more thing I'd change.
Overall
The spell seems like something that might be a workable concept in a computer game where turns can be executed in mere seconds. However, in DnD, I think even the part where you have to idle during combat to have a chance to deal damage is unacceptable. The spell's concept is neat, but ultimately just a gimmick that can't be the sole justification of its existence.
If you want to preserve the "three strikes", I recommend the following changes:
- make the spell deal some damage on every failed save
- don't require the saves to be consecutive
- the third failed save deals extra damage
- no concentration needed
It's still not my favorite kind of spell, but it's more flexible in its use than before and far less swingy.
answered 11 hours ago
kviiri
30.8k7114182
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
The other answers give a good picture on why the spell is, from a mechanical perspective, too weak. I will touch on that too, but also a couple of game design points that might help yiu understand why this spell won't work very well.
From a purely mechanical point of view, "succeed on more rolls to inflict more damage" is a workable concept. The expected damage output should be very high compared to normal cantrips to offset the fact that for normal cantrips, two successes (for three castings) inflict 2/3 of the damage one would inflict on three hits, while the "all-or-nothing" approach of the three word curse would inflict no damage unless all rolls succeeded. (Or failed, from the saving creature's POV)
However, mechanical balance isn't enough to make a cantrip good. I forecast problems relating to the use of this spell in tables.
It should be used early...
Suppose you're fighting a group of nasties and choose to use TWC. Three rounds later, you may have a chance to deal 5d8 damage ...if the combat is still going on. Many encounters last for a surprisingly small number of rounds, so TWC: Nails would probably find itself used mostly as an opener, because it might not get a chance to fire later on and 5d8 against an enemy weakened by the action already would be more likely to be an overkill.
...but early turns are too valuable to waste
Removing enemies from the encounter during the first turns is very valuable in DnD, strategically, because every removed enemy shifts the action economy to favor the PCs. Removing enemies during the first turns is something TWC: Nails can't do, but since it has little use later in the combat too, it's an inadvisable spell to use regardless.
Inaction is boring
This is the worst part to me. TWC: Nails will have the player essentially skipping three turns in order to have a chance to deal relatively massive damage. Assuming the spell dealt enough damage to be mechanically appealing, you'd be promoting an extremely boring style of gameplay to your players --- don't do that. As a general rule, make fun choices strong and strong choices fun, so players don't feel tempted to min-max themselves into something boring.
Poor party synergy
Especially assuming the cantrip gets the damage buff to make it mechanically competitive, another problem sets in --- it's overkill against many types of enemies. To avoid wasting that sweet damage, it encourages the players to not target the enemy targeted with TWC. Reserving enemies for oneself gets stale fast and can cause a lot of tension among the players, and can also result in very swingy outcomes: if the spell fails, you're gonna wish you had put in some damage instead of trusting the dice.
Bookkeeping
The spell forces an additional bookkeeping need for the players or the GM. It's a minor issue, but still one more thing I'd change.
Overall
The spell seems like something that might be a workable concept in a computer game where turns can be executed in mere seconds. However, in DnD, I think even the part where you have to idle during combat to have a chance to deal damage is unacceptable. The spell's concept is neat, but ultimately just a gimmick that can't be the sole justification of its existence.
If you want to preserve the "three strikes", I recommend the following changes:
- make the spell deal some damage on every failed save
- don't require the saves to be consecutive
- the third failed save deals extra damage
- no concentration needed
It's still not my favorite kind of spell, but it's more flexible in its use than before and far less swingy.
answered 11 hours ago
kviiri
30.8k7114182
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
The other answers give a good picture on why the spell is, from a mechanical perspective, too weak. I will touch on that too, but also a couple of game design points that might help yiu understand why this spell won't work very well.
From a purely mechanical point of view, "succeed on more rolls to inflict more damage" is a workable concept. The expected damage output should be very high compared to normal cantrips to offset the fact that for normal cantrips, two successes (for three castings) inflict 2/3 of the damage one would inflict on three hits, while the "all-or-nothing" approach of the three word curse would inflict no damage unless all rolls succeeded. (Or failed, from the saving creature's POV)
However, mechanical balance isn't enough to make a cantrip good. I forecast problems relating to the use of this spell in tables.
It should be used early...
Suppose you're fighting a group of nasties and choose to use TWC. Three rounds later, you may have a chance to deal 5d8 damage ...if the combat is still going on. Many encounters last for a surprisingly small number of rounds, so TWC: Nails would probably find itself used mostly as an opener, because it might not get a chance to fire later on and 5d8 against an enemy weakened by the action already would be more likely to be an overkill.
...but early turns are too valuable to waste
Removing enemies from the encounter during the first turns is very valuable in DnD, strategically, because every removed enemy shifts the action economy to favor the PCs. Removing enemies during the first turns is something TWC: Nails can't do, but since it has little use later in the combat too, it's an inadvisable spell to use regardless.
Inaction is boring
This is the worst part to me. TWC: Nails will have the player essentially skipping three turns in order to have a chance to deal relatively massive damage. Assuming the spell dealt enough damage to be mechanically appealing, you'd be promoting an extremely boring style of gameplay to your players --- don't do that. As a general rule, make fun choices strong and strong choices fun, so players don't feel tempted to min-max themselves into something boring.
Poor party synergy
Especially assuming the cantrip gets the damage buff to make it mechanically competitive, another problem sets in --- it's overkill against many types of enemies. To avoid wasting that sweet damage, it encourages the players to not target the enemy targeted with TWC. Reserving enemies for oneself gets stale fast and can cause a lot of tension among the players, and can also result in very swingy outcomes: if the spell fails, you're gonna wish you had put in some damage instead of trusting the dice.
Bookkeeping
The spell forces an additional bookkeeping need for the players or the GM. It's a minor issue, but still one more thing I'd change.
Overall
The spell seems like something that might be a workable concept in a computer game where turns can be executed in mere seconds. However, in DnD, I think even the part where you have to idle during combat to have a chance to deal damage is unacceptable. The spell's concept is neat, but ultimately just a gimmick that can't be the sole justification of its existence.
If you want to preserve the "three strikes", I recommend the following changes:
- make the spell deal some damage on every failed save
- don't require the saves to be consecutive
- the third failed save deals extra damage
- no concentration needed
It's still not my favorite kind of spell, but it's more flexible in its use than before and far less swingy.
answered 11 hours ago
kviiri
30.8k7114182
The other answers give a good picture on why the spell is, from a mechanical perspective, too weak. I will touch on that too, but also a couple of game design points that might help yiu understand why this spell won't work very well.
From a purely mechanical point of view, "succeed on more rolls to inflict more damage" is a workable concept. The expected damage output should be very high compared to normal cantrips to offset the fact that for normal cantrips, two successes (for three castings) inflict 2/3 of the damage one would inflict on three hits, while the "all-or-nothing" approach of the three word curse would inflict no damage unless all rolls succeeded. (Or failed, from the saving creature's POV)
However, mechanical balance isn't enough to make a cantrip good. I forecast problems relating to the use of this spell in tables.
It should be used early...
Suppose you're fighting a group of nasties and choose to use TWC. Three rounds later, you may have a chance to deal 5d8 damage ...if the combat is still going on. Many encounters last for a surprisingly small number of rounds, so TWC: Nails would probably find itself used mostly as an opener, because it might not get a chance to fire later on and 5d8 against an enemy weakened by the action already would be more likely to be an overkill.
...but early turns are too valuable to waste
Removing enemies from the encounter during the first turns is very valuable in DnD, strategically, because every removed enemy shifts the action economy to favor the PCs. Removing enemies during the first turns is something TWC: Nails can't do, but since it has little use later in the combat too, it's an inadvisable spell to use regardless.
Inaction is boring
This is the worst part to me. TWC: Nails will have the player essentially skipping three turns in order to have a chance to deal relatively massive damage. Assuming the spell dealt enough damage to be mechanically appealing, you'd be promoting an extremely boring style of gameplay to your players --- don't do that. As a general rule, make fun choices strong and strong choices fun, so players don't feel tempted to min-max themselves into something boring.
Poor party synergy
Especially assuming the cantrip gets the damage buff to make it mechanically competitive, another problem sets in --- it's overkill against many types of enemies. To avoid wasting that sweet damage, it encourages the players to not target the enemy targeted with TWC. Reserving enemies for oneself gets stale fast and can cause a lot of tension among the players, and can also result in very swingy outcomes: if the spell fails, you're gonna wish you had put in some damage instead of trusting the dice.
Bookkeeping
The spell forces an additional bookkeeping need for the players or the GM. It's a minor issue, but still one more thing I'd change.
Overall
The spell seems like something that might be a workable concept in a computer game where turns can be executed in mere seconds. However, in DnD, I think even the part where you have to idle during combat to have a chance to deal damage is unacceptable. The spell's concept is neat, but ultimately just a gimmick that can't be the sole justification of its existence.
If you want to preserve the "three strikes", I recommend the following changes:
- make the spell deal some damage on every failed save
- don't require the saves to be consecutive
- the third failed save deals extra damage
- no concentration needed
It's still not my favorite kind of spell, but it's more flexible in its use than before and far less swingy.
answered 11 hours ago
kviiri
30.8k7114182
answered 11 hours ago
kviiri
30.8k7114182
answered 11 hours ago
kviiri
30.8k7114182
answered 11 hours ago
kviiri
30.8k7114182
30.8k7114182
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Probability
Your proposed mechanism requires 3 consecutive failed saves starting with the first. As such, the 1 minute duration is irrelevant - it will all be over in at most 3 rounds.
D&D aims to have a "hit rate" (including failed saving throws) of about 60%. assuming that your target has this chance of failing their saving throw, chaining 3 of these together gives a 21.6% success rate.
In addition, you are proposing that this requires concentration. So, unlike every other damaging cantrip it is not certain that it will "go off" and it means you can't be concentrating on anything else.
Damaging cantrips
Damaging cantrips are for a spellcaster what making an attack is for a martial class - the default action to take when you have no better options. Specifically:
- They don't use up resources (e.g. spell slots)
- They use up 1 action
- They are all or nothing in terms of damage
- They scale with character level, either by increasing in damage or adding additional targets
Saving throw cantrips
There are 4 cantrips in the PHB that have a saving throw:
$$begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
hline
textbf{Spell}& textbf{Range} & textbf{Damage} & textbf{Expected*} & textbf{Save} &textbf{Extra} \ hline
textit{Acid Splash} & text{60} & text{1d6 acid} & 2.1text{ or }4.2 & text{Dex} & text{Up to 2 targets within 5 feet} \ hline
textit{Poison Spray} & text{10} & text{1d12 poison} & 3.9 & text{Con} & text{} \ hline
textit{Sacred Flame} & text{60} & text{1d8 radiant} & 2.7 & text{Dex} & text{} \ hline
textit{Vicious Mockery} & text{60} & text{1d4 psychic} & 1.5 & text{Wis} & text{Disadvantage on next attack roll} \ hline
textit{TWC: Nails} & text{60} & text{5d8 psychic} & 1.62 & text{Wis} & text{Takes 3 rounds w/- concentration} \ hline
end{array}$$
- Expected damage assuming the target needs to roll an 13 or better to save (60% success rate) and dividing by 3 for your cantrip because it takes 3 rounds.
So, given these comparisons, would you chose this cantrip? By the way, this is at levels 1-4 - the spell only gets worse after than in comparison.
Use one of these as a model
Make it the same as Sacred Flame only with psychic damage and your flavour text.
Or reduce the range and do more damage like Poison Spray or reduce the damage and allow it to affect more people like Acid Splash or reduce the damage and give it an effect like Vicious Mockery.
Whatever you do, you need to drop the multi-round nature of the effect - that's not how cantrips work.
edited 14 hours ago
V2Blast
18.1k248114
answered 14 hours ago
Dale M
98.6k19251442
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Probability
Your proposed mechanism requires 3 consecutive failed saves starting with the first. As such, the 1 minute duration is irrelevant - it will all be over in at most 3 rounds.
D&D aims to have a "hit rate" (including failed saving throws) of about 60%. assuming that your target has this chance of failing their saving throw, chaining 3 of these together gives a 21.6% success rate.
In addition, you are proposing that this requires concentration. So, unlike every other damaging cantrip it is not certain that it will "go off" and it means you can't be concentrating on anything else.
Damaging cantrips
Damaging cantrips are for a spellcaster what making an attack is for a martial class - the default action to take when you have no better options. Specifically:
- They don't use up resources (e.g. spell slots)
- They use up 1 action
- They are all or nothing in terms of damage
- They scale with character level, either by increasing in damage or adding additional targets
Saving throw cantrips
There are 4 cantrips in the PHB that have a saving throw:
$$begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
hline
textbf{Spell}& textbf{Range} & textbf{Damage} & textbf{Expected*} & textbf{Save} &textbf{Extra} \ hline
textit{Acid Splash} & text{60} & text{1d6 acid} & 2.1text{ or }4.2 & text{Dex} & text{Up to 2 targets within 5 feet} \ hline
textit{Poison Spray} & text{10} & text{1d12 poison} & 3.9 & text{Con} & text{} \ hline
textit{Sacred Flame} & text{60} & text{1d8 radiant} & 2.7 & text{Dex} & text{} \ hline
textit{Vicious Mockery} & text{60} & text{1d4 psychic} & 1.5 & text{Wis} & text{Disadvantage on next attack roll} \ hline
textit{TWC: Nails} & text{60} & text{5d8 psychic} & 1.62 & text{Wis} & text{Takes 3 rounds w/- concentration} \ hline
end{array}$$
- Expected damage assuming the target needs to roll an 13 or better to save (60% success rate) and dividing by 3 for your cantrip because it takes 3 rounds.
So, given these comparisons, would you chose this cantrip? By the way, this is at levels 1-4 - the spell only gets worse after than in comparison.
Use one of these as a model
Make it the same as Sacred Flame only with psychic damage and your flavour text.
Or reduce the range and do more damage like Poison Spray or reduce the damage and allow it to affect more people like Acid Splash or reduce the damage and give it an effect like Vicious Mockery.
Whatever you do, you need to drop the multi-round nature of the effect - that's not how cantrips work.
edited 14 hours ago
V2Blast
18.1k248114
answered 14 hours ago
Dale M
98.6k19251442
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Probability
Your proposed mechanism requires 3 consecutive failed saves starting with the first. As such, the 1 minute duration is irrelevant - it will all be over in at most 3 rounds.
D&D aims to have a "hit rate" (including failed saving throws) of about 60%. assuming that your target has this chance of failing their saving throw, chaining 3 of these together gives a 21.6% success rate.
In addition, you are proposing that this requires concentration. So, unlike every other damaging cantrip it is not certain that it will "go off" and it means you can't be concentrating on anything else.
Damaging cantrips
Damaging cantrips are for a spellcaster what making an attack is for a martial class - the default action to take when you have no better options. Specifically:
- They don't use up resources (e.g. spell slots)
- They use up 1 action
- They are all or nothing in terms of damage
- They scale with character level, either by increasing in damage or adding additional targets
Saving throw cantrips
There are 4 cantrips in the PHB that have a saving throw:
$$begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
hline
textbf{Spell}& textbf{Range} & textbf{Damage} & textbf{Expected*} & textbf{Save} &textbf{Extra} \ hline
textit{Acid Splash} & text{60} & text{1d6 acid} & 2.1text{ or }4.2 & text{Dex} & text{Up to 2 targets within 5 feet} \ hline
textit{Poison Spray} & text{10} & text{1d12 poison} & 3.9 & text{Con} & text{} \ hline
textit{Sacred Flame} & text{60} & text{1d8 radiant} & 2.7 & text{Dex} & text{} \ hline
textit{Vicious Mockery} & text{60} & text{1d4 psychic} & 1.5 & text{Wis} & text{Disadvantage on next attack roll} \ hline
textit{TWC: Nails} & text{60} & text{5d8 psychic} & 1.62 & text{Wis} & text{Takes 3 rounds w/- concentration} \ hline
end{array}$$
- Expected damage assuming the target needs to roll an 13 or better to save (60% success rate) and dividing by 3 for your cantrip because it takes 3 rounds.
So, given these comparisons, would you chose this cantrip? By the way, this is at levels 1-4 - the spell only gets worse after than in comparison.
Use one of these as a model
Make it the same as Sacred Flame only with psychic damage and your flavour text.
Or reduce the range and do more damage like Poison Spray or reduce the damage and allow it to affect more people like Acid Splash or reduce the damage and give it an effect like Vicious Mockery.
Whatever you do, you need to drop the multi-round nature of the effect - that's not how cantrips work.
edited 14 hours ago
V2Blast
18.1k248114
answered 14 hours ago
Dale M
98.6k19251442
Probability
Your proposed mechanism requires 3 consecutive failed saves starting with the first. As such, the 1 minute duration is irrelevant - it will all be over in at most 3 rounds.
D&D aims to have a "hit rate" (including failed saving throws) of about 60%. assuming that your target has this chance of failing their saving throw, chaining 3 of these together gives a 21.6% success rate.
In addition, you are proposing that this requires concentration. So, unlike every other damaging cantrip it is not certain that it will "go off" and it means you can't be concentrating on anything else.
Damaging cantrips
Damaging cantrips are for a spellcaster what making an attack is for a martial class - the default action to take when you have no better options. Specifically:
- They don't use up resources (e.g. spell slots)
- They use up 1 action
- They are all or nothing in terms of damage
- They scale with character level, either by increasing in damage or adding additional targets
Saving throw cantrips
There are 4 cantrips in the PHB that have a saving throw:
$$begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
hline
textbf{Spell}& textbf{Range} & textbf{Damage} & textbf{Expected*} & textbf{Save} &textbf{Extra} \ hline
textit{Acid Splash} & text{60} & text{1d6 acid} & 2.1text{ or }4.2 & text{Dex} & text{Up to 2 targets within 5 feet} \ hline
textit{Poison Spray} & text{10} & text{1d12 poison} & 3.9 & text{Con} & text{} \ hline
textit{Sacred Flame} & text{60} & text{1d8 radiant} & 2.7 & text{Dex} & text{} \ hline
textit{Vicious Mockery} & text{60} & text{1d4 psychic} & 1.5 & text{Wis} & text{Disadvantage on next attack roll} \ hline
textit{TWC: Nails} & text{60} & text{5d8 psychic} & 1.62 & text{Wis} & text{Takes 3 rounds w/- concentration} \ hline
end{array}$$
- Expected damage assuming the target needs to roll an 13 or better to save (60% success rate) and dividing by 3 for your cantrip because it takes 3 rounds.
So, given these comparisons, would you chose this cantrip? By the way, this is at levels 1-4 - the spell only gets worse after than in comparison.
Use one of these as a model
Make it the same as Sacred Flame only with psychic damage and your flavour text.
Or reduce the range and do more damage like Poison Spray or reduce the damage and allow it to affect more people like Acid Splash or reduce the damage and give it an effect like Vicious Mockery.
Whatever you do, you need to drop the multi-round nature of the effect - that's not how cantrips work.
edited 14 hours ago
V2Blast
18.1k248114
answered 14 hours ago
Dale M
98.6k19251442
edited 14 hours ago
V2Blast
18.1k248114
edited 14 hours ago
V2Blast
18.1k248114
edited 14 hours ago
V2Blast
18.1k248114
18.1k248114
answered 14 hours ago
Dale M
98.6k19251442
answered 14 hours ago
Dale M
98.6k19251442
answered 14 hours ago
Dale M
98.6k19251442
98.6k19251442
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Way too weak.
Most foes will be dead before it does anything. And even if the target fails every save, it is 3 actions for 22.5 damage or 7.5 damage/action.
Unlike most attacks, you have to hit 3 times for it to do anything.
If the foe fails 60% of the time that is a 21.6% chance it does anything. If they fail 80% of the time, your chance of it doing damage is about 50-50. This is horrible.
3 turn delay, horrible accuracy, mediocre effect, bad scaling.
Three-Word Curse: Nails
Enchantment cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, M (a fragment of ram horn)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
You speak a word in a demonic tongue slowly cursing the mind of a creature you can see within range who can hear you. The target creature must make a Wisdom saving throw or suffer the curse of this spell. Creatures under the curse feel nails surrounding their skull in all directions.
Whenever a creature fails any saving throw against this spell, they suffer disadvantage on their next attack before the start of your next turn.
While a creature is under the effects of this curse, you may spend an action to utter the second or third word of the curse.
When the 2nd word is uttered, the creature must make a Wisdom saving throw or suffer 1d8 damage as they feel nails being tapped into their skull on all sides. Passing a save against the 2nd word does not end the spell.
After the 3rd word is uttered the curse ends. The target must make a Wisdom save or suffer 4d8 damage and feel nails slam into their skull from all sides.
You may only utter the 3rd word after a creature has failed a save against the 2nd word.
The spell's damage increases by 1d8 when you reach 5th level, 11th and 17th level. This applies to the damage from both the 2nd and 3rd word.
I did a few things.
I added disadvantage on attacks. Like viscious mockery.
I moved some damage up to the 2nd curse word.
I doubled the rate of damage scaling (by having it apply twice).
You can now utter the first word of the curse and hold it in reserve with concentration.
Succeeding in a save against the 2nd word doesn't remove the curse. The caster can try again and again until it takes hold.
The curse now has an effect right away (disadvantage). If you hit "twice" you get damage similar to Viscious Mockery, and 3 times to deal decent damage.
Ignoring concentration, this ability is now stronger than Viscious Mockery. Add in concentration and it looks more reasonable.
edited 11 mins ago
KorvinStarmast
70.9k17224390
answered 1 hour ago
Yakk
6,3601038
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Way too weak.
Most foes will be dead before it does anything. And even if the target fails every save, it is 3 actions for 22.5 damage or 7.5 damage/action.
Unlike most attacks, you have to hit 3 times for it to do anything.
If the foe fails 60% of the time that is a 21.6% chance it does anything. If they fail 80% of the time, your chance of it doing damage is about 50-50. This is horrible.
3 turn delay, horrible accuracy, mediocre effect, bad scaling.
Three-Word Curse: Nails
Enchantment cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, M (a fragment of ram horn)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
You speak a word in a demonic tongue slowly cursing the mind of a creature you can see within range who can hear you. The target creature must make a Wisdom saving throw or suffer the curse of this spell. Creatures under the curse feel nails surrounding their skull in all directions.
Whenever a creature fails any saving throw against this spell, they suffer disadvantage on their next attack before the start of your next turn.
While a creature is under the effects of this curse, you may spend an action to utter the second or third word of the curse.
When the 2nd word is uttered, the creature must make a Wisdom saving throw or suffer 1d8 damage as they feel nails being tapped into their skull on all sides. Passing a save against the 2nd word does not end the spell.
After the 3rd word is uttered the curse ends. The target must make a Wisdom save or suffer 4d8 damage and feel nails slam into their skull from all sides.
You may only utter the 3rd word after a creature has failed a save against the 2nd word.
The spell's damage increases by 1d8 when you reach 5th level, 11th and 17th level. This applies to the damage from both the 2nd and 3rd word.
I did a few things.
I added disadvantage on attacks. Like viscious mockery.
I moved some damage up to the 2nd curse word.
I doubled the rate of damage scaling (by having it apply twice).
You can now utter the first word of the curse and hold it in reserve with concentration.
Succeeding in a save against the 2nd word doesn't remove the curse. The caster can try again and again until it takes hold.
The curse now has an effect right away (disadvantage). If you hit "twice" you get damage similar to Viscious Mockery, and 3 times to deal decent damage.
Ignoring concentration, this ability is now stronger than Viscious Mockery. Add in concentration and it looks more reasonable.
edited 11 mins ago
KorvinStarmast
70.9k17224390
answered 1 hour ago
Yakk
6,3601038
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Way too weak.
Most foes will be dead before it does anything. And even if the target fails every save, it is 3 actions for 22.5 damage or 7.5 damage/action.
Unlike most attacks, you have to hit 3 times for it to do anything.
If the foe fails 60% of the time that is a 21.6% chance it does anything. If they fail 80% of the time, your chance of it doing damage is about 50-50. This is horrible.
3 turn delay, horrible accuracy, mediocre effect, bad scaling.
Three-Word Curse: Nails
Enchantment cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, M (a fragment of ram horn)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
You speak a word in a demonic tongue slowly cursing the mind of a creature you can see within range who can hear you. The target creature must make a Wisdom saving throw or suffer the curse of this spell. Creatures under the curse feel nails surrounding their skull in all directions.
Whenever a creature fails any saving throw against this spell, they suffer disadvantage on their next attack before the start of your next turn.
While a creature is under the effects of this curse, you may spend an action to utter the second or third word of the curse.
When the 2nd word is uttered, the creature must make a Wisdom saving throw or suffer 1d8 damage as they feel nails being tapped into their skull on all sides. Passing a save against the 2nd word does not end the spell.
After the 3rd word is uttered the curse ends. The target must make a Wisdom save or suffer 4d8 damage and feel nails slam into their skull from all sides.
You may only utter the 3rd word after a creature has failed a save against the 2nd word.
The spell's damage increases by 1d8 when you reach 5th level, 11th and 17th level. This applies to the damage from both the 2nd and 3rd word.
I did a few things.
I added disadvantage on attacks. Like viscious mockery.
I moved some damage up to the 2nd curse word.
I doubled the rate of damage scaling (by having it apply twice).
You can now utter the first word of the curse and hold it in reserve with concentration.
Succeeding in a save against the 2nd word doesn't remove the curse. The caster can try again and again until it takes hold.
The curse now has an effect right away (disadvantage). If you hit "twice" you get damage similar to Viscious Mockery, and 3 times to deal decent damage.
Ignoring concentration, this ability is now stronger than Viscious Mockery. Add in concentration and it looks more reasonable.
edited 11 mins ago
KorvinStarmast
70.9k17224390
answered 1 hour ago
Yakk
6,3601038
Way too weak.
Most foes will be dead before it does anything. And even if the target fails every save, it is 3 actions for 22.5 damage or 7.5 damage/action.
Unlike most attacks, you have to hit 3 times for it to do anything.
If the foe fails 60% of the time that is a 21.6% chance it does anything. If they fail 80% of the time, your chance of it doing damage is about 50-50. This is horrible.
3 turn delay, horrible accuracy, mediocre effect, bad scaling.
Three-Word Curse: Nails
Enchantment cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, M (a fragment of ram horn)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
You speak a word in a demonic tongue slowly cursing the mind of a creature you can see within range who can hear you. The target creature must make a Wisdom saving throw or suffer the curse of this spell. Creatures under the curse feel nails surrounding their skull in all directions.
Whenever a creature fails any saving throw against this spell, they suffer disadvantage on their next attack before the start of your next turn.
While a creature is under the effects of this curse, you may spend an action to utter the second or third word of the curse.
When the 2nd word is uttered, the creature must make a Wisdom saving throw or suffer 1d8 damage as they feel nails being tapped into their skull on all sides. Passing a save against the 2nd word does not end the spell.
After the 3rd word is uttered the curse ends. The target must make a Wisdom save or suffer 4d8 damage and feel nails slam into their skull from all sides.
You may only utter the 3rd word after a creature has failed a save against the 2nd word.
The spell's damage increases by 1d8 when you reach 5th level, 11th and 17th level. This applies to the damage from both the 2nd and 3rd word.
I did a few things.
I added disadvantage on attacks. Like viscious mockery.
I moved some damage up to the 2nd curse word.
I doubled the rate of damage scaling (by having it apply twice).
You can now utter the first word of the curse and hold it in reserve with concentration.
Succeeding in a save against the 2nd word doesn't remove the curse. The caster can try again and again until it takes hold.
The curse now has an effect right away (disadvantage). If you hit "twice" you get damage similar to Viscious Mockery, and 3 times to deal decent damage.
Ignoring concentration, this ability is now stronger than Viscious Mockery. Add in concentration and it looks more reasonable.
edited 11 mins ago
KorvinStarmast
70.9k17224390
answered 1 hour ago
Yakk
6,3601038
edited 11 mins ago
KorvinStarmast
70.9k17224390
edited 11 mins ago
KorvinStarmast
70.9k17224390
edited 11 mins ago
KorvinStarmast
70.9k17224390
70.9k17224390
answered 1 hour ago
Yakk
6,3601038
answered 1 hour ago
Yakk
6,3601038
answered 1 hour ago
Yakk
6,3601038
6,3601038
add a comment |
add a comment |
Luckee is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Luckee is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Luckee is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Luckee is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135850%2fdoes-this-cantrip-have-a-fair-risk-reward-balance%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Welcome to RPG.SE. Please take the tour and visit the help to get a feel for how a Q&A site in the SE format works best. thanks for your question, and have fun.
– KorvinStarmast
19 hours ago