No, the "controversy" is whether only the additional damage is magical or if it makes the whole attack magical. The other arguments on that page are artificial, and bringing it up here is in error or at worst disingenuous because you're using a false analogy to try to make it fit this situation.
This situation is a spell with a completely magical effect that deals a typed damage. Are you trying to argue that fireball isn't magical?
I am pretty sure it is not written in the rules, but the intent seems to be that if an effect is magical and does damage, that is magical damage. Otherwise, almost no magic does magic damage.
There are actually some tests to help you figure out if an effect is magical. The SAC gives us a hint that there is an explanation within. It refers you to the question "Is the breath weapon of a dragon magical?" in the monsters section. One of the tests asks "Is it a spell?"
The point of Shillelagh isn't really to be a damaging cantrip in that way. It allows you to have a magic weapon right off the bat, and use your Wisdom for Attack and Damage rolls, giving you room to ignore Strength (and even Dex if you're not getting it for AC) in favor of Wisdom. It's only a bonus action and doesn't require concentration. It's basically as good as any other magic weapon, and if your DM is nice and you get a magical quarterstaff/club they'll allow you to add the bonus on top of Shillelagh.
I'd rather take Primal Savagery. It's a bit less damage at early levels, but it catches up by level 5 and ends up scaling much higher by the time you hit higher levels. It's also a great damage type and doesn't use up a bonus action (which isn't a huge deal, but still)
Primal Savagery is awesome. I just prefer Shillelagh because it allows the druid to keep their Staff in hand for spells that require Material components. Not a big deal to pull a focus out when casting an M spell if you want to keep a hand free for Primal Savagery, though.
If you don't have war caster, having to wield your staff is actually a detriment because you can't hold a shield and do somatic components. This is mainly an issue for absorb elements, but that's a big deal.
I wanted to test if any aquatic being is immune to the Freezing condition. Because If I'm on a boat/ship, and I'm chased by those mobs, can I freeze them while they are still in the water??? Can I freeze the water that surrounds them, putting them on an improvised trap ( or, at least immovilize them ) ??
If this can be possible.... then my next action should be some spell with Thunder element, which it doubles the damage to those frozen targets... if I'm right.
I wanted to test if any aquatic being is immune to the Freezing condition. Because If I'm on a boat/ship, and I'm chased by those mobs, can I freeze them while they are still in the water??? Can I freeze the water that surrounds them, putting them on an improvised trap ( or, at least immovilize them ) ??
If this can be possible.... then my next action should be some spell with Thunder element, which it doubles the damage to those frozen targets... if I'm right.
Freezing Sphere, and likely some other high-level cold spells, can freeze water and hold creatures swimming in said water in place. However, there is no such thing as a "freezing" condition, or anything of the like, and being in water does not impose vulnerability to lightning damage (nor thunder damage, which is a different thing.)
I keep being disappointed that my druid doesn't run into more shapechangers whose day I can ruin with Moonbeam. I once wrecked a module in which the BBEG vampire was supposed to escape in mist form but, unfortunately for him, "lol, Moonbeam."
I don’t see call lightning as trash when it is essentially upcast moonbeam vs a slightly better save. They both cover 4 squares and do one d10 per spell level (can be upcast). They also each require your action to do something with. The major bonus to call lightning is that for your action, you get to ensure the creatures that get hit, whereas moonbeam requires a creature to start in the area (which might be harder if you are facing any type of monsters with forced movement). They are so similar that I don’t see any huge reason that one is significantly better than the other.
Moonbeam doesn't require your action to do the damage, only to move it, and that's a HUGE benefit. Yes if the enemies move out of it, then it would take your action to move it back on them. But moving out of it carries its own risks (attack of opportunity, booming blade secondary damage, etc) and can be relatively easily prevented with a grapple by one of your front-liners or a restraining effect.
The major bonus to call lightning is that for your action, you get to ensure the creatures that get hit, whereas moonbeam requires a creature to start in the area (which might be harder if you are facing any type of monsters with forced movement).
Moonbeam does damage when enemies enter on a turn or start their turn there, and thus can trigger off of forced movement. Your teammates can knock enemies into the beam or grapple and drag them into the beam to trigger the damage. You can even thorn whip enemies into the beam and trigger the damage yourself.
Moonbeam also has MUCH better range. The range on call lighting is actually pretty limiting. It's a 60 foot radius sphere, which sounds quite large. But it is centered on YOU, so much of that area is wasted. If you're 30 feet back from the front line, that makes it stupidly easy for enemies to retreat out of it's range or makes impossible to hit enemies beyond 30 ft from the front line.
The only occasion I would prepare call lightning over moonbeam is if I know it's going to be stormy (better damage, much better range) or I know I'm going to be defending a location. Otherwise Moonbeam is superior in so many ways (including actually being usable indoors).
You make a fair point. Though again, I would expect to have to use my action on moonbeam more often than not unless you are facing really really unintelligent creatures. Also, moonbeam targets the worst save in the game - again that point makes up for a lot of Call Lightning’s shortcomings. Targeting the 2nd hardest save to fail vs the hardest is a huge advantage to me.
On the other hand, if I had the opportunity to only prepare only one, I would still choose moonbeam - it does a better damage type and you have the flexibility to use 2nd level slots on it along with the same slots you might use on Call lightning.
I just disagree that they’re so different as to never consider one, especially if I prefer the flavor of the other.
If your DM is a bit lenient with the way they adjudicate the range of call lightning works, then I would say it's potentially worth using in an outdoor environment.
Specifically, I would ask a DM to allow either 1) Center the cloud above a point in range (120 ft or 60 ft so that you're still under the cloud) rather than directly above you (my preferred ruling) or 2) allow the lightning to strike out diagonally from the cloud, limited by the 120 ft range.
I typically don't play moon druids, so I am usually in the back for safety reasons (I also take spell sniper for 60 ft cantrips on land druids). The RAW lighting strike location range limitation of 60 ft from the position you cast the spell, on top of the advantages & versatility of moonbeam mean that moonbeam is almost always the go-to spell over call lighting for me.
I can't think of a single druid build where poison spray is a good idea. Hard pass.
Agreed! On paper Poison Spray seems awesome with a d12 for damage and scaling.... But with Con Save vs No Damage (like all cantrips), you'll find it to be a waste of an action most of the time. Plus poison resistance is more common.
Plenty of more reliable options for a druid, albeit i do like the RP of this cantrip
No, the "controversy" is whether only the additional damage is magical or if it makes the whole attack magical. The other arguments on that page are artificial, and bringing it up here is in error or at worst disingenuous because you're using a false analogy to try to make it fit this situation.
This situation is a spell with a completely magical effect that deals a typed damage. Are you trying to argue that fireball isn't magical?
I am pretty sure it is not written in the rules, but the intent seems to be that if an effect is magical and does damage, that is magical damage. Otherwise, almost no magic does magic damage.
There are actually some tests to help you figure out if an effect is magical. The SAC gives us a hint that there is an explanation within. It refers you to the question "Is the breath weapon of a dragon magical?" in the monsters section. One of the tests asks "Is it a spell?"
I see what you're saying now. Thank you for the education.
There is no such thing as “magical damage” in 5e. There is only damage from magical sources, and damage from non-magical sources.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
If only there was some way to shorten the phrase "damage from magical sources"... Maybe by saying something like "magical damage?"
Sorry, I had to.
I'd rather take Primal Savagery. It's a bit less damage at early levels, but it catches up by level 5 and ends up scaling much higher by the time you hit higher levels. It's also a great damage type and doesn't use up a bonus action (which isn't a huge deal, but still)
If you don't have war caster, having to wield your staff is actually a detriment because you can't hold a shield and do somatic components. This is mainly an issue for absorb elements, but that's a big deal.
I wanted to test if any aquatic being is immune to the Freezing condition. Because If I'm on a boat/ship, and I'm chased by those mobs, can I freeze them while they are still in the water??? Can I freeze the water that surrounds them, putting them on an improvised trap ( or, at least immovilize them ) ??
If this can be possible.... then my next action should be some spell with Thunder element, which it doubles the damage to those frozen targets... if I'm right.
My Ready-to-rock&roll chars:
Dertinus Tristany // Amilcar Barca // Vicenç Sacrarius // Oriol Deulofeu // Grovtuk
Freezing Sphere, and likely some other high-level cold spells, can freeze water and hold creatures swimming in said water in place. However, there is no such thing as a "freezing" condition, or anything of the like, and being in water does not impose vulnerability to lightning damage (nor thunder damage, which is a different thing.)
Transport via plants is god tier IMO.
My Druid's LIFE is moonbeam!
I keep being disappointed that my druid doesn't run into more shapechangers whose day I can ruin with Moonbeam. I once wrecked a module in which the BBEG vampire was supposed to escape in mist form but, unfortunately for him, "lol, Moonbeam."
I just wish call lightning wasn't trash compared to moonbeam.
I don’t see call lightning as trash when it is essentially upcast moonbeam vs a slightly better save. They both cover 4 squares and do one d10 per spell level (can be upcast). They also each require your action to do something with. The major bonus to call lightning is that for your action, you get to ensure the creatures that get hit, whereas moonbeam requires a creature to start in the area (which might be harder if you are facing any type of monsters with forced movement). They are so similar that I don’t see any huge reason that one is significantly better than the other.
Moonbeam doesn't require your action to do the damage, only to move it, and that's a HUGE benefit. Yes if the enemies move out of it, then it would take your action to move it back on them. But moving out of it carries its own risks (attack of opportunity, booming blade secondary damage, etc) and can be relatively easily prevented with a grapple by one of your front-liners or a restraining effect.
Moonbeam does damage when enemies enter on a turn or start their turn there, and thus can trigger off of forced movement. Your teammates can knock enemies into the beam or grapple and drag them into the beam to trigger the damage. You can even thorn whip enemies into the beam and trigger the damage yourself.
Moonbeam also has MUCH better range. The range on call lighting is actually pretty limiting. It's a 60 foot radius sphere, which sounds quite large. But it is centered on YOU, so much of that area is wasted. If you're 30 feet back from the front line, that makes it stupidly easy for enemies to retreat out of it's range or makes impossible to hit enemies beyond 30 ft from the front line.
The only occasion I would prepare call lightning over moonbeam is if I know it's going to be stormy (better damage, much better range) or I know I'm going to be defending a location. Otherwise Moonbeam is superior in so many ways (including actually being usable indoors).
You make a fair point. Though again, I would expect to have to use my action on moonbeam more often than not unless you are facing really really unintelligent creatures. Also, moonbeam targets the worst save in the game - again that point makes up for a lot of Call Lightning’s shortcomings. Targeting the 2nd hardest save to fail vs the hardest is a huge advantage to me.
On the other hand, if I had the opportunity to only prepare only one, I would still choose moonbeam - it does a better damage type and you have the flexibility to use 2nd level slots on it along with the same slots you might use on Call lightning.
I just disagree that they’re so different as to never consider one, especially if I prefer the flavor of the other.
If your DM is a bit lenient with the way they adjudicate the range of call lightning works, then I would say it's potentially worth using in an outdoor environment.
Specifically, I would ask a DM to allow either 1) Center the cloud above a point in range (120 ft or 60 ft so that you're still under the cloud) rather than directly above you (my preferred ruling) or 2) allow the lightning to strike out diagonally from the cloud, limited by the 120 ft range.
I typically don't play moon druids, so I am usually in the back for safety reasons (I also take spell sniper for 60 ft cantrips on land druids). The RAW lighting strike location range limitation of 60 ft from the position you cast the spell, on top of the advantages & versatility of moonbeam mean that moonbeam is almost always the go-to spell over call lighting for me.
poison spray is another must have cantrip
???
I can't think of a single druid build where poison spray is a good idea. Hard pass.
Agreed! On paper Poison Spray seems awesome with a d12 for damage and scaling.... But with Con Save vs No Damage (like all cantrips), you'll find it to be a waste of an action most of the time. Plus poison resistance is more common.
Plenty of more reliable options for a druid, albeit i do like the RP of this cantrip