Oh trust me. I had fireball on my wizard. I love a good blast. But those control and utility effects are the bread and butter of a strong wizard. The amount of memorable moments I stacked up with just grease was astounding. Let the sword swingers and bow shooters worry about damage output, we've got more important things on our mind lol
Grease is such an underrated spell. It's amazing when you blow a monsters legendary resistance on a well placed grease. It's great when it's any first level spell, but grease is just one of those "kicker" spells where is like "really? Grease?"
This isn't saying AoE spells aren't a form of "control," either, it's just not always explicitly stated. When there's a wizard on the battlefield, the opposition truly needs to respect the damage one wizard can inflict on them. "Fireball formation," is definitely a thing, and it's a good formation to be in.
I've had my wizard and wildfire druid throw down some nasty combos with grease and fire bolt. The 2 of them basically single handedly took out a horde of zombies, it was beautiful.
But I agree on the control spells. I play a Necromancer built as a controller, I've focused on save-or-suck spells. There are few things I've found more satisfying than watching our monk get 4 auto-crits on some poor paralyzed bugger that failed his save against my hold person (or similar spell). The DM in me likes those spells better as those combos empower 2 players, making both feel powerful.
Wouldn't the prone status cause disadvantage? Eh... doesn't matter, leaves for an awesome story and epic memory, so who cares XD.
I may be thinking of a practical joke wizard that uses grease and Tasha's hideous laughter mainly early on, and flavor the rest of their spells as jokes.
Do kinda wish grease was flammable, like in older editions. Maybe make a variant that reads "if fire touches the area of the grease, then each creature in the area needs to make a dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, they take 2d8 fire damage fire damage, or half that on a successful save. Then the grease spell ends."
Would then lead to interesting interactions with the scribe wizard, could they change that fire to thunder damage? How wood that work? Normal grease, but when set alight, it just kinda... explodes?
Oh trust me. I had fireball on my wizard. I love a good blast. But those control and utility effects are the bread and butter of a strong wizard. The amount of memorable moments I stacked up with just grease was astounding. Let the sword swingers and bow shooters worry about damage output, we've got more important things on our mind lol
Grease is such an underrated spell. It's amazing when you blow a monsters legendary resistance on a well placed grease. It's great when it's any first level spell, but grease is just one of those "kicker" spells where is like "really? Grease?"
This isn't saying AoE spells aren't a form of "control," either, it's just not always explicitly stated. When there's a wizard on the battlefield, the opposition truly needs to respect the damage one wizard can inflict on them. "Fireball formation," is definitely a thing, and it's a good formation to be in.
I've had my wizard and wildfire druid throw down some nasty combos with grease and fire bolt. The 2 of them basically single handedly took out a horde of zombies, it was beautiful.
But I agree on the control spells. I play a Necromancer built as a controller, I've focused on save-or-suck spells. There are few things I've found more satisfying than watching our monk get 4 auto-crits on some poor paralyzed bugger that failed his save against my hold person (or similar spell). The DM in me likes those spells better as those combos empower 2 players, making both feel powerful.
Wouldn't the prone status cause disadvantage? Eh... doesn't matter, leaves for an awesome story and epic memory, so who cares XD.
I may be thinking of a practical joke wizard that uses grease and Tasha's hideous laughter mainly early on, and flavor the rest of their spells as jokes.
Do kinda wish grease was flammable, like in older editions. Maybe make a variant that reads "if fire touches the area of the grease, then each creature in the area needs to make a dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, they take 2d8 fire damage fire damage, or half that on a successful save. Then the grease spell ends."
Would then lead to interesting interactions with the scribe wizard, could they change that fire to thunder damage? How wood that work? Normal grease, but when set alight, it just kinda... explodes?
Sorry I should have elaborated. I treat grease as flammable. It's true that in this edition it does not explicitly state that it's flammable, but I treat it as such. So the wizard would drop grease, the druid targets grease with firebolt and sets it on fire. A creature that starts its turn in the flames takes 1d4 fire damage. It's not much, but on low dex monsters like Zombies it's basically perpetual damage.
Yeah the scribes wizard's feature can make it hard to flavor some of the spells.
What about changing damage type of effects that don’t damage?
the transmute metamagic says the damage type change must be damage, order of the scribes feature doesn’t.
Could you Elaborate? Are you taking something like animate object, where it says the animated objects deal non-magic bludgeoning damage, or stinking cloud, which doesn't do anything if the target is immune to poison?
I feel like I'm being lured into a trap...this was the subject of the most frustrating debate I've been a part of on these forums to date. But I can't help myself.
My take can be broken down as follows:
1. There is no rule that dictates what constitutes a spell having a damage type.
2. Awakened Spellbook does not say that the spell being changed needs to deal damage.
Conclusion: Any spell that interacts with a damage type in its text is fair game, including spells that grant resistance and immunity.
What this does: Create a busted ass spell by combining Tasha's Otherwordly Guise + Investiture of Stone to curate insane immunity combos.
Well, idk if it’s quite busted. Those are 6th level spells and you usually get to cast that once an adventuring day. They also both take concentration.
Well, idk if it’s quite busted. Those are 6th level spells and you usually get to cast that once an adventuring day. They also both take concentration.
Certainly a bit of hyperbole on my part. But...you're only casting one of them. Tasha's Otherworldly Guise. You're using Investiture of Stone as the "other spell" to change the types around. With just those two spells you can curate a pair of immunities including the the very common bludgeoning, piercing and slashing.
It's certainly a high level tactic, but I think it's quite a potent one. It's quite likely one could become untouchable via damage in encounters without a great mix of damage types being thrown around. TOG is just a bonus action cast too.
Well, idk if it’s quite busted. Those are 6th level spells and you usually get to cast that once an adventuring day. They also both take concentration.
Certainly a bit of hyperbole on my part. But...you're only casting one of them. Tasha's Otherworldly Guise. You're using Investiture of Stone as the "other spell" to change the types around. With just those two spells you can curate a pair of immunities including the the very common bludgeoning, piercing and slashing.
It's certainly a high level tactic, but I think it's quite a potent one. It's quite likely one could become untouchable via damage in encounters without a great mix of damage types being thrown around. TOG is just a bonus action cast too.
Huh, hadn't thought that deep, while definitely something to bring up to the DM trying trying that trick, I don't see why not. Since might see "damage type" and go "the spell has to do *damage* to have a *damage type*" but theoretically, rules as written, a spells that give resistance/immunity/vulnerability to a specific *damage type* should, in theory, be changeable.
Wouldn't the prone status cause disadvantage? Eh... doesn't matter, leaves for an awesome story and epic memory, so who cares XD.
I may be thinking of a practical joke wizard that uses grease and Tasha's hideous laughter mainly early on, and flavor the rest of their spells as jokes.
Do kinda wish grease was flammable, like in older editions. Maybe make a variant that reads "if fire touches the area of the grease, then each creature in the area needs to make a dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, they take 2d8 fire damage fire damage, or half that on a successful save. Then the grease spell ends."
Would then lead to interesting interactions with the scribe wizard, could they change that fire to thunder damage? How wood that work? Normal grease, but when set alight, it just kinda... explodes?
Sorry I should have elaborated. I treat grease as flammable. It's true that in this edition it does not explicitly state that it's flammable, but I treat it as such. So the wizard would drop grease, the druid targets grease with firebolt and sets it on fire. A creature that starts its turn in the flames takes 1d4 fire damage. It's not much, but on low dex monsters like Zombies it's basically perpetual damage.
Yeah the scribes wizard's feature can make it hard to flavor some of the spells.
What about changing damage type of effects that don’t damage?
the transmute metamagic says the damage type change must be damage, order of the scribes feature doesn’t.
Could you Elaborate? Are you taking something like animate object, where it says the animated objects deal non-magic bludgeoning damage, or stinking cloud, which doesn't do anything if the target is immune to poison?
I’m talking about vulnerability, resistance, and immunity. These features also make use of damage type while not dealing damage.
I feel like I'm being lured into a trap...this was the subject of the most frustrating debate I've been a part of on these forums to date. But I can't help myself.
My take can be broken down as follows:
1. There is no rule that dictates what constitutes a spell having a damage type.
2. Awakened Spellbook does not say that the spell being changed needs to deal damage.
Conclusion: Any spell that interacts with a damage type in its text is fair game, including spells that grant resistance and immunity.
What this does: Create a busted ass spell by combining Tasha's Otherwordly Guise + Investiture of Stone to curate insane immunity combos.
Well, idk if it’s quite busted. Those are 6th level spells and you usually get to cast that once an adventuring day. They also both take concentration.
Certainly a bit of hyperbole on my part. But...you're only casting one of them. Tasha's Otherworldly Guise. You're using Investiture of Stone as the "other spell" to change the types around. With just those two spells you can curate a pair of immunities including the the very common bludgeoning, piercing and slashing.
It's certainly a high level tactic, but I think it's quite a potent one. It's quite likely one could become untouchable via damage in encounters without a great mix of damage types being thrown around. TOG is just a bonus action cast too.
Huh, hadn't thought that deep, while definitely something to bring up to the DM trying trying that trick, I don't see why not. Since might see "damage type" and go "the spell has to do *damage* to have a *damage type*" but theoretically, rules as written, a spells that give resistance/immunity/vulnerability to a specific *damage type* should, in theory, be changeable.