I have a question about this cantrip. If the spell is a 'melee spell attack' and not a melee attack, why does the description go on about claws and teeth sharpening but then the target gets acid damage? One of my players is fairly new and she thought it was a melee attack, got all excited about her gnome biting and clawing like a feral beast....and then was let down. What gives with the (honestly kinda dumb since it doesn't follow through) description?
Compare it to something like a poisonous snake, which has a bite that does 1 point of piercing damage and 2d4 poison damage. It's a bite, but primarily a delivery mechanism.
The description of Primal Savagery says that your fingernails sharpen, not that they become claws. You are still biting and "clawing" at the target, but it is the acid in your attacks that really does the damage, not the slashing or piercing that delivers it.
Since you're the DM, feel free to modify it to suit your table, but be aware that damage type and resistances come into play with game balance.
I'd think of it more that the bite/claw is just the delivery method for the acid, rather than being a proper attack in its own right. When bitten by a venomous snake for example, the bite itself might be painful but is unlikely to be dangerous on its own, however the venom is what will incapacitate or kill you.
It does seem strange that it isn't just extra damage on top of an unarmed strike; if you wanted to house-rule I'd suggest letting the character make a magical unarmed strike (unarmed strike using their casting ability instead of Strength) and add the acid damage on top, but in that case you'll want to lower the damage die, maybe to d6?
I think this is one of those cantrips that suffers a little thematically from the cantrip template; this is essentially just how melee spell attack cantrips were structured, dealing one type of damage for simplicity. We didn't see additive melee cantrips (like Green Flame Blade) until later.
The difference between a melee attack and a melee spell attack is the first uses strength as your attacking modifier by default while the second uses your spellcasting modifier by default. There are exceptions to both: finesse weapons, martial arts, and various abilities and spells like Shillelagh can change your melee attack stat. Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade use your melee attack stat.
Your still using your scratching and biting as your attack, the spell just gives you a way to attack in melee range without having to use a save spell. While there are creatures that are immune or resistant to acid damage, there are also creatures that are resistant or immune to the basic B/S/P damage or at least the non-magical version of it.
My player was thinking that since an armed character can do an off-hand attack without their stat bonus but do weapon damage, she could do two attacks with her unarmed melee because the spell caused her 'teeth or fingernails to sharpen, ready to deliver a corrosive attack' and get the d10 from both because of the way the spell is written. It was a long and patient discussion to dissuade her of this and she felt robbed (she had gotten fairly excited about the concept).
My player was thinking that since an armed character can do an off-hand attack without their stat bonus but do weapon damage, she could do two attacks with her unarmed melee because the spell caused her 'teeth or fingernails to sharpen, ready to deliver a corrosive attack' and get the d10 from both because of the way the spell is written. It was a long and patient discussion to dissuade her of this and she felt robbed (she had gotten fairly excited about the concept).
Evan
A Sorcerer dip for Quickened meta magic or a fighter dip for Action Surge are the only way to do that, but both are limited. Fighter also has EK 7's War Magic that adds a bonus action attack after a cantrip and Valor bard has Battle Magic at 14 that does the same with any bard spell.
The first two would be closest to what she wants to do and the least likely to completely distract from what she is planning otherwise, but neither is likely a great option for her and I wouldn't suggest the EK or Bard options because of the level investment, the fact that they wouldn't be able to do two Primal Savagery attacks and the bard would have to take the spell with Magical Secrets (unless you hand wave that.).
It sounds as though the player has misunderstood the rules. Making a melee spell attack using a cantrip or levelled spell and making a melee attack with actual weapons are completely different things. When you take the attack action with a melee weapon you can also make a bonus action melee attack with a different weapon in your off hand. Usually these are smaller weapons unless you have the appropriate feats. An example - Shortsword attack with an 18 dex gives you 1d6+4 plus 1d6 from the second attack but they are not using a shield and so their armour class is lower. Druids can use a shield so when they take a cast a spell action to use primal savagery they get 1d10 damage stating off and get a shield bonus to AC. That's the trade off for two weapon fighting and is the same for melee characters who use a sword and shield. Primal savagery is actually one of the best for close combat as it will use their casting stat, and ramps up with character level so a level 1 druid / level 19 fighter will do the same damage with it as a level 20 druid will.
It sounds like you need to chat to the player and explain the differences between the action types and what they can do depending on what action type they take.
Question: can a druid's familiar (wild companion) deliver Primal Savagery?
Primal Savagery isn't a touch attack, it has a Range/Area of self. Although Shocking Grasp has a Range/Area of touch, the two spells are melee spell attacks, and sound very similar:
Primal Savagery:
You channel primal magic to cause your teeth or fingernails to sharpen, ready to deliver a corrosive attack. Make a melee spell attack against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 acid damage. After you make the attack, your teeth or fingernails return to normal.
Shocking Grasp:
Lightning springs from your hand to deliver a shock to a creature you try to touch. Make a melee spell attack against the target. You have advantage on the attack roll if the target is wearing armor made of metal. On a hit, the target takes 1d8 lightning damage, and it can't take reactions until the start of its next turn.
Both are melee spell attacks. And one is delivered by your hand, the other your fingernail (or teeth). Seems odd to allow a Shocking Grasp to be delivered by a familiar but not Primal Savagery. Am I missing something?
The rest of your post is irrelevant to the rules. The spell is Self, not Touch, therefore, not valid for the familiar delivery - which doesn't care about melee attacks or anything, only the listed Range of a spell.
spell/weapon/etc melee attack = reference to what type of roll you are making.
Okay, so you're saying all that matters is the spell's parameters, e.g., the range/area, level, duration, attack/save, etc., not the spell description. That means that a druid's familiar can deliver Shillelagh since it has a range/area of touch.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Started playing 1e in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in the last year.
Okay, so you're saying all that matters is the spell's parameters, e.g., the range/area, level, duration, attack/save, etc., not the spell description. That means that a druid's familiar can deliver Shillelagh since it has a range/area of touch.
Shillelagh has a range of Touch. However, the spell also requires you, the caster, to be holding the target (the club or staff). So to cast the spell you must be holding the weapon. Now, technically if the familiar was also touching that weapon it can use its reaction to deliver the spell - but since you're holding, and therefore touching, the weapon as well, it is pointless to do so and just wastes the familiar's reaction. - So yes, the familiar can deliver Shillelagh, it is just pointless to do so.
I think the confusion you may be having is targeting. Just because a spell has you make a spell attack doesn't mean the attacked creature is the target of the spell. It often is, but not always.
Shocking Grasp has a range of Touch, so the target of the spell is whoever you (or your familiar) is touching. The spell then let's you make a spell attackagainst the target.
Primal Savagery has a range of Self, so the target of the spell is you. You are the only target of the spell. The spell grants you the ability to make a spell attack against a creature of your choice. That creature will not be a "target of the spell" - it is only a "target of the attack" - which is not the same thing, in this case.
Take Fireball has an example. The spell only targets "a point in space", it doesn't target any creatures. But, it can affect creatures - any in the area of effect. Those creatures are not "targets" of Fireball. Only the point in space you chose is the target.
The familiar lets you choose a target the familiar is touching instead of what you are touching, for a spell with a range of touch. That is all it does. All other aspects of the spell must still be met. This is why shillelagh is a poor choice, because the other aspects of the spell make it pointless to deliver through a familiar.
It looks like there is only one offensive druid touch spell where the target is not Self: Contagion. IMO that’s just poor game design given that all Druids can get familiars, who can deliver touch spells.
Given the similarities with Shocking Grasp, Primal Savagery is a good candidate for tweaking to be an offensive touch spell (where the target is not Self). It would just substitute acid damage for Shocking Grasp’s lightning.
To be fair, the Wild Companion feature was introduced years later in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. The list isn't designed around familiars because druids normally didn't have access to one.
Also, you're focusing on offensive spells when Druids are primarily Support. They don't need offensive touch spells. They have plenty of other offensive options and the familiar can serve better delivering things like Cure Wounds for increased healing at range. You can also have your allies hold stones and your familiar can go to them to deliver the Magic Stone spell on them so your allies can use them immediately. You could have your familiar go to an enemy and remotely cast Plane Shift. Or to an ally and deliver Greater Restoration.
The familiar extends the range of touch spells to 100 ft. This offers immense utility for Druids allowing for deliverance of Support from a safe range. It's not poor game design.
Familiars were a Wizard thing and Wizards also have a lot of touch spells - and only 1 (Shocking Grasp) is offensive. This is deliberate for balancing.
Most touch range spells are support or utility.
Druids and Wizards who want to hurt an enemy at range don't need a familiar. They have ranged spells for that.
True that Druid’s didn’t get familiars until Tasha’s. Disagree with the old (going back to 1e) trope that Druid is a support class and so doesn’t need offensive, single target, damage dealing spells. The game has changed since 1e. Clerics get healing spells but have a ton of single target, offensive, damage dealing spells. And Clerics can wear heavy armor, Druids can’t. So Druids have a greater need for a familiar to deliver the few damage dealing, single target spells on their spell list. Druids are not a front-line, melee class, which makes Shillelagh and Primal Savagery mostly useless.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Started playing 1e in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in the last year.
Disagree with the old (going back to 1e) trope that Druid is a support class and so doesn’t need offensive, single target, damage dealing spells.
For a second time in this thread you are putting words in my mouth I never said. I never said they didn't need such spells. I said they didn't need offensive touch spells and that they are more Support - which they are. They lack the offense of sorcerers and wizards, even clerics, but have greater support than most and are 2nd after wizard for utility. By support I don't mean healbots. This is things like assisting allies and hindering enemies. Druids are great at field control. They are very adaptable in and out of combat (also gonna note- not everything is about combat).
Clerics get healing spells but have a ton of single target, offensive, damage dealing spells. And Clerics can wear heavy armor, Druids can’t. So Druids have a greater need for a familiar to deliver the few damage dealing, single target spells on their spell list.
I don't know why you're mentioning Clerics. They also don't have a "ton" of such spells. Druids actually have more combat cantrips than Clerics. They have more than the Druid, but less than Sorcs, Wizards and Warlocks. Again, Clerics are primarily support class.
When I say support, again, I don't mean heal bots - although clerics are the best healers - I mean they can do more than just "deal X damage to Y enemy". Druids are better at crowd control than Clerics and more adaptable with greater out of combat utility than Clerics. Clerics are more optimised for combat support while Druids have some combat support and more out of combat versatility. They're not the same and are made for different focuses.
So Druids have a greater need for a familiar to deliver the few damage dealing, single target spells on their spell list.
No, they don't. Druids were doing perfectly fine before Tasha's gave them a temporary familiar. The familiar is there to make it easier to provide support at safe distance, not to attack. We did just cover how they have no useful touch-deliverable attack spells. They have plenty of damage-dealing spells which are already at range, so there's no need for a familiar.
Offensive single target spells that have no need for familiars:
Seems like quite a lot. But if you really want to consider offense, why single target? Why not consider the summons that attack enemies for you? Why not area spells? So let's see what spells Druids can use to damage multiple enemies or to summon allies or things that attack, without needing a familiar:
That's an absolute ****ton of damaging combat spells without a familiar for a class you say needs a familiar.
Here are some support spells that Familiars can help with, allowing the Druid to offer support from a safe distance (up to 100 ft) should the need arise:
Bonus: Flame Arrows - although able to use yourself for damaging single targets at range, you can also use your Familiar to affect the quiver of your ally to give it to them. You can do the same for Magic Stone.
-
The purpose of the familiar's ability to deliver touch spells is not to extend damage-dealing spells. It's purpose is to extend support spells. This is true for the wizard as well. And as detailed above, there is absolutely no need for Druids to use familiars for offensive spells. They have plenty of spells for damaging enemies both close and at distance and both single-target and multiple enemies.
And yet despite the immense list of damage spells - their strongest spells (with 1 exception that requires a specific multi-party build) - are support ones: controlling enemy movement, enemy debuffs, healing, buffs, removing debuffs, resurrection and lots of out of combat utility.
Druids are not a front-line, melee class, which makes Shillelagh and Primal Savagery mostly useless.
True about not being front-line melee but false about those being mostly useless. You will end up with enemies closing the distance and being in your face so having ways to fight back without needing spell slots is going to save your arse. Better to have and not need than to need and not have.
I appreciate your thorough reply. And I agree that there a many Buff druid spells, many of which can be delivered by a familiar, which is great.
As you know, I'm been talking about the druid offensive, (melee/ranged) attack spells. Because Druids can't wear metal armor, their AC tends to be prohibitive for melee combat. So, because of the restriction on armor, this rules out regular use of attack cantrips that require getting within 5-10 feet of a target like Shillelagh, Primal Savagery and Thunderclap, and Poison Spray (10 ft range).
Beyond 10 feet, let's look at the Druid's options. Thorn Whip and Infestation have a 30 ft range, which is good for the squishy Druid; and Frostbite is even better with a 60 ft range. But Thorn Whip only does 1d6 damage (compare to all Wizard single-target melee/ranged attack cantrips which do 1d8 -1d10 damage). The problem with Infestation and Frostbite, however, are (1) they only do 1d6 damage and (2) require a CON saving throw, which is the worst ability score saving throw against monsters which tend to have high constitutions, and will result in 0 damage more often than not. Last, one might think the Druid can just take the Bonfire cantrip, which does 1d8 damage, which is good. But the target gets a DEX saving throw. So, Bonfire is an attack that does 3 DRP on average, which is abysmal.
The best single-target attack cantrip available to Druids is Produce Flame. Produce flame has a range of 30 ft, does 1d8 damage, and doesn't include a save. I guess my argument comes down to the following: I think it would be cool/fun to give Druid's the option for an attack cantrip that does more than 1d8 damage, e.g., 1d10 (like the Primal Savagery cantrip), that can be cast under limited circumstances, i.e., starting at 2nd level, where the duration of the find familiar spell = 1/2 of the druid's level. So, at 2nd level, the druid could only attempt to use this attack cantrip 1 hour per day. That doesn't make this option OP. I don't think that's asking much lol
Hello,
I have a question about this cantrip. If the spell is a 'melee spell attack' and not a melee attack, why does the description go on about claws and teeth sharpening but then the target gets acid damage? One of my players is fairly new and she thought it was a melee attack, got all excited about her gnome biting and clawing like a feral beast....and then was let down. What gives with the (honestly kinda dumb since it doesn't follow through) description?
Evan
What's wrong with acid damage?
Compare it to something like a poisonous snake, which has a bite that does 1 point of piercing damage and 2d4 poison damage. It's a bite, but primarily a delivery mechanism.
The description of Primal Savagery says that your fingernails sharpen, not that they become claws. You are still biting and "clawing" at the target, but it is the acid in your attacks that really does the damage, not the slashing or piercing that delivers it.
Since you're the DM, feel free to modify it to suit your table, but be aware that damage type and resistances come into play with game balance.
I'd think of it more that the bite/claw is just the delivery method for the acid, rather than being a proper attack in its own right. When bitten by a venomous snake for example, the bite itself might be painful but is unlikely to be dangerous on its own, however the venom is what will incapacitate or kill you.
It does seem strange that it isn't just extra damage on top of an unarmed strike; if you wanted to house-rule I'd suggest letting the character make a magical unarmed strike (unarmed strike using their casting ability instead of Strength) and add the acid damage on top, but in that case you'll want to lower the damage die, maybe to d6?
I think this is one of those cantrips that suffers a little thematically from the cantrip template; this is essentially just how melee spell attack cantrips were structured, dealing one type of damage for simplicity. We didn't see additive melee cantrips (like Green Flame Blade) until later.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
The difference between a melee attack and a melee spell attack is the first uses strength as your attacking modifier by default while the second uses your spellcasting modifier by default. There are exceptions to both: finesse weapons, martial arts, and various abilities and spells like Shillelagh can change your melee attack stat. Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade use your melee attack stat.
Your still using your scratching and biting as your attack, the spell just gives you a way to attack in melee range without having to use a save spell. While there are creatures that are immune or resistant to acid damage, there are also creatures that are resistant or immune to the basic B/S/P damage or at least the non-magical version of it.
Thanks for the replies.
My player was thinking that since an armed character can do an off-hand attack without their stat bonus but do weapon damage, she could do two attacks with her unarmed melee because the spell caused her 'teeth or fingernails to sharpen, ready to deliver a corrosive attack' and get the d10 from both because of the way the spell is written. It was a long and patient discussion to dissuade her of this and she felt robbed (she had gotten fairly excited about the concept).
Evan
A Sorcerer dip for Quickened meta magic or a fighter dip for Action Surge are the only way to do that, but both are limited. Fighter also has EK 7's War Magic that adds a bonus action attack after a cantrip and Valor bard has Battle Magic at 14 that does the same with any bard spell.
The first two would be closest to what she wants to do and the least likely to completely distract from what she is planning otherwise, but neither is likely a great option for her and I wouldn't suggest the EK or Bard options because of the level investment, the fact that they wouldn't be able to do two Primal Savagery attacks and the bard would have to take the spell with Magical Secrets (unless you hand wave that.).
It sounds as though the player has misunderstood the rules. Making a melee spell attack using a cantrip or levelled spell and making a melee attack with actual weapons are completely different things. When you take the attack action with a melee weapon you can also make a bonus action melee attack with a different weapon in your off hand. Usually these are smaller weapons unless you have the appropriate feats. An example - Shortsword attack with an 18 dex gives you 1d6+4 plus 1d6 from the second attack but they are not using a shield and so their armour class is lower. Druids can use a shield so when they take a cast a spell action to use primal savagery they get 1d10 damage stating off and get a shield bonus to AC. That's the trade off for two weapon fighting and is the same for melee characters who use a sword and shield. Primal savagery is actually one of the best for close combat as it will use their casting stat, and ramps up with character level so a level 1 druid / level 19 fighter will do the same damage with it as a level 20 druid will.
It sounds like you need to chat to the player and explain the differences between the action types and what they can do depending on what action type they take.
Question: can a druid's familiar (wild companion) deliver Primal Savagery?
Primal Savagery isn't a touch attack, it has a Range/Area of self. Although Shocking Grasp has a Range/Area of touch, the two spells are melee spell attacks, and sound very similar:
Primal Savagery:
Shocking Grasp:
Both are melee spell attacks. And one is delivered by your hand, the other your fingernail (or teeth). Seems odd to allow a Shocking Grasp to be delivered by a familiar but not Primal Savagery. Am I missing something?
Started playing 1e in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in the last year.
No.
This is why.
The rest of your post is irrelevant to the rules. The spell is Self, not Touch, therefore, not valid for the familiar delivery - which doesn't care about melee attacks or anything, only the listed Range of a spell.
spell/weapon/etc melee attack = reference to what type of roll you are making.
Touch = reference to spell's range.
They are not the same thing.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
Okay, so you're saying all that matters is the spell's parameters, e.g., the range/area, level, duration, attack/save, etc., not the spell description. That means that a druid's familiar can deliver Shillelagh since it has a range/area of touch.
Started playing 1e in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in the last year.
Correct.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
Shillelagh requires a weapon (e.g., quarterstaff or club), which a familiar can't wield.
Started playing 1e in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in the last year.
You, the caster, need to hold the weapon (spells ends if you are not holding it). The familiar need only touch the weapon.
I didn't say there would be any point to the familiar delivering the Shillelagh spell - just that, yes, it is possible. Pointless. But possible.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
so now you’re saying the familiar can’t deliver the the spell
Started playing 1e in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in the last year.
Shillelagh has a range of Touch. However, the spell also requires you, the caster, to be holding the target (the club or staff). So to cast the spell you must be holding the weapon. Now, technically if the familiar was also touching that weapon it can use its reaction to deliver the spell - but since you're holding, and therefore touching, the weapon as well, it is pointless to do so and just wastes the familiar's reaction. - So yes, the familiar can deliver Shillelagh, it is just pointless to do so.
I think the confusion you may be having is targeting. Just because a spell has you make a spell attack doesn't mean the attacked creature is the target of the spell. It often is, but not always.
Shocking Grasp has a range of Touch, so the target of the spell is whoever you (or your familiar) is touching. The spell then let's you make a spell attack against the target.
Primal Savagery has a range of Self, so the target of the spell is you. You are the only target of the spell. The spell grants you the ability to make a spell attack against a creature of your choice. That creature will not be a "target of the spell" - it is only a "target of the attack" - which is not the same thing, in this case.
Take Fireball has an example. The spell only targets "a point in space", it doesn't target any creatures. But, it can affect creatures - any in the area of effect. Those creatures are not "targets" of Fireball. Only the point in space you chose is the target.
The familiar lets you choose a target the familiar is touching instead of what you are touching, for a spell with a range of touch. That is all it does. All other aspects of the spell must still be met. This is why shillelagh is a poor choice, because the other aspects of the spell make it pointless to deliver through a familiar.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
It looks like there is only one offensive druid touch spell where the target is not Self: Contagion. IMO that’s just poor game design given that all Druids can get familiars, who can deliver touch spells.
Given the similarities with Shocking Grasp, Primal Savagery is a good candidate for tweaking to be an offensive touch spell (where the target is not Self). It would just substitute acid damage for Shocking Grasp’s lightning.
Started playing 1e in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in the last year.
To be fair, the Wild Companion feature was introduced years later in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. The list isn't designed around familiars because druids normally didn't have access to one.
Also, you're focusing on offensive spells when Druids are primarily Support. They don't need offensive touch spells. They have plenty of other offensive options and the familiar can serve better delivering things like Cure Wounds for increased healing at range. You can also have your allies hold stones and your familiar can go to them to deliver the Magic Stone spell on them so your allies can use them immediately. You could have your familiar go to an enemy and remotely cast Plane Shift. Or to an ally and deliver Greater Restoration.
The familiar extends the range of touch spells to 100 ft. This offers immense utility for Druids allowing for deliverance of Support from a safe range. It's not poor game design.
Familiars were a Wizard thing and Wizards also have a lot of touch spells - and only 1 (Shocking Grasp) is offensive. This is deliberate for balancing.
Most touch range spells are support or utility.
Druids and Wizards who want to hurt an enemy at range don't need a familiar. They have ranged spells for that.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
True that Druid’s didn’t get familiars until Tasha’s. Disagree with the old (going back to 1e) trope that Druid is a support class and so doesn’t need offensive, single target, damage dealing spells. The game has changed since 1e. Clerics get healing spells but have a ton of single target, offensive, damage dealing spells. And Clerics can wear heavy armor, Druids can’t. So Druids have a greater need for a familiar to deliver the few damage dealing, single target spells on their spell list. Druids are not a front-line, melee class, which makes Shillelagh and Primal Savagery mostly useless.
Started playing 1e in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in the last year.
For a second time in this thread you are putting words in my mouth I never said. I never said they didn't need such spells. I said they didn't need offensive touch spells and that they are more Support - which they are. They lack the offense of sorcerers and wizards, even clerics, but have greater support than most and are 2nd after wizard for utility. By support I don't mean healbots. This is things like assisting allies and hindering enemies. Druids are great at field control. They are very adaptable in and out of combat (also gonna note- not everything is about combat).
I don't know why you're mentioning Clerics. They also don't have a "ton" of such spells. Druids actually have more combat cantrips than Clerics. They have more than the Druid, but less than Sorcs, Wizards and Warlocks. Again, Clerics are primarily support class.
When I say support, again, I don't mean heal bots - although clerics are the best healers - I mean they can do more than just "deal X damage to Y enemy". Druids are better at crowd control than Clerics and more adaptable with greater out of combat utility than Clerics. Clerics are more optimised for combat support while Druids have some combat support and more out of combat versatility. They're not the same and are made for different focuses.
No, they don't. Druids were doing perfectly fine before Tasha's gave them a temporary familiar. The familiar is there to make it easier to provide support at safe distance, not to attack. We did just cover how they have no useful touch-deliverable attack spells. They have plenty of damage-dealing spells which are already at range, so there's no need for a familiar.
Offensive single target spells that have no need for familiars:
Frostbite
Infestation
Magic Stone (although, as I mentioned, there is a way to use a familiar to give this to allies at distance)
Poison Spray
Primal Savagery
Produce Flame
Shillelagh
Thorn Whip
And that's just cantrips. So, I've already proven my point but let's just see if I can add more fuel to this fire.
Flame Arrows
Flame Blade
Heat Metal
Blight
Feeblemind
Seems like quite a lot. But if you really want to consider offense, why single target? Why not consider the summons that attack enemies for you? Why not area spells? So let's see what spells Druids can use to damage multiple enemies or to summon allies or things that attack, without needing a familiar:
Create Bonfire
Thunderclap
Earth Tremor
Ice Knife
Thunderwave
Dust Devil
Flaming Sphere
Moonbeam
Spike Growth (with the right party set up this spell can nearly kill anything with a single cast, even demigods)
Summon Beast
Call Lightning
Conjure Animals
Erupting Earth
Summon Fey
Conjure Minor Elementals
Conjure Woodland Beings
Giant Insect
Ice Storm
Summon Elemental
Wall of Fire
Conjure Elemental
Insect Plague
Summon Draconic Spirit
Wrath of Nature
Bones of the Earth
Conjure Fey
Investiture of Flame
Investiture of Ice
Investiture of Stone
Investiture of Wind
Sunbeam
Wall of Thorns
Draconic Transformation
Fire Storm
Whirlwind
Earthquake
Storm of Vengeance
That's an absolute ****ton of damaging combat spells without a familiar for a class you say needs a familiar.
Here are some support spells that Familiars can help with, allowing the Druid to offer support from a safe distance (up to 100 ft) should the need arise:
Guidance
Resistance
Cure Wounds
Jump
Longstrider
Barkskin
Enhance Ability
Lesser Restoration
Protection From Poison
Protection From Energy
Freedom of Movement
Stoneskin
Greater Restoration
Regenerate
Bonus: Flame Arrows - although able to use yourself for damaging single targets at range, you can also use your Familiar to affect the quiver of your ally to give it to them. You can do the same for Magic Stone.
-
The purpose of the familiar's ability to deliver touch spells is not to extend damage-dealing spells. It's purpose is to extend support spells. This is true for the wizard as well. And as detailed above, there is absolutely no need for Druids to use familiars for offensive spells. They have plenty of spells for damaging enemies both close and at distance and both single-target and multiple enemies.
And yet despite the immense list of damage spells - their strongest spells (with 1 exception that requires a specific multi-party build) - are support ones: controlling enemy movement, enemy debuffs, healing, buffs, removing debuffs, resurrection and lots of out of combat utility.
True about not being front-line melee but false about those being mostly useless. You will end up with enemies closing the distance and being in your face so having ways to fight back without needing spell slots is going to save your arse. Better to have and not need than to need and not have.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
I appreciate your thorough reply. And I agree that there a many Buff druid spells, many of which can be delivered by a familiar, which is great.
As you know, I'm been talking about the druid offensive, (melee/ranged) attack spells. Because Druids can't wear metal armor, their AC tends to be prohibitive for melee combat. So, because of the restriction on armor, this rules out regular use of attack cantrips that require getting within 5-10 feet of a target like Shillelagh, Primal Savagery and Thunderclap, and Poison Spray (10 ft range).
Beyond 10 feet, let's look at the Druid's options. Thorn Whip and Infestation have a 30 ft range, which is good for the squishy Druid; and Frostbite is even better with a 60 ft range. But Thorn Whip only does 1d6 damage (compare to all Wizard single-target melee/ranged attack cantrips which do 1d8 -1d10 damage). The problem with Infestation and Frostbite, however, are (1) they only do 1d6 damage and (2) require a CON saving throw, which is the worst ability score saving throw against monsters which tend to have high constitutions, and will result in 0 damage more often than not. Last, one might think the Druid can just take the Bonfire cantrip, which does 1d8 damage, which is good. But the target gets a DEX saving throw. So, Bonfire is an attack that does 3 DRP on average, which is abysmal.
The best single-target attack cantrip available to Druids is Produce Flame. Produce flame has a range of 30 ft, does 1d8 damage, and doesn't include a save. I guess my argument comes down to the following: I think it would be cool/fun to give Druid's the option for an attack cantrip that does more than 1d8 damage, e.g., 1d10 (like the Primal Savagery cantrip), that can be cast under limited circumstances, i.e., starting at 2nd level, where the duration of the find familiar spell = 1/2 of the druid's level. So, at 2nd level, the druid could only attempt to use this attack cantrip 1 hour per day. That doesn't make this option OP. I don't think that's asking much lol
Started playing 1e in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in the last year.