Inflict Wounds seems to be quite divisive in the community. Some claim it is unbalanced, but given that Clerics (good guys or bad guys) don't have many serious damage spells, and the fact the good guys have the responsibility of balancing their healing abilities with their effectiveness in combat, I think Inflict Wounds should be synonymous with Cleric like Fire Ball is with Wizard.
I mean, seriously, no one complains when a wizard hurls 8d6 (8-48) damage to multiple enemies in a single round, but if a Cleric does 5d10 (5-50) damage (cast at 3rd level same as Fireball) to just one character then the spell is "over powered" and Clerics should be nerfed and put back in their box!
That being said, I think that there is a significant piece of information that is missing from the Inflict Wounds spell's description.
Personally, I believe touch spells should only be spent when they actually touch. If the physical touch (successful hit) is part of the somatic component of the spell, then the spell can not be successfully completed or cast without the successful touch, and therefore the spell slot only gets consumed once the hit is achieved.
It's like striking a match. If you fail to strike a match on your first attempt, it does not consume the match preventing further attempt, instead the strike failed and you lost a round, but you can attempt to strike the match again next round.
This is different to a ranged spell attack however, as a spell that discharges a magical projectile, like Guiding Bolt. The spell is completed when the bolt is generated, regardless if it hits its target or the back wall!
I think a lot of people confuse "Inflict Wounds" with a regular melee attack. But, of course, it is a spell and restricted in the number of castings. Fighters with weapons can just keep dealing the same weapon damage over and over again through a decent length encounter, then get extra attack later to hit even more or at least have more chances to hit.
Disagree on touch spells only being spent when they succeed though. This is something they're looking to do for Paladin's smite in DND One by specifying the spell as casting when they hit. Remember that a Somatic spell doesn't necessarily mean the Somatic components are all in the touch. There could easily be a number of arcane/divine gestures made before attempting to touch a creature. Thematically though, this would simply be a case of the caster "charging" their hand (or other body part) with the energies then attempting to release them. If they fail to make contact and release then it's no different to a readied spell that isn't trigged before the next turn. The energies and expenditure go to waste.
Even partially cast a comparison would be a countered spell which is nullified before it's casting is complete.
third lev fireball does 8d6 damage (av28), halved with a dex save and more than occasionally resisted. third lev inflict wounds does 5d10 (av27.5) damage, no save. fireball is fireball. let's hope the ~cleric has a decent spell attack mod.
I have never heard complaints that inflict wounds in overpowered . With two enemies in range Spirit Guardians will do more damage on average of a type that is rarely resisted every round for 10 min. That and sacred weapon are the go to damage dealing cleric spells I hear people say are OP.
I also disagree that a miss should not use a spell slot. Most of the time when I try to light a match and fail either the head falls off or the match lights for a fraction of a second and gets blown out by the wind before I can do anything with it, so I guess it is like striking a match, If you fail you can not use the same match/spell slot to try again.
You use spell slots to cast a spells and attempt to affect targets with them, either via successful spell attack or failed saving throw. Some still inflict half damage, some don't but in any case the spell slot should be spent unless noted otherwise.
I've never heard anyone say Inflict Wounds is overpowered. Likely because it isn't. At first level 3d10 damage (IF the spell hits) is decent and will likely take out one opponent but it still consumes one of two first level slots. Beyond first level though it is pretty pathetic.
Compare Inflict Wounds to Guiding bolt - average damage of 15.5 vs 14 but Guiding Bolt is a ranged spell attack and in addition gives the next attack against the target advantage. Guiding Bolt is arguably a much better spell than Inflict Wounds. In addition, by fifth level (3rd level spells), any melee cleric is MUCH more likely to be using Spirit Guardians which IS the cleric equivalent to fireball rather than blowing the spell slot on a single casting of Inflict Wounds.
So, nope, Inflict Wounds is not overpowered.
However, the main point seems to be to make touch spells require concentration so that they do not get expended when the target is missed. This is exactly what the smite spells do. Bonus action to cast, requires concentration, causes additional damage and rider effects when the target is hit with a melee weapon attack. If the attack misses, the spell is still in effect until the first time a hit is achieved.
I don't see any need to change touch spells into concentration spells that aren't expended on a miss though you are free to homebrew such modifications if you like. I don't see them as being needed. Consider what this would mean for spells like Plane shift - you can cast it on an unwilling target, you need to hit with a melee spell attack, then the target needs to make a save. With your approach, it is just a matter of time for the save to be required since the character can keep trying to hit with it every turn until it lands.
This is the first time I've read "Inflict Wounds" and "overpowered" in the same sentence, whereas pretty much everyone recognizes Fireball's disproportionate strength.
"If the physical touch (successful hit) is part of the somatic component of the spell,"
Clerics are synonymous with undexterously clanking around in metal armour and wielding large, classically blunt weapons while loudly channeling divinity in some way or another or giving guidance to someone that doesn't want it.
They might reserve inflict wounds for when they could achieve an easy touch or if they at least had advantage.
Who is saying it’s overpowered? People who’ve never actually played a cleric, or tried to use it, maybe?
When I play clerics, I never take it. Burn a spell slot for something and maybe do some damage, but maybe get no use from it. The risk is too big for the potential reward. It’s solid damage for a level 1 spell, but clerics aren’t there to do damage. I’ll keep the slot for healing word or bless.
Side note, if you’re looking for damage spells synonymous with clerics, those would be flame strike and blade barrier, and nowadays, spirit guardians and spiritual weapon. Cause/inflict wounds has always been an option, but it’s not one people actually take.
While a fireball can hit more targets, and still deals half damage to most targets on a successful save, you have to actually be able to place that area of effect somewhere. You don't usually want to shoot a fireball at point blank range unless you're School of Evocation.
Inflict wounds is a point blank melee attack with all the risks that entails (being close, and missing) but it can deal solid damage of a less commonly resisted damage type to a single target (no friendly fire). It has the added benefit of scaling really well (d10's compared to d6's for the fireball).
I picked it up on a Draconic Sorcerer using Shadow Touched so I could quickened spell it in the same turn as using a shadow blade; not an optimal combo at all, but a lot of fun, plus the campaign was one where you rarely got a chance to make the most of big area spells so sometimes you just had to get your hands dirty instead. Plus I pictured it as a draconic sorcerer with two vicious claws. 😈
Another fun combo is if you can get find familiar on a character with inflict wounds (or vice-versa) as you can cast it through the familiar; now it's a "ranged" spell attack. 😉
While it can be frustrating when an attack spell misses (or an enemy succeeds against a save-or-suck control or debuff spell) that's just the risk you take with magic, and why it's often good to save such abilities for when you can stack the odds in your favour, e.g- with an ally flanking (if you're using those rules), bless, faerie fire, etc.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Burn a spell slot for something and maybe do some damage, but maybe get no use from it. The risk is too big for the potential reward.
Cause/inflict wounds has always been an option, but it’s not one people actually take.
This is exactly my point!
Why would anyone, including bad guys, ever take Inflict Wounds if it costs one of your two level 1 spell slots with a chance of doing nothing?
For death magic that inflicts wounds I think Toll the Dead is a great example of a well crafted idea. A cleric can cast Toll the Dead over and over again, like swinging a sword, because its a cantrip. A Wiz save means it does nothing, but that's okay because it didn't cost anything to use. Balanced risk/reward.
For a level 1 spell to have a 50% chance of do nothing at all seems pointless.
In the cleric I am playing at present (balance of life an death), I took the spell because it fits with the character, but the character is now level 7, and has not attempted to even cast Inflict Wounds once because divine spell points are few and there is just no point in casting something that has a 50% chance of doing nothing!
If there was a save for reduced damage, I would have at least tried it, but a save (roll to hit) that does nothing, the pay off just doesn't match the risk. If it was an AOE spell with a chance to do nothing, again the risk/REWARD would be there, but if it costs a spell slot to "try to cast" then the RISK/reward is just not worth even attempting.
From what I have read on other posts, the only Clerics that love Inflict Wounds are War clerics, because War Clerics can use their "Channel Divinity" to add +10 to their attack roll...meaning they will almost always hit when they wish to.
I just don't like the fact there is a spell that sounds really cool, but gets absolutely no play time, because the RISK/reward doesn't make sense.
Rules As Written - Inflict Wounds is not a concentration spell and missing the touch/melee attack means the spell slot is spent. There is nothing in the rules to say a touch spell is only completely cast if the touch is made. Consider that the spell can be "readied" which involves fully casting the spell, without touching, but holding it until a trigger event that lets your reaction use it.
However, any DM can homebrew the rules for their own campaign if they think it's necessary.
Honestly, Inflict wounds is not a terrible spell. It delivers the most damage against a single target than any other 1st level spell. A cleric need only co-ordinate to get advantage on their attack and they can reliably one-shot low level monsters.
The problem is that Guiding Bolt is ranged to 120ft and most casters would prefer to prepare it and plan to fire from the back lines than prepare Inflict wounds with the idea of getting close.
The other problem is that dealing damage is ALL that Inflict Wounds does. A lot of casters like spells with some variety to their capability.
Ultimately. There are MANY spells that, technically are terrible and rarely taken. Ask anyone about "True Strike". There are also spells like Bane which aren't overly bad on their own but simply have a better option in Bless. Optimiser players will often take spells on the numbers but there are plenty of player out there which will take spells much more for the flavor or because their build make it much more viable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Inflict Wounds seems to be quite divisive in the community. Some claim it is unbalanced, but given that Clerics (good guys or bad guys) don't have many serious damage spells, and the fact the good guys have the responsibility of balancing their healing abilities with their effectiveness in combat, I think Inflict Wounds should be synonymous with Cleric like Fire Ball is with Wizard.
I mean, seriously, no one complains when a wizard hurls 8d6 (8-48) damage to multiple enemies in a single round, but if a Cleric does 5d10 (5-50) damage (cast at 3rd level same as Fireball) to just one character then the spell is "over powered" and Clerics should be nerfed and put back in their box!
That being said, I think that there is a significant piece of information that is missing from the Inflict Wounds spell's description.
Personally, I believe touch spells should only be spent when they actually touch.
If the physical touch (successful hit) is part of the somatic component of the spell, then the spell can not be successfully completed or cast without the successful touch, and therefore the spell slot only gets consumed once the hit is achieved.
It's like striking a match.
If you fail to strike a match on your first attempt, it does not consume the match preventing further attempt, instead the strike failed and you lost a round, but you can attempt to strike the match again next round.
This is different to a ranged spell attack however, as a spell that discharges a magical projectile, like Guiding Bolt. The spell is completed when the bolt is generated, regardless if it hits its target or the back wall!
I think a lot of people confuse "Inflict Wounds" with a regular melee attack. But, of course, it is a spell and restricted in the number of castings. Fighters with weapons can just keep dealing the same weapon damage over and over again through a decent length encounter, then get extra attack later to hit even more or at least have more chances to hit.
Disagree on touch spells only being spent when they succeed though. This is something they're looking to do for Paladin's smite in DND One by specifying the spell as casting when they hit. Remember that a Somatic spell doesn't necessarily mean the Somatic components are all in the touch. There could easily be a number of arcane/divine gestures made before attempting to touch a creature. Thematically though, this would simply be a case of the caster "charging" their hand (or other body part) with the energies then attempting to release them. If they fail to make contact and release then it's no different to a readied spell that isn't trigged before the next turn. The energies and expenditure go to waste.
Even partially cast a comparison would be a countered spell which is nullified before it's casting is complete.
third lev fireball does 8d6 damage (av28), halved with a dex save and more than occasionally resisted.
third lev inflict wounds does 5d10 (av27.5) damage, no save.
fireball is fireball.
let's hope the ~cleric has a decent spell attack mod.
I have never heard complaints that inflict wounds in overpowered . With two enemies in range Spirit Guardians will do more damage on average of a type that is rarely resisted every round for 10 min. That and sacred weapon are the go to damage dealing cleric spells I hear people say are OP.
I also disagree that a miss should not use a spell slot. Most of the time when I try to light a match and fail either the head falls off or the match lights for a fraction of a second and gets blown out by the wind before I can do anything with it, so I guess it is like striking a match, If you fail you can not use the same match/spell slot to try again.
You use spell slots to cast a spells and attempt to affect targets with them, either via successful spell attack or failed saving throw. Some still inflict half damage, some don't but in any case the spell slot should be spent unless noted otherwise.
Half damage is most often on a missed saving throw than a missed attack roll though and i'm not even sure any of the latter exist.
EDIT Acid Arrow and Melf Acid Arrow are spells that deal damage even on a missed attack.
I've never heard anyone say Inflict Wounds is overpowered. Likely because it isn't. At first level 3d10 damage (IF the spell hits) is decent and will likely take out one opponent but it still consumes one of two first level slots. Beyond first level though it is pretty pathetic.
Compare Inflict Wounds to Guiding bolt - average damage of 15.5 vs 14 but Guiding Bolt is a ranged spell attack and in addition gives the next attack against the target advantage. Guiding Bolt is arguably a much better spell than Inflict Wounds. In addition, by fifth level (3rd level spells), any melee cleric is MUCH more likely to be using Spirit Guardians which IS the cleric equivalent to fireball rather than blowing the spell slot on a single casting of Inflict Wounds.
So, nope, Inflict Wounds is not overpowered.
However, the main point seems to be to make touch spells require concentration so that they do not get expended when the target is missed. This is exactly what the smite spells do. Bonus action to cast, requires concentration, causes additional damage and rider effects when the target is hit with a melee weapon attack. If the attack misses, the spell is still in effect until the first time a hit is achieved.
I don't see any need to change touch spells into concentration spells that aren't expended on a miss though you are free to homebrew such modifications if you like. I don't see them as being needed. Consider what this would mean for spells like Plane shift - you can cast it on an unwilling target, you need to hit with a melee spell attack, then the target needs to make a save. With your approach, it is just a matter of time for the save to be required since the character can keep trying to hit with it every turn until it lands.
This is the first time I've read "Inflict Wounds" and "overpowered" in the same sentence, whereas pretty much everyone recognizes Fireball's disproportionate strength.
"If the physical touch (successful hit) is part of the somatic component of the spell,"
There's no reason to think this is the case.
Clerics are synonymous with undexterously clanking around in metal armour and wielding large, classically blunt weapons while loudly channeling divinity in some way or another or giving guidance to someone that doesn't want it.
They might reserve inflict wounds for when they could achieve an easy touch or if they at least had advantage.
Who is saying it’s overpowered? People who’ve never actually played a cleric, or tried to use it, maybe?
When I play clerics, I never take it. Burn a spell slot for something and maybe do some damage, but maybe get no use from it. The risk is too big for the potential reward. It’s solid damage for a level 1 spell, but clerics aren’t there to do damage. I’ll keep the slot for healing word or bless.
Side note, if you’re looking for damage spells synonymous with clerics, those would be flame strike and blade barrier, and nowadays, spirit guardians and spiritual weapon. Cause/inflict wounds has always been an option, but it’s not one people actually take.
Inflict wounds seems balanced just fine to me.
While a fireball can hit more targets, and still deals half damage to most targets on a successful save, you have to actually be able to place that area of effect somewhere. You don't usually want to shoot a fireball at point blank range unless you're School of Evocation.
Inflict wounds is a point blank melee attack with all the risks that entails (being close, and missing) but it can deal solid damage of a less commonly resisted damage type to a single target (no friendly fire). It has the added benefit of scaling really well (d10's compared to d6's for the fireball).
I picked it up on a Draconic Sorcerer using Shadow Touched so I could quickened spell it in the same turn as using a shadow blade; not an optimal combo at all, but a lot of fun, plus the campaign was one where you rarely got a chance to make the most of big area spells so sometimes you just had to get your hands dirty instead. Plus I pictured it as a draconic sorcerer with two vicious claws. 😈
Another fun combo is if you can get find familiar on a character with inflict wounds (or vice-versa) as you can cast it through the familiar; now it's a "ranged" spell attack. 😉
While it can be frustrating when an attack spell misses (or an enemy succeeds against a save-or-suck control or debuff spell) that's just the risk you take with magic, and why it's often good to save such abilities for when you can stack the odds in your favour, e.g- with an ally flanking (if you're using those rules), bless, faerie fire, etc.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
This is exactly my point!
Why would anyone, including bad guys, ever take Inflict Wounds if it costs one of your two level 1 spell slots with a chance of doing nothing?
For death magic that inflicts wounds I think Toll the Dead is a great example of a well crafted idea. A cleric can cast Toll the Dead over and over again, like swinging a sword, because its a cantrip. A Wiz save means it does nothing, but that's okay because it didn't cost anything to use. Balanced risk/reward.
For a level 1 spell to have a 50% chance of do nothing at all seems pointless.
In the cleric I am playing at present (balance of life an death), I took the spell because it fits with the character, but the character is now level 7, and has not attempted to even cast Inflict Wounds once because divine spell points are few and there is just no point in casting something that has a 50% chance of doing nothing!
If there was a save for reduced damage, I would have at least tried it, but a save (roll to hit) that does nothing, the pay off just doesn't match the risk. If it was an AOE spell with a chance to do nothing, again the risk/REWARD would be there, but if it costs a spell slot to "try to cast" then the RISK/reward is just not worth even attempting.
From what I have read on other posts, the only Clerics that love Inflict Wounds are War clerics, because War Clerics can use their "Channel Divinity" to add +10 to their attack roll...meaning they will almost always hit when they wish to.
I just don't like the fact there is a spell that sounds really cool, but gets absolutely no play time, because the RISK/reward doesn't make sense.
Rules As Written - Inflict Wounds is not a concentration spell and missing the touch/melee attack means the spell slot is spent. There is nothing in the rules to say a touch spell is only completely cast if the touch is made. Consider that the spell can be "readied" which involves fully casting the spell, without touching, but holding it until a trigger event that lets your reaction use it.
However, any DM can homebrew the rules for their own campaign if they think it's necessary.
Honestly, Inflict wounds is not a terrible spell. It delivers the most damage against a single target than any other 1st level spell. A cleric need only co-ordinate to get advantage on their attack and they can reliably one-shot low level monsters.
The problem is that Guiding Bolt is ranged to 120ft and most casters would prefer to prepare it and plan to fire from the back lines than prepare Inflict wounds with the idea of getting close.
The other problem is that dealing damage is ALL that Inflict Wounds does. A lot of casters like spells with some variety to their capability.
Ultimately. There are MANY spells that, technically are terrible and rarely taken. Ask anyone about "True Strike". There are also spells like Bane which aren't overly bad on their own but simply have a better option in Bless. Optimiser players will often take spells on the numbers but there are plenty of player out there which will take spells much more for the flavor or because their build make it much more viable.