Until the concentration check fails. Also, all those EBs are at disadvantage unless you bought a feat.
If you're gonna melee, you get hit. If you're going to try ranged, you still have to be in range.
And you're a multi classed 18+ level character who was built to do this thing. And you're burning a 9th level spell, which could, again, be meteor swarm. Or wish.
Is it strong? Sure. But the maxed-out damage build is a stunt build. At lower levels, especially with less-optimized builds, you're not outdamaging the fighter by all that much. And you spent a turn (very important when talking DPR numbers) and a 4th-level+ spell slot to do it. The fighter can do this all day. You can do it once, until you lose concentration.
Why would the EB be at disadvantage? It’s a 15’ radius sphere so you don’t have to be in melee to use
That was one of the optimized stunt builds, taking a class that can sub a cantrip in for one of their attacks, and dipping warlock just for EB.
(Also, if you have to be within 15 feet of the front line, you're basically on the front line; enemies can push through to reach you trivially.)
If you are interested (and it seems Jl8e is not), Treantmonk is in the middle of comparing the base damage of each class along with some minor optimized builds. He did a separate video on the valor bard using CME. If you want some actual comparison -- rather than gut feelings -- to base your view of the spell on, this video is worth a watch. He goes through two lightly optimized builds and shows all the math and all the assumptions for you to check. Neither of the builds are straight bard, but only one relies on eldritch blast. The other is a 1 level fighter dip great sword shillelagh build. The shillelagh build does nearly the same damage at many levels as EB. And both far outpace a greatsword hexblade build with light optimization (Edit: at the time, that hexblade was his best damage build of the classes so far -- and he did go through the heavy hitters first.). The net result is that the CME user does more damage at all levels after magical secrets gives them CME. Beyond level 14, the difference is 20-100% more damage using these spells. Yes, that's right, double the damage of other optimized characters.
You might not be interested or convinced you could figure it out yourself, but it is reasonable to have a basis of comparison. Treantmonk does assume using higher level slots for damage, but that is a reasonable assumption: if damage is the important metric in a fight then that's what you should use your best slots on. Certainly, if the encounter can be solved with a different metric, then you could use those slots for almost any spell in the game you had the forethought to bring with you, thanks to the oddly lax rules on magical secrets allowing a bard to take as many spells from other classes as they want.
(As an aside, the best a bard can do for light optimization just using spells otherwise seems to be cloud of daggers, and that does among the worst damage that he's seen of the classes he has tested so far -- which is fine because bards have so many other things that they bring to the table -- inspiration, skills, and all the best bard, cleric, druid, and wizard spells in the game. Except the problem is that a CME Bard brings all of that too, and the best single target damage in the game beyond level 13).
He goes through two lightly optimized builds and shows all the math and all the assumptions for you to check. Neither of the builds are straight bard, but only one relies on eldritch blast. The other is a 1 level fighter dip great sword shillelagh build. The shillelagh build does nearly the same damage at many levels as EB. And both far outpace a greatsword hexblade build with light optimization
I would argue that, if you're multiclassing for purely mechanical benefit, you're already out of the zone that can be considered "light optimization". If you're doing it to specifically enhance your effectiveness with a specific combat tactic, especially if it's one you don't even have yet, you're definitely well out of it.
Which is my central point: CME may well be dominant if you're optimizing for it, but that's not how most people play the game, and if the designers change it because of the optimizing scenarios, they risk over-nerfing it for normal play. And normal play is what they ought to be concerned about.
Theorycrafting both overemphasizes specific builds, and underemphasizes complicating factors. Does TM's video sweep away factors like the casting round and maintaining concentration? I admit I don't know for sure, but it seems pretty likely. (I have watched one of his videos, and he was obviously palming cards in order to make a point in which he was largely correct.)
The post that revived this thread was actual play, but the sheer specificity of the scenario makes it useless for extrapolation. It's spectacular, but really quite unlikely.
If CME is the serious problem it's made out to be, it ought to be fairly easy to demonstrate with single-classed, mid-level wizards and druids (or even bards) noticeably outperforming other similarly-built classes on the regular, even when you account for their idle round of casting but no damage, and also that they don't get to keep it up for that many rounds because they're up front, taking hits.
Treantmonk's assumptions are in the video. He assumes that for a 10 minute duration spell, sometimes you might have it up, but sometimes not. He assumes that in 50% of combats the first round will be spent casting the spell.
To be similarly dismissive, if you aren't interested in optimization, your opinion on optimization doesn't carry weight. If most people don't care how much damage they do, then damage balance is always irrelevant to them. That makes it only relevant to people who care about the balance of the game, and people who don't care need not worry about it -- or interject their distain for the subject into discussions about it.
Also a Valor Bard by themselves can get the combination of Shillelagh + CME if they take the Guide Background. So you can monoclass and get Charisma weapon + scaling damage + CME + True Strike with a Cantrip friendly Extra Attack. I don't think that counts as highly optimized? Get Polearm Master and you're doing three attacks per round, wielding a shield and having access to the Shield spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I'm sure they are. I personally am not a fan of watching a video to receive information that could've been better conveyed in a blog post.
But the video is almost irrelevant to the question of "is CME a problem that the developers need to fix?"
He assumes that for a 10 minute duration spell, sometimes you might have it up, but sometimes not. He assumes that in 50% of combats the first round will be spent casting the spell.
Yeah, I'd say that's poor assumption in most circumstances in most games.
To be similarly dismissive, if you aren't interested in optimization, your opinion on optimization doesn't carry weight.
I'm not interested in optimization. That doesn't mean that I don't understand it or can't do it.
If most people don't care how much damage they do, then damage balance is always irrelevant to them. That makes it only relevant to people who care about the balance of the game, and people who don't care need not worry about it -- or interject their distain for the subject into discussions about it.
What is "the balance of the game?"
What ruins the balance?
D&D is not a competitive game. It does not have a tournament scene.
What makes something like CME a problem is if it ruins people's fun. If it makes one player, without really trying, dominate the game, it's a problem.
If you've got a player, let's call them Scooter, who brings a CME-focussed Shileleigh Valor Bard multiclass to the table and dominates all the combat, CME is not the problem. Scooter would bring some other such character to the game if CME were nerfed. Scooter is the problem, and it can usually be dealt with by the extremely powerful method of "dude, could you not?"
CME is the problem when Rowlf, who just decided to play Moon Druid this time because it sounds like fun, hits 9th level, takes CME because it's a spell for full casters who want to mix it up on the front lines, and suddenly combat is all about Rowlf. "Could you not?" is a bad solution here, because Rowlf isn't doing anything but trying to use the spell as it's intended. You're asking him to sacrifice his fun (fighty caster) because the spell is too good.
When you're demanding the designers take the disruptive action of errataing the spell, you need to be looking at normal play, because that's where most of the play is. (And errata is disruptive. It's easy on the digital side, but there are thousands upon thousands of books out there already.) Character optimization is a separate hobby from playing D&D. I tend to think of it like speedrunning video games. It's about the fun of testing a system to its breaking point. It's legit fun if you enjoy it, but it's not the point.
CME is completely broken, having seen it in use in an actual game (Adventurer's League so the DM can't house rule it away).
Level 16 paladin/bard casts CME using a 7th level slot adding 8d8 to each attack. Has three attacks in a round from Extra Attack and a bonus action attack from the bard (for expending bardic inspiration - dance bard). Sorcerer twins Hold Monster onto two of the 4 dragons attacking the group .. Paladin/bard solos the Adult red dragon in one round. Nothing any other character or build could do, including the vaunted spellcasters, was going to do ... total damage was on the order of d10 + 52d8 + 3 x stat ~= 254 average.
You're not soloing the dragon when roughly half your damage is coming from somebody else's spell effect. (And also your attack advantage.)
Yes, it's certainly a lot of damage. But... how much damage would a regular fighter-type of that level wailing on a paralyzed dragon for two rounds do? Less, I'm sure, but that 7th-level slot is a non-trivial resource expenditure. And this is pretty much a perfect set-up for it.
And a lot has to go your way before it works:
Burn through the dragons' legendary resistances
They don't save vs a hold monster with their base +7 to wis saves
You don't get tagged by a dragon and blow concentration after your very obvious power-up
Without the hold, you're probably doing ~90. (240/2 + 15) * 2/3)
Which is, again, a non-trivial amount of damage. But at a cost of two rounds and a 7th-level slot.
This is, at least, probably not an optimized-for-it build, but it's hardly a normal situation.
I'm entirely willing to be convinced it's over the curve. I'll even acknowledge that it is, but is it enough over the curve that its very real limiting factors don't balance it out overall? If it is overbalanced, is it actually a big enough deal to justify errata, and the confusion that causes? (Not my decision.)
This is especially in comparison to the nearest similar spell.
Spirit Shroud - 1d8 at level 3 + 1d8 every 2 levels up cast so 2d8 at level 5 - concentration 1 minute
CME - 2d8 at level 4 + 2d8 for every level upcast so 4d8 at level 5 - concentration 10 minutes
A relevant question is: do people use spirit shroud much in normal games?
They definitely seem to be of the opinion that Spirit Shroud is not good enough. Did they overcompensate?
To be honest, in this game, I was playing a gish GWM warlock and was using Spirit Shroud since it was the only option available to a warlock :). (Hex doesn't count since it is only d6 :) ).
I agree that the paralysed dragon was probably the absolute best case scenario for the character to down the dragon in one round. However, on a normal round (assuming the attacks hit), the CME character does 2 x (9d8) + (d10 + 8d8) + stat x 3 = 137.5 average (+5 stat - not including the effect of a magical weapon) ... actual damage will depend on AC and "+" to hit which depends on stat and magic weapons in use (which at level 16 can be significant).
What can a fighter do in comparison?
Lets assume a battle master with PAM and GWM using a +3 glaive, +5 stat and expending a d10 superiority die on each attack for additional damage.
They get 4 attacks .. 3x (d10 + 13) + d4+13 + 4d10 ~= 92 while using up 4 superiority die. Decent but the CME character can do 50% more damage.
The GWM warlock I was using in the game is similar to the fighter ... 3 attacks + level 5 spirit shroud using a +3 greatsword and +5 stat = 3 X (2d6 + 2d8 + 13) = 87 .. requiring a 5th level spell slot but getting numbers similar to the GWM/PAM fighter (they also have resilient con and eldritch mind to try to be able to maintain concentration on the spell when hit).
So 90ish average potential damage (not considering to hit) seems to be a typical range for 2024 with a +3 weapon. CME pushes that up by 50% for specific builds which is why I think it is a bit overtuned (Note that the CME numbers I quoted did not include damage from a magical weapon ... it should be +6 to +9 higher if the CME character also has a +3 weapon bringing it into the 140+ potential damage). CME might have been better with a 1d8 increase/level or even 1d8/2 levels like Spirit shroud (?) but starting at 2d8 since it is a 4th level spell and lasts 10 minutes .. however, it would need play testing to see what worked best ... maybe 2d6 + d6/level? Lots of options.
Anyway, my point was that in my actual play experience, the spell is a bit overtuned on a character that can use it well. 2d8 + 2d8 increase/level of spell is just excessive.
I have suggested it likely will be, And it probably should be, is errata disruptive, sure. Is leaving an absolutely bonkers broken spell in normal play, not min maxed to the extreme but normal play more disruptive, heck yes it is. Again for ji8e, this is not white room, we play tested it and in normal play, we didn't have optimized builds they were all pretty basic from the playtest, no multi classing as the multiclassing rules weren't out, not all the feats, just run of the mill characters using the spell. And it broke the damage side of the game, and yes we can say oh its not a competitive game or something. But the wizard wrecking face in single target damage well past what the fighters are doing sucks hard for the fighter. Oh yes, it is cooperative, we are all working towards the same goal. But feeling like dead weight in comparison sucks.
D&D is not a competitive game. It does not have a tournament scene.
What makes something like CME a problem is if it ruins people's fun. If it makes one player, without really trying, dominate the game, it's a problem.
If you've got a player, let's call them Scooter, who brings a CME-focussed Shileleigh Valor Bard multiclass to the table and dominates all the combat, CME is not the problem. Scooter would bring some other such character to the game if CME were nerfed. Scooter is the problem, and it can usually be dealt with by the extremely powerful method of "dude, could you not?"
CME is the problem when Rowlf, who just decided to play Moon Druid this time because it sounds like fun, hits 9th level, takes CME because it's a spell for full casters who want to mix it up on the front lines, and suddenly combat is all about Rowlf. "Could you not?" is a bad solution here, because Rowlf isn't doing anything but trying to use the spell as it's intended. You're asking him to sacrifice his fun (fighty caster) because the spell is too good.
When you're demanding the designers take the disruptive action of errataing the spell, you need to be looking at normal play, because that's where most of the play is. (And errata is disruptive. It's easy on the digital side, but there are thousands upon thousands of books out there already.) Character optimization is a separate hobby from playing D&D. I tend to think of it like speedrunning video games. It's about the fun of testing a system to its breaking point. It's legit fun if you enjoy it, but it's not the point.
D&D is not a competitive game. It is cooperative. However, everyone wants to have fun and feel like they are contributing. This is a key element of fun and enjoyment for many players in the game ... they want a character that they find cool but who can also do things. Most people do not enjoy playing an incompetent character, they prefer to be the heroes.
The problem with CME and "game balance" is that along comes this valor bard who picks up CME as a magical secret at level 10. From that point onward, not only is that bard a master of skills with expertise, they are also a master of crowd control, they can wear medium armor and a shield, use martial weapons and after casting CME will be able to step into combat and handily do more damage than the fighter/ranger/rogue in the party while STILL being able to cast all sorts of other spells - Mass Suggestion etc.
They can also pick up conjure celestial as a later secret which is arguably even more broken as an ongoing AoE that can damage any creature within 10' and can be moved up to 30' each turn damaging or healing every creature it moves over.
Personally, I prefer to at least give each character a niche where they can try to shine in a game so that the player feels like they are really contributing ... THAT is game balance ... and THAT is where CME breaks game balance by giving a subset of caster classes a really powerful attack option leaving martial classes in the dust.
Bladesinger wizard is another example.
Each of these caster classes might find something better or more useful to concentrate on in any particular encounter but everyone else in the party is completely aware that they can turn around and stomp over anything with best in game single target damage - as well as all the other cool caster stuff - leaving the folks playing some of the other characters perhaps feeling a bit let down that they aren't as useful as they would like to be.
-------------------------
Honestly, the highest damage build these days is probably 1 warlock/7 wizard/12 sorcerer for lots of quickened Agonizing Blast with CME on every attack ... yep, they have to be within 15' of the target but in tier 4 the potential damage of EB + quickened EB is 8 x (d10+5) + 8 x (10d8) (assuming an 8th level slot for CME) = 444 average damage ... which is pretty ridiculous and I think exceeds anything from 2014 ... and the character isn't even particularly "optimized" ... quicken+agonizing blast+ CME. They could even be a bladesinger wizard for extra attack. However, that is completely theory crafting but just shows the ridiculous numbers that CME can give access to ... if CME included a phrase like "once per turn" .. it might still be decent for a damage boost on some characters ... but would avoid the multiplicative excess.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That was one of the optimized stunt builds, taking a class that can sub a cantrip in for one of their attacks, and dipping warlock just for EB.
(Also, if you have to be within 15 feet of the front line, you're basically on the front line; enemies can push through to reach you trivially.)
If you are interested (and it seems Jl8e is not), Treantmonk is in the middle of comparing the base damage of each class along with some minor optimized builds. He did a separate video on the valor bard using CME. If you want some actual comparison -- rather than gut feelings -- to base your view of the spell on, this video is worth a watch. He goes through two lightly optimized builds and shows all the math and all the assumptions for you to check. Neither of the builds are straight bard, but only one relies on eldritch blast. The other is a 1 level fighter dip great sword shillelagh build. The shillelagh build does nearly the same damage at many levels as EB. And both far outpace a greatsword hexblade build with light optimization (Edit: at the time, that hexblade was his best damage build of the classes so far -- and he did go through the heavy hitters first.). The net result is that the CME user does more damage at all levels after magical secrets gives them CME. Beyond level 14, the difference is 20-100% more damage using these spells. Yes, that's right, double the damage of other optimized characters.
You might not be interested or convinced you could figure it out yourself, but it is reasonable to have a basis of comparison. Treantmonk does assume using higher level slots for damage, but that is a reasonable assumption: if damage is the important metric in a fight then that's what you should use your best slots on. Certainly, if the encounter can be solved with a different metric, then you could use those slots for almost any spell in the game you had the forethought to bring with you, thanks to the oddly lax rules on magical secrets allowing a bard to take as many spells from other classes as they want.
(As an aside, the best a bard can do for light optimization just using spells otherwise seems to be cloud of daggers, and that does among the worst damage that he's seen of the classes he has tested so far -- which is fine because bards have so many other things that they bring to the table -- inspiration, skills, and all the best bard, cleric, druid, and wizard spells in the game. Except the problem is that a CME Bard brings all of that too, and the best single target damage in the game beyond level 13).
I would argue that, if you're multiclassing for purely mechanical benefit, you're already out of the zone that can be considered "light optimization". If you're doing it to specifically enhance your effectiveness with a specific combat tactic, especially if it's one you don't even have yet, you're definitely well out of it.
Which is my central point: CME may well be dominant if you're optimizing for it, but that's not how most people play the game, and if the designers change it because of the optimizing scenarios, they risk over-nerfing it for normal play. And normal play is what they ought to be concerned about.
Theorycrafting both overemphasizes specific builds, and underemphasizes complicating factors. Does TM's video sweep away factors like the casting round and maintaining concentration? I admit I don't know for sure, but it seems pretty likely. (I have watched one of his videos, and he was obviously palming cards in order to make a point in which he was largely correct.)
The post that revived this thread was actual play, but the sheer specificity of the scenario makes it useless for extrapolation. It's spectacular, but really quite unlikely.
If CME is the serious problem it's made out to be, it ought to be fairly easy to demonstrate with single-classed, mid-level wizards and druids (or even bards) noticeably outperforming other similarly-built classes on the regular, even when you account for their idle round of casting but no damage, and also that they don't get to keep it up for that many rounds because they're up front, taking hits.
Treantmonk's assumptions are in the video. He assumes that for a 10 minute duration spell, sometimes you might have it up, but sometimes not. He assumes that in 50% of combats the first round will be spent casting the spell.
To be similarly dismissive, if you aren't interested in optimization, your opinion on optimization doesn't carry weight. If most people don't care how much damage they do, then damage balance is always irrelevant to them. That makes it only relevant to people who care about the balance of the game, and people who don't care need not worry about it -- or interject their distain for the subject into discussions about it.
Also a Valor Bard by themselves can get the combination of Shillelagh + CME if they take the Guide Background. So you can monoclass and get Charisma weapon + scaling damage + CME + True Strike with a Cantrip friendly Extra Attack. I don't think that counts as highly optimized? Get Polearm Master and you're doing three attacks per round, wielding a shield and having access to the Shield spell.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I'm sure they are. I personally am not a fan of watching a video to receive information that could've been better conveyed in a blog post.
But the video is almost irrelevant to the question of "is CME a problem that the developers need to fix?"
Yeah, I'd say that's poor assumption in most circumstances in most games.
I'm not interested in optimization. That doesn't mean that I don't understand it or can't do it.
What is "the balance of the game?"
What ruins the balance?
D&D is not a competitive game. It does not have a tournament scene.
What makes something like CME a problem is if it ruins people's fun. If it makes one player, without really trying, dominate the game, it's a problem.
If you've got a player, let's call them Scooter, who brings a CME-focussed Shileleigh Valor Bard multiclass to the table and dominates all the combat, CME is not the problem. Scooter would bring some other such character to the game if CME were nerfed. Scooter is the problem, and it can usually be dealt with by the extremely powerful method of "dude, could you not?"
CME is the problem when Rowlf, who just decided to play Moon Druid this time because it sounds like fun, hits 9th level, takes CME because it's a spell for full casters who want to mix it up on the front lines, and suddenly combat is all about Rowlf. "Could you not?" is a bad solution here, because Rowlf isn't doing anything but trying to use the spell as it's intended. You're asking him to sacrifice his fun (fighty caster) because the spell is too good.
When you're demanding the designers take the disruptive action of errataing the spell, you need to be looking at normal play, because that's where most of the play is. (And errata is disruptive. It's easy on the digital side, but there are thousands upon thousands of books out there already.) Character optimization is a separate hobby from playing D&D. I tend to think of it like speedrunning video games. It's about the fun of testing a system to its breaking point. It's legit fun if you enjoy it, but it's not the point.
I’m not sure that i actually suggested errata.
To be honest, in this game, I was playing a gish GWM warlock and was using Spirit Shroud since it was the only option available to a warlock :). (Hex doesn't count since it is only d6 :) ).
I agree that the paralysed dragon was probably the absolute best case scenario for the character to down the dragon in one round. However, on a normal round (assuming the attacks hit), the CME character does 2 x (9d8) + (d10 + 8d8) + stat x 3 = 137.5 average (+5 stat - not including the effect of a magical weapon) ... actual damage will depend on AC and "+" to hit which depends on stat and magic weapons in use (which at level 16 can be significant).
What can a fighter do in comparison?
Lets assume a battle master with PAM and GWM using a +3 glaive, +5 stat and expending a d10 superiority die on each attack for additional damage.
They get 4 attacks .. 3x (d10 + 13) + d4+13 + 4d10 ~= 92 while using up 4 superiority die. Decent but the CME character can do 50% more damage.
The GWM warlock I was using in the game is similar to the fighter ... 3 attacks + level 5 spirit shroud using a +3 greatsword and +5 stat = 3 X (2d6 + 2d8 + 13) = 87 .. requiring a 5th level spell slot but getting numbers similar to the GWM/PAM fighter (they also have resilient con and eldritch mind to try to be able to maintain concentration on the spell when hit).
So 90ish average potential damage (not considering to hit) seems to be a typical range for 2024 with a +3 weapon. CME pushes that up by 50% for specific builds which is why I think it is a bit overtuned (Note that the CME numbers I quoted did not include damage from a magical weapon ... it should be +6 to +9 higher if the CME character also has a +3 weapon bringing it into the 140+ potential damage). CME might have been better with a 1d8 increase/level or even 1d8/2 levels like Spirit shroud (?) but starting at 2d8 since it is a 4th level spell and lasts 10 minutes .. however, it would need play testing to see what worked best ... maybe 2d6 + d6/level? Lots of options.
Anyway, my point was that in my actual play experience, the spell is a bit overtuned on a character that can use it well. 2d8 + 2d8 increase/level of spell is just excessive.
I have suggested it likely will be, And it probably should be, is errata disruptive, sure. Is leaving an absolutely bonkers broken spell in normal play, not min maxed to the extreme but normal play more disruptive, heck yes it is. Again for ji8e, this is not white room, we play tested it and in normal play, we didn't have optimized builds they were all pretty basic from the playtest, no multi classing as the multiclassing rules weren't out, not all the feats, just run of the mill characters using the spell. And it broke the damage side of the game, and yes we can say oh its not a competitive game or something. But the wizard wrecking face in single target damage well past what the fighters are doing sucks hard for the fighter. Oh yes, it is cooperative, we are all working towards the same goal. But feeling like dead weight in comparison sucks.
D&D is not a competitive game. It is cooperative. However, everyone wants to have fun and feel like they are contributing. This is a key element of fun and enjoyment for many players in the game ... they want a character that they find cool but who can also do things. Most people do not enjoy playing an incompetent character, they prefer to be the heroes.
The problem with CME and "game balance" is that along comes this valor bard who picks up CME as a magical secret at level 10. From that point onward, not only is that bard a master of skills with expertise, they are also a master of crowd control, they can wear medium armor and a shield, use martial weapons and after casting CME will be able to step into combat and handily do more damage than the fighter/ranger/rogue in the party while STILL being able to cast all sorts of other spells - Mass Suggestion etc.
They can also pick up conjure celestial as a later secret which is arguably even more broken as an ongoing AoE that can damage any creature within 10' and can be moved up to 30' each turn damaging or healing every creature it moves over.
Personally, I prefer to at least give each character a niche where they can try to shine in a game so that the player feels like they are really contributing ... THAT is game balance ... and THAT is where CME breaks game balance by giving a subset of caster classes a really powerful attack option leaving martial classes in the dust.
Bladesinger wizard is another example.
Each of these caster classes might find something better or more useful to concentrate on in any particular encounter but everyone else in the party is completely aware that they can turn around and stomp over anything with best in game single target damage - as well as all the other cool caster stuff - leaving the folks playing some of the other characters perhaps feeling a bit let down that they aren't as useful as they would like to be.
-------------------------
Honestly, the highest damage build these days is probably 1 warlock/7 wizard/12 sorcerer for lots of quickened Agonizing Blast with CME on every attack ... yep, they have to be within 15' of the target but in tier 4 the potential damage of EB + quickened EB is 8 x (d10+5) + 8 x (10d8) (assuming an 8th level slot for CME) = 444 average damage ... which is pretty ridiculous and I think exceeds anything from 2014 ... and the character isn't even particularly "optimized" ... quicken+agonizing blast+ CME. They could even be a bladesinger wizard for extra attack. However, that is completely theory crafting but just shows the ridiculous numbers that CME can give access to ... if CME included a phrase like "once per turn" .. it might still be decent for a damage boost on some characters ... but would avoid the multiplicative excess.