It’s an Action, 120 ft, has only a Verbal component but requires sight — that can be oddly circumvented if you know the name of the target.
It targets Intelligence, which is a common weak save among monsters, and causes 7d6 psychic damage with a lovely side effect of incapacitating the target until start your next turn. Save for half without the rider as usual.
What’s your opinion about this new spell? Any possible combos?
The Intelligence save is a large benefit, making the spell worthwhile.
But the true worth is the ability to attack without sight. It grants a huge tactical advantage which the caster should take advantage of. While magical darkness sounds like a good idea, there are lots of ways to negate that. Smoke or Fog (from a fog cloud spell) are harder to deal with, especially if they are not magical in nature.
For someone living in a naturally smoky or foggy environment, this spell becomes killer.
It's impossible to have a sane discussion about how good this spell is because no 2 DMs are going to houserule the same way how uttering a creature's name works - we need a general answer to all of these, and since we don't and never will have RAW clarifying it, it's going to be a spell wildly dependent on your DM:
Can two or more creatures within range have the same name? If so, what happens when you name-cast in this circumstance?
How easily can a creature change its own name?
How easily can a creature learn its own name?
How easily can someone else change your name?
How easily can someone else learn your name?
We might get clarity on another question the spell begs, which is whether or not Subtle Spell + Raulothim can be used to cast the Utter Name version while in a Silence bubble (the V component isn't the target's name, so it's the same core question as whether Subtle Message works in a Silence bubble - both spells require you to try to emit sound without any clarity on what happens if you can't; I don't know of any official rulings, JC tweets, or community consensus on this issue, but Raulothim's existence might get us an SAC ruling, I don't know). But that's a very specific corner case. Here are some example rulings that radically alter the spell:
Every creature has a true name unique to them, so 1 above is "No."
This is basically your DNA: 2 and 4 are "can't be done", and 3 and 5 are "you need powerful magical assistance".
This is basically your current mental state: 2 and 4 are "absolutely trivial", 5 is "you need powerful magical assistance right now", and 3 is "make an Insight check against yourself".
Naming a target works if the name you utter is anything a potential target acknowledges (so nicknames work, etc).
When multiple targets are named, all named targets are hit by the spell.
When multiple targets are named, the spell picks one (DM fiat or randomly).
When multiple targets are named, the spell will let the caster try to form a mental image of the intended target, and pick that one if able.
When multiple targets are named, the spell fizzles.
Naming a target works if the name you utter is anything a potential target realizes is intended to mean them, so you can make the naming work by telling your target ahead of time "when I say jerk, I mean you!", much like how Command might work at some tables.
I haven't read any of the books where I assume this spell comes from, so I have no idea which mechanic they used, but I promise you, any author using this spell in a story is going to figure out those answers before a character that has the spell contemplates walking into a crowded tavern and casting it with the most common name in town.
The spell does not say True Name, so I would ignore all of that. As a DM, I would simply use common sense, the same way I would for normal names. Basically, it's about what the caster uses to clearly identify you, not anything mystical or magical. If anyone introduced you to the caster with a name, that counts for the purpose of the spell. From that point on, they can use that name to target you if you are within range. You can add more names, but not subtract that one.
If there are two people that the caster knows their name and it is the same name in range, I would rule the spell fails because they have not uniquely identified the target. Unless they had previously used something like "Big Jim", or "Jim 2" to distinguish you, then they had to use that distinguished name.
The spell does not say True Name, so I would ignore all of that. As a DM, I would simply use common sense, the same way I would for normal names.
Exactly my point. No two DMs will have identical meaning of "common sense", so this spell won't behave identically on any two tables.
Basically, it's about what the caster uses to clearly identify you, not anything mystical or magical. If anyone introduced you to the caster with a name, that counts for the purpose of the spell. From that point on, they can use that name to target you if you are within range. You can add more names, but not subtract that one.
If there are two people that the caster knows their name and it is the same name in range, I would rule the spell fails because they have not uniquely identified the target. Unless they had previously used something like "Big Jim", or "Jim 2" to distinguish you, then they had to use that distinguished name.
Perfect example. I guarantee you many DMs will let this spell work without requiring the caster to know the target's name - casting it and guessing the name correctly will suffice. There's nothing wrong with your interpretation (in fact, it's the second bullet I listed, sub-bullet 4), but there's nothing wrong with a myriad of other interpretations too (see my other bullets - and I was not exhaustive; there are other valid interpretations, too).
Well, even ignoring the whole true name thing... it still deals decent damage and incapacitates the target for a full round, which can be a game changer in the right conditions. Still, it's a 4th level spell, and there are better ways to shut down an enemy more thoroughly at earlier levels...
I dunno, if it dealt less damage but was a lower level spell I wouldn't hesitate, but at level 4... it's a nice trump card to keep in your back pocket for that rare moment when you're in combat with someone, you know their name, and for one reason or another you can't get clear line of sight on them.
Damage: Terrible for a level 4. It does 24.5 damage to a single target. Fireball is level 3 and it does 28 damage to a 40 foot diameter circle (but with no effect).
Effect: Target essentially wastes its turn.
It's meh in my opinion.
Useful if you have a non-intelligence based spell caster concentrating on a spell. Outside of that, there are so many better ways to burn a 4th level spell slot.
There's always Detect Thoughts to get the target's name before firing off the Lance
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There's always Detect Thoughts to get the target's name before firing off the Lance
Not really, Detect Thoughts only gives you surface thoughts, or with probing some idea as to what it is currently worried about. Even asking for its name while the spell is active is more likely going to get thoughts about "why are you asking me that" rather than the creature actually thinking its own name.
There's always Detect Thoughts to get the target's name before firing off the Lance
Not really, Detect Thoughts only gives you surface thoughts, or with probing some idea as to what it is currently worried about. Even asking for its name while the spell is active is more likely going to get thoughts about "why are you asking me that" rather than the creature actually thinking its own name.
Whatever you do, don't think of an elephant right now
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The spell just states "Alternatively, you can utter a creature’s name. If the named target is within range, it becomes the spell’s target even if you can’t see it." It is perfectly clear what that means. There is no equivocating about 'true names.' There is no need for speculation about variations in interpretation. Do you know the target's name? Then it works. End. The rest of that line of thought is just silly.
The incapacitation effect is more important than the damage. Causing a powerful enemy to skip a go is worth way more than the damage a comparative fireball would do. It's situational, and a bit of an 'ace in the hole' reserved for boss fights, but it's a good spell.
People overestimate the importance of damage on spells. Everyone can do damage. Not everyone can control enemies.
It’s an enchantment school of magic, so it might be amazing for a high level enchantment wizard. Throwing out a tashas hideous laughter on round 1 vs two creatures with raulothims also targeting two other creatures afterwards could be pretty cool.
The spell just states "Alternatively, you can utter a creature’s name. If the named target is within range, it becomes the spell’s target even if you can’t see it." It is perfectly clear what that means. There is no equivocating about 'true names.' There is no need for speculation about variations in interpretation. Do you know the target's name? Then it works. End. The rest of that line of thought is just silly.
The incapacitation effect is more important than the damage. Causing a powerful enemy to skip a go is worth way more than the damage a comparative fireball would do. It's situational, and a bit of an 'ace in the hole' reserved for boss fights, but it's a good spell.
People overestimate the importance of damage on spells. Everyone can do damage. Not everyone can control enemies.
This is valid to a point. It really depends on how much damage and how much control we’re talking about.
Possibly causing a single enemy to skip 1 turn isn’t worth a 4th level spell slot IMO. The damage on top is modest but does adds some value.
If your DM lets the spell hit all targets with the same name and gives you a mechanic for changing people's names, the spell becomes worth it if you put in the roleplaying effort.
For example, if your local definition of name is "whatever a significant number of people call you by", a sustained propaganda campaign could get everyone to address zombies as "Yuckface", and then you could use this spell to hurt an entire zombie horde.
There's also a niche use, if your DM is using a compatible definition of "name", for using this spell to find someone in a crowd, since the spell effect is observable. You can cast the spell, shout the name, and watch it go off to find your target. Likewise, if you're in a Rumpelstiltskin situation, you can use the spell to try and guess someone's name - also very niche, but worth remembering.
Otherwise, Phantasmal Force, Mind Whip, and Enemies Abound are all better spells, and they're at lower spell levels.
Phantasmal Force and Enemies Abound are concentration spells. On this, I agree there are thousands of concentration spells that offer amazing debuff and control.
But when we look at non-concentration spells, which is the case of Psychic Lance, what are the other option? Charm Person? Command? Dissonant Whispers? Blindness? Tasha’s Mind Whip? I had the same feeling that a 4th level slot is expensive, but I don’t find other effective non-concentration debuff spells out there.
The spell does not say True Name, so I would ignore all of that. As a DM, I would simply use common sense, the same way I would for normal names.
Exactly my point. No two DMs will have identical meaning of "common sense", so this spell won't behave identically on any two tables.
Basically, it's about what the caster uses to clearly identify you, not anything mystical or magical. If anyone introduced you to the caster with a name, that counts for the purpose of the spell. From that point on, they can use that name to target you if you are within range. You can add more names, but not subtract that one.
If there are two people that the caster knows their name and it is the same name in range, I would rule the spell fails because they have not uniquely identified the target. Unless they had previously used something like "Big Jim", or "Jim 2" to distinguish you, then they had to use that distinguished name.
Perfect example. I guarantee you many DMs will let this spell work without requiring the caster to know the target's name - casting it and guessing the name correctly will suffice. There's nothing wrong with your interpretation (in fact, it's the second bullet I listed, sub-bullet 4), but there's nothing wrong with a myriad of other interpretations too (see my other bullets - and I was not exhaustive; there are other valid interpretations, too).
Honestly, I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. While a few DM's will screw with the player, this spell is clearly designed so that you can not just use it on someone without any social connection, but easy to use if you know them. It's not that hard to adjucate. Basically, it's DM fiat, and a good dm will make this useful and fun, a bad one will screw over the game. In other words, just like normal.
Compare with something really hard like two divination wizards trying to out-portent each other. That is something people will argue about and derail a game, even with a good DM.
Phantasmal Force and Enemies Abound are concentration spells. On this, I agree there are thousands of concentration spells that offer amazing debuff and control.
But when we look at non-concentration spells, which is the case of Psychic Lance, what are the other option? Charm Person? Command? Dissonant Whispers? Blindness? Tasha’s Mind Whip? I had the same feeling that a 4th level slot is expensive, but I don’t find other effective non-concentration debuff spells out there.
It's not concentration because it only works for one round.
Phantasmal Force and Enemies Abound are concentration spells. On this, I agree there are thousands of concentration spells that offer amazing debuff and control.
But when we look at non-concentration spells, which is the case of Psychic Lance, what are the other option? Charm Person? Command? Dissonant Whispers? Blindness? Tasha’s Mind Whip? I had the same feeling that a 4th level slot is expensive, but I don’t find other effective non-concentration debuff spells out there.
It's not concentration because it only works for one round.
Which is why they were talking about it as a control spell and comparing it concentration and non-concentration alternatives
this spell looks great for my shadow sorcerer. Too many spells are concentration, and when the hound is next to the target, this could be a very good spell to use. It doesn't matter that the damage is not the greatest if the target ends up being incapacitated. The fact that it's verbal only can also make it useful to use 1 sorcery point to ''subtle cast'' it and it wouldn't be in danger of being countered.
this spell looks great for my shadow sorcerer. Too many spells are concentration, and when the hound is next to the target, this could be a very good spell to use. It doesn't matter that the damage is not the greatest if the target ends up being incapacitated. The fact that it's verbal only can also make it useful to use 1 sorcery point to ''subtle cast'' it and it wouldn't be in danger of being countered.
My Aberrant Mind sorcerer has been having a blast with it. I use Subtle so it can't be countered and Empower to re-roll 1s and 2s to help with the damage. I've even Twinned it. For my sorcerer having it is thematic but its also great to use if I'm concentrating on something else. So far I've only used the name thing once and the target saved.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It’s an Action, 120 ft, has only a Verbal component but requires sight — that can be oddly circumvented if you know the name of the target.
It targets Intelligence, which is a common weak save among monsters, and causes 7d6 psychic damage with a lovely side effect of incapacitating the target until start your next turn. Save for half without the rider as usual.
What’s your opinion about this new spell? Any possible combos?
The Intelligence save is a large benefit, making the spell worthwhile.
But the true worth is the ability to attack without sight. It grants a huge tactical advantage which the caster should take advantage of. While magical darkness sounds like a good idea, there are lots of ways to negate that. Smoke or Fog (from a fog cloud spell) are harder to deal with, especially if they are not magical in nature.
For someone living in a naturally smoky or foggy environment, this spell becomes killer.
It's impossible to have a sane discussion about how good this spell is because no 2 DMs are going to houserule the same way how uttering a creature's name works - we need a general answer to all of these, and since we don't and never will have RAW clarifying it, it's going to be a spell wildly dependent on your DM:
We might get clarity on another question the spell begs, which is whether or not Subtle Spell + Raulothim can be used to cast the Utter Name version while in a Silence bubble (the V component isn't the target's name, so it's the same core question as whether Subtle Message works in a Silence bubble - both spells require you to try to emit sound without any clarity on what happens if you can't; I don't know of any official rulings, JC tweets, or community consensus on this issue, but Raulothim's existence might get us an SAC ruling, I don't know). But that's a very specific corner case. Here are some example rulings that radically alter the spell:
I haven't read any of the books where I assume this spell comes from, so I have no idea which mechanic they used, but I promise you, any author using this spell in a story is going to figure out those answers before a character that has the spell contemplates walking into a crowded tavern and casting it with the most common name in town.
The spell does not say True Name, so I would ignore all of that. As a DM, I would simply use common sense, the same way I would for normal names. Basically, it's about what the caster uses to clearly identify you, not anything mystical or magical. If anyone introduced you to the caster with a name, that counts for the purpose of the spell. From that point on, they can use that name to target you if you are within range. You can add more names, but not subtract that one.
If there are two people that the caster knows their name and it is the same name in range, I would rule the spell fails because they have not uniquely identified the target. Unless they had previously used something like "Big Jim", or "Jim 2" to distinguish you, then they had to use that distinguished name.
Exactly my point. No two DMs will have identical meaning of "common sense", so this spell won't behave identically on any two tables.
Perfect example. I guarantee you many DMs will let this spell work without requiring the caster to know the target's name - casting it and guessing the name correctly will suffice. There's nothing wrong with your interpretation (in fact, it's the second bullet I listed, sub-bullet 4), but there's nothing wrong with a myriad of other interpretations too (see my other bullets - and I was not exhaustive; there are other valid interpretations, too).
Well, even ignoring the whole true name thing... it still deals decent damage and incapacitates the target for a full round, which can be a game changer in the right conditions. Still, it's a 4th level spell, and there are better ways to shut down an enemy more thoroughly at earlier levels...
I dunno, if it dealt less damage but was a lower level spell I wouldn't hesitate, but at level 4... it's a nice trump card to keep in your back pocket for that rare moment when you're in combat with someone, you know their name, and for one reason or another you can't get clear line of sight on them.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Intelligence Save: Excellent save type
Damage: Terrible for a level 4. It does 24.5 damage to a single target. Fireball is level 3 and it does 28 damage to a 40 foot diameter circle (but with no effect).
Effect: Target essentially wastes its turn.
It's meh in my opinion.
Useful if you have a non-intelligence based spell caster concentrating on a spell. Outside of that, there are so many better ways to burn a 4th level spell slot.
There's always Detect Thoughts to get the target's name before firing off the Lance
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Not really, Detect Thoughts only gives you surface thoughts, or with probing some idea as to what it is currently worried about. Even asking for its name while the spell is active is more likely going to get thoughts about "why are you asking me that" rather than the creature actually thinking its own name.
Whatever you do, don't think of an elephant right now
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The spell just states "Alternatively, you can utter a creature’s name. If the named target is within range, it becomes the spell’s target even if you can’t see it." It is perfectly clear what that means. There is no equivocating about 'true names.' There is no need for speculation about variations in interpretation. Do you know the target's name? Then it works. End. The rest of that line of thought is just silly.
The incapacitation effect is more important than the damage. Causing a powerful enemy to skip a go is worth way more than the damage a comparative fireball would do. It's situational, and a bit of an 'ace in the hole' reserved for boss fights, but it's a good spell.
People overestimate the importance of damage on spells. Everyone can do damage. Not everyone can control enemies.
It’s an enchantment school of magic, so it might be amazing for a high level enchantment wizard. Throwing out a tashas hideous laughter on round 1 vs two creatures with raulothims also targeting two other creatures afterwards could be pretty cool.
This is valid to a point. It really depends on how much damage and how much control we’re talking about.
Possibly causing a single enemy to skip 1 turn isn’t worth a 4th level spell slot IMO. The damage on top is modest but does adds some value.
I’m on the fence on this spell.
If your DM lets the spell hit all targets with the same name and gives you a mechanic for changing people's names, the spell becomes worth it if you put in the roleplaying effort.
For example, if your local definition of name is "whatever a significant number of people call you by", a sustained propaganda campaign could get everyone to address zombies as "Yuckface", and then you could use this spell to hurt an entire zombie horde.
There's also a niche use, if your DM is using a compatible definition of "name", for using this spell to find someone in a crowd, since the spell effect is observable. You can cast the spell, shout the name, and watch it go off to find your target. Likewise, if you're in a Rumpelstiltskin situation, you can use the spell to try and guess someone's name - also very niche, but worth remembering.
Otherwise, Phantasmal Force, Mind Whip, and Enemies Abound are all better spells, and they're at lower spell levels.
Phantasmal Force and Enemies Abound are concentration spells. On this, I agree there are thousands of concentration spells that offer amazing debuff and control.
But when we look at non-concentration spells, which is the case of Psychic Lance, what are the other option? Charm Person? Command? Dissonant Whispers? Blindness? Tasha’s Mind Whip? I had the same feeling that a 4th level slot is expensive, but I don’t find other effective non-concentration debuff spells out there.
Honestly, I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. While a few DM's will screw with the player, this spell is clearly designed so that you can not just use it on someone without any social connection, but easy to use if you know them. It's not that hard to adjucate. Basically, it's DM fiat, and a good dm will make this useful and fun, a bad one will screw over the game. In other words, just like normal.
Compare with something really hard like two divination wizards trying to out-portent each other. That is something people will argue about and derail a game, even with a good DM.
It's not concentration because it only works for one round.
Which is why they were talking about it as a control spell and comparing it concentration and non-concentration alternatives
this spell looks great for my shadow sorcerer. Too many spells are concentration, and when the hound is next to the target, this could be a very good spell to use. It doesn't matter that the damage is not the greatest if the target ends up being incapacitated. The fact that it's verbal only can also make it useful to use 1 sorcery point to ''subtle cast'' it and it wouldn't be in danger of being countered.
My Aberrant Mind sorcerer has been having a blast with it. I use Subtle so it can't be countered and Empower to re-roll 1s and 2s to help with the damage. I've even Twinned it. For my sorcerer having it is thematic but its also great to use if I'm concentrating on something else. So far I've only used the name thing once and the target saved.