This blood curse feels like a worse more specific version of eyeless. Maybe I'm wrong. The only bonus is if it's amplified.
Spell Sunder:
When an enemy casts a spell within 60 feet that requires a spell attack roll and targets you, you can use your reaction to rend the spell from the air, imposing disadvantage on the spell attack roll.
Amplify. You make a Wisdom ability check. The DC equals 10 + the spell’s level. On a success, the creature’s spell misses you automatically.
Eyeless:
When an enemy who is not immune to blindness within 60 feet makes a weapon attack, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll.
Amplify. Following the triggering attack, the affected enemy has disadvantage on the next attack roll they make.
Notice that spell sunder only works if it targets you.
I don't see how one is a more limited version of the other when one is for a spell attack and one is for a weapon attack. Seems like different tools for different jobs.
I agree with TexasDevin. Eyeless wouldn't work for a spell attack, and Spell Sunder (obviously) wouldn't work for a weapon attack. They are each good in their own way.
Spell Sunder is also good because you can sunder powerful spells like Mordenkainen's Sword, Guiding Bolt, or any attack roll spell that has been up-cast and could potentially deal a LOT more damage than a weapon attack could. Limiting it to just yourself is a balancing factor in that it makes it so that you cannot (basically) Counterspell any attack spell made.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Spell attacks and weapon attacks may be "different jobs", but Hyper's point that the two feel imbalanced is a good one:
1) Eyeless lets you help your friends while Spell Sunder can only help yourself
2) Eyeless lets you amplify to apply its effects to all attacks that round while Spell Sunder is limited to a single attack even with amplify
3) The amplify on Spell Sunder doesn't really do anything that its basic cast doesn't, unlike Eyeless (and all the other curses) where amplifying causes additional effects/damage.
4) The amplify on Spell Sunder is stuck behind an ability check, while the amplify on Eyeless (and every other curse) isn't. Paying your level in damage to be told that your ability didn't trigger doesn't feel like a worthwhile trade.
I don't think that there's anything inherently stronger about Spell Attacks that justifies making Spell Sunder so much less versatile and riskier than the Weapon Attack equivalent.
it says if it attacks you as in you can take anything as a attack, it never said if it rolled to hit you so you can bend it far enough to stop the final boss from respawning in 200 years allowing you to say **** you plot and screw with the dms world, also blinded is limited to shit that isn't already blind
This blood curse feels like a worse more specific version of eyeless. Maybe I'm wrong. The only bonus is if it's amplified.
Spell Sunder:
When an enemy casts a spell within 60 feet that requires a spell attack roll and targets you, you can use your reaction to rend the spell from the air, imposing disadvantage on the spell attack roll.
Amplify. You make a Wisdom ability check. The DC equals 10 + the spell’s level. On a success, the creature’s spell misses you automatically.
Eyeless:
When an enemy who is not immune to blindness within 60 feet makes a weapon attack, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll.
Amplify. Following the triggering attack, the affected enemy has disadvantage on the next attack roll they make.
Notice that spell sunder only works if it targets you.
I don't see how one is a more limited version of the other when one is for a spell attack and one is for a weapon attack. Seems like different tools for different jobs.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I agree with TexasDevin. Eyeless wouldn't work for a spell attack, and Spell Sunder (obviously) wouldn't work for a weapon attack. They are each good in their own way.
Spell Sunder is also good because you can sunder powerful spells like Mordenkainen's Sword, Guiding Bolt, or any attack roll spell that has been up-cast and could potentially deal a LOT more damage than a weapon attack could. Limiting it to just yourself is a balancing factor in that it makes it so that you cannot (basically) Counterspell any attack spell made.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
oh, didn't notice "weapon" attack, thought it would work, considering it basically blinds someone. Which does affect spells.
Spell attacks and weapon attacks may be "different jobs", but Hyper's point that the two feel imbalanced is a good one:
1) Eyeless lets you help your friends while Spell Sunder can only help yourself
2) Eyeless lets you amplify to apply its effects to all attacks that round while Spell Sunder is limited to a single attack even with amplify
3) The amplify on Spell Sunder doesn't really do anything that its basic cast doesn't, unlike Eyeless (and all the other curses) where amplifying causes additional effects/damage.
4) The amplify on Spell Sunder is stuck behind an ability check, while the amplify on Eyeless (and every other curse) isn't. Paying your level in damage to be told that your ability didn't trigger doesn't feel like a worthwhile trade.
I don't think that there's anything inherently stronger about Spell Attacks that justifies making Spell Sunder so much less versatile and riskier than the Weapon Attack equivalent.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
it says if it attacks you
as in you can take anything as a attack, it never said if it rolled to hit you so you can bend it far enough to stop the final boss from respawning in 200 years allowing you to say **** you plot and screw with the dms world, also blinded is limited to shit that isn't already blind
Dude this thread is from 2018 so spell sunder doesn't exist anymore (new bloodhunter made)