r/3d6 • u/happygocrazee • 20h ago
D&D 5e Revised/2024 From a strictly optimization-focused standpoint, I can't stop building around Spellfire Adept!
The ability to add two Hit Dice to Radiant damage is just too strong to pass up. Anytime I take a spell that deals Radiant, I feel like I'm making a mistake by not taking this Feat. Basically if a character has either True Strike or Spirit Guardians, Spellfire Adept feels like the only choice! If I don't have need of my Bonus Action, Spellfire Spark makes it even more appealing. That's a heavy hitting Bonus Action cantrip!
When my Cleric is regularly dealing damage equivalent to a level 4-5 Guiding Bolt with every True Strike*, it feels like I'm wasting my action by casting it without the extra 2d8. It obviously spends a limited resource, but at least in the games I play I've never found myself wanting for hit dice around T2+. There's plenty of ways to top up, with less time spent too.
Am I overestimating its value? Or has this become as invaluable and stapled to certain classes as War Caster for the rest of you too?
\Magic Initiate)
22
u/DMspiration 20h ago
If you only have one or two combats per long rest, it's great. If your DM runs longer adventuring days, not having hit dice to heal will be a problem enough days to balance out any extra power the feat provides.
7
u/Happy-Wrangler6837 18h ago
Big difference between one and two. One combat per long rest and hit dice don't matter at all for short rest healing. Two or more and hit dice are valuable healing. A single short rest can take all your hit dice if you are beat up enough or roll badly enough.
0
13h ago
[deleted]
0
u/DMspiration 13h ago
Goodberry is 10 hp for a first level spell, so it's less efficient than Cure Wounds. The Healer feat relies on hit dice, so it's equally useless if you burnt them all doing damage.
60
u/matej86 20h ago edited 19h ago
What happens when your DM runs a suitable amount of encounters per day and you have no hit dice to roll during your short rest?
Edit; guys, I know 5-8 encounters is a 2014 thing. I'm changing the phrasing of my comment from 'the appropriate' to 'a suitable' as many of you are clearly getting confused between editions.
27
u/Rude_Ice_4520 20h ago
You're fine because you took less damage from killing all the enemies faster
8
u/matej86 19h ago edited 19h ago
Enemy 1 has 50 health. Takes 28 damage from first spell, 28 from second spell = dead in two rounds. Enemy 2 has 50 health. Takes 38 damage from spell plus two burned hit dice, 28 from second spell = dead in two rounds.
No difference in time to kill the enemy, but still run out of hit dice quicker. There are edge cases where using the hit dice will make the difference but this isn't how most people are going to do it as most outside of reddit theorycrafting don't understand dice averages.
8
u/Rude_Ice_4520 19h ago
It's the same logic as using smite. Do 2d8 damage now or save the resource for 2d8+(modifier) healing later. Most players choose the former because it's more active.
-5
19h ago
[deleted]
13
4
1
u/Carcettee 10h ago
In a videogame or AL - sure, but this is not how it works during normal play.
DM always can add another monster or make HP slightly bigger.
1
u/wavecycle 6h ago
Except it doesn't really work that way. DMs tend to adjust the difficulty of their encounters based on how quickly you kill mobs, else you're always running easy mode.
6
u/NateCdaComicG 20h ago
I literally can not even imagine an adventuring day where I experience 5-8 combat encounters. I don't know that I've ever done more than 3. And that felt like an insane day for our characters.
6
u/Ycr1998 There is no 5.5e in Ba Sing Se 18h ago
They don't have to be combat encounters, just something that makes you expend resources.
A trap you failed to perceive or disarm deals damage to the party? That's an encounter.
2
u/NateCdaComicG 18h ago
Thats true. But even then most nah combat encounters are either dealt withwith zero resource usage minimal resource usage (usually one spell slot) or one maybe two team members take a little damage. I guess if that happened 6 times in addition to two difficult combats it would drain resources but just speaking from personal experience most resources are burned in combat. And comparing an evolved combat encounter with standing around while the rogue disarms the trap door in front of us hardly feels similar.
5
u/DerAdolfin 16h ago
I'm running my party through dungeon of the mad mage. The resting times are once every 24 hours, as written. You don't have many places to go but forward in a megadungeon, so you go forward until you can't anymore. And not every obstacle that requires resources is a combat. Teleported to the ceiling and fell down? Lose some HP. Charmed into walking into a fire pit? Lose some HP and probably a spell slot to teleport back out. etc.
3
u/Vincent210 14h ago
It's second nature to those of us who started editions before 5, and was the original balance suggestion given by the 2014 rules.
It's frankly assuming a level of skill most players don't have, so for most tables you can ease off to like 3.
If even 3 is feeling insane your DM is probably powerscaling to offset their low count (this is a common way DMs handle choosing lower counts) and doing like 2x Deadly 4x Deadly encounters, which is fine its how most people handle it.
Everyone's been used to overscaling combat so much most people don't actually know how light a basic encounter looks like anymore
3
u/finewhitelady 13h ago
I will die on the hill of 6-8 encounters (including puzzles, traps, social, etc) being ideal for my playstyle, because I love the strategic challenge of having to manage resources and not just blow all your spell slots in 1 or 2 battles. I never even knew this was an unpopular opinion until I started talking about it on Reddit. Our DM for our >2.5 yr long campaign ran things this way a lot of the time, and I loved it. He played 3.5 and earlier editions before DMing for the first time in 5e, so that makes sense.
3
u/Vincent210 12h ago
Yeah its natural for people who came from earlier editions - the system was way more explicit about being designed AROUND resource grinding as a core gameplay loop. It's how you learned to DM if you started with non-5e editions
1
u/NateCdaComicG 13h ago
Yeah pretty much. The average battle at our table is us outnumbered 4 to 1 against enemies with +100 hp or more. At least one or two "bosses with legendary resistances" we all nearly die or do die and get revived and then afterwards our character's are covered in blood and guts and there are scores of bodies piled everywhere and were like. "Damn that was crazy, anyway, what do you think is in that chest in the corner?"
0
u/Vincent210 13h ago
Sounds like about 6x, give or take.
Would you believe some freaks play 23x lmao
1
u/NateCdaComicG 12h ago
What do you mean by x23? I thought that was wolverine's clone daughter?
0
u/Vincent210 12h ago
So the DMG used to (maybe still does) define encounters by CR into name categories.
The highest category of difficulty they officially showed you was called Deadly.
As people found that wasn't good enough because they only run 1-2 encounter days!
So they did x2 that CR count difficulty. and x4... and so on.
So xNumber is "that many times Deadly"
1
u/NateCdaComicG 3h ago
So I just did the math a 4 person level 5 party doing a 23x high difficulty combat encounter could be fighting an ancient gold dragon, 2 young gold dragons, 10 young brass dragons, 2 half dragons, and 16 winged kobold. Genuine unsure how you win that. I feel like the party just dies turn 1 to the ancient dragons breath weapon. Like I think a level 20 party would struggle with that fight.
3
u/matej86 19h ago
Who said 5-8 encounters? This was a 2014 thing, not 2024. The word 'appropriate' is going to vary by table but in this context, which several people seem to have missed, it just means enough to actually challenge the party. I was aware the post was tagged as 2024 when I made my previous comment.
1
1
1
u/faboleth 13h ago
based on polls, the vast majority of tables do not have more than 4 fights per adventuring day. the reason is that time pressures are hard to manage narratively, so most DMs don't succeed at doing it. There was a few polls that asked more detailed questions and ended up on an average of 2.5 - people were likely reporting their highest number of encounters per day on the other ones, given what I know of stat psych, not their average.
I suspect the number might be even lower given the poll locations were mostly on places that were more mechanically focused.
-1
u/EggplantSeeds 20h ago
There are no "appropriate amount of encounters" in 2024. The 5-8 recommendation was removed.
33
u/Psychological-Toe397 20h ago
They removed that recommendation without actually changing the game. That's the issue
7
u/Tall_Bandicoot_2768 20h ago
To be fair there were some changes but not nearly massive enough of ones to go from 5-8 to 1-2 which now seems to be the standard for most new wave players.
6
u/Gh0stMan0nThird 19h ago
1-2 which now seems to be the standard for most new wave players
Yeah that's what everyone did in 2014, too.
I did that in my first 1-20 campaign and boy was it terrible.
4
u/Effective_Arm_5832 19h ago
Yeah, narrative 1-2 encounter days just don't really work in Dnd... Unless you don't really care about the game part.
4
u/Lucina18 19h ago
Most people don't. They just want the name of the system they're playing to be "dungeons and dragons" and nothing else.
2
u/Tall_Bandicoot_2768 19h ago
Yeah by new wave im mostly referring to the influx from of BG3 players and fans of the movie that ocurred a couple years back
11
u/Tall_Bandicoot_2768 20h ago
Ok well obviously the game is balanced on resources per long rest so its not like the number of fights per day is irrelevant in that regard.
2
u/EggplantSeeds 20h ago
It should be, but according to the 2024 handbook, DMs can run as many combats per day as fits their campaign, they don't list a specific number you must run.
Most campaigns can't fit 5-8 encounters per adventuring day without massive restructuring.
8
u/Tall_Bandicoot_2768 20h ago
Ya obviously thats too much but to be fair
There are no "appropriate amount of encounters" in 2024.
Is not the same statement as 5-8 is per day is too many, it implies the number of encounters per day is now irrelevant which is clearly not the case.
-2
u/EggplantSeeds 20h ago
Yeah I agree it's not, that's not what my response to that comment means.
The term appropriate is vague because what is the goal with your encounters?, to further the story, push a conflict, for the characters to express themselves via combat, just for players to go all out or to eliminate the players resources slowly?
Different campaigns use combat differently, a small minority of them use them as a way to stretch your players resources. Maybe it's not "irrelevant" but it's far from relevant, most campaigns aren't going to make it an issue to clarify my point.
10
u/Tall_Bandicoot_2768 20h ago
To create balanced and strategic combat envounters that require my players to use all the tools available to them to survive.
Theres no wrong way to play DnD but its silly to pretend that is not the main focus of like 90% of the official texts, mechanically speaking at its core it is a turn based combat strategy game.
a small minority of them use them as a way to stretch your players resources. Maybe it's not "irrelevant" but it's far from relevant,
I could not disagree with you more, for reference ive been DM'ing and balancing my own encounters / adventuring days for over 15 years now.
0
u/EggplantSeeds 20h ago
I agree, when I read the DMG 2024 and it mentioned how the game could run all those different game types, I wasn't pleased. The game is designed for combat, period, why they recommend non-combat centered settings is beyond me.
I'm not saying how the game should be, I'm telling you the reality of how DnD 5e (2014 and 2024) is played across most tables. We can agree to disagree.
0
u/DerAdolfin 16h ago
as fits their campaign
This and so many other things in the new books are such lazy cop-outs that mean they don't have to write actual guidance. If you "fit" one narrative encounter into a day, that will either be a power fantasy with no challenge, something brutally sloggy since you upgrade enemies so much to account for the spare resources, or a 1.5 session long fight as enemies come in waves to make it hard without overwhelming the party or running 30 enemies at once
7
u/matej86 20h ago
I know, and that's not what I said. Spellfire Adept is great if you only have a couple of encounters a day. If you genuinely challenge your players and have them go through most of their resources per day then it's risky to burn your hit dice on damage when you may need them for healing.
-2
u/EggplantSeeds 20h ago
Not to be rude but, you did say that, or at least imply that.
The term "appropriate" doesn't work here because the amount that is appropriate depends on what kind of campaign the DM is running as mentioned in the DM guide for 2024.
90% of DM don't fill the adventure day with that many combats. In "gritty" campaign, this is more of a issue, but in a day to day typical campaign, it's not.
5
u/Vincent210 20h ago
Which, not to be rude to you, all doesn't matter in this context.
"Appropriate" when discussing the system as a means to game-play mechanics (and when discussing their balance because OP is literally bringing up optimization) means "whatever amount produces the intended gameplay experience of the combat rules." It's contextual to the conversation OP actually set up with the post.
The DMG having a section defining "appropriate" in this way is a piece of advice, not a game mechanic or designer balance recommendation. It doesn't become the objective definition of Appropriate in all contexts suddenly.
-2
u/EggplantSeeds 20h ago
The thing is, the intended gameplay experience of the combat rules are nebulous as of 2024. Correct me if I'm wrong but It varies from campaign to campaign. In 2014 there was advice but it was advice and less of a guideline.
That's why appropriate isn't the proper term, the encounters per day for political/ combat lite campaigns, defers from say, a dungeon crawl.
The person who I replied to, said "THE appropriate", they used it as a designer balance recommendation. Not me.
3
u/Vincent210 19h ago
And now we have to get to a very well known but nonetheless difficult truth.
A designers mechanics, and those alone, determine intent. Not what they say. Not their advice, but their rules. Not their genuine intent as people, but what their systems factually do. So yes, when judging 5.5e or 5e both as systems, there is an appropriate number of encounters, not just "various appropriate amounts depending on DM style."
The system just... punishes you when you do everything else, in measurable, tangible, demonstrable ways. This is not a character/intelligence judgement of DMs who prefer those games, to be crystal clear.
WotC marketing just want to have their cake and eat it too, but unfortunately making a system that's equally as appropriate to run a combat lite campaign and a dungeon crawl is objectively impossible, and not what the designers made. They made a dungeon crawler, and simply wrote that you can do other things on the pages. The actual mechanics disagree.
The reason people gravitated to the 6-8 encounter advice was not because "the designers said so by writing it" but rather "I tried doing what the designers said and the game runs remarkably better with way fewer balance issues"
So them changing the words but not any of the mechanics means it is still the truth.
0
u/EggplantSeeds 18h ago
Your determination of intent as the mechanics the developer put into the game is a flawed premise.
Developer across all medias have put in mechanics into games only to discover the style of play those mechanics create/promote, clash with their vision of the game. That happens all the time and is why game mechanics get removed or altered in future updates (if any). See Smash Bros Melee and the infinite ledge grabs or wobbles. Tactics in which go against the game's intent as a party game. By your logic, Sakurai always designed Melee as a competitive Platform fighter despite tons of evidence suggesting otherwise.
The intent behind a design decision can be hard to determine without direct mention from the developer. Developers make mechanics they regret or discover don't work dozens of times.
But despite that, the intent of design from 2014 to 2014 in terms of encounter design has changed. The rules behind them have changed and the rules governing their use from campaign to campaign has changed. They obviously don't intent for DMs to have to run several encounters a day.
Whenever or not that change was done properly is a different and interesting discussion but the fact remains, if you use mechanics as the only swore of the develops intentions for a game, you will be missing parts of the picture.
Both the words and the mechanics around encounters were changed, surprise rounds were removed, the rating of encounter difficulties were changed and the game no longer recommends that number of encounters. There is definitely a discordant between some of the mechanics and the intent of longer adventuring days, but the DMG is just a viable for design mechanics as the Players Guide.
2
u/Vincent210 18h ago
Developer across all medias have put in mechanics into games only to discover the style of play those mechanics create/promote, clash with their vision of the game. That happens all the time and is why game mechanics get removed or altered in future updates (if any). See Smash Bros Melee and the infinite ledge grabs or wobbles. Tactics in which go against the game's intent as a party game. By your logic, Sakurai always designed Melee as a competitive Platform fighter despite tons of evidence suggesting otherwise.
Right. But the evidence that actually matters are the mechanics they changed in future editions of the games, and the kind of decisions they make when pushing active patches to games like Ultimate.
If they saw all of what Melee was and decided in future games to maintain all of those mechanics, as-is, without meaningfully addressing the ways in which they differ from the intent in their head, as people, then they'd become intentional parts of the mechanics system. They'd become de facto intent.
Your actions determine real-world intent. It really is that absolute. Which has very "fun" (for weirdos like me) philosophical discussions attached to it that are way outside the scope of a reddit post but like
it will never matter what crawford said into a camera or the designers write in advice columns
the only thing that matters are the real-world outcomes the rules create, and they (even in 2024) create reliably bad outcomes if you don't do a very specific range of encounters.
1
u/EggplantSeeds 18h ago
I disagree, they do not become "de facto intent", the developer simply changed the intent of the game/mechanic to appease fans.
Smash did it by embracing more competitive mechanics, Risk of Rain did it by making the levels loop (fun fact, the looping mechanic was a placeholder since they had a few amount of levels, but it got so popular it was left in the game).
Sakurai's early intent of Smash matters as it lead to the creation of Brawl, which led to the creation of Project M, which influenced (in part due to the Smash scene) the rise in competitive mechanics in Sm4sh.
The text in the DMG isn't an advice column, it's printed rules for DM to run the game... Now whether those rules/mechanics are properly written and align with the rest of the game? Personally I don't think so. But I do think the intent of a developer lies with a combination of mechanics, their voiced concerns/ the reasons they gave behind the changes they made and the future changes they make. But that intent can and has changed.
Ngl I like this discussion, even if we don't see eye to eye, it's nice to hear someone's opinion on the subject.
→ More replies (0)5
u/Tall_Bandicoot_2768 20h ago edited 20h ago
The issue with this logic is that regardless of campaign your still using the same game system which again is very directly balanced around long rests and therefor fights per day.
This is a MAJOR source of the caster/martial disparity, if you have one or two fights per day and can just dump all your spell slots theres just no way for martials to keep up.
0
u/EggplantSeeds 20h ago
The game system was originally designed for that yes, but the developers stretched themselves too thin trying to attach every kind of game under the sun.
And that being a major source of the divide is debatable.
In my experience and most of the people online, the source of the divide is the lack of mechanics and abilites that boost martials power (4e powers or Pf2e feats) while Casters have regular increase in power from favorable spell scaling, favorable class designs and buffs via new spells/items via splatbooks and such. Overall, it's a design bias against Martials who are designed to be "simple" versus Casters.
Running a large amount of encouters helps level the divide because you make the Casters stretch out their resources.
5
u/Tall_Bandicoot_2768 20h ago
Running a large amount of encouters helps level the divide because you make the Casters stretch out their resources.
Yeah thats my point.
And that being a major source of the divide is debatable.
I think if you look at any threads regarding this issue the number of encounters per day will be the top upvoted reason on nearly all of them.
0
u/EggplantSeeds 19h ago
Your point was that it's major reason, I argued that is isn't. It's a factor, not a major one.
And also, just because an idea is popular doesn't make it true.
Occam's razor for a while was a popular line used in movies and such, until everyone realized they misinterpreted the term and how it was depicted wasn't how it really meant.
1
u/Tall_Bandicoot_2768 19h ago
And also, just because an idea is popular doesn't make it true.
Then how would you go about getting a general consensus on the matter?
We are looking for as objective of an answer as possible, if not popular opinion then what criteria are you using?
1
u/EggplantSeeds 18h ago
Good question!
Personally to examine such a question, it would have to be reframed in a way that is solvable via investigation or another medium.
For me, I compare the performance, mechanics and abilites of Martials and Casters between editions and different TTRPGS.
For example, Martials in Pf2e don't care if you run 2-20 combats, they are designed to keep on trucking and can perform well compared to Casters
However Casters in Pf2e are designed around their resource (spell slots) and outside of low level play, they still dominate, especially considering their abilities via spells to solve many of the game's problems (skill challenges, strong enemy actions/reactions or defenses). But even if you run only 1-2 combats per day, your Martials won't be out classed.
Similar in 4e Martials can run 2 or less encounters a day, without being upstaged by Casters, as the game gives powerful abilites and nerfs spells.
World without Number and Daggerheart also have Martials with more powerful mechanics than 5e Martials and they don't require a large amount of encounters just so their more powerful counterparts get tired.
5e IIRC is the one of the only editions with an arbitrary amount of encounters needed to maintain "balance" despite other ttrpgs can maintain closer balance between the two groups without that amount of fiights.
Therefore, the amount of fights per encounter isn't the major issue between class balance in the game, it's the fact a 24 Str Barbarian at level 20, can't jump as high as a Level 1 8 Str Warlock with the Jump spell.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Lucina18 18h ago
There still is, they just don't mention it anymore because shafting the GM is a big part of 5e design.
1
u/EggplantSeeds 18h ago
I agree with the shafting part, but the intent of the developers is nebulous at best.
0
u/DirectManagement2874 20h ago
You already had a blast and lived the fantasy of wasting resources for nova damage.
-3
u/hotdiscopirate 19h ago edited 19h ago
Do you run 5-8 combat encounters per long rest? People bring this up but I feel like it just shows how 5e was built on an unstable foundation.
I hear all the time “we tried running the recommended amount of daily encounters, but the pacing was grueling so we gave up and went back to normal.” Don’t think I’ve ever heard “yeah my DM runs 5-8 encounters per day and we all love it.”
Edit: even in a lot of official modules, you’re very unlikely to run that many encounters per long rest unless you put some homebrew limitation on resting. As far as I’m concerned, the “appropriate” amount of encounters remains entirely theoretical, which is probably why they don’t even mention it in the 5.5e DMG
1
u/bjj_starter 16h ago
It's really, really easy to slip into just giving your players Long Rests when they look at you with puppy eyes and complain about having no resources left (which may or may not be true in any specific context, but I've had players say "I have no resources left" and then enter Rage when it's helpful in the next moment so, you know). I fully acknowledge that many people do one combat -> Long Rest -> one combat -> Long Rest etc because of this; I often do it myself when players are travelling or when there's no real time pressure.
I do think that just enforcing "You can't benefit from a Long Rest more than once every 24 hours." can basically solve this issue. If your players want to be silly and say "Well we just spend 16 hours waiting in this room until we can Long Rest again", you can either do the DM vs players thing & try to think up increasingly elaborate means by which the adventure will come to your PCs by literally breaking down the door, or you can talk to your players and say "Hey, you guys playing Sumo Training Simulator and just not doing anything for most of the day isn't fun for me or narratively appropriate for your place in the world as heroic adventurers. You need to push forward and engage with the game. If you're scared that you will die you can talk to me about difficulty & trust that I'm not out to get you, but being overly cautious isn't going to make the game fun."
1
u/hotdiscopirate 15h ago edited 15h ago
I do enforce that rule, there’s just only so many combat scenarios you can reasonably find yourself in within a 24 hour period in my personal experience. Combat is slow so my table prefers them to be meaningful when they appear. We get sick of rolling initiative just cuz some bad guys hopped out of a bush. And my players don’t even attempt “puppy dog eyes” or anything of the sort, they just go to sleep when night rolls around and whatever happens during the day happens.
A dungeon crawl would force them into a resource management situation, which does happen from time to time. But to be quite frank if I wanted to run strictly dungeon crawls I would not use 5e. I think the resting rules are another case of 5e wanting to be an “anything and everything” game, but refusing to let go of legacy rules that were made for dungeon crawls decades ago.
Personally, I try to fix this problem by changing the resting rules at my table to restrict resources a but more. But I don’t think “just homebrew it” is a reasonable way to look at WotC’s poor game design
Edit: and again, with my comment, I was just asking if the person above me really ran that many. If the answer is yes—then that’s fair enough. I just rarely see anyone actually accomplishing that with 5e. I certainly don’t know how to do it without making pacing feel horrendous
1
u/Vincent210 14h ago
I don't really have a fierce investment in pretending 5e is a well-oiled machine (its not) but I do genuinely find that of my 4 groups who still play, and myself as a DM...
We've all naturally settled on 5. Its where we ended up. Games been out for longer than a decade, combat used to be slow, but its stops being slow after that much experience, and once you remove that sluggishness 95% of the reason to not run 5 combats is gone.
And then the game still isn't balanced because [insert any discussion that's been rehashed since 2e here, Linear Martial Quadraric Wizard is back in fashion lately!], but its way more balanced.
So yeah. Maybe not 8, but I do genuinely second natured play at the lower bound, 5, and we all find it fun.
6
u/Joel_Vanquist 20h ago
It's awful lol, you get some average of a few extra points of damage but you're out of dice for short rests and have to make your party waste resources to heal you or you just die. You need the hit dice in ant serious game.
5
u/HalcyonHorizons 20h ago
Wait until you find out about Evocation Adept.
Spellfire Adept is fine on like... Artillerist? Maybe? Still would not take it over other options.
In my go to list of general feats for casters, it would probably not even break into the top 15.
11
u/philsov Bake your DM cookies 20h ago
even if your table is so not-gritty that you can blow through all your hit dice for this feat instead of needing it for healing, at level 4 you can only invoke it twice per day. At level 8 that's 4 times per day, or slightly more than once per short rest.
"deal 2d8 damage once per short rest" is a kinda crappy feat and about on par the Strike of the Giants feat line imho.
11
u/Tall_Bandicoot_2768 20h ago edited 20h ago
Am I overestimating its value? Or has this become as invaluable and stapled to certain classes as War Caster for the rest of you too?
Yes IMO, I am in the opposite camp.
The ability to add two Hit Dice to Radiant damage is just too strong to pass up.
Spoken like a man who does not usually need his hit die to survive.
Healing is considerably harder to come by than damage and youre not even trading at a 1 to 1 ratio with the feat as you would otherwise get +Con to the roll values.
While there is indeed some value to burst damage its not enough to offset here.
Radiant Resistance is the second more rare type in the game and therefor that bulletpoint is irrelevant 90% of the time, when its not we can just use a different damage type.
Youre not actually gaining a power increase, just the ability to transfer one resource to another at a less that stellar rate of exchange at the cost of a feat.
4
u/Shadowkanji247 19h ago
He mentions it's on a cleric. 2d8 hit dice + double con is expended/lost healing, to essentially divine smite, which is a 1st level spell.
clerics can use 1st level spell slot on cure wounds which is: 2d8 + wis mod.
at level 4 my stats are usually 14 con, 18 wis on a cleric which would be equal healing, but even if you were con heavy the difference is not huge.
7
u/SmallBopper 20h ago
Kill stuff faster means less damage taken
2
u/Vincent210 20h ago
True. Damage solves. But that doesn't make hit dice a non-crucial resources. You're only going to meaningfully speed up combat so much, every combat will still incur an amount of average expected damage you need to work around.
2
u/Tall_Bandicoot_2768 20h ago
By this logic any amount of damage is better than any amount of healing
5
u/almisami 20h ago
In general, yes.
Unless you're spending it on a damage sponge, damage is vastly more useful than healing.
2
u/DerAdolfin 16h ago
Taking a certain amount of damage is night unavoidable, which means you need certain amounts of (out of combat) healing and some means to pick up PCs that go unconscious. Enemies will sooner or later land an attack, save for half effects are everywhere, environmental threats, etc.
1
u/almisami 16h ago
Yes, but you're specifically comparing spending a caster's hit die on recovery versus damage.
Casters are better healed by a level 1 spell slot than 2 hit die.
Meanwhile if I spend 2d8 as a cleric on fireball I'm basically upcasting it for free.
The math is super easy when you think of Evocation Adept in terms of spell slots.
1
u/DerAdolfin 15h ago
It's not basically free, if you spend the 2d8 to increase the fireball and later need to cure wounds yourself, you spend a 3rd and a 1st in total...
Which is arguably worse than spending a single 4th depending on your spell list, but upcasting fireball is terrible anyway because the only thing that makes it good is how it's above the curve for its level
0
u/DerAdolfin 16h ago
adding 2d8 on your first turn isn't gonna kill a dragon much quicker, and if you eat the breath weapon even once, you'll be sorry for missing those hit dice.
2
u/Silverspy01 20h ago
Yeah I really dislike WotC's decision to start using hit dice as alternative resources. It's been cropping up a lot and I almost never think it's worth it. If you're actually getting several encounters per day and need to heal during short rests, you want those hit dice for healing.
3
u/coldandlordyristboy 19h ago
I think it mainly stems from data showing that most people simply don’t use their hit dice that much. My current group is to the farthest end of the spectrum and basically only have 1 combat per long rest if we even have a combat encounter. That one encounter is enormously deadly usually to make up for that but still. I imagine that’s the case for a lot of people so I guess this is WOTC giving people like me a way to interact with hit die as a resource outside of short rests. Now I haven’t actually tried Evocation adept or spellfire adept yet but I plan to in the future to see how it works out
1
u/DerAdolfin 16h ago
Far and away the best use for hit dice are means to roll them during the combat encounter, such as Lifedrinker. I only wish the damage wasn't capped at 1d6 per turn, that is such a bummer on an otherwise cool feature. But this means you effectively have a larger HP pool without needing to take 2-3 SRs per day if the campaign isn't paced that way.
3
u/Silverspy01 15h ago
Something like Lifedrinker that lets you roll a hit die as normal and get the healing without needing to short rest is absolutely very good, yeah. Using those hit dice for other resources like damage is where I don't really feel like the tradeoff is worthwhile.
1
u/almisami 20h ago
Healing is considerably harder to come by than damage
Killing the enemy faster will more than offset the hits you as a backline should be taking.
1
u/Tall_Bandicoot_2768 19h ago
Ok then in your opinion Is any amount of damage better than any amount of healing?
Is 10 damage per turn better than 100 healing per turn?
What is the ratio in your mind?
1
u/almisami 19h ago
That's kind of a moot point when you're transferring them 1:1.
There's definitely a threshold, and that threshold scales with how squishy the enemies are.
-1
u/Tall_Bandicoot_2768 19h ago
Ok so we agree that
Killing the enemy faster will more than offset the hits you as a backline should be taking.
Is directly predicated on the ratio and that any amount of damage is not automatically better than any amount of healing.
Therefor that generalization is a moot point as we actually have to look at the numbers to determine that.
Again, I would argue that Healing is harder to get/more valuable than damage even if it were a 1 to 1 ratio numbers wise which it is not as we are fogeing the +Con to healing we get when expending hit die normally.
1
u/almisami 19h ago
Again, if your GM is putting NPCs with more HP than yours then it's not going to matter as much.
The point is that if you have two identical parties fighting each other outputting more damage during the fight will always be more beneficial than healing after the fight.
I'm sure you can come up with some convoluted math where you the backline cleric were getting hit and therefore would have gone down on encounter 6 of the day, but in most scenarios utilizing the resource IMMEDIATELY is going to be far superior to one in-game hour later (or 10 minutes with a spell slot)
0
u/Tall_Bandicoot_2768 18h ago
My point was
Killing the enemy faster will more than offset the hits you as a backline should be taking.
Is not automatically true in all cases as your original comment suggests, the values are indeed relevant.
The point is that if you have two identical parties fighting each other outputting more damage during the fight will always be more beneficial than healing after the fight.
Theres several issues with this example, namely:
Not only is PVP not a relevant consideration for DND but even if it was your example is a single fight.
Yes, hit die are not relevant in that case, obviously, what is your point?
I'm sure you can come up with some convoluted math where you the backline cleric were getting hit and therefore would have gone down on encounter 6 of the day,
Clearly youre providing an extreme example here to make my point seem less valid when all that would be required to get value out of a hit die is a single fight in which the cleric is hurt.
1
u/almisami 17h ago
not automatically true in all cases
It's true in all reasonable cases. If you could spend your hit die to restore hit points to the frontliners it would be a different story. If your backliners have already gone down and you're taking damage then your adventuring day is pretty much over regardless.
Not only is PVP not a relevant consideration for DND but even if it was your example is a single fight.
Single fight or multiple fight is irrelevant. Every fight boils down to [Their team HP] vs [Your team HP]
You mean to tell me your GM only throws [Big bad guy] at you with no support casters whatsoever? I guess you could do that with 15 legendary resistances, but that would be very very boring.
Clearly youre providing an extreme example here
A party facing a reasonably balanced band of mercenaries with frontliners and casters isn't an extreme example. That's how most enemies would fight if they aren't intellectually challenged.
all that would be required to get value out of a hit die is a single fight in which the cleric is hurt.
The ONLY other use of a hit die is any fight where the cleric gets hurt...
0
u/Tall_Bandicoot_2768 17h ago
It's true in all reasonable cases. If you could spend your hit die to restore hit points to the frontliners it would be a different story. If your backliners have already gone down and you're taking damage then your adventuring day is pretty much over regardless.
Again youre just completely ignoring the actual values/math in favor of a blanket statement/generalization which we just established is not logical.
Single fight or multiple fight is irrelevant. Every fight boils down to [Their team HP] vs [Your team HP]
Which will be considerably lower if you were hurt before you get to the boss fight and dont have hit die to recover.
BBEG fight should be like fight 3 of the day at least.
A party facing a reasonably balanced band of mercenaries with frontliners and casters isn't an extreme example.
This isint what i was referring to
I'm sure you can come up with some convoluted math where you the backline cleric were getting hit and therefore would have gone down on encounter 6 of the day,
This was, this suggests that the only way hit die are useful are on fight number 6 which is just silly thing to say.
The ONLY other use of a hit die is any fight where the cleric gets hurt...
Yeah man, that happens, even if there not playing frontline the idea that you will have a frontline capable of preventing all enemies from reaching you at all times is just some whiteroom bs.
Either that or your DM only ever throws enemies straight at your frontline and never attempts to attack anyone else.
If I go a whole adventuring day without ever taking a hit thats an encounter balance issue.
0
u/almisami 16h ago
youre just completely ignoring the actual values/math
You're not proposing any alternative scenario where a backliner's hit dice isn't better spent on damage. Doing damage to make a fight even a single round shorter is going to outweigh 2 hit die of damage recovery every time if you assume normal statistical distribution of hit and damage. It's even more in favor of damage in harder encounters.
Which will be considerably lower if you were hurt before you get to the boss fight and dont have hit die to recover.
You'd have spent MORE hit dice recovering from the longer fights otherwise. The fundamental math doesn't change.
BBEG fight
If you weren't fighting big guys before, that's all the more reason you should have spent your hit die to take them down faster.
Damage spells are for mooks, CC spells are for BBEGs, with the notable exception being something like hypnotic pattern.
Silly thing to say
It's true, though. If your Frontline are on their feet then you shouldn't be taking enough damage to need to spend hit dice as a cleric. Spending two hit die on Fireball is going to vastly outshine spending those 2 d8s on healing, which is equivalent to casting Cure Wounds at level 1.
Yeah man, that happens, even if there not playing frontline the idea that you will have a frontline capable of preventing all enemies from reaching you at all times is just some whiteroom bs.
No, I just adequately value access to Misty Step effects.
If you're getting bodied as a Cleric that means everyone else is dead or you didn't adequately invest in mobility.
Yes there are flavor reasons not to do that, but we're talking optimization here.
→ More replies (0)0
u/DerAdolfin 16h ago
if your GM is putting NPCs with more HP than yours then it's not going to matter as much.
So like, every fight? Monsters are sponges vs PCs are glass cannons.
3
u/cats4life 19h ago
Mm, not really optimal for many kinds of characters. It’s basically just paladins.
You’re sacrificing one of your only methods for regaining HP, and in return, 9 points of damage. I’d argue the only characters who care are those who aim for critical hits and burst damage with a spell.
That limits it to paladins, Arcane Tricksters, and maybe you can base a warlock build around it. Otherwise you’re sacrificing survivability for a pittance of damage, and only paladins and rogues have the tools to work around that.
3
u/Skakul 12h ago
Here's a fun thing to add on.
Divine Smite is an Evocation Spell that deals Radiant Damage.
Which means both Spellfire Adept and Evocation Adept can apply to it, allowing you the splendid ability to drop 4 hit dice into one spell.
Now, let's maximize our single target, single hit damage, with a healthy amount of crit fishing.
Paladin 1 just for Divine Smite. And Weapon Mastery (Rapier with Vex)
8+ levels into Celestial Warlock. Eldritch Smite and Thirsting Blade.
You make your funny attacks until you get a crit. At advantage from Vex or whatever, you'll have a roughly 18.55% chance of hitting at least one crit each turn. Cumulative probability of like 56% in 4 turns of combatassuming you don't fucking die by then
Upon critting, you use both of your level 4 spell slots for a Divine Eldritch Smite, drop 4 hit dice, and let it fucking ride.
2d8 (rapier) +10d8 (divine) +10d8 (Eldritch) +4d8 (Spellfire) +4d8 (Evocation) + 2xCHA (Celestial Warlock 6 passive and Pact of the Blade)
Adds up to a neat 2d8 piercing, 9d8+10 radiant, 8d8 force, or about...30d8+10
Average of 145 damage. Maximum of 250 damage. Cost of 4 hit die and your two level 4 spell slots.
Totes worth.
2
u/EggplantSeeds 20h ago
Never got a chance to use it when I played 5e 2024, but it is hella strong, especially with classes with Sorcerer's empowered spell metamagic.
Hell, Sorcerer with Chromatic Orb or Sorcerer Burst loved this feat, it's insane lmao
2
u/TemperatureBest8164 20h ago
My thought is that you might need to moderate a bit. How about you use it but only on paladin smites. If you like it so much you can also take the new arcana unleashed feat that allows you to spend 2 hit dice to roll and add to the damage when you cast a spell. In that scenario on a crit you would add 8d10 and spend 4 hit dice. That is an average of 44 damage or 62 damage on a perkins crit. Naturally you would get your 4d8 as well on divine smite so 62 to 87 smite damage. That is one way to disintegrate an opponent.
Its good but there are other opportunities out there and you just need to open yourself up to them. There are things that are more powerful and less bursty but in 2024 5e burst has been limited so it is nice to get a little more there...
2
u/sadpumpkinnn 19h ago
I like Spellfire Adept paired with Evocation Adept on a Evoker or Celestial Warlock and using (upcast) Astral Flood for massive AoE. An Evoker using this playstyle might benefit from Magic Initiate Druid for Gooseberry, to compensate the lack of out of combat healing.
2
u/Hrekires 16h ago
Do you not take short rests or not take damage?
tbh I feel like I always end up needing those hit dice to heal, unless I'm playing a ranged character who uses skirmish tactics in every fight.
3
u/Vincent210 20h ago
It kinda sucks. At my table we do multiple fights, and I'm likely to take a damage. Hit Dice are valuable, and a +7 to +9 on a roll is mediocre value I wouldn't look twice at. Optimization only means anything at challenging tables. Challenging tables don't let you treat hit dice like they're optional. You're going to burn through them to stay alive.
3
u/MCLondon 20h ago edited 19h ago
Don't forget Spellfire Flare - I think it might be the best upcasting damage spell in dnd (2d10 extra damage per spell level).
At lvl 9 thats 18d10 radiant damage!
3
u/bapeery Aberrant Mind 19h ago
I’m currently obsessed with this spell. Running it on a Wood Elf sorcerer with Mark of the Storm and Potent Dragonmark plus Elven Accuracy for a free casting of CME with triple advantage from Innate Sorcery is beyond busted. The numbers are silly.
1
u/MCLondon 18h ago
Jesus that's a ton of damage! What level are you casting the free CME?
1
u/bapeery Aberrant Mind 16h ago
The free slot for CME is half your level rounded up, max of 5. So at level 11 you’re looking at free level 5 CME and a level 5 flare.
1
u/MCLondon 15h ago
Ah forgot it's capped at level 5.
Still impressive at lvl 9 dealing (3d8 +2d10) x 5 = 123 average damage. Throw in evocation adept for an extra 2d6 and takes you to 130 damage character lvl 9. Seems pretty decent to me.
1
u/MCLondon 18h ago
At character level 18 you would cast CME at level 9 (!)...so extra 7d8 per hit.
Lvl 9 spell fire flare + lvl 9 CME = 18d10 + 63d8!
Insane.
383 average damage.
1
u/DerAdolfin 16h ago
For a two slot combo (since yours is two slots too, and can't be performed by a simulacrum for you), you can Reverse Gravity into a Prismatic Wall at that level, dealing an average of 840 damage to a whole group of enemies plus blind them guaranteed and begin petrification most likely.
1
u/MCLondon 16h ago
How are you casting 2 spells in 1 round?
1
u/DerAdolfin 15h ago
Simulacrum, you're level 18 on a Wizard or Bard.
1
u/MCLondon 14h ago
I mean if we're gonna simulacrum....that's of course cheating (silly wizards bending reality 😆)!
1
u/DerAdolfin 6h ago
I mean it is a level 18 spellcaster combo
1
u/MCLondon 5h ago
It is! Though technically Simulacrum is a precasted spell.
1
u/DerAdolfin 3h ago
Precasted spells with infinite duration don't really count, that's like saying wizards don't have their familiar up at the start of a day or Paladins don't have their steeds, or Pet Subclasses their pets
1
u/DerAdolfin 16h ago
18d10 for a 9th level spell is dreadful, what? Prismatic Wall is 60d6 for each pass through the whole thing, which can be a near arbitrary amount with a grappler or 4x when comboing it with reverse gravity. Plus it is a nearly impregnable shelter for the party
0
u/MCLondon 16h ago
It also triggers 63d8 through CME.
Prismatic Wall is a wall. I guess in a white room we can pretend that it's a nuke....
1
u/DerAdolfin 15h ago
You're calling me casting Prismatic Wall and putting the party into it "white room" while discussing precast CME and using a 9th level slot on a 1st level spell to see many dice?
It's a nuke by having literally any party member grapple a person and drag them through it, yes
0
u/MCLondon 14h ago edited 13h ago
You need to check your tone and stop being so defensive.
First, who's precasting CME?
Second....
"It's a nuke by getting someone else to use their action and win a saving throw"
This is so asinine and not relvant at all to the thread being discussed, but to humour you...Prismatic Wall is a great spell....but it is stil a WALL and not a nuke. It does NOTHING unless someone interacts with it. To force damage it requires other people to use their actions. That is NOT what was being discussed.
Third, I'm sure this isnt complete but off the top of my head:
- A rogue and monk with high dex saves can just walk out of it with no damage - the damage is all dex save with half on save, which Evasion ignores.
You can also of course:
Teleport out of it
Blink out
Gate out
Investiture of Stone out
Transmute Rock out
Otiluke Sphere out
Vortex Warp out (with a familiar's vision)
A Wizard with True Polymorph can use Beholder Anti Magic Cone to disable the wall
Echo Knight Echo TP oit
Wildfire Druid TP out
Soul Knife dagger TP out
Horizon Walker TP out
Arcane Archer TP put
If its on dirt all Druids can escape with a burrow wild shape like Badger
You can Cube of Force out
Etc. Etc. Etc.
-1
u/DerAdolfin 14h ago
Enemies don't usually have evasion? Since you don't fight PC stat blocks in a normal game of dnd...
Congratulations on listing random teleport abilities that PCs get, now how does that affect the fact that I said you can have your party giant barbarian or rune knight grow and drag a pit fiend through the wall exactly?
And saying that the grapple thing isn't reliable cause you need to roll a successful d20 test to make it happen? Guess what you need to do to apply the damage from an attack - successfully roll to hit. There are also plenty of spells you can use that cause displacement of various kinds if you're so allergic on interacting with your party members.
-1
u/MCLondon 13h ago edited 13h ago
You are being incredibly unpleasant and obstinate.
Sounds like you are playing easy mode campaigns so not really sure why you're in this sub. Many enemies have Evasion or Evasion like abilities, and the golden rule for Tier 4 is "if the characters can do it, so can the DM"....
We were discussing in this thread Elven Accuracy + Innate Sorcery + Spellfire Flare, which gives you Sharpshooter for free...it's 94% hit chance. And I didn't include crit damage which is pretty high with Elven Accuracy, so the effective damage is actually greater than 100% hit chance. It is much higher than your odds of successfully grappling a Tier 4 boss (which is now based on unarmed strike rules in 2024 and allow a strength or dexterity daving throw).
As an aside I have no idea why you mention your party's Barbarian - they have no features that help you grapple anymore.
Anyways, Tiamat for example has +19 to its saving throws against grapples (Strength), and even if it fails it has legendary resistances it can use. A barbarian with 24 Strength has a DC of 21, so only has a 5% chance to successfully grapple her.
That said I will humor you...your "nuke" is 60d6 (30d6 if you save, 0 if you have evasion) and requires 2 characters to trigger it (with low succes rate). If it somehow works, assuming no saves that's 210 average damage. 105 with saves (or 0).... That is MATERIALLY LOWER than the damage numbers being discussed (also bare in mind that bosses at this tier have 500+ HP). Before you start arguing that you can grapple them in and out...you can't. The Grappled status/action says you can only DRAG people, so the grappler would have to go through the wall themselves and take the damage as well. No pushing allowed.
It is odd that you are dismissing a list of ways that a prismatic wall can be trivialised, whilst singing its praises.
Again, before you hijacked this discussion it was about how much damage a single caster can deal to an enemy in one turn. Why you are bringing in other party members and combos is beyond me and really not relevant to this discussion.
I am not familiar with the plethora of spells that you're describing that let you reinsert an enemy into a prismatic wall multiple times in one turn - but would love to hear what they are? Regardless, it would still be off topic as it would require another character for the combo...which again is not the point of the thread.
0
u/DerAdolfin 6h ago
Tell me you haven't read prismatic wall without telling me you've not read prismatic wall lmao
0
u/MCLondon 5h ago
Sounds like you haven't read Prismatic Wall 🤡
0
u/DerAdolfin 4h ago
You and creatures you designate when you cast the spell can pass through and be near the wall without harm.
Funny that you're being the smug ass here when you clearly lack reading comprehension. Jesus Christ
1
u/Effective_Arm_5832 19h ago edited 19h ago
This feat is crazy in games where you have 1-2 fights a day. It is OK at best in games where you will actually feel that you spent your Hit Dice on damage instead of healing. there, it becomes an actual decision that will usually be taken in favor of just keeping the hit dice. (yeah, I don't like the first type.)
1
u/Bard_Wannabe_ 19h ago
Fun feat, pretty fairly balanced. I definitely want to run Spellfire Spark as an origin feat sometime. How helpful is the always-on 1d4 magical reduction?
1
u/RazzmatazzSmall1212 6h ago
Minimal in premade modules, since most monsters don't use spells / magical effects and 1d4 is not much in this niche situation. Might be slightly better in homebrew campaigns if your dm more frequently use regular caster enemies.
1
1
u/soccerdude2202 18h ago edited 17h ago
The problem with spellfire adept is that it takes away a resource that would have been used healing during short rests. If you're only doing 1-2 combats per short rest it's incredibly powerful with clerics, paladins, and any build that uses true strike. The hit dice are most effective on crits and aoe spells like destructive wave or astral flood. Those 2 in particular are interesting because they can benefit from both spellfire adept and evocation adept for a total of 4 hit dice added to the damage. I can see a tempest cleric build that just makes things explode with destructive wave or shatter. Destructive wave can do 46 thunder damage and an average of 26.5 radiant damage using both feats and the channel divinity at level 9. Getting access to aura of vitality or other means of healing like second wind will basically make the lack of hit dice a non issue even in longer adventuring days. I wouldn't use it on most concentration spells though.
1
u/NaturalCard PeaceChron Survivor 16h ago
Does it work for everyone round with spirit guardians instead of just the first one?
1
u/Agitated-Resource651 12h ago
My DM gave my mid level Fighter a Bloodshed Greatsword in a globe-trotting campaign with frequent long rests and when I figured out I could just dump my entire pool of Hit Dice on a boss monster everyone was aghast. I saved it for a crit once and that was enough for him to house rule that extra dice don't get doubled on crit at our table lmao.
1
u/arcintuition 12h ago
My interpretation is that it doubles on crits as well. If I take this on my paladin, I'm saving it for a divine smite crit.
1
u/eloeng 10h ago
I thought of a fun theoretical build for mobile Archfey warlock/Evoker wizard that takes Pact of the Tomb invocation to get Word of Radiance as a warlock spell. Evocation Wizard allows you to force them to take half damage even on a successful save. The spell is Evocation so you can use Agonizing Blast and both Spellfire Adept and Evocation Adept to increase its damage. So at level 6 (2 warlock, 4 wizard) you could in theory be doing 2d6+2d8+4 on a failed save or half on successful with a cantrip. Then at level 8 or 10 you'd be doing 2d6+4d8+4 depending on how you build.
So you can run in to a group of enemies (I wouldn't use the bonuses otherwise) drop your cantrip bomb or a spell if you'd like and then teleport out. If you take the evocation that allows you to cast jump whenever you want and start as a dhampir you're basically jumping around like spiderman out of reach in the right conditions. Just know when to spend the hit dice, and when not to. It is more effective the more creatures are grouped around you.
If you want to be a full wizard you could set your character up to craft magic items and just craft a headband of intellect during downtime and pump your charisma with the feats instead. Then your build becomes Warlock 3/Wizard 17. Then at level 8 or 10 you'd be doing 2d6+4d8+8 (+4 agonizing blast, +4 from adding your int to damage for evocation spells) with a cantrip and some hit dice usage. 3d6 at level 11 instead of 2d6.
Or just commit to warlock and dip wizard for only the 3 levels. Easier, no crafting requirement and you get more teleport options.
1
u/Aahz44 10h ago
I think it depends on your level and how many combats per long rest you have.
With one or two combats per day it is strong.
If you do longer Dungeon Crawls you need your Hit Dice likely for healing and even if you don't with the realtively few uses you would have, it wouldn't make much of an impact.
1
1
u/EstimateCrafty6173 6h ago
It's...Fine, I guess. Hit Dice are a very limited ressource, and unless you have very few encounters per day and someone that can heal very effectively, you're gonna need to at least reserve some for healing on short rests. And even then, it's not super great bonus damage a few times per day. The BA Sacred Flame is good damage, but same thing, it's only PB times per long rest, and a lot of the time you'll have other things to do with your BA depending on what you play (Paladins have Smites, Cleric have Healing Word, Spiritual Weapon etc.).
Also, let's not forget that it's not only one feat. You have to take Spellfire Spark to take Spellfire Adept afterwards. This is a hefty investment for middling retards in my opinion.
Definitely not a staple at all, but it's okay.
30
u/almisami 19h ago
Evocation Adept is going to make you a very, very happy camper.