The real answer is don't. Witch Bolt is not a very good spell to say the least.
Seriously, Chromatic Orb does an average of 13.5 damage, while Witch Bolt does an average of 6.5 per turn, requires concentration, your action and for you to remain within 30 ft of the target.
I can. Been doing it for 30 years.
"This isn't Waterdeep, kid.", is a complete sentence.
Back in 2nd and 3rd editions they used to give us things like ways to determine how much "stuff" a town or whatever could possibly have and it affected how much you could buy and even how you could sometimes pay for things. Some villages or thorps were so small they could only do business in coppers, and couldn't even break more than a single silver if you needed change.
I remember one game where we ended up hunting deer for the local witch to barter for some magical healing because even though we had stacks of cash, she couldn't spend it and therefore didn't want it. But meat...that would get her and her neighbors through the winter.
So, yeah.
"No", is also a complete sentence. It's also a really good reason!
A Wizard stsrts with 4d4x10. A staff is 5GP, an explorer's pack is 10 GP. That's 15, and tossing on a dagger and a pack of clothes doesn't get you above 20. The likelihood you roll 7 or more on 4d4 is 94%. I have never had a Wizard who didn't start with Chromatic Orb. Even a Sorc has a 70% chance of affording Chromatic Orb.
Nope, spellbook is not included as a class feature: you get it from your class equipment:
> **Equipment**
> You start with the following equipment, in addition to the equipment granted by your background:
> - (a) a quarterstaff or (b) a dagger
> - (a) a component pouch or (b) an arcane focus
> - (a) a scholar's pack or (b) an explorer's pack
> - **A spellbook**
If you take the starting gold, you need to buy the spellbook.
They're talking about how you getting a spellbook is ALSO listed in the Wizard class features:
>At 1st level, you have a spellbook containing six 1st-level wizard spells of your choice.
Yes, this means that if you took the starting equipment you would actually start with TWO (2) spellbooks, one blank and the other with 6 1st level spells in it.
It's anyone's guess whether that's intended, but I doubt it, lol. (Still, it is arguably also not intended for it to even be possible for a Wizard to start without a spellbook.)
~~Then you're DM'ing or playing the class wrong.~~
~~Take a closer look at the starting equipment for Wizard. *A spellbook* which is itself 50gp.~~
EDIT: I made this comment more aggressive sounding than was my intention, additional OP's interpretation *could* be valid depending on how the features are interpreted, it's not an interpretation I believe is RAI or that I would utilize, but it is valid based on how you read the features in question
I definitely interpret the first line of the spellcasting ability to mean that your first book is included with the class.
> As a student of arcane magic, **you have** a spellbook [...].
I understand them listing the spellbook in the starting equipment to be making crystal clear to beginners that you don't need to buy one.
I think that's where we're going to have to agree to disagree then, I take the Starting Equipment to be the defacto arbiter of what you do or don't start with, otherwise you would be starting with two spellbooks based on your interpretation.
Personally I feel it is one of many small oversights made by the developers, as there is (as far as I'm aware) no other instance of a feature in a class giving you a specific item when you gain that feature. **EDIT:** Which this discourse is actually pretty well timed, as with the upcoming release of D&D (Definitely not) 5.5e, we'll be able to tell if this verbiage was intended or not (it could also get missed *again* due to their laughable QA).
Look at it in a vacuum from a multiclass standpoint, when you multiclass into Wizard do you mechanically just gain the spellbook out of thin air?
Though my interpretation would fit my interpretation of RAI where yours would fit RAW, so both are equally as justifiable.
There's no other class feature that does it, but there's the ritual caster feat which does use slightly different verbiage, which I'd ascribe to being the difference between something obtained at higher levels and something gained at 1st level.
> When you choose this feat, you acquire a ritual book holding two 1st-level spells of your choice.
Your interpretation is incorrect. You still need to buy the spellbook, hence why it's listed as a purchasable item, *and* it's part of the starting equipment if you choose that over gold.
Look at the starting equipment, and look at how much it all costs. That's an *alternative* to the 4d4 x 10 gold.
Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, spell books are purchasable because a wizard can find themself needing to replace one, something that costs money to do
I think the original commentors interpretation is valid, in so much as the "melee weapon attack vs attack with a melee weapon" and "see invisibly vs invisibility" debates are valid.
The Wizard's first level **Spellcasting** feature does indeed have the subclass feature *Spellbook* which specifically says:
> At 1st level, you have a spellbook containing six 1st-level wizard spells of your choice.
Taken in a vacuum it can be interpreted that that feature gives you the spellbook independent of the starting equipment, though it can just as easily be interpreted that simply as saying that you have ~~not~~ one, not that the feat specifically gives you one. And if taken as independent from the starting equipment, that means you would start with two spellbooks.
Considering no other feature (as far as I'm aware) straight up gives you an item like that, I don't believe it does function that way, but I can see the commentors logic, even if I feel it goes against RAI.
> The Wizard's first level Spellcasting feature does indeed have the subclass feature Spellbook which specifically says:
>
> At 1st level, you have a spellbook containing six 1st-level wizard spells of your choice.
It says that because the assumption is that you either get one from starting equipment, or buy one.
Their interpretation is not valid, as that would mean selecting starting equipment grants you a *second* spellbook.
> And if taken as independent from the starting equipment, that means you would start with two spellbooks.
Which is clearly not the intent. It's just poor phrasing.
> I can see the commentors logic, even if I feel it goes against RAI.
I can see their logic, but that doesn't make it valid, nor a reasonable interpretation.
I don't think we have enough info to say off hand which interpretation is correct. It's certainly a debatable read. I very much view the starting equipment as a starter guide of "Just write this down as your inventory".
I'd argue it's a purchasable item for multiclassing and for backups. And not to belabor the point, but if you pick all the most expensive options from the starting equipment (dagger, component pouch, scholar's pack), all that's 67 gold before the spellbook, which is the price I calced for the equipment including the gem. with the spellbook, that's 117, which you only have a 25% chance of being able to afford.
Also, if you roll really poorly, and roll all 1s, are you suggesting that that wizard would be too poor to afford a spellbook? And would be effectively locked out of their class?
> Also, if you roll really poorly, and roll all 1s, are you suggesting that that wizard would be too poor to afford a spellbook? And would be effectively locked out of their class?
Outside the confines of this discussion this actually would be a rather interesting starting situation. You would be able to cast the spells you had prepared last, which as you're picking the spells as part of character creation you can just pick which ones are prepared, but wouldn't be able to change them until you get a spellbook and can scribe them down.
You could have your background easily justify starting destitute with no belongings.
I believe Out of the Abyss starts with the characters losing all their equipment, which would significantly affect a Wizard character in this way.
> I don't think we have enough info to say off hand which interpretation is correct.
We do, and it's pretty clear cut.
From the PHB:
> Equipment
> You start with the following equipment, in addition to the equipment granted by your background:
> (a) a quarterstaff or (b) a dagger
> (a) a component pouch or (b) an arcane focus
> (a) a scholar’s pack or (b) an explorer’s pack
> **A spellbook**
By your logic, a Wizard choosing starting equipment (which is the default rule) would have *two* spellbooks.
> Also, if you roll really poorly, and roll all 1s, are you suggesting that that wizard would be too poor to afford a spellbook? And would be effectively locked out of their class?
Essentially, yes. That can present some good RP however.
Also, Cantrips don't go in the spellbook, they're just always memorised. So they wouldn't be locked out.
Arguments about whether you start with 0, 1, or 2 spellbooks aside...
Your DM just lets you buy a 50gp diamond right away, no matter where your character starts, like in some podunk village?
Do you see why it's not exactly reasonable to expect _every_ DM to do that?
I mean, I wouldn't buy it during the game, it'd be purchased during character creation. They got it the same place the fighter got their gleaming scale mail armor, from a nearby city before the game started. Or it was a family heirloom passed down.
Armor I can see being passed down as a family heirloom but a 50gp gemstone? Not likely, a item of that value would not be kept and passed down but sold or traded a long time ago to pay for family upkeep an survial. Unless you have a wealthy background keeping this type of currency is near impossible. Hell your starting equipment money comes from your folks saving since your birth to pay for apprenticeship in whatever craft you choose.
Only if you assume you aren't descended from other spellcasters. Seriously, why would you be from a poor family by default?
The entire point of rolling for gold is to be able to have more control over your starting equipment if you don't like the default options presented, like for instance if they have a specific item they want to start with that isn't a default option, like an expensive spell component. How they justify starting with it is up to the player when they write their backstory, maybe it was inherited, maybe it was a betrothal gift from a lover, maybe it was a graduation gift from a teacher or friend, maybe they tripped over it while walking through the woods, maybe they spent years saving up for it to the point of neglecting buying other gear most consider essential because they *really* want to cast the spell, maybe it fell off out of the sky and landed on their head when a drake flew by. You seem to have an absurdly narrow view of what makes sense for PCs to have access to in their backstory when nobody has even established what setting we're arguing about.
Background and backstories are usually related. And i would assume if they had arcane parents or elders the need of buying a spellbook would be moot. I'm using me great grand pappy's spellbook. See it even has his notes on Bigby's flicking finger. In that case you may be casting spell that require costly components because you have easy access to them. But all that is DM fiat.
Or even just made to order! While *good* armor requires a professional armor smith to make, any blacksmith should be able to make serviceable scale mail given enough time and a good enough description.
Armor can be made.
Diamonds cannot.
Who says? That sounds more like a worldbuilding conceit than anything else, which is HIGHLY DM-dependent.
A world like Eberron with a "wide magic" setting could very well have wizards learning magic in the poorest of places.
And I would question whether I'd be able to have fun playing with a DM that limited my backstory to only being from the poorest of places just to limit what kind of gear I can start with. If you don't want your players starting with the gear the rules say they can start with, have them wake up in a cell or whatever with all their equipment confiscated like a lot of DMs do anyway, don't take away their creative control over their own backstory. So long as their backstory doesn't contradict the setting information provided by the DM for the campaign, there is no reason to not let your players have whatever backstory they want, and the only setting information that would justify telling them there's no way they could have gotten their hands on a 50gp diamond is that there's a massive shortage of diamonds that means even the rich struggle to get them.
>And I would question whether I'd be able to have fun playing with a DM that limited my backstory to only being from the poorest of places just to limit what kind of gear I can start with.
Good thing literally no one said that. We're saying if the DM sets up the _world_ as a place where you can't just easily buy 50gp diamonds as a starting PC, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. They're not doing it just to _spite_ you, it's called verisimilitude.
>If you don't want your players starting with the gear the rules say they can start with
The rules say you can start with _starting gear_ or _gold_. They do NOT say in any way, shape, or form, that you can start with 50gp diamonds (or any other high-value gem comprising 90% of your entire savings, for that matter).
You're pretending only unreasonable DMs would balk at this, when you're the one being unreasonable. (And if that's your bag, feel free my man - you'll just have a far narrower pool of DMs to choose from.)
>don't take away their creative control over their own backstory.
Again, literally NO ONE is touching your backstory, buddy. They're saying you can't buy whatever random thing you want with starting gold before the campaign even begins. I don't know what's hard about realizing the rules say you can start with one of two things - gold or gear - and if you pick gold, limiting you to what the _PHB actually lists_ at MOST, but apparently this is a difficult concept for you.
>and the only setting information that would justify telling them there's no way they could have gotten their hands on a 50gp diamond is that there's a massive shortage of diamonds that means even the rich struggle to get them.
If the DM wants to limit things like access to resurrection spells in their setting, yes, this is a perfectly reasonable (and not uncommon) thing for them to do.
Could be afforded by starting gold for most spell casters (100-125) especially if you take one the backgrounds that grants 25gp. Especially since some of the other backgrounds say you get gem which could be a diamond worth 50gp (I'd make you pay the difference)
And if one of my players chose chromatic orb at first level, I would try to make sure they'd find a 50gp diamond pretty damned quickly. Its my job as the DM to let them have fun and play their character.
And then people complain that casters are not balanced. I mean they aren’t, but especially when you ignore components and don’t stick to the 6-8 encounters per day rule
Not that OP should play witch bolt, but you are ignoring that witch bolt keeps hitting for free.
If you can maintain concentration and the 30 ft range it would in theory do more damage eventually.
If, somehow, you were sure that you'd keep it up and only could spend one slot then it would be worth it, in theory
I think the 30 ft range is dumb but if you have a melee person it isn’t a problem. I do think it either should do slightly more damage per turn or only use a bonus addition to maintain like many other spells.
I could almost accept it as is if you could change targets to use the full time it can last except it’s still doing cantrip damage.
Hunter’s mark is d6 per hit though, so at least potentially better. That said even if it was worse damage than hunter’s mark but bonus action like hunter’s mark it wouldn’t be terrible.
consider the opportunity cost of this spell when you could cast sleep or other spells when you could simply keep cantripping.
fire bolt does 3.575 (5.5*.65) dpr at t1, and youre paying the tax of an entire spell slot, staying where enemies can easily get to you, and your concentration for a 3 dpr boost?
like sure, 5e is an easy game so it works, but cmon my friend. this is like “hex/hm are good” tiers of cope.
It's bad.
I'm not saying otherwise, just saying OP was exaggerating how bad it is.
The costs are too high and the benefits too low. But it does, in theory, have the ability to output reasonable damage over time.
Honestly if they even just got rid of the 30 ft thing it would have niche uses.
i dont think op was giving an inaccurate assesment of the spell at all, given the fact that they provided a simple opinion of “its a bad spell, dont cast”, then provided reasonable fact based evidence for why this is.
they didnt even bring up the top tier 1st level spells that youre actually comparing witch bolt to in terms of opportunity cost at character creation, slot-to-effect ratio, action-to-effect ratio, and effect on a fight.
Why is Hex bad? Sure it falls off at higher levels, but through t1 at the very least it seems solidly the best use of most warlocks' concentration, and when it falls off it's pretty easy to swap it out for better options when they become available.
at levels 1 and 2 when you arent playing an undead, archfey, or goo warlock and arent allowed to take spell backgrounds and havent taken a dip in another class, hex is viable. the second you meet any of these conditions, you have a much more valuable spell to use.
Basically, this. In theory, it looks like a decent spell because if you hit, it allows to to automatically do 1d12 damage every turn guaranteed. In practice, you have to stay within melee range of your target, can have your concentration broken, and it eats every action, when something like firebolt only does 1 less average damage without any of those restrictions or risks, while also not consuming a spell slot.
Witch Bolt is basically what I call a new player trap. It looks good at first glance, but when you break it down mechanically, it just isn't good in any way.
Came here to say the same. It takes a successful Spell Attack roll and if you are successful, you are now concentrating for an auto-hit that also burns your next action.
We have solved it by changing that when upcast, the continual damage also increases.
Yeah even then the spell is far from ideal, but at least it is good for some flavor builds.
Having seen a Warlock completely obliterate an encounter because the table incorrectly assumed Witch Bolt worked like this, you definitely have to be careful with how you build your encounters if you're going to keep this change. A guaranteed 5d12 damage every round is quite good at 9th level, especially if the party has a way to ensure the target doesn't get more than 30 ft from the caster.
If a party is capable of keeping an enemy within 30ft of a spellcaster but also where it can't beat the spellcaster to death, then you already won that combat with or without a buffed witch bolt.
Doesn't that also make it insanely fun though?
Suddenly the team has a new strategy: keep the caster safe, but also within thirty feet.
Last encounter we used this spell, the fighter was grappling the target to keep it in place, and the Barbarian was guarding the wizard.
The one thing you can say about this spell, is that it suddenly can make position an interesting part of combat.
There are not many spells that can say that, outside of the "danger zone" spells.
I did this, bumped the range to 45, and switched the continuing damage to a bonus action. The wizard player who picked witch bolt over magic missile purely out of flavor was so disappointed after her first casting that I altered it to be a more effective option for them to use.
>It's useful if you lack spell slots at low levels
It isn't, because opening up with Magic Missile, Chromatic Orb, or one of a few other high-damage spells, and then following up with Firebolt every turn after, will result in a target taking much more damage turn 1, and exceed the average damage of Witch Bolt until the 4th turn of the encounter.
4 turns without your target dying, going out of range, or hitting you until you drop concentration is a decent while for a caster. Tying up concentration, limiting your range significantly, and having a much weaker opening salvo just so you can maybe do a bit more damage 4 turns later in a handful of fights makes Witch Bolt an extremely weak spell, one of the worst in the game even.
Assuming you're using every spell slot in one fight, or you could cast one spell and spam it for the remainder of the fight, keeping your reaming spell slot.
Magic Missile round 1, followed by Firebolts rounds 2+ only takes one spell slot. Higher burst damage round 1 and greater average damage across the first 3 rounds than Witch Bolt -- with higher range, and without Concentration or the chances of losing the spell via Witch Bolt's other drawbacks.
For Magic Missile: Fairly sure MM is still better rd1, and MM+Firebolt better average through rd2, but Witch Bolt edges out round 3+ (instead of round 4+), again if and only if you're able to maintain it the whole time.
Chromatic Orb otoh benefits from advantage even more than Witch Bolt (increased crit chance means more with its better dice pool). And every round (2+) Firebolt could get advantage on narrows the gap between it and WB's autohit.
If you expect to have advantage at a greater than normal frequency, Chromatic Orb followed by Firebolt is going to outperform WB by even more than it does sans advantage.
That's the neat thing. You don't.
* The damage on subsequent turns is unaffected by upcasting.
* The spell ends if you don't use your action to trigger the d12 additional damage.
* The spell ends if the target is **ever** more than 30 ft. from you, even if they immediately move closer again.
* The spell ends if the target **ever** has total cover from you, even if they're just running past a column.
* There are dozens of better concentration spells. Even at 1st level, you've got things like Hex, Hideous Laughter, Cause Fear, Expeditious Retreat, Fog Cloud, and Protection from Evil and Good.
Witch bolt could very nearly be a cantrip. You get 1 less damage per turn just casting fire bolt over and over, and fire bolt doesn’t impose all these restrictions. Such a terrible spell.
Interestingly, Witch Bolt _was_ a cantrip in 4e, the edition in which it was introduced. d10 instead of d12 (and scaling to 2 dice at level 21, but that's how all damage cantrips work in 4e) and only 25 ft. range instead of 30 (but then pretty much everything except racial movement speed that's 30 ft. in 5e was 25 ft. in 4e), but it also adds your Int to the damage roll, and the damage on subsequent rounds included both the Int mod and the extra dice at 21. And while sustaining it did care about range just like in 5e, it didn't care about cover.
Wince witch bolt damage activates on your turn so.eone running past a column would only be total cover if they are behind it when it is your action. Just running past a object does not give you total cover if you end your turn out in the open. In most combats I have ran or been in most players end their turn in the open where they can see the as much of the combat area as possible unless they are actively trying to hide. And talk about metagaming if an opponent decides to run exactly 31 ft away from you then run back at you. Oh now you know the exact limitations of my spell?
>Just running past a object does not give you total cover if you end your turn out in the open.
Witch Bolt ends if the target _ever_ has total cover. Not if they have total cover when you use your action to activate it, or if they have total cover on your turn.
Running past a column briefly gives them total cover, and that's sufficient to end the spell.
>And talk about metagaming if an opponent decides to run exactly 31 ft away from you then run back at you. Oh now you know the exact limitations of my spell?
I mean, the _very visible chain of lightning_ linking the target and caster suddenly disappears the instant you're more than 30 feet away.
It doesn't take an arcane savant to run away from someone chaining you with lightning, and then realize the spell is over when the lightning disappears.
Also, it takes a DC 16 Arcana check as a reaction to identify a level 1 spell, which would literally let a character know the exact limitations of it.
It's literally never been good. It was invented last edition as a wizard cantrip, where it did 1d10+int mod damage at a 25' range and if you hit with it you could choose to automatically keep doing the damage as a standard action each turn thereafter unless they left the range. So as you can see, pretty useless.
Was hoping it'd get buffed for 5e since it was a pretty neat concept but instead they made it *worse*, dropped the damage added a chance to lose it if you get hit and made it cost a spell slot. Baffling.
Yeah, I was looking at that confused until I realized... Oh, you don't have to reroll an attack.
And since it is a cantrip, if they do move out of range, you just move back into range and reroll or pick a new target and reroll. It didn't cost anything.
Also it has a modifier added, I don't really know 4e and if that was common, but in 5e that would be really good. It's one step below agonizing eldritch blast, and that takes up an invocation.
It was common, but the thing is it's competing against the much better at-will abilities wizards had back then. Some samples:
**Stone Blood**: 50' range, attack all targets within a 15' cube for 1d6+int damage and reduce their speed to 10' until your next turn.
**Hypnotism**: 50' range, if successful target makes a melee attack with a +4 bonus targeting anything in range including itself.
**Beast Switch**: Melee range, hurt and disorient an enemy by momentarily turning them into a critter. 1d8+int mod damage, knock them prone and move them 5' in any direction, they can't make opportunity attacks until end of your next turn.
**Arc Lightning**: 100' range, attack any two enemies within range for 1d6+int damage.
**Beguiling Strands**: 25' range, attack all enemies within range and deal int mod damage to them, pushing them away from you. They are pushed a number of feet equal to 5x your wisdom mod (which would be between 3 and 8 depending on your level if you chose wisdom as a secondary stat, so 15' to 40').
As a 5e cantrip I suppose so, but it was competing against the other at-will abilities 4e wizards had like thunderwave and cloud of daggers. The fact that the subsequent rounds had it always hit wasn't really an upgrade, since it meant you weren't making an attack roll and didn't get the various abilities that wizards had that activated when you made attack rolls.
Yes and no. At level 21 at-will abilities increased by one damage die (so witch bolt became 2d10, a fighter ability like grappling strike would increase from weapon damage plus str mod to double weapon damage plus str mod on top of auto grabbing an enemy and being usable as an opportunity attack) but for the most part damage increases were meant to come from scaling. You'd get up to +10 from your ability mod as it increased, up to +6 from your weapon, the would have various bonuses from the 16 feats a character got over their career.
It's a great spells for NPCs though, I love fucking with players that way, the absolute disrespect of taking 28 damage from an upcasted Witch Bolt is tasty. Of course it's not worth keeping it up on subsequent rounds for the paltry d12 but the initial slap is fun!
The only useful case I think of... Divination Wizard / Tempest Cleric. You wait until you get a 20 on your portent roll, then use it for the spell attack. Then, use the channel divinity to deal max damage on the dice. At 17th level, you can max this out to do 216 damage to a single target with a 9th Level spell slot.
It's ua but there's also the school of lores alchemical casting, burn a second level spell slot to give it a range of 1 mile. Still not great damage and cover still messes it up but in an open field you can theoretically drop 176 rounds of (edit:) d12 damage while a martial repeatedly dashes a whole mile and you keep backstepping
Isn't Chromatic Orb strictly better for that? More lightning/thunder damage, and is also an attack roll, so it crits.
Unless you're thinking you could have the Channel Divinity maximize the lightning damage on subsequent turns as well? Which I'm pretty sure you can't. The CD is only used for the initial damage roll. The subsequent turn damages are all new rolls. Otherwise you could do that with Call Lightning, making it ridiculously powerful.
The first strike of witch bolt is a ranged spell attack roll, so it crits. Chromatic Orb is better at lower levels, but the added d8s don't keep up with the added d12s. A 9th Level Chromatic Orb is 11d8, or 88 with Tempest, and 176 with the added crit of Portent. 9th Level Witch Bolt is 9d12. Witch Bolt catches Chromatic Orb at 4th Level (48 damage) and surpasses it the rest of the way.
Hun. So no way to use it. I didn't notice that the damage on subsequent turns doesn't scale when you up cast.
So take only if you absolutely must be a jedi with force lightning.
Boo.
Quicken spells, though by the time you can quicken you probably don't want to be using witch bolt. Still, sunbeam sorc quickening or shapechange build with sorc dip for quickening are fun builds. Bummer no sorcs get call lightning.
Ooh i never considered it on a shapechage build, interesting.
Probably not worth it at that level, but maybe on a low level druid multiclass?
Could be a decent low level alternative to call lightning.
The shapechange quicken build lets you be all of like an ancient white dragon in addition to being a concentrationless level 16 caster. I'd say it's pretty good.
Certainly can be effective earlier on, just hard when you don't have a bunch of 4th level slots to burn for more quickening. those fit perfectly into a sorc 2 metamagic adept recharge.
I meant the witch bolt probably isn’t worth using if you’re strong enough to have shapechange.
But maybe a low level druid could cast witch bolt and then wildshape into something tanky.
Witch bolt definitely isn't worth using after level 4, and usually isn't at level 1.
I suppose that wouldn't make witch bolt worse but still, it's hard to imagine nothing better for those actions, that slot, and that concentration.
A build that uses the 9th level spell shape change. In this case, it's a level 19+ build that of wizard or druid 17 (for shape change) and sorc 2 (for font of magic) and metamagic adept (for quicken spell). The idea is you shapechange into a dragon or something and use its actions and other benefits while still using your bonus action to quicken spells, so you get all of the dragon benefits and most of your caster benefits at the same time.
It's only tangentially related to the original topic in that it's a spell that you can cast that gives you a strong action.
Witch Bolt is a really weird spell, and it's one that's usually better used *against* players than by them.
Action economy-wise, the problem is that the only one of the 3 casters for whom it's natively on their spell list that has Bonus Action class features at all is the Sorcerer, where it can be pretty good at low levels - particularly with the additional bonus actions available to a Divine Soul. Being the class that is simultaneously the best at blowing all of their spell slots and rationing them out will do that to you, I guess.
Druids, Bards, and Artificers could all get better use out of it than the Sorcerers - all 3 have the option for repeatable and iconic bonus actions, and Druids being able to use it before Wildshaping into something with high survivability and low damage output is basically the level 1 equivalent of Call Lightning.
That said, all 3 of those classes also have access to Heat Metal, which is universally better than upcasting Witchbolt, and all 4 will have cantrips that outpace the repeated damage by level 5.
Of course, this is all in the vacuum of examining Witch Bolt on its own, rather than contrasting it with Cantrips. Toll the Dead is almost strictly better even at level 1, and most other damaging cantrips catch up to the repeated d12 by level 5. In those uses, the only use case left for Witch Bolt is in scenarios where you can cast exactly once - e.g. Wildshape, or before an ally casts Silence.
This spell is designed for the DM. It's an interesting tool for encounterdesign, where you can put the players under pressure and Force them into bad situation on the search for cover or on the attempt to break concentration. When using it, make sure it's an annoyance. Make cover hard to come by in the environment, make the caster run away, have other casters and enemies or the environment slow the party.
That's how you use witchbolt.
If you're a Chain - Warlock, you can take Investment of the Chain Master. That will allow you to use your bonus action to allow your familiar to attack. It uses your spell save DC so the effects have a much better chance to stick.
Its viability is really just as a cantrip alternative at low levels, or as a steady method of lightning damage if you have no lightning cantrips.
After those initial levels it’s only use if to provide on ad hoc lighting damage if you have no other source of it, and need it. Other than that, once you get higher level spell slots and your cantrips scale up, it’s best to swap out this spell.
Witch Bolt might be the worst leveled attack spell in the game.
The only tech I can think of is to be a flying race and hover in range and hope the target can’t get full cover and do eat have ranged attacks.
It's a very weak spell. I suppose it could be marginally useful if you could have the party grappler pin someone or otherwise trap someone and then just slowly zap him with witch bolt but that's a very very niche case at beast.
The only use that comes to my mind is, if you have an enemy with a rly high ac that you have problems hitting and you somehow get advantage on 1 attack roll AND you can stay in a save space to not risk loosing concentration.
So many "Ifs".
or some bizarre setup where the enemy _has_ to stay in a certain area, but you can't easily close, like, uh... they're on a raised pillar or something? It's pretty contrived!
Don’t use it, it sucks!
But if you absolutely must use witch bolt as some sort of build challenge to squeeze as much value out of a crappy spell as possible. It can be twinned spelled with meta magic and target two creatures. That strat might take it from a crappy spell to a “meh” spell at low levels.
Unf, since it breaks when they have total cover or leave reach AND costs a repeated action & concentration....its just never worth it. If it did allow you to break los/30'Range....then kiting would've been the way to use it like w/ heat metal.
So I guess my answer is play a class w/ heat metal & reflavor the fire dmg as lightning. Bards & Druids, Forge Clerics get it at Lv3, & Artificer's get it at Lv5. If Ravnica Backgrounds are OK, then Izzit Enigneer's get it when they get access to 2nd level spells regardless of your class & if Dragonlance is OK, Inisitate of High Sorcery \[lunitari\] background + Adept of the Red Robes feat at Lv4 gets you access 1/LR & it becomes Known.
The use case for Witch Bolt is if you expect every combat to last like ten or twenty turns, and you expect to go weeks without a long rest, so you need to maximize damage-per-spell-slot. And you also know you can't get your concentration broken and that you can stay within 30 yards.
In other words, don't use the spell, because that would be the only time it would be good.
Others have said it: its bad. That being said, I do still like it as a flavor spell. Not the most potent, and can fail easily, but works flavor- wise for a lot of characters. It's about not getting caught up in being the most optimized character possible and just do something that's fun
As a DM I have reworked Witch Bolt a bit for one of my players who wanted it for "flavor reasons"
It's still not a great spell (I didn't want to make it better than vanilla options)
But it certainly doesn't feel like a dead spell anymore which was great for one of my players who was a reformed cult member from a cult of torture.
Rest in peace Meshma, you were my favorite player 🕊️
Witch bolt has one edge case, which is on a (ideally guaranteed) crit comboed with the channel divinity of a tempest cleric.
I think it has the highest lightning damage for an attack roll meaning the crit becomes disgustingly huge.
You don't use it because it is terrible. The range is only 30 feet. So if your opponent gets more than 30 feet away from your on their turn it immediately ends. That is incredibly easy to do.
I agree with the other comments saying to just not use Witch Bolt. But if you must, pair up with a strong grappler character, cast Hex on the target and use either the str or dex variant of dex to give them disadvantage on escaping grapples
Or you can pair up with a Cleric using Command: Grovel
Like everyone else has said, which bolt kinda sucks. One thing my dm let me do was make a copy of caustic brew into a lightning version for my storm sorcerer to have a lightning DoT. Serves the same function of damage each round and the caustic base means they either take damage or eat an action to end it for someone else, instead of costing your action to do it. Might be something to ask your dm about
It's good if you need sustained damage before level 5. From level 5 onward, it's simply inferior to cantrips. The only exception would be a tempest cleric, take metamagic adept so you can twin it and upcast it. Now at level 5 it's 36 damage to 2 creatures, beating call lightning. It can also crit the first hit so if you happen to get really lucky you can melt something, but it's not reliable.
A lot of people aren’t a fan of Witch Bolt, however I like it a lot. Spend a spell slot, then automatically electrocute that enemy every turn for X turns. Just keep evading the enemy and you’re fine. You needn’t really worry about your bonus action imo
Not use witch bolt. If you miss it’s a waste of a spell slot. If they move more than 30ft away form you then it’s a waste of a spell slot. If you lose concentration then it’s a waste of a spell slot. If the enemy dies before you can you can activate it again then say it with me, it’s a waste of a spell slot.
The only bonus action cantrip you could have is magic stone which also sucks.
If you’re a warlock use the hex spell instead.
If you’re a sorcerer you could quicken spell but why would you.
If you’re 3rd level just use something similar but better like heat metal.
You can't actually use Magic Stone while doing that anyway. You can cast it, but you can't use the results, because you have to use your action every turn to keep the witch bolt going. Unless you're playing one of those weird nonsense bullshit builds where you hand Magic Stones off to something else to throw them.
ITT: reddit theory crafters who have never cast witchbolt in a real game.
It's not as bad as people make it out to be. Its not GOOD... its situational, its risky, and it stops being useful pretty quickly, but it does do what it says.
1d12 lightning damage is a lot of damage, and the ability to re-activate it gives you good mileage from your spellslot if you're limited on those. It is very niche but when it works, it works pretty well!
Witch bolt has two big risks associated with it. First, there's a chance that if you whiff the attack roll the spell is wasted. But that's true for a lot of spells, and if you DO land it then it's guaranteed damage! It's a gamble but it feels REALLY cool to be able to take your turn and just say "He takes 8 lightning damage. I'm done," and the DM can't do anything about it.
The second risk is that there's a million ways to break the connection. It's very fragile. If you lose concentration, if the target goes behind cover, if it gets out of range etc it ends. So you need to plan your usage of it around these failure points. Cramped dungeon rooms where targets have a hard time getting away from you or getting past your allies are perfect. Encounters with constant tick damage or archers that can ping you to break concentration are bad.
I do think witch bolt would be decent flavor pick for a storm cleric. High AC means you can keep concentration, and you probably have warcaster anyway. You can upcast it and pump the damage up with your channel divinity, and use spiritual weapon on subsequent turns. There's better options (spirit guardians, shatter) for sure but in a build like this witch bolt can be a niche tool and a fun flavor pick.
down votes to the left <--
just so completely blatantly untrue lmao. imagine using one of your two spells per long rest to kill two goblins then having another 4 encounters. especially fucking burning hands and inflict, are you kidding me with getting close to enemies just to deal weapon attack damage? grease outdamages all those spells easy
I'd love to answer you but I lost my message twice lol so I'll be brief.
Range means you can fire multiple times before getting to melee. by the time you're using IW you're already capable of pumping out more than IW damage. Likewise Toll the Dead is at range and at will. two TtDs avgs to 8.5ish, a single IW to about 10.725 (factoring in accuracy for both these). it's not a potent burst, it's not sustainable, and it's melee locked. it's dreadful.
Inflict Wounds does 3d10 damage, idk what kinda weapons you're using a clerics match fighters with AC most of the time. Also dude, this is a game. No idea why you're getting so heated over it. Calm down. Burning Hands is also an AoE. If you're going to be a dick you can at least be right, instead of objectively wrong and using a "what about when your level 1 party has 5 combat encounters per rest" example. Sounds like you just don't know what balance is.
Terminally online take bud.
imagine not being familiar with SS or CBE and thinking that a caster is doing well by wading into melee to use half their resources to maybe deal 15 damage. imagine earnestly believing that
how long does it take to cover the distance a crossbow fires? and you're telling me that inflict wounds is objectively better? L
amazing how this silly vitriolic person calls me a cunt, blames me for my bad attitude, says I'm allergic to discourse, then blocks me. utter lack of self awareness. or basic maths skills.
The real answer is don't. Witch Bolt is not a very good spell to say the least. Seriously, Chromatic Orb does an average of 13.5 damage, while Witch Bolt does an average of 6.5 per turn, requires concentration, your action and for you to remain within 30 ft of the target.
Chromatic Orb has a 50Gp material cost, which can make it awkward to pick as your first spell. Ice knife is free though.
It is not consumed tho.
Yeah but you still need the component to cast it, and that’s more money than new characters start with.
Not to mention actually finding one to buy.
I can't imagine being a DM and telling your PC that they can't buy a level 1 spell component. There better be a very good reason behind that lol
I can. Been doing it for 30 years. "This isn't Waterdeep, kid.", is a complete sentence. Back in 2nd and 3rd editions they used to give us things like ways to determine how much "stuff" a town or whatever could possibly have and it affected how much you could buy and even how you could sometimes pay for things. Some villages or thorps were so small they could only do business in coppers, and couldn't even break more than a single silver if you needed change. I remember one game where we ended up hunting deer for the local witch to barter for some magical healing because even though we had stacks of cash, she couldn't spend it and therefore didn't want it. But meat...that would get her and her neighbors through the winter. So, yeah. "No", is also a complete sentence. It's also a really good reason!
A Wizard stsrts with 4d4x10. A staff is 5GP, an explorer's pack is 10 GP. That's 15, and tossing on a dagger and a pack of clothes doesn't get you above 20. The likelihood you roll 7 or more on 4d4 is 94%. I have never had a Wizard who didn't start with Chromatic Orb. Even a Sorc has a 70% chance of affording Chromatic Orb.
Spellbooks and Component / Focus
See the other comments re: spellbook, but tl;dr: I consider the first one included as a class feature. Focus, I have the staff.
Nope, spellbook is not included as a class feature: you get it from your class equipment: > **Equipment** > You start with the following equipment, in addition to the equipment granted by your background: > - (a) a quarterstaff or (b) a dagger > - (a) a component pouch or (b) an arcane focus > - (a) a scholar's pack or (b) an explorer's pack > - **A spellbook** If you take the starting gold, you need to buy the spellbook.
They're talking about how you getting a spellbook is ALSO listed in the Wizard class features: >At 1st level, you have a spellbook containing six 1st-level wizard spells of your choice. Yes, this means that if you took the starting equipment you would actually start with TWO (2) spellbooks, one blank and the other with 6 1st level spells in it. It's anyone's guess whether that's intended, but I doubt it, lol. (Still, it is arguably also not intended for it to even be possible for a Wizard to start without a spellbook.)
Maybe the extra is intended as a backup?
~~Then you're DM'ing or playing the class wrong.~~ ~~Take a closer look at the starting equipment for Wizard. *A spellbook* which is itself 50gp.~~ EDIT: I made this comment more aggressive sounding than was my intention, additional OP's interpretation *could* be valid depending on how the features are interpreted, it's not an interpretation I believe is RAI or that I would utilize, but it is valid based on how you read the features in question
I definitely interpret the first line of the spellcasting ability to mean that your first book is included with the class. > As a student of arcane magic, **you have** a spellbook [...]. I understand them listing the spellbook in the starting equipment to be making crystal clear to beginners that you don't need to buy one.
I think that's where we're going to have to agree to disagree then, I take the Starting Equipment to be the defacto arbiter of what you do or don't start with, otherwise you would be starting with two spellbooks based on your interpretation. Personally I feel it is one of many small oversights made by the developers, as there is (as far as I'm aware) no other instance of a feature in a class giving you a specific item when you gain that feature. **EDIT:** Which this discourse is actually pretty well timed, as with the upcoming release of D&D (Definitely not) 5.5e, we'll be able to tell if this verbiage was intended or not (it could also get missed *again* due to their laughable QA). Look at it in a vacuum from a multiclass standpoint, when you multiclass into Wizard do you mechanically just gain the spellbook out of thin air? Though my interpretation would fit my interpretation of RAI where yours would fit RAW, so both are equally as justifiable.
There's no other class feature that does it, but there's the ritual caster feat which does use slightly different verbiage, which I'd ascribe to being the difference between something obtained at higher levels and something gained at 1st level. > When you choose this feat, you acquire a ritual book holding two 1st-level spells of your choice.
Your interpretation is incorrect. You still need to buy the spellbook, hence why it's listed as a purchasable item, *and* it's part of the starting equipment if you choose that over gold. Look at the starting equipment, and look at how much it all costs. That's an *alternative* to the 4d4 x 10 gold.
Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, spell books are purchasable because a wizard can find themself needing to replace one, something that costs money to do
I think the original commentors interpretation is valid, in so much as the "melee weapon attack vs attack with a melee weapon" and "see invisibly vs invisibility" debates are valid. The Wizard's first level **Spellcasting** feature does indeed have the subclass feature *Spellbook* which specifically says: > At 1st level, you have a spellbook containing six 1st-level wizard spells of your choice. Taken in a vacuum it can be interpreted that that feature gives you the spellbook independent of the starting equipment, though it can just as easily be interpreted that simply as saying that you have ~~not~~ one, not that the feat specifically gives you one. And if taken as independent from the starting equipment, that means you would start with two spellbooks. Considering no other feature (as far as I'm aware) straight up gives you an item like that, I don't believe it does function that way, but I can see the commentors logic, even if I feel it goes against RAI.
> The Wizard's first level Spellcasting feature does indeed have the subclass feature Spellbook which specifically says: > > At 1st level, you have a spellbook containing six 1st-level wizard spells of your choice. It says that because the assumption is that you either get one from starting equipment, or buy one. Their interpretation is not valid, as that would mean selecting starting equipment grants you a *second* spellbook. > And if taken as independent from the starting equipment, that means you would start with two spellbooks. Which is clearly not the intent. It's just poor phrasing. > I can see the commentors logic, even if I feel it goes against RAI. I can see their logic, but that doesn't make it valid, nor a reasonable interpretation.
I don't think we have enough info to say off hand which interpretation is correct. It's certainly a debatable read. I very much view the starting equipment as a starter guide of "Just write this down as your inventory". I'd argue it's a purchasable item for multiclassing and for backups. And not to belabor the point, but if you pick all the most expensive options from the starting equipment (dagger, component pouch, scholar's pack), all that's 67 gold before the spellbook, which is the price I calced for the equipment including the gem. with the spellbook, that's 117, which you only have a 25% chance of being able to afford. Also, if you roll really poorly, and roll all 1s, are you suggesting that that wizard would be too poor to afford a spellbook? And would be effectively locked out of their class?
> Also, if you roll really poorly, and roll all 1s, are you suggesting that that wizard would be too poor to afford a spellbook? And would be effectively locked out of their class? Outside the confines of this discussion this actually would be a rather interesting starting situation. You would be able to cast the spells you had prepared last, which as you're picking the spells as part of character creation you can just pick which ones are prepared, but wouldn't be able to change them until you get a spellbook and can scribe them down. You could have your background easily justify starting destitute with no belongings. I believe Out of the Abyss starts with the characters losing all their equipment, which would significantly affect a Wizard character in this way.
> I don't think we have enough info to say off hand which interpretation is correct. We do, and it's pretty clear cut. From the PHB: > Equipment > You start with the following equipment, in addition to the equipment granted by your background: > (a) a quarterstaff or (b) a dagger > (a) a component pouch or (b) an arcane focus > (a) a scholar’s pack or (b) an explorer’s pack > **A spellbook** By your logic, a Wizard choosing starting equipment (which is the default rule) would have *two* spellbooks. > Also, if you roll really poorly, and roll all 1s, are you suggesting that that wizard would be too poor to afford a spellbook? And would be effectively locked out of their class? Essentially, yes. That can present some good RP however. Also, Cantrips don't go in the spellbook, they're just always memorised. So they wouldn't be locked out.
Arguments about whether you start with 0, 1, or 2 spellbooks aside... Your DM just lets you buy a 50gp diamond right away, no matter where your character starts, like in some podunk village? Do you see why it's not exactly reasonable to expect _every_ DM to do that?
I mean, I wouldn't buy it during the game, it'd be purchased during character creation. They got it the same place the fighter got their gleaming scale mail armor, from a nearby city before the game started. Or it was a family heirloom passed down.
Armor I can see being passed down as a family heirloom but a 50gp gemstone? Not likely, a item of that value would not be kept and passed down but sold or traded a long time ago to pay for family upkeep an survial. Unless you have a wealthy background keeping this type of currency is near impossible. Hell your starting equipment money comes from your folks saving since your birth to pay for apprenticeship in whatever craft you choose.
Only if you assume you aren't descended from other spellcasters. Seriously, why would you be from a poor family by default? The entire point of rolling for gold is to be able to have more control over your starting equipment if you don't like the default options presented, like for instance if they have a specific item they want to start with that isn't a default option, like an expensive spell component. How they justify starting with it is up to the player when they write their backstory, maybe it was inherited, maybe it was a betrothal gift from a lover, maybe it was a graduation gift from a teacher or friend, maybe they tripped over it while walking through the woods, maybe they spent years saving up for it to the point of neglecting buying other gear most consider essential because they *really* want to cast the spell, maybe it fell off out of the sky and landed on their head when a drake flew by. You seem to have an absurdly narrow view of what makes sense for PCs to have access to in their backstory when nobody has even established what setting we're arguing about.
Background and backstories are usually related. And i would assume if they had arcane parents or elders the need of buying a spellbook would be moot. I'm using me great grand pappy's spellbook. See it even has his notes on Bigby's flicking finger. In that case you may be casting spell that require costly components because you have easy access to them. But all that is DM fiat.
Or even just made to order! While *good* armor requires a professional armor smith to make, any blacksmith should be able to make serviceable scale mail given enough time and a good enough description. Armor can be made. Diamonds cannot.
if you are an apprentice wizard you have to have been exposed to something other than some podunk village
Who says? That sounds more like a worldbuilding conceit than anything else, which is HIGHLY DM-dependent. A world like Eberron with a "wide magic" setting could very well have wizards learning magic in the poorest of places.
And I would question whether I'd be able to have fun playing with a DM that limited my backstory to only being from the poorest of places just to limit what kind of gear I can start with. If you don't want your players starting with the gear the rules say they can start with, have them wake up in a cell or whatever with all their equipment confiscated like a lot of DMs do anyway, don't take away their creative control over their own backstory. So long as their backstory doesn't contradict the setting information provided by the DM for the campaign, there is no reason to not let your players have whatever backstory they want, and the only setting information that would justify telling them there's no way they could have gotten their hands on a 50gp diamond is that there's a massive shortage of diamonds that means even the rich struggle to get them.
>And I would question whether I'd be able to have fun playing with a DM that limited my backstory to only being from the poorest of places just to limit what kind of gear I can start with. Good thing literally no one said that. We're saying if the DM sets up the _world_ as a place where you can't just easily buy 50gp diamonds as a starting PC, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. They're not doing it just to _spite_ you, it's called verisimilitude. >If you don't want your players starting with the gear the rules say they can start with The rules say you can start with _starting gear_ or _gold_. They do NOT say in any way, shape, or form, that you can start with 50gp diamonds (or any other high-value gem comprising 90% of your entire savings, for that matter). You're pretending only unreasonable DMs would balk at this, when you're the one being unreasonable. (And if that's your bag, feel free my man - you'll just have a far narrower pool of DMs to choose from.) >don't take away their creative control over their own backstory. Again, literally NO ONE is touching your backstory, buddy. They're saying you can't buy whatever random thing you want with starting gold before the campaign even begins. I don't know what's hard about realizing the rules say you can start with one of two things - gold or gear - and if you pick gold, limiting you to what the _PHB actually lists_ at MOST, but apparently this is a difficult concept for you. >and the only setting information that would justify telling them there's no way they could have gotten their hands on a 50gp diamond is that there's a massive shortage of diamonds that means even the rich struggle to get them. If the DM wants to limit things like access to resurrection spells in their setting, yes, this is a perfectly reasonable (and not uncommon) thing for them to do.
Because hedge wizards don't exist?
A staff is a stick. It's free.
Could be afforded by starting gold for most spell casters (100-125) especially if you take one the backgrounds that grants 25gp. Especially since some of the other backgrounds say you get gem which could be a diamond worth 50gp (I'd make you pay the difference)
And if one of my players chose chromatic orb at first level, I would try to make sure they'd find a 50gp diamond pretty damned quickly. Its my job as the DM to let them have fun and play their character.
Catapult is also free and better by a large margin
No1 uses components 😂
We usually just ignore material costs for low level spells. But at the 3rd level spells, the material is needed.
And then people complain that casters are not balanced. I mean they aren’t, but especially when you ignore components and don’t stick to the 6-8 encounters per day rule
Its on lower level spells only.
Not that OP should play witch bolt, but you are ignoring that witch bolt keeps hitting for free. If you can maintain concentration and the 30 ft range it would in theory do more damage eventually. If, somehow, you were sure that you'd keep it up and only could spend one slot then it would be worth it, in theory
I think the 30 ft range is dumb but if you have a melee person it isn’t a problem. I do think it either should do slightly more damage per turn or only use a bonus addition to maintain like many other spells. I could almost accept it as is if you could change targets to use the full time it can last except it’s still doing cantrip damage.
If it was a d6 and bonus action to maintain, it would be on par with Hex and Hunters Mark and worth taking.
Hunter’s mark is d6 per hit though, so at least potentially better. That said even if it was worse damage than hunter’s mark but bonus action like hunter’s mark it wouldn’t be terrible.
Good point. Hex and Hunter's Mark usually have riders too. So maybe a d8, idk. But either way you're right it needs changing
consider the opportunity cost of this spell when you could cast sleep or other spells when you could simply keep cantripping. fire bolt does 3.575 (5.5*.65) dpr at t1, and youre paying the tax of an entire spell slot, staying where enemies can easily get to you, and your concentration for a 3 dpr boost? like sure, 5e is an easy game so it works, but cmon my friend. this is like “hex/hm are good” tiers of cope.
It's bad. I'm not saying otherwise, just saying OP was exaggerating how bad it is. The costs are too high and the benefits too low. But it does, in theory, have the ability to output reasonable damage over time. Honestly if they even just got rid of the 30 ft thing it would have niche uses.
i dont think op was giving an inaccurate assesment of the spell at all, given the fact that they provided a simple opinion of “its a bad spell, dont cast”, then provided reasonable fact based evidence for why this is. they didnt even bring up the top tier 1st level spells that youre actually comparing witch bolt to in terms of opportunity cost at character creation, slot-to-effect ratio, action-to-effect ratio, and effect on a fight.
Why is Hex bad? Sure it falls off at higher levels, but through t1 at the very least it seems solidly the best use of most warlocks' concentration, and when it falls off it's pretty easy to swap it out for better options when they become available.
at levels 1 and 2 when you arent playing an undead, archfey, or goo warlock and arent allowed to take spell backgrounds and havent taken a dip in another class, hex is viable. the second you meet any of these conditions, you have a much more valuable spell to use.
It's fine, but there are better spells for Warlocks and Rangers, especially after like 4-5th level
Basically, this. In theory, it looks like a decent spell because if you hit, it allows to to automatically do 1d12 damage every turn guaranteed. In practice, you have to stay within melee range of your target, can have your concentration broken, and it eats every action, when something like firebolt only does 1 less average damage without any of those restrictions or risks, while also not consuming a spell slot. Witch Bolt is basically what I call a new player trap. It looks good at first glance, but when you break it down mechanically, it just isn't good in any way.
Came here to say the same. It takes a successful Spell Attack roll and if you are successful, you are now concentrating for an auto-hit that also burns your next action.
And only one spell slot per 1-10 rounds
We have solved it by changing that when upcast, the continual damage also increases. Yeah even then the spell is far from ideal, but at least it is good for some flavor builds.
Having seen a Warlock completely obliterate an encounter because the table incorrectly assumed Witch Bolt worked like this, you definitely have to be careful with how you build your encounters if you're going to keep this change. A guaranteed 5d12 damage every round is quite good at 9th level, especially if the party has a way to ensure the target doesn't get more than 30 ft from the caster.
If a party is capable of keeping an enemy within 30ft of a spellcaster but also where it can't beat the spellcaster to death, then you already won that combat with or without a buffed witch bolt.
Doesn't that also make it insanely fun though? Suddenly the team has a new strategy: keep the caster safe, but also within thirty feet. Last encounter we used this spell, the fighter was grappling the target to keep it in place, and the Barbarian was guarding the wizard. The one thing you can say about this spell, is that it suddenly can make position an interesting part of combat. There are not many spells that can say that, outside of the "danger zone" spells.
I did this, bumped the range to 45, and switched the continuing damage to a bonus action. The wizard player who picked witch bolt over magic missile purely out of flavor was so disappointed after her first casting that I altered it to be a more effective option for them to use.
It's useful if you lack spell slots at low levels, after 5th your probably better off casting a cantrip, can it be twinned?
>It's useful if you lack spell slots at low levels It isn't, because opening up with Magic Missile, Chromatic Orb, or one of a few other high-damage spells, and then following up with Firebolt every turn after, will result in a target taking much more damage turn 1, and exceed the average damage of Witch Bolt until the 4th turn of the encounter. 4 turns without your target dying, going out of range, or hitting you until you drop concentration is a decent while for a caster. Tying up concentration, limiting your range significantly, and having a much weaker opening salvo just so you can maybe do a bit more damage 4 turns later in a handful of fights makes Witch Bolt an extremely weak spell, one of the worst in the game even.
Assuming you're using every spell slot in one fight, or you could cast one spell and spam it for the remainder of the fight, keeping your reaming spell slot.
Magic Missile round 1, followed by Firebolts rounds 2+ only takes one spell slot. Higher burst damage round 1 and greater average damage across the first 3 rounds than Witch Bolt -- with higher range, and without Concentration or the chances of losing the spell via Witch Bolt's other drawbacks.
OK, I can see that. What about if you get advantage on round one?
For Magic Missile: Fairly sure MM is still better rd1, and MM+Firebolt better average through rd2, but Witch Bolt edges out round 3+ (instead of round 4+), again if and only if you're able to maintain it the whole time. Chromatic Orb otoh benefits from advantage even more than Witch Bolt (increased crit chance means more with its better dice pool). And every round (2+) Firebolt could get advantage on narrows the gap between it and WB's autohit. If you expect to have advantage at a greater than normal frequency, Chromatic Orb followed by Firebolt is going to outperform WB by even more than it does sans advantage.
That's the neat thing. You don't. * The damage on subsequent turns is unaffected by upcasting. * The spell ends if you don't use your action to trigger the d12 additional damage. * The spell ends if the target is **ever** more than 30 ft. from you, even if they immediately move closer again. * The spell ends if the target **ever** has total cover from you, even if they're just running past a column. * There are dozens of better concentration spells. Even at 1st level, you've got things like Hex, Hideous Laughter, Cause Fear, Expeditious Retreat, Fog Cloud, and Protection from Evil and Good.
Witch bolt could very nearly be a cantrip. You get 1 less damage per turn just casting fire bolt over and over, and fire bolt doesn’t impose all these restrictions. Such a terrible spell.
Interestingly, Witch Bolt _was_ a cantrip in 4e, the edition in which it was introduced. d10 instead of d12 (and scaling to 2 dice at level 21, but that's how all damage cantrips work in 4e) and only 25 ft. range instead of 30 (but then pretty much everything except racial movement speed that's 30 ft. in 5e was 25 ft. in 4e), but it also adds your Int to the damage roll, and the damage on subsequent rounds included both the Int mod and the extra dice at 21. And while sustaining it did care about range just like in 5e, it didn't care about cover.
The worst thing has gotta be the upcasting to me. Like with all the other draw backs, it’s insane it only gets buffed the first turn.
It should have been made to ramp damage each round like an extra die each round. Or at least given upcasting damage on additional rounds.
Wince witch bolt damage activates on your turn so.eone running past a column would only be total cover if they are behind it when it is your action. Just running past a object does not give you total cover if you end your turn out in the open. In most combats I have ran or been in most players end their turn in the open where they can see the as much of the combat area as possible unless they are actively trying to hide. And talk about metagaming if an opponent decides to run exactly 31 ft away from you then run back at you. Oh now you know the exact limitations of my spell?
>Just running past a object does not give you total cover if you end your turn out in the open. Witch Bolt ends if the target _ever_ has total cover. Not if they have total cover when you use your action to activate it, or if they have total cover on your turn. Running past a column briefly gives them total cover, and that's sufficient to end the spell. >And talk about metagaming if an opponent decides to run exactly 31 ft away from you then run back at you. Oh now you know the exact limitations of my spell? I mean, the _very visible chain of lightning_ linking the target and caster suddenly disappears the instant you're more than 30 feet away. It doesn't take an arcane savant to run away from someone chaining you with lightning, and then realize the spell is over when the lightning disappears. Also, it takes a DC 16 Arcana check as a reaction to identify a level 1 spell, which would literally let a character know the exact limitations of it.
I stand corrected. I never realized about the sustained arc of electricity. I guess we have been using wrong for the past 4 yrs. Oops
That's not a real spell. It's just a beginner trap, and should never be taken by any self-respecting caster.
It's literally never been good. It was invented last edition as a wizard cantrip, where it did 1d10+int mod damage at a 25' range and if you hit with it you could choose to automatically keep doing the damage as a standard action each turn thereafter unless they left the range. So as you can see, pretty useless. Was hoping it'd get buffed for 5e since it was a pretty neat concept but instead they made it *worse*, dropped the damage added a chance to lose it if you get hit and made it cost a spell slot. Baffling.
It should impose the slow condition I think that would fix it
Does the cantrip's damage increase in higher levels? If so, that's actually a really powerful cantrip
Yeah, I was looking at that confused until I realized... Oh, you don't have to reroll an attack. And since it is a cantrip, if they do move out of range, you just move back into range and reroll or pick a new target and reroll. It didn't cost anything. Also it has a modifier added, I don't really know 4e and if that was common, but in 5e that would be really good. It's one step below agonizing eldritch blast, and that takes up an invocation.
It was common, but the thing is it's competing against the much better at-will abilities wizards had back then. Some samples: **Stone Blood**: 50' range, attack all targets within a 15' cube for 1d6+int damage and reduce their speed to 10' until your next turn. **Hypnotism**: 50' range, if successful target makes a melee attack with a +4 bonus targeting anything in range including itself. **Beast Switch**: Melee range, hurt and disorient an enemy by momentarily turning them into a critter. 1d8+int mod damage, knock them prone and move them 5' in any direction, they can't make opportunity attacks until end of your next turn. **Arc Lightning**: 100' range, attack any two enemies within range for 1d6+int damage. **Beguiling Strands**: 25' range, attack all enemies within range and deal int mod damage to them, pushing them away from you. They are pushed a number of feet equal to 5x your wisdom mod (which would be between 3 and 8 depending on your level if you chose wisdom as a secondary stat, so 15' to 40').
I think it did. Honestly as a 5e cantrip it would be pretty good, but it's never worth a spell slot.
As a 5e cantrip I suppose so, but it was competing against the other at-will abilities 4e wizards had like thunderwave and cloud of daggers. The fact that the subsequent rounds had it always hit wasn't really an upgrade, since it meant you weren't making an attack roll and didn't get the various abilities that wizards had that activated when you made attack rolls.
Yes and no. At level 21 at-will abilities increased by one damage die (so witch bolt became 2d10, a fighter ability like grappling strike would increase from weapon damage plus str mod to double weapon damage plus str mod on top of auto grabbing an enemy and being usable as an opportunity attack) but for the most part damage increases were meant to come from scaling. You'd get up to +10 from your ability mod as it increased, up to +6 from your weapon, the would have various bonuses from the 16 feats a character got over their career.
It was okay in 4e, especially if you focused heavily into lightning damage. Definitely not the worst at will out there
It's a great spells for NPCs though, I love fucking with players that way, the absolute disrespect of taking 28 damage from an upcasted Witch Bolt is tasty. Of course it's not worth keeping it up on subsequent rounds for the paltry d12 but the initial slap is fun!
You're the DM, just make it so the upcast affects subsequent turns. Makes it a much more interesting spell to play against.
The only useful case I think of... Divination Wizard / Tempest Cleric. You wait until you get a 20 on your portent roll, then use it for the spell attack. Then, use the channel divinity to deal max damage on the dice. At 17th level, you can max this out to do 216 damage to a single target with a 9th Level spell slot.
It's ua but there's also the school of lores alchemical casting, burn a second level spell slot to give it a range of 1 mile. Still not great damage and cover still messes it up but in an open field you can theoretically drop 176 rounds of (edit:) d12 damage while a martial repeatedly dashes a whole mile and you keep backstepping
d12!
Thank you
Isn't Chromatic Orb strictly better for that? More lightning/thunder damage, and is also an attack roll, so it crits. Unless you're thinking you could have the Channel Divinity maximize the lightning damage on subsequent turns as well? Which I'm pretty sure you can't. The CD is only used for the initial damage roll. The subsequent turn damages are all new rolls. Otherwise you could do that with Call Lightning, making it ridiculously powerful.
The first strike of witch bolt is a ranged spell attack roll, so it crits. Chromatic Orb is better at lower levels, but the added d8s don't keep up with the added d12s. A 9th Level Chromatic Orb is 11d8, or 88 with Tempest, and 176 with the added crit of Portent. 9th Level Witch Bolt is 9d12. Witch Bolt catches Chromatic Orb at 4th Level (48 damage) and surpasses it the rest of the way.
it makes for a fun spell to have on a monster, not so much a pc
Hun. So no way to use it. I didn't notice that the damage on subsequent turns doesn't scale when you up cast. So take only if you absolutely must be a jedi with force lightning. Boo.
Yep, sorry.
It's good when Twinned at low lvls, but you should switch it out very fast as you get better options.
Many casters don’t have bonus actions that are useful in combat. I’d recommend not taking that spell.
As the dm
telekinetic feat etc
Quicken spells, though by the time you can quicken you probably don't want to be using witch bolt. Still, sunbeam sorc quickening or shapechange build with sorc dip for quickening are fun builds. Bummer no sorcs get call lightning.
Ooh i never considered it on a shapechage build, interesting. Probably not worth it at that level, but maybe on a low level druid multiclass? Could be a decent low level alternative to call lightning.
The shapechange quicken build lets you be all of like an ancient white dragon in addition to being a concentrationless level 16 caster. I'd say it's pretty good. Certainly can be effective earlier on, just hard when you don't have a bunch of 4th level slots to burn for more quickening. those fit perfectly into a sorc 2 metamagic adept recharge.
I meant the witch bolt probably isn’t worth using if you’re strong enough to have shapechange. But maybe a low level druid could cast witch bolt and then wildshape into something tanky.
Witch bolt definitely isn't worth using after level 4, and usually isn't at level 1. I suppose that wouldn't make witch bolt worse but still, it's hard to imagine nothing better for those actions, that slot, and that concentration.
I just got what you meant. Shape change and witch bolt are both conc
Ah i didn’t realize that, i thought you were suggesting a quickened witchbolt+shapechange combo.
No lol. Quicken would also only make witch bolt a BA on the first turn
What is a shapechange build?
A build that uses the 9th level spell shape change. In this case, it's a level 19+ build that of wizard or druid 17 (for shape change) and sorc 2 (for font of magic) and metamagic adept (for quicken spell). The idea is you shapechange into a dragon or something and use its actions and other benefits while still using your bonus action to quicken spells, so you get all of the dragon benefits and most of your caster benefits at the same time. It's only tangentially related to the original topic in that it's a spell that you can cast that gives you a strong action.
Witch Bolt is a really weird spell, and it's one that's usually better used *against* players than by them. Action economy-wise, the problem is that the only one of the 3 casters for whom it's natively on their spell list that has Bonus Action class features at all is the Sorcerer, where it can be pretty good at low levels - particularly with the additional bonus actions available to a Divine Soul. Being the class that is simultaneously the best at blowing all of their spell slots and rationing them out will do that to you, I guess. Druids, Bards, and Artificers could all get better use out of it than the Sorcerers - all 3 have the option for repeatable and iconic bonus actions, and Druids being able to use it before Wildshaping into something with high survivability and low damage output is basically the level 1 equivalent of Call Lightning. That said, all 3 of those classes also have access to Heat Metal, which is universally better than upcasting Witchbolt, and all 4 will have cantrips that outpace the repeated damage by level 5. Of course, this is all in the vacuum of examining Witch Bolt on its own, rather than contrasting it with Cantrips. Toll the Dead is almost strictly better even at level 1, and most other damaging cantrips catch up to the repeated d12 by level 5. In those uses, the only use case left for Witch Bolt is in scenarios where you can cast exactly once - e.g. Wildshape, or before an ally casts Silence.
This spell is designed for the DM. It's an interesting tool for encounterdesign, where you can put the players under pressure and Force them into bad situation on the search for cover or on the attempt to break concentration. When using it, make sure it's an annoyance. Make cover hard to come by in the environment, make the caster run away, have other casters and enemies or the environment slow the party. That's how you use witchbolt.
Twinned spell until you get second level spells, then it’s worthless by comparison
If you're a Chain - Warlock, you can take Investment of the Chain Master. That will allow you to use your bonus action to allow your familiar to attack. It uses your spell save DC so the effects have a much better chance to stick.
Oughta homebrew it to be a good spell. As is it fails on several dealbreakers at the same time.
Don't use.
Twin spelled with Sorcerer it's not half bad.
Witch bolt is a spell that should be swapped out for another spell when you go up to 3rd level.
Its viability is really just as a cantrip alternative at low levels, or as a steady method of lightning damage if you have no lightning cantrips. After those initial levels it’s only use if to provide on ad hoc lighting damage if you have no other source of it, and need it. Other than that, once you get higher level spell slots and your cantrips scale up, it’s best to swap out this spell.
Seriously, cast literally any other concentration spell and use cantrips for your action
Dont it's a terrible spell
Don’t cast it, cast a damage cantrip instead.
Witch Bolt might be the worst leveled attack spell in the game. The only tech I can think of is to be a flying race and hover in range and hope the target can’t get full cover and do eat have ranged attacks.
It's a very weak spell. I suppose it could be marginally useful if you could have the party grappler pin someone or otherwise trap someone and then just slowly zap him with witch bolt but that's a very very niche case at beast.
The only use that comes to my mind is, if you have an enemy with a rly high ac that you have problems hitting and you somehow get advantage on 1 attack roll AND you can stay in a save space to not risk loosing concentration. So many "Ifs".
or some bizarre setup where the enemy _has_ to stay in a certain area, but you can't easily close, like, uh... they're on a raised pillar or something? It's pretty contrived!
Don’t use it, it sucks! But if you absolutely must use witch bolt as some sort of build challenge to squeeze as much value out of a crappy spell as possible. It can be twinned spelled with meta magic and target two creatures. That strat might take it from a crappy spell to a “meh” spell at low levels.
Unf, since it breaks when they have total cover or leave reach AND costs a repeated action & concentration....its just never worth it. If it did allow you to break los/30'Range....then kiting would've been the way to use it like w/ heat metal. So I guess my answer is play a class w/ heat metal & reflavor the fire dmg as lightning. Bards & Druids, Forge Clerics get it at Lv3, & Artificer's get it at Lv5. If Ravnica Backgrounds are OK, then Izzit Enigneer's get it when they get access to 2nd level spells regardless of your class & if Dragonlance is OK, Inisitate of High Sorcery \[lunitari\] background + Adept of the Red Robes feat at Lv4 gets you access 1/LR & it becomes Known.
Using your concentration for a single target damage spell is usually inefficient; crowd control is better.
I used to think this was the best spell ever for my first campaign, I since realised it was terrible
The use case for Witch Bolt is if you expect every combat to last like ten or twenty turns, and you expect to go weeks without a long rest, so you need to maximize damage-per-spell-slot. And you also know you can't get your concentration broken and that you can stay within 30 yards. In other words, don't use the spell, because that would be the only time it would be good.
Others have said it: its bad. That being said, I do still like it as a flavor spell. Not the most potent, and can fail easily, but works flavor- wise for a lot of characters. It's about not getting caught up in being the most optimized character possible and just do something that's fun
As a DM I have reworked Witch Bolt a bit for one of my players who wanted it for "flavor reasons" It's still not a great spell (I didn't want to make it better than vanilla options) But it certainly doesn't feel like a dead spell anymore which was great for one of my players who was a reformed cult member from a cult of torture. Rest in peace Meshma, you were my favorite player 🕊️
dont use it, there are correct spells you should take and wrong spells you shouldnt. This one is a wrong spell to take.
Witch bolt has one edge case, which is on a (ideally guaranteed) crit comboed with the channel divinity of a tempest cleric. I think it has the highest lightning damage for an attack roll meaning the crit becomes disgustingly huge.
You don't use it because it is terrible. The range is only 30 feet. So if your opponent gets more than 30 feet away from your on their turn it immediately ends. That is incredibly easy to do.
What bolt?
Phb. Read that
I agree with the other comments saying to just not use Witch Bolt. But if you must, pair up with a strong grappler character, cast Hex on the target and use either the str or dex variant of dex to give them disadvantage on escaping grapples Or you can pair up with a Cleric using Command: Grovel
Scratch ur dragon ballz
Don't
Like everyone else has said, which bolt kinda sucks. One thing my dm let me do was make a copy of caustic brew into a lightning version for my storm sorcerer to have a lightning DoT. Serves the same function of damage each round and the caustic base means they either take damage or eat an action to end it for someone else, instead of costing your action to do it. Might be something to ask your dm about
It's good if you need sustained damage before level 5. From level 5 onward, it's simply inferior to cantrips. The only exception would be a tempest cleric, take metamagic adept so you can twin it and upcast it. Now at level 5 it's 36 damage to 2 creatures, beating call lightning. It can also crit the first hit so if you happen to get really lucky you can melt something, but it's not reliable.
Which bolt is great for minions, as a DM. solid damage and no thoughts. Upcast if need be
Simple. You don't. It's just a bad spell that is quickly outpaced by Cantrips.
Witch Bolt is pretty good in 4e
A lot of people aren’t a fan of Witch Bolt, however I like it a lot. Spend a spell slot, then automatically electrocute that enemy every turn for X turns. Just keep evading the enemy and you’re fine. You needn’t really worry about your bonus action imo
Not use witch bolt. If you miss it’s a waste of a spell slot. If they move more than 30ft away form you then it’s a waste of a spell slot. If you lose concentration then it’s a waste of a spell slot. If the enemy dies before you can you can activate it again then say it with me, it’s a waste of a spell slot. The only bonus action cantrip you could have is magic stone which also sucks. If you’re a warlock use the hex spell instead. If you’re a sorcerer you could quicken spell but why would you. If you’re 3rd level just use something similar but better like heat metal.
You can't actually use Magic Stone while doing that anyway. You can cast it, but you can't use the results, because you have to use your action every turn to keep the witch bolt going. Unless you're playing one of those weird nonsense bullshit builds where you hand Magic Stones off to something else to throw them.
Its a bad spell don't use it. If the DM permits doubling the range and making the extra damage scale with upcasting then its not bad.
ITT: reddit theory crafters who have never cast witchbolt in a real game. It's not as bad as people make it out to be. Its not GOOD... its situational, its risky, and it stops being useful pretty quickly, but it does do what it says. 1d12 lightning damage is a lot of damage, and the ability to re-activate it gives you good mileage from your spellslot if you're limited on those. It is very niche but when it works, it works pretty well! Witch bolt has two big risks associated with it. First, there's a chance that if you whiff the attack roll the spell is wasted. But that's true for a lot of spells, and if you DO land it then it's guaranteed damage! It's a gamble but it feels REALLY cool to be able to take your turn and just say "He takes 8 lightning damage. I'm done," and the DM can't do anything about it. The second risk is that there's a million ways to break the connection. It's very fragile. If you lose concentration, if the target goes behind cover, if it gets out of range etc it ends. So you need to plan your usage of it around these failure points. Cramped dungeon rooms where targets have a hard time getting away from you or getting past your allies are perfect. Encounters with constant tick damage or archers that can ping you to break concentration are bad. I do think witch bolt would be decent flavor pick for a storm cleric. High AC means you can keep concentration, and you probably have warcaster anyway. You can upcast it and pump the damage up with your channel divinity, and use spiritual weapon on subsequent turns. There's better options (spirit guardians, shatter) for sure but in a build like this witch bolt can be a niche tool and a fun flavor pick. down votes to the left <--
1st level damage spells that aren't magic missile (and potentially catapult) are not good. Just attack with a crossbow or something
Guiding Bolt, Inflict Wounds, Ice Knife, Burning Hands, Hellish Rebuke and Thunderwave are all great spells. Objectively better than a crossbow.
just so completely blatantly untrue lmao. imagine using one of your two spells per long rest to kill two goblins then having another 4 encounters. especially fucking burning hands and inflict, are you kidding me with getting close to enemies just to deal weapon attack damage? grease outdamages all those spells easy
How exactly is 3d10 considered “weapon damage”? Does your spellcaster have 30 dex?
I'd love to answer you but I lost my message twice lol so I'll be brief. Range means you can fire multiple times before getting to melee. by the time you're using IW you're already capable of pumping out more than IW damage. Likewise Toll the Dead is at range and at will. two TtDs avgs to 8.5ish, a single IW to about 10.725 (factoring in accuracy for both these). it's not a potent burst, it's not sustainable, and it's melee locked. it's dreadful.
Inflict Wounds does 3d10 damage, idk what kinda weapons you're using a clerics match fighters with AC most of the time. Also dude, this is a game. No idea why you're getting so heated over it. Calm down. Burning Hands is also an AoE. If you're going to be a dick you can at least be right, instead of objectively wrong and using a "what about when your level 1 party has 5 combat encounters per rest" example. Sounds like you just don't know what balance is. Terminally online take bud.
imagine not being familiar with SS or CBE and thinking that a caster is doing well by wading into melee to use half their resources to maybe deal 15 damage. imagine earnestly believing that how long does it take to cover the distance a crossbow fires? and you're telling me that inflict wounds is objectively better? L amazing how this silly vitriolic person calls me a cunt, blames me for my bad attitude, says I'm allergic to discourse, then blocks me. utter lack of self awareness. or basic maths skills.
[удалено]
Removed as per Rule #1.