|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | + | '''LOOKING FOR OLD POSTS? CHECK THE [[Talk:Vampiric Weapon (5e Spell)/Archive 1|ARCHIVE]].''' |
| | == Ratings == | | == Ratings == |
| | {{Rating |rater=Ghostwheel | | {{Rating |rater=Ghostwheel |
| Line 9: |
Line 10: |
| | |reason=This is taking the Vampiric Touch spell and adding weapon damage and possibly reach to it with no down-side. It either needs to do less necrotic damage (1 die?) or be a level higher than Vampiric Touch. | | |reason=This is taking the Vampiric Touch spell and adding weapon damage and possibly reach to it with no down-side. It either needs to do less necrotic damage (1 die?) or be a level higher than Vampiric Touch. |
| | }} | | }} |
| − |
| |
| − | == Intense Ignorance of the 5e System ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Welcome to Chapter 2 of "Intense Ignorance of the 5e System", titled "Vampiric Weapon; or why?".
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This spell makes no sense!
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I'm going to do this two ways; with the current state it is in mind, and the potential intention that I think that the spell has. The second one is far worse than the first one.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | === Scenario One: The Spell As Written is Correct ===
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The spell as written lets you cast this on a weapon - that someone is wielding. If we ignore the bad wording of the range of this, we can assume that you're casting it on a weapon. The weapon now has the ability to make a Melee spell attack against creatures within its reach. But since a weapon is not something that has a turn, so it doesn't gain any Action, this is completely moot. But, if it could, it'd be able to Vampiric Touch someone.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Even if we ignore the silly idea that this ridiculous spell tries to give an action to an inanimate object and say that you can now make a Vampiric Touch using your weapon. Okay, so you use your action to use the Vampiric Touch ability granted to your weapon by this sword. It deals... 3d6 Necrotic Damage (+1D per upcast). It doesn't deal that plus your weapon damage, because the spell specifically states that the action deals 3d6 Necrotic Damage (+1D per upcast). So this is just the Vampiric Touch spell but now it's on a weapon? It's completely and utterly pointless.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | So, that leads us to...
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | === Scenario Two: The Spell As Intended ===
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Ha ha ha this is so much WORSE.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Is this meant to be that you can make a weapon attack and deal +3d6 necrotic damage? So like you can make a weapon attack as an action for 1 minute. Is this still an action to make the attack, or does it just make any attack with the weapon deal +3d6 damage (which would be crazy). The wording of this whole guff needs to be changed (It it's an action that includes an attack with a weapon, it should be worded like [[Booming_Blade_(5e_Spell_Pointer)|Booming Blade]]). The wording is atrocious and leads to more questions than it should.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | But, if this is just strictly better than Vampiric Touch (For a Hexblade Warlock it is, the only person that I could see using it), then why would anyone ever use Vampiric Touch? This is just... better at the same spell slot. It's also hugely worse for a Sorcerer, because if you're using a weapon attack for this, you're no longer using your primary casting stat. It's just all over the place, it's so up and down it's like a yo-yo.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Also, Vampiric Touch is on the Wizard but not Sorcerer spell-list, but now it's inverted? But why?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This just seems like it is poorly thought-out and very lazily written. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] ([[User talk:TK-Squared|talk]]) 03:17, 12 June 2019 (MDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :3.5 editions psionics has [[SRD:Vampiric Blade|Vampiric Blade]]. This is essentially the 5th edition version of it.--Franken Kesey 07:37, 12 June 2019 (MDT)
| |
