Talk:Vampiric Weapon (5e Spell)

Ratings

	Rlyehable opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	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). 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. --TK-Squared (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2019 (MDT)

3.5 editions psionics has Vampiric Blade. This is essentially the 5th edition version of it.--Franken Kesey 07:37, 12 June 2019 (MDT)