# Faerie Fire too powerful



## Dr N (Apr 2, 2016)

Faerie Fire provides advantage to all combat rolls for the entire party. This is far too powerful for a first level spell, and very imbalancing. Why should an attacker get advantage simply because the defender is glowing? It shouldn't make the hit significantly easier.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 2, 2016)

Then don't use it.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Apr 2, 2016)

Dr N said:


> Faerie Fire provides advantage to all combat rolls for the entire party. This is far too powerful for a first level spell, and very imbalancing. Why should an attacker get advantage simply because the defender is glowing? It shouldn't make the hit significantly easier.




IMO, this is an oversimplification. Faerie Fire does not provide advantage to all combat rolls for the entire party. 

Faerie Fire provides advantage to all combat rolls for the entire party against any creatures that were inside it's 20 foot cube and failed their saving throws against it, so long as the caster is able to maintain concentration. That's quite different. 

While it can certainly be a worthwhile spell, one needs to consider that unlike many (non-cantrip) spells, it does absolutely nothing on a successful save. Since it requires concentration, it not only prevents you from casting many other spells that are as or more useful (Entangle, Spike Stones, etc) but it can also be brought down by simply damaging the caster.

In the Underdark campaign I'm currently playing we currently have two drow warriors in the party. While their Faerie Fire has proven useful on occasion, there have been quite a few times when the targets all made their saving throw, making it a wasted turn. Even when they do successfully land the spell, it often makes the drow who cast it a priority target. 

In a campaign previous to that one there was a Circle of the Land Druid who cast it a few times and found it quite underwhelming compared to his other options.

As such I haven't found it to be a problem, IME of course.


----------



## Zardnaar (Apr 2, 2016)

Its one of the few lvl 1 spells that sort of scales an is useful later


----------



## Radaceus (Apr 2, 2016)

It's a great spell, and why shouldn't it be? 
requires concentration, its AOE is small enough as well as being a cube, and only 60' range

and if your party has no Druid, nor Bard...no faerie fire for your group.

Also note, Bard get's a limited amount of spells, taking this situational spell as one of the three 1st level spells known ( odds of not choosing a 2nd level spell occuring) would be rare


----------



## Oofta (Apr 2, 2016)

At least there's a saving throw with Faerie Fire.

Unlike Heat Metal ... I'll just give that guy over there in metal armor disadvantage on all attacks for the rest of the combat and there's no save.  Oh and have a little damage too!


----------



## werecorpse (Apr 2, 2016)

I agree. Faerie fire is good but the save means it might fail.

Heat metal with no save - doing damage and giving disadvantage (despite concentration) is very potent.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Apr 2, 2016)

werecorpse said:


> Heat metal with no save - doing damage and giving disadvantage (despite concentration) is very potent.




Heat metal is very potent in the right circumstances, I agree. The limitation being that it's useless if the creatures you're facing don't have metal weapons or armor.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Apr 2, 2016)

Dr N said:


> Faerie Fire provides advantage to all combat rolls for the entire party. This is far too powerful for a first level spell, and very imbalancing. Why should an attacker get advantage simply because the defender is glowing? It shouldn't make the hit significantly easier.




It's no worse than Fog Cloud, which does the same thing for ranged attacks out of the cloud (due to the way the heavy obscurement rules work) with no save.

If you have a beef here, it's probably with the vision rules and the granularity vel none of advantage/disadvantage.

As a DM, you should have intelligent foes seek advantage and seek to impose disadvantage in the same way. Skilled tactical combat largely involves trying to manipulate battlefield geometry and gain advantage, moreso than making attack rolls. Have enemies toss nets, hide in the dark while firing (with advantage) at targets illuminated by one Dodging enemy carrying a torch, push enemies prone or off cliffs, etc. Faerie Fire fits into this scheme as one pretty good option, but certainly not one that cannot b e countered.

Unintelligent foes are not supposed to be a real challenge anyway, so it shouldn't matter if PCs find an exploit against them and exploit it to the hilt.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Apr 2, 2016)

Oofta said:


> At least there's a saving throw with Faerie Fire.
> 
> Unlike Heat Metal ... I'll just give that guy over there in metal armor disadvantage on all attacks for the rest of the combat and there's no save.  Oh and have a little damage too!




Hooray for Conjure Elementals (Magma Mephits)! [Assuming of course that you can manage to get magma mephits out of the spell, which may involve building a bonfire or something first.] 4x Heat Metal plus some free breath weapons is pretty good for one fourth-level spell.



Fanaelialae said:


> Heat metal is very potent in the right circumstances, I agree. The limitation being that it's useless if the creatures you're facing don't have metal weapons or armor.




Things that don't use metal weapons or armor are likely to not be tool-users in the first place, and therefore not much of a threat. I can imagine theoretical exceptions such as a race of tool-users who rely primarily on obsidian or bio-weapons (xixchil!) but they're probably going to be rare. In the usual 5E D&D campaign I think it's a fairly safe assumption that anything which doesn't use metal is probably vulnerable to ranged tactics.


----------



## Uller (Apr 2, 2016)

Zardnaar said:


> Its one of the few lvl 1 spells that sort of scales an is useful later




Exactly.  It's really not incredibly useful at first level.  But as levels go up, attacks get more frequent and/or more damaging, it's usefulness increases. Same with _bless_.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Apr 2, 2016)

Hemlock said:


> Things that don't use metal weapons or armor are likely to not be tool-users in the first place, and therefore not much of a threat. I can imagine theoretical exceptions such as a race of tool-users who rely primarily on obsidian or bio-weapons (xixchil!) but they're probably going to be rare. In the usual 5E D&D campaign I think it's a fairly safe assumption that anything which doesn't use metal is probably vulnerable to ranged tactics.




Giants (tree trunks as clubs and boulders)

Dragons

Mages

Three examples of dangerous threats that probably don't use metal weapons or armor.


----------



## jgsugden (Apr 2, 2016)

During the next combat in which this is used, measure the impact. How many 'otherwise misses' become hits/crits? How many hits elevate to crits? In those circumstances, was another source of advantage available?

Let's say you get 5 enemies in the area of effect. You're likely to see at least 2 make the save. Let's say you arrives and you have a 60% chance to hit, 35% chance to miss and 5% chance to crit. If the blow would be a crit without advantage advantage, it makes no difference. If it would have been a hit without advantage, then you only benefit if the hit becomes a crit (3%). If a miss at the start, it only becomes a hit or crit 65% of that 35% of the time. All in all, we're talking about a roughly 25% chance of an impact per attack. You'll usually need about two or thre attacks to be impacted to equal the damage of a thunderwave of a similar number of targets that save 40% of the time (total 35 damage expected)... That means 8 to 12 attacks on the three of five targets that failed the save... if you maintain concentration that long.

Some combats you'll get more than that benefit. In others, it will make no difference at all. It is less reliable and slower to deliver damage than spells that impart damage right away. This can mean more damage those enemies get to deliver before falling. 

All in all, reasonable, but far from overpowered.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Apr 2, 2016)

Dr N said:


> Faerie Fire provides advantage to all combat rolls for the entire party. This is far too powerful for a first level spell, and very imbalancing.



Shhhh! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Don't tell my DM this!


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Apr 2, 2016)

Fanaelialae said:


> Giants (tree trunks as clubs and boulders)
> 
> Dragons
> 
> ...




The most dangerous kinds of giants IMO are fire giants, which do use metal plate armor. (Frost Giants are considerably easier than Fire Giants--worse AC, worse Con saves, worse Athletics, but better movement.) And dragons and mages both do tend to be vulnerable to ranged tactics. Even giants tend to have fairly short range on their boulders, 240' IIRC. Your list is a good list, but between Heat Metal and a powerful ranged component, I still like my odds.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Apr 2, 2016)

Hemlock said:


> The most dangerous kinds of giants IMO are fire giants, which do use metal plate armor. (Frost Giants are considerably easier than Fire Giants--worse AC, worse Con saves, worse Athletics, but better movement.) And dragons and mages both do tend to be vulnerable to ranged tactics. Even giants tend to have fairly short range on their boulders, 240' IIRC. Your list is a good list, but between Heat Metal and a powerful ranged component, I still like my odds.




How about enemy archers then? They can match your ranged attacks and heat metal is meaningless to their wooden bows.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Apr 2, 2016)

Fanaelialae said:


> How about enemy archers then? They can match your ranged attacks and heat metal is meaningless to their wooden bows.




At least they're not armored hobgoblin archers, then, so I have a good shot at winning the archery duel. Though magic tends to be pretty useless in long-range archery duels anyway because most spells don't go much farther than the distance between baseball bases.

Remember, I'm not claiming that Heat Metal is the only spell I use! I'm just saying that the "only works against foes who rely on metal" isn't as much of a limitation as you might think, due to 5E's ranged dominance. It's a pretty good spell. The main problem with it is that it's single-target, but if you can get around that with Magma Mephits it is very much worth using, even if it's just to e.g. make three Frost Giants all drop their axes and/or attack at disadvantage.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Apr 2, 2016)

Hemlock said:


> At least they're not armored hobgoblin archers, then, so I have a good shot at winning the archery duel. Though magic tends to be pretty useless in long-range archery duels anyway because most spells don't go much farther than the distance between baseball bases.
> 
> Remember, I'm not claiming that Heat Metal is the only spell I use! I'm just saying that the "only works against foes who rely on metal" isn't as much of a limitation as you might think, due to 5E's ranged dominance. It's a pretty good spell. The main problem with it is that it's single-target, but if you can get around that with Magma Mephits it is very much worth using, even if it's just to e.g. make three Frost Giants all drop their axes and/or attack at disadvantage.




Keep in mind I don't really accept the idea of 5e's ranged dominance. While Sharpshooter and a longbow are excellent for engaging an enemy at 600' range, there will be many campaigns where those kind of encounter ranges are exceedingly rare. Simply because not everyone wants to play the equivalent of Sniper: the RPG. My players like to play strategically and tactically smart (depending on the party, they'll arrange ambushes and such when they can). However...

Since my players are sitting next to me, I just asked them if they'd want to play in a party that utilizes those tactics, and their response was, "that's not D&D". I might not go that far, but it's certainly not everyone's cup of tea. It's fine if you find efficiency to be fun, but not everyone's, and we play for fun.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Apr 2, 2016)

Then it's not surprising that you have a different perspective on Heat Metal than I do, right? Different people play the game differently.


----------



## devincutler (Apr 2, 2016)

Hemlock said:


> Then it's not surprising that you have a different perspective on Heat Metal than I do, right? Different people play the game differently.




Exactly! Some people play it right...and some people play it wrong.


----------



## JackOfAllTirades (Apr 3, 2016)

Radaceus said:


> It's a great spell, and why shouldn't it be?
> requires concentration, its AOE is small enough as well as being a cube, and only 60' range
> 
> and if your party has no Druid, nor Bard...no faerie fire for your group.




LMAO!

This is why my FeyLock keeps catching his enemies completely off guard with that spell.


----------



## Khisanth the Ancient (Apr 3, 2016)

Fanaelialae said:


> Giants (tree trunks as clubs and boulders)
> 
> Dragons
> 
> ...




Also, most demons (of the ones in the MM, only the balor and marilith use manufactured weapons), some devils, and quite a few undead, including the very powerful lich and demilich. The tarrasque, too. Really, quite a few of the classic big threats don't use manufactured armor or weapons (metal or not).


----------



## ccs (Apr 3, 2016)

Dr N said:


> Faerie Fire provides advantage to all combat rolls for the entire party.




Assuming your targets fail their saves, you can maintain concentration, etc....




Dr N said:


> This is far too powerful for a first level spell, and very imbalancing.




I'll be the judge of that when I'm DMing.

Now if you actually meant to say that it was so at your table....
Then ban it/change it if you're the DM.
Or avoid using it (and persuade others not to use it) if your a player. 




Dr N said:


> Why should an attacker get advantage simply because the defender is glowing? It shouldn't make the hit significantly easier.




Because that's what it says it does?


----------



## Zardnaar (Apr 3, 2016)

JackOfAllTirades said:


> LMAO!
> 
> This is why my FeyLock keeps catching his enemies completely off guard with that spell.





Light clerics also get it


----------



## rgoodbb (Apr 3, 2016)

Is it that much more powerful that Entangle? I'm trying to choose between the two for my 1st level Druid and am not sure which to pick. Entangle seems more in the flavour of what I would cast, but I could possibly work FF in.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Apr 3, 2016)

rgoodbb said:


> Is it that much more powerful that Entangle? I'm trying to choose between the two for my 1st level Druid and am not sure which to pick. Entangle seems more in the flavour of what I would cast, but I could possibly work FF in.




IMO, Entangle is better in almost every way when compared to Faerie Fire. 

While the target can end Entangle by making a Strength check as an action, since it uses that creature's action that's at least one attack that Entangle will prevent assuming the creature fails its initial save. In other words, well worth the cost of the effect ending early (IMO). However, if your strategy revolves around overwhelming offense, having the effect end early might be a significant downside.

The other thing to consider is that Faerie Fire targets Dexterity whereas Entangle targets Strength. That means that if you'd be commonly targeting high strength brutes with either spell, you have a better chance of landing Faerie Fire.


----------



## rgoodbb (Apr 3, 2016)

Thanks, that's good news. I will definitely stick with Entangle as my concentration spell. Cheers.


----------



## EvilGeniusRetired (Nov 3, 2016)

Dr N said:


> Faerie Fire provides advantage to all combat rolls for the entire party. This is far too powerful for a first level spell, and very imbalancing. Why should an attacker get advantage simply because the defender is glowing? It shouldn't make the hit significantly easier.




Faerie Fire provides advantage to *ALL *creatures in it's field, including enemy attacks on PCs affected. Plus it only affect creatures at time of casting and has a saving throw.  Think of it like a confetti bomb. I wouldn't say it's OP.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Nov 3, 2016)

Hemlock said:


> The most dangerous kinds of giants IMO are fire giants, which do use metal plate armor. (Frost Giants are considerably easier than Fire Giants--worse AC, worse Con saves, worse Athletics, but better movement.) And dragons and mages both do tend to be vulnerable to ranged tactics. Even giants tend to have fairly short range on their boulders, 240' IIRC. Your list is a good list, but between Heat Metal and a powerful ranged component, I still like my odds.




But but heat metal is worthless against fire giants. Cause they are immune to it's effects.

Though I remember one of my players using heat metal on an Orc's axe to get him to drop it. Instead he got hit with a burning hot axe as I pointed out that most of the axe was not made of metal so he just made it more dangerous.


----------



## Croesus (Nov 3, 2016)

As others have said, _faerie fire_ has some noticeable limitations: range, area of effect can include party members, has a save, requires concentration. I have one player running a drow and she uses this roughly every other session. Sometimes it's very useful, most of the time it's meh. Not overpowered at my table.

_Heat metal_ also has limitations: only affects metal, range is only 60', requires bonus action to use each round. The last two items are the most important. I had a druid player who liked to use this, until he found his targets would often run away or hide. He couldn't stay within 60', or he couldn't see them, so he couldn't use the bonus action. Of course, if the target does move away, that's useful. Is it worth a 2nd level spell? Depends on the situation. Again, a spell that's good at times, but not overpowered.


----------



## ad_hoc (Nov 3, 2016)

AFB but I thought Faerie Fire says 'creatures you choose in the area...'

Also, yes not overpowered. Quite good.but fine.


----------



## werecorpse (Nov 3, 2016)

Croesus said:


> _Heat metal_ also has limitations: only affects metal, range is only 60', requires bonus action to use each round. The last two items are the most important. I had a druid player who liked to use this, until he found his targets would often run away or hide. He couldn't stay within 60', or he couldn't see them, so he couldn't use the bonus action. Of course, if the target does move away, that's useful. Is it worth a 2nd level spell? Depends on the situation. Again, a spell that's good at times, but not overpowered.




Range is only a limit to cast the spell, not use the bonus action. At the top of page 203 of the PHB under spell range it says "once the spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spells description says otherwise." So having cast the spell the Druid doesn't have to see or be within 60 feet of the victim - just use a bonus action to make them burn.
in theory the Druid can cast the spell within 60 feet then spend every round running away and hiding and a bonus action to burn the recipient of the spell.


----------



## Uchawi (Nov 3, 2016)

Hemlock said:


> It's no worse than Fog Cloud, which does the same thing for ranged attacks out of the cloud (due to the way the heavy obscurement rules work) with no save.
> 
> If you have a beef here, it's probably with the vision rules and the granularity vel none of advantage/disadvantage.
> 
> ...



I agree on the granularity portion, and that is the price that is paid for simplification of modifiers. The same concept applies to Drow having sunlight sensitivity, etc.


----------



## Ashrym (Nov 4, 2016)

I am  not seeing faerie fire as OP either.  Good spell once the caster has a decent DC but that takes a while and the save continues to exist regardless while there is strong competition for concentration. 

I really don't think much of heat metal. Single target that also takes concentration with the most commonly resisted damage type on top of the metal requirements makes it too situational for me. It's worth prepping if a druid knows what's coming (assuming metal to heat is included in what is coming) but I wouldn't touch it on a bard unless it's a specific type of campaign that would make it suitable.


----------



## werecorpse (Nov 4, 2016)

Hemlock said:


> It's no worse than Fog Cloud, which does the same thing for ranged attacks out of the cloud (due to the way the heavy obscurement rules work) with no save.




if you are in a fog cloud you are in a heavily obscured area which means you effectively suffer from the blinded condition (p183 of PHB). Is there something I'm missing?


----------



## Croesus (Nov 4, 2016)

werecorpse said:


> Range is only a limit to cast the spell, not use the bonus action. At the top of page 203 of the PHB under spell range it says "once the spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spells description says otherwise." So having cast the spell the Druid doesn't have to see or be within 60 feet of the victim - just use a bonus action to make them burn.
> in theory the Druid can cast the spell within 60 feet then spend every round running away and hiding and a bonus action to burn the recipient of the spell.




Oops. You're right. This belongs in the thread about rules that trip us up - I always forget that range normally doesn't matter after casting. Oh well...


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Nov 4, 2016)

The real benefit of faerie fire is that it will light up any invisible enemies in the area of effect who fail their save, letting all of your party target them normally.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Nov 4, 2016)

Towards heat metal, my group is fairly certain it is an effective death sentence against any target wearing heavy metal armor. 

It takes so long to remove that the targets only choice is to break the concentration, which makes it a race. A race I've never seen an NPC with platemail win. It's just too much fire damage to take consistently every round.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Nov 4, 2016)

werecorpse said:


> if you are in a fog cloud you are in a heavily obscured area which means you effectively suffer from the blinded condition (p183 of PHB). Is there something I'm missing?




Yes, you're using an old edition of the PHB with the bonkers rules. In the errata and later printings of the PHB the devs realized that being blinded when you're in darkness makes zero sense, and reversed the text you refer to. Now,



			
				https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/PH-Errata-V1.pdf said:
			
		

> Vision and Light (p. 183). A heavilyobscured area doesn’t blind you, but youare effectively blinded when you try to seesomething obscured by it.




The original wording implied that a guy with a torch standing in a pitch-black humongous cavern can see everything in the cavern, but nothing can see him, because they are all heavily obscured by darkness. I doubt anyone ever ran it that way though because it is totally bonkers. The new ruling makes darkness work the same way as real life: you can't see things in the dark, but they can see you.


----------



## werecorpse (Nov 4, 2016)

Well that new definition certainly makes sense for darkness (everyone can see the person in light, no one can see the person in darkness so the person in darkness gets the benefit of obscurement and the person in the light doesn't) but IMO the way you appear to be reading it doesn't make sense for fog cloud. I would rule that if you are standing in the fog enough to be gain the benefit of being obscured from people then those who you are obscured from are obscured from you (there is fog between you and them). Ie by standing in the edge of the fog cloud enough to get obscurement and looking out the things out of the cloud are obscured by it so the last 14 words of the rule would apply. 

This is is because darkness creates a vision difficulty in a different way to something that blocks line of sight (like fog).


----------



## werecorpse (Nov 4, 2016)

Chaosmancer said:


> Towards heat metal, my group is fairly certain it is an effective death sentence against any target wearing heavy metal armor.
> 
> It takes so long to remove that the targets only choice is to break the concentration, which makes it a race. A race I've never seen an NPC with platemail win. It's just too much fire damage to take consistently every round.




absolutely - never go up against lizard men wearing metal armour. Their Druids just cast heat metal on your fighters then swim away, hide and boil them. Does anyone have a good fix for this spell? My idea is to give a save every time you take damage succes being half damage and no disadvantage (still a ton of damage but because it happens over time it can be ameliorated).

btw I don't think the fact it is useless except in certain circumstances (though IMO metal is frequent enough to be as good as a hold person) is a good argument for it being balanced when it's awesome in others. It just makes it a swingy choice. Better to be never op.


----------



## Eubani (Nov 4, 2016)

All this talk about Heat Metal got me thinking.....Heat metal on metal arrow heads?? If you use the damage in the spell it could significantly boost an archers dpr.


----------



## Blue (Nov 4, 2016)

At the different tables I've been at, if used Faerie Fire has been effective but not overly so compared to other concentration debuff spells.  That includes Out of the Abyss where we had three drow in the party so it was coming out a lot.  And two were non-casters so it was even better by avoiding the opportunity cost of concentration for another spell.

This is just anecdotal, but at my FLGS characters and tactics tend towards crowd-sourced and optimized as people ask for advice and bounce ideas off each other.


----------



## kalil (Nov 4, 2016)

As a 7th level moon druid in my curreny campaign I dont think FF is even worth preparing. The concentration slot is always occupied by something more important.


----------



## ad_hoc (Nov 4, 2016)

kalil said:


> As a 7th level moon druid in my curreny campaign I dont think FF is even worth preparing. The concentration slot is always occupied by something more important.





Compared to other 1st level spells? Or do you always have high level spells available? If so, then maybe you aren't being challenged enough.


----------



## Philth (Nov 4, 2016)

Eubani said:


> All this talk about Heat Metal got me thinking.....Heat metal on metal arrow heads?? If you use the damage in the spell it could significantly boost an archers dpr.




It would probably just set the arrow on fire if the shaft was wood and fall apart. It's meant as a debilitating spell. Otherwise it would have text for adding it to your own weapons.


----------



## kalil (Nov 4, 2016)

ad_hoc said:


> Compared to other 1st level spells? Or do you always have high level spells available? If so, then maybe you aren't being challenged enough.





With conjure animals and polymorph both lasting an hour there is precious little reason to waste my concentration slot on something like FF.


----------



## JackOfAllTirades (Nov 4, 2016)

Eubani said:


> All this talk about Heat Metal got me thinking.....Heat metal on metal arrow heads?? If you use the damage in the spell it could significantly boost an archers dpr.






Philth said:


> It would probably just set the arrow on fire if the shaft was wood and fall apart. It's meant as a debilitating spell. Otherwise it would have text for adding it to your own weapons.




Either that, or the PHB writers just didn't think of it. Most metal armor has leather straps holding the metal plates together, but the Heat Metal spell doesn't say a single word about damaging those. Using it on an arrow seems like an interesting idea.

I'd rule that pulling the arrow out requires an action and a STR check, and this counts as "dropping the item."  If the archer gets a critical hit, increase the DC to remove the arrow. This way it's not _OMG stupid amounts of free damage!_ and more of a delaying tactic with the potential for extra damage if the arrow stays stuck for an extra round or two.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Nov 4, 2016)

JackOfAllTirades said:


> Either that, or the PHB writers just didn't think of it. Most metal armor has leather straps holding the metal plates together, but the Heat Metal spell doesn't say a single word about damaging those. Using it on an arrow seems like an interesting idea.
> 
> I'd rule that pulling the arrow out requires an action and a STR check, and this counts as "dropping the item."  If the archer gets a critical hit, increase the DC to remove the arrow. This way it's not _OMG stupid amounts of free damage!_ and more of a delaying tactic with the potential for extra damage if the arrow stays stuck for an extra round or two.




What if the arrow only grazes the target? What if it fully pierces the target (the head of the arrow passes through and ends up outside the target)? Why isn't the target disabled/penalized from having an arrow sticking out of him irrespective of the spell? Shouldn't the target take extra damage for pulling the arrow out? Especially if the arrow heads are barbed? Oh, but I think I read somewhere that barbed arrowheads have poor armor penetration, so shouldn't we factor that in too? IMO, this way lies madness. 

Having it cost an action to pull out the arrow makes it too potent. Forget stupid amounts of free damage, having an enemy do nothing for a round is arguably better (unless that damage would bring the target to 0 hp). Heat metal is already a good (albeit situational) spell. There's no reason to expand its use to non-metal-using creatures.

If I were to allow the arrow to stay in then I'd let the creature pull it out using the free action item interaction every character gets once per round. However, in actuality I'd probably only let it deal damage once (when the target is hit). After that, I'd presume the arrow didn't stay in. Not exactly an ideal use of heat metal, but IMO that's not what it's intended for. There's already a 3rd level spell called Flame Arrows in EEPG, so a spell already exists for creating burning arrows.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Nov 4, 2016)

werecorpse said:


> Well that new definition certainly makes sense for darkness (everyone can see the person in light, no one can see the person in darkness so the person in darkness gets the benefit of obscurement and the person in the light doesn't) but IMO the way you appear to be reading it doesn't make sense for fog cloud. I would rule that if you are standing in the fog enough to be gain the benefit of being obscured from people then those who you are obscured from are obscured from you (there is fog between you and them). Ie by standing in the edge of the fog cloud enough to get obscurement and looking out the things out of the cloud are obscured by it so the last 14 words of the rule would apply.




I would run it similarly (my ruling is that more than 5' of fog blocks line of sight) but I'm conscious of the fact that my own ruling, not something implied by the PHB's heavy obscurement rules.


----------



## ad_hoc (Nov 4, 2016)

kalil said:


> With conjure animals and polymorph both lasting an hour there is precious little reason to waste my concentration slot on something like FF.




So, it sounds like you aren't being challenged enough then.

Of course a 1st level spell is not as good as a 4th level one.


----------



## kalil (Nov 5, 2016)

ad_hoc said:


> So, it sounds like you aren't being challenged enough then.
> 
> Of course a 1st level spell is not as good as a 4th level one.




On the contrary. Since the challenge level is high I need to use my one and only concentration slot on something that truly kicks, like 8 wolf allies. Level 1 spell slots will mostly be for healing words when my allies get swatted like flies.

When the challenge gets real you cannot justify using that precious concentration on somethimg as menial as maybe granting advantage.


----------



## JackOfAllTirades (Nov 5, 2016)

Fanaelialae said:


> What if the arrow only grazes the target? What if it fully pierces the target (the head of the arrow passes through and ends up outside the target)? Why isn't the target disabled/penalized from having an arrow sticking out of him irrespective of the spell? Shouldn't the target take extra damage for pulling the arrow out? Especially if the arrow heads are barbed? Oh, but I think I read somewhere that barbed arrowheads have poor armor penetration, so shouldn't we factor that in too? IMO, this way lies madness.
> 
> Having it cost an action to pull out the arrow makes it too potent. Forget stupid amounts of free damage, having an enemy do nothing for a round is arguably better (unless that damage would bring the target to 0 hp). Heat metal is already a good (albeit situational) spell. There's no reason to expand its use to non-metal-using creatures.
> 
> If I were to allow the arrow to stay in then I'd let the creature pull it out using the free action item interaction every character gets once per round. However, in actuality I'd probably only let it deal damage once (when the target is hit). After that, I'd presume the arrow didn't stay in. Not exactly an ideal use of heat metal, but IMO that's not what it's intended for. There's already a 3rd level spell called Flame Arrows in EEPG, so a spell already exists for creating burning arrows.





Yeah, there's no way a puny 2nd level spell should cost the target its action for the round.

Oh wait, that's nonsense. There are lots of 2nd level spells that do exactly that.


----------



## ad_hoc (Nov 5, 2016)

kalil said:


> On the contrary. Since the challenge level is high I need to use my one and only concentration slot on something that truly kicks, like 8 wolf allies. Level 1 spell slots will mostly be for healing words when my allies get swatted like flies.
> 
> When the challenge gets real you cannot justify using that precious concentration on somethimg as menial as maybe granting advantage.




If you always have high level spell slots available to you, then that is indicative of not being challenged.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Nov 6, 2016)

JackOfAllTirades said:


> Yeah, there's no way a puny 2nd level spell should cost the target its action for the round.
> 
> Oh wait, that's nonsense. There are lots of 2nd level spells that do exactly that.




Sure, plenty of them cost you an action. But they don't cost you an action AND do damage AND are uber against metal-armored opponents AND excellent against metal weapon using enemies. Heat metal is already an excellent spell. I strongly believe that if it worked against all targets (Heat Skin) it would be flat out overpowered. It's main limitation is its situational aspect. What you're proposing is basically a work around for the primary limitation of the spell. At least when it is cast on an opponent's weapon, that creature can easily drop the weapon. What you're proposing costs the creature an action just to have a chance of eliminating the effect, and it allows heat metal to work against anything.

Besides, what about my questions? Assuming that arrow attacks turn the target into a pincushion by default is nonsensical IMO.


----------



## JackOfAllTirades (Nov 6, 2016)

Fanaelialae said:


> Sure, plenty of them cost you an action. But they don't cost you an action AND do damage AND are uber against metal-armored opponents AND excellent against metal weapon using enemies. Heat metal is already an excellent spell. I strongly believe that if it worked against all targets (Heat Skin) it would be flat out overpowered. It's main limitation is its situational aspect. What you're proposing is basically a work around for the primary limitation of the spell. At least when it is cast on an opponent's weapon, that creature can easily drop the weapon. What you're proposing costs the creature an action just to have a chance of eliminating the effect, and it allows heat metal to work against anything.
> 
> Besides, what about my questions? Assuming that arrow attacks turn the target into a pincushion by default is nonsensical IMO.




Rules As Written don't address your question because they don't ordinarily need to.

It's assumed that arrows sticking into a target do no further damage. 

And it's assumed they do no further damage when pulled out.

Otherwise, the RAW would say so.

There, that was easy.

Bye now.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Nov 6, 2016)

Actually, the simplest explanation is that RAW assumes that arrows don't stick into you as the default. After all, nowhere in RAW does it state that arrows stick into you, much like we don't have rules for stabbing someone through with a spear and then leaving the spear in the wound.


----------



## Yunru (Nov 6, 2016)

EvilGeniusRetired said:


> Faerie Fire provides advantage to *ALL *creatures in it's field, including enemy attacks on PCs affected. Plus it only affect creatures at time of casting and has a saving throw.  Think of it like a confetti bomb. I wouldn't say it's OP.



I'm surprised that this is the first (and only) time that this has been mentioned. Faerie Fire is an unfriendly AoE.


----------



## Winter Heart (Feb 26, 2019)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Then don't use it.




This comment made me make an account here so I could up vote it. 

Just awesome


----------



## TBeholder (Jun 20, 2019)

So they nerfed it again… 


Dr N said:


> Why should an attacker get advantage simply because the defender is glowing? It shouldn't make the hit significantly easier.



 Faerie Fire does not just make something _glow_, it _highlights contour_.


> Outlined creatures are easier to strike, thus opponents gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls in darkness (including moonlit nights) and a +1 bonus in twilight or better. Note that outlining can render otherwise invisible creatures visible. However, it cannot outline noncorporeal, ethereal, or gaseous creatures.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 21, 2019)

Don't look at bless does something very similar doesn't whiff and does saves.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 21, 2019)

TBeholder said:


> So they nerfed it again…




What are you referring to? AFAIK they haven't changed a thing about it, and it's functionally superior to earlier edition versions of the spell.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Jun 21, 2019)

Radaceus said:


> and if your party has no Druid, nor Bard...no faerie fire for your group.
> 
> Also note, Bard get's a limited amount of spells, taking this situational spell as one of the three 1st level spells known ( odds of not choosing a 2nd level spell occuring) would be rare




Or light Domain Cleric


----------



## Radaceus (Jun 22, 2019)

Mournblade94 said:


> Or light Domain Cleric




 fair catch, I suppose even the Eldritch Knight,  or perhaps Arcane trickster could take it as an off school spell... not that they'd have a lick of a chance with a high DC unless they have some very nice chargen


----------



## FrogReaver (Jun 22, 2019)

ad_hoc said:


> If you always have high level spell slots available to you, then that is indicative of not being challenged.




Level 7 you have 4 level 3+ available.  If he just used one per combat that takes him through 4 combats.  (Which is getting near the max that most people see in a given adventuring day).  However, his chosen spells also last an hour.  Due to how combats are spaced out in a longer adventuring day it's very likely that even if he were in a longer adventuring day that he would have the higher level spell slots on most days to meet that challenge.

Now if we here a bard as opposed to a Druid - you might have a point.


----------



## FrogReaver (Jun 22, 2019)

Dr N said:


> Faerie Fire provides advantage to all combat rolls for the entire party. This is far too powerful for a first level spell, and very imbalancing. Why should an attacker get advantage simply because the defender is glowing? It shouldn't make the hit significantly easier.




The reason I don't call faerie fire good is that

2.  It can flat out miss
3.  Even when it don't miss it can no effect (no would be misses turn to hits or crits)
4.  Even when it doesn't miss it can have minimal effect (only a single would be miss turns to a hit or crit)
5.  The chance of no to minimal effects occurring is fairly high
6.  In hard fights there are better concentration slots.
7.  In easy fights you likely will have as much impact with your scaling cantrip attack.

The only all the time circumstance where faerie fire is potentially very powerful is if your party is making great use of the -5/+10 feats.  Then and only then is their accuracy low enough that advantage really benefits and their damage high enough that turning even 1 miss into a hit is a huge gain.


----------



## TBeholder (Jun 23, 2019)

the Jester said:


> What are you referring to? AFAIK they haven't changed a thing about it, and it's functionally superior to earlier edition versions of the spell.



 I don't know what you call "functionally superior", but — 
AD&D*: Made it actually useful, increased range from 60 to 80 yd, and reduced duration from 10× to 4×CL rds.
3.x: Unborked AoE, but in the way that made it single-target without being targeted (most of the time); gave it huge range, but reduced duration to 1 rd×CL. 
3.5 to 5: made it "concentration" and reduced range (down to OD&D value). And gave it a saving throw.


----------



## Ashrym (Jun 23, 2019)

There's too much competition for the concentration slot on a spell with the main benefit being advantage on attacks.

It's a spell I rarely take.


----------

