Witch Bolt is Trash

[Gulabius Jamunius]

Witch bolt is about as low tier of a spell as true strike and both should get homebrewed for the game so that they can be viable. As it currently stands, there is never a reason to cast witch bolt instead of say Chromatic Orb: Lightning. Witch bolt costs an action and a lvl 1 spell slot to cast dealing 1d12 lightning damage. It also uses concentration and creates a tether between the caster and target that can be activated with 100% hit chance for 1d12 damage with an action every turn. The problem with witch bolt is that it does very little damage upfront compared to other spells of equal level and requires concentration for equally small damage. The only benefit is that it can't "miss" every consecutive turn once you've activated it succesfully. It's also piss poor in terms of action economy. Doing 1d12 per turn on one target is far too slow when you only have 4 characters at all times. Wasting the concentration of your spell caster on witch bolt when you can use that concentration for literally anything else (like flaming sphere, enlarge/reduce, cloud of daggers) is incredibly weak. Even if you upcast witch bolt, only the initial hit does 2d12 damage while activating the link remains 1d12. This spell is garbage in every possible way.

One way they could buff witch bolt is to keep the initial cast the same but let you activate the link for a bonus action every following turn instead of the full action it usually requires. This would allow the spellcaster to still contribute to the fight and cast other spells with their action. Of course, witch bolt would still use concentration, but I think this buff would help justify it.

Second way they could buff witch bolt is by keeping it an action but making it so upcasting the spell not only does an extra 1d12 damage per spell level but reactivating also does. So lvl 2 witch bolt does 2d12 on hit and 2d12 when reactivating as well (it currently stays at 1d12). I also toyed with the idea that every consecutive turn you reactivate witch bolt and maintain concentration the spell increases in potency. Maybe every time witch bolt is reactivated it does additional damage equal to your intelligence modifier on top of the damage roll and stacks. For example if you have 16 intelligence, first time does 1d12, then 1d12 +3, then 1d12 +6, and so on and so on. This would be a cool change because it rewards the player for maintaining concentration for many turns at a much better opportunity cost considering how strong the other concentration spells are. It also increases the minimum damage threshold so you don't get trolled when you concentrate on witch bolt for 3-4 turns and roll 1 for damage.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

100%, I agree.

[WeenerTuck813]

Witch bolt sucks in D&D too. I’m ok with there being some spells that aren’t great

[Gulabius Jamunius]

Originally posted by WeenerTuck813:

Witch bolt sucks in D&D too. I’m ok with there being some spells that aren’t great

Saying witch bolt isnt that great is an understatement. Also, I'd contend that leaving spells in a weak spot is bad for the game's balance and lazy design. Giving the player as many viable options as possible is healthy for player freedom and builds. If a spell is too great it should get nerfed as well so that it's not essential to take it. A universally weak spell should be buffed so that it can see play. Letting witch bolt remain ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ just means no one will ever use it, so why is it even in the game then?

[Metallicus]

Originally posted by Gulab Jamun:

Originally posted by WeenerTuck813:

Witch bolt sucks in D&D too. I’m ok with there being some spells that aren’t great

Saying witch bolt isnt that great is an understatement. Also, I'd contend that leaving spells in a weak spot is bad for the game's balance and lazy design. Giving the player as many viable options as possible is healthy for player freedom and builds. If a spell is too great it should get nerfed as well so that it's not essential to take it. A universally weak spell should be buffed so that it can see play. Letting witch bolt remain ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ just means no one will ever use it, so why is it even in the game then?

I am not trying to be Pan Darius here, but why not just keep the spells true to the D&D rules and leave them alone? If it sucks or is good in the table top game then just leave it be.

[Gulabius Jamunius]

Originally posted by Metallicus:

Originally posted by Gulab Jamun:

Saying witch bolt isnt that great is an understatement. Also, I'd contend that leaving spells in a weak spot is bad for the game's balance and lazy design. Giving the player as many viable options as possible is healthy for player freedom and builds. If a spell is too great it should get nerfed as well so that it's not essential to take it. A universally weak spell should be buffed so that it can see play. Letting witch bolt remain ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ just means no one will ever use it, so why is it even in the game then?

I am not trying to be Pan Darius here, but why not just keep the spells true to the D&D rules and leave them alone? If it sucks or is good in the table top game then just leave it be.

I mean no offense, but I think what you said is pretty ignorant and close minded. A literal translation of the D&D rules is a bad idea for three main reasons: (1) D&D is not a video game and not every aspect of the ruleset will transfer well into video game format so adaptation to some extent is necessary (2) D&D is not a perfect system, so opportunities to improve it should be taken (3) To my understanding, D&D rules are more a set of guidelines for how to play it, and following the letter of the law is not demanded. Homebrewing is encouraged so that you can have fun with your group and cater the game to your sensibilities.

For these reasons I strongly disagree that Larian should "leave alone" the D&D rules. I'm not advocating for completely flipping the gameplay systems on itself. You are right that BG3 should be recognizable as a D&D game (it is licensed after all). However, I do believe minor changes are in order that would benefit D&D as a video game and particular as a Larian game.

[Hobocop]

If we're already going to go as far as completely changing up the 1st-level features of the pre-Tasha's ranger because they're awful, why not a subpar spell or two? It'll make it more interesting in the end when it's actually a choice between Witch Bolt and another damage spell.

[Aldain]

Originally posted by Metallicus:

I am not trying to be Pan Darius here, but why not just keep the spells true to the D&D rules and leave them alone? If it sucks or is good in the table top game then just leave it be.

Because if that was done then Ranger would be absolutely useless.

[Yojo0o]

As a dungeon master, I'm pretty sure Witch Bolt exists in DnD 5e FOR dungeon masters.

It's a spell for low-level spellcasters to use against the players where there's a clear, ongoing, interactive threat. The players have several options to respond: interrupt enemy concentration, break line of sight, or move out of range of the spell. In the super early stages of DnD 5e, there are very few ways to actually demonstrate tactics beyond simply using your abilities and hoping they hit, so as a DM I like to throw Witch Bolt at my players in level 1-3 play to force them to actually assess the situation and figure out the best move forward. It's strong enough to down a player if they don't shut it down, but weak enough that I'm not going to get any accidental unfair surprise kills with it.

Yes, it's a godawful spell, and I see no good reason for a PC to ever prep it.

[Metallicus]

Originally posted by Aldain:

Originally posted by Metallicus:

I am not trying to be Pan Darius here, but why not just keep the spells true to the D&D rules and leave them alone? If it sucks or is good in the table top game then just leave it be.

Because if that was done then Ranger would be absolutely useless.

This is what I deserve for trying to impersonate Pan, lol.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Originally posted by Yojo0o:

As a dungeon master, I'm pretty sure Witch Bolt exists in DnD 5e FOR dungeon masters.

It's a spell for low-level spellcasters to use against the players where there's a clear, ongoing, interactive threat. The players have several options to respond: interrupt enemy concentration, break line of sight, or move out of range of the spell. In the super early stages of DnD 5e, there are very few ways to actually demonstrate tactics beyond simply using your abilities and hoping they hit, so as a DM I like to throw Witch Bolt at my players in level 1-3 play to force them to actually assess the situation and figure out the best move forward. It's strong enough to down a player if they don't shut it down, but weak enough that I'm not going to get any accidental unfair surprise kills with it.

Yes, it's a godawful spell, and I see no good reason for a PC to ever prep it.

This is the correct answer ^

[seandeven]

Lest not forget another Lightning spell until 5th level. (Unless you include Dragonbreath from tabletop XGtE) Perhaps helping Chromatic Orb isn't so bad?
I'd even argue lightning damage cantrips are more useful than Witchbolt.

The Emperor Palpatine meme is strong in this game it is

[Aldain]

Honestly if it just was a "Use your bonus action to apply damage again" thing I think it would be fine. Using a full action just makes it a waste of time.

It would still be held back by needing concentration, but would apply reasonable relatively low cost damage over time to a single target.

I mean we have Spiritual Weapon which fills a similar (albeit more flexible) niche, so it would be a sensible change, even if it had to lose some damage to compensate for the change (going from d12 to d10/8 for example).

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Originally posted by Aldain:

Honestly if it just was a "Use your bonus action to apply damage again" thing I think it would be fine. Using a full action just makes it a waste of time.

It would still be held back by needing concentration, but would apply reasonable relatively low cost damage over time to a single target.

I mean we have Spiritual Weapon which fills a similar (albeit more flexible) niche, so it would be a sensible change, even if it had to lose some damage to compensate for the change (going from d12 to d10/8 for example).

The reason you use your action is because it takes the place of your attack for the turn.

Witch Bolt is supposed to be for sustained DPR against high hp enemies and bosses. On a per-spell-slot basis, it does more damage than other spells of it's level, assuming that it actually deals all of it's damage.

It's duration is 10 rounds, so presumably you could get 10d12, or an average of 65 damage, from a 1st level spell, and this goes up by 1d12 for every spell slot level above 1st. And it's automatic damage (after the initial attack roll).

That's a lot of damage, particularly for a spell that can't miss (successively). Magic Missile only deals on average 7.5 damage at level 1.

The issues with it begin with concentration. It's very easy to lose concentration, especially at lower levels, and I think BG3's AI even targets casters concentrating on spells, or maybe it's just their low AC, but regardless, you're not likely to get the entirety of it's damage anyway. And then there's the fact that it's mostly a waste against weaker enemies and combat rarely lasts ten turns, so it's not as effective as it appears on paper or in theorycrafting. Also, you have to activate it every turn or it's wasted, and you can't switch targets.

If I were going to change anything, it would be that last bit. Let the caster choose any new target for reactivation, but switching targets requires a new attack roll (automatic damage only occurs if you activate it on it's current target). This way, you could use it to clear out horde monsters, like goblins, without wasting it's full potential, as long as you can maintain concentration and succeed at each attack roll.

[RealDealBreaker]

Honestly, it's actually a pretty good 1st level spell... Until you get to 5th level when a cantrip becomes better. This is because only the initial damage increases if you cast WB at a higher level, the action to activate it on subsequent turns is always 1d12. So the 6.5 average (true average since there is no attack roll and thus no chance to miss on the subsequent rounds) pales in comparison to a cantrip like firebolt that becomes 2d10 at 5th level (average 11 damage if you hit). But up until 5th level, WB can be a good 1st level spell in situations where you can ensure the enemy cant just run out of range (i.e., you have them cornered) and ideally your other party members can further restrict the targets movement so that it would have to take attacks of opportunity to come at the caster and so that the target has other people to deal with so trying to use ranged attacks against the caster isn't the obvious decision. Admittedly, that is a rare situation and there certainly are better 1st level spells but WB is far from the true strike level of bad.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Originally posted by RealDealBreaker:

This is because only the initial damage increases if you cast WB at a higher level, the action to activate it on subsequent turns is always 1d12.

But if you could get it's full potential - 10d12 - it would still outclass many higher level spells in damage.

The problem is actually getting it's full potential, which is why I made the suggestion that you should be able to switch targets with a new attack roll. This would increase the possibility of getting more damage from the spell and make it useful against horde monsters.