(And yes, I saved the best till last.) There is a definite winner here: Vampiric Touch. They're good, and you'll want to have some of them, there's just not much to say about them here.įinally, melee range attack spells. There's a lot of these, but none of them really stand out, no class is particularly better at them, and most of them don't really require you to be in melee anyway. Burning Hands, Cone of Cold, Thunderwave, etc. Next up, spells that have their origin on you. The Wizard's Fire Shield is probably the best spell for this, but the Warlock's (or Tiefling's) Hellish Rebuke or the Tempest Cleric's Wrath of the Storm ability work here too. Reason number three is if you want to be attacked for some reason.
The Elemental Player's Companion addded some good new ones to look for - Thunderclap is a cantrip that's just perfect for a melee spellcaster, and Earth Tremor is a pretty awesome too. There's not too many spells in this category, unfortunately. Other notable spells include the Paladin's Destructive Wave and the Warlock's Arms of Hadar. The standout here is the Cleric's Spirit Guardians, which, once cast, damages everything around you for up to 10 minutes without requiring any further actions on your part. The next is spells that damage nearby enemies. Also, as a half-caster, the Paladin is almost certainly not what you're after. However, outside that, the Paladin's primary focus is on buffing his own melee attacks with the -ing Smite spells, which isn't exactly what you're after. Honestly, no other class even comes close. There are a few reasons for a spellcaster to be in melee (most of which you mentioned.) I'll cover them one by one. Or are there, perhaps, archetypes for classes more typically comfortable in melee that would give me good reason to use spellcasting even when enemies are around, rather than simply magically enhancing my weapon-fighting skills? I’m not staunchly opposed to having weapon skills, I just don’t plan on using them, ideally. The evoker’s ability to sculpt spells also seems very valuable, particularly if there are good close-range evocations to use (I would prefer battlefield control, buffing, or debuffing over direct damage, however).Īlternatively, in previous editions, both cleric and druid (especially 4e’s druid) would have arguably been better picks for this, but in those editions and 5e (as far as I can tell) those classes do tend to focus a lot on their melee physical attacks – to what degree can I ignore those without ignoring significant aspects of my class package? Is this wizard my best bet? Which school is most appropriate – in a quick scan of the benefits, abjurer seemed to be choice, though transmuter definitely seemed to putting in some solid food for thought. close enough that a typical opponent can in one turn move up to me and attack me in melee.įor example, I’m considering a dwarf wizard, picking up the Heavily Armored and Shield Master feats, and not using a weapon so that I can cast spells without War Caster (though the advantage on Constitution saving throws made to avoid losing concentration on a spell may make the feat too valuable to miss out on even if I don’t necessarily care to have a weapon).
Of these options, I like battlefield control best, and direct-damage blasting least, but most significantly I just want a mage who has good reason to get into close quarters, without being a fighter-mage hybrid.įor the purposes of this question, I’m defining “close quarters” as within 30 ft. This might take the form of damage waves that are centered on his location, auras that buff nearby allies, melee-range attack spells, or the creation of terrain hazards in his immediate vicinity, but it is not my goal to have or use significant weapon skills. I’m looking to make a character whose focus is on the use of spellcasting in close quarters.
0 kommentar(er)
