# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  Whats the point of mordaikens sword?

## oogaboogagoblin

When a caster has access to 7th level spells cantrips that do a D10 of damage have already been upgraded to 3d10 damage, meaning mordaikens sword is literally just a second cantrip with dog ass range, that also costs a seventh level spell slot AND requires concentration.

----------


## Catullus64

Don't forget that it has a costed material component too!

It is a pretty poor spell for its level, absolutely. It does offer that additional damage as a bonus action, thus making it a slightly-higher-damage Spiritual Weapon (with concentration). In the scheme of balance, Mordenkainen's Sword seems like a 4th-level spell to me. Although do note that it's not necessarily competing with Spiritual Weapon, since no class shares both those spells on one list.

----------


## J-H

It's a legacy spell that was ported over poorly at 3d10 damage, and is garbage.

At 5th level, Bigby's Hand has a superior range, deals 4d8 damage, and give options for shoving, interposing, and grappling as well.  In every single respect, Bigby's is superior to Mord's Sword.

Other comparables are a 6th level _Spiritual Weapon_, which does not require Concentration, lasts 1 minute, casts and attacks as a bonus action, and does 3d8+MOD damage, or Flaming Sphere, which can be moved as a BA and, at 7th level, does 7d6 fire damage, Dex half, and can affect multiple targets.

If Mord's Sword could attack twice like Black Blade of Disaster, it'd be substantially better.

----------


## Psyren

Yes, it's pretty widely acknowledged to be terrible. The clearest comparison is Bigby's Hand, which works the same but does more damage, has better range, considerably more utility, and is a whopping two spell levels lower.

I will say in its defense (since you brought up cantrips) that after it's summoned it only costs you a bonus action to attack with it rather than an action - but again, Bigby's Hand is strictly superior for much less.

Wizards meanwhile have the vastly superior Crown of Stars to use that slot on instead, which lasts an entire hour (_without_ concentration) and does more damage to boot.

----------


## BRC

In theory, since it takes a bonus action to command, it's an extra 3d10 damage a round on a summon that can't be attacked or tied down, allowing you to deal some extra damage while still slinging Fireballs.

In practicality, it's only a minor damage increase over Bigby's Hand (4d8 vs 3d10) with less versatility for 2 extra spell levels and a third the mobility, and that's without comparing it to the summon spells in Tashas. It's not much of a spell 


The spell seems to be an artifact from earlier editions, when Bigby's Hand didn't have the attack functionality, and you had to cast it at 7th level to let it grapple or push enemies. In 5e, they updated Bigby's Hand to include an attack and kept it at 5th level, but didn't change Mordaikeden's sword.

----------


## Unoriginal

> When a caster has access to 7th level spells cantrips that do a D10 of damage have already been upgraded to 3d10 damage, meaning mordaikens sword is literally just a second cantrip with dog ass range, that also costs a seventh level spell slot AND requires concentration.


The point of Mordenkainen's Sword is, IMO, to showcase that Mordenkainen is a doofus who's not as good as he think he is. 

My headcannon is that this spell is the result of Mordenkainen trying to one-up Bigby and failing hard.

----------


## Psyren

> In practicality, it's only a minor damage increase over Bigby's Hand (4d8 vs 3d10) with less versatility for 2 extra spell levels and a third the mobility, and that's without comparing it to the summon spells in Tashas.


4d8 is actually higher damage than 3d10 (18 vs. 16.5 avg.) So it doesn't even win that!




> The spell seems to be an artifact from earlier editions, when Bigby's Hand didn't have the attack functionality, and you had to cast it at 7th level to let it grapple or push enemies. In 5e, they updated Bigby's Hand to include an attack and kept it at 5th level, but didn't change Mordaikeden's sword.


Actually, 3e added an attack function to the Bigby's Hand line too: https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/clenchedFist.htm. That version was 8th level but didn't require any action from you once it was aimed at a target, didn't need concentration, and would stun on a hit.

----------


## diplomancer

There's no point, as it does force damage, not piercing.

Oh, you mean, what is its use? There isn't one either.

----------


## BRC

Is there a damage point that makes sense for this thing?

A 7th level Bigby's hand on full time punch duty hits for 8d8. If we say that this hits for 8d10, so it hits a big harder than Bigby's in exchange for being a higher level spell and having no other functionality, is that decent?

----------


## Unoriginal

> Is there a damage point that makes sense for this thing?
> 
> A 7th level Bigby's hand on full time punch duty hits for 8d8. If we say that this hits for 8d10, so it hits a big harder than Bigby's in exchange for being a higher level spell and having no other functionality, is that decent?


Mordenkainen would probably argue that it is more than decent, and that having the edge in term of damage plus leaving your action free to cast even more damaging stuff is all the proof of superior spellscafting a true scholar of the arcane arts would need to declare the Sword to stand out among the lesser spells it shares some similarities with.

But I don't think he has the CHA and proficiencies to sell that cope.

----------


## Psyren

> Is there a damage point that makes sense for this thing?
> 
> A 7th level Bigby's hand on full time punch duty hits for 8d8. If we say that this hits for 8d10, so it hits a big harder than Bigby's in exchange for being a higher level spell and having no other functionality, is that decent?


That's 8 more DPR in exchange for no functionality and a third of the range. Personally I'd say the hand still wins, but you're a lot closer than the original at least.

IMO the better option would be to leave it as-is but sharply reduce the spell level. That would also put it in striking distance of Eldritch Knights and the like who might want it thematically and can't get Spiritual Weapon. I would also make it a bonus action to bring out like Spiritual Weapon, rather than needing an action to cast.

----------


## BRC

> That's 8 more DPR in exchange for no functionality and a third of the range. Personally I'd say the hand still wins, but you're a lot closer than the original at least.
> 
> IMO the better option would be to leave it as-is but sharply reduce the spell level. That would also put it in striking distance of Eldritch Knights and the like who might want it thematically and can't get Spiritual Weapon. I would also make it a bonus action to bring out like Spiritual Weapon, rather than needing an action to cast.


Htmm

It averages 16.5 damage per round. Assuming you cast it round 1 and keep it up, hitting 3 times (4 round combat, assuming a greater than 50% hit rate), we've got total damage contributed of 16.5x3 for about 50 damage contributed total. 

Easy mode is to make it a 4th level spell, since it's basically just a worse Bigby's.

----------


## Schwann145

This is one of those perfect examples for my argument that WotC is just lazy af about spells and the entire list needs a serious update with a fine-toothed comb.
Which, obviously and unfortunately, will never happen.

----------


## Dork_Forge

Whilst not the greatest spell I'm not sure I get all the hate and comparison to Bigby's @5th:

- Bigby's Hand has an AC and hit points, the Sword doesn't

- You can attack twice on the first turn, Bigby's explicitly prevents this

So in reality over a 3 round combat, you're talking:

12d8 (54) vs 12d10 (66)

Upcast Bigby's is definitely better for damage, MS could certainly be safely buffed, but it's also not a complete waste of a spell known, especially if the aesthetics are more the player's preference.

----------


## Segev

Stepping back into fluff for a bit, _Mordenkainen's sword_ is, conceptually, a sword of force that does attack damage for you while you're still casting spells. It is "better" than a summon in that it doesn't have AC, hp, or any means of being destroyed save by dispelling, but it only does damage and, arguably, the fact it _cannot_ be targeted to remove it means it can't do what summons are often said to be best for: tanking. Conceptually, again, though, it's not supposed to do any of those things. It is an offensive spell, and it's designed to let you have a telekinetically-wielded magical sword, essentially. 

It is worth noting that both _Mordenkainen's sword_ and the _blade of disaster_ can leave the range of the spell once you've cast it. They appear in range, but later can be moved up to 30 feet per turn to any place you can see. The _blade of disasater_ also moves harmlessly through obstacles, which is pretty cool.

Mordenkainen is reputed to be a know-it-all who thinks he's better than everyone at everything because he's smarter than they are and thus "knows" better how to do things. If _Mordenkainen's sword_ is motivated by the notion that he can "be a fighter" better than a fighter can, it probably should do 3d10+Int mod (or spellcasting mod) damage, and should attack twice when activated. A 7th level spell is being cast by no lower than a 13th level wizard, and a fighter by this level has 3 attacks. 

I might go so far as to change its wording to: "Whenever you cast a spell as an action, you may make a melee spell attack against a creature within 5 feet of it. You may also use the sword instead of a weapon when taking the attack action, and if you do, you may attack twice instead of once." It no longer takes a bonus action at all, and simply becomes a bonus source of damage each round you cast a spell (which can be a cantrip). The fact you can send it flying pretty far from you can make it viable in longer-ranged combat. Maybe allow it to be moved further if you spend a bonus action or an action juts to move it, in order to let it keep up with flying foes?

----------


## Psyren

> Whilst not the greatest spell I'm not sure I get all the hate and comparison to Bigby's @5th:
> 
> - Bigby's Hand has an AC and hit points, the Sword doesn't
> 
> - You can attack twice on the first turn, Bigby's explicitly prevents this
> 
> So in reality over a 3 round combat, you're talking:
> 
> 12d8 (54) vs 12d10 (66)


I'll grant you the point of the extra 3d10 when it's summoned, but the damage comparison is less clear-cut than you imply - the fact that it can only move 20ft means that unless you yourself are standing within 25ft of the front line, it's possible the enemy you targeted with it can simply move through/away from it to get to you, negating that damage benefit entirely as you now need more than one round to reposition it, or else try going after a different enemy. And a ranged enemy can just move more than 20ft away in any direction. Bigby's meanwhile does less damage initially but has far fewer problems repositioning or "sticking", i.e. less chance of losing any damage on subsequent rounds than MS.

The 60ft initial summoning range for the sword is important too, as that is counterspell range. Bigby's Hand meanwhile can be summoned safely outside of that. And Crown of Stars, the superior option to both if all you want is bonus action damage from that slot, can be reliably cast out of combat entirely.

Lastly, I'd say the hand being attackable is actually a feature, as that lets it double as offense and defense with little extra effort on your part.

----------


## Segev

> And Crown of Stars, the superior option to both if all you want is bonus action damage from that slot, can be reliably cast out of combat entirely.


Hm. If _Mordenkainen's sword_ is best compared to _crown of stars_, is there anything it could do to make it have its own place and still compete?

----------


## stoutstien

> Hm. If _Mordenkainen's sword_ is best compared to _crown of stars_, is there anything it could do to make it have its own place and still compete?


Model it after shadowblade and make it an actual sword that can be handled off to an ally.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> This is one of those perfect examples for my argument that WotC is just lazy af about spells and the entire list needs a serious update with a fine-toothed comb.
> Which, obviously and unfortunately, will never happen.


If they did that in OneD&D, I'd be willing to overlook a lot of other jank. But it looks like instead they'll make random edits to particular spells, mostly the inoffensive ones (seriously, _spiritual weapon_ was fine the way it was) and call it a day.

----------


## stoutstien

> Hm. If _Mordenkainen's sword_ is best compared to _crown of stars_, is there anything it could do to make it have its own place and still compete?


Model it after shadowblade and make it an actual sword that can be handled off to an ally.

----------


## Sigreid

1. It kind of makes sense that not every spell created would be as successful as hoped.  Could have been created purely for research purposes.
2. There are probably some niche situations where it's the best tool for overcoming some spell immunities.
3. I'd rule you could use it to effectively block a doorway without having to make the Fighter stand there.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> I'll grant you the point of the extra 3d10 when it's summoned, but the damage comparison is less clear-cut than you imply - the fact that it can only move 20ft means that unless you yourself are standing within 25ft of the front line, it's possible the enemy you targeted with it can simply move through/away from it to get to you, negating that damage benefit entirely as you now need more than one round to reposition it, or else try going after a different enemy. And a ranged enemy can just move more than 20ft away in any direction. Bigby's meanwhile does less damage initially but has far fewer problems repositioning or "sticking", i.e. less chance of losing any damage on subsequent rounds than MS.


I generally don't assume that monsters are standing around freely with no one but the caster. I'm treating this like Spiritual Weapon, which can get caught out, but normally has no issue because the monsters are in range of party members/other targets are in range.

I'm also going to point out that the movement is misleading. If the sword is in front of the monster, then they can move 10ft and still be within reach of the sword. The larger the monster the greater the amount of movement that needs to be spent.

Positioning is rarely as simple as comparing movement speeds.




> The 60ft initial summoning range for the sword is important too, as that is counterspell range. Bigby's Hand meanwhile can be summoned safely outside of that. And Crown of Stars, the superior option to both if all you want is bonus action damage from that slot, can be reliably cast out of combat entirely.


I don't consider this a big point to consider... well ever because Counter Spell is more of a PC thing. But since you brought it up I was talking about Bigby at native level vs Mord's Sword, for CS purposes Bigby's is easier to counter as it's lower level. Though I don't think it's really something worth consideration in the design of a spell.




> Lastly, I'd say the hand being attackable is actually a feature, as that lets it double as offense and defense with little extra effort on your part.


You're assuming that monsters are attacking it, vs it losing HP to AOEs and auras, from both sides.

Crown of Stars:

This is a pretty different spell, but if you really want to compare, sure.

- It's a ranged attack. Monster next to you? Disadvantage. Monster prone? Disadvantage.
- Doesn't benefit from a prone monster
- The design encourages precasting, but that also destroys Stealth attempts
- It has a finite range from the caster


Reminder of my position: MS isn't great, but it's not worthless. Not every spell has to be S Tier, nor should they be.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Mordenkainen is reputed to be a know-it-all who thinks he's better than everyone at everything because he's smarter than they are and thus "knows" better how to do things.


I agree with the premise...




> If _Mordenkainen's sword_ is motivated by the notion that he can "be a fighter" better than a fighter can, it probably should do 3d10+Int mod (or spellcasting mod) damage, and should attack twice when activated. A 7th level spell is being cast by no lower than a 13th level wizard, and a fighter by this level has 3 attacks. 
> 
> I might go so far as to change its wording to: "Whenever you cast a spell as an action, you may make a melee spell attack against a creature within 5 feet of it. You may also use the sword instead of a weapon when taking the attack action, and if you do, you may attack twice instead of once." It no longer takes a bonus action at all, and simply becomes a bonus source of damage each round you cast a spell (which can be a cantrip). The fact you can send it flying pretty far from you can make it viable in longer-ranged combat. Maybe allow it to be moved further if you spend a bonus action or an action juts to move it, in order to let it keep up with flying foes?


...but certainly not with the conclusion.

Mordenkainen *thinks* he's better than everyone, but he's very much wrong about that, as he is about many other things. 

_Mordenkainen's Sword_ should *not* attack twice when activated, or be usable as a weapon (to attack twice or otherwise), or be moved further than the PHB spell let you, specifically because Mordenkainen is dismissive of other people's skillset and overconfident in his own capacities.

----------


## Scots Dragon

Mordenkainen's Sword was a way better spell in previous editions. The Bigby's Hand line of spells wouldn't do any damage until the eighth level's Bigby's Clenched Fist.

The idea that because it's poorly rendered in fifth edition that we should interpret Mordenkainen as some kind of incompetent buffoon is just absurd.

----------


## Psyren

> I generally don't assume that monsters are standing around freely with no one but the caster. I'm treating this like Spiritual Weapon, which can get caught out, but normally has no issue because the monsters are in range of party members/other targets are in range.
> 
> I'm also going to point out that the movement is misleading. If the sword is in front of the monster, then they can move 10ft and still be within reach of the sword. The larger the monster the greater the amount of movement that needs to be spent.
> 
> Positioning is rarely as simple as comparing movement speeds.


By Tier 3+ though, you're likely to have combats with differing elevation or even aerial combat and the like. The low movement it gets matters, especially when you only have one 7th-level slot until 20th. 




> I don't consider this a big point to consider... well ever because Counter Spell is more of a PC thing. But since you brought it up I was talking about Bigby at native level vs Mord's Sword, for CS purposes Bigby's is easier to counter as it's lower level. Though I don't think it's really something worth consideration in the design of a spell.


At "native level" for BH you don't have MS at all  :Small Confused:  I'm not sure what the point of a comparison then would be.




> You're assuming that monsters are attacking it, vs it losing HP to AOEs and auras, from both sides.


You were assuming a 3 round combat earlier - if you're up against something capable of deleting the hand in 3 rounds, that's still damage that would have put you or possibly your party in serious danger. And if it's sufficiently large AoE to wipe you _both_ out in that time, then neither spell is helpful, so at best they're equally poor choices for that fight.




> Crown of Stars:
> 
> This is a pretty different spell, but if you really want to compare, sure.
> 
> - It's a ranged attack. Monster next to you? Disadvantage. Monster prone? Disadvantage.
> - Doesn't benefit from a prone monster
> - The design encourages precasting, but that also destroys Stealth attempts
> - It has a finite range from the caster


120ft range and no concentration, so your chances of being in melee are much less than with MS or BH. And if the monster goes prone to try and avoid your 4d12 I'd call that a win, especially since you have a much higher chance of either being able to target something else, or negate their defense with something like Web/Faerie Fire, or just hold on to the spell until the next fight entirely.

No concentration also means that if you really run into a stealth problem between fights you have multiple options there too, including the mundane solution of holding your cloak up over your head while the motes orbit it and letting your party lead you.




> Reminder of my position: MS isn't great, but it's not worthless. Not every spell has to be S Tier, nor should they be.


I never said it has to be "S tier", nor did I say MS is "worthless." 

Reminder of _my_ position - it's not nearly as simple as saying "in reality over a 3 round combat, MS does more damage." Even in a completely blank whiteroom that's unlikely to be the case by 13+, never mind anything more complex, and Tier 3 means complexity is the norm rather than the exception.

----------


## Scots Dragon

> The point of Mordenkainen's Sword is, IMO, to showcase that Mordenkainen is a doofus who's not as good as he think he is. 
> 
> My headcannon is that this spell is the result of Mordenkainen trying to one-up Bigby and failing hard.


The backstory of those characters is that Bigby is actually Mordenkainen's former apprentice. If there's any headcanon to be had there, it's that Bigby took Mordenkainen's sword and the ideas behind it as a force spell and refined them to produce his 'hand' spells.

----------


## Psyren

We'll probably get more info / character on Bigby in the giant book later this year, I'm looking forward to it!

----------


## Scots Dragon

> We'll probably get more info / character on Bigby in the giant book later this year, I'm looking forward to it!


The character's been part of Greyhawk lore for _decades_. Quite a bit of information is already there to be had in the City of Greyhawk boxed set, the Return of the Eight module, and various bits and pieces of Living Greyhawk material.

----------


## Psyren

> The character's been part of Greyhawk lore for _decades_. Quite a bit of information is already there to be had in the City of Greyhawk boxed set, the Return of the Eight module, and various bits and pieces of Living Greyhawk material.


I know but like... I don't have any of those  :Small Tongue: 

And I'll be picking up the 5e Bigby book anyway for those sweet Barbarian and Druid subclasses. (the Wizard one less so, but still interested.)

----------


## Scots Dragon

> I know but like... I don't have any of those


They'll probably change him up anyway. They've been somewhat less-than-respectful of existing lore as it goes.

----------


## Psyren

Well, I can't speak for how authentic the "iconics" have been to their prior incarnations. All I can really say is that I found the notes from Tasha, Mordenkainen and Fizban to be fun to read while thumbing through the material, and distinctive in style.

But I'll stop derailing now.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> By Tier 3+ though, you're likely to have combats with differing elevation or even aerial combat and the like. The low movement it gets matters, especially when you only have one 7th-level slot until 20th.


None of that necessarily changes anything I said and no spell design protects the spell from being used in poor circumstances by the player.





> At "native level" for BH you don't have MS at all  I'm not sure what the point of a comparison then would be.


I didn't start that comparison, I was addressing it.




> You were assuming a 3 round combat earlier - if you're up against something capable of deleting the hand in 3 rounds, that's still damage that would have put you or possibly your party in serious danger. And if it's sufficiently large AoE to wipe you _both_ out in that time, then neither spell is helpful, so at best they're equally poor choices for that fight.


I really don't get the first point, yes fight you are willing to use your 7th level spell in is dangerous. 

You made a large leap there to put the caster in the AOE, to try and nullify it. The caster not only need not be in the AOE path, but the caster also has the option of defenses... Absorb Elements, Warding Bond, Peace Cleric, Temp HP etc. The hand is nothing like a PC just because it has the same HP.






> 120ft range and no concentration, so your chances of being in melee are much less than with MS or BH. And if the monster goes prone to try and avoid your 4d12 I'd call that a win, especially since you have a much higher chance of either being able to target something else, or negate their defense with something like Web/Faerie Fire, or just hold on to the spell until the next fight entirely.


Not convinced that the range is a meaningful difference for melee risk. That would assume that you're starting at long range, and are happy to stay there/maintain it depsite the fact that most spells don't have that range and your party aren't likely to stay with you.

Seriously, you bring up Faerie Fire and Web in this reply in conjunction with Crown of Stars, _both have the much more common range of 60 feet.
_

And I didn't assume the monsters going prone, which is fairly uncommon/unrealistic in most cases, more like your party making them prone. This is just a net loss for the caster compared to either MS or BH.




> No concentration also means that if you really run into a stealth problem between fights you have multiple options there too, including the mundane solution of holding your cloak up over your head while the motes orbit it and letting your party lead you.


You brought up concentration like it matters, then just kind of left it dangling there. Without any example that's just a meaningless statement that doesn't demonstrate anything.

As for the cloak thing, the fact that you consider blinding the caster a perfectly normal/acceptable trade off is telling, but you didn't even seem to consider that it wouldn't work? Why would anything you put over your star-orbited head be good enough to entirely block the light?




> I never said it has to be "S tier", nor did I say MS is "worthless."


Never said that you did, I was saying my actual position to make clear what I'm saying. You instead seem to have just taken this as something else to argue instead of accepting it as context.




> Reminder of _my_ position - it's not nearly as simple as saying "in reality over a 3 round combat, MS does more damage." Even in a completely blank whiteroom that's unlikely to be the case by 13+, never mind anything more complex, and Tier 3 means complexity is the norm rather than the exception.


I run two Tier 3 games a week, well aware. One of which has a combination of a Sorcadin and a Stars Druid. One uses Spiritual Weapon, close enough to MS for this, the other makes heavy use of a ranged, radiant, spell attack.

The Druid has more trouble than the Spiritual Weapon when it comes to cover and disadvantage.

My encounters frequently feature changes in elevation, flying/climbing enemies, cover and what not. No white rooms here.

----------


## Segev

> I agree with the premise...
> 
> 
> 
> ...but certainly not with the conclusion.
> 
> Mordenkainen *thinks* he's better than everyone, but he's very much wrong about that, as he is about many other things. 
> 
> _Mordenkainen's Sword_ should *not* attack twice when activated, or be usable as a weapon (to attack twice or otherwise), or be moved further than the PHB spell let you, specifically because Mordenkainen is dismissive of other people's skillset and overconfident in his own capacities.


Fair enough. That doesn't mean that Mordenkainen is an incompetent. If he's even half as good as he thinks he is, he's pretty darned amazing, and the lore seems to agree he IS pretty darned amazing.

So, then, where should his eponymous sword be sitting?

----------


## Psyren

I mean, I'm not going to list every single concentration spell that would be helpful alongside CoS just to prove the point  :Small Tongue:  My larger point is that concentration can be used to gain advantage or negate disadvantage readily (or lock down multiple targets etc), so even comparing point for point CoS comes out well ahead.

And my point regarding the "poor circumstances" is that they are fairly common at 13+. Again, all it takes is one round where your sword is more than 20ft away from an enemy and the double attack benefit is negated, any more than that and it gets progressively worse. Heck, even if you _can_ keep it hitting something every round in those circumstances, it may not be the target your party is trying to focus down. With triple the movement, the hand is much less susceptible to such situations - that's all I'm saying there.

As for the hand being passively destructible, I can see that being a negative sometimes. Personally I find the situations where passive AoE can wipe out something that has all your HP to be a black swan event in the grand scheme of things, but sure, it could happen.

Apologies on confusing your context for an attempt to say I said something that I didn't, consider that bit withdrawn.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> I mean, I'm not going to list every single concentration spell that would be helpful alongside CoS just to prove the point  My larger point is that concentration can be used to gain advantage or negate disadvantage readily (or lock down multiple targets etc), so even comparing point for point CoS comes out well ahead.


It doesn't really matter what you list, the fact remains that most spells that you'd put into that space don't have that kind of extreme range. 

So you're just saying that concentration can be used, which is almost as vague as saying you can use your action to negate it.




> And my point regarding the "poor circumstances" is that they are fairly common at 13+. Again, all it takes is one round where your sword is more than 20ft away from an enemy *and the double attack benefit is negated*, any more than that and it gets progressively worse. Heck, even if you _can_ keep it hitting something every round in those circumstances, it may not be the target your party is trying to focus down. With triple the movement, the hand is much less susceptible to such situations - that's all I'm saying there.


On the bolded part.... what? The double attack is on the first turn. You're summoning the sword next to what you're hitting. The only way that what you're saying is a thing is if you one shot the monster or it can move as a reaction when hit... which is a very rare monster ability.

Yes the hand is less likely to get caught out because it has a higher speed, I just don't think that will be relevant enough to really be make or break. 




> As for the hand being passively destructible, I can see that being a negative sometimes. Personally I find the situations where passive AoE can wipe out something that has all your HP to be a black swan event in the grand scheme of things, but sure, it could happen.


I have no idea what a black swan event is, I'm going to assume bad though. Though I will say that the nature of it likely being a Wizard using it makes this more likely given at 13th a Wizard likely has 67-80HP. A Behir averages 66, an adult dragon's breath is in the same region and depending on what you're dealing with you run the risk of reduced maximums (Undead, Exhaustion, Create Homunculus, Create Magen etc.)

Not saying it's super likely, but I could see it getting destroyed at my table every now and then.




> Apologies on confusing your context for an attempt to say I said something that I didn't, consider that bit withdrawn.


Thank you, I appreciate that.

----------


## Psyren

> *It doesn't really matter what you list,* the fact remains that most spells that you'd put into that space don't have that kind of extreme range.


Greater Invisibility, done. 




> On the bolded part.... what? The double attack is on the first turn.


You said 3 round combat:

Round 1, you cast it and hit twice. On their turn, they move 30ft away or more.
Round 2, you move it towards them and fail to reach. Zero damage.
Round 3, you reach them again (assuming they didn't move again) and hit once. 

Total, 3 hits in 3 rounds, just like the Hand gets. Assuming they don't just play keep away after the first round.




> I have no idea what a black swan event is, I'm going to assume bad though.


Very rare occurrence (usually negative).




> Not saying it's super likely, but I could see it getting destroyed at my table every now and then.


That matches what I said, yes. Though since you have freedom to place it and 60ft move on top of that, it's not that hard to get a monster to waste their AoE on it in a way that is advantageous to the party, or else needing to ignore it. For example, you could put it behind that Behir so it's forced to choose between zapping your Hand or your Fighter. MS meanwhile doesn't provide that opportunity.

----------


## kazaryu

> If they did that in OneD&D, I'd be willing to overlook a lot of other jank. But it looks like instead they'll make random edits to particular spells, mostly the inoffensive ones (seriously, _spiritual weapon_ was fine the way it was) and call it a day.


idk, adding concentration in exchange for better scaling isn't a terrible change. 

i mean, its not much more explicitly a damage cleric spell, since you can't also concentrate on a support spell. but still. the onednd version does scale way better.

----------


## JNAProductions

80 is the MINIMUM Id expect a Wizard to have in HP at level 13.

They get 54 base, so with a mere +2 Con mod, theyd have 80.

----------


## Unoriginal

> The idea that because it's poorly rendered in fifth edition that we should interpret Mordenkainen as some kind of incompetent buffoon is just absurd.


Absolutely.

However, since Mordenkainen is unarguably portrayed as some kind of buffoon whose arrogance frequently leads into incompetence in all the 5e books in which he appears personally (or near), I think that the spell fits.

Of note, his appearances/mentions have him:

*Spoiler: Spoilers for books and official modules*
Show


-Nearly turn himself into Demogorgon's brainwashed slave by experimenting on the Demon Prince's symbol witjout precautions.

-Lose to Strahd and get his mind scrambled.

-Get made fun of by Tasha, with the implication she is a better wizard or at least smarter than him not challenged.

-Go on about the Balance when it's implied his interventions are at best of little consequences and at worse only self-serving.

-Confidently declare that Halflings are not lucky. 


That is not to say he is an idiot who's entirely incompetent (that would be deep flanderization), as he is still a forbidable mage, but 5e does portray him comically, with little to no attempt to give him dignity or show him respect-worthy.

----------


## helgershaw

> The point of Mordenkainen's Sword is, IMO, to showcase that Mordenkainen is a doofus who's not as good as he think he is. 
> 
> My headcannon is that this spell is the result of Mordenkainen trying to one-up Bigby and failing hard.


I forget where I heard it as it was many years ago. For wizard spells with a material component that the spell consumes, the component is actually a royalty payment to use the spell. With that in mind, Mordenkainen somehow found a way to collect excess arcane energy. As a result, his licensed spells are over costed for the utility or benefit provided. Much like email scammers purposefully using poor wording and grammar to select for gullible marks, Mordenkainen is hoping for wizards too foolish to know Sword is a bad spell.

----------


## Witty Username

The point of Mordenkienen's sword is rule of funny for DMs, and for being a free use of scribe wizard's not die button.

Mordenkienen's sword is a 1 minute concentration 7th level spell for not quite negative damage.

At 3d10 damage, it is on par with firebolt, so the action cast represents effectively 0 damage, it does win out as you can follow up with the bonus action the turn you cast it.

For fun let's compare this with Finger of Death (the only similarity is does damage really)
7d8+30, average 61.5 damage, 30.75 on a successful save.
Assuming a 50/50 shot
Average about 46 damage
How many rounds of combat does Mordenkienen's sword need to be up to match damage, let's assume 60% accuracy:
3d10, 16.5 average × .6 = 9.9 average 
Round 1: 19.8 (action and bonus action)
Round 2: 29.7
Round 3: 39.6
-Round 4: 49.5- 

So for a fairly banal damage spell, it takes Mordenkienen's sword a longer than average combat to start wining out.

Furthermore, Mordenkienen's sword takes concentration, for clerics the big draw of spiritual weapon is it is both a bonus action cast (combos with a cantrip/weapon attack) and non-concentration so it can cooperate with your bless/spirit guardians/etc. Mordenkienen's sword doesn't have this boon, so if you need a control spell to survive the long, probably difficult combat, no sword.

And it is not like we don't have other damage effects, forget Bigby's hand, flaming sphere can do more damage than this.
Quick proof
Flaming Sphere 7th level slot
7d6 damage, 24.5 save for half 12.25
Dex save is pretty reliable but let's go 50/50 anyway
Average about 18.3, each turn
So by round 2 (36.6 damage) we are doing more damage than Mordenkienen's sword.
Note if we use the same rate as the sword (60% chance for save miss)
25.6 average damage, we already beat the sword round 1

And we tend to have effects that do damage in addition to other effects, Evard's Black Tentacles for example is a small damage hit (but also a lower level spell and AoE) but also restrains targets. 

Mordenkienen's sword is slow, low damage, resource intensive, and only does damage. It is the worst 7th level spell in the game, and one of the worst spells in the game in general.
For the low, low, cost of a 7th level spell slot and your concentration, you can be outdamaged by a 5th level barbarian, so that's something going for it.

----------


## prototype00

If nobody has mentioned it yet, its the only (?) way to get force damage on all your 7th level spells for an Order of Scribes wizard, so thats useful.

----------


## OracleofWuffing

> So, then, where should his eponymous sword be sitting?


From what I gather?  Mounted atop the mantel in his mansion, possibly below a self-portrait.   :Small Wink:

----------


## Tanarii

As one of the few attack roll spells, clearly the intended use is to cast _True Strike_ the round before to make sure it hits.

----------


## Witty Username

> Fair enough. That doesn't mean that Mordenkainen is an incompetent. If he's even half as good as he thinks he is, he's pretty darned amazing, and the lore seems to agree he IS pretty darned amazing.
> 
> So, then, where should his eponymous sword be sitting?


I have a head canon that Mordenkainen has an arcane focus that is intended to function as an amplifier for the spell, which is why the base spell is as weak as it is. I was homebrewing an item at one point:
Dagger of Mordenkainen; Legendary Magic item (requires attunement by a wizard)
While attuned to this item you gain the following effects:
- You may cast the spell Mordenkainen's Sword, as if the spell was prepared by you, and you may use this dagger as the material component of the spell
- You may copy the spell Mordenkainen's Sword into your spellbook, using the normal costs of coping a spell of 1st level or higher into the book
- when you make an attack with the Mordenkainen's Sword spell, either as part of the casting of the spell or as a bonus action during its duration, you may make 2 attacks instead of 1 as part of that action, additionally the sword deals an extra 1d10 force damage on a hit with its attacks.

That was what I came up with,
I was planning on making a bunch of magic items themed around giving a more powerful version of otherwise lackluster spells, but I never finished the project.




> The 60ft initial summoning range for the sword is important too, as that is counterspell range. Bigby's Hand meanwhile can be summoned safely outside of that. And Crown of Stars, the superior option to both if all you want is bonus action damage from that slot, can be reliably cast out of combat entirely.


Point of interest, one of the big advantages of Mordenkainen's Sword is that it is potent CS bait, as basically any attempt to counterspell it is likely to fail, and it is not a significant loss for the sword to be countered. Being able to cast it out of CS range would make it weaker.

----------


## Tanarii

> Point of interest, one of the big advantages of Mordenkainen's Sword is that it is potent CS bait, as basically any attempt to counterspell it is likely to fail, and it is not a significant loss for the sword to be countered. Being able to cast it out of CS range would make it weaker.


Bait it with a cantrip.  That doesn't cost you a slot or (if it succeeds) concentration.  And you do the same damage.

----------


## Particle_Man

> Absolutely.
> 
> However, since Mordenkainen is unarguably portrayed as some kind of buffoon whose arrogance frequently leads into incompetence in all the 5e books in which he appears personally (or near), I think that the spell fits.
> 
> Of note, his appearances/mentions have him:
> 
> *Spoiler: Spoilers for books and official modules*
> Show
> 
> ...


This theory makes me wonder about the other Mordenkainens spells.  Are all of them substandard?

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> This theory makes me wonder about the other Mordenkainens spells.  Are all of them substandard?


I would say no.  Faithful Hound has its uses, (especially when combined with Forcecage).

Magnificent Mansion, is a bit ostentatious, but that is also part of the spells charm. In a war theme campaign, I ran a few years back, a player used Magnificent Mansion as a medical hospital and food bank.  

(The Mansion prepares a Nine Course meal for up to 100 people.)

The 5e version of Mordenkainens Sword is garbage.

The 2e version, let the Wizard use the Fighter Attack matrix like a Fighter half their level, could hit anything regardless of AC on a D20 roll of 19+, could bypass all Magic Resistance, (which was based off the + value of a magic item in AD&D, not just being magical), and had a long duration.

Even with this, I would not say I considered it a great spell back in AD&D.

I would, however, consider it _very_ poor form, indeed, if the D&D Design team created a trap option just to dunk on Mordenkainen.

Mordenkainen, was one of Gary Gygaxs personal characters.  Lawyers fees were paid to negotiate if Gary could still use the character, as part of Gygaxs exit from TSR.  Mocking a beloved PC of one of the creators of the genre, seems petty.

Re-imaging Mordenkainen as a twit, and Iggwiliv as being Tasha from the eponymous spell, are creative choices I dislike.

----------


## Psyren

> Point of interest, one of the big advantages of Mordenkainen's Sword is that it is potent CS bait, as basically any attempt to counterspell it is likely to fail, and it is not a significant loss for the sword to be countered. Being able to cast it out of CS range would make it weaker.


1) That's not unique to MS though, any 7th-level spell will have the same dubious protection of a counter not being automatic. So personally, I'd rather use that slot on something that might actually turn the tables, than prepare and cast a weak spell in the hopes that they "only" manage to get me to waste my one 7th-level slot and my action, or be left with something underwhelming if it manages to go through.

2) Likeliness to fail depends on the monster - their stats aren't capped like ours are, and they may not even need slots to counter anything.




> Bait it with a cantrip.  That doesn't cost you a slot or (if it succeeds) concentration.  And you do the same damage.


Yeah, that too.

----------


## Segev

As another point of comparison,  _draconic transformation_ from Fizban's Treasury of Dragons allows, as one of three effects, you to breathe a 60- foot cone of 6d8 (save for half) force damage each round for its one minute duration. While there is something to be said for not having to do AoE if you don't want to, the guaranteed half of the damage from the breath weapon is almost as good as the on-hit damage from _Mordenkainen's sword._

----------


## Unoriginal

> I would say no.  Faithful Hound has itÂs uses, (especially when combined with Forcecage).
> 
> Magnificent Mansion, is a bit ostentatious, but that is also part of the spellÂs charm. In a war theme campaign, I ran a few years back, a player used Magnificent Mansion as a medical hospital and food bank.  
> 
> (The Mansion prepares a Nine Course meal for up to 100 people.)


I have to agree with this analysis. In particular, Mordenkainen's Magnificient Mansion is a marvel of magic. 

However, I would say all of Mordenkainen's spells have a "X spell, but more" feel.The Faithful Hound is Alarm, but it bites. The Magnificient Mansion is Demiplane, but with comfort and food. And the Sword is Bigby's Hand, but bad.




> The 2e version, let the Wizard use the Fighter Attack matrix like a Fighter half their level, could hit anything regardless of AC on a D20 roll of 19+, could bypass all Magic Resistance, (which was based off the + value of a magic item in AD&D, not just being magical), and had a long duration.
> 
> Even with this, I would not say I considered it a great spell back in AD&D.


Didn't casters level up slower than Fighters, in AD&D? "Like a Fighter half your level" sounds like less than impressive, but I can't judge for sure.




> I would, however, consider it _very_ poor form, indeed, if the D&D Design team created a trap option just to dunk on Mordenkainen.


To be 100% clear, I don't think WotC did that intentionally. I'm just saying it's fitting so I imagine that for fun.




> Mordenkainen, was one of Gary GygaxÂs personal characters.  Lawyers fees were paid to negotiate if Gary could still use the character, as part of GygaxÂs exit from TSR.  Mocking a beloved PC of one of the creators of the genre, seems petty.
> 
> Re-imaging Mordenkainen as a twit


From what I've read, Gygax himself was playing Mordenkainen as a twit and liked him that way. I see it more as tongue-in-cheek teasing.

For the Tasha thing, I'm lead to understand it was already the case in past lore. As in, at some point in AD&D or before the two characters were reimagined as one.

----------


## Arkhios

_Who is Mordaiken? I know only of Mordenkainen, Gary Gygax's portmonteau of Mordecai and Lemminkäinen._

Just kidding. As it's one of the oldest spells in the game's almost 50-year history, I believe it's been brought into 5th edition purely for its legacy value. Sure, it could be better, but traditionally it's always been a 7th-level spell.

So, I would insist that the main *point of the spell is that it has a long history with the game*.

----------


## Scots Dragon

> Absolutely.
> 
> However, since Mordenkainen is unarguably portrayed as some kind of buffoon whose arrogance frequently leads into incompetence in all the 5e books in which he appears personally (or near), I think that the spell fits.
> 
> Of note, his appearances/mentions have him:
> 
> *Spoiler: Spoilers for books and official modules*
> Show
> 
> ...


God I hate this bloody edition so much.

----------


## Unoriginal

> God I hate this bloody edition so much.


Question 1: which edition treated Mordenkainen with dignity? Because I don't recal any.

Question 2: if you hate it that much, why are you on a 5e subforum, discussing high-level spells?

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> Didn't casters level up slower than Fighters, in AD&D? "Like a Fighter half your level" sounds like less than impressive, but I can't judge for sure.


Magic Users had the most onerous XP requirements to level, until the Barbarian class was introduced in Unearthed Arcana.

A 14th level Magic User had a base THACO of 16, while a 7th level Fighter had a base THACO of 14.  In 5e terms, it would be similar to adding a +2 to hit.

As a Magic User Leveled up, the advantage gained by using the Fighter Matrix waned. A 20th level Magic User had a base THACO of 13, while a 10th level Fighter had a base THACO of 12.




> For the Tasha thing, I'm lead to understand it was already the case in past lore. As in, at some point in AD&D or before the two characters were reimagined as one.


I believe we can thank Erik Mona for the Tasha= Iggwiliv idea.
When Paizo ran Dragon/Dungeon Magazine back in the days of 3e, Erik Mona included a little blurb that Iggwiliv was a pseudonym for Tasha, in Dragon Magazine.

One of the last books published by WotC for 3e was Expedition to Castle Greyhawk, if I remember correctly.  I think, Erik Mona might have possibly  also slipped the Iggwiliv=Tasha idea into that product as well.

----------


## Scots Dragon

> Question 1: which edition treated Mordenkainen with dignity? Because I don't recal any.


There's a considerable difference between being treated as the flawed figure with backwards and flawed views about the Balance, and being effectively treated as a punching bag by the rules and lore at large who can't get literally anything right. 

Being taken down by someone whose current stats are _half_ your level as an arcane spellcaster is beyond pathetic.  




> Question 2: if you hate it that much, why are you on a 5e subforum, discussing high-level spells?


Because I saw someone mentioning Mordenkainen's Sword in the little preview pane and I am a woman driven most by morbid curiosity.

----------


## ProsecutorGodot

> If nobody has mentioned it yet, its the only (?) way to get force damage on all your 7th level spells for an Order of Scribes wizard, so thats useful.


Radiant is a far superior damage type and its accessible on a spell that you would likely want to use over MS anyway in Crown of Stars.

As of Fizbans, Draconic Transformation also gives you force damage.




> To be 100% clear, I don't think WotC did that intentionally. I'm just saying it's fitting so I imagine that for fun.


I'm also a fan of this theory, and just because he's often (clearly unintentionally) making a fool of himself when the players do find him doesn't discredit the numerous actually impressive achievements he's made in the history of D&D.

And he's not always portrayed as someone who puts himself into danger without a thought:
*Spoiler: Adventure Spoilers*
Show

In Descent into Avernus you can encounter him in his dimension shifting tower addressing an amassment of yugoloth in hopes of becoming his hired hands. I believe this is the encounter you refer to when saying "goes on about balance but is ultimately self serving"

He does understand that this is a dangerous place though, and only presents a Simulacrum of himself to the crowds and is able to leave immediately if he thinks his life would be threatened. He's also "cunning" in that he recognizes that there could be powerful rivals in Avernus that could threaten him and attempts to fool the PC's into removing his competition. I believe he does have genuine beliefs in the "Balance" but his hubris (which is the primary cause of his other failings imo) is what would make him use even his own good intentions (the effectiveness of this philosophy is up for debate of course) for personal gain

Which isn't a trait exclusive to Mordenkainen as an Archmage, he's just the one who most often is seen making mistakes. 





> Being taken down by someone whose current stats are _half_ your level as an arcane spellcaster is beyond pathetic.


Even when they're a technically undefeatable vampire who has some level of power over the entire demiplane he's locked away in? It's obviously not a good look that Mordenkainen eventually lost in his battle against Strahd but it's certainly misleading to say "he lost to an arcane caster half as skilled as him".

----------


## Dork_Forge

> Greater Invisibility, done.


Thanks for an actual example, I'm not sure if you think you disproved what I said, which was that most spells don't have extreme range for that purpose, but Greater Invis is a good one. Hardly bulletproof with things like Truesight and Blindsight being more common in higher levels, complex encounters more often right? But a good option still.




> You said 3 round combat:
> 
> Round 1, you cast it and hit twice. On their turn, they move 30ft away or more.
> Round 2, you move it towards them and fail to reach. Zero damage.
> Round 3, you reach them again (assuming they didn't move again) and hit once. 
> 
> Total, 3 hits in 3 rounds, just like the Hand gets. Assuming they don't just play keep away after the first round.


Ahh, you meant that it would be cancelled out overall, I thought you meant that the specific additional attack would be shut down. Yeah not getting to make all the attacks would be a negative, though you could also spin that as forcing the the monster to move in certain directions or face those attacks. But again, not getting to make attacks is a minority of circumstances ime.




> Very rare occurrence (usually negative).


Learn something new everyday!




> That matches what I said, yes. Though since you have freedom to place it and 60ft move on top of that, it's not that hard to get a monster to waste their AoE on it in a way that is advantageous to the party, or else needing to ignore it. For example, you could put it behind that Behir so it's forced to choose between zapping your Hand or your Fighter. MS meanwhile doesn't provide that opportunity.


At no point would I assume that a creature is using their AOE specifically to attack the hand, I don't really think that makes sense either, nor can I really see a case where if I were going to use a big damage AOE, the mosnter would choose a construct of force instead of the living thing it's fighting, maybe hoping to eat. My point was that it can, and is decently likely, to be caught in AOEs from both sides.





> 80 is the MINIMUM Id expect a Wizard to have in HP at level 13.
> 
> They get 54 base, so with a mere +2 Con mod, theyd have 80.


Different strokes, but I would never assume all Wizards have at least a +2 Con. It's useful for them sure, but it's a tertiary stat that many players ime wouldn't invest that much in for either build reasons or thematic reasons. 

In later levels when they've had a surplus of ASIs I think it would be more reasonable to expect a higher Con.




> At 3d10 damage, it is on par with firebolt, so the action cast represents effectively 0 damage, it does win out as you can follow up with the bonus action the turn you cast it.


So, do you just not value damage type at all? Or was it overlooked?




> For fun let's compare this with Finger of Death (the only similarity is does damage really)
> 7d8+30, average 61.5 damage, 30.75 on a successful save.
> Assuming a 50/50 shot
> Average about 46 damage
> How many rounds of combat does Mordenkienen's sword need to be up to match damage, let's assume 60% accuracy:
> 3d10, 16.5 average × .6 = 9.9 average 
> Round 1: 19.8 (action and bonus action)
> Round 2: 29.7
> Round 3: 39.6
> ...


I honestly don't know the numbers on this, but '50/50 shot' on a monster's Con save in Tier 3+ seems generous. Besides being a typically strong save, this doesn't take into consideration Magic Resistance and Legendary Resistances. Attacks are generally easier to make stick in higher levels than magical saves. That doesn't even take into consideration it's easier to boost attacks than it is to sap enemy saves.

TBH I don't like accuracy adjusted maths, I find it misleading to the experience, so I don't really practice that form of maths so I'm mostly going to be listing questions for someone with a better maths foundation to address:

- Are you addressing the crit chance of MS? A damage consideration that doesn't apply to FoD

- 60% seems real low, with a +10 to hit that would be a target AC of 20? The quick monster stats table gives an AC of 18 for CR 13-16, with the table not even hitting 20. 70% or higher seems more reasonable here.

Even just changing the accuracy to 70% makes it 3 rounds to surpass FoD. A smaller note, but FoD just seems like straight maths, not D&D maths. Saving on 61 damage is 30, since you round down no matter the decimal. I doubt that would change the result much, but it stood out.




> Furthermore, Mordenkienen's sword takes concentration, for clerics the big draw of spiritual weapon is it is both a bonus action cast (combos with a cantrip/weapon attack) and non-concentration so it can cooperate with your bless/spirit guardians/etc. Mordenkienen's sword doesn't have this boon, so if you need a control spell to survive the long, probably difficult combat, no sword.


It being different from SW is a good thing, it's interesting design instead of 'here's arcane SW with a different name.' I'm not really sure what the need to have a control spell at the same time is about, just doing damage is a thing. But sure, why not blind them? No concentration, gives advantage for the sword...




> And it is not like we don't have other damage effects, forget Bigby's hand, flaming sphere can do more damage than this.
> Quick proof
> Flaming Sphere 7th level slot
> 7d6 damage, 24.5 save for half 12.25
> Dex save is pretty reliable but let's go 50/50 anyway
> Average about 18.3, each turn
> So by round 2 (36.6 damage) we are doing more damage than Mordenkienen's sword.
> Note if we use the same rate as the sword (60% chance for save miss)
> 25.6 average damage, we already beat the sword round 1


So... it being fire damage not a consideration at all? Still nothing about how monsters get save defenses outside their modifier?

But sure, how about the fact that Flaming Sphere is environmentally challenged? 




> And we tend to have effects that do damage in addition to other effects, Evard's Black Tentacles for example is a small damage hit (but also a lower level spell and AoE) but also restrains targets.


Yes, it's a completely different kind of spell.




> Mordenkienen's sword is slow, low damage, resource intensive, and only does damage. It is the worst 7th level spell in the game, and one of the worst spells in the game in general.
> For the low, low, cost of a 7th level spell slot and your concentration, you can be outdamaged by a 5th level barbarian, so that's something going for it.


Worst 7th level spell and one of the worst spells in the game? Now that's some mighty lofty labels. I don't think I'd put it below Divine Word, Dream of the Blue Veil, Power Word Pain, Sequester, or Tether Essence. And those are just its fellow 7th level spells... 

On the damage front let's also be realistic here, the Wizards most likely to choose this spell are Evocation and Scribes. Evocation changes the damage significantly and Scribes gets to use it to make whatever other 7th level spell force. A War Wizard can also use it well, being able to benefit from pretty much all of their subclass features connected to a single spell. 

It's almost as if looking at things in isolation is an incomplete way to evaluate them.




> If nobody has mentioned it yet, its the only (?) way to get force damage on all your 7th level spells for an Order of Scribes wizard, so thats useful.


A very good point.

----------


## oogaboogagoblin

A lot of people are bringing up the lore implications of this spell, but if thats why it sucks that's even more stupid in my opinion. Even if the campaign centers around mordaiken, the lore around this spell will only be a fun fact, and as the spell stands now the only PCs that will take this are very specific gimmick characters, the concept of mordaiken thinking he can one up bigby or bigby improving on mordaikens design is pretty cool, but kind of worthless to the actual game.

----------


## Segev

Expanding on the comparison to FTD's _draconic transformation_, we have three spells to compare _Mordenkainen's sword_ to: _blade of disaster, crown of stars,_ and _draconic transformation_.

_Blade of disaster_ has the same duration as _Mordenkainen's sword_, the same range and action to use (but better action economy to cast), moves faster to new targets, and attacks twice with a melee spell attack that does 4d12 damage each time. It is also a 9th level conjuration spell.

_Crown of stars_ has an hour duration with no concentration, which is pretty amazing if you find the light it sheds to be an advantage or neutral rather than a detriment. Where _blade of disaster_ and _Mordenkainen's sword_ have a range of 60 feet to the initial target and can extend further with time to keep up with a slowly fleeing enemy (or stick around while YOU flee, as long as you stay in line of sight), this has a much better range of 120 feet, but you can't extend that range (which, ultimately, is a pretty small price). It has better action economy than _Mordenkainen's sword_ if it's precast (which is reasonably easy to do with its hour long duration), and is worse if not precast (since you can't launch a star on the action you cast it). It does 4d12 radiant damage on a ranged spell attack up to 7 times (assuming they all hit). This can be spread out throughout the hour. Note that, despite having no limits to number of uses, both _Mordenkainen's sword_ and _blade of disaster_ have a maximum of 10 rounds in which they can be used. _Blade of disaster_ thus has a maximum of 20 hits, and _Mordenkainen's sword_ has a maximum of 11 (because you can use it in the action you cast it, and also as a bonus action on that first round; you can only use it as a bonus action in subsequent rounds).

_Draconic transformation_ has additional effects that recommend it, making it probably the best of these 7th level spells. It is also only a bonus action to cast, and allows its breath weapon as part of that bonus action AND as a bonus action on each subsequent turn. IT also gives you a flying speed, so you can maneuver yourself up to 60 feet per round to position yourself, rather than 20 or 30 feet of movement for the sword spells, or having to keep the enemy within 120 feet using whatever other movement you have for the _crown of stars_. (Admittedly, with no concentration on the _crown_, you can have other magics for movement pretty easily.) It does 6d8 force damage to every creature that fails a save in a 60 foot cone, and half that to those that succeed on the save.


*Damage-wise, pretending everything always hits and nothing succeeds on a save,* the spells have the following DPR and total damage expectations (the formulae for the spell attacks is complex due to the critical chances):
_Blade of disaster_:
[(4d12x[17/20])+(12d12x[3/20])]x2 = 67.6
This one has an improved critical range of 18-20 and an improved critical damage total of 12d12 rather than the usual doubling to 8d12.67.6x10 = 676 expected total damage over the full minute if the one fight it's used in lasts that long67.6x4 = 270.4 expected damage over a 4-round combat_Crown of stars_:
(4d12 x [19/20])+(8d12 x [1/20]) = 27.3 expected DPR (note: this one does radiant rather than force damage; the others all do force)27.3 x7 = 191.1 expected damage if all seven stars are usedThis spell has a reasonable expectation of getting its full damage potential out there because of its duration allowing it to spread over multiple combats._Draconic transformation_:
6d8 = 27 expected DPR (to a single target; with a 60 foot cone, this can hit a lot of targets...but it also can be harder to use when allies are involved)
Critical hits are impossible here, and we're ignoring miss chance/successful saves.Note that this has an expected DPR of 13 even if we assume everything makes their saves, whereas if everything misses with the other spells, they do 0 damage per round.27 x10 = 270 expected total damage to a single target hit every round with the breath weapon for the full minute duration.27 x4 = 108 expected total damage over a 4-round combat_Mordenkainen's sword_:
(3d10 x [19/20]) + (6d10 x [1/20]) = 16.275 expected DPR16.275 x11 = 179.025 expected total damage over the full duration16.725 x 5 = 83.625 expected total damage over a 4-round combat

While the _blade of disaster_ does by far the most single-target damage, it is important to remember that this is also a *9th level spell*, so had better be doing a lot more than the others. I am still not sure it's worth the 9th level slot. Its improved crit range and damage adds a fair bit, and probably adds still more when you factor in that the critical hits land every time regardless of AC.

_Mordenkainen's sword_ comes out behind in damage by all measures. It's worth noting that any reduction to damage expectations based on miss chances applies at least as much to _Mordenkainen's sword_ as it does to _blade of disaster_, and the only way _crown of stars_ comes out behind in that estimation is if your target is within 5 feet of you (because otherwise, the to hit chances are the same). You almost certainly are not concerned with enemies constantly being within 5 feet of you when you attack them; if they are, you probably are using a different spell to get the heck out of their bad touch range. Compared to _draconic transformation_, every "miss" with it is much less of a loss, since it's still doing half damage. So _draconic transformation_ outperforms both of the other 7th level spells under all conditions save the one where you need specifically single-target damage and can't aim the cone to exclude your allies. It VASTLY out-performs _Mordenkainen's sword_. If there are even two targets you want to hurt, it keeps up with the 9th level _blade of disaster_ pretty well, too. And all of that is before remembering that _draconic transformation_ does half damage on a "miss" rather than none, and comes with flight and blindsight, too.

And, actually, in a 4-round combat, where we make the most-favorable-to-the-attack-spells assumption that every hit lands and every save fails, _draconic transformation_ keeps up with the single-target damage output of _blade of disaster_.

If we assume that _crown of stars_ is paying for its long duration without concentration with decreased damage potential, then I would say that _draconic transformation_ is either overpowered at 7th level, given all it does, or should be the benchmark. I'm leaning towards "the benchmark." This means that I think _blade of disaster_ should actually be level 7, itself. *Maybe the simplest solution is to replace Mordenkainen's sword's spell text with that of blade of disaster, and keep its name, level, range, components, etc. the same as they currently are.*

----------


## Dork_Forge

> Expanding on the comparison to FTD's _draconic transformation_, we have three spells to compare _Mordenkainen's sword_ to: _blade of disaster, crown of stars,_ and _draconic transformation_.
> 
> _Blade of disaster_ has the same duration as _Mordenkainen's sword_, the same range and action to use (but better action economy to cast), moves faster to new targets, and attacks twice with a melee spell attack that does 4d12 damage each time. It is also a 9th level conjuration spell.
> 
> _Crown of stars_ has an hour duration with no concentration, which is pretty amazing if you find the light it sheds to be an advantage or neutral rather than a detriment. Where _blade of disaster_ and _Mordenkainen's sword_ have a range of 60 feet to the initial target and can extend further with time to keep up with a slowly fleeing enemy (or stick around while YOU flee, as long as you stay in line of sight), this has a much better range of 120 feet, but you can't extend that range (which, ultimately, is a pretty small price). It has better action economy than _Mordenkainen's sword_ if it's precast (which is reasonably easy to do with its hour long duration), and is worse if not precast (since you can't launch a star on the action you cast it). It does 4d12 radiant damage on a ranged spell attack up to 7 times (assuming they all hit). This can be spread out throughout the hour. Note that, despite having no limits to number of uses, both _Mordenkainen's sword_ and _blade of disaster_ have a maximum of 10 rounds in which they can be used. _Blade of disaster_ thus has a maximum of 20 hits, and _Mordenkainen's sword_ has a maximum of 11 (because you can use it in the action you cast it, and also as a bonus action on that first round; you can only use it as a bonus action in subsequent rounds).
> 
> _Draconic transformation_ has additional effects that recommend it, making it probably the best of these 7th level spells. It is also only a bonus action to cast, and allows its breath weapon as part of that bonus action AND as a bonus action on each subsequent turn. IT also gives you a flying speed, so you can maneuver yourself up to 60 feet per round to position yourself, rather than 20 or 30 feet of movement for the sword spells, or having to keep the enemy within 120 feet using whatever other movement you have for the _crown of stars_. (Admittedly, with no concentration on the _crown_, you can have other magics for movement pretty easily.) It does 6d8 force damage to every creature that fails a save in a 60 foot cone, and half that to those that succeed on the save.
> 
> 
> ...


IMO this more showcases the curve of power creep as books come out over the years than anything else. I can't really agree with Blade of Disaster being a 7th level spell though, that would be obscene.

Just to add some nuance:

- I appreciate the simplicity of assuming always hits, but DT is a bit worse off in reality compared to the attack spells because of Legendary Resistance

- You word Crown of Stars as if it's only an issue if your intended target is within 5ft. any monster can be within 5 ft. of you, even a low-threat mob. The chances are also altered if the monster is knocked prone.

- Draconic Transformation is not only absurdly powerful in what it gives you, it's also ridiculously efficient, that's a very very high benchmark to set, one that I think would lead to incredible power bloat.

- CoS has a reasonable chance of waste, in a different way than the other three (and of course no concentration goes the other way on this point to some degree).

- Losing conc on DT has the potential to be very unpleasant, similar to the Fly spell.

----------


## ProsecutorGodot

> A lot of people are bringing up the lore implications of this spell, but if thats why it sucks that's even more stupid in my opinion. Even if the campaign centers around mordaiken, the lore around this spell will only be a fun fact, and as the spell stands now the only PCs that will take this are very specific gimmick characters, the concept of mordaiken thinking he can one up bigby or bigby improving on mordaikens design is pretty cool, but kind of worthless to the actual game.


"For legacy reasons" is an admissible reason even by the designers own words, Fireball and Lightning Bolt are obviously overtuned for their spell level because they're famous and historically powerful spells.

Whether or not its true that old Mordy is actually a goof behind the scenes isn't really that important, but it is kind of fun to imagine that even Archmage compete with eachother every now and then and every once in a while the expected winner isn't who you'd think it would be. Mordenkainen is an accomplished spellcrafter, but this failure stands out because it's iterating and failing to compete with his own apprentices much more impressive spell.

It's noteworthy because this is really the only instance of Bigby having created something exceptional and it speaks volumes of Mordenkainens habits that he apparently couldn't stand to let Bigby have this achievement, and in his failure to make a more powerful version he only further cemented Bigby as the "winner" in this exchange.

Of course none of that could be true, it could only be weak as a consequence of poor mechanics and its not intended to have any deeper meanings. I wouldn't call it worthless though, it adds depths to the characters. I really enjoy when there's more reason behind things than just how they appear. It's fun to guess as to what lore reasons their might be for Mordenkainen's Sword is terrible even if there really aren't any.

As an example of "official" lore in this same line (it's old lore, possibly no longer canon) Khelben Arunsun created a spell called Warding Whip that essentially invalidated Bigby's Hand because he recognized it was the only noteworthy talent he had. He defeated Bigby's by recognizing his lack of versatility.

The exact quote that Khelben uses to give his opinion of Bigby is: "The old goat comes up with one good gimmick, and beats it to death with a rock." which is a fair assessment as a majority of his spells were originally just variations of the same spell, and are presently combined into the one singular Bigby's Hand.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> "For legacy reasons" is an admissible reason even by the designers own words, Fireball and Lightning Bolt are obviously overtuned for their spell level because they're famous and historically powerful spells.


As a side note, this was a really stupid thing to do . Because now everything _else_ gets compared to them and so the power creep becomes a power gallop.

Saying "this is not as good as <option X>" is _not_ the same as "this is underpowered", at least without further work to show that <option X> is at the appropriate power level. Because there's always the possibility that <option X> is too strong. Or that _both_ this current thing is underpowered _and_ <option X> is overpowered. Relative balance (balancing against each other without reference to an external scale) is a recipe for power spirals. Absolute balance (balance against an external standard) is the way to go.

----------


## Segev

> IMO this more showcases the curve of power creep as books come out over the years than anything else. I can't really agree with Blade of Disaster being a 7th level spell though, that would be obscene.
> 
> Just to add some nuance:
> 
> - I appreciate the simplicity of assuming always hits, but DT is a bit worse off in reality compared to the attack spells because of Legendary Resistance
> 
> - You word Crown of Stars as if it's only an issue if your intended target is within 5ft. any monster can be within 5 ft. of you, even a low-threat mob. The chances are also altered if the monster is knocked prone.
> 
> - Draconic Transformation is not only absurdly powerful in what it gives you, it's also ridiculously efficient, that's a very very high benchmark to set, one that I think would lead to incredible power bloat.
> ...


Even with legendary resistances, _draconic transformation_ does half damage, while missed hits do zero damage with each of the others. And if it's a low-threat mob next to you and you're relying on _crown of stars_ for your big damage output, just step away. Even if it hits you with the OA, there's no concentration to maintain and the damage is probably negligible. You also still have options for keeping them off of you. Likely, for instance, you're _fly_ing, or have _mirror image_ or _blur_ up.

You say _draconic transformation_ is just power creep, and you may be right, but I also think that it's the only one of the four spells here I would actually prepare. 7th level spell slots are _precious_; you get only one per day. If you're burning it on a combat spell that "just deals damage," it had better be dealing damage very, very effectively. And even _crown of stars_ falls short of that. _Crown of stars_ is a spell you want hanging around for the general fights against reasonably level-appropriate enemies that you want to tear down faster to preserve resources such as allies' HP. You use it as a somewhat efficient output of additional damage on top of your cantrip. Maybe in conjunction with a good buff or control spell. And that's just not what you use a 7th level spell slot for. 7th, 8th, and 9th level spell slots, as 1/day features, need to be things you pull out for the Big Fights. And none of these save _draconic transformation_ really fit the bill. (I am not counting _blade of disaster_, because it's 9th level. If it were 7th level, I'd say it competes with _draconic transformation_.

----------


## animorte

> Because I saw someone mentioning Mordenkainen's Sword in the little preview pane and I am a woman driven most by morbid curiosity.


I've only been observing the amusing conversation so far, but this caught my attention. I can respect this, as I feel similar.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> Even with legendary resistances, _draconic transformation_ does half damage, while missed hits do zero damage with each of the others.


I'll preface this by pointing out I was adding nuance to the argument, not dismissing it. The way that monster defenses scale affects save-based spells far more than attack-based. That is something to keep in mind when looking at numbers that don't take that into consideration, that was my point. It doesn't matter if it's still half damage, that's tangential to what I was saying.




> And if it's a low-threat mob next to you and you're relying on _crown of stars_ for your big damage output, just step away. Even if it hits you with the OA, there's no concentration to maintain and the damage is probably negligible. You also still have options for keeping them off of you. Likely, for instance, you're _fly_ing, or have _mirror image_ or _blur_ up.


There's a very real scenario where moving away just means getting smacked again as monsters often have equal or greater movement speed than PCs. The damage is also not easily written off, since we're talking about Wizards and any amount of damage can be threatening. You can, afterall, already be injured.

I also don't like to assume a number of buffs in place when comparing things, as it gets a bit out of hand.




> You say _draconic transformation_ is just power creep, and you may be right, but I also think that it's the only one of the four spells here I would actually prepare. 7th level spell slots are _precious_; you get only one per day. If you're burning it on a combat spell that "just deals damage," it had better be dealing damage very, very effectively. And even _crown of stars_ falls short of that. _Crown of stars_ is a spell you want hanging around for the general fights against reasonably level-appropriate enemies that you want to tear down faster to preserve resources such as allies' HP. You use it as a somewhat efficient output of additional damage on top of your cantrip. Maybe in conjunction with a good buff or control spell. And that's just not what you use a 7th level spell slot for. 7th, 8th, and 9th level spell slots, as 1/day features, need to be things you pull out for the Big Fights. And none of these save _draconic transformation_ really fit the bill. (I am not counting _blade of disaster_, because it's 9th level. If it were 7th level, I'd say it competes with _draconic transformation_.


I'm just going to point out that characters tend to have trends and themes. If you're an evocation Wizard you probably want to keep getting new and higher level evocations. If you're interested in damaging things primarily, then that is going to change the scope of things. 

Realistically the competition for what you spend your 7th level slot on is never going to be all 7th level spells in competition, it's going to be a mix of theme, preference, and function.

----------


## Psyren

> I'll preface this by pointing out I was adding nuance to the argument, not dismissing it.


I don't know if it's your posting style or what, but it's not always clear when you're adding context/nuance and when you're attempting to refute something. This exact exchange happened with your earlier response to me too.




> There's a very real scenario where moving away just means getting smacked again as monsters often have equal or greater movement speed than PCs.


But this was exactly _my_ point from earlier when highlighting the weakness of MS' 20ft. movement. There are many monsters that can move so far away from it (60' move or more) that it would actually take it _multiple_ rounds to get back in range, making it a waste of both your concentration and your high-value slot. BH with its 60' move is much less likely to run into these issues, and CoS with its 120' range can cover most battlefields entirely.




> Realistically the competition for what you spend your 7th level slot on is never going to be all 7th level spells in competition, it's going to be a mix of theme, preference, and function.


On this we agree - but that's the other problem with MS, both of the spells that outperform it in this slot share its school/theme. For me, the solution is to lower its spell level so that it becomes available to multiclass and EK builds more easily, giving it a broader thematic niche to compensate for its weak mechanical one.

----------


## Segev

> I'm just going to point out that characters tend to have trends and themes. If you're an evocation Wizard you probably want to keep getting new and higher level evocations. If you're interested in damaging things primarily, then that is going to change the scope of things. 
> 
> Realistically the competition for what you spend your 7th level slot on is never going to be all 7th level spells in competition, it's going to be a mix of theme, preference, and function.


I agree. That doesn't justify the "evoker" being worse off for sticking to theme. That justifies making the evocation spell he wants to be picking for thematic reasons worthy of the same spell slot he COULD be spending on _draconic transformation_, instead.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> I don't know if it's your posting style or what, but it's not always clear when you're adding context/nuance and when you're attempting to refute something. This exact exchange happened with your earlier response to me too.


I prefaced my reply to Segev by saying it was to add nuance. I prefaced the part of my reply to you, which you're referencing here, with 'reminder of my position.'

I'm not really sure how to be clearer than literally saying what I'm doing as a preface. If you read my reply and don't apply that context to what I'm actually saying... I don't really know what to do about that.





> But this was exactly _my_ point from earlier when highlighting the weakness of MS' 20ft. movement. There are many monsters that can move so far away from it (60' move or more) that it would actually take it _multiple_ rounds to get back in range, making it a waste of both your concentration and your high-value slot. BH with its 60' move is much less likely to run into these issues, and CoS with its 120' range can cover most battlefields entirely.


And monsters can certainly get away from it... but my point was that I don't think it's likely since those monsters are likely near or already tied up with other PCs.

That is an entirely different scenario and argument to a PC trying to physically get away from a monster within 5 ft. of them.




> On this we agree - but that's the other problem with MS, both of the spells that outperform it in this slot share its school/theme. For me, the solution is to lower its spell level so that it becomes available to multiclass and EK builds more easily, giving it a broader thematic niche to compensate for its weak mechanical one.


I think you're talking about CoS and Bigby's? The latter is not a 7th level spell, sure you can upcast it, but if the conversation then includes everything you can upcast then it becomes very unwieldly.

I think that MS is a fine 7th level spell, just fine, not particularly bad, not good, and I think that's okay. Especially since the spell's individual performance is it's floor, not ceiling. An Evocation Wizard smacking things for 3d10+5 force, mostly as a bonus action, is hardly trash. Nor is 6d10+10 with the protential of critting bad or anything to scoff at on the casting turn.




> I agree. That doesn't justify the "evoker" being worse off for sticking to theme. That justifies making the evocation spell he wants to be picking for thematic reasons worthy of the same spell slot he COULD be spending on _draconic transformation_, instead.


I see what you're saying, but it's also the kind of thinking that raises everything to the power creep, which is not something I'm either interested in or think is good for the game.

----------


## JNAProductions

_Bigby's_ is worth talking about upcast to level 7 because it's incredibly similar to _Sword_.

_Fireball_ upcast to level 7 might be better than _Sword_, but it's not doing the same job. _Bigby's_ is largely doing the same job, only better.

----------


## Kane0

I like the idea of mords sword being able to be used like spiritual weapon or like shadow blade, then i guess make it a bonus action to cast and/or remove concentration and its a much more useful looking spell without just increasing numbers.

----------


## Psyren

> I prefaced my reply to Segev by saying it was to add nuance. I prefaced the part of my reply to you, which you're referencing here, with 'reminder of my position.'
> 
> I'm not really sure how to be clearer than literally saying what I'm doing as a preface. If you read my reply and don't apply that context to what I'm actually saying... I don't really know what to do about that.


You established that you were just adding context AFTER the objection I raised (bottom of the post) to your seeming characterization of my position - not before. That's why I wanted to highlight it here. But fine - going forward if you say any variation of "nuance" or "context" I'll try not to treat that as an attempted counterargument.




> And monsters can certainly get away from it... but my point was that I don't think it's likely since those monsters are likely near or already tied up with other PCs.
> 
> That is an entirely different scenario and argument to a PC trying to physically get away from a monster within 5 ft. of them.


A caster doing what they're almost guaranteed to be trying to do anyway (maintain distance from the front line) isn't really a drawback or tangential scenario for CoS though. If anything, its massive range compared to both MS and BH is a benefit, as it makes the thing you want to do anyway even easier. That makes it germane to the discussion of what you should be saving your precious 7th-level slot for.




> I think that MS is a fine 7th level spell, just fine, not particularly bad, not good, and I think that's okay. Especially since the spell's individual performance is it's floor, not ceiling. An Evocation Wizard smacking things for 3d10+5 force, mostly as a bonus action, is hardly trash. Nor is 6d10+10 with the protential of critting bad or anything to scoff at on the casting turn.


Whereas I _don't_ think it's fine. I'm not saying it's total trash or bottom tier, but it is underpowered, and not something I would ever prepare even as an Evoker. If MS makes it to OneDnD (which it ideally should as it's on the Arcane list in the playtest), then they need to either reduce its level or up its power. (And no, making something that is currently materially below the curve _closer_ to the curve, is not "power creep.")




> _Bigby's_ is worth talking about upcast to level 7 because it's incredibly similar to _Sword_.
> 
> _Fireball_ upcast to level 7 might be better than _Sword_, but it's not doing the same job. _Bigby's_ is largely doing the same job, only better.


Exactly this. In mechanics, theme, school etc., Bigby's is the most direct comparison we have, upcast or not. And the fact that upcasting Bigby's costs the same valuable and sharply limited resource as a straight cast of MS makes it _more_ germane to the discussion, not less.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

Side note: DMG's guidance for a 7th level, single-target damaging spell is 11d10 _not counting accuracy_. MS hits that after 3 turns (if you get two your first turn) or 4 turns (if you only get one your first turn). Considering that most things are judged over a 3-round period, that seems right on par with the guidance.

So it's very possible that _Bigsby's Hand_ is the one that scales improperly here.

----------


## OvisCaedo

Does the DMG spell guidance table make any distinction between burst damage and damage over time? It also tends to just be... kind of sloppy in general and not especially accurate to their own spell designs

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Does the DMG spell guidance table make any distinction between burst damage and damage over time? It also tends to just be... kind of sloppy in general and not especially accurate to their own spell designs


It doesn't. But that doesn't change that one is on-track with the guidance and one is very much not.

----------


## ProsecutorGodot

> Does the DMG spell guidance table make any distinction between burst damage and damage over time? It also tends to just be... kind of sloppy in general and not especially accurate to their own spell designs


In short - not really. 

There is a long answer though. The guidelines can be summarized as:
- Assume it to deal half damage on a save or missed attack
- If it does not deal half damage on a save (but not a missed attack) increase the damage by 25%
- You can adjust the damage dice provided the average result is the same

The only 7th level spells that closely meets the average of 60.5 damage and follow all of the guidelines to the letter are Finger of Death for single target, which averages 61.5 damage or half as much on a save and Delayed Blast Fireball, which exactly meets the listed requirements.

The remaining damaging spells at this level require a lot of additional guesswork or assumptions to have them meet the same guidelines. Crown of Stars and Mordenkainens Sword require about 3 turns and the assumption of a successful attack to meet it. Draconic Transformation requires several turns to meet the average but does follow the first guideline. Firestorm and Prismatic Spray fall below average for area damage and Death Symbol lands _well_ above average despite having different damage dice.

And since we're talking about Bigby's Hand, when upcast to 7th level Clenched Fist technically takes three successful attacks at 36 average damage to pass the average of 75.5 (adjusted 25% despite this being on an attack rather than save), but only barely as two gives you an average of 72 damage. Grasping Hand falls outside of the guidelines on its premise of requiring neither an attack or save, but a contested check to resolve initially and then it has guaranteed damage. We'll give it the benefit of the doubt though and say the caster has a maxed ability modifier so the average it deals per grasping hand attack is 26 damage, making an average of 78 in three attacks.

So PhoenixPhyre's use of a 3 turn window for spells with multiple instances of damage is pretty consistent, if you accept that as a reasonable guideline (which I think it is) then a lot more spells do fall in line with the DMG guidance. It's still not entirely accurate though.

----------


## Chronos

If we're listing Mordenkainen's successes, let's not forget Private Sanctum.  It might not be everyday carry, but it's not infrequently the perfect tool for the job, it can be made permanent for even more utility, and it's a low enough level that you've got multiple slots, so much less opportunity cost.

----------


## Segev

The trouble, I think, with trying to apply the "total damage" guidance from the DMG to ongoing spells is that you have to also consider cantrips. Are cantrips equivalent to 7th level spells if they do as much damage over three rounds, cast three times? It's _less_ resource cost than casting a 7th level spell once, after all. _Firebolt_, the bread and butter wizard damage cantrip by most expectations, is doing 3d10 fire damage on each successful hit by the time you can cast a 7th level spell. Now, _Mordenkainen's sword_ is doing it as a bonus action, which means you could _firebolt_ and attack with the sword, effectively doubling your damage. But is doubling your cantrip damage for one fight really where a 7th level spell is supposed to be sitting? Remember, this is still under fairly ideal conditions where the enemy can't just kite the sword (making _firebolt_ significantly better, since the latter has a 120 ft. range from the caster, who can use his own considerably-better-than-20 feet of movement to keep up). 


Maybe a better examination of DMG standards would be things like _Melf's acid arrow_ and the like, which explicitly do one additional round of damage, usually halved, on a failed save. How many dice do these spells do, compared to the guidance for a spell of their level? Or how much damage, rather?

----------


## Psyren

> Side note: DMG's guidance for a 7th level, single-target damaging spell is 11d10 _not counting accuracy_. MS hits that after 3 turns (if you get two your first turn) or 4 turns (if you only get one your first turn). Considering that most things are judged over a 3-round period, that seems right on par with the guidance.


1) Except it's _not_ on par with the guidance, because it deals zero damage on a miss rather than half damage. As the guidance clearly states, that means it would need to do 25% more damage than it does. So it's still subpar, even using the generic DMG provisions.

2) The other major factor you're not accounting for, is that to do that damage, it needs to also use up your concentration for _all three_ of those rounds. Neither a more basic 7th level damage spell like FoD, nor simply spamming a cantrip for those three rounds, does that either.

----------


## Sigreid

If I recall correctly, it used to summon essentially a sword shaped sphere of annihilation, buy even then I can't recall anyone ever actually taking the spell in earlier additions.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> 1) Except it's _not_ on par with the guidance, because it deals zero damage on a miss rather than half damage. As the guidance clearly states, that means it would need to do 25% more damage than it does. So it's still subpar, even using the generic DMG provisions.
> 
> 2) The other major factor you're not accounting for, is that to do that damage, it needs to also use up your concentration for _all three_ of those rounds. Neither a more basic 7th level damage spell like FoD, nor simply spamming a cantrip for those three rounds, does that either.


On the other hand, that assumption is for a one and done spell. Not something you make multiple attacks with. On average, you'll hit something like 65% of attacks and crit on 5% more. So over 4 attacks, you're dealing on average more than half the spells listed damage. Which ends up being similar to "half on a miss" for a single big attack.

And the guidance doesn't say anything about concentration.

Do I think MS is a great spell? No. It's... mediocre. But it's way closer to the guidance than say crown of stars or upcast bigsby's is.

----------


## Psyren

> On the other hand, that assumption is for a one and done spell. Not something you make multiple attacks with. On average, you'll hit something like 65% of attacks and crit on 5% more. So over 4 attacks, you're dealing on average more than half the spells listed damage. Which ends up being similar to "half on a miss" for a single big attack.


That just means you're all but guaranteed to miss at least one of those 4 attacks. So realistically, you're doing 9d10 at most, and possibly even less. which again, puts you below the stated guidance.




> And the guidance doesn't say anything about concentration.
> 
> Do I think MS is a great spell? No. It's... mediocre. But it's way closer to the guidance than say crown of stars or upcast bigsby's is.


Not considering concentration as a cost of spell creation is a weakness of the guidance itself, rather than a reason to dismiss it as a relevant factor, and represents a flaw in your decision to bring it into the discussion. In real games, whether a spell requires concentration or not is important, especially for spellcasters that reach 7th-level slots.

----------


## Tanarii

> On the other hand, that assumption is for a one and done spell. Not something you make multiple attacks with. On average, you'll hit something like 65% of attacks and crit on 5% more. So over 4 attacks, you're dealing on average more than half the spells listed damage. Which ends up being similar to "half on a miss" for a single big attack.


Attack spells 65% success (5% of which is a crit), zero on hit: .05*2D+.60*D+0*D = .70*D
Save spells 50% success, half on hit: .5*D+.5*.5*D = .75*D

Adjustment to guidelines for an attack roll spell = .75/.70 or ~1.07% of baseline.

----------


## Witty Username

> Side note: DMG's guidance for a 7th level, single-target damaging spell is 11d10 _not counting accuracy_. MS hits that after 3 turns (if you get two your first turn) or 4 turns (if you only get one your first turn). Considering that most things are judged over a 3-round period, that seems right on par with the guidance.
> 
> So it's very possible that _Bigsby's Hand_ is the one that scales improperly here.


Actually, that is assuming save for half-damage, to fit the spell guidelines the sword would be ~14d10 (up to +25%, to account for no damage on a miss). So 4-5 rounds to make par for the sword. -(didn't see Psyren's comment)

Not to mention the dmg guidelines for monsters have for the low end of stuff you would be fighting at this point would be ~150+ hp, and that is a multi-monster combat, 3d10 damage does not add up quickly in that context.

Even by the game's more absolute standards, Mordenkienen's sword is significantly below par, and that is a pretty low bar to clear.
--
As for Bigby's, that is 8d8 per round with a 7th level slot?
That means about 3 rounds to hit the 7th level spell point, and it needs to survive all 3 rounds (has hp after all)
More damage then the norm but over time is expected of damage over time spells.
Tellingly, it is about right (low but in the ball park) for a AoE spell at that level, which is expected to work with a mutiplyer by number of enemies.

Note that if we use that logic (AoE contour, for over time effects), Mordenkienen's sword should deal about 9d10 damage between the miss for 0 and the 12d6 average.

----------


## Segev

> Note that if we use that logic (AoE contour, for over time effects), Mordenkienen's sword should deal about 9d10 damage between the miss for 0 and the 12d6 average.


I don't think we can apply the AoE paradigm to _Mordenkainen's sword_. Yes, it can hit multiple targets over the course of a few rounds, but it isn't multiplying its damage by them; it's dividing its damage amongst them. 

Assuming the 14d10 assumption is accurate for what a 7th level spell that does nothing on a miss should be doing, that is an average damage of 77. _Blade of disaster_ does 67.7 damage per round (if it hits with both attacks). Cut it down to one attack per bonus action, and it'd be doing 33.85. Add the intelligence modifier to the damage (Mordenkainen is, after all, proving that he "knows" how to use a sword better than a fighter would, as part of demonstrating his spell is superior as a damage-dealer to Bigby's), and we get an assumed 38.85 DPR (twice that on the first round at the cost of an action as well as the bonus action) at the cost of a bonus action (again, ignoring misses as a possibility). 

38.85 DPR doubled is actually right there at the 7th level guidance for something that does nothing on a hit (77.7, rather than 77), and it can actually do this in round 1 with both an action (cast it and make the attack) and a bonus action (move it if you want, and make another attack). Every round after that is gravy, pushing it over the guidance for a 7th level spell.

Incidentally, it takes 2 rounds against a single target for _draconic transformation_'s breath weapon to get juuuuust below the 7th level recommendation, and I imagine the AoE multiplier puts it right on par with where it should be in a single round. Which makes it quite a bit above the DMG's recommended curve.

I would argue that _Mordenkainen's sword_ deserves to be a bit overtuned for the same reason _fireball_ is. So my suggestion is to replace _Mordenkainen's sword's_ damage code and crit behavior with that of the _blade of disaster_, while leaving it at only one attack per "activation." It's a little expensive to get the full 7th level recommended damage at round 1, and it's got a bit of a short range, but in the right circumstances (and Mordenkainen is absolutely the sort to poitn out that wizards use spells "in the right circumstances" only if they're any good at their jobs), it's going to be an efficient damage-dealing tool for its spell slot at that point. Those "right circumstances" are "not in big open spaces" and "against one or more moderately-tanky foes, or one very big solo foe who can't run away effectively." I will also note that forcing a creature to stay 20 feet away from your sword is a form of battlefield control.

----------


## Chronos

> Quoth *Sigreid*:
> 
>     If I recall correctly, it used to summon essentially a sword shaped sphere of annihilation, buy even then I can't recall anyone ever actually taking the spell in earlier additions.


No, that was Black Blade of Disaster, which was always a ninth-level spell.  It was seldom taken because, first, very few casters can use ninth-level spells, and second, it was from a splatbook, which not all groups have access to.  But as ninth-level splatbook spells go, it was pretty good.

----------


## Witty Username

> I don't think we can apply the AoE paradigm to _Mordenkainen's sword_. Yes, it can hit multiple targets over the course of a few rounds, but it isn't multiplying its damage by them; it's dividing its damage amongst them.


My reasoning was more that AoE and overtime damage have a similar effect that the damage dealt isn't reflected in the number presented.

Like say fireball has a presented damage of 8d6 (28 average), but fireball, by DMG reckoning, is expected to affect about 4 targets, which means its actual damage is about 112 damage. Not factoring hit rates and whatnot, as these are not comparitive numbers, so much as to illustrate the idea.

An over time effect that is expected to last 4 rounds would have a similar multiplier to arrive at its expected damage.

In the case of Mordenkienen's sword, 3d10 (16.5 average) over 4 rounds would have actual damage of about 56. This makes the actual damage more closely contour to AoE damage context. At least in my mind.

As well as Bigby's hand which was the primary point, trying to map it to the single target damage gets some strange numbers in both directions (at 5th it looks weak, with Bigby's needing all 3 rounds to make par, and upcasting nonsensical as is quickly gets to the point of breaking that par solidly by round 2), using the AoE damage with the assumption of that being the 1 round damage, and Bigby's looks low but reasonable at all levels, which makes sense for a modal spell, and the growth rate is much more conforming. (With the exception of the weird 3d6 bump at 5th to 6th, but given that growth isn't reflected in any upcast spell, that is probably not meant to be reflected in upcasting.
--
I don't think MS needs to be overtuned, I feel like that is isn't a signature spell for the class, or needed for role definition. I think it is worth considering revision as it is weak enough to be considered a trap option, though.
I think that most tables aren't effected much by MS though, either they don't play at those levels, or have figured out the spell is bad and use it as a joke spell.

----------


## Persolus

I read either in this forum somewhere or a blog post somewhere else that it was a really cool spell for DM's to give a big caster NPC.
It looks really cool, it adds variety and it's not too powerful.

----------


## Kane0

Upon further consideration:

*Mordenkainen's Sword*
7th-level evocation

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, S, M (a miniature platinum sword with a grip and pommel of copper and zinc, worth 250 gp)
Duration: Concentration, up to 10 minutes

You create a sword-shaped plane of force that hovers in your space. It lasts for the duration, counting as being wielded by you as it hovers around you. It counts as a simple melee weapon with the light and finesse properties with which you are proficient, dealing 3d10 Force damage on a hit.

When the sword appears you can make one ranged spell attack with it against a target of your choice within range as the sword flies out to strike then returns to you. Until the spell ends, you can use a bonus action on each of your turns to repeat this attack against the same target or a different one.

At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 8th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d10 for every slot level above 7th.

Spell Lists: Bard, Wizard

So the wording is a bit weird, but it's sort of like a shadow blade or flame blade with some differences. It doesn't use up a hand for you to use (but can't be shared) and can be 'thrown' out to 60 feet without disadvantage (using your bonus action like spiritual weapon). It also upscales to a 5d10 damage weapon at 9th level, so Bladesingers and Bladebards will probably be dishing out some impressive damage with this swinging three times per turn.

----------


## Witty Username

Quick notes on mentioned stuff
crit on morde sword,
.05 × 16.5 (damage average) = . 825 increase in damage
I tend to leave off crits unless it is something build specific, I rarely see it amount to more than an extra point of dpr, and it can be significant amount of math sometimes for not alot.

I don't rate much on damage types personally, fire is a good example, it has a significant number of resisted monsters but also vulnerable monsters and is the most reliable way to shut down regeneration.

As for AC, +10 is 60% accuracy on an AC of 19, 18 is the ballpark estimate of CR 15 encounter, and while not common, we could fight AC 20 threats as early as CR 6. And we are getting into Tier 4 threats, where ACs above 20 are showing up. (In fact, which the exception of some cheaters that have the shield spell, i can only find a few creatures CR 15+ with an AC of <=18, purple worm, vampire and mummy lord at least in the Monster Manual).

I did use straight math, D&D math matters in individual instances, but as dpr numbers are agragite of those grouped, decimals represents the fraction of the time it will be higher or lower. And I am faster with straight math.
I think it makes a .25 difference about, loose a half point about half the time, then adjust for save chance.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> A caster doing what they're almost guaranteed to be trying to do anyway (maintain distance from the front line) isn't really a drawback or tangential scenario for CoS though. If anything, its massive range compared to both MS and BH is a benefit, as it makes the thing you want to do anyway even easier. That makes it germane to the discussion of what you should be saving your precious 7th-level slot for.


The massive range thing I've already addressed. Do you seriously think a caster is making use of the far end of 120 ft.? 

And maybe some games it really doesn't come up, but I can't conceive of a game where casters always maintain distance and are never molested by monsters, sounds incredibly boring.




> Whereas I _don't_ think it's fine. I'm not saying it's total trash or bottom tier, but it is underpowered, and not something I would ever prepare even as an Evoker. If MS makes it to OneDnD (which it ideally should as it's on the Arcane list in the playtest), then they need to either reduce its level or up its power. (And no, making something that is currently materially below the curve _closer_ to the curve, is not "power creep.")


I'm not watching a 7 minute video about an entirely different game, but hopefully that link helps someone.

When the curve that's being pointed to is established by supplements, which Crown of Stars and Draconic Transformation are, then that is 100% power creep.




> Exactly this. In mechanics, theme, school etc., Bigby's is the most direct comparison we have, upcast or not. And the fact that upcasting Bigby's costs the same valuable and sharply limited resource as a straight cast of MS makes it _more_ germane to the discussion, not less.


And I lean more to Bigby's being a bit much rather than the ideal. 8d8 force as a bonus action is a huge amount, even for 7th level.




> Side note: DMG's guidance for a 7th level, single-target damaging spell is 11d10 _not counting accuracy_. MS hits that after 3 turns (if you get two your first turn) or 4 turns (if you only get one your first turn). Considering that most things are judged over a 3-round period, that seems right on par with the guidance.
> 
> _So it's very possible that Bigsby's Hand is the one that scales improperly here._


I think this is more likely, Bigby's scaling is kind of nuts.




> Quick notes on mentioned stuff
> crit on morde sword,
> .05 × 16.5 (damage average) = . 825 increase in damage
> I tend to leave off crits unless it is something build specific, I rarely see it amount to more than an extra point of dpr, and it can be significant amount of math sometimes for not alot.


Stuff like this is why I really don't like DPR and accuracy-adjusted damage as metrics, it's just so disconnected from table experience. 




> I don't rate much on damage types personally, fire is a good example, it has a significant number of resisted monsters but also vulnerable monsters and is the most reliable way to shut down regeneration.


I get where you're coming from, but:

- The number of monsters vulnerable to fire is minuscule compared to those with resistance or immunity.

- It's not the most reliable way to shut down regen, that would be Chill Touch. There are a lot of monsters with Regen that have no off switch, like Slaads, or have radiant as the off switch, like Vampires. 




> As for AC, +10 is 60% accuracy on an AC of 19, 18 is the ballpark estimate of CR 15 encounter, and while not common, we could fight AC 20 threats as early as CR 6. And we are getting into Tier 4 threats, where ACs above 20 are showing up. (In fact, which the exception of some cheaters that have the shield spell, i can only find a few creatures with an AC of <=18, purple worm, vampire and mummy lord at least in the Monster Manual).


Encounters also frequently feature groups of monsters and bosses often have mobs, setting the target AC for MS to 19 just seems too high, with a basis in, well nothing, it actually goes against the table provided by the book.




> I did use straight math, D&D math matters in individual instances, but as dpr numbers are agragite of those grouped, decimals represents the fraction of the time it will be higher or lower. And I am faster with straight math.


It can certainly be a preference, I just don't find that kind of straight math really relevant to the game in anything but a zoomed out white room people never experience.

----------


## Psyren

> The massive range thing I've already addressed. Do you seriously think a caster is making use of the far end of 120 ft.?


You don't have to be "at the far end" to outrange/kite someone limited to 60' or even 90'. Especially in a 13+ fight, which can more readily involve three dimensions.




> And maybe some games it really doesn't come up, but I can't conceive of a game where casters always maintain distance and are never molested by monsters, sounds incredibly boring.


Is this the context thing again? Because I never said anything about "always maintaining distance."




> When the curve that's being pointed to is established by supplements, which Crown of Stars and Draconic Transformation are, then that is 100% power creep.
> ...
> And I lean more to Bigby's being a bit much rather than the ideal. 8d8 force as a bonus action is a huge amount, even for 7th level.


If you had watched the video you'd know why this is wrong. BH at 7th level - in core - already set the curve, and those other two spells they printed afterward are in line with that. They are in line with BH. That the devs have never looked back at MS since shows that they consider it to be weak.

----------


## diplomancer

It's quite simple: damage over time is, in most cases, worse than damage all at once. And requiring concentration is always worse than not requiring it. So all this talk of "actually, Mordenkainen's Sword is in line with DMG guidelines" ignores these two facts (incidentally, this is also the reason why upcast Bigby's hand goes over the baseline- because having to use concentration and doing the damage over several rounds diminish the value of the damage).

As a matter of fact, we have empirical evidence of that, by comparing Fireball and Melf's Minute Meteors. Melf's meteors do 50% more damage than Fireball, and it's still considered an inferior option in most cases, since it takes concentration and its damage is over time.

So, to "fix" MS, you need, at the very least, to eliminate concentration.

----------


## Chronos

Yeah, it's definitely not splatbook creep, since the Sword and Hand are both core.  And the Hand is just so, so overwhelmingly better than the Sword:  The Sword just does damage, and requires a 7th-level slot, while the Hand does _more_ damage for the same slot, _and_ can be cast at lower levels, _and_ has the option to do several other useful things besides damage.  No matter what you think of splatbooks, you're kind of forced to conclude that either Sword is underpowered, Hand is overpowered, or possibly both.

----------


## Segev

Guys, we have been failing to address the thread title question! The point of Mordenkainen's sword is force: that's what it's made of (including at the point of the sword) AND the kind of damage it does when the point of the sword pierces somebody!

----------


## diplomancer

> Guys, we have been failing to address the thread title question! The point of Mordenkainen's sword is force: that's what it's made of (including at the point of the sword) AND the kind of damage it does when the point of the sword pierces somebody!





> There's no point, as it does force damage, not piercing.
> 
> Oh, you mean, what is its use? There isn't one either.


Hey, that was my very first post!

----------


## Segev

> Hey, that was my very first post!


I stand corrected! It was already asked and answered! My apologies!

----------


## TaiLiu

> I stand corrected! It was already asked and answered! My apologies!


I really like this energy. We should discuss everything with exclamations.  :Small Big Grin:

----------


## Witty Username

> It can certainly be a preference, I just don't find that kind of straight math really relevant to the game in anything but a zoomed out white room people never experience.


For me it is about the same as decimals in dice averages. We all know by now that the average of a d6 is 3.5 at this point, despite that not being even a possibility much less a likelihood, it is because averages are expected to bear out over time, even if there truth value is actually 0 for an individual instance.
As for D&D math, it would only apply in individual instances, you could agragite it in (save %, times chance to roll an odd number, which is probably close to have the time, amount involved a half point). Small differences for a lot of work, by my reckoning.
But that is part of my table experiences, I have found things like damage can be of an amount that is too small to matter.
--
Is 8d8 alot of damage for a 7th level spell?
8d8 is about the amount of damage a 11th level fighter or paladin does, all the time, they don't need to spend a once per day resource that only lasts a minute its just their normal attack action?
Even if we take it as a bonus action, its more resource intensive than action surge and smites, and they don't require taking a turn off to do their stuff.
And then we have things like cone of cold that was doing that much damage 2 spell levels ago?
A note on con saves, while they tend to be high on boss monsters, for mobs they tend to be much more variable (and we would be using AoE spells on mobs), sure high con and legendary resistance is a thing, but it happens to correlate with monster of ACs of 20+.

But the cone of cold touches on the ultimate question:
There are bad circumstances for cone of cold, single high con energy, and good, clearing large amounts of fodder, alternative to fireball for high dex enemies and fire resistance.
When is a good circumstance for Mordenkienen's sword?
Fighting mobs, it is low impact, due to being single target
Mobile enemies, it is slow moving, with a movement speed slower than most normal enemies
Ranged enemies, it is short range,
Powerful enemies, it is low damage that takes time to acrue
Lots of spells are bad in poor circumstances, sure.
Are there any good circumstances for Mordenkienen's sword?

----------


## Unoriginal

> Are there any good circumstances for Mordenkienen's sword?


Maybe fighting a caster-type enemy who has strong powers at specific ranges (maybe with Concentration), but AC and HPs lower than a a bruiser-type?


For example, the Star Spawn Larva Mage.

----------


## Snails

> Are there any good circumstances for Mordenkienen's sword?


Fighting incorporeal or Blink-ing enemies, where the Force damage type is very helpful.

(Of course MS is still worse than BH for this, but that horse is dead.)

----------


## Witty Username

> Fighting incorporeal or Blink-ing enemies, where the Force damage type is very helpful.
> 
> (Of course MS is still worse than BH for this, but that horse is dead.)


We also have things like magic missile, and any warlock with a second level will have more force damage than sword represents off of eldritch blast, also incorporal enemies tend to be mobile enough to avoid multiple hits with the sword.
Maybe an incorporal creature without flight or incorporal movement?



> Maybe fighting a caster-type enemy who has strong powers at specific ranges (maybe with Concentration), but AC and HPs lower than a a bruiser-type?
> 
> 
> For example, the Star Spawn Larva Mage.


Hm, sure but mages tend to have deceptive defensive abilities (shield being the worst offender).
Larva Mage has a a couple abilities to generate temp hp each round for example, which doesnt play nicely with trying to whitle them down with over time damage.
Also, it only has resistance to cold damage and Immunity to psychic damage, so things like fireball and finger of death are on the table (no legendary resistance to worry about either) for immediate damage that wouldn't run into this problem.

----------


## Leon

Options. They are not always the best but they are there in case you do want to use it.

----------


## Psyren

> Fighting incorporeal or Blink-ing enemies, where the Force damage type is very helpful.


I don't think force confers any specific advantages in these situations like it did in prior editions. Creatures aren't usually "incorporeal" in 5e, rather they have resistance or immunity to certain damage types and the Incorporeal Movement feature. Notably, if you can do magical damage of most kinds (including physical) you can affect them just fine.

Force is useful in that it's one of the least-resisted damage types in the game, but it's no longer uniquely capable of affecting ghosts and the like, other damage types can hurt them too. Conversely, force effects don't blanketly extend onto the ethereal plane the same way that they used to.

----------

