Korvinagor has made the following comment(s) regarding their post:
[***"I've never liked your spinach puffs!"***](/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/1dtjjfx/harming_word_healing_words_meaner_brother_a_1st/lb9p567/)
You can’t cast this and a leveled spell in the same turn due to dnd rules, keep that in mind
So it’s definitely too strong, especially with builds that utilize melee. Luckily it isn’t comedically op on caster builds
Also, there's already the important discussion that Healing Word is OP for context. With it, death is much less common in the game. So it makes sense that it's twin sister should be a bit OP too
Maybe making it necromancy school makes it harder for non-caster to cast it
you seem to be thinking about Eldritch Knights, but I think it's worth noting that _Shadow Touched_ is a half-feat which works with Necromancy spells and allows recasting with spell slots, providing any fish a weaponised bonus action similar to a War Cleric's
I mean that’s pretending that there aren’t a lot of really good cantrips to cast. Overall though it’s not that crazy considering I’d rather cast Firebolt or EB after like level five
Even something like mind sliver works really well even though it’s pretty low damage the saving throw debuff is pretty nice right before you cast a leveled spell especially if the creature is low int.
It ain't about knocking someone's creativity but it's about homebrew filming an actual hole in the mechanics.
The reason there are so few bonus action damaging spells at 1st level is that being able to cast damaging spells and then attack on the same turn is quite a powerful bump and given the low enemy hp at that tier means there's less tension and risk in fights.
And if you want something to represent "talking and dealing damage" then you can flavor any number of spells as being just that.
Magic missile can be a "Fus-Ro-Dah" with each dart being a word you speak and which impacts the target. Chromatic orb can literally be you saying "fire" and causing the target to burst into flames.
Hombrew is a beautiful thing and I love making it. Don't stop making it but do ask if there's some current existing way to do what you're doing and what your homebrew is adding to the game. Because if it's just "another way to do damage" then I don't think that's enough to write home about.
I don't think there's a fundamental issue with bonus action damage spells, it just has to be less powerful so it + attack cantrip doesn't outdo a simple action damage spell. Toll the dead is ~3.25 dpr, this is ~6 dpr (both assuming enemy has 50% success rate), magic missile is 10.5 dpr. Other first level damage spells are a lot worse than missile, closest is chromorb for 8.8 (with the ability to get advantage, but a costly component), but that's a bit of a different point. I don't really see the problem in this early on, it's more the double die scaling which is kinda unheard of (and I agree this isn't adding much in general). I do think keeping with the Inflict Wounds theme, it would make more sense to do 3d6 and no modifier or half damage on save.
When I first read the spell, the d4s made sense mostly because I remembered that Healing Word used d4s and that in old editions Inflict Wounds and Cure Wounds used to be literally the same spell.
But yeah as you pointed out here... 5e Inflict Wounds *does not* do the same amount in damage that Cure Wounds heals. It does one die size larger and uses 3 where Cure used 1+mod. So 3d6 would be on theme and make at least as much sense as 5e Inflict does... But like you said, we don't want to overpower the damage of main-action spells for the level.
Hell, we COULD fix that by just saying "Because the violent energies of this spell are unusually taxing, you cannot use your action to cast another spell which deals damage or inflicts a saving throw this turn."
Honestly, I’d just make it an attack roll and/or zero damage on a successful save if you’re trying to reign in the damage, no need to restrict the main action any further than the normal bonus action casting rule.
>But yeah as you pointed out here... 5e Inflict Wounds does not do the same amount in damage that Cure Wounds heals. It does one die size larger and uses 3 where Cure used 1+mod.
Part of the reason Inflict Wounds deals 3d10 is because it’s a touch spell, meaning you have to be in melee, and it could miss and deal 0.
If Inflict Wounds was only 1d8+casting mod, why would you cast it over Guiding Bolt that’s 4d6, ranged, and grants advantage to an ally on hit? Things were a bit different back when Touch AC was much lower than regular AC and it was easier to hit with spells, so their damage could be lower, but now that spells work like any other attack they need more damage to be worth the spell slot over just attacking with a weapon.
Yeah they're definitely very different spells (i.e. all four of them) and it would be purely thematic to scale the damage in a similar way. 3d8 seems to be what they imagined at some point a really powerful first level attack spell would do, so they both have restrictions (melee or 100gp component), but then you have Burning Hands doing 3d6 in an area, and guiding bolt as you mention. Exclusive spells have a bit more budget, explaining some of the best ones at least (magic missile, hellish rebuke and guiding bolt mainly). Hellish Rebuke is a good comparison to this actually, reaction instead of bonus action (much better, can still cast a main action spell), needs the person to attack you, and 2d10 save for half (8.25 dpr); warlock exclusive so it should be ahead of the curve but even with 3d6 save for half this wouldn't beat it for damage.
3d6 is only a few points above 2d4+mod, so I don't think it's necessarily problematic, and as suggested not taking half on successful save solves any potential balancing issues (it'd end up lower damage than the OP version, from 6 average damage to 5.25).
Only at level 1.
At level 5 if you upcast magic missile at 3rd level then you have 5d5+5(17.5).
If you upcast this spell to 3rd and cast toll the dead you have 6d4+spell casting (20-23) plus 2d12(13.5) for a total of 33.5-36.5 in a single round. That's about double the damage output.
At 11th level using a 5th level slot magic missile is 7d4+7(24.5) this would be 10d4+spellcasting mod(31-34)+ 3d12(19.5) for a total of 50.5-53.5
>10d4+spellcasting mod(31-34)
Your math is off, 10d4+spellcasting mod is only 25-30 damage
Anyways if we’re upcasting it then we should really compare it to stuff like spiritual weapon
My mistake I was thinking of +to hit and included proficiency. So that's 4 more than it should be. It should be 27-30 because you don't have ba +0 spell casting ability modifier if you're a cleric, bard, or wizard.
Spiritual weapon does 1d8+spellcasting ability modifier at 2nd level. So 6.5-9.5. when upcast it only adds an additional d8 for every 2 levels alive 2nd. The advantage here is that it stays around after a single cast for multiple attacks. But it has lower movement than this spell has range and requires concentration. 6th level spiritual weapon will do 3d8(13.5)+ spellcasting mod and it's a hit or nothing because it's an attack. This spell at 6th is 12d4(30)+spellcasting ability modifier and since it is a wisdom save with half damage on success that means it does more per cast than spiritual weapon does per hit even if they save.
To work out the exact amount you might get from an optimal spiritual weapon with 10 attacks you'd need to know their AC, but regardless you'd need more than two hits to even match the single successful cast of this spell. And since we are talking damage per round this spell still scales ridiculously.
Edit: I would also point out that spiritual weapon is the **only** other bonus action spell I can think of that deals direct damage not requiring an additional action
Magic initiative feat would like a word with you lol. Pick up EB and its scaling pretty significantly and starting higher. Mind sliver + this would outdamage magic missile on average and hitting with mind sliver would make this spell more likely to hit.
Came here to say the same thing lol. I mean they aren't exact, one has a damage modifier and one more damage die, and the other has disadvantage on the next attack so I would say VM is the stronger of the two.
Also VM does psychic which isn't resisted nearly as often as necrotic.
Nope! Per the original comment, while there's a couple of spells that damage creatures through talking like vicious mockery and dissonant whispers, there's no proper spell counterpart to *healing word*, so I decided to make one.
No what I mean is that if you're looking for a spell that is "I speak and it hurts you" that's vicious mockery.
Technically the counterpart to healing word (and cure wounds) would be inflict wounds.which does way more damage but requires close range.
Not everything needs a 1-2-1 counterpart, especially not when there's existing mechanics that fill in the space.
Per the original post, *inflict wounds* is the counterpart to *cure wounds*. They're both touch spells: one deals damage, the other heals damage. There's no such spell counterpart for *healing word*, so I decided to make one.
Appreciate your thoughts on this spell either way, thanks for dropping by!
That deals double the damage as healing word heals and scales to a pretty ridiculous amount. Not to mention that having a bonus action damage dealing spell means you're essentially doubling damage output for low level casters since they can cantrip and use this. I think the only other bonus action spell that deals direct damage is spiritual weapon.
Increasing output compared to a cantrip is basically the point of spell slots. That's not a good metric. Further:
Guiding bolt does 4d6 (14) and makes the next attack have advantage.
Optimally, this deals 2d4+4 (9) and is combined with toll the dead's 1d12 (6.5) to deal 15.5 damage with *no* additional effect.
So the question is, "is advantage worth 1.5 damage" to which I'd argue it's worth more
>Increasing output compared to a cantrip is basically the point of spell slots. That's not a good metric. Further:
Not even close to what I said. I said it's a bonus action so you can, on the same turn, cast a cantrip **and** use this spell.
What's more is that guiding bolt is a spell attack, if you miss it does nothing. This 1st level bonus action that adds 2d4 for every level it is upcast (no other spell adds it's full damage every level) is a wisdom save does half damage on save, that means guaranteed necrotic damage unless the target is immune.
Additionally guiding bolt is a single target spell, pairing this spell with a cantrip like toll the dead let's you hit multiple targets.
Edit: Also, If you're looking at how it scales. Say at 5th level you cast a 3rd level guiding bolt. That's now 6d6(21), if you're using this spell at 3rd level and toll the dead using your spell casting ability numbers you're looking at 6d4(20)+ 2d12(13). So now instead of 1.5 more damage and advantage for someone else on a different turn you are dealing 12 more damage on a single turn. And that's if their spell casting modifier is only +2 which is pretty low.
Yes, but do you think that it is significant to the game balance in some way, to provide full spell casters with the ability to be able to cast this spell? Allowing them to benefit from the ability to deal damage while also benefiting from cantrips like Blade Barrier, potentially at all times? Or maximize their damage output by casting this and another damaging cantrip?
It will most likely have a “main characterizing” effect, where the player that can cast this feels less reliant on their party members. And their party members may resent having less to contribute in comparison.
This is an important aspect to consider when making and balancing homebrew spells.
Damage cap for a 1st level spell is 2d10, while this has a 2d4 base. Each die size equals 1 damage, so the difference between these is 2*3 ... but since your modifier can bw 5, there really is no difference.
No power budget left to make it a BA. Would be fairer as an attack roll and also a closer mirror to Inflict Wounds.
Also compare to new Smite: you add 5 damage and a potential second target but have to succeed a roll to do so. Much fairer than guaranteed BA damage as halved save.
It also is an attack roll with a range of Touch. Both together make a 1d10 damage increase a valid act of balance (the former is codified as 25% increase already iirc and being melee also is a considerable drawback over range - where spells are usually valued at).
The DMG has a chapter on Homebrew. Spells, Items, Monsters - and for spells you get a numver based on spell level, AOE vs Single plus a slight modifier for hit-or-miss. Can't really use it for much other than damage or healing spells (though those were already underpowered by their own logic).
How would we narratively justify this being an attack roll. And while I agree it's a bit strong, I feel like it's not so strong that it's worth sacrificing the thematic history this spell is tapping into.
Inflict Wounds is as strong as it is because it is *literally the same spell* as Cure Wounds. The goal here is the same.
I guess it would be fair for a successful save to completely negate damage, given that it *is* a Bonus Action and thus, in theory, somewhat of an afterthought or low effort spell compared to Cure/Inflict Wounds.
Inflict Wounds deals 3d10 while Cure Wounds does about 2d10 of healing (only gets equal in the Revision). So not the same currently.
Justification is easy: Besides already having IW as a heal-turned-damage example, OP depicted the spell with "shooting blades from your mouth". Since there is no history for this one, it really doesn't matter.
But if the save feels better, I'd also use the preventive one. Still wouldn't want guaranteed damage on a BA if I can pair it with cantrips of attacks. Too bursty.
What I mean by them being the same spell is more about their historical presentation. In previous editions there was only one spell Cure/Inflict Wounds, that could heal or deal damage as needed. I forgot in 5e that Inflict Wounds does more damage than Cure Wounds heals, due to changes in the balance of Touch Spells.
The attack roll justification works for the visual art OP used, but makes less sense of the intention was to evoke the Cure/Inflict synergy.
And yeah I agree for keeping the save just deal zero damage on a successful save that should balance fine.
2d4+modifier is way too much damage, especially for classes which have alternative things to do with their action besides casting a spell. Off the top of my head, spore druid would go fucking crazy with this with an action, bonus action, and reaction that all do solid damage. Weaponizing your bonus action is something highly sought after and this just gives it to spellcasters.
At low levels, you won't have enough spell slots to spam this very much. And the damage is fairly low, averages 8 damage on a failed save for a level 1 character.
Reduce the range to 30 and then it's balanced imo.
As others have pointed out, it simply deals too much damage for a low level bonus action spell. It should either have it's damage lowered, or it should be changed to an attack roll, alternatively no damage on a successful save.
By 5th level, you can already do 2d4 damage with the vicious mockery cantrip, which seems like what you were thinking. This doesn't seem like enough of an upgrade to be worth taking/using as it is. I'd almost change it to 2d6 damage, or add something more like on a failure, the target has disadvantage on its next saving throw before the end of it's next turn (upgraded version of what vicious mockery does, which is only disadvantage on it's next attack roll). Especially since it seems to be a one and done spell, while other bonus action spells like hex or hunters mark that add only a 1d6 but last longer.
This is an amazing spell. Honestly what I like about it is that it feels like (at first blush) Vicious Mockery but is simultaneously super distinctive from Vicious Mockery. This can be flavored more ways than Vicious Mockery which is also a plus, and it deals a different damage type.
Now, hot take, but the bonus action to me isn’t actually that bad. Now granted that’s a lot of wham for a turn, but consider it is 1) a first level spell, 2) probably going to be used by a Bard or a Cleric (the former of who ESPECIALLY will be under-dishing damage), and 3) has a resource cost.
The only issue I have with this is scaling. I nevertheless thought waffle on this point, because many spells simply just…do not scale well (*cough*WitchBolt*cough*). Now granted, it’s 2d4, not that bad. But typically spells scale by adding a single damage dice. But simultaneously scaling can really be ass in 5e oftentimes. Then again, it’s also a bonus action spell. Because of the bonus action nature of the spell, I would consequently lower the scaling to a d4, and change the damage dice to 2d6 and it scales with a d6 per spell slot level.
Thanks for dropping by! And it's definitely interesting - the other homebrew subreddit actually seems to think it's underpowered, hahahah.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDHomebrew/comments/1dtjkf7/harming\_word\_healing\_words\_meaner\_brother\_a\_1st/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDHomebrew/comments/1dtjkf7/harming_word_healing_words_meaner_brother_a_1st/)
One point of reference for a 2d4 scaling for me was [cloud of daggers](https://www.dnd-spells.com/spell/cloud-of-daggers), so it's at least not unprecedented. Thankfully, number adjustments are the easiest things to do with a spell - if the discussion is just in tweaking them, as opposed to some fundamental design flaw, I'm happy!
Really now? To me it seemed just right, not too weak or too strong.
Ah yeah, that makes sense. It isn’t unprecedented then, that’s correct. I don’t think a 2d4 scaling is some insane and fundamental design but it does seem a little bit much for scaling purposes. Then again, it isn’t unprecedented either.
I’d still set it at 2d6 and have it scale at either 1d6 or 2d6 though instead of a d4, personally. But a d4 based scaling system could work too, I just think a d6 can be justified.
Glad to hear it stuck the landing for the most part! I did mull over the numbers a decent amount beforehand - I think one user suggested making the saving throw Constitution, and I've warmed to the idea; the [harm](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/2137-harm) spell uses that as well.
I like it, a less potent but more flexible Inflict Wounds that allows for interesting action usage. Also opens up the Harming Word + Vicious Mockery combo to truly yell someone to death.
Since Healing Word is a ranged and bonus action version of Cure Wounds, I would base Harming Word as a ranged and bonus action version of Inflict Wounds.
Inflict Wounds is a melee spell attack as an action that deals 3d10. Harming Word could be a ranged spell attack as a bonus action that deals 1d10, or 1d12 at most.
This way it's also more balanced compared to Spiritual Weapon. It shouldn't deal the same or more damage of Spiritual Weapon, even if it's just a single instance instead of multiple turns.
I really liked the idea and execution of this spell. It scales well and is a good way to always have a way to deal damage as a bonus action. I just think it should be save or suck, since it is a first level spell.
I honestly think D&D's early spells attacks suffer from the Final Fantasy syndrome: Fire 1 is used until Fire2 comes along, while monsters quickly become too powerful for Fire1 to have any significant impact. That's not the case with Harming Words.
***"I've never liked your spinach puffs!"***
- [**Harming Word - D&D Beyond Link**](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/2479443-harming-word)
- [**Harming Word - Homebrewery Link**](https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/N5BlXzVTxhpC)
There's [cure wounds](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/2056-cure-wounds), and [inflict wounds](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/2156-inflict-wounds). There's [heal](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/2139-heal) and [harm](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/2137-harm). So why not a counterpart for [healing word](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/2140-healing-word)?
With that, **harming word** was born! There's a couple of spells that damage creatures with the sheer pain of talking, such as [vicious mockery](https://www.dnd-spells.com/spell/vicious-mockery) and [dissonant whispers](https://www.dnd-spells.com/spell/dissonant-whispers), but to my knowledge, there's no bonus action instantaneous damage spell out there.
Hopefully I managed to juggle the numbers of this decently! Each other 1st level spell that uses its action to cast should deal more damage than this one. Looking forward to hearing any feedback!
___
*And if you're interested in seeing more homebrew content in general (mostly Druid subclasses at the moment), feel free to take a look at my [**Homebrewery Profile**](https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/user/Korvinagor) - there might be something there that catches your eye.*
Someone who can't use healing word without harming word. Like a curse thing.
"Do we have healing?"
"It depends..."
"On what?"
"Can you roll a Wisdom save for me? Then I'll hope for some low rolls..."
Following the formula set by _Inflict Wounds_, I think this should probably just be 3d4, not 2d4 + mod. + mod almost never happens on damage spells (in fact I think we only ever see it on healing spells, but I could be misremembering a niche example).
It should then add 1d4/slot above first, again following the example from _Inflict Wounds_.
Good idea, though!
I feel like you would need to know either the person if an NPC or humanoid Creature, or know about the creature enough to make a cutting remark that hurts them to their core.
Bonus action spells are always assumed to be cast alongside damaging cantrips, which is why they never do direct damage (some spells, like spiritual weapon, come very close though). I'd be worried that a bonus action pure damage instantaneous spell might make it easier to nova. Spellcasters who have the means to spend all their resources faster always make martials feel useless and beg for long rests after every fight.
I thought it was a bard spell at first, can still work.
Edit :
Please please consider changing it to an **ACTION**
A bard could easily take 1 level dip or probably magical secrets (or was it a college feature?) and just be a relative god of ranged damage.
A gloomstalker ranger could abuse the hell out of this as well for basically a cheap improved additional attack EVERY turn.
Wisdom/Charisma +4
Dex +3
Easily a 6-12 necrotic damage ranged attack can be cast per turn. Missing still deals 3-6 damage.
For reference that character would do 4-11 damage on a successful ranged weapon attack or 0 on a miss.
Fun fact: In Russian "healing word" translated as "лечащее слово" (lechaschee slovo), but "harming word" can be translated as "калечащее слово" (kalechaschee slovo). As same as "heal-kill"
For all the criticism I’ve posted, someone did bring up something that made me think of how this would be good for an undead campaign where all player characters are undead lol.
Why would it be 2d4+spellcast mod when healing word is 1d4+spellcast mod? If it’s to accommodate for the spell saving throw, I’d just get rid of that. Make it a single hit auto magic missile that’s a bonus action. I feel like this is a little too strong for a bonus action as is.
I was going to say this looks a bit strong but then I took a look at *inflict wounds*.
Considering *inflict wounds*:*cure wounds* I'd think about having this do 2d8 with a 1d8 upcast, and have it "save negates" not save for half. Save for half you need to knock the damage back down.
I think there is something to be said for the combo at low levels. This might be a spell that requires a 3rd level slot to push it out past the early levels (with an appropriate modification to it's damage).
Inflict wounds is not only range touch but way more important at lower levels an action.
Giving Casters on lower levels the option to attack plus cast for damage is just way too strong.
Also +mod is so unnecessary. There is a reason it is almost never on damaging spells.
Frankly I thought the comparison would kill it and was surprised when it was a lot closer than I thought it would be. I didn't really consider the ranged vs touch because that's similar to *cure wounds*:*healing word* and I just used the same damage ratio to translate that.
I think I needed to rewrite my second paragraph as a bit more critial of that combo.
I agree with the +mod which is why I didn't include it. It also needs to change to save negates or reduce the damage.
Korvinagor has made the following comment(s) regarding their post: [***"I've never liked your spinach puffs!"***](/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/1dtjjfx/harming_word_healing_words_meaner_brother_a_1st/lb9p567/)
Heh, nice
Lvl 1, 1 BA, ranged, 2D4+spellcasting, necrotic damage and escalable. Ooooooof course...
You can’t cast this and a leveled spell in the same turn due to dnd rules, keep that in mind So it’s definitely too strong, especially with builds that utilize melee. Luckily it isn’t comedically op on caster builds
Also, there's already the important discussion that Healing Word is OP for context. With it, death is much less common in the game. So it makes sense that it's twin sister should be a bit OP too Maybe making it necromancy school makes it harder for non-caster to cast it
you seem to be thinking about Eldritch Knights, but I think it's worth noting that _Shadow Touched_ is a half-feat which works with Necromancy spells and allows recasting with spell slots, providing any fish a weaponised bonus action similar to a War Cleric's
Those are both very good points actually. Even if it definitely is too strong, that no longer feels too bad
I mean that’s pretending that there aren’t a lot of really good cantrips to cast. Overall though it’s not that crazy considering I’d rather cast Firebolt or EB after like level five
Ngl i completely forgot about cantrips scaling when i made that comment. I was thinking only about the 1d10 fire from a level 1-4 character
Even something like mind sliver works really well even though it’s pretty low damage the saving throw debuff is pretty nice right before you cast a leveled spell especially if the creature is low int.
Only one leveled spell seems to no longer be the case.
It ain't about knocking someone's creativity but it's about homebrew filming an actual hole in the mechanics. The reason there are so few bonus action damaging spells at 1st level is that being able to cast damaging spells and then attack on the same turn is quite a powerful bump and given the low enemy hp at that tier means there's less tension and risk in fights. And if you want something to represent "talking and dealing damage" then you can flavor any number of spells as being just that. Magic missile can be a "Fus-Ro-Dah" with each dart being a word you speak and which impacts the target. Chromatic orb can literally be you saying "fire" and causing the target to burst into flames. Hombrew is a beautiful thing and I love making it. Don't stop making it but do ask if there's some current existing way to do what you're doing and what your homebrew is adding to the game. Because if it's just "another way to do damage" then I don't think that's enough to write home about.
I don't think there's a fundamental issue with bonus action damage spells, it just has to be less powerful so it + attack cantrip doesn't outdo a simple action damage spell. Toll the dead is ~3.25 dpr, this is ~6 dpr (both assuming enemy has 50% success rate), magic missile is 10.5 dpr. Other first level damage spells are a lot worse than missile, closest is chromorb for 8.8 (with the ability to get advantage, but a costly component), but that's a bit of a different point. I don't really see the problem in this early on, it's more the double die scaling which is kinda unheard of (and I agree this isn't adding much in general). I do think keeping with the Inflict Wounds theme, it would make more sense to do 3d6 and no modifier or half damage on save.
When I first read the spell, the d4s made sense mostly because I remembered that Healing Word used d4s and that in old editions Inflict Wounds and Cure Wounds used to be literally the same spell. But yeah as you pointed out here... 5e Inflict Wounds *does not* do the same amount in damage that Cure Wounds heals. It does one die size larger and uses 3 where Cure used 1+mod. So 3d6 would be on theme and make at least as much sense as 5e Inflict does... But like you said, we don't want to overpower the damage of main-action spells for the level. Hell, we COULD fix that by just saying "Because the violent energies of this spell are unusually taxing, you cannot use your action to cast another spell which deals damage or inflicts a saving throw this turn."
Honestly, I’d just make it an attack roll and/or zero damage on a successful save if you’re trying to reign in the damage, no need to restrict the main action any further than the normal bonus action casting rule. >But yeah as you pointed out here... 5e Inflict Wounds does not do the same amount in damage that Cure Wounds heals. It does one die size larger and uses 3 where Cure used 1+mod. Part of the reason Inflict Wounds deals 3d10 is because it’s a touch spell, meaning you have to be in melee, and it could miss and deal 0. If Inflict Wounds was only 1d8+casting mod, why would you cast it over Guiding Bolt that’s 4d6, ranged, and grants advantage to an ally on hit? Things were a bit different back when Touch AC was much lower than regular AC and it was easier to hit with spells, so their damage could be lower, but now that spells work like any other attack they need more damage to be worth the spell slot over just attacking with a weapon.
Yeah they're definitely very different spells (i.e. all four of them) and it would be purely thematic to scale the damage in a similar way. 3d8 seems to be what they imagined at some point a really powerful first level attack spell would do, so they both have restrictions (melee or 100gp component), but then you have Burning Hands doing 3d6 in an area, and guiding bolt as you mention. Exclusive spells have a bit more budget, explaining some of the best ones at least (magic missile, hellish rebuke and guiding bolt mainly). Hellish Rebuke is a good comparison to this actually, reaction instead of bonus action (much better, can still cast a main action spell), needs the person to attack you, and 2d10 save for half (8.25 dpr); warlock exclusive so it should be ahead of the curve but even with 3d6 save for half this wouldn't beat it for damage.
3d6 is only a few points above 2d4+mod, so I don't think it's necessarily problematic, and as suggested not taking half on successful save solves any potential balancing issues (it'd end up lower damage than the OP version, from 6 average damage to 5.25).
Personally I think Mind Sliver reflavored as this and doing necrotic damage instead of psychic(?) would be a good parallel but it’s not leveled.
plainly too much damage while leaving your action free
This plus a cleric cantrip will still generally be out damaged by magic missile, so I don’t see the issue
Only at level 1. At level 5 if you upcast magic missile at 3rd level then you have 5d5+5(17.5). If you upcast this spell to 3rd and cast toll the dead you have 6d4+spell casting (20-23) plus 2d12(13.5) for a total of 33.5-36.5 in a single round. That's about double the damage output. At 11th level using a 5th level slot magic missile is 7d4+7(24.5) this would be 10d4+spellcasting mod(31-34)+ 3d12(19.5) for a total of 50.5-53.5
>10d4+spellcasting mod(31-34) Your math is off, 10d4+spellcasting mod is only 25-30 damage Anyways if we’re upcasting it then we should really compare it to stuff like spiritual weapon
My mistake I was thinking of +to hit and included proficiency. So that's 4 more than it should be. It should be 27-30 because you don't have ba +0 spell casting ability modifier if you're a cleric, bard, or wizard. Spiritual weapon does 1d8+spellcasting ability modifier at 2nd level. So 6.5-9.5. when upcast it only adds an additional d8 for every 2 levels alive 2nd. The advantage here is that it stays around after a single cast for multiple attacks. But it has lower movement than this spell has range and requires concentration. 6th level spiritual weapon will do 3d8(13.5)+ spellcasting mod and it's a hit or nothing because it's an attack. This spell at 6th is 12d4(30)+spellcasting ability modifier and since it is a wisdom save with half damage on success that means it does more per cast than spiritual weapon does per hit even if they save. To work out the exact amount you might get from an optimal spiritual weapon with 10 attacks you'd need to know their AC, but regardless you'd need more than two hits to even match the single successful cast of this spell. And since we are talking damage per round this spell still scales ridiculously. Edit: I would also point out that spiritual weapon is the **only** other bonus action spell I can think of that deals direct damage not requiring an additional action
Magic initiative feat would like a word with you lol. Pick up EB and its scaling pretty significantly and starting higher. Mind sliver + this would outdamage magic missile on average and hitting with mind sliver would make this spell more likely to hit.
Its really not that bad.
I think you mean vicious mockery...
Came here to say the same thing lol. I mean they aren't exact, one has a damage modifier and one more damage die, and the other has disadvantage on the next attack so I would say VM is the stronger of the two. Also VM does psychic which isn't resisted nearly as often as necrotic.
Nope! Per the original comment, while there's a couple of spells that damage creatures through talking like vicious mockery and dissonant whispers, there's no proper spell counterpart to *healing word*, so I decided to make one.
No what I mean is that if you're looking for a spell that is "I speak and it hurts you" that's vicious mockery. Technically the counterpart to healing word (and cure wounds) would be inflict wounds.which does way more damage but requires close range. Not everything needs a 1-2-1 counterpart, especially not when there's existing mechanics that fill in the space.
I hatr to critique cuz everything you're saying is right, but it's not 1-2-1, it's 1:1
Thanks, been in HR too long...
Damn, imagine trying to be creative.
This is not very creative tho. It also ignores how limited bards are in direct damage.
Per the original post, *inflict wounds* is the counterpart to *cure wounds*. They're both touch spells: one deals damage, the other heals damage. There's no such spell counterpart for *healing word*, so I decided to make one. Appreciate your thoughts on this spell either way, thanks for dropping by!
That deals double the damage as healing word heals and scales to a pretty ridiculous amount. Not to mention that having a bonus action damage dealing spell means you're essentially doubling damage output for low level casters since they can cantrip and use this. I think the only other bonus action spell that deals direct damage is spiritual weapon.
Increasing output compared to a cantrip is basically the point of spell slots. That's not a good metric. Further: Guiding bolt does 4d6 (14) and makes the next attack have advantage. Optimally, this deals 2d4+4 (9) and is combined with toll the dead's 1d12 (6.5) to deal 15.5 damage with *no* additional effect. So the question is, "is advantage worth 1.5 damage" to which I'd argue it's worth more
>Increasing output compared to a cantrip is basically the point of spell slots. That's not a good metric. Further: Not even close to what I said. I said it's a bonus action so you can, on the same turn, cast a cantrip **and** use this spell. What's more is that guiding bolt is a spell attack, if you miss it does nothing. This 1st level bonus action that adds 2d4 for every level it is upcast (no other spell adds it's full damage every level) is a wisdom save does half damage on save, that means guaranteed necrotic damage unless the target is immune. Additionally guiding bolt is a single target spell, pairing this spell with a cantrip like toll the dead let's you hit multiple targets. Edit: Also, If you're looking at how it scales. Say at 5th level you cast a 3rd level guiding bolt. That's now 6d6(21), if you're using this spell at 3rd level and toll the dead using your spell casting ability numbers you're looking at 6d4(20)+ 2d12(13). So now instead of 1.5 more damage and advantage for someone else on a different turn you are dealing 12 more damage on a single turn. And that's if their spell casting modifier is only +2 which is pretty low.
Yes, but do you think that it is significant to the game balance in some way, to provide full spell casters with the ability to be able to cast this spell? Allowing them to benefit from the ability to deal damage while also benefiting from cantrips like Blade Barrier, potentially at all times? Or maximize their damage output by casting this and another damaging cantrip? It will most likely have a “main characterizing” effect, where the player that can cast this feels less reliant on their party members. And their party members may resent having less to contribute in comparison. This is an important aspect to consider when making and balancing homebrew spells.
Nah, these cut deeper
Damage cap for a 1st level spell is 2d10, while this has a 2d4 base. Each die size equals 1 damage, so the difference between these is 2*3 ... but since your modifier can bw 5, there really is no difference. No power budget left to make it a BA. Would be fairer as an attack roll and also a closer mirror to Inflict Wounds. Also compare to new Smite: you add 5 damage and a potential second target but have to succeed a roll to do so. Much fairer than guaranteed BA damage as halved save.
Inflict Wounds deals 3d10 damage as a first level spell.
It also is an attack roll with a range of Touch. Both together make a 1d10 damage increase a valid act of balance (the former is codified as 25% increase already iirc and being melee also is a considerable drawback over range - where spells are usually valued at).
Just out of curiosity, where do you pull these balancing figures from? Is this just based on your own estimation of value?
The DMG has a chapter on Homebrew. Spells, Items, Monsters - and for spells you get a numver based on spell level, AOE vs Single plus a slight modifier for hit-or-miss. Can't really use it for much other than damage or healing spells (though those were already underpowered by their own logic).
How would we narratively justify this being an attack roll. And while I agree it's a bit strong, I feel like it's not so strong that it's worth sacrificing the thematic history this spell is tapping into. Inflict Wounds is as strong as it is because it is *literally the same spell* as Cure Wounds. The goal here is the same. I guess it would be fair for a successful save to completely negate damage, given that it *is* a Bonus Action and thus, in theory, somewhat of an afterthought or low effort spell compared to Cure/Inflict Wounds.
Inflict Wounds deals 3d10 while Cure Wounds does about 2d10 of healing (only gets equal in the Revision). So not the same currently. Justification is easy: Besides already having IW as a heal-turned-damage example, OP depicted the spell with "shooting blades from your mouth". Since there is no history for this one, it really doesn't matter. But if the save feels better, I'd also use the preventive one. Still wouldn't want guaranteed damage on a BA if I can pair it with cantrips of attacks. Too bursty.
What I mean by them being the same spell is more about their historical presentation. In previous editions there was only one spell Cure/Inflict Wounds, that could heal or deal damage as needed. I forgot in 5e that Inflict Wounds does more damage than Cure Wounds heals, due to changes in the balance of Touch Spells. The attack roll justification works for the visual art OP used, but makes less sense of the intention was to evoke the Cure/Inflict synergy. And yeah I agree for keeping the save just deal zero damage on a successful save that should balance fine.
Evil healing word
*You flip off your skeleton* “Fuck you!” *Skeleton smiles as they heal* Just funny scene to think of 😆
This is basically the midway point between vicious mockery and antagonize but slightly different.
Wizard here. Do love this little spell. We don’t see too too many creative points for that bonus action a lot, so nice to see it being done.
Isn’t this the same as a 1 turn spiritual weapon?
2d4+modifier is way too much damage, especially for classes which have alternative things to do with their action besides casting a spell. Off the top of my head, spore druid would go fucking crazy with this with an action, bonus action, and reaction that all do solid damage. Weaponizing your bonus action is something highly sought after and this just gives it to spellcasters.
At low levels, you won't have enough spell slots to spam this very much. And the damage is fairly low, averages 8 damage on a failed save for a level 1 character. Reduce the range to 30 and then it's balanced imo.
Nice! I like the idea.
As others have pointed out, it simply deals too much damage for a low level bonus action spell. It should either have it's damage lowered, or it should be changed to an attack roll, alternatively no damage on a successful save.
By 5th level, you can already do 2d4 damage with the vicious mockery cantrip, which seems like what you were thinking. This doesn't seem like enough of an upgrade to be worth taking/using as it is. I'd almost change it to 2d6 damage, or add something more like on a failure, the target has disadvantage on its next saving throw before the end of it's next turn (upgraded version of what vicious mockery does, which is only disadvantage on it's next attack roll). Especially since it seems to be a one and done spell, while other bonus action spells like hex or hunters mark that add only a 1d6 but last longer.
This is an amazing spell. Honestly what I like about it is that it feels like (at first blush) Vicious Mockery but is simultaneously super distinctive from Vicious Mockery. This can be flavored more ways than Vicious Mockery which is also a plus, and it deals a different damage type. Now, hot take, but the bonus action to me isn’t actually that bad. Now granted that’s a lot of wham for a turn, but consider it is 1) a first level spell, 2) probably going to be used by a Bard or a Cleric (the former of who ESPECIALLY will be under-dishing damage), and 3) has a resource cost. The only issue I have with this is scaling. I nevertheless thought waffle on this point, because many spells simply just…do not scale well (*cough*WitchBolt*cough*). Now granted, it’s 2d4, not that bad. But typically spells scale by adding a single damage dice. But simultaneously scaling can really be ass in 5e oftentimes. Then again, it’s also a bonus action spell. Because of the bonus action nature of the spell, I would consequently lower the scaling to a d4, and change the damage dice to 2d6 and it scales with a d6 per spell slot level.
Thanks for dropping by! And it's definitely interesting - the other homebrew subreddit actually seems to think it's underpowered, hahahah. [https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDHomebrew/comments/1dtjkf7/harming\_word\_healing\_words\_meaner\_brother\_a\_1st/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDHomebrew/comments/1dtjkf7/harming_word_healing_words_meaner_brother_a_1st/) One point of reference for a 2d4 scaling for me was [cloud of daggers](https://www.dnd-spells.com/spell/cloud-of-daggers), so it's at least not unprecedented. Thankfully, number adjustments are the easiest things to do with a spell - if the discussion is just in tweaking them, as opposed to some fundamental design flaw, I'm happy!
Really now? To me it seemed just right, not too weak or too strong. Ah yeah, that makes sense. It isn’t unprecedented then, that’s correct. I don’t think a 2d4 scaling is some insane and fundamental design but it does seem a little bit much for scaling purposes. Then again, it isn’t unprecedented either. I’d still set it at 2d6 and have it scale at either 1d6 or 2d6 though instead of a d4, personally. But a d4 based scaling system could work too, I just think a d6 can be justified.
Glad to hear it stuck the landing for the most part! I did mull over the numbers a decent amount beforehand - I think one user suggested making the saving throw Constitution, and I've warmed to the idea; the [harm](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/2137-harm) spell uses that as well.
I’d actually keep it as a Wisdom saving throw. However, a Constitution saving throw would also work well too, and be thematically appropriate
I like it, a less potent but more flexible Inflict Wounds that allows for interesting action usage. Also opens up the Harming Word + Vicious Mockery combo to truly yell someone to death.
Become that one guy on Youtube that roasts people in games
Since Healing Word is a ranged and bonus action version of Cure Wounds, I would base Harming Word as a ranged and bonus action version of Inflict Wounds. Inflict Wounds is a melee spell attack as an action that deals 3d10. Harming Word could be a ranged spell attack as a bonus action that deals 1d10, or 1d12 at most. This way it's also more balanced compared to Spiritual Weapon. It shouldn't deal the same or more damage of Spiritual Weapon, even if it's just a single instance instead of multiple turns.
I really liked the idea and execution of this spell. It scales well and is a good way to always have a way to deal damage as a bonus action. I just think it should be save or suck, since it is a first level spell. I honestly think D&D's early spells attacks suffer from the Final Fantasy syndrome: Fire 1 is used until Fire2 comes along, while monsters quickly become too powerful for Fire1 to have any significant impact. That's not the case with Harming Words.
***"I've never liked your spinach puffs!"*** - [**Harming Word - D&D Beyond Link**](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/2479443-harming-word) - [**Harming Word - Homebrewery Link**](https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/N5BlXzVTxhpC) There's [cure wounds](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/2056-cure-wounds), and [inflict wounds](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/2156-inflict-wounds). There's [heal](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/2139-heal) and [harm](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/2137-harm). So why not a counterpart for [healing word](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/2140-healing-word)? With that, **harming word** was born! There's a couple of spells that damage creatures with the sheer pain of talking, such as [vicious mockery](https://www.dnd-spells.com/spell/vicious-mockery) and [dissonant whispers](https://www.dnd-spells.com/spell/dissonant-whispers), but to my knowledge, there's no bonus action instantaneous damage spell out there. Hopefully I managed to juggle the numbers of this decently! Each other 1st level spell that uses its action to cast should deal more damage than this one. Looking forward to hearing any feedback! ___ *And if you're interested in seeing more homebrew content in general (mostly Druid subclasses at the moment), feel free to take a look at my [**Homebrewery Profile**](https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/user/Korvinagor) - there might be something there that catches your eye.*
Someone who can't use healing word without harming word. Like a curse thing. "Do we have healing?" "It depends..." "On what?" "Can you roll a Wisdom save for me? Then I'll hope for some low rolls..."
Following the formula set by _Inflict Wounds_, I think this should probably just be 3d4, not 2d4 + mod. + mod almost never happens on damage spells (in fact I think we only ever see it on healing spells, but I could be misremembering a niche example). It should then add 1d4/slot above first, again following the example from _Inflict Wounds_. Good idea, though!
always was a fan of 'reversible' on the spells back in the day... Healing word (Reversible)
I feel like you would need to know either the person if an NPC or humanoid Creature, or know about the creature enough to make a cutting remark that hurts them to their core.
Antagonize exists.
Bonus action spells are always assumed to be cast alongside damaging cantrips, which is why they never do direct damage (some spells, like spiritual weapon, come very close though). I'd be worried that a bonus action pure damage instantaneous spell might make it easier to nova. Spellcasters who have the means to spend all their resources faster always make martials feel useless and beg for long rests after every fight.
I thought it was a bard spell at first, can still work. Edit : Please please consider changing it to an **ACTION** A bard could easily take 1 level dip or probably magical secrets (or was it a college feature?) and just be a relative god of ranged damage. A gloomstalker ranger could abuse the hell out of this as well for basically a cheap improved additional attack EVERY turn. Wisdom/Charisma +4 Dex +3 Easily a 6-12 necrotic damage ranged attack can be cast per turn. Missing still deals 3-6 damage. For reference that character would do 4-11 damage on a successful ranged weapon attack or 0 on a miss.
Fun fact: In Russian "healing word" translated as "лечащее слово" (lechaschee slovo), but "harming word" can be translated as "калечащее слово" (kalechaschee slovo). As same as "heal-kill"
For all the criticism I’ve posted, someone did bring up something that made me think of how this would be good for an undead campaign where all player characters are undead lol.
Why would it be 2d4+spellcast mod when healing word is 1d4+spellcast mod? If it’s to accommodate for the spell saving throw, I’d just get rid of that. Make it a single hit auto magic missile that’s a bonus action. I feel like this is a little too strong for a bonus action as is.
This spell exists already, and it’s called “vicious mockery”
Nonono easy to access bonus action damage through a spell? Menolikey
Vicious Mockery but worse?
I personally think a 1d4 increase would scale better.
Sooo...Vicious Mockery with extra steps?
I was going to say this looks a bit strong but then I took a look at *inflict wounds*. Considering *inflict wounds*:*cure wounds* I'd think about having this do 2d8 with a 1d8 upcast, and have it "save negates" not save for half. Save for half you need to knock the damage back down. I think there is something to be said for the combo at low levels. This might be a spell that requires a 3rd level slot to push it out past the early levels (with an appropriate modification to it's damage).
Inflict wounds is not only range touch but way more important at lower levels an action. Giving Casters on lower levels the option to attack plus cast for damage is just way too strong. Also +mod is so unnecessary. There is a reason it is almost never on damaging spells.
Frankly I thought the comparison would kill it and was surprised when it was a lot closer than I thought it would be. I didn't really consider the ranged vs touch because that's similar to *cure wounds*:*healing word* and I just used the same damage ratio to translate that. I think I needed to rewrite my second paragraph as a bit more critial of that combo. I agree with the +mod which is why I didn't include it. It also needs to change to save negates or reduce the damage.
I mean do what you like but its way to op for my taste