# What is the lowest damage Fireball could deal where you would still prep/use it?



## Dausuul (Oct 24, 2022)

_Fireball_ is notoriously the best mid-level damage spell in 5E. Suppose it were to have its damage output reduced in 1D&D. What is the hardest it could be nerfed where you would still prepare it and expect to cast it in combat (assuming you were playing a caster of appropriate class/level)?

Assume the spell is otherwise unchanged, and all other spells remain as-is; so, for instance, _lightning bolt_ will continue to deal 8d6.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 24, 2022)

It depends on a lot of things even beyond the spell itself.  Class abilities & modifications that come from equipment are important ones as are any possible changes to monsters themselves. Even with nothing adding to it I've seen the 6d6 fireball in my levelup game get prepared & used quite a bit.  As a spell 5e's fireball needs to have much more of its power shifted to class/archetype abilities that modify it & other relevant spells in 5.5/6e


----------



## Horwath (Oct 24, 2022)

6d6. 
No saving throw.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Oct 24, 2022)

My favorite would be way different, but in this case I'd go with something like this:

6d6 + prone, save for half.

Even better would be an improved Flaming Sphere you can detonate (thus ending the spell) as a bonus action on your turn to deal Xd6 + prone to every creature within 15 of the ball.


----------



## Clint_L (Oct 24, 2022)

It's not really the damage that's out of line, it's that the AoE is so strong. Against one target, it's a mediocre spell. Against two, it's a good option. Against three or more, it's amazing. So I suggest that making the radius of the explosion significantly smaller might be a better way to nerf it.

Compare to lightning bolt, which no one complains about because it is much harder to get a huge pile of targets at once.


----------



## reelo (Oct 24, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> I suggest that making the radius of the explosion significantly smaller might be a better way to nerf it.




No. The best way to "nerf" it is to bring back all the balancing drawbacks it used to have when it was invented as a 3rd level spell: have it always fill 33k cubic feet, blowing back into hallways if applicable (casting it indoors should be very risky), have it ignite all flammable objects in the blast, and melt precious metals (coin and jewelry).


----------



## aco175 (Oct 24, 2022)

Lowest 5d6 since it is a burst.  Lower than this I would boost lower level spells or take lightning bolt and target single monsters.


----------



## SakanaSensei (Oct 24, 2022)

For context, my thinking non this is based entirely on my table, which tends to top out at three fights or so a day on a very busy day, meaning casters rarely if ever run out of spells. In that context, the attrition limit of spell slots matters significantly less, and I start looking at the balance between characters.

An average combat is going to have my barbarian swinging twice a round for 1d12 + 4 damage, twice, for an average of 21 if both hit. At 2d6 damage, a fireball needs to hit three targets to break even with the barbarian for the round, and that’s usually possible in fights I design, little mooks are fun. 

With so much narrative control laying in the laps of casters (solving mysteries with speak with dead, granting the ability to fly, turning invisible, charming people, etc.), I’d prefer it if the people who only have fighting in their kit to be the best at fighting, and I don’t think it should be close. So I answered 2d6, because there’s going to be moments where you throw that fireball, hit 6-7 targets and still feel like a god compared to miss muscles swinging her axe, and then when the fights done you’ll still be able to send a message around the world to talk with someone important and the barb can never do that.


----------



## Amrûnril (Oct 24, 2022)

At 6d6, I think it would still be a combat staple.

At 4d6, it would be more of a niche spell, but still useful against large numbers of weak enemies (In the most extreme versions of this scenario, reduced damage could actually be a benefit because of friendly fire considerations). Fire vulnerability could also create valuable use cases, as could the ability to ignite nearby objects/structures while also dealing damage.


----------



## Clint_L (Oct 25, 2022)

SakanaSensei said:


> So I answered 2d6, because there’s going to be moments where you throw that fireball, hit 6-7 targets and still feel like a god compared to miss muscles swinging her axe, and then when the fights done you’ll still be able to send a message around the world to talk with someone important and the barb can never do that.



I take your point, but I still can't imagine anyone taking it if it did 2d6 damage. That's just not realistic for a level 3 spell. That's Word of Radiance damage, a cantrip, albeit in a larger area. The average damage by the time you can cast the spell is 7hp, 3hp on a save. It sounds like you run games where there often are swarms of super weak foes but I seldom do. There's no point in including a spell that no one will take.


----------



## Clint_L (Oct 25, 2022)

reelo said:


> No. The best way to "nerf" it is to bring back all the balancing drawbacks it used to have when it was invented as a 3rd level spell: have it always fill 33k cubic feet, blowing back into hallways if applicable (casting it indoors should be very risky), have it ignite all flammable objects in the blast, and melt precious metals (coin and jewelry).



I like emphasizing the deleterious effects; I would do both - lower the radius but also make it incredibly dangerous within that radius.


----------



## CleverNickName (Oct 25, 2022)

My last wizard was all about lightning bolts, not fireballs.


----------



## SakanaSensei (Oct 25, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> I take your point, but I still can't imagine anyone taking it if it did 2d6 damage. That's just not realistic for a level 3 spell. That's Word of Radiance damage, a cantrip, albeit in a larger area. The average damage by the time you can cast the spell is 7hp, 3hp on a save. It sounds like you run games where there often are swarms of super weak foes but I seldom do. There's no point in including a spell that no one will take.



I definitely acknowledge that my preferences don't match with a lot of people. I'm in the camp with Kevin Crawford where fighters (as an archetype, not necessarily the one class) are for fighting, casters are for twisting the rules of the world to do the impossible. I don't want to get into the martial/caster debate, though.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 25, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> I take your point, but I still can't imagine anyone taking it if it did 2d6 damage. That's just not realistic for a level 3 spell. That's Word of Radiance damage, a cantrip, albeit in a larger area. The average damage by the time you can cast the spell is 7hp, 3hp on a save. It sounds like you run games where there often are swarms of super weak foes but I seldom do. There's no point in including a spell that no one will take.



Minute meteors is a good example of such a spell dealing 2d6 damage.  If not for the needless inclusion of concentration it would be a pretty good spell with a decent use case for blasters  given the tiny number of ways a caster can bonus action deal damage& the fact that all but the first of them could be fired off in conjunction with another spell or cantrip.  Technically the first could be cast with another spell too if it was cast before the fight or held for whatever reason.

Also don't forget that various classes & archetypes are almost certain to add damage to spells like that & fireball.  By dialing back the base output of spells like fireball it allows those classes & archetypes to have more & better features even when their niche is "can cast fireball but would rather cast _$these_ kinds of  spells"


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 25, 2022)

Horwath said:


> 6d6.
> No saving throw.



It's supposed to be a nerf, not an increase in power.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 25, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> It's supposed to be a nerf, not an increase in power.



If I am doing my math right.

6d6 no save = 8d6 half save

But the reliability of the no save feels stronger.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 25, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> If I am doing my math right.
> 
> 6d6 no save = 8d6 half save
> 
> But the reliability of the no save feels stronger.



The average damage of 6d6 is 21 no save and saves are pretty easy to make in 5e.  8d6 average is 28 which when saved is 14, but some won't save.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 25, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> The average damage of 6d6 is 21 no save and saves are pretty easy to make in 5e.  8d6 average is 28 which when saved is 14, but some won't save.



For the sake of a smell test, I am treating the chance of fail or save as if 50%-50%.

But the more likely the save, the less damage on average.


----------



## Clint_L (Oct 25, 2022)

Right now it's a spell that everyone that almost every who can take, takes. ASAP. So that's not great because it removes choice from the game. Buuuut it's a cool spell and one of the most iconic in the game. It existed before D&D was even D&D. So I see the argument for wanting to make sure that it is always a desirable choice. My favourite suggestion thus far is to go back to adding more consequences to it. Like, you shouldn't be able to shape spell with it, for one thing - it's a freaking explosion. 

Maybe build on that. Add some risk to it. Like, keep it crazy powerful but add a "to hit" roll and on a miss have it be off target in a random direction by 5-30 feet or something. So there's potential that you could even hit yourself with it if you screw up while using it in tight quarters. That would make it way more fun.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 25, 2022)

maybe 4d6 with 30ft radius.
then you can reduce the radius by 5ft to gain 1d6 damage;

5d6, 25ft radius,
6d6, 20ft radius,
7d6, 15ft radius,
8d6, 10ft radius, with 1/4 of the area, 8d6 would not be that impactful
9d6,   5ft radius,
10d6, single target.

upcasting increases damage by d6 and radius by 5ft.
upcasting would add 2d6 with keeping the radius if focused on maxed damage.


----------



## CubicsRube (Oct 25, 2022)

I'd like 6d6 and a reduced radius. I'd like to see more 3rd level spells get a look in.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 25, 2022)

I might take fireball down to 6d6, but I think I would rarely use it and prefer to use control spells summons instead. I would not be in favour of a nerf.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 25, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> I might take fireball down to 6d6, but I think I would rarely use it and prefer to use control spells summons instead. I would not be in favour of a nerf.



this, if anything, casters doing damage is the least of problems with casters.
control is far more influential.
All other damage spells need a buff and better scaling with upcasting.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 25, 2022)

Horwath said:


> this, if anything, casters doing damage is the least of problems with casters.
> control is far more influential.
> All other damage spells need a buff and better scaling with upcasting.



Totally agree, playing through Solasta:Crown of the Magister at the moment and the cleric is dropping hypnotic pattern and the fight becomes much easier or now my ranger can throw in a summons and that takes up the action of most of the enemies. Screwing with the enemies action economy is far more effective than direct damage. Let the people with the sharp wedges that do not get tired do the damage.


----------



## Larrin (Oct 25, 2022)

The thing that put me in the "Lower fireball damage" camp is being a PC and having it cast by an enemy monster.  In Princes of the Apocalypse (I think? it was a book adventure for sure, run as "by the book" as the DM could) there was a fire temple with enemy casters that had fireball. We hit it when the party was made of level 3 and level 4 PCs.  It was _rough_.  It was too much.  Yes, we were under leveled for that part of the book probably, (that was a common problem with that adventure in my experience), and that played a big part.  But even if we'd been  level 5, a fireball still would have gutted the party HP in one action, more than any other spell of the same level could have.  I've seen hypnotic pattern on a party, I've seen fireball on a party.  Fireball was more brutal, less fun at levels of play where 3rd level spells are most relevant.  Hypnotic pattern has the advantage of being good/consistent somewhat regardless of level or hp, but  the tension of making saves, then shaking people out of it, surviving the hit from the monster while incapacitated and then fighting back, makes for interesting gameplay.  Hypnotic pattern is a scary spell but I'd rather play against it than fireballs "Oops you only have 5hp left, and the DM has to make the choice that the other fire druid isn't going to cast its fireball because it is mathematically impossible for the party to survive if he does".  I've seen that too many times.

Edit: "It's bad vs PCs" isn't my only reason for wanting Fireball to do less damage, it was simply the catalyst that got me thinking about it.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Oct 25, 2022)

2d6. Screw tradition. I don't want it to be powerful. I don't want it to be ~spehshul~. I want to spam AoE explosions.

And I will never prepare a spell. You can take my spells known out of the cold, blasted wasteland resulting from me spamming AoE explosions.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 25, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> 2d6. Screw tradition. I don't want it to be powerful. I don't want it to be ~spehshul~. I want to spam AoE explosions.
> 
> And I will never prepare a spell. You can take my spells known out of the cold, blasted wasteland resulting from me spamming AoE explosions.



If you prepare a spell the very first time and then never change it... it becomes a Known spell.


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 29, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> _Fireball_ is notoriously the best mid-level damage spell in 5E. Suppose it were to have its damage output reduced in 1D&D. What is the hardest it could be nerfed where you would still prepare it and expect to cast it in combat (assuming you were playing a caster of appropriate class/level)?
> 
> Assume the spell is otherwise unchanged, and all other spells remain as-is; so, for instance, _lightning bolt_ will continue to deal 8d6.



I would disagree with this.  Fireball is a weak 3rd level spell IMO.

The really good and universally useful offensive 3rd level combat Wizard spells are Fear, Summon Fey, Summon Undead, Summon Shadowspawn and after that there a bunch more like counterspell, dispel magic and fly that I would pick up before Fireball.

For Fireball to compete with these spells it needs to be about 11d6.

Fireball is decent if you are a Light Cleric.


----------



## Clint_L (Oct 29, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> I would disagree with this.  Fireball is a weak 3rd level spell IMO.
> 
> The really good and universally useful offensive 3rd level combat Wizard spells are Fear, Summon Fey, Summon Undead, Summon Shadowspawn and after that there a bunch more like counterspell, dispel magic and fly that I would pick up before Fireball.
> 
> ...



A) The post specifically states "damage spell," so not sure what Fear, etc. have to do with the discussion.
B) You're welcome to your opinion, but you are the only person I have _ever_ heard describe 5e Fireball as "weak," and given that it is almost universally taken by players who have access to it, consensus indicates that your "hot take" (pun intended) is wrong.
C) That said, folks suggesting 2d6 damage for Fireball aren't serious, either. You may as well just write "Fireball shouldn't be in the game," because it would have the same effect. It would be nice if we could focus on suggestions that might have a snowball's chance in a fireball of actually being implemented in OneD&D.


----------



## SakanaSensei (Oct 30, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> A) The post specifically states "damage spell," so not sure what Fear, etc. have to do with the discussion.
> B) You're welcome to your opinion, but you are the only person I have _ever_ heard describe 5e Fireball as "weak," and given that it is almost universally taken by players who have access to it, consensus indicates that your "hot take" (pun intended) is wrong.
> C) That said, folks suggesting 2d6 damage for Fireball aren't serious, either. You may as well just write "Fireball shouldn't be in the game," because it would have the same effect. It would be nice if we could focus on suggestions that might have a snowball's chance in a fireball of actually being implemented in OneD&D.



I certainly understand my opinion on balance is different, but I’m in no way not being serious with my 2d6 stance. Spellcasters have so many other things going for them, they don’t need an easily used 4-40 great sword swings in a round on top of it. IMO of course.


----------



## James Gasik (Oct 30, 2022)

Since _Fireball_ is a limited use ability, I actually think it should do _more_ damage (in fact, all damaging spells should).  A third level spell that can only be called upon a few times per diem by a 5th level and up caster should be able to destroy CR 1 foes outright, yet it can easily fail to slay a lousy Bugbear!

I don't understand why everyone gets bent out of shape about it doing 8d6; Fireball had been largely the same (d6 per level) for decades, despite the fact that monsters keep getting more and more hit points compared to how they were when the spell was first created.  2e and 3e even went so far as to cap it's damage for some godawful reason (especially heinous when 3e monsters also became much tougher).

Sure, there's this table in the DMG that says the spell shouldn't do that much damage.  Which I think is total hooey, to be honest.  Given how tough monsters are, we're really no better off than we were in 3e, when savvy players realized that dealing damage was a sucker's game, barring insane amounts of optimization, when you could more easily nerf enemies into oblivion and let the warriors put them out of their misery afterwards.

There's nothing less fun for a melee character than basically being reduced to mopping up an enemy that's had it's challenge completely removed due to it being stunned, paralyzed, banished to another plane while their allies are murdered, etc..

This sort of tactic doesn't synergize with what weapon users are doing _at all_, ie, dealing hit point damage.  It would be better in my opinion if casters casted *more* damage dealing spells than less; especially given that most of the truly problematic spells don't care about hit points.

Further, I think debilitating spells should be created like _sleep _or _color spray_ (or for that matter, the various _power words_), so that the weapon user's damage helps the spell land, and thus reinforces the fact that everyone is contributing equally to the combat.

A fight where the entire encounter hinges on a failed save, and failure just means everyone else feels like they weren't even necessary seems spectacularly unfun to me.

And _Lightning Bolt_ has always been a joke.  For how hard it can be to line up targets, it should do 50% more damage than _Fireball_, it's significantly more niche for no real reason (I get that there was an argument for when everyone was in narrow dungeon hallways, but that's no longer guaranteed).

Heck, while everyone gripes about it's initial damage, it's funny that _Fireball _is less useful at higher levels than it used to be!  Once you get to level 9 or 10, the only way to get more damage out of it is to use a higher spell slot, ironically making a 3e caster better than a 5e one at this point.  This wouldn't be so bad if there was a 4th or 5th level spell that outperformed it, but there really isn't.

I tend to prepare _Erupting Earth_ more often than _Fireball_ at higher levels; it has a slight status condition and gets much better when upcast, plus you don't have to worry about fire resistant enemies!

Anyways, I know that many people disagree with my stance, but the only advantage I can see to making the spell worse really comes down to how it scales against PC's, which really, is a total design fail, IMO.  Given that most monsters have their damage calculated in a very different way than PC's to begin with, it's really strange that they cast the same spells as PC's in the first place, which is something of a misstep on the part of WotC.  If monsters used the same rules as PC's, ala 3e, this would be one thing, but the fact is, they don't, the amount of damage they deal and hit dice they possess is decided by hazy monster design metrics, and generally only humanoid monsters even pretend to use similar mechanics (and even then, you get bespoke abilities bolted on, like the Gladiator adding a bonus die to his weapon attacks for what amounts to "shut up, that's why!".


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 30, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> B) You're welcome to your opinion, but you are the only person I have _ever_ heard describe 5e Fireball as "weak," and given that it is almost universally taken by players who have access to it, consensus indicates that your "hot take" (pun intended) is wrong.




I don't think it is universally taken any more.  I think most experienced players do not cast it very often and optimizers certainly don't cast it often, especially after 6th level.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 30, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> _Fireball_ is notoriously the best mid-level damage spell in 5E. Suppose it were to have its damage output reduced in 1D&D. What is the hardest it could be nerfed where you would still prepare it and expect to cast it in combat (assuming you were playing a caster of appropriate class/level)?
> 
> Assume the spell is otherwise unchanged, and all other spells remain as-is; so, for instance, _lightning bolt_ will continue to deal 8d6.



6d6.  The damage it does in Level Up.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 30, 2022)

I would reduce fireball to 6d6, but only if enemies will get less hp overall. That's it. Lower damage for everyone. Try to bring monster HP and Party HP more in line.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 30, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> 6d6.  The damage it does in Level Up.




_Katching_


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 30, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> _Katching_



I don't get it.  A joke at my expense, or something else?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 30, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I don't get it.  A joke at my expense, or something else?




Yes. It was the sound of my cash machine for you mentioning that LevelUP does it right.  

_Ka-tsching_

Edit: but have some xp!
It really was meant funny. But the text format didn't carry my message correctly.

Edit2: I hope Morrus is paying you for promoting his game 

But note: the rare version of fireball still does 8d6 damage. I like the Idea of rare spells!


----------



## Clint_L (Oct 31, 2022)

SakanaSensei said:


> I certainly understand my opinion on balance is different, but I’m in no way not being serious with my 2d6 stance. Spellcasters have so many other things going for them, they don’t need an easily used 4-40 great sword swings in a round on top of it. IMO of course.



So in other words, it should be removed from the game. That's my point: if you are going to nerf it to be useless so no one takes it, then just come out and state that Fireball shouldn't be in the game. Which isn't going to happen.


----------



## Kinematics (Oct 31, 2022)

I'd be perfectly fine with Fireball at 6d6.  I'm just trying to figure out whether I'd take/use it if it was 5d6 or so. 

Tidal Wave, for example, is 4d8 (average 18, roughly the same as 5d6's 17.5).  I've never really been happy with Tidal Wave, but mostly in comparison to Fireball.  The equivalent of 5d6 while knocking prone vs 6d6 without knocking prone could be a reasonable choice, whereas 8d6 just completely overshadows a knock prone effect.

Anyway, that bit of consideration puts me at 6d6 for Fireball.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 31, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


> 6d6 + prone, save for half.



That would be WAY better than Fireball is now, let's not pretend that'd be a nerf. And that's assuming you didn't get Prone'd if you saved.

Prone'ing an entire room/large area full of monsters is definitely worth more than doing a 2d6 damage to them in most cases, because of the action economy, and the fact that 90% of monsters are melee.

The reality is if it did 4d6 damage but otherwise was the same as now (i.e. no prone), some people would still take it, because it has a really good AOE pattern. 6d6, and I don't think there'd be any noticeable decrease in popularity. 6d6+prone? It would be even more popular than it is at 8d6 lol.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 31, 2022)

Kinematics said:


> I'd be perfectly fine with Fireball at 6d6.  I'm just trying to figure out whether I'd take/use it if it was 5d6 or so.
> 
> Tidal Wave, for example, is 4d8 (average 18, roughly the same as 5d6's 17.5).  I've never really been happy with Tidal Wave, but mostly in comparison to Fireball.  The equivalent of 5d6 while knocking prone vs 6d6 without knocking prone could be a reasonable choice, whereas 8d6 just completely overshadows a knock prone effect.
> 
> Anyway, that bit of consideration puts me at 6d6 for Fireball.



Tidal wave also has a much small AOE, which is a big issue.

Fireball is 20' radius, so 40' across, which is absolutely gigantic.

Tidal Wave is a line 10' wide and up to 30' long. That's a small fraction of the size of a fireball - about 1/4 to be precise (300 square feet vs 1257 square feet - yes a fireball does have better square footage than a small house!).

I think this is the big issue people don't really process with Fireball - it's a double-whammy. It not only does ridiculous damage for its level (intentionally) in the current design, but it has a ridiculously large AOE, and a circle AOE is one of the easiest to position efficiently.


----------



## Asisreo (Oct 31, 2022)

I think there's a misconception that fireball is picked because it's the best when the reality is that fireball is picked because it's unqiue. 

Fireball is AoE damage pure and simple. No DoT. No status effects. No concentration. It's one big explosion. The only one comparable is lightning bolt, which is pretty much just the same spell with a different shape. 

Fireball is balanced simply because it has nothing to balance against it. Cone of Cold has a much better AoE where the party can simply be behind the wizard and it has greater range. Blight is a druidic damage spell, which makes it bad in comparison to those that have access to fireball but it's still viable for druids that want damage.


----------



## SakanaSensei (Oct 31, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> So in other words, it should be removed from the game. That's my point: if you are going to nerf it to be useless so no one takes it, then just come out and state that Fireball shouldn't be in the game. Which isn't going to happen.



As a martial, if I had the option to grab an ability that let me, a few times a day, take a swing at every creature in a massive area, I’d be all over it. I don’t understand why something that would be an obvious boon to one archetype is worthless on another.


----------



## James Gasik (Oct 31, 2022)

SakanaSensei said:


> As a martial, if I had the option to grab an ability that let me, a few times a day, take a swing at every creature in a massive area, I’d be all over it. I don’t understand why something that would be an obvious boon to one archetype is worthless on another.



Mostly because there are better things to use spell slots on.  I mean, compare this to the humble _sleet storm_.

_3rd-level conjuration_

*Casting Time:* 1 action
*Range:* 120 feet
*Components:* V, S, M (a pinch of dust and a few drops of water)
*Duration:* Concentration, up to 1 minute

Until the spell ends, freezing rain and sleet fall in a 20-foot-tall cylinder with a 40-foot radius centered on a point you choose within range. The area is heavily obscured, and exposed flames in the area are doused.

The ground in the area is covered with slick ice, making it difficult terrain. When a creature enters the spell’s area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, it must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, it falls prone.

If a creature starts its turn in the spell's area and is concentrating on a spell, the creature must make a successful Constitution saving throw against your spell save DC or lose concentration.

So while it doesn't do any damage, for basically an entire combat, you get a 40' radius zone that costs double movement for enemies to move through, and if you fail a save when you do, you fall prone and stop moving entirely, and then next turn, you get to try again, and failure effectively reduces your speed to 1/4th!  Oh and it also nicely forces concentration checks if you have an enemy spellcaster to worry about.

That kind of battlefield control and caster denial is something a non-caster could only dream about, way better than a super limited "swing my weapon at everyone in 30'". 

Basically, if you're going to use one of your limited spell slots on something, it really needs to be effective.  A big, unfriendly blast that can fail to slaughter some CR *1* enemies?  Yeah, I'll take the _sleet storm_, thanks.  It can keep enemies you aren't ready for yet out of melee, foil ranged attacks, and mess with casters for a whole fight vs. softening up enemies which are still 100% combat effective.

And I haven't even mentioned _hypnotic pattern, slow, _or _stinking cloud_ yet!


----------



## SakanaSensei (Oct 31, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Mostly because there are better things to use spell slots on.  I mean, compare this to the humble _sleet storm_.
> 
> _3rd-level conjuration_
> 
> ...



That looks great to me! I still fundamentally disagree with the premise that 2d6 to everything in a massive area, usually the entire battlefield, is somehow so anemic as to not be worth taking, ever.

Spells like Sleet Storm or Hypnotic Pattern are fine by me because they don’t directly step on the toes of several core character archetypes by showing them up in the fanciest way possible. In fact, as a martial, I’d be ecstatic if my wizard buddy used Sleet Storm in a smart way, because it’s basically terrain that has made the scenario more tactically interesting!

I’ve had players, though, especially new players, hit level 5, and after having asked “can my barbarian like, swing around with their hammer out and hit everyone around me?”, being told no, that’s not how the class works, gotten used to that for 3-4 levels, and then seeing a friend throw fireball and do the equivalent of several rounds of their attacks in damage, get deflated and want to retire their character. 

This’ll be my last post because again, I don’t want to drudge up the tired martial/caster divide conversation. People have their camps and I’ve never seen someone change their mind on it. I just really didn’t appreciate essentially being called a liar or people using wording that implied I was arguing in bad faith. “Just say you want it deleted!” No, I’d just like it to be weaker, please, thanks.


----------



## Horwath (Nov 2, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> The reality is if it did 4d6 damage but otherwise was the same as now (i.e. no prone), some people would still take it, because it has a really good AOE pattern.



that would be complete garbage tier spell.

what, to lose preparation slot for some off-chance that DM will position 15+ creatures in 20ft radius?


----------



## Horwath (Nov 2, 2022)

Asisreo said:


> I think there's a misconception that fireball is picked because it's the best when the reality is that fireball is picked because it's unqiue.
> 
> Fireball is AoE damage pure and simple. No DoT. No status effects. No concentration. It's one big explosion. The only one comparable is lightning bolt, which is pretty much just the same spell with a different shape.
> 
> Fireball is balanced simply because it has nothing to balance against it. Cone of Cold has a much better AoE where the party can simply be behind the wizard and it has greater range. Blight is a druidic damage spell, which makes it bad in comparison to those that have access to fireball but it's still viable for druids that want damage.



this.

for 1D&D, 8d6, 20ft Fireball should be benchmark of what all other damage spells will start.


----------



## Clint_L (Nov 2, 2022)

SakanaSensei said:


> That looks great to me! I still fundamentally disagree with the premise that 2d6 to everything in a massive area, usually the entire battlefield, is somehow so anemic as to not be worth taking, ever.



Context matters. As a level 1 spell...yeah, that would be okay. As a level 3 spell, against all the other options out there? No way anyone takes that, unless MAYBE they have such foreknowledge of an upcoming event where a zillion kobolds are going to be packed into a room (and even then accept that most or all of them are likely to survive). And no one with limited spell options would use one of them up on such a feeble, niche spell - no sorcerer would even consider it, for example.

Also, you are comparing this to a weapon attack, but weapon attacks get significant damage bonuses, can crit, are basically never resisted, and aren't saveable. What does an actual great sword attack hit for at level 5? Typically at least 11 damage, before bonuses for rage, magic, crits, etc. Adjusting for saves, that Fireball's 2d6 is going to be around 4-5 hp damage, on average, over that area. It's just not a realistic proposal for a level 3 spell in today's D&D.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Nov 2, 2022)

Horwath said:


> that would be complete garbage tier spell.
> 
> what, to lose preparation slot for some off-chance that DM will position 15+ creatures in 20ft radius?



No, it wouldn't, not unless most 3rd-level damage spells are "garbage tier". Compared to other 3rd-level damage spells it would still be "okay". It wouldn't be outstanding, but it'd be okay, because of the ridiculous radius. What it would do would be change a spell from a no-brainer to a spell you only memorized when you expected to fight a lot of weak opponents.


Horwath said:


> this.
> 
> for 1D&D, 8d6, 20ft Fireball should be benchmark of what all other damage spells will start.



So Full Casters should just be a lot more powerful than non-casters?

That's what you're saying, essentially.

I do agree that if they insist on keeping Fireball where it is, they should pull up other 3rd level damage spells a bit, but really, they knock Fireball down to 6d6, where it would still be close to a no-brainer, but not a total no-brainer.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Nov 2, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> As a level 1 spell...yeah, that would be okay.



LOL.

Dude, have you ever looked at level 1 damage spells? 2d6 save for half over a 20' radius, 1257 square feet, hitting dozens of 5' squares, would be drastically more powerful than any other level 1 combat spell. Not "okay". It'd be better than some level 2 combat spells and certainly on-par with most - Snowball Swarm does a 5' radius with 3d6 damage and Shatter does a 10' radius with 3d8 damage (save for half in both cases, Shatter is objectively superior, to Snowball Swarm, and 2d6 Fireball would also be objectively superior to Snowball Swam in virtually all multi-target situations).


----------



## ECMO3 (Nov 2, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> No, it wouldn't, not unless most 3rd-level damage spells are "garbage tier". Compared to other 3rd-level damage spells it would still be "okay". It wouldn't be outstanding, but it'd be okay, because of the ridiculous radius. What it would do would be change a spell from a no-brainer to a spell you only memorized when you expected to fight a lot of weak opponents.
> 
> So Full Casters should just be a lot more powerful than non-casters?




To start with yes, full casters should be a lot more powerful, they have unmatched access to magic.   

That aside though, they are not going to be more powerful because they took fireball.   A 5th level wizard with Fireball is not the equivalent of a full martial, even with Fireball I think a 5th level martial will usually cut down a 5th level fireball Wizard with ease most of the time unless the latter switches to control or defensive spells and the martial can do that all day long.


----------



## ECMO3 (Nov 2, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> LOL.
> 
> Dude, have you ever looked at level 1 damage spells? 2d6 save for half over a 20' radius, 1257 square feet, hitting dozens of 5' squares, would be drastically more powerful than any other level 1 combat spell. Not "okay". It'd be better than some level 2 combat spells and certainly on-par with most - Snowball Swarm does a 5' radius with 3d6 damage and Shatter does a 10' radius with 3d8 damage (save for half in both cases, Shatter is objectively superior, to Snowball Swarm, and 2d6 Fireball would also be objectively superior to Snowball Swam in virtually all multi-target situations).



It is only situationally better than those you mentioned and most of the time I think it would be worse.

Your hypothesis is based on the idea that it covers a larger area, but that only situationally means it does more damage, if as someone else mentioned there are "a zillion" Kobolds packed in AND your own allies aren't in the way then yes it is better, however that is really the only time it is and I would argue that is rare.

If the enemies are all within a 10 foot shatter would be better due to higher damage.

If there is 1 BBEG shatter or snowball storm is better due to higher damage

If they have more than 10 hit points shatter is better even if there are a zillion of them because it will kill some with 1 blast.

If the Wizard is low on the initiative order and the zillion Kobolds are mixed up with allies snowball storm is better because it lets you surgically pick them off.

So I think MOST of the time those spells are going to be better than a 2d6 Fireball.

For all the raving about Fireball, with current RAW I generally see Lightning Bolt used effectively more often because the huge area covered by Fireball is a liability as often as it is an advantage.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 2, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> It is only situationally better than those you mentioned and most of the time I think it would be worse.
> 
> Your hypothesis is based on the idea that it covers a larger area, but that only situationally means it does more damage, if as someone else mentioned there are "a zillion" Kobolds packed in AND your own allies aren't in the way then yes it is better, however that is really the only time it is and I would argue that is rare.
> 
> ...



I think you are missing the various mechanics changes in 5e that encourage just the situation @Ruin Explorer described as making fireball so great in 5e.

 5e made in combat movement so easy that combats are no longer a spread out tactical affair.  Players all use ranged attacks with no downsides or just close to the most valued target & the GM is expected to direct the monsterts towards the crunchier targets rather than  simply becoming an adversarial killer gm that sends the monsters off  to geek the mage/squash the cleric.  Past editions had things like 5 foot step/shift & movement based AoOs but not 5e, absent any of the mechanics that once supported a more spread out combat the players are truly playing by a different set of rules than the combat as sport monsters.   Toss in bounded accuracy & 6-8 encounter expectations to create a situation where the GM is pressured to put a gobton of weaker monsters that cluster around a point of crunchier players that  fireball is likely able to easily cover.  The players aren't worried about fireballing an ally in such a situation because monsters lack enough tohit & damage to be a real threat & the death save mechanic combined with things like healing word that even an unusual freak case of it actually mattering probably won't really matter.

The only time I've seen friendly fire actually matter in 5e was when a player asked if a cloud effect was flammable & I told him to double  the damage when faced with a choice between "Maybe maybe not do you want to use your action to figure out?" vrs "nah I cast fireball since bob's saying doitdoitdoit" Everyone was shocked when I didn't save level 8ish  bob from death by massive damage & there were even efforts to (incorrectly) ruleslawyer it with rules that didn't exist.  Players will fireball other players with a shrug & sorry bro we will get you back up.  Bob was immediately revivified after the battle concluded.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 2, 2022)

A 2d6 fireball for a level 3 spell is just dumb. I'd maybe take it as a level 1 spell, but only if we have several spellcasters that can also cast it, so low average damage at high range actually resulta in high hp removal before the opposition spreads out. 

If it scales with +2d6 damage on upcast, it transitions into a great asset, even with lower damage than today's 8d6 fireball. 

If it scaled with +1d6 per level I'd rate isbabout as good as flaming hands, which has rather bad scaling compared to thunderwave.


----------



## Clint_L (Nov 2, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> LOL.
> 
> Dude, have you ever looked at level 1 damage spells? 2d6 save for half over a 20' radius, 1257 square feet, hitting dozens of 5' squares, would be drastically more powerful than any other level 1 combat spell. Not "okay". It'd be better than some level 2 combat spells and certainly on-par with most - Snowball Swarm does a 5' radius with 3d6 damage and Shatter does a 10' radius with 3d8 damage (save for half in both cases, Shatter is objectively superior, to Snowball Swarm, and 2d6 Fireball would also be objectively superior to Snowball Swam in virtually all multi-target situations).



You mean a spell like Flaming Hands, which would do 50% more damage but over a smaller area right in front of the caster? Well, let's see, if there were a zillion kobolds packed into that 20' radius in front of the caster and the party's melee combatants weren't doing their job and mixed in with the kobolds then yeah, 2d6 fireball would definitely be the way to go.

But if it was a more realistic situation where 2-3 foes had gotten loose and charged at the caster then I'd prefer the Flaming Hands. Or Magnify Gravity (probably this, actually). Or Frost Fingers (which no one takes at 2d8 damage). Or Thunderwave. Possibly Ice Knife.

Dude, have _you_ looked at Level 1 damage spells?


----------



## ECMO3 (Nov 2, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I think you are missing the various mechanics changes in 5e that encourage just the situation @Ruin Explorer described as making fireball so great in 5e.
> 
> 5e made in combat movement so easy that combats are no longer a spread out tactical affair.  Players all use ranged attacks with no downsides or just close to the most valued target & the GM is expected to direct the monsterts towards the crunchier targets rather than  simply becoming an adversarial killer gm that sends the monsters off  to geek the mage/squash the cleric.  Past editions had things like 5 foot step/shift & movement based AoOs but not 5e, absent any of the mechanics that once supported a more spread out combat the players are truly playing by a different set of rules than the combat as sport monsters.   Toss in bounded accuracy & 6-8 encounter expectations to create a situation where the GM is pressured to put a gobton of weaker monsters that cluster around a point of crunchier players that  fireball is likely able to easily cover.  The players aren't worried about fireballing an ally in such a situation because monsters lack enough tohit & damage to be a real threat & the death save mechanic combined with things like healing word that even an unusual freak case of it actually mattering probably won't really matter.
> 
> The only time I've seen friendly fire actually matter in 5e was when a player asked if a cloud effect was flammable & I told him to double  the damage when faced with a choice between "Maybe maybe not do you want to use your action to figure out?" vrs "nah I cast fireball since bob's saying doitdoitdoit" Everyone was shocked when I didn't save level 8ish  bob from death by massive damage & there were even efforts to (incorrectly) ruleslawyer it with rules that didn't exist.  Players will fireball other players with a shrug & sorry bro we will get you back up.  Bob was immediately revivified after the battle concluded.



I have seen friendly fire matter A LOT in 5E, especially when monsters roll well on initiative.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Nov 2, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> You mean a spell like Flaming Hands, which would do 50% more damage but over a smaller area right in front of the caster? Well, let's see, if there were a zillion kobolds packed into that 20' radius in front of the caster and the party's melee combatants weren't doing their job and mixed in with the kobolds then yeah, 2d6 fireball would definitely be the way to go.
> 
> But if it was a more realistic situation where 2-3 foes had gotten loose and charged at the caster then I'd prefer the Flaming Hands. Or Magnify Gravity (probably this, actually). Or Frost Fingers (which no one takes at 2d8 damage). Or Thunderwave. Possibly Ice Knife.
> 
> Dude, have _you_ looked at Level 1 damage spells?



Yes, I have, and you're reaching extremely hard and insisting on putting the caster in absolutely terrible idea "in melee" situations to try and justify this. Things have to already have kind of gone bad. Those spells are all hugely inferior to a 2d6 Fireball in most normal multi-target situations.

Magnify Gravity is the only one which really might compete because it has the movement reduction rider, but it's pretty broken OP like most of the stuff from that book.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Nov 2, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> Your hypothesis is based on the idea that it covers a larger area, but that only situationally means it does more damage, if as someone else mentioned there are "a zillion" Kobolds packed in AND your own allies aren't in the way then yes it is better, however that is really the only time it is and I would argue that is rare.



Absolutely it is not at all rare, as we see with the current 8d6 level 3 Fireball. People are acting like that doesn't exist which is funny, but very very silly.

Please don't repeat this "a zillion" canard. It really doesn't take many monsters before 2d6 in a gigantic area comes out ahead of 3d6 in a tiny area (which often also requires you to basically be in melee). The circular pattern and huge range make it relatively easy to position, too.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 3, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> I have seen friendly fire matter A LOT in 5E, especially when monsters roll well on initiative.



Maybe at level 5 or six, but 8d6 is only an average of 28 damage save for half. Take these 14 con example builds


Spoiler




L5 Fighter 40hp
L10 Fighter 80hp
L5 barbarian 45hp
L10 Barbarian 90hp
L5 Paladin 40hp
L10 paladin 80hp
L5 Ranger 40hp
L10 Ranger 80hp
L5 rogue 35hp
L10 Rogue 70hp



28 might seem like a lot _at level 5_, but all of those classes keep getting more HP & the ones with lower HP are likely to have dex save proficient and a dex based build to drop that to avg14  or 14/0 with evasion.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 3, 2022)

2d6 per spell level


----------



## ECMO3 (Nov 3, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Maybe at level 5 or six, but 8d6 is only an average of 28 damage save for half. Take these 14 con example builds
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...



I will agree on the L10 Rogue because of Evasion, at most he takes half damage and you generally expect him to make that save and be unscathed, but most of those other players on that list are going to be annoyed if they get fireballed. Fireballing a 5th level Rogue is a different story though as that has about a 25% chance of downing him unless he has absorb elements through Arcane Trickster or a Feat.  I have also never seen a single-classed Rogue played with a 14 constitution unless he rolled that.  

Taking 28 damage when you have 80 is a lot and that is assuming you don't upcast it ever.  Moreover enemies have more hit points than PCs.  So sure if you are fighting a "zillion Kobolds" Fireball is going to wipe them all out and your PCs that got fragged will still be standing, but 10th level characters won't be fighting "a zillion Kobolds", they will typically be fighting enemies with as many or more hit points than they have, so Fireball will knock the PCs down and will knock the enemies down, but it will generally put the PCs closer to 0.

I will also point out that people on several of these threatd are talking about how important a high constitution is, so if you fireball that Level 10 14 Con fighter, it is basically the same as having him up there tanking with an 8 constitution.


----------



## Horwath (Nov 3, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> No, it wouldn't, not unless most 3rd-level damage spells are "garbage tier". Compared to other 3rd-level damage spells it would still be "okay". It wouldn't be outstanding, but it'd be okay, because of the ridiculous radius. What it would do would be change a spell from a no-brainer to a spell you only memorized when you expected to fight a lot of weak opponents.



yes, every 3rd level damaging spell except fireball and lightning bolt is waste of space on your character sheet.


Ruin Explorer said:


> So Full Casters should just be a lot more powerful than non-casters?



in limited resource style? Yes!


Ruin Explorer said:


> That's what you're saying, essentially.
> 
> I do agree that if they insist on keeping Fireball where it is, they should pull up other 3rd level damage spells a bit, but really, they knock Fireball down to 6d6, where it would still be close to a no-brainer, but not a total no-brainer.



If every wizard took 8d6 fireballs, DMs job would be a lot easier.
nothing more simple than more damage done. Control spells are a nightmare to factor in for encounter building.

8d6 is completely fine. if anything scaling should be higher later, +2d6 or even +3d6 per level.
Right now, 4th level fireball is bad.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 3, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> I will agree on the L10 Rogue because of Evasion, at most he takes half damage and you generally expect him to make that save and be unscathed, but most of those other players on that list are going to be annoyed if they get fireballed. Fireballing a 5th level Rogue is a different story though as that has about a 25% chance of downing him unless he has absorb elements through Arcane Trickster or a Feat.  I have also never seen a single-classed Rogue played with a 14 constitution unless he rolled that.
> 
> Taking 28 damage when you have 80 is a lot and that is assuming you don't upcast it ever.  Moreover enemies have more hit points than PCs.  So sure if you are fighting a "zillion Kobolds" Fireball is going to wipe them all out and your PCs that got fragged will still be standing, but 10th level characters won't be fighting "a zillion Kobolds", they will typically be fighting enemies with as many or more hit points than they have, so Fireball will knock the PCs down and will knock the enemies down, but it will generally put the PCs closer to 0.
> 
> I will also point out that people on several of these threatd are talking about how important a high constitution is, so if you fireball that Level 10 14 Con fighter, it is basically the same as having him up there tanking with an 8 constitution.



No it's not as dire as you are trying to suggest here.  Healing word... Healing breeze(light?) 1hp LoH  death save death save death save revivify LetsTakeAShortOrLongRest.
The rules ensure that 28 damage won't matter because the monsters are noteaningfully equipped to make it matter unless things are somehow stacked in such a way that 28 damage only accelerated the inevitable. .monsters just don't have enough tohit ordsmage for28 damage to be the straw they needed unless they were already in a situation where they didn't need it


----------



## ECMO3 (Nov 3, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> No it's not as dire as you are trying to suggest here.  Healing word... Healing breeze(light?) 1hp LoH  death save death save death save revivify LetsTakeAShortOrLongRest.
> The rules ensure that 28 damage won't matter because the monsters are noteaningfully equipped to make it matter unless things are somehow stacked in such a way that 28 damage only accelerated the inevitable. .monsters just don't have enough tohit ordsmage for28 damage to be the straw they needed unless they were already in a situation where they didn't need it



A 35 hit point Rogue that loses 28 hit points has 7 left and the vast majority of monsters can do that on one shot. at 5th level most of them would get multiattack and do close to twice that value.  So if your Rogue has say two CR4 Veterans that can get to him he is probably dead .... not downed but dead.  The first attack takes him down and the next three burn through his death saves.

6 10th level characters against 3 young white dragons is an "easy" encounter.  3 young white dragons do 41 of damage each with their attacks (not even considering their breath weapon), so they could EASILY take down your 80hp fighter that only has 52 hit points left without even using a breath weapon on him.  Once he is down 3 more hits kills him and each one of them gets 3 attacks a round.

6 of those dragons would be between hard and deadly.  Fireball is not powerful enough to kill them even with max damage and 6 of them have more than enough to completely kill (not drop, but kill as in dead) your 80hp fighter if they concentrate on him.  As a matter of fact if your wizard fireballs him and he saves against the fireball then all of the dragons breathe on him and he makes every single one of those saves before he drops he still DIES  - taking half damage from 3 breath weapons and a 14 damage fireball will put him down and the next 3 breath weapons deal 1 death save each, killing him.

Those examples are in a single round of combat and you are expecting him to last 3-4 rounds to win that fight?


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 3, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> A 35 hit point Rogue that loses 28 hit points has 7 left and the vast majority of monsters can do that on one shot. at 5th level most of them would get multiattack and do close to twice that value.  So if your Rogue has say two CR4 Veterans that can get to him he is probably dead .... not downed but dead.  The first attack takes him down and the next three burn through his death saves.
> 
> 6 10th level characters against 3 young white dragons is an "easy" encounter.  3 young white dragons do 41 of damage each with their attacks (not even includingconsidering their breath weapon), so they could EASILY take down your 80hp fighter that only has 52 hit points left without even using a breath weapon on him.  Once he is down 3 more hits kills him and each one of them gets 3 attacks a round.
> 6 of those dragons would be between hard and deadly.  Fireball is not powerful enough to kill themDIE even with max damage and 6 of them have more than enough to completely kill (not drop, but kill as in dead) your 80hp fighter if they concentrate on him.  As a matter of fact if your wizard fireballs him and he saves against the fireball then all of the dragons breathe on him and he makes every single one of those saves before he drops he still DIES  - taking half damage from 3 breath weapons and a 14 damage fireball will put him down and the next 3 breath weapons deal 1 death save each, killing him.
> ...



No more flatfooted AC.  A downed rogue benefits from their full dex bonus, full armor bonus, possible shield bonus or whatever, possible dodge.  Failing all of that the rogue can enjoy healing word healing light hp LoH cure wounds heal kit etc before it pulls the trigger on attack->cunning action disengage.

The rogue can do all of that because...


> W hen damage
> reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die *[ONLY]* if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum.



Combined with  excessive ease of healing a downed PC as noted above ensures that this is an extremely high bar to meet without a "rocks fall" type encounter.


> If damage reduces you to 0 hit points *and* fails to kill you, you fall unconscious (see appendix A). This unconsciousness ends if you regain *any* hit points.



before this comes into play


> On your third failure, you die. The successes and failures don't need to be consecutive; keep track of both until you collect three of a kind. *The number of both is reset to zero when you regain any hit points or become stable.*




Just in case a party didn't connect all of those blindingly obvious dots the same pg197 in the phb where they are all spelled out closes on this note


> The best way to save a creature with 0 hit points is to heal it. If healing is unavailable, the creature can at least be stabilized so that it isn’t killed by a failed death saving throw.




In order for there to be a serious risk monsters need the ability to gain the ability to reliably hit PC ACs  that they currently lack due to Bounded Accuracy.  If the monsters had the tohit needed to reliably hit the PCs it wasn't that 28hp average that really cinched it because death saves & healing ensure that the monsters need to do it back to back to back before the target PC can get _"any" _healing to reset the situation to monsters needing to get back to back to back attacks that drop>fail 2 death saves>fail the last death saves.  

_If_ the monster is able to reliably hit a PC it probably also has no issue slaughtering one instantly with almost guaranteed death by massive damage or presents a similarly impossible encounter.


----------



## ECMO3 (Nov 4, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> No more flatfooted AC.  A downed rogue benefits from their full dex bonus, full armor bonus, possible shield bonus or whatever, possible dodge.  Failing all of that the rogue can enjoy healing word healing light hp LoH cure wounds heal kit etc before it pulls the trigger on attack->cunning action disengage.




They are at advantage to  hit the Rogue once he is downed and he has an AC of 16.  Rogues do not have proficiency in shields and I also used the 35hps you quoted which is more than most 5th level Rogues have.   Also I misread, Veterans actually get 3 attacks, not 2 (2 with a longsword and one with a shortsword), so if he is in reach (and he is because you fireballed him along with them), then they have 6 attacks against AC16 to eliminate 7hps and 3 death saves and after the first 7hps those rolls are with advantage.

Healing word and healing kits do not work if he is dead.  I suppose you could use revify if you have a 500gp diamond lying around.





tetrasodium said:


> Combined with  excessive ease of healing a downed PC as noted above ensures that this is an extremely high bar to meet without a "rocks fall" type encounter.




I did not say downed I said dead.  Three hits at 0 hit points kill him (unless one crits and then it is 2 hits) and two Veterans have 6 attacks to drain 7 hit points and him three more times to kill him.  Make it 3 Veterans and they have 9 attacks to do it in.

Also even if they don't manage to kill him, if they only get 2 death saves on him on their turn then he has to roll on his turn, so if the guy with healing word goes after him in the initiative order he STILL has a 45% chance of dying before there is a chance at healing word.

I did the math on this, if he has 16 AC and the Wizard leaves him with 7 hit points and then 2 Veterans attack him, he has a 38% chance of dying (not down, dead) before anyone else even gets a turn.  If the Rogue is in initiative before the guy that is going to heal him, the overall chance of dying before he can get healed is 49%.  Those numbers include using uncanny dodge the first time he is hit, if he already burned his reaction those numbers go up to 61% and 69%.




tetrasodium said:


> _If_ the monster is able to reliably hit a PC it probably also has no issue slaughtering one instantly with almost guaranteed death by massive damage or presents a similarly impossible encounter.



The monster is not really slaughtering him, the wizard is because he fireballed him and took away 80% of his abnormally high hit points before the monster even went.

It is also not massive damage that is going to kill him.  When you're down each hit causes a failed dex save even if it is only 1 hp of damage.  If they hit you 3 times while you are down you are dead.

I will add if he has average hit points (28) he is at zero before the first bad guy even makes his attacks against him.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Nov 4, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> They are at advantage to  hit the Rogue once he is downed and he has an AC of 16.  Rogues do not have proficiency in shields and I also used the 35hps you quoted which is more than most 5th level Rogues have.   Also I misread, Veterans actually get 3 attacks, not 2 (2 with a longsword and one with a shortsword), so if he is in reach (and he is because you fireballed him along with them), then they have 6 attacks against AC16 to eliminate 7hps and 3 death saves and after the first 7hps those rolls are with advantage.  That is if there is 2 of them.  If there is 3 of them they have 9 attacks.
> 
> Healing word and healing kits do not work if he is dead.  I suppose you could use revify if you have a 500gp diamond lying around.
> 
> ...



45% chance.  10 is a success.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 4, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> They are at advantage to  hit the Rogue once he is downed and he has an AC of 16.  Rogues do not have proficiency in shields and I also used the 35hps you quoted which is more than most 5th level Rogues have.   Also I misread, Veterans actually get 3 attacks, not 2 (2 with a longsword and one with a shortsword), so if he is in reach (and he is because you fireballed him along with them), then they have 6 attacks against AC16 to eliminate 7hps and 3 death saves and after the first 7hps those rolls are with advantage.  That is if there is 2 of them.  If there is 3 of them they have 9 attacks.
> 
> Healing word and healing kits do not work if he is dead.  I suppose you could use revify if you have a 500gp diamond lying around.
> 
> ...



Needing to change a crunchy rogue above level five or six who puts in effort to be crunchy for a level 5 rogue who does not in order to make the point is pretty much pointing a spotlight at the exception that proves the norm of it not being a big deal.  This started about how specifically there's no fear of hitting *crunchy* types the GM is pressured to attack not squishy types that the GM would get labeled a killer GM if they went after the squishy pc too seriously.   Specifically at higher levels than five or six.

 studded leather(12ac) ++4 or 5 from dex possible +2 from a shield possible +1 from each of things like defensive fighting style +1 armor +1 shield +1 ring of protection +1 cloak of protection ranging from a crunchy PC with an ac of 18-24.  The veteran that you mention has a +5 to hit & needs to roll a 13 or better to hit off the shelf non magic gear.  It does not have the tohit needed to _reliably_ hit a PC who has not even improved upon nonmagical mundane gear let alone one who put in some effort. 

The veteran would indeed have advantage on attacks _after_ the rogue is down,  but it does an average of 7 6 & 5 on its attacks for a total of 18 average _if_ it rolls 13 or better on each against the hypothetical 30hp rogue who still has 12 HP & should be capable of taking two more average attacks from a second veteran if all f_ive_ of those attacks were a 13 or better.  After the veterans made _five_ d20 rolls of 13 or better to drop the fireballed rogue who failed the dex save they still need to make two successful attacks with advantage before  another player can provide the rogue with any healing.  If the group consists of 3-4 level 7 players the bare minimum number of veterans(3) required to kill a fireballed rogue who failed the dex save  is _only_ a medium or hard encounter not deadly or lethal

Add to that, the veteran you mention  has a measly 17 ac 58 hp and +1 dex with no save proficiencies at all .  A 28 point fireball  will being it to 30hp.  It's not hard for the group to deal 30hp when the rogue alone can average 15-20 or easy.  In order for players to hit a 17ac with 18 in their prime attribute, a starting +0 weapon & level 5-8's +3 proficiency bonus  they need to roll a ten or better on a d20 where the average is ten point five.   

You have not made a case for a serious threat  to the crunchy PCs because the veteran needs a 13 or better to hit +0 nonmagical gear on each of those possible three attacks.  If the group is too small to both burn them down _and_ toss a heal of some form on that rogue so the rogue can disengage & switch to ranged attacks then it's pretty much an encounter that swaps  the LMOP opening goblins with veterans & playing it out the rocks fall scenario with a twist at level 5.

Fireball doesn't bounce off walls or anything so in a situation where it might matter like your exception the caster can just position it off to the side or do things like hold their cast till the rogue can scoot around a bit or cunning action disengage like just about any rogue not trying to be the tank is going to do most rounds.


----------



## ECMO3 (Nov 4, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Needing to change a crunchy rogue above level five or six who puts in effort to be crunchy for a level 5 rogue who does not in order to make the point is pretty much pointing a spotlight at the exception that proves the norm of it not being a big deal.  This started about how specifically there's no fear of hitting *crunchy* types the GM is pressured to attack not squishy types that the GM would get labeled a killer GM if they went after the squishy pc too seriously.   Specifically at higher levels than five or six.



I don't understand all this.  This is about your claim that a Wizard can fireball his own party members with no problem, and I used one of your examples (a 35hp 5th level Rogue) to show that was not true.




tetrasodium said:


> studded leather(12ac) ++4 or 5 from dex possible +2 from a shield possible +1 from each of things like defensive fighting style +1 armor +1 shield +1 ring of protection +1 cloak of protection ranging from a crunchy PC with an ac of 18-24.  The veteran that you mention has a +5 to hit & needs to roll a 13 or better to hit off the shelf non magic gear.  It does not have the tohit needed to _reliably_ hit a PC who has not even improved upon nonmagical mundane gear let alone one who put in some effort.




Rouges do not have shield proficiency or fighting styles and if your using point buy or standard array your dexterity will be between 16-19 (+3 to +4).



tetrasodium said:


> The veteran would indeed have advantage on attacks _after_ the rogue is down,  but it does an average of 7 6 & 5 on its attacks for a total of 18 average _if_ it rolls 13 or better on each against the hypothetical 30hp rogue who still has 12 HP & should be capable of taking two more average attacks from a second veteran if all f_ive_ of those attacks were a 13 or better.




Why would he have 12 hps?  35 hit point Rouge -28 from being fireballed by the Wizard has 7 hps left before they start swinging at him.

35-28=7 not 12



tetrasodium said:


> After the veterans made _five_ d20 rolls of 13 or better to drop the fireballed rogue who failed the dex save they still need to make two successful attacks with advantage before  another player can provide the rogue with any healing.  If the group consists of 3-4 level 7 players the bare minimum number of veterans(3) required to kill a fireballed rogue who failed the dex save  is _only_ a medium or hard encounter not deadly or lethal.




It is not a medium encounter.

To start even if he has 12 hit points two Veterans can kill him.  You said "the bare minimum".  That would be 1 as one hit and 2 more hits with him down can kill him if one of the hits while downed was a crit.  It will also kill him without crits if he fails just one death save.   So as a point of fact the "bare minimum" is one Veteran.

I agree it is not a deadly encounter, it is easy.  Assuming a party of 4 5th level players (remember the Rogue is 5th level, not 7th, he just has an abnormally high AC and high hit points) a lethal encounter would be *7 Veterans, *not 2*.*

If you have 7 veterans attacking a "normal" 5th level Rogue with AC16 and 7 hps left after being fireballed he has a 99% chance of dying.

If you have 7 veterans attacking your over the top 5th level 20 Dex homebrew Rogue with protection fighting style, shield proficiency, a +1 shield and +1 Ring of protection who somehow also got an extra 5 hit points (AC22, 12 hps) and those 7 Veterans attack him they STILL have a 67% chance of killing him.  Note if we were using RAW, in addition to the over the top magic items, it would take 4 ASIs to build this Rogue using standard array or point buy and he only has 1 ASI at 5th level.

Those numbers assume he still has uncanny dodge available and they do not include the possibility of leaving him nearly dead and having him fail a death save himself.   




tetrasodium said:


> Add to that, the veteran you mention  has a measly 17 ac 58 hp and +1 dex with no save proficiencies at all .  A 28 point fireball  will being it to 30hp.  It's not hard for the group to deal 30hp when the rogue alone can average 15-20 or easy.  In order for players to hit a 17ac with 18 in their prime attribute, a starting +0 weapon & level 5-8's +3 proficiency bonus  they need to roll a ten or better on a d20 where the average is ten point five.




Yeah the fireball took away less than half their hit points .... if they failed the save.  Sure you can kill them easy, they are CR4.  But if your wizard fireaballed you they can kill you easy too, really easy.




tetrasodium said:


> You have not made a case for a serious threat  to the crunchy PCs because the veteran needs a 13 or better to hit +0 nonmagical gear on each of those possible three attacks.




First off the 13 is off, that is too high an AC.  But even if we use this number each of them has a 78% chance of hitting you one time or more (specifically 22% chance of 0 hits, 43% chance of 1 hit, 28% chance of 2 hits, 6% chance of 3 hits)  that is for EACH one that attacks the Rogue and it is using the 13 you say they need to hit you.




tetrasodium said:


> If the group is too small to both burn them down _and_ toss a heal of some form on that rogue so the rogue can disengage & switch to ranged attacks then it's pretty much an encounter that swaps  the LMOP opening goblins with veterans & playing it out the rocks fall scenario with a twist at level 5.




The Rogue can't disengage and switch to range, he would have to disengage and then dash, otherwise they could simply close with him and attach him again.  Rogue disengages, moves 30 feet, drops his melee weapon, pulls out his bow and shoots it, then the Veterans use theor move to start attacking him again.

In the Goblin ambush in LMOP there are Goblins on both sides of the road and if  I remember correctly you are escorting a wagon and civilians.  Depending on the map used it might not be possible to get all the Goblins in one fireball (usually wouldn't be possible I would say), but aside from that there are civilians in/with the Wagon.  When you drop down a fireball at ground zero to get all the enemies you are going to kill all the people you are trying to protect, probably the horses pulling the wagon and set the wagon on fire.   The LMOP ambush illustrates my point very, very well - It is extremely  difficult to use fireball to get a large number of enemies!



tetrasodium said:


> Fireball doesn't bounce off walls or anything so in a situation where it might matter like your exception the caster can just position it off to the side or do things like hold their cast till the rogue can scoot around a bit or cunning action disengage like just about any rogue not trying to be the tank is going to do most rounds.




The entire discussion is based on the premise the enemies are mixed in with your players.  That is what this is about.  Sure they can position it to miss the players and that is what most casters usually do ... but they don't get the guy who won initiative and is between your Rogue and Fighter, they don't get the guy in the corner because making it cover the corner will also hit the Cleric ..... In the case of the LMOP example, if you do this you fireball one side of the road and get two of the four Goblins/Veterans.

It is rare, very rare that you can hit every enemy in an encouter with a fireball unless the caster wins initiative outright.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 4, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> I don't understand all this.  This is about your claim that a Wizard can fireball his own party members with no problem, and I used one of your examples (a 35hp 5th level Rogue) to show that was not true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



People don't actually play the way you are suggesting.  Fireball gets dropped where it can deal the most damage at the least cost _unless_ there is a good reason for it to include allies.  The combat you are suggesting is a speedbump that does not create a good reason that justifies including the rogue just for giggles. That remains true until you start including things like "well what if the veterans are focused on an actually squishy pc who needs to be rescued asap or die & that requires including the rogue *because we both know he's going to just cunning action disengage*"


----------



## ECMO3 (Nov 4, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> People don't actually play the way you are suggesting.  Fireball gets dropped where it can deal the most damage at the least cost _unless_ there is a good reason for it to include allies.  The combat you are suggesting is a speedbump that does not create a good reason that justifies including the rogue just for giggles. That remains true until you start including things like "well what if the veterans are focused on an actually squishy pc who needs to be rescued asap or die & that requires including the rogue *because we both know he's going to just cunning action disengage*"



I agree it gets dropped where it can deal the most damage at the least cost. The thing I am arguing about here is that least cost generally means NOT  fragging your allies.  Unless the Wizard wins initiative AND the enemies are grouped together that will mean only a few enemies are going to get hit.  

In the LMOP example - 2 bad guys on both sides of the road, a wagon with horses and civilians in the middle - that will be 2 bad guys you get, not all 4 and certainly not the 33 or whatever number was being thrown around above.  You could get the same 2 guys with lightning bolt if you moved to line them up.  For the same slot you could als have got 2 bad guys with fear, hypnotic pattern or upcast hold person, you could have got 3 of them with upcast Cause Fear on a 3rd level slot. 

Cunning action disengage does not keep him from getting attacked in melee.  It keeps him from taking AOOs that is all.  He has to dash if he does not want to get attacked in melee the following round and if you have played a Rogue (or a Goblin) in 5E you should know that and cunning action disengage does nothing at all on someone else's turn.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 4, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> I agree it gets dropped where it can deal the most damage at the least cost. The thing I am arguing about here is that least cost generally means NOT  fragging your allies.  Unless the Wizard wins initiative AND the enemies are grouped together that will mean only a few enemies are going to get hit.
> 
> In the LMOP example - 2 bad guys on both sides of the road, a wagon with horses and civilians in the middle - that will be 2 bad guys you get, not all 4 and certainly not the 33 or whatever number was being thrown around above.  You could get the same 2 guys with lightning bolt if you moved to line them up.  For the same slot you could als have got 2 bad guys with fear, hypnotic pattern or upcast hold person, you could have got 3 of them with upcast Cause Fear on a 3rd level slot.
> 
> Cunning action disengage does not keep him from getting attacked in melee.  It keeps him from taking AOOs that is all.  He has to dash if he does not want to get attacked in melee the following round and if you have played a Rogue (or a Goblin) in 5E you should know that and cunning action disengage does nothing at all on someone else's turn.



The LMOP n00b tpk opening encounter was referenced because it can so easily fall into the realm of a terribly designed rocks fall type encounter where the party doesn't stand a chance.   Unfortunately the design of 2014 5e is one where the risk to players is none at all ->none at all ->c'mon GM I'm _trying_ to get killed so I can play my new PC ->we got this healing word -> wow this is a long fight healing word ->the players never stood a chance but the GM made them suffer through it till the last meeple died.    That & bounded accuracy combined with the excessive 6-8 medium to hard combat encounter expectations makes for a number of contributing factors that I already mentioned earlier

The GM is pressured to throw in lots of monsters just to meet the budget because fewer stronger monsters are still not a threat but so totally overwhelmed by the action economy that they are incapable of doing anything at all given the poor abilities attached to those giant sacks of hp.
With the removal of things like 5 foot step/shift or suffer AoOs there is no longer any *mechanical* reason for either the players or the gm to do anything but immediately close to the squishy MVP type targets.  
That's fine for players closing on the bbeg who now requires a gobton of useless zero threat mooks to hide behind in order to last more than a round or two without tarrasque type stats.  It's fine though because the game is rigged more towards a setting on the dial where the players can win than some kind of dark souls style nintendohard thing where the player with unlimited dragons gets to kill the PCs
For the GM controlled monsters though it's absolutely a reprehensible catch 22 situation forced onto the gm by the social contract.  On the one side the GM needs to provide an interesting combat that seems fair with a possibility of failure/  On the other though there's no longer any reason preventing all of those monsters from just ignoring the crunchy melee types in order to immediatly geek the mage all the time every time other than a desire to avert the adversarial arms race that goes with "man bob's a killer gm" & "man bob's really got it out for alice & her cleric/wizard/etc".
.
In order to accomplish that the GM directs all of those useless minions to fan the crunchy types who face basically no risk right up until crossing the knife edge into a situation where they never had a chance. *Doing that creates a situation where the monsters are almost guaranteed to cluster up*.


----------



## ECMO3 (Nov 5, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> The LMOP n00b tpk opening encounter was referenced because it can so easily fall into the realm of a terribly designed rocks fall type encounter where the party doesn't stand a chance.  Unfortunately the design of 2014 5e is one where the risk to players is none at all ->none at all ->c'mon GM I'm _trying_ to get killed so I can play my new PC ->we got this healing word -> wow this is a long fight healing word -




I agree the LMOP ambush is extremely difficult, especially for newbies who it is designed for,

I do not understand your point when you say that 2014 5E is "no risk" to the party and then providing an encounter example from 2014 where the "party doesn't stand a chance".

I had a 2nd level character die in Princes of the Apocolypse on Wednesday.  The as written encounter went like this:

1. Priest casts Shatter and downed 2 (out of 4) PCs, the characters downed were an Artificer and a Sorcerer-Warlock.

2. Sorcerer Warlock makes death save (1 good)

3. Fighter puts two crossbow bolts into bad guy

4. Artificer makes death save (1 good)

5. Ranger casts cure wounds on Artificer, Artificer now up.  Ranger is out of spells because he cast another spell earlier.

6. Priest casts shatter again, hiting Ranger, Artificer and S-W giving S-W a failed death save (1 good, 1 bad) and putting artificer down again and severly damaging Ranger

7. S-W makes a death save (2 good, 1 bad)

8. Fighter misses bad guy twice

9. Artificer rolls a 1 on death save (2 bad)

10. Ranger hits bad guy with arrow

11. Priest casts shatter on downed artificer and S-W.    Artificer now dead, S-W 2 good saves, 2 bad saves

12. S-W makes death save - stablized

The rest of the fight goes like this - the Ranger and Fighter kill the bad guy and then they find the unused healing potion on the dead artificer and administer it to the Warlock.  Nothing had to be "thrown in" to the encounter to kill a party member and it was 1 failed death save away from killing two PCs which is half the party.  All that had to be done as DM was to try to kill the party when the opportunity presented itself (casting shatter on 2 downed PCs instead of the ones walking around) and that was in a fight with only 1 bad guy vs 4 PCs.

In any case we are way off topic here as this has noting to do with Fireball.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 5, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I would reduce fireball to 6d6, but only if enemies will get less hp overall. That's it. Lower damage for everyone. Try to bring monster HP and Party HP more in line.



I totally want to go back to 2e hp with a small boost up front...

start 1st level with 3HD (no con mod) at level 2 you get a set HP (1 2 or 3 like 2e did at 9+) then at level 3 you get a 4th HD (still no con bonus. 
when you spend HD to heal you get the con bonus to what you heal...

Then knock (almost) every class down a die code... wizard back to d4s fighters down to d8

a 20th level fighter would have 12d8+30   max 1 for 11d8+38 and average the 5e way of making the d8 5hp makes that 55+38=93hp   even a fighter would not have 100hp

(I said almost all 1 die code cause I would bring monk back down to d4s BUT give them +3 at even levels, and I would keep the paladin at d10 (with the barbarian going to the d10)


----------



## ECMO3 (Nov 5, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I totally want to go back to 2e hp with a small boost up front...
> 
> start 1st level with 3HD (no con mod) at level 2 you get a set HP (1 2 or 3 like 2e did at 9+) then at level 3 you get a 4th HD (still no con bonus.
> when you spend HD to heal you get the con bonus to what you heal...
> ...



If you did this why wouldn't everyone just dump constitution?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 5, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> If you did this why wouldn't everyone just dump constitution?



where I see Con becomeing less important, it is still a good save to have and still the healing. I doubt it will be 'dump' but it will be mid.

edit: I would also change cure wounds to be heal as if you spent a HD, and add your caster stat mod. at higher levels heal as if you spent additional HD.  and healing word would be spend a HD, and at each higher level add 1d4 I go back and forth it that should add caster stat mod.


----------



## Clint_L (Nov 5, 2022)

We could argue all day about things that aren't going to happen. Shouldn't this sub-forum be for discussing realistic changes for OneD&D, which is expressly keeping the basic 5e toolkit? Like, there is no way they are dumping Wizards down to d4 hit dice, etc., there is no way Fireball is becoming a 2d6 damage spell, etc. At this point folks are just arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

Edit: Fireball does have a problem in that it is currently treated as a no-brainer spell. In other words, by feeling like a required spell, it kind of limits player choice, which I think is bad. I like the suggestion that the way to fix it while staying true to the OneD&D mantra of keeping 5e fundamentally intact is to add more consequences to it. Fix the tactical implications of Fireball to make them more consequential and dangerous like a big explosion should be, rather than changing the base damage of the spell.


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 5, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> We could argue all day about things that aren't going to happen. Shouldn't this sub-forum be for discussing realistic changes for OneD&D, which is expressly keeping the basic 5e toolkit? Like, there is no way they are dumping Wizards down to d4 hit dice, etc., there is no way Fireball is becoming a 2d6 damage spell, etc. At this point folks are just arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.



Discussions on this forum aren't going to have any noticeable impact on the design of 1D&D anyway, so there's no reason to limit ourselves to the "realistic."

The people who might actually do something with the ideas floated here are third-party publishers and homebrewers, who have no such constraints.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 5, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> Discussions on this forum aren't going to have any noticeable impact on the design of 1D&D anyway,



not directly but indirect the conversations we have here go to our game tables, our game stores, our other social media, cons ect...   As our ideas go longer if others like them they will spread them. 

Someone said LFQW once somewhere... and it spread
Someone was the first to say "4e is an MMO" and it spread
Someone on here might say something that 5 people take to 5 others... if the people who those 5 take it to then each spread it to 4 more, then each of them 3 more, then each of them 2 more, then each of them 1 more... that 1 idea that people like went from someone typing on enworld (and diminishing returns keep in mind) 5+25+100+300+600+600=1,630 you just reached that many people in the D&D community.

Someone brought up the idea of making a potion drink be a bonus action instead of an action and it spread MUCH farther then that. 

People dismiss what talk on here means because we aren't the right age, because we are too small... but small is where grass roots movements start.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 5, 2022)

I want the 4e cantrip "scorching burst" back... heck make it d4s

10ft diameter 5ft radius is 4 squares  make it save for none like all other cantrips... start it at 1d6 is my preference but like I said I bet people would use it at d4s


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 5, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I want the 4e cantrip "scorching burst" back... heck make it d4s
> 
> 10ft diameter 5ft radius is 4 squares  make it save for none like all other cantrips... start it at 1d6 is my preference but like I said I bet people would use it at d4s



_Acid splash_ is d6, has a less-resisted damage type, and will usually hit the same number of targets (it's rare to have more than two enemies in a 10x10 box). It also poses no friendly-fire risk.

I sometimes take _acid splash_ as a backup, but hardly ever use it. A d6 _scorching burst_ would be in the same category for me. d4 would be a nonstarter.


----------



## HammerMan (Nov 5, 2022)

5d6 maybe with a smaller area


----------



## HammerMan (Nov 5, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> _Acid splash_ is d6, has a less-resisted damage type, and will usually hit the same number of targets (it's rare to have more than two enemies in a 10x10 box). It also poses no friendly-fire risk.
> 
> I sometimes take _acid splash_ as a backup, but hardly ever use it. A d6 _scorching burst_ would be in the same category for me. d4 would be a nonstarter.



Yeah scorching burst could be a d8 Ora d10.  

But there is still a psychological reason to want a “blow up 4 square” over hit 2 adjacent even if it is mostly the same


----------



## Gorck (Nov 7, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> The rest of the fight goes like this - the Ranger and Fighter kill the bad guy and then they find the unused healing potion on the dead artificer and administer it to the Warlock.  Nothing had to be "thrown in" to the encounter to kill a party member and it was 1 failed death save away from killing two PCs which is half the party.  *All that had to be done as DM was to try to kill the party when the opportunity presented itself (casting shatter on 2 downed PCs instead of the ones walking around) and that was in a fight with only 1 bad guy vs 4 PCs.*



This is the part where you lose me.  I don't know exactly how everyone was positioned, and I'm not the most experienced DM, but I would never have done this.  I would have had the Cleric cast Shatter on the 2 party members who were still on their feet since they posed an immediate threat, rather than on the 2 downed party members since they were already "neutralized" threats (without running over and making Medicine checks on the Artificer and Sorcerer-Wizard, the Cleric had no idea whether they were dead or still alive).  As an intelligent creature, that would be the most logical course of action for the Cleric to me.  If it was some kind of mindless creature hellbent on simply conducting vengeance (like a wraith), maybe the proper action would be to continue attacking the downed victim(s).

In fact, there's a website called The Monsters Know What They're Doing that I refer to all the time for how to roleplay enemies in the most realistic manner.


----------



## ECMO3 (Nov 8, 2022)

Gorck said:


> This is the part where you lose me.  I don't know exactly how everyone was positioned, and I'm not the most experienced DM, but I would never have done this.  I would have had the Cleric cast Shatter on the 2 party members who were still on their feet since they posed an immediate threat, rather than on the 2 downed party members since they were already "neutralized" threats (without running over and making Medicine checks on the Artificer and Sorcerer-Wizard, the Cleric had no idea whether they were dead or still alive).  As an intelligent creature, that would be the most logical course of action for the Cleric to me.  If it was some kind of mindless creature hellbent on simply conducting vengeance (like a wraith), maybe the proper action would be to continue attacking the downed victim(s).
> 
> In fact, there's a website called The Monsters Know What They're Doing that I refer to all the time for how to roleplay enemies in the most realistic manner.



Well there was never a time the other two were close enough to get more than one of the other two and using the second of the three shatter spells he did get one of the standing guys as well (actually 2 of them since one had been healed).

As a matter of fact, the first time he used shatter to down two of them, he used it on the two he did because he could hit them both.

The enemy caster had healing of his own, and he saw one of the players bring one of the two downed characters back up.  So hitting them with shatter to keep them down made perfect sense.  They were not neutralized until they were dead, that is the point.  Now fighting beasts or some low intelligence humanoids that don't understand magic, then I would get your point.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 8, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> The enemy caster had healing of his own, and he saw one of the players bring one of the two downed characters back up.  So hitting them with shatter to keep them down made perfect sense.



this is one of the things my group wrestles with alot... is the smarter play (Monster or PC) to target the healer or to make sure the target can't be healed... not sure if there IS a right answer.


----------



## Horwath (Nov 14, 2022)

HammerMan said:


> 5d6 maybe with a smaller area



not bad... for a 2nd level spell.


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 14, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> this is one of the things my group wrestles with alot... is the smarter play (Monster or PC) to target the healer or to make sure the target can't be healed... not sure if there IS a right answer.



I use the same logic as both a player and a DM here:

1. Normally, do not waste attacks on downed foes. It is very rare for a group of monsters to have a healer. _(As DM, I assume that monsters are used to facing other groups of monsters, not PCs.)_

2. As soon as you see healing going on, killing the healer becomes a high priority, second only to killing offensive spellcasters.

3. When you drop an enemy to 0, if there is an enemy healer still active _or_ the enemy has demonstrated self-healing (e.g., trolls), finish off the fallen enemy.

(Of course, this is all assuming the monsters understand magical healing and are reasonably savvy tacticians. A beast is unlikely to figure out that it needs to finish off downed foes, and won't connect the healer to downed foes coming back. On the other hand, a pack of ghouls is likely to go after a downed foe even if there are no healers in evidence, because ghouls care more about eating than winning the fight.)


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 14, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> I use the same logic as both a player and a DM here:
> 
> 1. Normally, do not waste attacks on downed foes. It is very rare for a group of monsters to have a healer. _(As DM, I assume that monsters are used to facing other groups of monsters, not PCs.)_
> 
> ...



yeah that is pretty much what we come down to most times... back in 4e I had monsters I made called 'astral were sharks' that had a special ability called 'blood in the water' that triggered when they were attacking a bloodied foe... it gave them an extra bite attack. YOU BET my players kept everyone over half HP if at all possible.  HOWEVER they also had "divine draw" a special interupt when someone within 30ft used healing word (only healing word not other healing not inspireing word ext) they could move and make a claw attack against the cleric... BOY was that  a bad day for the healer.


Dausuul said:


> (Of course, this is all assuming the monsters understand magical healing and are reasonably savvy tacticians. A beast is unlikely to figure out that it needs to finish off downed foes, and won't connect the healer to downed foes coming back. On the other hand, a pack of ghouls is likely to go after a downed foe even if there are no healers in evidence, because ghouls care more about eating than winning the fight.)



yeah TBH I have most beast run once they take a hit or two... and I almost never have one stay past 1/2 hp


----------

