Is Spell Blasting Doomed to Suck Even More in Next than it did in 3.x?

[Quartz]

Indeen. In 3e a 6th level wizard who knows Fireball should almost be expected to have made his own Wand of Fireballs and therefore have 50 Fireballs on tap.

 

[Ahnehnois]

That said, why would I Fireball that group of CR 7 opponents with 100 hp to do less damage than the fighter can do in a round (a strike if they save) when I can instead Slow them, for example, effectively cutting down the number of "rounds" they get in the time it takes the fighters to cut them down?

Lots of reasons. Maybe they have good will saves and terrible ref (like, say, undead). Maybe they're spellcasters and slowing them doesn't affect them much (also in the good will bad ref category). Maybe you're trying to scare them off and a fireball is flasher than a slow spell. Maybe they're a long way away and you can't hit them with slow yet. Maybe it's a swarm and can't be hit by targeted spells but takes extra damage from area effects.

This isn't to say the Slow isn't an excellent spell with a variety of uses that is not infrequently a better option than Fireball. They're both quite useful. That's why the game works.

All spells are situational to some extent, but when selecting spells, I want the ones that will be useful regularly over the ones that may be handy once in a blue moon. If the intent is that only evokers will use blast-spells, since only they can make them powerful enough to be meaningful, then I would hope other choices for wizards are equally narrow, and that the Evoker can't get more benefit from other choices than an Enchanter, Illusionist, Summoner or Necromancer gets from evocation spells. This would make individual Wizards much more specialized than prior editions, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

I don't particularly disagree with this. The late 3e specialized caster classes did a pretty decent job of this. A warmage, for example, gets bonus damage and better BAB but a limited spell selection. As compared to a core wizard/sorcerer whose fireballs aren't as effective but who has innumerable choices.

One of the basic problems is if everyone is equally good at things, as the D&D magic system suggests. Everyone who learns Fireball is essentially equally good at it, with the only variation being based on level. If, instead the spells themselves are built to be rather underpowered, but feats/class abilities/other character resources can be used to power them up, then you have a much more dynamic magic system.

Inability to rest after each encounter? Much more common in the games I've played.

I rarely see that. I think what's more important is the threat of multiple encounters.

 

[N'raac]

Lots of reasons. Maybe they have good will saves and terrible ref (like, say, undead).

Then why would I choose a Fireball rather than Hasting our team?

Maybe they're spellcasters and slowing them doesn't affect them much (also in the good will bad ref category).

Haste the fighters. They get AoO against spellcasters too.

Maybe you're trying to scare them off and a fireball is flasher than a slow spell.

I think spells to scare off the opponents can be found at lower levels - and are likely better to be the more flexible illusions than a Blast spell.

Maybe they're a long way away and you can't hit them with slow yet.

Why don't I just leave, then. Maybe after casting Invisibility and Fly since they are so far away. Or, again, use those intervening rounds to buff my team up. How often do you see a group THAT far away and know they are hostile and you wish to immediately engage in combat? If they are, let the archers handle it.

Maybe it's a swarm and can't be hit by targeted spells but takes extra damage from area effects.

Well, at least that's one.

This isn't to say the Slow isn't an excellent spell with a variety of uses that is not infrequently a better option than Fireball. They're both quite useful. That's why the game works.

To actually be useful, Fireball needs to do meaningful damage. Otherwise, we can just let the archers deal with those far away enemies.

I don't particularly disagree with this. The late 3e specialized caster classes did a pretty decent job of this. A warmage, for example, gets bonus damage and better BAB but a limited spell selection. As compared to a core wizard/sorcerer whose fireballs aren't as effective but who has innumerable choices.

But those Fireballs have to be relevant, or they are not really "choices". Only viable options are really "choices".

One of the basic problems is if everyone is equally good at things, as the D&D magic system suggests. Everyone who learns Fireball is essentially equally good at it, with the only variation being based on level. If, instead the spells themselves are built to be rather underpowered, but feats/class abilities/other character resources can be used to power them up, then you have a much more dynamic magic system.

You could. Maybe weapons should be pretty useless unless you take feats specific to one specific weapon choice too.

I rarely see that. I think what's more important is the threat of multiple encounters.

I typically see multiple encounters, and when that's not the case, beef up the single or two encounters so they are challenging knowing the team need not husband resources.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Then why would I choose a Fireball rather than Hasting our team?
...
Haste the fighters. They get AoO against spellcasters too.

Sure, if you have enough decent fighters to make it worthwhile, which you usually do. You cast Haste, and then what? You can't cast it again; it likely lasts through the battle and affects everyone. Typically, the order of things is to buff up and then attack. And the AoO part is pretty rare what with Concentration and 5 ft steps; perhaps not as big a part of the game as it should be.

I think spells to scare off the opponents can be found at lower levels - and are likely better to be the more flexible illusions than a Blast spell.

All of that's very subjective and up to the DM. I think Fireball can be pretty scary in some cases, more so than lower level alternatives. It's not the main use.

Why don't I just leave, then. ... How often do you see a group THAT far away and know they are hostile and you wish to immediately engage in combat?

Not that often. But if you do catch a known enemy that far away and want to fight them, long range damage at 400 + 40 ft./level is quite effective and doesn't require attack rolls (whereas archers may miss at 500+ ft. with potential cover situations).

To actually be useful, Fireball needs to do meaningful damage. Otherwise, we can just let the archers deal with those far away enemies.

But those Fireballs have to be relevant, or they are not really "choices". Only viable options are really "choices".

True. Even 3e Fireballs are damaging enough to be worth taking though. I see it all the time, even though my houserule environment and DMing style are quite unfavorable towards that type of spell. They're hardly irrelevant.

They do seem a bit less powerful than they were in 2e, when it could become quite dominating during those medium levels. (I don't know how the 5e one is at the moment; it may be too weak and they do seem to be struggling with the basic math of the system still).

You could. Maybe weapons should be pretty useless unless you take feats specific to one specific weapon choice too.

To quote another 2e idea, I liked their weapon proficiencies. Merely being proficient in a weapon wasn't that good. You'd get better at hitting as you leveled, but you needed to dump in more proficiency points to be really effective; as they granted damage and extra attacks as well as additional THAC0 improvements. Specialization through grand mastery is way more interesting and more effective than its 3e counterpart, the Weapon Focus/Specialization feats.

As to magic, we get some traces of this, but not enough. For instance, I think it would be great if most clerics had really limited healing abilities and you had to spend actual resources (such as choosing the healing domain) to be effective enough at it to matter during combat. I also think that spells should have some type of prerequisites, as feats do, to make it harder (not impossible, but harder) to cherry-pick effective spells. If you have to take some kind of abilities to learn about fire magic before taking Fireball, making that spell more powerful becomes justifiable.

I typically see multiple encounters, and when that's not the case, beef up the single or two encounters so they are challenging knowing the team need not husband resources.

There's a lot of variables here, but I don't think that multiple encounters in a day is sustainable for most playstyles. It's appropriate for a harrowing climax on occasion, but if you fight several battles in a game day, your characters level up in a few such days, which is not sustainable even with regular breaks between adventures. And even with quick battles, you'll spend an entire real life day getting through a game day, which is not my definition of a productive session (generally).

I think the sweet spot is when you have a thought in the players heads that makes them treat resources as tactical considerations, even if they rarely have to use all those resources.

 

[N'raac]

Sure, if you have enough decent fighters to make it worthwhile, which you usually do. You cast Haste, and then what? You can't cast it again; it likely lasts through the battle and affects everyone. Typically, the order of things is to buff up and then attack. And the AoO part is pretty rare what with Concentration and 5 ft steps; perhaps not as big a part of the game as it should be.

If that one Haste provides us a substantial advantage, I can stand back and husband my resources. It allows my warrior friends to close the gap quicker and attack faster, so should I really delay it for a Fireball? Depends how effective that Fireball is. Remember, back in 1e/2e, that Haste spell aged everybody!

All of that's very subjective and up to the DM. I think Fireball can be pretty scary in some cases, more so than lower level alternatives. It's not the main use.

That can support or refute the argument, depending on the DM, and on player trust in the DM.

Not that often. But if you do catch a known enemy that far away and want to fight them, long range damage at 400 + 40 ft./level is quite effective and doesn't require attack rolls (whereas archers may miss at 500+ ft. with potential cover situations).

At 500' away, they should probably spread out and take cover so you can't target them easily with the Fireball either.

True. Even 3e Fireballs are damaging enough to be worth taking though. I see it all the time, even though my houserule environment and DMing style are quite unfavorable towards that type of spell. They're hardly irrelevant.

They do seem a bit less powerful than they were in 2e, when it could become quite dominating during those medium levels. (I don't know how the 5e one is at the moment; it may be too weak and they do seem to be struggling with the basic math of the system still).

I'm not sure on 5e either. I think the Blasts remain somewhat relevant in 3e, though I think they are far from the best tactic. I would not want them weakened from their 3e structure, and it sounds like that is what is happening.

To quote another 2e idea, I liked their weapon proficiencies. Merely being proficient in a weapon wasn't that good. You'd get better at hitting as you leveled, but you needed to dump in more proficiency points to be really effective; as they granted damage and extra attacks as well as additional THAC0 improvements. Specialization through grand mastery is way more interesting and more effective than its 3e counterpart, the Weapon Focus/Specialization feats.

It was so effective being a melee combatant without access to specialization/mastery was impractical.

As to magic, we get some traces of this, but not enough. For instance, I think it would be great if most clerics had really limited healing abilities and you had to spend actual resources (such as choosing the healing domain) to be effective enough at it to matter during combat. I also think that spells should have some type of prerequisites, as feats do, to make it harder (not impossible, but harder) to cherry-pick effective spells. If you have to take some kind of abilities to learn about fire magic before taking Fireball, making that spell more powerful becomes justifiable.

More specialized casting would be a paradigm shift, but not an invalid one. That said, how well did those Spheres work in 2e? As I recall, they were pretty unpopular.

There's a lot of variables here, but I don't think that multiple encounters in a day is sustainable for most playstyles. It's appropriate for a harrowing climax on occasion, but if you fight several battles in a game day, your characters level up in a few such days, which is not sustainable even with regular breaks between adventures. And even with quick battles, you'll spend an entire real life day getting through a game day, which is not my definition of a productive session (generally).

This comes down to base assumptions for game design. If the assumption is that a standard encounter uses up about 20% of your resources (3/3.5 IIRC), having one or two encounters a day should be a cakewalk since you can blow way more resources on each encounter. If the assumption is 1 or 2 encounters does the party in, then that changes the design a lot - use of all resources in one encounter can't make it a cakewalk if the assumption is one encounter a day. And why differentiate between "encounter" and "daily" powers (or short-term and longer-term buffs) if we will only have one encounter in a typical day, then recharge everything?

 

[keterys]

So, looking at Next - comparing Haste (single target, takes your concentration slot) to Fireball, it looks like Haste is better so long as # of fireball targets is less than # of rounds of combat*. Which means that fireball is better an awful lot of the time.

That said, fireball looks effective enough compared to a fighter, so long as you have a few targets. It certainly seems to be doing more than half the damage of a comparable fighter, which is probably the right benchmark for comparison. Ie, you'd never fireball a single target unless you knew you were about to rest, at two targets it might be an expensive use, and at 3+ fireball can shine. I can confirm that it really screws up massed hordes of goblins, orcs, minotaurs, and trolls, as one would expect.

* Personally not seeing many Next combats go over 3 rounds, and mop up is usually starting sometime in round 2 - precisely because of spells like fireballs, mind you.

 

[Ahnehnois]

If that one Haste provides us a substantial advantage, I can stand back and husband my resources. It allows my warrior friends to close the gap quicker and attack faster, so should I really delay it for a Fireball? Depends how effective that Fireball is. Remember, back in 1e/2e, that Haste spell aged everybody!

2e Haste also had a profoundly greater effect, IIRC. Anyway, there are situations where area damage is not worth it, and that's okay by me. Sometimes it isn't worth it to even cast the Haste if you feel good about the party's chances.

At 500' away, they should probably spread out and take cover so you can't target them easily with the Fireball either.

True. Enemies encountered in large groups may be fairly dumb, and at several hundred feet you may be able to drop a spell or two and catch a lot of them before they have time to scatter.

I'm not sure on 5e either. I think the Blasts remain somewhat relevant in 3e, though I think they are far from the best tactic. I would not want them weakened from their 3e structure, and it sounds like that is what is happening.

No particular disagreement there. As a baseline, 3e direct damage spells are generally not too powerful, and are not a big target for nerfing.

It was so effective being a melee combatant without access to specialization/mastery was impractical.

True. I never saw the need for such restrictive access. Just making fighters get the best access to proficiency points would be enough in my book.

More specialized casting would be a paradigm shift, but not an invalid one. That said, how well did those Spheres work in 2e? As I recall, they were pretty unpopular.

I don't know much about spheres. It would be a paradigm shift, but not necessarily a huge one. 3e warmages/beguilers/dread necromancers still have more diverse options than a 4e character. And a prerequisite-based approach isn't that restrictive.

This comes down to base assumptions for game design. If the assumption is that a standard encounter uses up about 20% of your resources (3/3.5 IIRC), having one or two encounters a day should be a cakewalk since you can blow way more resources on each encounter. If the assumption is 1 or 2 encounters does the party in, then that changes the design a lot - use of all resources in one encounter can't make it a cakewalk if the assumption is one encounter a day.

Yep. The base assumptions are pretty wacky. They posit ridiculously easy, but time consuming battles, which lead to unsustainable rates of advancement. Maybe I shouldn't even bother referencing them.

And why differentiate between "encounter" and "daily" powers (or short-term and longer-term buffs) if we will only have one encounter in a typical day, then recharge everything?

Well, most of D&D doesn't.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Have you guys checked out 13th Age? Pretty interesting notions for recovery of powers (not based on time/sleep schedule; based on heroic actions/story milestones) and rate of advancement (1/4 level per game session, and at the end of each session you choose one perk/feature from the level you're advancing toward).

I mention it because it'd be interesting to see 5E take a cue from those design innovations. They address some common complaints, like the 1-encounter-adventuring-day.

 

[Dausuul]

Has anyone tried actually playing a high-level (15+) blaster mage in 5E? I'd be interested to hear how it plays.

But as long as we're doing theorycraft... consider a high-level Knight fighter, with a 20 Strength and a +3 greatsword. With a +14 to attack, we'll say the fighter hits on a 3 or better. Three attacks for 2d6+8, hitting 90% of the time, with crits, results in average damage output of 41.025 per round. Twice per combat, the fighter gets an action surge that spikes that damage output to 95.55. This seems pretty comparable to what the mage is doing with blasting magic (if the mage is going full strength).

Now, to the question of "Why would you fireball instead of haste or slow?" Well, the benefits of slow are situational; it does little good against monsters with ranged attacks, or if the fighter is just going to charge in and engage the foe in melee anyhow. Haste only grants one extra attack per round to one combatant, so you're looking at 13.675 extra damage, to one target, per round. A fireball against four foes who save 25% of the time averages 73.5 damage total, which is more than five rounds' worth of haste. That's a pretty strong contender in my book. A lot of 5E combats don't last that long.

(True, the fireball can't focus fire. But what's the benefit of focused fire? It lets you drop a target right away. Well, haste can't do that either! Waiting for the damage to dribble out over several rounds is just as bad as splitting it over several targets.)

And even if you do conclude that haste or slow is a better choice--fine. You cast it on the first round. Then what? You going to just twiddle your thumbs the rest of the fight? Both spells require concentration. You can't double up on them, or stack them with other buffs and debuffs. Time to break out the bat guano.

 

[keterys]

Played one in the first 1-20 packet they made available, and it was pretty effective. Only DMed up through 10th, but can confirm the wizard and druid were both blasting away quite well.

I will say - I wouldn't expect folks to worry much about 15th+ level in 5e. Folks mostly haven't in almost any edition to date.