D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Bill Zebub]

Agree about spell accuracy. I've played that it takes an Arcana check, and on a failure the actual epicenter is in a random nearby square.

"Oops....sorry, guys."

 

[Reynard]

If you play the way most DMs I know run it, where wizards can place their AoEs with pinpoint accuracy, then it's not really an issue. Just target above them so you get the rope but not the hangman. As an added bonus, if you don't "shatter" the rope, you might shatter whatever it's tied to (two chances to succeed).

Which is really another realism thing that I see a lot of DMs let spells slide on. Dropping AoEs with perfect accuracy, so that you get all the baddies but your allies are standing just outside it. No roll, just automatically place it exactly. Because magic. Whereas the DM is probably forcing the max strength fighter to roll to see if he can fireman's carry the 90 lb wizard out of danger.

Again, I don't have an issue with it if the DM is imposing the same level of realism on both. It's only when magic gets a pass and martials are bound by realism that I have a problem with it. (No idea if I'd have a problem with the reverse since I've literally never seen it happen.)

Agree about spell accuracy. I've played that it takes an Arcana check, and on a failure the actual epicenter is in a random nearby square.

"Oops....sorry, guys."

I agree in principle but never actually do anything about it in practice. Maybe a spell to hit roll against a 10, say, modified by cover and lighting as usual?

 

[Fanaelialae]

I agree in principle but never actually do anything about it in practice. Maybe a spell to hit roll against a 10, say, modified by cover and lighting as usual?

If I were to do something like this, I'd probably make it a spell attack roll against a DC modified by the distance. Because dropping a fireball on the head of a pin should arguably be more difficult if the pin is 120' away, versus 10'. Maybe DC 10 at 10' + 1 / additional 10'.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I agree in principle but never actually do anything about it in practice. Maybe a spell to hit roll against a 10, say, modified by cover and lighting as usual?

I think it's less about hitting the spot you aim for and more just the difficulty of gauging exact distances. So a "miss" doesn't mean you missed your target, it means you misjudged where you think the center should be.

But, yeah, mechanically maybe it's the same thing.

Edit: and in case that wasn’t clear, what I really care about is not the center but the edge. It’s the whole “I’m going to drop the fireball exactly here, so it hits the maximum number of enemies while missing all my friends.” It’s kind of B.S.

 

[Reynard]

If I were to do something like this, I'd probably make it a spell attack roll against a DC modified by the distance. Because dropping a fireball on the head of a pin should arguably be more difficult if the pin is 120' away, versus 10'. Maybe DC 10 at 10' + 1 / additional 10'.

I think it is better to keep systems consistent. If you are doing attack rolls, treat it like attack rolls. Otherwise use an Arcana check. I certainly wouldn't make it harder to correctly target a spot as big as a person (5 foot square) than it is to actually target a person. a 10 is a pretty high "AC" for an unmoving floor tile. I don't know why you would need to target the fireball at the head of a pin. I mean, D&D areas aren't granular.

in the end it is probably easier to just say the fireball as to target an enemy, then it falls in line with the rest magic. It nerfs it hard that way though (which seems to be what some folks want).

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think it is better to keep systems consistent. If you are doing attack rolls, treat it like attack rolls. Otherwise use an Arcana check. I certainly wouldn't make it harder to correctly target a spot as big as a person (5 foot square) than it is to actually target a person. a 10 is a pretty high "AC" for an unmoving floor tile. I don't know why you would need to target the fireball at the head of a pin. I mean, D&D areas aren't granular.

in the end it is probably easier to just say the fireball as to target an enemy, then it falls in line with the rest magic. It nerfs it hard that way though (which seems to be what some folks want).

I wouldn't make it an Arcana check only because then it becomes a skill tax.

I feel like most people are more leaning towards buffing martials than nerfing casters. Like, I have proposed some nerfs to casters but explicitly under the auspices of "if that's the route you want to go". Which isn't the route I would go.

 

[Bill Zebub]

A fun fireball variant would require a roll to randomly determine radius, with damage being inversely proportional.

Maybe not fun for optimizers, but fun for people who don’t take the game too seriously.

 

[Reynard]

A fun fireball variant would require a roll to randomly determine radius, with damage being inversely proportional.

Maybe not fun for optimizers, but fun for people who don’t take the game too seriously.

That would actually make a great wand!

 

[Undrave]

Which is really another realism thing that I see a lot of DMs let spells slide on. Dropping AoEs with perfect accuracy, so that you get all the baddies but your allies are standing just outside it. No roll, just automatically place it exactly. Because magic. Whereas the DM is probably forcing the max strength fighter to roll to see if he can fireman's carry the 90 lb wizard out of danger.

Or worse, have give them a chance to hit their allies when firing arrows into melee...

If you play the way most DMs I know run it, where wizards can place their AoEs with pinpoint accuracy, then it's not really an issue. Just target above them so you get the rope but not the hangman. As an added bonus, if you don't "shatter" the rope, you might shatter whatever it's tied to (two chances to succeed).

Plasing it higher to hit the branch or post is pretty clever so I'd be up for it.

If I were to do something like this, I'd probably make it a spell attack roll against a DC modified by the distance. Because dropping a fireball on the head of a pin should arguably be more difficult if the pin is 120' away, versus 10'. Maybe DC 10 at 10' + 1 / additional 10'.

We should go back to every offensive action being an attack roll. The you could give spells two ranges like they do with ranged weapons.

 

[Celebrim]

3e Shatter would fail. It actually shatters objects and ropes don't shatter.

3e shatter had multiple modes. It could be used as an area attack against multiple brittle objects, or targetted on a single object regardless of what it was made of. Thus, it could in fact snap a rope.