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!".
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!".
Last edited:
