D&D (2024) What is the lowest damage Fireball could deal where you would still prep/use it?

[Dausuul]

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]

5d6 maybe with a smaller area

 

[HammerMan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

5d6 maybe with a smaller area

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

 

[Dausuul]

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]

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.

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.

(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