D&D (2024) Fireball is a C Tier Spell

[GrimCo]

Fireball is magical equivalent of mortar. Decent range and area burst damage. Paired with Spell sniper feat ( double range, ignore half and 3/4 cover) is nasty against grouped enemies in warfare scenario.

 

[Horwath]

Fireball is magical equivalent of mortar. Decent range and area burst damage. Paired with Spell sniper feat ( double range, ignore half and 3/4 cover) is nasty against grouped enemies in warfare scenario.

spell sniper does not work on fireball

 

[GrimCo]

spell sniper does not work on fireball

You're right. Haven't used that one in long time, forgot it's only for spells that require attack roll. Thx But rest of it still stands. It's magic mortar and if you use it as that, it's solid.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

What it's actually saying is, "Because DMs don't actually throw hordes of enemies at the party, that will make fireball 'C-tier.'"

There is an encounter with 24 vegipigmies in Expedition to the Barrier Peaks (Infinite Staircase). Just made to be fireballed. But outside redone 1st edition adventures, I tend to avoid large numbers of weak enemies, since they slow the game down and rarely pose a real threat.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There is an encounter with 24 vegipigmies in Expedition to the Barrier Peaks (Infinite Staircase). Just made to be fireballed. But outside redone 1st edition adventures, I tend to avoid large numbers of weak enemies, since they slow the game down and rarely pose a real threat.

Wasn't that the whole point of 5e's design, though? To make large numbers of weak enemies specifically a usable threat? If it's failed to do that, whether because they aren't a threat or because they're too annoying to actually use, it would seem to be a pretty significant admission either way.

 

[Maxperson]

28 average damage save for half. Let's say you roll exceptionally well 36 damage. Doesn't change the math that much.

But bit but what if I hit 10 targets!!! thats 280 damage save for half. In real games how often does that actually happen? In official adventures it's rare to unheard of. Even then it's generally at higher levels. Levels where anything a fireball is actually a threat to will get curb stomped anyway.

And yet when I say that high stats don't matter much in 5e, I constantly get told that a couple of extra points due to a 16 or 18 prime stat instead of a 14 are huuuuuuuge.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

For years I have thought fireball is an over rated spells. But Zard you drunken kiwi how dare you say that. The designers even said it's overpowered!!!.

1. They made that comment years ago.
2. Most of the other damage dealing spells are D tier.

So why is it C tier? This implies it's situational at best. I'm arguing that's exactly what it is.

Generally fireball is better the more targets it can hit. And they're not fire resistant. And you can do it without nuking the party. Even in Baldurs Gate 3 with bonus action black hole we rarely use it.

The last time it was a good spell was 3.5. I would rate it as B tier there. Remember those broken 3.5 meta builds built around fireball and the warmage? No neither do I. It was B+ in 3.0 and A tier in 2E.

So why is it mediocre most of the time? 5E hit point inflation. Generally 5E critters have double to triple the HP of a 1E to 3.5 monster. Your 8d6 Fireball is the equivalent of a 8th level caster. That in effect deals 3d6 or 4d6 damage and in extreme cases it's 2d6.

Consider a 5E ogre has 59 hit points. A gladiator has 112, a Mage 40. In 5.5 they buffed the mage to 81 hit points.

28 average damage save for half. Let's say you roll exceptionally well 36 damage. Doesn't change the math that much.

But bit but what if I hit 10 targets!!! thats 280 damage save for half. In real games how often does that actually happen? In official adventures it's rare to unheard of. Even then it's generally at higher levels. Levels where anything a fireball is actually a threat to will get curb stomped anyway.

This is why damage dealing spells in 5E basically suck without some sort of rider effect outside of specific situations. Even in those situations you may be better off casting something else.

The final nail in the coffin is 5.5 changes to classes. A low level barbarian berzerker hits for 5d6+modifiers in damage. Dual Wielding Rangers and Paladins can pump out the damage. Fighters are just good. Sorcerers get innate sorcery and can pick up hex easily. Spells such as command, tashas hideous laughter, Chromatic Orb got buffed and one can abuse emanations even without cheesing them. More forced movement as well.

All this added up is why I consider fireball is now a C tier spell. The required situations to make it B or A tier are so few and far between it makes it extremely situational. It's a bit better for the DM and scarier for the players since they mostly have 3E era of hit points or similar to it.

The spell is resting on faded glory and PC fear of getting hit by it often at low level since CR3 and 4 critter can pack it and some CR 2 ones have level 3 spells so a DM special might include it.

You forgot the first rule of white rooming. Leave out context and nuance

There is a lot of this an analyses. The ones that really kill me are the ones that expect you to ignore rules to make the observation true.

Fireball is fine. It’s good. I select and prepare it most of the time if k have it. Don’t always use it or have the opportunity to do so. It does fine as area damage.

I agree it’s a bit less since the days of less hit point bloat where someone rolls hit points and may/may not have a con bonus.

Overpowered though? Sometimes in a big outdoor fight it’s bananas. Against a lone figure close to your party? Eh. It’s just fine sometimes.

 

[Maxperson]

Didn't we cover this discussion on fireball weeks ago in another thread?!?

I believe that was furball, it's feline cousin.

 

[Maxperson]

Wasn't that the whole point of 5e's design, though? To make large numbers of weak enemies specifically a usable threat? If it's failed to do that, whether because they aren't a threat or because they're too annoying to actually use, it would seem to be a pretty significant admission either way.

In theory, yes. In practice I rarely see it happen. It's boring for DMs to keep using the same low level monsters over and over again. And it's boring to players to keep fighting more of the same, but more of them!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In theory, yes. In practice I rarely see it happen. It's boring for DMs to keep using the same low level monsters over and over again. And it's boring to players to keep fighting more of the same, but more of them!

So...

We're stuck with monsters that barely change, but getting none of the alleged benefits of reusing monsters in large numbers as the design intended?