D&D 5E AoE vs. Single-Target Spells

[ro]

Quantifying AoE vs. Single Target spells

I am trying to compare spells for damage output. Spells vary from being single target to small area of effect to large area of effect. Also, effect areas can vary in shape.

In theory, a big AoE spell like Fireball can hit a whole bunch of enemies, but realistically, many encounters don't have such a plethora of conveniently located minions to maximize the AoE's benefits.

How would you estimate the value of an AoE spell relative to its effective area or radius and the corresponding number of enemies likely to be targetable in the average encounter?

 

[Ganymede81]

Well, we know that adding targets to an AoE has diminishing returns. That's pretty easy to model as long as you're willing to quantify an estimate for the value of adding a target (say each additional target is worth 4/5 the last).

You could do it with a logarithmic equation.

 

[Tony Vargas]

How would you estimate the value of an AoE spell relative to its effective area or radius and the corresponding number of enemies likely to be targetable in the average encounter?

A simpler, but still useful, statistic might be to calculate the number of enemies you have to catch in your AoE for it to match the total damage of the single-target spell you're comparing it to...

 

[FrogReaver]

Quantifying AoE vs. Single Target spells

I am trying to compare spells for damage output. Spells vary from being single target to small area of effect to large area of effect. Also, effect areas can vary in shape.

In theory, a big AoE spell like Fireball can hit a whole bunch of enemies, but realistically, many encounters don't have such a plethora of conveniently located minions to maximize the AoE's benefits.

How would you estimate the value of an AoE spell relative to its effective area or radius and the corresponding number of enemies likely to be targetable in the average encounter?

What I'd do is to complicated

 

[Tormyr]

You can also also use the area of effect calculations in the DMG on page 249. I calculate spell damage by that when figuring out the CR of spellcasters, but I also consider all targets to have made their saving throw to offset being able to hit that many targets in the radius. As an example, the spheres are calculated to hit radius / 5. A fireball is radius 20. It hits 4 creatures under this calculation. 28 damage times 4 targets / 2 for making their saving throws in 56 damage.

Alternately, you can follow the CR building rules for dragon's breath weapons. That says to calculate for two targets regardless of area and consider them all to have failed the saving throw. This gives 28 damage * 2 creatures = 56 damage for the fireball.

 

[Satyrn]

Well, we know that adding targets to an AoE has diminishing returns. That's pretty easy to model as long as you're willing to quantify an estimate for the value of adding a target (say each additional target is worth 4/5 the last).

You could do it with a logarithmic equation.

I really couldn't.



But getting accused of being smart is a nice change, so thank you.

 

[jaelis]

There is no simple answer. If you are fighting ten rats with 4 hp each, an AoE spell that averages 6 damage is going to be more effective than a single target spell that averages 60 damage.

If you are fighting 10 ogres with 40 hp each, a single-target spell that does 60 damage will be more effective than an AoE doing 6 damage.

The point being that what spell is better depends totally on what you are fighting (and in general, on what kind of fights you commonly encounter).

 

[FrogReaver]

Quantifying AoE vs. Single Target spells

I am trying to compare spells for damage output. Spells vary from being single target to small area of effect to large area of effect. Also, effect areas can vary in shape.

In theory, a big AoE spell like Fireball can hit a whole bunch of enemies, but realistically, many encounters don't have such a plethora of conveniently located minions to maximize the AoE's benefits.

How would you estimate the value of an AoE spell relative to its effective area or radius and the corresponding number of enemies likely to be targetable in the average encounter?

Even if we could perfectly average how many monsters an aoe would hit the most we could do is tell you how much total damage that aoe is doing on average.

However, as others have noted comparing total aoe damage to total single target damage isn't really very useful information because the game doesn't measure success in the amount of total damage you dealt. Instead success is typically measured in defeating your enemies and in many cases a lower total single target damage will help defeat enemies more than a higher total aoe damage.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The point being that what spell is better depends totally on what you are fighting (and in general, on what kind of fights you commonly encounter).

So knowing either sort of spell is powerful, but being able to cast both sorts of spells, choosing between them spontaneously as optimally fits the situation at that moment, is even more powerful.

 

[Xeviat]

The DMG sets the AOE damage at 75% of single target damage, and I think this works reasonably for the majority of situations. If a fight was 1 on 2, and the solo character had the option of using single target or aoe, and the foes were identical, then 75% breaks even in the amount of attacks made against you if single target hits took about 4 to drop an opponent. I was playing with this in 4E. 5E's math is likely different.

But we have Damage spells in the PHB that deal damage equivalent to single target spells, like fireball. I think this is because you have to take extra efforts to avoid allies?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk