D&D is NOT Kobolds surviving Fireball

[Shadeydm]

I think the 4E default assumption that "level 1" kobolds have 24 hitpoints might be a large part of the problem lol.

 

[AngryMojo]

I think the 4E default assumption that "level 1" kobolds have 24 hitpoints might be a large part of the problem lol.

I think part of the problem is also in the gap between "Level 1" and "kobold." We haven't been in the days where a humanoid followed the precise rules for monsters in a long time, even in 3.X you'd have to specify "Level 1 kobold warrior." People keep referring to a "standard" kobold when it hasn't existed for over a decade.

 

[Shadeydm]

I think part of the problem is also in the gap between "Level 1" and "kobold." We haven't been in the days where a humanoid followed the precise rules for monsters in a long time, even in 3.X you'd have to specify "Level 1 kobold warrior." People keep referring to a "standard" kobold when it hasn't existed for over a decade.

You are of course free to dismiss the problem as old however if 5E is going to be one edition to rule them all then its an issue that will need to be looked at.

 

[the Jester]

I prefer the position: "A fireball should almost certainly kill most kobolds."

I see no need for a fireball to kill the legendary kobold thief Slydodger, though.

 

[Shadeydm]

since you mention 3.x in contrast to what the 4E MM describes as a level 1 kobold with 24 hitpoints the 3.5 MM's kobold entry is 1HD 4hp so again the 24 hitpoint kobold is largely a 4E issue.

 

[satori01]

A Couple points.

As to not having the "Right Frame of Refrence...Donny!" on the history of D&D.....I am 38 years old, and have been playing D&D sice I was about 6; rightly, wrongly, strictly by the rules as written, in every edition from basic to 4E....and frankly probably every edition to come next.


I have no interest in edition wars because there is always Another Edition.
If there is no edition beyond D&D Next, then I want D&D Next to be as good as possible because I am going to play it.


I love 4E monsters...what they became at least at the end. There were a lot of years of inflight tinkering on 4E monsters...but Monster Vault can hold its head up high in the pantheon of D&D monster books. Perhaps even higher than my prior generic monster compendium favorite, the 1993 2E AD&D Monstrous Manual.


That is gone now.


Scaling is an issue, but one could obviously point out.


1E/2E Fireball was probably too powerful, being relevant at very high level. This is in general true for Magic in general, and The Forgotten Realms in particular.


3E like most attack spells, Fireball fades into non use. The spell DC just keep up with the monsters. The damage progression was still d/6 per level, now with a cap on dice. With the increase of monster HP in 3E, the spell is designed to fade into non use. It quickly becomes apparent it is better to use the slot to buff the warrior to do some Power Attack/ Great Cleave , or Whirlwind attack, crowd control than cast Fireball.


The Attack spells that remain relevant at high level having factors that minimize being subject to AC, (Ranged Touch Attack), Spell Resistance (Conjuration School and the Orb Line), Did Not Allow for a Saving Throw, or attack ability scores (Con Drain), or the ability circumvent HP in general (Drown).....you know the Druid Spell list with Spell Compendium.


4E: The trend for Damage Dice expression is retained. Flaming Spehere takes its Greatest Form ever in the history of the game. The trend though is status effect and denying the enemy his actions, and or subverting them is more beneficial. Fireball is pathetically presented in this game, as the 7th level Enounter power after it is nearly as good.


You can account for the variance. I think it is a factual statement to say a Fireball from 1-3E would have a reasonable chance to kill a basic Orc out of the monter index outright. The exact details differ, but the general statement is true.


More specifically I will say this, I think a Fireball should do 30/15 damage. I think the save DC, should escalate to keep the spell relevant at high levels.
The spell should also have some status factor, a minor ongoing , easy to put out Fire damage and a knockdown effect.




I think your G.I Issue should start at 30 HP.

 

[GreyICE]

Minions don't work for me. Maybe if I were playing Feng Shui, they might, but they're too cinematic to fit in with the simulationist parts of D&D for me. Another part of it is that I've seen this scenario play out too often:

Player: That's a natural 20 ... and I've confirmed.
DM: Okay, they're dead.
Player: (rolling) So let's see that 12d6 + 12, 22, 42, 67 points of damage. Oh, and they're evil outsiders so I do another 2d8. (rolls) 74 points of damage. So how much did I kill them by?

First time I met a minion, I got deprived of my right to roll damage for my magic missile. The wording in that sentence should show how I felt about the matter.

Man, I can feel the simulation. Adding up dice and then asking how much they killed the enemy by, just like ancient romans used to do when fighting barbarians.

What I liked was critting, rolling two dice, and getting two 1s. Man that was good. "I hit you in a vital spot for... minimal damage!"

 

[Doug McCrae]

Fireball... for when you absolutely, positively, got to kill every monster in the room.

 

[AngryMojo]

You are of course free to dismiss the problem as old however if 5E is going to be one edition to rule them all then its an issue that will need to be looked at.

Which is a large reason why I'm a big advocate for a sliding scale of lethality. Introducing a module to make monsters and PC's more or less durable depending on taste will help the game "feel" like what D&D "should" be to more people. That way those who prefer early editions can have kobolds be nothing but kobolds that die quickly and in droves, while those who prefer customizing monsters can have their varied grab-bag of kobold skirmishers, minions, warriors and rogues that cause a more intricate combat encounter. It's a simple enough introduction that can accomplish a variety of playstyles.

All of said playstyles are D&D, none should be discounted.

 

[Shadeydm]

Which is a large reason why I'm a big advocate for a sliding scale of lethality. Introducing a module to make monsters and PC's more or less durable depending on taste will help the game "feel" like what D&D "should" be to more people. That way those who prefer early editions can have kobolds be nothing but kobolds that die quickly and in droves, while those who prefer customizing monsters can have their varied grab-bag of kobold skirmishers, minions, warriors and rogues that cause a more intricate combat encounter. It's a simple enough introduction that can accomplish a variety of playstyles.

All of said playstyles are D&D, none should be discounted.

The million dollar question then is what will the default assumption be.