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

[Horwath]

I already let my players do some damage swaps for thematic reasons.

I would do that for any elemental spell, but each variation of elements must be separate spell known/prepared.

I.E:
if you want to have fireball, acidball and frostball, that is 3 spell know/preparation slots used.
and it cannot be changed at will

 

[mellored]

I would do that for any elemental spell, but each variation of elements must be separate spell known/prepared.

I.E:
if you want to have fireball, acidball and frostball, that is 3 spell know/preparation slots used.
and it cannot be changed at will

Right, but I go a bit further.

If your swapping to acid, you get acid. An acid sorcerer doesn't get to keep lighting bolt. (Maybe a storm theme can do thunder and lighting).

Cantrips can still be non-acid.

I want to encourage thematic characters, but not just swapping fire for acid because it's less resisted.

 

[Horwath]

I want to encourage thematic characters, but not just swapping fire for acid because it's less resisted.

this is general problem.

it should be similar number of resistance/immunity/vulnerability of all damage types for each tier of play.

 

[Zardnaar]

this is general problem.

it should be similar number of resistance/immunity/vulnerability of all damage types for each tier of play.

Dragon Sorcerers can do it.

So if you want to throw an acid ballbe one of term. Otherwise research new versions eg acid ball at d4 or 4th level. Or be a dragon sorcerer.

I'm thinking about an acidic dragon sorcerer 5.5. Last 3 dragon Sorcerers I've seen are lightning. Good enough abd you save yourself a meta magic slot.

Ew chromatic orb can probably do it as well for good 3rd level sell but you'll need another AoE spell for those situations you need a fireball.

Any dragon sorcerer take the usual suspects eh shield plus blindness, hold person, twin spell, maybe tashas via feat.

 

[Staffan]

As a general rule, I would like to see more differentiation between various elements/energy types, not less. I don't want to see "lightning ball" or "acid ball" that are just reskinned versions of fireball. Lightning bolt is a perfectly cromulent spell, because lightning should come in bolts, not explosive balls. I'd also like to see them have more rider effects. Cold spells could reduce movement and perhaps make the target vulnerable to bludgeoning damage for a round (synergy!). Fire should do the most direct damage, and maybe minor ongoing damage. Acid should have major ongoing damage. Lightning could do action denial, from the reaction removal you get with shocking grasp up to maybe stunning at higher levels. Thunder could do pushes. But acid ball? Feh. That's boring.

 

[Zardnaar]

As a general rule, I would like to see more differentiation between various elements/energy types, not less. I don't want to see "lightning ball" or "acid ball" that are just reskinned versions of fireball. Lightning bolt is a perfectly cromulent spell, because lightning should come in bolts, not explosive balls. I'd also like to see them have more rider effects. Cold spells could reduce movement and perhaps make the target vulnerable to bludgeoning damage for a round (synergy!). Fire should do the most direct damage, and maybe minor ongoing damage. Acid should have major ongoing damage. Lightning could do action denial, from the reaction removal you get with shocking grasp up to maybe stunning at higher levels. Thunder could do pushes. But acid ball? Feh. That's boring.

Acid could have a double tap effect.

Acid ball 6d6 damage flunk tge save though 6d6 again next round (or 4d6 whatever).

Older editions we used things like ice storm because of energy resistance. Poison damage wasn't a thing as such for PCs generally and Acid spells were rare.

I don't mind dragon Sorcerers lobbing acid ball as they have to pay to do it and that point could be used for empower or twin spell instead.
New dragon sorcerer does wonders for non fire dragon sorcerer builds.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't think the design intends that monsters continue to be used, but in larger number. The design ALLOWS it, which is different.

Edit: I also think that if you are doing that just so fireball can work, that just proves that fireball doesn't work right.

Considering the designers explicitly said that's what they intended people to do...I don't really accept that.

No, it wasn't.

It was to try and strip back the burdensome and restrictive rules to something looser and more flexible.

I'm more inclined to trust the many, many, many times they said that that's what they were aiming for, over this claim.

Especially since "burdensome and restrictive rules" still absolutely applies to 5e. Just ask anyone who's tried to squeeze a gritty survival story out of it.

If "remove all burdensome and restrictive rules" were actually 5e's core design goal, it has objectively failed.

Kinda.

4e did that with minions. But they ended up with. Boss ogre for lower levels, normal ogre for mid levels, and minion ogre for high levels. Which was pretty awkward.

See, I hear this a lot, but nobody ever actually goes through the numbers to describe what they're talking about in order to show this effect being "awkward."

You can, quite easily, use monsters from level+4 to level-4, a nine-level range, entirely as standard creatures, no need for Solos or anything else. So where, exactly, is the problem here? Because people are already saying that a (roughly) six-level range is normal for a 5e monster...and that's exactly the same as nine levels in 4e.

Minions and Solos just let you expand that range even more. With them, you can have creatures that WOULD be totally impossible for, say, a level 3 party--a Fire Giant, say--act as an actually reasonable threat for a couple levels. Then you use the original non-Solo monster for ~9 levels, if you really feel like it. And then, when they're now genuinely so fragile that the party actually can start dealing with them in only 2-3 hits, you can Minion-ize them (or use the "Mook" rules I've seen, where Minions are one-hit-wonders and Mooks are two-hit-wonders, and make for a clean, smooth progression from Solo as an x4, Elite as an x2, Standard as x1, "Mook" as x1/2, and Minion as x1/4.)

I would also like to note, for the record, that I was not the person who brought 4e into this discussion, and would not have done so myself; I am only responding to someone else bringing it up.

So with 5e they wanted to keep AC and to-hit a lot more restrained. Now a goblin can still stab a level 20 fighter.

Really? Because a CR 1/4 Goblin from the 2014 MM has +4 to hit. I assume you used Fighter as an example of a high-defense character, so I'll be presuming a "tank" character here. Plate is base 18, assume at least a +1 item has been obtained (despite the hatred of magic items from much of the 5e DM community.) Shield is another +2, won't assume a magic item there. Defense is another +1. That's AC 22. Meaning this goblin can only hit on 18-20. Is that really "can still stab a level 20 Fighter" to you? Because if it is, 4e really wasn't that far off mang!

That was the idea.

Better spells exist now eg spirit guardians.

Copious healing as well. Hold your spell heal afterwards if required is better meta approach.

Well. At least someone admits that's the line Wizards fed us during the "Next" playtest.

 

[Maxperson]

Considering the designers explicitly said that's what they intended people to do...I don't really accept that.

I don't remember them saying that. My recollection is that they said they intended people to be able to do that, which is different. If they intended people to just bunch up low CR monsters to challenge high level PCs, we wouldn't have high CR monsters. And the DMG would give that advice. Seems silly to have that be the intent and then not tell 99.99% of the people who play.

 

[mellored]

Really? Because a CR 1/4 Goblin from the 2014 MM has +4 to hit. I assume you used Fighter as an example of a high-defense character, so I'll be presuming a "tank" character here. Plate is base 18, assume at least a +1 item has been obtained (despite the hatred of magic items from much of the 5e DM community.) Shield is another +2, won't assume a magic item there. Defense is another +1. That's AC 22. Meaning this goblin can only hit on 18-20. Is that really "can still stab a level 20 Fighter" to you? Because if it is, 4e really wasn't that far off mang!

It is.
In 4e, it would be more like +6 to hit vs 37 AC wizard. You would get +1 every level, and 4e to level 30.

So 5e goblins hit a max level fighter 300% more. Also each hit does more % or total health.


Note, Pathfinder 2e does the +1 per level scaling. If you want like a bigger power gap between levels.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It is.
In 4e, it would be more like +6 to hit vs 37 AC wizard. You would get +1 every level, and 4e to level 30.

So 5e goblins hit a max level fighter 300% more. Also each hit does more % or total health.


Note, Pathfinder 2e does the +1 per level scaling. If you want like a bigger power gap between levels.

Then you and I have wildly different standards. That goblin is, functionally, a non-entity. It is a minion (it will die if it is hit), that has defenses so crappy, it's effectively impossible not to hit it (+1 weapon, +5 mod, +6 proficiency = +12 bonus,

Also, the HP thing is flatly wrong. Because 5e HP give your Con mod per level, 5e characters end up surpassing even higher-level 4e characters. A 30th level Fighter, even with 22 Con, has 22+15+6x29 = 211. A 20th level 5e Fighter with 20 Con has 15 + 11x19 = 224. So...no, the goblin is actually doing proportionally less HP damage per hit.

Again, people make up all these...white room...comparisons with 4e, ignoring the actual math and structure of it.