Fireball pellets direct hits?

[Plane Sailing]

Considering how fireballs are somewhat less powerful than they used to be - (they are still iconic wizard spells, but with the hp boost that most monsters have now, they are less dangerous) - and considering how the fireball pellet explodes if it hits anything on the way to its intended target...

Does anyone see anything wrong with allowing a wizard to make a ranged touch attack to attempt to shoot a particular person with the fireball, thus giving the potential of a critical hit - this kind of "pellet ranged touch" attack could potentially score a 20/x2 critical (yay! straight into its mouth!)

An additional possibility (probably going to far though) is to say that if you directly hit a target you deny them their reflex save (since most arcane spells which you have to roll to hit don't allow a save... flame arrow and disintegrate are the only exceptions I can think of, and Flame Arrow is the *only* one that gives a reflex save too).

The former at least is an interesting possibility, no?

Cheers

 

[Henrix]

Fireball is a rather good third levels spell as it is, I would not want to make it any more powerful.

Oh, and this is one for the house rules department.

 

[hong]

The question is really what happens if you miss on the attack roll. Presumably the fireball still has to explode somewhere. You could say that it just goes poof harmlessly (like any other missed attack), but that's pretty anticlimactic for D&D's signature spell....

Perhaps 1/2 damage on a missed roll, or scattering like a grenade-like attack would be appropriate. I've got no idea if this would still be balanced.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I disagree Henrix. After all, it is one of the basic rules that the pellet explodes into a fireball if it hits something before reaching the target, and that wizards have to make "attack rolls" to shoot through small arrow slits (for instance). Why not allow them to make an attack roll to aim at a particular person ?

Hong... I would expect the fireball would still explode at the range desired by the wizard, as per normal - since I don't expect wizards to give range and azimuth when firing I would allow them to state explosion range just beyond the target... if they missed the target, it would explode just behind them like normal, normal saves and everything.

- at present, I've not seen fireballs being feared as spells any more. Even by the time they are maximised or empowered everyones hit points are way beyond the level where they are threatened. I also see Fireball being taken less often than Haste, Fly and Dispel magic now! It is in danger of losing its iconic status! hurry, rally round now!
</hyperbole>

Cheers

 

[drnuncheon]

I wouldn't worry about fireball losing its iconic spell status. It is still one of the best spells for clearing away mooks - which ought to be the prime purpose of an area effet spell in my book - it's just lost some of its potential vs. a single target. The same spell shouldn't be best at both single-target and area effect - that makes it too good, and eliminates any kind of tactical decisionmaking in your spell choice.

J

 

[kreynolds]

I disagree Henrix.

With what? Fireball isn't a good third level spell? It would be too powerful? What you propose is not, in fact, a house rule?

Every spellcaster I've ever run with, or had in one of my games, has fireball on his or her spell list, and if not, they have scrolls or a wand.

 

[Plane Sailing]

My apologies, I was lazy and didn't quote the bit I was disagreeing with

Oh, and this is one for the house rules department.

While I admit that my proposals might qualify as house rules (although I normally go for bigger stuff like rewriting whole systems ) the central premise is, I think, interesting enough to discuss here - the fact that the pellet is aimable, and that it detonates if it hits a material body (PH p204). If you can make a ranged touch attack to "hit" an arrow slit, why not to hit a particular target? and thus the possibility of a crit...

I hope you might agree the line between standard rules and "house rules" might be a bit blurry here.

 

[Metalsmith]

I hope you might agree the line between standard rules and "house rules" might be a bit blurry here.

Nope, not blurry at all.

It wasn't a question on how existing rules worked, It was a suggestion about changing a spell.
House Rules is definitely the place for it.

Metalsmith (I'm playing with my smilies)

 

[dcollins]

The rule is that "a spell that requires an attack roll" can score a critical hit on that attack roll (PH p. 123). Fireball does not "require" a hit roll to function. In fact, lightning bolt, which is almost entirely analagous to fireball, is the specific example of a spell that cannot score a critical hit.

Furthermore, all those spells which do require an attack roll, and can score criticals, are single-target spells only (shocking grasp, melf's acid arrow, any ray, etc.). They function by slashing into a particular target -- exactly the opposite of an area-effect spell which blossoms in a damaging area. Allowing this would be very much counter to the theme of the core rules in this regard.

You can't create criticals for spells just because you announce that want to roll for for an attack with a spell that doesn't function that way.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Nope, not blurry at all.

In that case I feel a little sorry for you

Do you want me to start another thread with exactly the same basic issue stated with no possible solutions given?

i.e. "The PHB says that if the fireball pellet impacts a material body before reaching its destination, it explodes prematurely. There are also clearly circumstances when a wizard is able to aim a fireball pellet via a ranged touch attack (I gave the PHB page number above if anyone cares to check it, for completeness). What kind of ruling would you give if a PC wanted to aim at a particular person?"

BTW, dcollins, thanks for the section you checked up - I would maintain that the issue remains blurry here. The lightning bolt (as with cone of cold, ice storm, etc) can NEVER be aimed as a ranged touch attack, so they clearly can never gain crits. The general case at the top of that section is "when you make an attack roll and get a natural 20..." Melfs, shocking grasp (and others) must use an attack roll, lightning bolt (& others) cannot use an attack roll, but the fireball pellet is in the unique situation that while it normally doesn't use an attack roll, there are some circumstances when it can... I don't think that the word "requires" was meant in the literal legal sense of the word to specifically exclude the fireball pellet. If it was, then fireball would be the example which they used rather than lightning bolt.

BTW - I didn't want to litter this with smilies, but I don't really have an axe to grind here... I just find it interesting talking about/thinking about these things. I only mention this because a couple of threads recently have self-destructed rather horribly, and that's the last thing I'd like to happen here. I do hope that my language in the paragraph above can't be taken offensively.

Cheers