D&D 1E Fireball throughout the ages

[Quartz]

The hp bloat is exactly why damage spells should've scaled with caster's levels. Having a cap is understandable but yet...

While the HPs of monsters have indeed bloated, the HPs of PCs have not until you get to 'name' levels. Wizards doget an extra 1 HP per level; big whoop.

There's nothing stopping you reducing the HP of a monster or making it Vulnerable to fire damage.

 

[Quartz]

I seem to remember in a earlier edition (might not have been D&D at all) that fireballs area was depended on the level of the caster so you could tell the possible level of the fireball caster by the area it effected. Anyone else remember anything like this?

Are you thinking of 3E's Fire Storm?

 

[tetrasodium]

Right back at ya: realism has every place in the game where it's possible and-or practical to include it.

Ranged weapon ranges seems very much like such a case; so might as well get 'em right.

It's much more than that. See my post here going into detail about how bloated the effective range is in 5e or @JeffB's here about hunting with modern bows & how people are confusing how effective a deployment of archers en masse against a clustered line of infantry with something it never was. Your own "might as well get em right" in favor of using realism for absurd ranges breaks down on its own because they were never used like they are used in 5e & there is tangible problems caused by those ranges once you no longer have battlemat borders constraining the party's willingness to abuse those insane ranges.

 

[cbwjm]

Now this is really bugging me and I need to find where I read that or if Im misremembering. Not to prove a point or say anyone else is wrong but more for my own peace of mind. I feel like I lost my car keys. I seem to also recall flaming sphere being cited in the response to differentiate between the types of magical flames/fire.

Apparently Skip Williams wrote sage advice from 1987 to 2004. Quite a date range to look through.

 

[R_J_K75]

Apparently Skip Williams wrote sage advice from 1987 to 2004. Quite a date range to look through.

I only own so many these days. Though its fun reading and skimming the ones I do. For instance, as the questioner wrote to Skip, "There's a huge debate raging on the TSR Internet message boards (some 40 posts in all) over the wall of force spell...). LMAO, apparently in 1999 (40) posts constituted a huge raging debate. Kidding aside though I'd forgotten how much the game has changed in the last 20+ years. I only have about 10 issues left so hopefully its in one of those.

 

[cbwjm]

I only own so many these days. Though its fun reading and skimming the ones I do. For instance, as the questioner wrote to Skip, "There's a huge debate raging on the TSR Internet message boards (some 40 posts in all) over the wall of force spell...). LMAO, apparently in 1999 (40) posts constituted a huge raging debate. Kidding aside though I'd forgotten how much the game has changed in the last 20+ years. I only have about 10 issues left so hopefully its in one of those.

One of the things I love about reading the old dragon magazines is seeing how edition changes have always been somewhat fractious among the fan base. I recall letters to the editor from people complaining about the changes from the upcoming 2nd edition. Imagine the outcry (perhaps even more than 40 posts) if the internet had existed back then!

 

[Helldritch]

Mmmm... Bows have always been the nightmare of military commanders. Be it Alexander the great, Gengis Khan, Ceasar, Anibal and a lot of others. Many treaties were written on how to counter bows. The main answer to bow was the cavalry. The answer to cavalry was rows of pike infantry which was countered by close quarter infantry which was countered by bows... Bows were used on battlements and beside siege weapons they were the main stopper for an invading force.

Bows were effective up to the creation of gun powder and even then, it took quite a lot of time for firearms to remove bows from the battlefield entirely. The bow had less range but a higher rate of fire than the primitive firearms. Only the invention of the colt and the rifle did turned the tide of battle toward firearms (and they spelled the death of hand to hand infantry too).

What I'll give you is the fact that many see the longbow as a god send weapon. Most longbow were impractical outside battlefields. The most used bow was relatively short with a range of about 40 to 60 feet for a precise shot. Bows of the Huns (Attila fans anyone?) were relatively short (made of composite materials, thus the composite bow that had a higher range) and could be shot from horse back. They wrecked havoc on conventional troops in Asia, Eurasia and Europe. This is where the Longbow appeared (well, a warbow should be closer to the truth) culminating with the English Longbow (which was composite too, depending on the source material you read) at the battle of Hasting?

Edit: Added a few explanations and corrected a few sentences and errors.

 

[R_J_K75]

One of the things I love about reading the old dragon magazines is seeing how edition changes have always been somewhat fractious among the fan base. I recall letters to the editor from people complaining about the changes from the upcoming 2nd edition. Imagine the outcry (perhaps even more than 40 posts) if the internet had existed back then!

I get a kick out of the people who write in asking the stupidest questions, like how many hit points does a fighter get? I came across some articles which I only skimmed regarding people anticipating or responding to the announcement of 3E. When was 3E announced, 1998, was it in Dragon? Regardless a lot of those sounded like the "What If" 6E threads.

EDIT: Just found it. 3E was officially announced in "the Wyrms Turn" Sept 1999.

 

[Garthanos]

The 4e damage numbers on that fireball by the way let's just call it deceptive the out of the box ordinary wizard who isn't specializing in fire magic is still getting significant enhancement. Subsequently both attributes and magic items enhance it without any real effort put directly into enhancing it by end game just including those you can expect effectively another 10 worth and that is barely a starting point. There are so many ways via feats and magic items and paragon paths to enhance your fire power so to speak, They are sometimes tactically distinct like increasing the size for a minor damage decrease or another conversely that if you only hit one enemy you can increase the damage. Another if you precede an attack by another fire attack the subsequent ones get a boost and so on.
Not all though some are always on like one that allows you to penetrate resistance, and you can even sometimes burn things immune to fire when you get badass enough. These are all cheap feats ie you get a lot and can customize the feel of how you work your flame (or how much you use those feats for other things)

 

[Helldritch]

Strange, I've always seen the 4ed Fireball as a way to kill minions. Nothing else.