D&D 5E Fireball vs Flame Strike

[overgeeked]

So I was looking at Fireball and Flame strike having the following:

FIREBALL
- 3rd level Invocation
- 1 action
- Range: 150ft
- Damage: 8d6 fire damage
- AOE: 20ft radius sphere
- extra effect: ignites flammable objects

FLAME STRIKE
- 5th level Invocation
- 1 action
- Range: 60ft
- Damage: 4d6 fire damage + 4d6 radiant damage = 8d6
- AOE: 10ft radius x 40ft high cyclinder
- No extra: ignites flammable objects (Not specified)

I am comparing a default 3rd level spell vs 5th level spell. I was hoping the latter to be more powerful/effective. Besides the difference in AOE and range (fireball has farther range). Damage wise, they have a total of 8d6 of damage.

My question is with a 5th level spell slot, under usual combat conditions, why would I cast Flame strike over Fireball? I'd rather cast fireball at the 5th level slot, adding 2d6 of fire damage.

Why would flame strike be classified as a 5th level spell and fireball a 3rd level spell? Is it just because of the radiant damage it provides? Am I missing something?

Considering radiant damage. Is radiant damage that useful? So far in combat, we haven't had any situations needing radiant damage to gain advantage.

Some monsters may only be vulnerable to radiant damage but still that's very situation specific.

Fireball and Lightning Bolt were intentionally overtuned. A 3rd-level spell should be 6d6 if it's AoE. A 5th-level spell should be 8d6 if it's AoE.

 

[ECMO3]

So I was looking at Fireball and Flame strike having the following:

FIREBALL
- 3rd level Invocation
- 1 action
- Range: 150ft
- Damage: 8d6 fire damage
- AOE: 20ft radius sphere
- extra effect: ignites flammable objects

FLAME STRIKE
- 5th level Invocation
- 1 action
- Range: 60ft
- Damage: 4d6 fire damage + 4d6 radiant damage = 8d6
- AOE: 10ft radius x 40ft high cyclinder
- No extra: ignites flammable objects (Not specified)

I am comparing a default 3rd level spell vs 5th level spell. I was hoping the latter to be more powerful/effective. Besides the difference in AOE and range (fireball has farther range). Damage wise, they have a total of 8d6 of damage.

My question is with a 5th level spell slot, under usual combat conditions, why would I cast Flame strike over Fireball? I'd rather cast fireball at the 5th level slot, adding 2d6 of fire damage.

Why would flame strike be classified as a 5th level spell and fireball a 3rd level spell? Is it just because of the radiant damage it provides? Am I missing something?

Considering radiant damage. Is radiant damage that useful? So far in combat, we haven't had any situations needing radiant damage to gain advantage.

Some monsters may only be vulnerable to radiant damage but still that's very situation specific.

Radiant damage is better and smaller AOE is not always worse.

If the two spells were the same level I would say Flamestrike is the better spell, but in general fireball is a better bargain as a 3rd level spell than flamestrike is as a 5th level spell and a 5th level fireball will do more damage than a flamestrike assuming the enemuy is not resistant. Flamesttrike can be very helpful when battling creatures that regenerate unless hit with Radiant damage (vampires, some fiends) and is of course better against anything with resistance to fire.

 

[Charlaquin]

Friendly reminder to check the date on a post before responding to it.

 

[Asisreo]

The radiant damage would be very useful against the necromancy of this thread.

 

[Dragonsbane]

We changed Flame Strike to all radiant damage. Radiant does more in my game to undead. Solved!

 

[Dragonsbane]

Friendly reminder to check the date on a post before responding to it.

Why? Can't an old post be interesting and relevant? Is this another forum rule?

 

[Zardnaar]

More so now than 6 years ago when they wrote that, anyway.

Spirit Guardians in 5th level slot.

 

[John R Davis]

Harder to counterspell a 5th level

 

[Dausuul]

Why? Can't an old post be interesting and relevant? Is this another forum rule?

It's not a rule, and old posts can certainly be relevant. But anyone replying out of a desire to help the OP should be aware that the character is almost certainly long since retired or dead.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's not a rule, and old posts can certainly be relevant. But anyone replying out of a desire to help the OP should be aware that the character is almost certainly long since retired or dead.

This