At this point you are claiming that LFQW is a thing in 5e because wizards and sorcerers aren't relegated to firing a crossbow most rounds and SR backed by dice has been replaced by "the gm says no actually it decides to save" legendary resistance.. tracking mundane components wasn't a significant thing even in 2e. Also dont forget that noncasters lost a lot of their own significant hurdles... like all of them.ni longer split move and attack phases no longer penalties on iterative attacks no longer really worry about flanking and facing no longer worry about things like ACP no longer even need to care what damage type a weapon is as long as it's a "magic" version of the largest damage die they can use on and on.
Simply being allowed to exist in some limbo that is at best llame heart adjacent does not cause lfqw. jJst because it looks like gains were made only for casters when you ignore a ton of stuff made for noncasters along with the design elements presented in 5e itself does not either...
I’m not sure how anyone can argue that wizards are quadratic any more.
The single biggest impact - spells scaling in damage by level - eg magic missile, fireball, cone of cold etc - at the same time as wizards get more spell slots was the single main reason they were quadratic.
5e has also dramatically reduced the 6+ spell level slots. So wizards were hit from both sides.
Concentration, like it or hate it, was the other big game changer.
You’re right that spell components where never a big thing for most tables. Though I discovered that the material cost for identify was back for 5e and which was a shock. So yes 5E spell component pouches and focuses have not turned wizards quadratic again.
Dude. Don't change history. You said you can ALWAYS (you even bolded it) get at least two creatures. There are dozens of situations where you either can't, or won't (due to the collateral damage). They come up all the time.And thus saying ALWAYS, with bolded text, was not the right play.I've been played for 40 years.
The core issues around lightning bolt and fireball have been tweaked between editions, but their general shape and placing them has been a pretty consistent underlying issue.
Yes, these have existed for editions. Which doesn't support anyone's point.
LB was actually quite different in earlier ones in that it rebounded off walls so in enclosed spaces and therefore mroe likely for there not to be a shot that would avoid allies. So LB has definitely not been consistent in how applicable it is over the editions, and basing an argument that with a foundation that won't support it.
And I have to tell you that DM encounter design, DM play style, and party cooperation are the three largest factors in how effective those spells are. It can open the door to make them massive killers, or they can both be hard to use. When the wizard can't get to the front ranks, and can only lightning bolt enemies if they are willing to include the front ranks.... well, that can be tough.
And I say that while it can vary on those factors, you still will find that LB is more applicable than FB across general play. Both statements can and are true. Almost every combat has melee combatants on at least one side. Once your party members are intermixed it is very hard to use FB and still avoid all allies. LB has an easier time with it.
Stop trying to make absolute statements about LB, when the discussion is LB vs. FB.
This is a good example of where fireball is easier to intermingle than lightning bolt. I see this pattern a lot.
W - - - F O - - - -
- - - C O O - - - A
- - D O O - - - A -
- - - R - - - - - -
The party have lapped around the initial orc advance so make a lightning bolt harder. Whereas a fireball can chip in and take out all but one of the orcs. Sure the wizard can flank around the sides to try and get the line but then they are fully exposed. You don’t put your artillery where they can be easily taken out.
I actually like lightning bolt a lot, because unlike fireball, with the right positioning it can be used mid-combat at close quarters without incinerating your allies. If you're an evoker wizard, fireball is way better. But for other casters, it can be a more usable spell.
My wizard found Lightning Bolt in an enemy spell book and scribed it into his spellbook thinking it wouldn't be used much. But I've found I agree with your view - it comes up more often than fireball, because the situations I can use it in are more frequent. If I were an evoker it would be different, but as a divininer, I use this more than fireball. I also think people get way too caught up in a gird and don't look for ways to use it better. Just because it's a straight line doesn't mean it has to line up going exactly north-south or east-west. You cast it any line you want from your space, and if it overlaps half a square (at least) then it hits that square. You can get a lot with it.
I think lightning bolt only works in a few scenarios when the enemy lines up. It's so rarely effective, I've never seen it used in 5E. An evoker might be able to use it occasionally, but they would still probably get more use out of a fireball. Maybe it's just because the games I play aren't typical "dungeons" and many take place either in towns where neither lightning bolt or fireball is practical or in more open terrain where fireball simply works better.
I've thought about tweaking it - have it start at a range and allow forked bolts. But even then, not sure it's enough. Maybe make it d8s instead of d6s?
Nope, but that would just slow the rate of decay when upcasting if it did Casters are still left with so many other awful spells that are bad even before they get worse by upcasting those that upcasting these two is made to look like a "good" option by virtue of being better than truly abhorrent options though.
Also people crowing about how lightning bolt is "easier" to aim are vastly overestimating things
The pink line would take 40 ft of movement so is a nonoption unless he caster is a tabaxi or something but more importantly is that it will lock the caster in a situation where next round of combat they need to disengage to escape melee range. The red line looks slightly better with only 30ft needed but the idea of getting pinned back there with the lich while boxed in is rarely a good idea for casters even with 5e's loldeadly scaling of deadpool like PC durability. The yellow line is totally doable & doesn't trap them in melee at risk of an aoo/consumed disengage but I guess I'll look up a lich now?... resistance to cold lightning & necrotic, legendary resistance... guess it only hits one target.... oops
There are plenty of other ways the opponents could be arranged) around the martials who have higher at willdamage, burst damage, likely better armor, & maybe better hp than the caster except after the first lightning bolt snags two or more baddies it's trivial for the opponent s to jjust maneuver so it could take a significant amount of movement to line them up again if that's even possible to do without catching the caster's buddy in the blast. Ease of targeting support for lightning bolt needs to consider the fact that lightning bolt is a 120ft line from the caster who has a normal speed rather than a 120ft line between two convenient hypothetical points or a caster with unlimited speed. @jgsugden mentioned a bunch of them here
You're doing the "it has to travel north-south or east-west perfectly along a grid line" thing. Which I understand is how PCs tend to move by having to occupy a specific square, but it's not how spells work on a grid. For spells, it just needs to hit part of a square to impact that square, not all of that square. So the spellcaster can fairly easily hit two of the primary targets and the guy in the back, with not much movement. This was confirmed in Xanathar's by the way. There are entire videos on this topic.
You're doing the "it has to travel north-south or east-west perfectly along a grid line" thing. Which I understand is how PCs move, but it's not how spells work on a grid. For spells, it just needs to hit part of a square to impact that square, not all of that square. So the spellcaster can fairly easily hit two of the primary targets and the guy in the back, with not much movement. This was confirmed in Xanathar's by the way. There are entire videos on this topic.
"Primary targets"? "Has to travel along grid line thibg"?What are you talking about? The wights are lined up in a row so anything that hits the lot of them needs to put the caster in line with them, I even made a pretty combat gridded vtt illustration. Tge big guys with swords facing the same baddies as the caster or the dashing guy in a Cape who os obviously not a lich or ghast but I didn't think needed to be called out explicitly as allies. The yellow path would trivially put the caster in a square to zap a ghast and the lich vtt one of those two is lightning resistant and has legendary resistance to get a save fail and simply declare it saves. I guess the wizard could easily add a third target by blasting bob the fighter too but that's not really helpful
QUOTE="TheSword, post: 8252555, member: 6879661"]
I’m not sure how anyone can argue that wizards are quadratic any more.
The single biggest impact - spells scaling in damage by level - eg magic missile, fireball, cone of cold etc - at the same time as wizards get more spell slots was the single main reason they were quadratic.
5e has also dramatically reduced the 6+ spell level slots. So wizards where hit from both sides.
Concentration, like it or hate it, was the other big game changer.
You’re right that spell components where never a big thing for most tables. Though I discovered that the material cost for identify was back for 5e and which was a shock. So yes 5E spell component pouches and focuses have not turned wizards quadratic again.
[/QUOTE]
Frustratingly enough wotc still seems to be designing as if it was both a thing and rampantly unchecked. The lack of free scaling and impact of concentration is why every single concentration spell in 5eneeds to be unquestionably top shelf rather than getting written like its trying not to be too strong when scaled like 3.5 would. When you toss on the damage disparity it lays bare how obviously far from the mark that so many spells are and suddenly includes stuff like concentration web
I’m not sure how anyone can argue that wizards are quadratic any more.
The single biggest impact - spells scaling in damage by level - eg magic missile, fireball, cone of cold etc - at the same time as wizards get more spell slots was the single main reason they were quadratic.
5e has also dramatically reduced the 6+ spell level slots. So wizards were hit from both sides.
Concentration, like it or hate it, was the other big game changer.
You’re right that spell components where never a big thing for most tables. Though I discovered that the material cost for identify was back for 5e and which was a shock. So yes 5E spell component pouches and focuses have not turned wizards quadratic again.
It's not about damage, it's about effectiveness and being able to affect the world around you.
Wizards get spells that completely change the way groups adventure and their effectiveness in doing so.
Take just one example, Leomund's Tiny hut. It eliminates much of the danger of camping in a foreign environment.
Or take teleport (or teleportation circle), the nature of the game changes once the spell comes online. And it does so on the wizard's schedule.
As for the threads actual topic? Lightning bolt is harder to use than fireball.
I like an earlier suggestion of allowing the caster to slightly alter it's course during casting. Allowing you to hit targets withing 5 feet of the original line.
The single biggest impact - spells scaling in damage by level - eg magic missile, fireball, cone of cold etc - at the same time as wizards get more spell slots was the single main reason they were quadratic.
I disagree, damage/level was an issue with pre-4e QW, but a significantly secondary one. More significant was the escalation of options and powers.
Linear fighters as a class got to attack more incrementally and build up more hp per level but not really do new things at high levels.
Spellcasters increased their options and powers and power as they increased levels. They gained flexibility. A fighter can attack a giant's AC for damage against its big pile of hp. A wizard can throw a spell targeting a giant's AC or its weak wisdom save or another saving throw. A wizard can throw a spell for damage or a save for other effect spell (save or suck). Spells can target an area and multiple targets. A prepared spellcaster can target a weakness of an opponent while a warrior can do their normal attack. A spellcaster can do non attack abilities like prepare defenses to resist expected dragon fire attacks, or mobility things like climbing, levitating, flying, teleporting. A wizard can do environment control like create walls or barriers. A spellcaster can summon a creature as a bodyguard to suck up attacks/extra attacker/use special abilities the PCs don't/creature to do things so the PCs don't.
These dynamics remain in 5e.
Concentration and reduced spell slots and lower damage spells reduce the quadratic disparity of spellcasters, they did not eliminate them. If you want flexibility in power options you still go with a spellcaster in 5e.
