When the abilities and spells of Chainmail's wizards were translated into the terms of OD&D, there were inevitably going to changes and alterations, big and small. In the case of fireball, these changes included a slightly larger burst radius and damage that increases with the level of its caster or, as Men & Magic explains it, "A 6th level Magic-User throws a 6-die missile, a 7th a 7-die missile, and so on." These changes explain, I suspect, why fireball became the iconic D&D spell and the one that nearly every magic-user hoped to learn as soon as they were of sufficient level to do so. Taken together, the fireball of OD&D and all subsequent TSR versions of the game is one of only a handful of spells whose damage-dealing potential has no upper limit. Coupled with its large area of effect and easy reach for most characters – a magic-user only needs to be 5th-level (20,000 XP) to potentially acquire it – fireball is a must-have spell when it comes to damage-dealing.
Spend enough time in online D&D circles and the subject of the relative power of fighters versus magic-users will inevitably come up. This is one of those perennial topics that simply will not die, because, unlike many such topics, I think there's some substance to it. Fighters, even when equipped with potent magic weaponry, can never dish out as much damage as can even a fairly low-level magic-user. Over the years, various solutions have been proposed, such as weapon specialization in AD&D, but none of them has met with universal acceptance – quite the opposite, in fact.
That's why I've lately been thinking about either eliminating or modifying spells whose damage-dealing effects increase with the level of their caster. If you look at the original spell list from Volume 1 of OD&D, both fireball and lightning bolt are odd men out, mechanically speaking. Most of the game's "offensive" spells, like sleep, cloudkill, or disintegrate do not become more effective as the caster rises in level. Any variability they have in terms of damage or overall effectiveness is usually independent of level (there are exceptions). That feels right to me somehow and offers a better model to emulate in rethinking spells in OD&D and similar games.
On the other hand, simply removing fireball, lightning bolt, and comparable spells might be simpler. This is what Lamentations of the Flame Princess did long ago. Many of that retroclone's deviations from OD&D were introduced specifically to strengthen the fighter's role as the most potent combatant and damage-dealer, which is a worthy goal. Furthermore, by eliminating and/or weakening the number and scope of magical damage dealing, this approach carves out a different role for the magic-user, that of a seeker after knowledge and controller of the environment. It's a far cry from the role people now tend to associate with D&D magic-users, but is that necessarily a bad thing? It's closer to the pulp fantasy conception of sorcerers and wizards than to the cartoonish, video game-y vision of them flinging fireballs and hurling lightning bolts.
I don't know. I'm still thinking about this, especially in light of my evolving thinking about magic in Secrets of sha-Arthan. I'd love to hear readers' thoughts on the subject, especially from those of you have regularly play fighters and/or magic-users. How do you perceive their relative strengths when it comes to damage-dealing or do you make changes to rebalance things?
My thing about removing fireball is that it feels like something wizards *would* create. Some alternative magic collections like Wonder & Wickedness allow a MU to burn a prepared spell to cast a blast of elemental magic (2d6 dmg) which seems like a nice compensation.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you could change it to "Flame Geyzers" and X creature with in range take 3d6 damage from a flame jet emerging from the ground; requires floor to be earth, sand, or stone.
I do like that lightning blot is a straight line and has bounce back which I at least feel like gives some pause and consideration.
I think that one of the keys to controlling fireball/lightning bolt usage is to rigorously implement the rules for the spells and insist on item saving throws.
ReplyDeleteThrowing fireballs underground becomes much less attractive if the party are likely to be caught in the blast; throwing fireballs anywhere becomes less attractive if everything of value is destroyed.
Agree! Also, rigorously following the AD&D rules for "Chance to Learn Each Listed Spell" (PHB p.10) and "Acquisition of Magic-User Spells" (DMG p.39) helps tremendously as well.
DeleteFrankly, one greatly underappreciated benefit of AD&D 1e is that it might be the most playtested rule set ever. In truth, most issues a DM encounters are addressed right in the PHB or the DMG. Whether you agree with how it's handled, or can even find it, is another matter!
This, coupled with the fact that not every MU will find or be able to learn those spells keeps them sufficiently in check. They mostly seem to be a problem for rules-lax DMs. This includes those allowing overpowered character creation rules.
DeleteAbsolutely agree
DeleteRe the physics of fireballs in narrow corridors - it was fun watching the players, especially of poorly armoured non-fighters, trying to maximise how far their characters could run while the DM was calculating the volume of a fireball tossed into a smallish room. Though the party survived we spent the rest of the session feeling very vulnerable.
Delete-krhysd
Agree with the above - 1e ad&d had most of the problem handled. However, the laziness of dms and players - and growing fad that DM should be Nice (tm) - had won out. 3e retained nothing of those rules, while osr guys tend to just skip the actually effective solution as "too heavy-handed" or "not Nice"... ;(
DeleteWill look with interest if anybody actually proposes a solution working for lazy dms... ;)
Mike
Actually Fireball predates Chainmail, it came from Leonard Patt's obscure wargaming rules https://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-precursor-to-chainmail-fantasy.html
ReplyDeleteI did see a house-rule someone used, wherein a Fighter always added their level to any damage they dealt. (Intended as a simplification of multiple attacks, but I think it certainly helps make them more powerful.) I also like using AD&D's hit dice, just to help the Fighter out.
ReplyDeleteWould have the opposite effect.
DeleteMike
As written, Fire Ball and Lightning Bolt do similar damage, on average, as a sub-adult or adult dragon. A possible fix I’ve considered would be to make the damage equal to 1d6 + caster level in hit points. This way, a 5th level M-U would do 6 - 11 hit points of damage. This would still be enough to automatically kill all “normal types” like in Chainmail (anything less than a Hero). It’s also similar to the 2d6 of damage a giant does which feels more reasonable. Fire Balls and Lightning Bolts from wands would do 1d6 + 6 damage and those from staves would do 1d6 + 8.
ReplyDeleteThis is just such a flawed argument, and ignores the rules of more than half of D&D's existence - a ratio that's only going to get worse as time passes. Several editions of the game put caps on damage dealing spells based on the spell itself, which ended the days 20d6 fireballs - even an archmage could only eke 10d6 out of your basic fireball or lightning bolt, and as you grew beyond 10th level where the spell's cap kicked in dealing an average of 35 (17 with save) damage just got less and less impressive. The current 5e version fireball does a flat 8d6 regardless of caster level, and allows you to use a higher level level spell slot to boost that by 1d6 per slot level above three - which is a dreadful exchange. HP bloat makes 28/14 average damage even less impressive than it would have been in earlier editions to boot. Variable spell damage has been "fixed" multiple times in multiple ways even going back to TSR's run, and it'll probably be fiddled with further until they address the real issue better - the disparity in weapon versus spell damage scaling.
ReplyDeleteThe latter (real) problem finally got a fairly decent fix in 13th Age, although it's not perfect and is meant to scale with damage/HP numbers closer to 4e D&D than anything so you need to do some real work to adapt it to fragile older edition norms. In 13th Age, weapon damage scales up the same way variable spells traditionally have. First level fighter with a broadsword does 1d8 before any adds from magic or strength. 2nd level does 2d8, 3rd level does 3d8, etc. The game caps out at 10th in first edition, so 10d8 or 10d10 is about max weapon damage per swing. Spells are more complex than I care to explain (the SRD is free online anyway) but generally produce slightly inferior damage to the best weapons, albeit with the advantage of either targeting multiple foes or having better rider effects or both - or slightly more damage for ones with very limited usage, since 13A uses the at-will/encounter/daily use framework of 4e for magic.
13th Age's approach has its flaws in execution. There isn't enough differentiation in weapon damage between classes IMO, and it might have been better to have slower damage progression over more levels. It's still the best attempt at achieving some degree of parity between weapon and caster classes I've seen in nearly fifty years of people trying, and ought to the starting point for any D&D-like system patch, not repeating the failed attempts of years past. Level-scaling weapon damage also makes fights between two high-level weapon users into something tense where every hit actually matters rather than the godawful slog of chipping off HP a die or two at a time.
Spellcasters have always been the biggest cause of rules problems in D&D.
ReplyDeleteNearly everyone hates it (and I get why many do) but 4e pretty much solved all these problems with spellcasters as well as Fighters who suck without magic items- 2 issues I've absolutely hated since I started playing in 77. In my stripped down for ToTM 4E games, fighters ruled the battlefield, and in my O/TSR games I bulk them up so that it makes the magic item "weapons race" mostly a non issue.
I've no issue removing spells or placing them at higher levels. When 5e came out, I removed revivify immediately.
Of course spellcaster players are going to whine, but oh well. I'm up front with the type of game I'm running.
I highly recommend you adopt the ACKS "Fighter Cleaves" rule for your sha-Arthan warrior types. I've been running with them for over 6 years, and will never not use them, even if I'm playing otherwise RAW BX or even AD&D.
ReplyDeleteThe current version of D&D handles this well I think - Fireball starts at 3rd Level, but if you want to do more damage, you have to use a higher level-dedicated spell slot to fire it. You can cast a massive 9th Level Fireball if you want, but there goes your 9th Level spell slot, hope you didn’t plan to cast Wish today. It isn’t perfect but it at least makes high damage-dealing a matter of resource management and player choice.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I guess I wonder personally what makes you think massive damage spells are a problem that needs solving? You say it is because the are “must-have” spells, but that’s an issue all over AD&D/OD&D for sure. When I played it, most Magic-User’s 1st Level spells were taken up by Magic Missile, otherwise you pretty much didn’t get to contribute anything. Similarly, woe be to the Cleric player who didn’t fill out his 1st Level slots with Cure Light Wounds, or his fellow players would whine that they needed healing, not more purified food and drink. If you open this particular door, I’m afraid you will find it to be a Pandora’s Box that will lead to having to rebuild the spell lists from the ground up, because I imagine removing these particular spells will only lead to different ones taking their place as “must-haves”.
Bth your examples of other "must-haves" are just wrong. Mm is a niche spell with the only advantage being an auto-hit. At early levels, Sleep was much better, and at high ones it's damage was mostly negligible anyway. And as a priest, I was always playing up the saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" , so almost never memorized Cures except 2 Lights for emergencies. Worked well. Other players saw light after some time of this. ;)) Honestly, 1-2e ad&d priests were spoiled for choice in good spells...
DeleteMike
How about implementing components as a limitation? Could change the dynamic if your wizard can only cast that nuke once or twice before having to scrounge for the materials required to cast it again. Granted, a ball of bat poop and sulphur isn't all that hard to come by, but you could always change it to something more rare.
ReplyDeleteExactly. Fireball also had cheap and easy components. So, again, was a no-brainer.
DeleteMike
While I didn't really pay attention back in the day, yes, fire ball and lightning bolt both seem very unbalanced, with fire ball being the worst offender. I'd point out that OA restricts the damage that the wu jen can dish out through eliminating fire ball and lighting bolt entirely and replacing them with other damage dealing spells that are more limited in their power, range, effect area or all three.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that adds to the unbalance that I think isn't addressed in any of the early game editions is the mismatch between the average damage of FB & LB (3.5hp/lvl) versus the average hp of the MU (2.5hp/lvl for BX and 1e and roughly that for 0e). This means that a 5th level MU FB or LB would cause an average of 17.5hp of damage, enough to reliably kill an average 7th level MU in 1e & BX and a 9th level MU in Oe. This means that no higher level magic user would ever have an apprentice higher than 4th level and any magic user teaching another magic user either spell would be daft. That's how I've played it in the last couple of years - any MU who knows either spell is not teaching anybody else, not writing scrolls, not making wands and is spending a lot of time and energy hiding their spell books.
Ways I've considered constraining their power:
1 - Upping the levels from 3 to 4(LB) or 5(FB), but that is unpopular with players as they then want other spells jiggled about. Easiest way to deal with this is to increase the number of magic missiles to 1/3 levels (1/3/6/9).
Rigorously enforcing the volume requirement for fire ball thereby creating potential TPK situations if it is used incautiously (almost anywhere inside a dungeon in fact).
2 - Deleting the spells entirely and then replacing them with spells based upon dragon's breath weapons. Each "dragon" spell mimics the breath weapon (range, shape, effects) and is worth 1d6 damage per MU level up to a maximum of the dragon's HD (eg: 7d6 for a black dragon). These spells are levelled as follows: white & black 3rd; green & blue 4th; red 5th. It reduces the power of the magic user a bit, but in BX at least gives them a bit more flavour in that I like to describe the casting of a spell as a disembodied head of a dragon appearing in front of the casting MU and then breathing. I also think that it adds a bit of Gygaxian Naturalism in that it ties magic user attack power to other sources of attack power within the game.
3 - Import the wu jen damage dealing spells. I've not tried this yet but I do like the wu jen spell list for its quirkiness.
I've never had a problem with Magic Users being more powerful in specific situations. Especially if you use the rules on disrupting magic before its cast, destroying treasure, bounce back, and other complications.
ReplyDeleteThe fighter is versatile and always on. Sure the MU when it cast a spell like sleep or fireball it has a huge impact, but most rounds of combat they are cowering in the back saving there spells.
This. Also, most spells do change in effectiveness with level in AD&D.
DeleteI don't want to sidetrack the discussion from "what do you do with a problem like fireball," but I do, and instead address the underlying issue of the martial/caster divide. Yes it exists, and so what? The upper limits of the marital classes can be compensated for by magical weapons. One might say "but martials should not need magical weapons!" and to that I present Thor with Mjolnir, Elric with Stormbringer, He-Man and his Power Sword, Luke and his Lightsaber, Arthur with Excalibur, and GI Joe with a machine gun. Every iconic martial hero has a corresponding magic weapon (sometimes intelligent). Be it magic or technology, unless you're wielding raw magic, you do it through an augmented weapon. It's time we just admit that, and as GMs, facilitate the character arc to acquire it. Otherwise, we just turn martials into superheroes who wouldn't need a weapon to begin with.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this. To extrapolate somewhat, this is the issue that TV Tropes calls “Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards”. A fighter-type (say, Episode 4 Han Solo) starts much more durable and effective than a mystical-type (Episode 4 Luke). Han is built for survival, so no one is surprised he does. Luke isn’t, and when he does we are delighted to find the equation flips. By Episode 6, Han isn’t a whole lot different, but Luke is a magical laser god. He evolved quadratically. A well-placed hit could probably still take him out, but good luck getting there. Han can still tank it out, but he isn’t going against Vader. The game balances on a long enough timeline, which James has always said is the intention of D&D campaigns - to be long-runners.
DeleteYah, and Thor is your typical fighter. Thanks, you need to say nothing more. %)
DeleteMike
In my Majestic Fantasy Rules, I use individual initiative and fighters get to add their to-hit bonus to their 1d6 initiative die in addition to their dex bonus.
ReplyDeleteThis means fighters nearly always go first. I made other changes but this was one of the earliest and every player who played the fighter liked it, liked it a lot. Everybody felt it made sense given the role fighters had.
You may want to take a look again at the combat section for my Basic Rules for the Majestic Fantasy RPG for other ideas on this issue. This, the criticals I use, removing the 1 HD cap on attacking multiple hit dice, combat stunts all make MW fighters far more effective without sacrificing the classic OD&D feel.
Just some random thoughts here, which I seem to be unable to put into a coherent thing right now :
ReplyDeleteIn D&D 5e, fireball can increase the damages it deals as you can upcast it using a higher-level spell slot than it normally is (3th level spell slot), but with a limit of using a 9th level spell slot (as your character is never meant to increase it's level beyond 20th level). That might address your point of an 'ever increasing' amount of damage the spell can cause.
Also in 5e, I have been told that 'fire damage' is the type of damage that is most often 'resisted' by monsters/creatures, resulting in the fact that the amount of damage the spell does to those type of creatures is halve of the amount you rolled with the dice. Which again puts some limits on the amount of damage the fireball spell does.
Not sure about other offensive (defensive ?) spells (again, 5e), but even a 'battlefield control' spell like 'web' which can not be upcast, still increases it's effectiveness as you level up as it is still based on other character stats, namely: your spell save DC, which is partly based on your spellcasting ability modifier (INT for a wizard) + your proficiency bonus (which increase as you level up, but both have upper limits). (PS: 'sleep', 'cloudkill' and 'disintegrate' can all be upcast in 5e, but again no higher than a 9th level spell slot).
And you cannot 'endlessly' keep casting the spell, as it uses up the resource of the limited amount of spell slots you have available (or at least, until your next rest).
Lastly, the wizard has (far) less hit points than a fighter, which sort of turns it into a 'glass canon': they might be able to deal more damage (not sure), but also die quicker/easier.
Not sure what it is that I'm trying to say here. Sorry.
Hrm. Thinking about it some more, perhaps the ramblings above from me amount to something like this:
Delete- 'Fireball' as such seemingly does not have to be an issue per se (see above ramblings).
- Other spells also increase in effectiveness as you level up (but do not seem to warrant a similar 'dousing' post).
- Also (but not from me), the 'fireball in confined spaces' that other mentioned might further limit the occasions on which fireball can meaningfully be cast, depending on how you rule it.
Not sure if that either clarifies or further obfuscates what I was trying to say earlier. Oh, well.
The problem as stated was about fb. And it was exactly because it was a no-brainer for a long time.
DeleteMike
The problem you describe, James, is because of most everybody cheating during character generation. 3d6 in order is the only way to go. That is the only way to avoid stat inflation and/or deformation. If one's intelligence score is generated in any way other than a purely random roll of 3d6, then the advanced D&D Players Handbook's "chance to know" chart for spells gets gutted. But if your magic-user has a 12 intelligence (which is far, far more likely and realistic than virtually all magic-users having intelligence scores of 15+ or even 17+), then such a magic-user would have a mere 45% chance of knowing fireball. A magic-user with a 9 intelligence has only a 35% chance. If you roll ability scores right, then these down-stream problems will never rear their ugly heads.
ReplyDeleteAll true – except that AD&D's default way of generating ability scores isn't 3d6 in order. but 4d6 arranged to taste.
DeleteWell, 4d6 arranged to taste is nothing more than one of four "recommended" "alternatives" given on page 11 of the DMG. Alternatives to what? To the tried and true 3d6 in order. I respectfully decline Gary's recommendations when it comes to ability score generation (whether in the DMG or in UA). 3d6 in order is what I'd stick with in your FRPG, James, and I'd leave the poor, inoffensive fireball alone. :)
DeleteI think you're underestimating the odds of getting at least a 13+ in one attribute. Using a straight roll 3d6, more than 1 in 5 PCs will have Intelligence of 13 or more. Most will have at least one ability score of 13+. 15+ would be rarer but you'll still have close to 1 in 10 PCs rolling 15 or better for Int and a much higher percentage among PC Magic Users.
DeleteIf Intelligence is very important for Magic Users then you'd expect most Magic Users to be PCs who rolled well for Intelligence - likely above 12.
I'd expect this to be true for the game world as well. Whether by nature or nurture, people are unlikely to pursue demanding professions while lacking talent. Admittedly, extreme scores might be rarer in the general population than among PCs but even if only 10% of people have Int 13+ most Magic Users would be likely to have 13+ Int.
I like that the little brown books have almost no damage spells and lots of save or die (or charm, etc) type effects.
ReplyDeleteFighting men engage the hit point mechanic.
Magic users have a limited number of save or die/sleep/charm/hold/disintegrate effects that bypass armor and hit points. It’s a totally different feel.
As such, I strive to maintain this feel. Fire hall and lightning bolt have a save for zero damage mechanic in my game, are more likely than not going to catch friendly party members in the effect if in a confined areas.
It’s a difficult to use save or die effect.
And no one has access to every spell and no one can memorize duplicates of any spell.
Saving throws matter.
"almost no" means that everyone and their dog wants to get ones which are present. So, an opposite effect than what you propose. Saw by myself as a company of people accustomed to oDD started to fireball _less_ as they switched to ADD where other useful spells exist at the 3 level.
DeleteMike
Fireball has a time honored tradition in swords & sorcery from the first. Tsotha-lanti cast a fireball (as a fiery flashing orb) at Conan in "The Scarlet Citadel;" Natohk used a fire dust to take out the charge of an entire army in "Black Colossus;" and the masters of the Black Seers sent a series of fireballs at Conan and his men in "The People of the Black Circle."
ReplyDeleteEveryone targeted by a fireball died, except for Conan... The hero!
Yes but the time honored tradition in S&S is that fireball is only used by the evil sorcerer NPC, not the heroes. :)
DeleteNo. T-L casted a single -target, paralizing effect. Which is also described as something he literally pulled out of his sleeve so can be just an alchemical concoction. ;))
DeleteAnd "series" is clearly not that at all. Don't remember Colossus, but from your description it looks more like some high-area, low-damage effect more similar to Incendiary Cloud or something like that.
Mike
Fireballs and lightning bolts in confined spaces are risky for the caster's party and any flammable treasures/terrain (rope bridge!). For me the trick is not to view the spells in isolation but rather in an adventuring context.
ReplyDeleteFireball is perfect for elite NPC villains but in the hands of players tend to turn magic users into the glass cannons. I prefer to remove this type of bazooka spells and simply allow the magic user the ability to expend all their slots in a final burst for dramatic potential --Effect: 1d6 damage for each 1 level slot expended so a third level wizard would have 8 slots total at full power (8d6 damage). No Saving Throw or Saving Throw reduces on 1/4 damage. Such a final blast expenditure would cost the Wizard either one spell slot or 1d6 permanent hit point loss up to their level (depending on your cruelty as DM). Leave in Lightning Bolt / Firebolt / Cold bolt but keep it on the same level as Fighter attacks (just allow it to ignore armor and at higher level bend around obstacles and to radiate to strike an extra opponent or three.) Sincerely, JD
ReplyDeleteNah, a wizard is gonna wizard. By definition they have crazy magic powers. How is a guy with a sword going to compete with that? Change fireball to fit the vibe or theme of the world or type of game you and your players want if that's your jam but don't do it for balance. Personally I like the idea of a good old school wizard who can level a small town with a thought but who could also be taken out with a few arrows. Practically, as a DM I rarely just give PCs fireball, they have to seek it out.
ReplyDelete>
Delete> "Personally I like the idea of a good old school wizard who can level a small town with a thought but who could also be taken out with a few arrows."
>
This, exactly. This is the tradeoff for me. You might do a lot of damage, but you also die easily.
In addition to slowing their adoption, making powerful spells harder to get is a great adventure opportunity.
DeleteThe wizard wants to find a fireball spell? Maybe the fire mages of would know it and allow the wizard access to it in return for a service?
That's two adventure plotlines right there.
The original Chainmail rules defined fireball as equivalent to a catapult. The catapult rules, in turn, required the player to state the range of fire before placing the disk that determined which units the catapult killed, with an optional rule of throwing two dice to determine how many inches the weapon over or under shot (the mechanics of the dice throw used a very oddball, very Gygaxian method). The same applied to lightning bolts - the player was supposed to call the range (in scale inches) ahead of time. I gather they weren't allowed to use a ruler for this - making it a test of player skill.
ReplyDeleteSo, in Chainmail, the extreme power of the spells was balanced by inaccuracy. The spells were supposed to be loose cannons, extremely lethal to anyone in the area of effect, but liable to miss completely, or to fry allies instead of/in addition to enemies.
The rule about calling range carried over into D&D, but it lost its force because D&D was not a game played with minis on a sandtable.
If you are finding fireball too powerful, then maybe bring back the originally intended "loose cannon" aspect of them - have the caster roll two dice and judge how far off target the spell detonated by how many pips away the total is from seven. Six = 10' short. 12 = 50' overshoot. Adjust the numbers for on-target (maybe 6-8 is on target instead of just 7) and/or the number of feet over/under per pip to get a degree of unpredictability that feels right. (ignore the dice mechanic detailed in Chainmail, it's obtuse and gets the probabilities backwards).
(credit for all this is to Delta's D&D hotspot blog, which covered the originally intended fireball mechanics several years ago)
This is definitely more in line with the quintessential cinematic spellcaster of the '70s: Tim the Sorcerer. Point at a distant target and blow it up, with fire for effect. Then laugh as half the party gets eaten by a killer rabbit.
DeleteI never minded fireball that much in my AD&D campaigns. It was actually nice that the MU could clear out a few rooms (at the risk to any treasure within) during an expedition. But we always valued the fighters (and then there was my answer to spell casters - I had a statue that had 1000 hit points, and would reflect ANY spell used to try and attack or affect it, and it got worse... But fighters were key to defeating it).
ReplyDeleteBut the collateral damage to equipment and familiars from area damage did always bother me some.
In the end, I appreciate how fireball is handled in my college friend's system, Cold Iron. In Cold Iron, a fireball (or lightning bolt or cold ball) is a single target spell. It does do 1 die of damage per level, but each die costs a magic point, so you don't toss too many of them. Higher levels of the spell do larger dice (starting at 1d4 per magic point and ending at 1d12 per magic point). You have to roll a too hit (fireball does get +5...). It gets used, but it isn't the automatic win of D&D's fireball.
It's just a different spell with a similar -sounding name. Not a solution to the problem as presented. At least, no more than saying "just ban it".
DeleteMike
No, making it single target is in between no change and ban.
DeleteAnother option I've seen in some clones is to cap the damage at 5d6.
Fighters, even when equipped with potent magic weaponry, can never dish out as much damage as can even a fairly low-level magic-user.
ReplyDeleteMaybe not in a single attack, but consider that the fighter can keep chopping with his sword all day long, while the magic-user is severely limited in how many spells he can memorize.
My own personal opinion is that the actual problem is that of having a no-brainer in the game. And while fb is probably the most obvious one, various editions had also other candidates.
ReplyDeleteThe problem itself is twofold: 1 - one option is very strong; 2 - a lack of other good options. To illustrate, the 2nd one without the 1st actually plagued dd mage spells at level 2: none were particularly good.
And as noted by many above, there were significant number of nerfs to fb in various editions. Some of them even work. ;)) What should be understood, though, is that fb doesn't exist in isolation - and as with any game balance changes, a work is needed from dm which probably would include also significant changes to other parts of the game (one thing I hate in 3e is that they didn't consider that at all resuling in a system full of no-brainers!).
From my experience with other game systems I can't fail to notice that many don't seem to have that problem: WHRP has a fb, but it's significantly weaker (affects d3 targets per caster level and damage is not that big - but remember that in WHRP there's no hp inflation, so even high-level characters still can fall to it); in Shadowrun it can be strong if high-level mage invests in it, but as the game has firearms and grenades...; Ars Magica has its Ball of Abyssal Flame, but it's mainly used by Flambeux mages due to their ... tendencies, as the game is about exploration more than combat, and most sane people prefer to have problem-solving options; in Earthdawn it's mainly a matter of the opponents' Spell Defence anyway so difficult opponents are as much or more difficult for "mages" as for "fighters", though some workarounds exist and it's more of whether you find them in a specific case. Plus, swordslingers in ED get to do some crazy stuff too - something that dd authors tried to add in 5e to some degree of success. As I hope this helps to illustrate, elements of a system work together, and a 'fix' for fireball which would be as no-brainer as the spell itself is probably an unreachable goal. ;)
Probably less work would be needed with just switching a system, even if all the others also have their weak points .. ;))
Mike