Dunno if this has been brought up before, but Fireball is in pretty much every way plain better than Lightning Bolt, despite the fact they are the same level. Better range, more flexibility (spread v line), and same damage. Was 2nd Ed lightning Bolt way overpowered or something, and so they nerfed it in 3.0? I think it would be cool if you could "snake" the lightning bolt around stuff, as long as it was in LOS, like a big blue pretzel of dhoom. Thoughts?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
For the longest time, Lightening Bolt's theoretical advantage was that you could bounce it off walls to get the same target set multiple times. Every 1e and 2e gamer dreamed of these scenarios involving hallways of exactly the right length and the caster in exactly the right position to effectively double damage.
And of course, DM's dreamed about having the caster miscalculate and end up with the bolt bouncing back and hitting them as well.
In reality, neither scenario came into play that often, but the later has definitely been more common at my table than the former. Most casters eventually became afraid to use Lightning Bolt due to the risk of miscalculating a bounce and getting fried on the rebound. As a result, the theoretical advantage was mostly theoretical and then removed entirely in 3.5.
That being said, the theoretical advantage of Lightning Bolt remains similar: you can theoretically effect more targets than with Fireball if only you can get them to stand in a line.
In reality, it's not going to happen, and Fireball is more powerful. Of course, it doesn't hurt that Fireball is the gold standard for 3rd level damage spells, and most other spells in that niche pale in comparison.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Well, here's the thing: in 2nd Edition, lightning bolt had additional effects against creatures in metal armor (if I remember correctly). I think that you could also bounce the spell off walls and such (at least I remember it working that way in the Baldur's Gate video games which were supposedly based on 2nd ed. D&D). They removed those effects in 3.0 but the reasons I feel the spells are still balanced are the following:
- More things are resistant or immune to fire than electricity.
- Lightning bolt can often be used effectively against creatures in melee with allies due to its narrow area of effect.
- Lightning bolt is AMAZINGLY more effective to use in narrow corridors for obvious reasons and narrow corridors are something that are frequenly encountered in dungeons and castles.
Lightning bolt is also the clearly superior choice against creatures that are fighting in rank-and-file military structure (though I imagine this formation does not come up often in most games). Sure, fireball is a potent spell and, in most situations, is probably overall more useful than lightning bolt but I feel that they remain in balance despite this fact. Of course, if all your combats take place in wide open fields against tightly-packed groups of orcs, fireball is the clear choice.
|
Well, here's the thing: in 2nd Edition, lightning bolt had additional effects against creatures in metal armor (if I remember correctly).
I don't remember this, but I do remember that item saving throws vs. lightning were insane -- we had more people loose most of their items against a behir than almost any dragon.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Well, here's the thing: in 2nd Edition, lightning bolt had additional effects against creatures in metal armor (if I remember correctly). I think that you could also bounce the spell off walls and such (at least I remember it working that way in the Baldur's Gate video games which were supposedly based on 2nd ed. D&D).
Yeah, I agree w/Moff, there was no save penalty in 1e/2e that I can recall. And many of the spells in BG were tweaked.
I also don't agree re: targeting. The range at which fireball can be cast makes a significant difference. It's not that your foes have to be clustering in a wide open field to make fireball more effective than lightning bolt; it's that your foes have to not be lining up in order for fireball to be better than lightning bolt. And that's not even taking into account the fact that your allies have to be out of your way and you have to be close enough to hit to make lightning bolt's optimal target set work.
As for the benefits of lightning energy damage v. fire energy damage, again, I think that's a wash. Yes, more creatures are resistant to fire, but at the same time, more creatures are vulnerable to fire as compared to electricity.
Fireball's not over-the-top OMG better, but it's definitely better.
So is it just tradition/ damage dice that keep it a 3rd level spell? I think I'd like it better as a 2nd level, d4/level/10d4 cap spell, but that seesm to "break" other sacred tropes about spell too, no?
It it is partially balanced by the fact that more creatures have immunity or resistance to fire than to electricity, which makes Lightning Bolt more effective in some situations. I'm pretty sure that its in the RAW somewhere that Lightning Bolt does more damage against creatures in he water.
The other aspect that bumps lightning bolt up closer (if not equal to) fireball is that there are is an excellent fire based 2nd level spells scorching ray. I've found with a sorcerer that I took lightning bolt for my 1 3rd level blaster spell because I did not want to take yet another fire based damage spell and lightning bolt is at least comparable. Also there are not really that many line type damaging spells around while there are a lot of burst type ones. As a Soercerer I'd probably take ice storm as my 4th level damage spell and that also works in a burst like fireball so lightning bolt - while strictly not as good as fire ball adds versitility.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
So is it just tradition/ damage dice that keep it a 3rd level spell? I think I'd like it better as a 2nd level, d4/level/10d4 cap spell, but that seesm to "break" other sacred tropes about spell too, no?
Tradition and damage dice are certainly major factors in making lightning bolt a 3rd level spell but I think that reducing the damage dice to d4s would still not be enough of an adjustment to warrant reducing it to 2nd level. A 120 ft. line is still a LOT of squares on the battlemat getting hit. Too many for a 2nd level spell, imo. Plus, bear in mind the effect that spell level has on metamagic feats. An enlarged lightning bolt would extend to 180 ft. If you reduced it to a 2nd level spell, this option would be available to a 7th level wizard instead of a 9th level one as it is now. Also, d4 damage dice are exceedingly uncommon for spells. Typically, d4s are only used for 1st level spells (burning hands) or cold spells (which tend to do less damage overall for their level, such as snilloc's snowball swarm or ice dagger).
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So is it just tradition/ damage dice that keep it a 3rd level spell? I think I'd like it better as a 2nd level, d4/level/10d4 cap spell, but that seesm to "break" other sacred tropes about spell too, no?
Others have touched on the issues, but I would also add in that 2nd level spells (i) don't normally have a one die per level progression and (ii) have a lower cap on damage dice (particularly for area effect spells).
Which is not to say that a 2nd level version of lightning bolt can't exist, just that I think it needs more work than the version presented. Lightning Bolt is right in the middle in terms of power for a 3rd level spell. Fireball is slightly on the high end of the curve.
Gotcha. I was never really into 2nd Ed (religious parent, we moved away from my old gaming group, etc) so 3rd brought me back into the hobby, so if I tend to ask fundamental questions, it may be because I never played earlier Eds. Of course, its also my nature to ask fundamental questions, which has made my time in the army rather interesting :)
Looking over the spells again, Chain Lightning seems mor ein line with what I think of as a cool lightning spell. Is the fire resistance thing really that much of a balancing factor? Or is my habit of running classed NPCs vice monster opponent starting to leave serious gaps in my rules knowledge?
|
Bouncing lightning bolts have been mentioned, but another reason in previous editions to use lightning bolts is that fireballs used to expand to fill a volume. While lightning bolt might occasionally bounce back on you, the probability of fireballs expanding to get your entire party was (IME) much higher.
Still, when you could get the expansion to work for you, it could do amazing damage to your enemies (and, it must be said, to their treasure).
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Looking over the spells again, Chain Lightning seems mor ein line with what I think of as a cool lightning spell. Is the fire resistance thing really that much of a balancing factor? Or is my habit of running classed NPCs vice monster opponent starting to leave serious gaps in my rules knowledge?
I don't think it is. For every additional creature that is resistant/immune to fire, there is also an additional creature that is vulnerable to fire (e.g., all creatures with the Cold subtype, trolls, etc.) Now, that being said, if there were a lightning ball spell and a fireball spell, I would choose the lightning ball spell, so there is a power differential, but it's not a significant power differential. It's not like comparing sonic against fire, or even acid against fire.
The other irritating thing about lightning is that, unlike fire, when it doesn't do damage as expected, it does some wacky stuff (causing haste in golems, making shambling mounds grow, and god only knows what happens underwater).
Doug - good point re fireball's increasing volume under 1e/2e. I forgot about that.
Energy Substitution or some such, yeah? I had a wizzy player who used that, until a green dragon thought he would make a good lunch :)
Dunno if this has been brought up before, but Fireball is in pretty much every way plain better than Lightning Bolt, despite the fact they are the same level. Better range, more flexibility (spread v line), and same damage. Was 2nd Ed lightning Bolt way overpowered or something, and so they nerfed it in 3.0? I think it would be cool if you could "snake" the lightning bolt around stuff, as long as it was in LOS, like a big blue pretzel of dhoom. Thoughts?
There's a 4th level fire spell, Explosive Cascade, in the Spell Compendium. It creates a number of contiguous 5' squares, so basically you can "snake it around" just like you suggested here. It's one of my favorite blasting spells.
Huh, I'll have to check that out. Cone of lightning sound slike fun :)
I think I need to spend more time on the other side of the DM screen. In my old group, I was the only one who wanted to DM, and in my new one, I started a long campaign with all new guys. Some of them DM, but we just haven't hit a break in the action.
The other big "drawback" of Fireball, that is often overlooked - by player and DM alike, is that it doesn't always reach its target.
It can be detonated prematurely by contacting any solid material.
So if you don't have clear line of sight (such as down a 5 foot wide corridor, with your party between you and your enemy) it goes boom where you don't want it to.
I dont in any way see fireball as superior to lightning bolt, both have advantages and drawbacks and are situational spells. Additionally, in the old game it was much, much easier to get fire protection than lightning protection.
The biggest drawback of fireball it that it is a friendly fire issue. Fireball affects more (useful) area, sure, but many fights are against only one opponent. Lightning bolt can be much easier to actually get the target with without blowing up your friends or causing collateral damage like blowing out doors and windows, or torching the scroll on the desk you want to read.
If a DM starts paying attention to side effects like that, some spells become a lot worse. Heck, I had a group give up on Disintigrate because it cost them loot.
The other big "drawback" of Fireball, that is often overlooked - by player and DM alike, is that it doesn't always reach its target.
It can be detonated prematurely by contacting any solid material.
So if you don't have clear line of sight (such as down a 5 foot wide corridor, with your party between you and your enemy) it goes boom where you don't want it to.
So does this mean the relativly common practice of "lobbing" fireballs over the heads of you r party is incorrect, and should instead require the to-hit roll to go through thier spaces, with the attendant possiblity of boo-age? I like it (evil DM grin)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The other big "drawback" of Fireball, that is often overlooked - by player and DM alike, is that it doesn't always reach its target.
It can be detonated prematurely by contacting any solid material.
So if you don't have clear line of sight (such as down a 5 foot wide corridor, with your party between you and your enemy) it goes boom where you don't want it to.
Neh. I don't think DM's overlook that text, I think they correctly believe that the effect described is minimal. That particular portion of text is more of a way of reminding players/DMs that line of effect rules apply. The only other effect that it has is when the fireball encounters an invisible barrier, such as a wall of force, or say, the caster is blind and targets the spell into a solid object. The game has a rules mechanic for resolving targeting issues, and it makes sense that if fireball were to require the usage of such rules, it would explicitly invoke that system by requiring a to-hit roll. The other proposed resolution mechanic (DM arbitrarily decides that the fireball prematurely detonates) leaves much to be desired.
The other proposed resolution mechanic (DM arbitrarily decides that the fireball prematurely detonates) leaves much to be desired.
Yeah, I can hear the screaming now :)
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
If a DM starts paying attention to side effects like that, some spells become a lot worse. Heck, I had a group give up on Disintigrate because it cost them loot.
Equipment is unaffected by disintegrate. Heck, we nicknamed this spell "Alaric's create treasure" after I tagged an invisible caster with one, causing a pile of loot to appear out of thin air.
From the D20 SRD:
A thin, green ray springs from your pointing finger. You must make a successful ranged touch attack to hit. Any creature struck by the ray takes 2d6 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 40d6). Any creature reduced to 0 or fewer hit points by this spell is entirely disintegrated, leaving behind only a trace of fine dust. A disintegrated creature’s equipment is unaffected.
Neh. I don't think DM's overlook that text, I think they correctly believe that the effect described is minimal. That particular portion of text is more of a way of reminding players/DMs that line of effect rules apply. The only other effect that it has is when the fireball encounters an invisible barrier, such as a wall of force, or say, the caster is blind and targets the spell into a solid object. The game has a rules mechanic for resolving targeting issues, and it makes sense that if fireball were to require the usage of such rules, it would explicitly invoke that system by requiring a to-hit roll. The other proposed resolution mechanic (DM arbitrarily decides that the fireball prematurely detonates) leaves much to be desired.
Sooo... If there was a mass melee some 100 yards from my character, on slightly higher ground, you as a DM would allow me to target a Fireball dead center and allow it to reach the center arbitrarily?
And you want to say the effect is minimal?
The reality of it is that the effect is so cumbersome that it is specifically ignored. (Something I don't really disagree with.)
If run more strictly - some might say more correctly, Fireball has entirely too much collateral damage to be really useful.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Sooo... If there was a mass melee some 100 yards from my character, on slightly higher ground, you as a DM would allow me to target a Fireball dead center and allow it to reach the center arbitrarily?
Every other spell that does not have a to-hit roll hits its target automatically. That is the function of the to-hit roll, is it not? To determine if you hit. Fireball does not normally use a to-hit roll, so yes, I would allow Fireball to hit that spot and would be playing by the RAW in doing so.
In fact, the RAW tells you when a to-hit roll is required:
IIf you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.
Is a crowded hallway sufficiently like an arrow slit? Is the crowded battlefield? I wouldn't think so, but even if it were, the rules clearly allow for a to-hit roll in such circumstances.
And you want to say the effect is minimal?
The reality of it is that the effect is so cumbersome that it is specifically ignored. (Something I don't really disagree with.)
If run more strictly - some might say more correctly, Fireball has entirely too much collateral damage to be really useful.
Those who would say "correctly" are apparently defining that term without reference to the RAW given that the RAW (i) tells you when you need to make a to-hit roll and, more importantly (ii) allows for a to-hit roll rather than old fashioned cranky arbitrary DM syndrome.
|
|
From the SRD:
"You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.) If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.
The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does."
Most DMs that I have gamed with have allowed the caster to specifically place the spell exactly in the center of hordes of creatures without worrying about hitting any other creatures and prematurely exploding the Fireball. Those rulings seem a bit silly after reading this and makes this spell more powerful than it should be.
Live and learn. None of that in my campaign-to-come.
FH
Well Sebastian, you have done a good job of arguing my point that the mechanic is so cumbersome that it is ignored.
You have also done a good job of ruining my favorite anti-Fireball tactic;
Depending on how the DM prefers to play, either ready a casting of Summon Monster I in front of the casting mage to detonate the Fireball prematurely, or cast the Summon Monster I and order the creature to ready an action to intercept the bead of fire. (I prefer Fiendish Ravens for this job.)
Note: This tactic does require guessing the caster would be throwing a Fireball. But it is fun to imagine their faces when the spell detonates right in front of them.
A most enlightening discussion.
We have to keep in mind that you can target the bead over the heads of the combattants, as long as you have some clearance. If they've got enough room to swing their weapons, presumably a human or elvish wizard can zap a fireball bead to the right spot, say 7-8 feet above the floor. A gnome would have more trouble doing this, and might have to aim higher. I interpret 20 foot radius spread as defining a spherical volume, so you could target a higher spot with the fireball if there is overhead clearance to do so. I figure 10-15 feet above the surface reduces the area affected at the surface by 5 feet of radius, and subtract another 5 feet of radius for every five feet of altitude above that.
I also recently learned that fireballs can travel around corners, since they are a "spread" effect, rather than a "burst." (Cf. definitions for those two effects in the PH/SRD). This should largely negate cover bonuses, IMO, since if you detonate a fireball ten feet outside an arrow slit, it means everything within ten feet of the inside of the arrow slit in any direction is toast. This can make it very tricky to calculate where to let one off.
Probably the fairest way to adjudicate fireball damage radius is to make sure your sorceror/wizard fully understands how the effect works, then have him tell you where he's going to target the thing on your battle mat, and at what altitude. Give him a time limit of 2-3 minutes (use a boggle hourglass or whatever), so he won't take all day to calculate down to the gnat's rear-end how he can hit the most orcs without fragging his buddies. This will make fireball useful mostly in the earliest rounds of combat, before the melee starts, and stop people from using it as a precision spell, which it is not, unless they take the feat that lets you shape the blast, in which case they've earned the right.
I believe that the only time attended magic items get fried by a fireball is if the owner rolls a 1 on his saving throw. Unattended items are a different story.
If a fireball goes off in a house, at least it should set the curtains on fire, and other easily flammable items. If it goes off in a forest, unless it's raining or the forest is really damp, it should at least set some of the undergrowth on fire, if not trees. You should remind your players when they are in a flammable setting, just so they have fair warning.
As for fireball vs. lightning bolt, the answer is it depends on the situation. Just like magic missile vs. burning hands. Fireball is generally a bit more powerful and useful than lightning bolt, but there are many situations where a lightning bolt is much, much better. It's a more precision spell, for one thing. Of course, lightning can start fires, too--at least IRL--that's how most forest fires start.
Summon Monster is a full round spell, so you really have to be anticipating to block a fireball with it. And unless the summoned creature has the arrow-snatching feat or some-such, I don't think it's at all fair to use it to fly in front of the bead and detonate it. You're better off counterspelling. Or just making a ready attack with a missile weapon so that the mage has to make a concentration check to get the spell off.
There’s an additional difference I haven’t seen mentioned yet: Fireball expands to fill a volume, but has no explosive force, per se. It cannot be used to blow a door off its hinges or anything like that. Lightning Bolt, on the other hand does have the capacity to physical blast-style damage to objects, so one could actually use it to blow a door open, knock objects around, etc. The Lightning Bold damage can sometimes be used for “knock back” or “knock down” under the right circumstances, which cannot be said for Fireball. That’s another aspect that helps squeak LB closer to FB for equality. It’s mostly a matter of circumstance. Mages who are good at their trade were good at selecting the right tool for the right situation, the ones who weren’t so good aren’t around any more. Neither are their party members….lol
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Summon Monster is a full round spell, so you really have to be anticipating to block a fireball with it. And unless the summoned creature has the arrow-snatching feat or some-such, I don't think it's at all fair to use it to fly in front of the bead and detonate it. You're better off counterspelling. Or just making a ready attack with a missile weapon so that the mage has to make a concentration check to get the spell off.
Yeah, I'd be curious as to the origin of the intercept tactic as well. The only instances I can think of are in classes (such as the Knight) where the ability is specifically granted. That has always implied to me that taking an attack aimed at another person is not a viable option under the RAW outside of such special abilities.
|
|
There’s an additional difference I haven’t seen mentioned yet: Fireball expands to fill a volume, but has no explosive force, per se. It cannot be used to blow a door off its hinges or anything like that.
It can destroy the door (or the hinges), though:
Unattended objects also take this damage.
SNIP
The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze.
Note that this is pretty much word-for-word the same description as that for lightning bolt. Both only do half damage to objects, though:
Electricity and fire attacks deal half damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the hardness.
Summon Monster is a full round spell, so you really have to be anticipating to block a fireball with it. And unless the summoned creature has the arrow-snatching feat or some-such, I don't think it's at all fair to use it to fly in front of the bead and detonate it. You're better off counterspelling. Or just making a ready attack with a missile weapon so that the mage has to make a concentration check to get the spell off.Yeah, I'd be curious as to the origin of the intercept tactic as well. The only instances I can think of are in classes (such as the Knight) where the ability is specifically granted. That has always implied to me that taking an attack aimed at another person is not a viable option under the RAW outside of such special abilities.
------------
this is left over from 1st ed and even pre first ed. I remember in the old days some fighter sacrifice his action and would charge the firepea and try to swat it with his sheild to sacrifice himself for the party. This is not a new concept and I have been using it for decades.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be frank I've never regarded lightning bolt as being in any way inferior to fireball; both have their uses. Fireball can hit a larger number of targets but lightning bolt can be aimed more precisely if you want to avoid hitting party members (which you do).
But if you really find fireball that much better than lightning bolt, there was a great little optional rule presented in an issue of Dragon magazine (can't remember which). Instead of centering your spread and burst spells on a corner, you pick a target square, then roll a d4 to randomly determine which corner the spell emanates from. That random variable makes spread and burst spells a little less reliable and nicely reduces the kind of "precision bombing" effects we often get with fireball spells.
Well, here's the thing: in 2nd Edition, lightning bolt had additional effects against creatures in metal armor (if I remember correctly).
Actually that was one of the messed up parts about it, in 2ed lighting bolt was actually stopped by metal armor. For some reason whether by chance, planning or what not, Fireball always seems to be able to be better calculated so it hits the enemy, does lots of damage and even though it can engulf allies that gets min. Where as with lighting not so much. Though you could always have cast it have it hit the enemy then come back and harmlessly end on your own fighter, but somehow it never seems to go that nicely.
If I remember, the 2nd Ed balance point was that fireball filled a volume back then, rather than feebly stopping at walls as it does now. A caster in a dungeon could usually expect a backdraft effect if he lobbed a fireball, wheras a lightning bolt just needed enough room that a potential rebound wouldn't reach the caster. 60' bolt? Just need 35 feet of distance. But a fireball in a narrow corridor would create a huge piston of flame that would screw over the party.
Maybe I just had a crappy DM in 2nd who disliked fireball, but thats been my personal experience with it since my very first play session.
So the percieved imbalance, based on seeing just about every caster use fireball and almost none use lightning bolt, is just in my head? I don't buy immunity as a balancing factor, and explaining how it worked in 3nd Ed is getting old. The precision idea I can understand, but then why not make it a targetted spell, or make it more like call lightning from the druid list? A column vice a line? Either way, my players will be facing a gnoll wizzy with sculpt spell this evening, I'll let you know how that works out :)
|
|
The reason I don't use LB much when I'm playing a caster is that the path starts at me. That means that no allies should be standing in front of me. If I'm a caster that can use LB, the last place I want to be in most cases is the front line.
(IIRC, the old version of LB allowed the caster to start the bolt some distance in front of himself if he wanted to, though it's been long enough that I might well be wrong about that. If so, that's another advantage lost for LB.)
|
(IIRC, the old version of LB allowed the caster to start the bolt some distance in front of himself if he wanted to, though it's been long enough that I might well be wrong about that. If so, that's another advantage lost for LB.)
You're correct in this recollection. At least, for 2nd edition you are. Maybe 3rd edition, but I'm not quite certain. Either way it was possible to start a lightning bolt well away from the caster.
Lightning bolt sure blows in STAP, however! Demons have resistance to fire, but still probably take some damage. They're immune to lightning.
But if you really find fireball that much better than lightning bolt, there was a great little optional rule presented in an issue of Dragon magazine (can't remember which). Instead of centering your spread and burst spells on a corner, you pick a target square, then roll a d4 to randomly determine which corner the spell emanates from. That random variable makes spread and burst spells a little less reliable and nicely reduces the kind of "precision bombing" effects we often get with fireball spells.
That's a GOOD idea. I'll have to see if my players will accept that house rule next time I start a campaign.
This is thread I came across lameting ye old lightning bolt. I can't link, but copying and past show work. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42899
Fizz
|
|
This is thread I came across lameting ye old lightning bolt. I can't link, but copying and past show work. GIANTITP FORUMS
Fizz
Fixed