Right so background- I'm a fairly new dm, playing the game with my group fortnightly for about 6 months. After an interesting mission I decided to reward our party level 3 warlock with a wand of fireball as its an iconic spell and cool magic item.
However since then me and the warlocks player have had a bit of a disagreement on how the spell should be used and a couple of its mechanics.
The way how he wants to use it is like an orbital strike. So long as he's within the spells range (150ft) and within line of sight of a square of his choosing (so a square where he can see that is not behind a solid wall) that he can activate the spell from that point, regardless of the amount of enemies or obstacles in-between him and that square, arguing that even though he hasn't got direct line of sight if its behind the enemies he can look around them and choose whatever square he wants within range.
Im not as happy with this as in my mind with the first line describing the spell this this - 'A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range', that rather then an orbital strike, its more like an exploding bullet that starts at you and travels to that square. With a risk that it could hit people or objects between you and it causing it to trigger earlier than you wished when it makes contact with something. giving a little danger to using this spell without careful thinking.
We also have a disagreement about the area of the sphere of damage, because it differs between the spells summery and its description. In the summery it says that the spells range/area is 150ft and a 20ft sphere. In the description it says that its a 20ft radius sphere, which would actually be a 40ft sphere as the radius is from edge to centre, so which one is correct. My problem being is that my player obviously wants the sphere with double the damage range and is accusing me of nerfing the spell because I'm going against rules as written.
Can someone give me some advice on what is correct and wrong with this spell so I can settle both of these matters once and for all?
The range thing is a ruling issue, though I'll say I agree with your player. Personally, I say if you can see it, you can target it. Even if a creature is in a square, it doesn't actually fill the entire five feet from edge to edge, there space around them. So basically, here I agree with the player that they can target something if they can see it (I'll note there are some who disagree with this). Also, there is, by RAW (rules as written) no risk of it hitting something else and exploding in the wrong spot. A general rule to remember is that spells (and powers, and pretty much everything) does only what they they say they do. These is no mention in the spell description of there being a chance of it hitting something accidentally, so it doesn't happen. It's magic. It can do all sorts of crazy crap. Of course, you're free to house rule otherwise.
Side note, with AoE spells, generally you target a point (the dot that is at the corner of four squares), not a square. This makes it much easier to decide which squares are effected by the spell, and doesn't let the player play games with, "I target a spot three feet back in the square so that means it goes to here" Put it on the dot and it takes care of it much more easily. Here is where I'll note that 1, not everyone agrees with this interpretation. 2, It's only really relevant if you play on a grid.
The spell has a 20-foot radius, which is the same as a 40-foot diameter. Two ways to say the same thing. But the construction " x-foot radius sphere" is kind of a game term that you'll see crop up with lots of other spells.
If you're thinking its a powerful spell, you're right. Fireball is kind of a legacy spell that's carried through over editions. There are many solid arguments that can be made that it should either do less damage or be of a higher level. But yeah, you gave your player a really nice toy.
The bright streak doesn't mean it's a straight line. It could weave in, out and around anything to get to the targeted point.
And there clearly IS line of sight - because the spell requires a "point you can see", so if you can see that point, you have line of sight. That's why we call it "line of sight" - because light travels in lines. If the line is blocked, you can't see the point.
I don't understand what issue you're having. The player's interpretation is perfectly within RAW. I don't understand why you're inventing extra mechanics onto it (the streak needing to be straight line and exploding on contact -- this isn't in the spell text). It's a ridiculously simple spell, mechanics wise: target a spot you see, it goes boom, everyone within 20 ft makes dex save: 8d6 fire damage on fail, half on success. Simple. Whether it was a "red streak" or "appears out of nowhere" or a "flying flaming skull" is all pointless fluff. Likewise, the fire could be any colour, or manifest like a swarm of fiery snakes rather than a real cloud of fire. This is just flavouring for making the spell their own - it doesn't change how the spell actually works (target point, it goes boom, etc).
So if the player wants it more like an orbital strike. Let them. The spell functions exactly the same either way, so what difference does it make to you? They get the joy of making the experience more fun without you having to change a darn thing. Making spells and abilities their own in pure fluff ways is an important part of D&D: it helps immerse the player, helps connect them with the character, and makes it more fun. Any DM that denies these harmless personalisations doesn't deserve to be one. I'm not saying this is what you're doing, but you're misinterpreting the text in a way that could indicate this sort of mindset. So, I'm saying this mostly "in case".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
The only question is what can the caster see. A character does not not fill a whole 5ft square so if there were a line of characters the caster would be able to see past them but if there was an army 6 rows deep you could argue you can not see past them though such a situation will rarely occur. In a crowded battle scene you could say where you want put the fireball is blocked by these two characters you would have to move it a little ot the right or left but as you would need to rule which parts of the 5 ft square they ar occupying and would be a real time consuming pain to work out. The game works much smoother if you rule that as long as there isn't obvious full cover you can see the spot (You look between the Guardian wolf's legs and target your fireball 15 foot past it.
The "exploding bullet" theory still works as if you can see the spot the "bullet" can go in a straight line from you (or at least your eye) to the target, you just have to assume it is extremely fast and accurate so in my example there is no chance of it hitting the guardian wolf's legs as if travels between them.
The spell works exactly the same as a large number of other spells that your part are probably already casting (faerie fire, spike growth, silence, sleep to name but a few).
About the area, 20ft radius, 40ft diameter. That is it.
Now, talking about the Line of Sight, what people said above if correct but incomplete. For instance, if you have line of sight but the point is in total cover you can't cast there, example: A target is envolve by an invisible cage, like Force Cage, you can see it but you can't cast spell there be a projectile or not. So if you wan't to extrapolate, that is the route I would go.
Remember that: RAW and RAI he can cast the spell on a the point he can see. BUT if you are really frustrated by this mechanic my advice would be go for the cover route, since there is already this "precedent" when talks to total cover.
Cover: 1/2 Cover gives +2 on Dex Saving Throws 3/4 Cover gives +5 on Dex Saving Thrown
You can extrapolate this: FROM RAW, that this just would apply if the target is in Cover in relation to the epicenter of the explosion, TO making the cover bonus consider the "Caster/Point" relation, so you can arbitrary give a cover in accord of the obstacles that exist on the way. And again, I don't think this nerf is needed, but if you must, this is definitely the way I would go. AMOF I think this will already be frustrating for him, but making impossible for him to cast or giving the possibility of the spell colliding on the way would be even worse.
To further complicate it... one or more intervening bodies can certainly provide half cover or three quarters cover. Can a lot of intervening bodies actually provide total cover, to the point that the caster actually doesn't have line of sight and line of effect to that space 150 feet away?
Absolutely. But be consistent. If they can see that space, then it probably isn't behind enough bodies to provide "total cover," which should block sight. Just make a call, it is indeed pretty hard to see through a crowd, but not necessarily impossible.
Yeah I had gathered that the wording is not as clear on targeting the spot. Let me give you an example that made me a little bit sceptical. So he's a goblin warlock. 3 foot tall. A group of dwarves headed by an Armoured Cave Bear (a large creature) is rushing down a tunnel towards the party, and the ground they are on is the same level as him. He said that because he could see the room beyond the bear that he could choose a square in the room beyond even if its behind the enemies. I understand that he wants to target only the enemies by triggering the spell far behind them outside of the range of allies fighting. But I find it hard to think that him, with his short hight and perspective, could physically see that point when he's got a bear in the way and a bunch of dwarves right on the bears tail, but its hard to argue that point when the player is looking over the table and from his aerial perspective looking over the table can find the perfect spot to trigger the spell. I have tried to reason that I would allow it if his character is able to find higher ground or a better vantage point of the battle, but he gets upset with me putting in these rules, accusing me of not understanding how the spell works. I guess to sum up this quandary in a single question, it would be can you choose the point of origin if there is an enemy in the way of you and that point? Assuming that that space exists behind them eventually even though the enemy is covering it from your line of sight?
As far as the spells radius is concerned I'm only confused because of the conflicting information in the spells RAW. Because the summery of the spell says its a got a range of 150ft and a 20ft area sphere then in the description it says its got a 20-foot radius sphere, so why doesn't it say that its a 40ft sphere in the summery? If its a 20ft sphere, it should have a 10-foot radius sphere, but if you look carefully it says twenty both times, so which is right?
And that's true, I mean that was my intention. I wanted to give him something fun but sadly its just been causing all of this angst and upset which does make me regret the decision slightly :/
If he can see the room behind the enemies he can cast fireball there (unless there is some transparent cover such as invisible objects or glass windows). If he group of enemies completely his view so while he might have seen the room before they came rushing out he can not any more then he can not cast fireball. It is your call as DM if that is the case but as monsters do not fill the entire space they command there will always be arguments as to how many creatures are required to provide total cover and the players will feel you are cheating them.
Something else to bare in mind is that the target does not need to be at ground level. A 3 ft goblin can look over a 8 foot tall bear 30 ft away to cast fireball at a point 13 ft in the air 60ft away (30ft behind the bear) provide there are no ceilings in the way. This will make the area of effect slightly smaller at ground level (as fireball is a sphere) whch will require lots of maths to determine who is affected if you want to do things properly (causing a delay to the game). If you say you can not see through the group of enemies to cast fireball the player is very likely to decide to look over them meaning you then have to decide whether to pause the game while you work out what the radius is at the height of each creature potentialy in the sphere or just go with 20 ft radius. Things are a lot simpler and less argumentative if you just rule multiple creatures (almost) never provides full cover so if there is line of sight if the creatures were not there, there is lne of site with the creatures there.
Yeah I had gathered that the wording is not as clear on targeting the spot. Let me give you an example that made me a little bit sceptical. So he's a goblin warlock. 3 foot tall. A group of dwarves headed by an Armoured Cave Bear (a large creature) is rushing down a tunnel towards the party, and the ground they are on is the same level as him. He said that because he could see the room beyond the bear that he could choose a square in the room beyond even if its behind the enemies. I understand that he wants to target only the enemies by triggering the spell far behind them outside of the range of allies fighting. But I find it hard to think that him, with his short hight and perspective, could physically see that point when he's got a bear in the way and a bunch of dwarves right on the bears tail, but its hard to argue that point when the player is looking over the table and from his aerial perspective looking over the table can find the perfect spot to trigger the spell. I have tried to reason that I would allow it if his character is able to find higher ground or a better vantage point of the battle, but he gets upset with me putting in these rules, accusing me of not understanding how the spell works. I guess to sum up this quandary in a single question, it would be can you choose the point of origin if there is an enemy in the way of you and that point? Assuming that that space exists behind them eventually even though the enemy is covering it from your line of sight?
Here, it's important to remember that a square on a battle map is five feet wide, which is significantly wider than most medium-sized creatures who would be occupying it. I think it's reasonable for a player to be upset with a ruling that intervening creatures just hard block line of sight. Creatures are simply not big enough to actually form a solid wall that would block line of sight. Would you disallow an archer from shooting at a farther back enemy?
As far as the spells radius is concerned I'm only confused because of the conflicting information in the spells RAW. Because the summery of the spell says its a got a range of 150ft and a 20ft area sphere then in the description it says its got a 20-foot radius sphere, so why doesn't it say that its a 40ft sphere in the summery? If its a 20ft sphere, it should have a 10-foot radius sphere, but if you look carefully it says twenty both times, so which is right?
The actual rules never say "20 ft. area sphere." D&D Beyond's summary is not official rules text, and it's ambiguous on its own as to what "20 ft." means. Always refer to the actual rules text, which is very clear that 20 feet is the radius of the sphere.
Fair enough, so its effectively the same mechanic for targeting as magic missile?
To stop me repeating myself too much from my other response, what is your ruling on if the point of choice is at the back and behind enemies and objects from the players perspective? The player is under the understanding that so long as he is within150ft of a spot he can pick a spot behind a bunch of enemies so that it only targets them. As he 'himself' he can stand over the table, look over the map from an aerial perspective and find the perfect spot to trigger the spell for maximum damage to enemies and none to allies, which is what I mean by it feeling like and orbital strike, and what I'm not to comfortable with because it feels like he's using meta game knowledge for find the place of origin, rather then thinking of what he can see from his players perspective. I'd appreciate hearing your opinion on this.
To be honest it's only because I'm fairly new to this! Magic is a very varied, and there's many different effects and rules on targeting. Sometimes it acts like its a range attack, sometimes like this with an area of attack with different types of area and sometimes. The rules on whether spells travel in straight lines or if they home is also really important to a spells perspective. If fireball homes like magic missile then I have no problem with him choosing a spot behind a bunch of enemies and theoretically it will just maneuverer around them and get to the place of origin. But if it is a straight line of sight, if the player chooses a point beyond his line of sight, but within range of the spell what happens? Does it it hit the first thing between the player and that point of origin and detonate as technically it's hitting the first thing in their line of sight if they choses a point beyond it?
I'm just seeking some clarification, and I'm willing to be told that I'm wrong I just don't want to take the word of just my player who so far is really benefiting from my misunderstanding of this spells mechanics.
Again, what's relevant is whether or not the character can actually see the point they're targeting. You'll need to be more specific than "a bunch of enemies." If it's like fifty people, then sure, maybe there's not actually a clear line to the targeted point. But if it's like three? It's extremely likely that the character can find some point within their own 5-foot square from which you can draw a straight line to the targeted point that isn't obstructed by the enemies. Characters do not fill the space they control on the map.
The character does need to be able to see the point (and it also can't be behind total cover that can be seen through, like an invisible wall or whatever). It's just not reasonable to say that the character can't see the point because a few of the intervening squares have enemies in them. Enemies aren't (usually) big enough for that.
Saga has most of what I was going to say. I'll just add this bit
"But if it is a straight line of sight, if the player chooses a point beyond his line of sight, but within range of the spell what happens? Does it it hit the first thing between the player and that point of origin and detonate as technically it's hitting the first thing in their line of sight if they choses a point beyond it?"
Nothing happens. To cast a spell and have it take any effect you must cast it. To cast a spell you must have a valid target with a clear path to it (it cannot be behind total cover, even if that cover would be invisible, as Saga mentions). So if the character is unable to see where they want to target, then they cannot target it, so the spell cannot be cast. The "red streak" you're a bit hung up on is not created until you've got a valid target and have cast the spell because the streak is part of "spell effect" and is not part of the targeting/casting. This is why it doesn't have any chance of hitting something else or exploding early. This text is there to provide a visual representation not a restriction. Compare to something like Catapult which does state it stops at the first thing it hits. Fireball just doesn't work that way.
If you can see the targeted spot, that spot will be the centre of a fireball.
And yes, it must be the character that can see the spot, it doesn't matter if the player can. As Saga said creatures "occupy" their spaces but do not "fill" them - I mean, are you a walking five-foot cube of flesh? No. Nor are the humanoid creatures players can use as characters. The 5 ft cube you occupy is just the space you are moving around in - but you might not be in dead centre, especially when in battle. So a couple of medium creatures isn't going to block much.
Think of a small 1cm diameter marble. If you can visualise that marble somewhere in the area around you and can move that marble from your eyes to that point - you have satisfied the targeting criteria of fireball.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
The rules say that it works exactly as the player wants it to. The mechanics support this and describe the effects. You may imagine it however you like. It is not meta-gaming to be able to estimate the size of a sphere and how much area it will cover unless the player is targeting this in such a way as to be able to get within inside of the area of effect without risk of needing to make a save.
They can target any point in space they can see. You've said they do this. They can cast out to 150 feet, and have the ball of fire expand 20 feet in all directions from there, so they can reach, at the outermost limit, something 170 feet away, or a point is space as close as 30 feet away, without risk of having to make a save.
The Wand of Fireballs is Rare, and it requires Attunement. Properly by the Dungeon Master's Guide, this would normally be given out at 5th level at the earliest, so it's a bit over-powered at 3rd level, and you are learning now why that is. The player is not making any mistakes at all, you are. Hopefully you will learn from this and do better in the future.
Once the player's character reaches 5th level all should be fine. They will probably hang on to it until 11th level or possibly beyond, but at 11th level there should be other options that are very rare, but more potent.
To stop me repeating myself too much from my other response, what is your ruling on if the point of choice is at the back and behind enemies and objects from the players perspective? The player is under the understanding that so long as he is within150ft of a spot he can pick a spot behind a bunch of enemies so that it only targets them. As he 'himself' he can stand over the table, look over the map from an aerial perspective and find the perfect spot to trigger the spell for maximum damage to enemies and none to allies, which is what I mean by it feeling like and orbital strike, and what I'm not to comfortable with because it feels like he's using meta game knowledge for find the place of origin, rather then thinking of what he can see from his players perspective. I'd appreciate hearing your opinion on this.
Placing AOE spells is inherently a little meta but Fireball is no worse than any else I'd say.
As a general advice for the targetting I'd say that in DnD creatures doesn't fully block LoS. For example you can move through another creatures space by using a bit extra movement and you can fire ranged attacks past creatures. Usually firing past one (or a few) counts as half-cover and firing past several counts as three-quarters cover. I've seen people deciding it be total cover too but that usually takes upwards to a hundred creatures or more.
As far as the spells radius is concerned I'm only confused because of the conflicting information in the spells RAW. Because the summery of the spell says its a got a range of 150ft and a 20ft area sphere then in the description it says its got a 20-foot radius sphere, so why doesn't it say that its a 40ft sphere in the summery? If its a 20ft sphere, it should have a 10-foot radius sphere, but if you look carefully it says twenty both times, so which is right?
It's all correct, you are just reading it a bit wrong.
The spell description (which is the same as in the official bocks) says 20ft radius.
The summary says 20ft and then has a pic of a little ball. That doesn't mean "a 20ft sphere", it means "20ft radius, sphere shaped" because a sphere is always measured by its radius. This is formatted the same for all spells so spheres, cylinders, cones and so on all have the relevant measurement and then a reminder of their shape.
Also keep in mind that the point of origin for the spell can be on the air. It is hard to imagine that a bear blocked so much of his view that he couldn't target some point behind it. 1 creature does not provide total cover to the squares behind it.
And the area of a sphere in spell descriptions always means radius (this is explained in spellcasting chapter of PHB). A fireball has a 20 foot radius in both its description and summary.
In general I wouldn't count "body" as a vision block. Maybe if there are an Army in front of him you could describe the scenario as hard to see 150ft ahead...
Now its always importante to reason if he is seeing the point or not, in the matter of VisionRange. So if its dark and he have Darkvision of 60ft he is restricted to this range, unless there is any light source after that (since light travel "indefinitely" on dark).
Being short can be just as much an advantage as a disadvantage. He can see between legs and under a horse, for example. And if it helps you to think of it targeting like magic middle, that’s not too bad an analogy. If he can see it, he can target it (to 150 feet). It will swerve around and get where it needs to go. And it just doesn’t hit things before that point on accident, so there’s no mechanic for what happens if it does. If there were, as other said, an invisible wall the character was unaware of, that might be an exception. Then, it would be up to you as DM to decide if it would blow up when it hit the wall, or just fizzle out as the spell fails.
And if you think about what would happen, practically, if you say they can’t aim it through enemies, fireball would get much less useful. You’d need the caster way off to the side to get a proper angle to hit enemies and not allies.
A huge thanks to everyone who replied to this post I really appreciate it :)
I'm humbled as with everything considered it seems like I have messed up on the ruling this time. But that's ok, I didn't come here to be told I'm right I came here to find out what was right by people with experience.
My feeling is I'll be a lot more lenient on my player in the future when using this spell. I'll be frank that my guard was up as my player has gotten ruling by me in the past as they're a more experienced player and a past dm themselves. So with this spell feeling too good to be true I was worried that I was being duped again.
I do also appreciate the advice for how you all would handle the spell in a fair way with fair restrictions. Its been a great help!
I agree that giving a wand of fireballs to a level 3 party does significantly increase their damage. I also believe that the biggest step up in power is between 2nd and 3rd level. Fireball causes more damage than any other spell of its level for comparison with what else the player has I will compare it with shatter the standard second level AoE damage spell.
Shatter does 3d8 (average 13.5) damage in a 10ft radius sphere, a 3rd level Fireball does 8d6 (average 24) damage in a 20ft radius sphere so 4 times the area (8 times the volume but that is rarely relevent). With arcane recovery a level 3 wizard can cast 3, 2nd level spells a day, a wand of fireballs can be used 6 times in a day wthout risk of it being destroyed, if they are having multiple combats every day then one average they can cast it 4.5 times a day). Fire is more commonly resested but the noise of shhatter can attract more enemies so I'll call that a draw.
So the player can do twice as much damage, in an area 4 times as large between twice as often. And still have acces to there spell slots on top. That is a huge step up in power and as a new DM you are likely to have difficultly balancing encounters. A pride of 5 lions is a deadly encounter for a party of level 3 characters, but with a slightly above average damage roll and average saving throws a 3rd level fireball will kill 3 and leave the remaining 2 badly hurt.
To be honest, I would suggest to speak to the player involved and admit that you now realise the item is rather too powerful for a level 3 party and suggest the item is made somewhat less powerful for example it only has 1 charge (and doesn't have a risk of being destroyed), or it doesn't recharge (effectivly turning it into a necklace of fireballs).
If you don't go this way all your encounters need to bare in mind the wand of fireballs, for exampe keeping enemies far apart or having tight spaces to there is no point in sight that is within 20ft of most of the enemies but not the party. You will also have to decide what to do if (when) the other players expect similarly powerful items so they feel useful in the party .
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Right so background- I'm a fairly new dm, playing the game with my group fortnightly for about 6 months. After an interesting mission I decided to reward our party level 3 warlock with a wand of fireball as its an iconic spell and cool magic item.
However since then me and the warlocks player have had a bit of a disagreement on how the spell should be used and a couple of its mechanics.
The way how he wants to use it is like an orbital strike. So long as he's within the spells range (150ft) and within line of sight of a square of his choosing (so a square where he can see that is not behind a solid wall) that he can activate the spell from that point, regardless of the amount of enemies or obstacles in-between him and that square, arguing that even though he hasn't got direct line of sight if its behind the enemies he can look around them and choose whatever square he wants within range.
Im not as happy with this as in my mind with the first line describing the spell this this - 'A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range', that rather then an orbital strike, its more like an exploding bullet that starts at you and travels to that square. With a risk that it could hit people or objects between you and it causing it to trigger earlier than you wished when it makes contact with something. giving a little danger to using this spell without careful thinking.
We also have a disagreement about the area of the sphere of damage, because it differs between the spells summery and its description. In the summery it says that the spells range/area is 150ft and a 20ft sphere. In the description it says that its a 20ft radius sphere, which would actually be a 40ft sphere as the radius is from edge to centre, so which one is correct. My problem being is that my player obviously wants the sphere with double the damage range and is accusing me of nerfing the spell because I'm going against rules as written.
Can someone give me some advice on what is correct and wrong with this spell so I can settle both of these matters once and for all?
The range thing is a ruling issue, though I'll say I agree with your player. Personally, I say if you can see it, you can target it. Even if a creature is in a square, it doesn't actually fill the entire five feet from edge to edge, there space around them. So basically, here I agree with the player that they can target something if they can see it (I'll note there are some who disagree with this). Also, there is, by RAW (rules as written) no risk of it hitting something else and exploding in the wrong spot. A general rule to remember is that spells (and powers, and pretty much everything) does only what they they say they do. These is no mention in the spell description of there being a chance of it hitting something accidentally, so it doesn't happen. It's magic. It can do all sorts of crazy crap. Of course, you're free to house rule otherwise.
Side note, with AoE spells, generally you target a point (the dot that is at the corner of four squares), not a square. This makes it much easier to decide which squares are effected by the spell, and doesn't let the player play games with, "I target a spot three feet back in the square so that means it goes to here" Put it on the dot and it takes care of it much more easily. Here is where I'll note that 1, not everyone agrees with this interpretation. 2, It's only really relevant if you play on a grid.
The spell has a 20-foot radius, which is the same as a 40-foot diameter. Two ways to say the same thing. But the construction " x-foot radius sphere" is kind of a game term that you'll see crop up with lots of other spells.
If you're thinking its a powerful spell, you're right. Fireball is kind of a legacy spell that's carried through over editions. There are many solid arguments that can be made that it should either do less damage or be of a higher level. But yeah, you gave your player a really nice toy.
The bright streak doesn't mean it's a straight line. It could weave in, out and around anything to get to the targeted point.
And there clearly IS line of sight - because the spell requires a "point you can see", so if you can see that point, you have line of sight. That's why we call it "line of sight" - because light travels in lines. If the line is blocked, you can't see the point.
I don't understand what issue you're having. The player's interpretation is perfectly within RAW. I don't understand why you're inventing extra mechanics onto it (the streak needing to be straight line and exploding on contact -- this isn't in the spell text). It's a ridiculously simple spell, mechanics wise: target a spot you see, it goes boom, everyone within 20 ft makes dex save: 8d6 fire damage on fail, half on success. Simple. Whether it was a "red streak" or "appears out of nowhere" or a "flying flaming skull" is all pointless fluff. Likewise, the fire could be any colour, or manifest like a swarm of fiery snakes rather than a real cloud of fire. This is just flavouring for making the spell their own - it doesn't change how the spell actually works (target point, it goes boom, etc).
So if the player wants it more like an orbital strike. Let them. The spell functions exactly the same either way, so what difference does it make to you? They get the joy of making the experience more fun without you having to change a darn thing. Making spells and abilities their own in pure fluff ways is an important part of D&D: it helps immerse the player, helps connect them with the character, and makes it more fun. Any DM that denies these harmless personalisations doesn't deserve to be one. I'm not saying this is what you're doing, but you're misinterpreting the text in a way that could indicate this sort of mindset. So, I'm saying this mostly "in case".
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
The only question is what can the caster see. A character does not not fill a whole 5ft square so if there were a line of characters the caster would be able to see past them but if there was an army 6 rows deep you could argue you can not see past them though such a situation will rarely occur. In a crowded battle scene you could say where you want put the fireball is blocked by these two characters you would have to move it a little ot the right or left but as you would need to rule which parts of the 5 ft square they ar occupying and would be a real time consuming pain to work out. The game works much smoother if you rule that as long as there isn't obvious full cover you can see the spot (You look between the Guardian wolf's legs and target your fireball 15 foot past it.
The "exploding bullet" theory still works as if you can see the spot the "bullet" can go in a straight line from you (or at least your eye) to the target, you just have to assume it is extremely fast and accurate so in my example there is no chance of it hitting the guardian wolf's legs as if travels between them.
The spell works exactly the same as a large number of other spells that your part are probably already casting (faerie fire, spike growth, silence, sleep to name but a few).
About the area, 20ft radius, 40ft diameter. That is it.
Now, talking about the Line of Sight, what people said above if correct but incomplete.
For instance, if you have line of sight but the point is in total cover you can't cast there, example: A target is envolve by an invisible cage, like Force Cage, you can see it but you can't cast spell there be a projectile or not.
So if you wan't to extrapolate, that is the route I would go.
Remember that: RAW and RAI he can cast the spell on a the point he can see. BUT if you are really frustrated by this mechanic my advice would be go for the cover route, since there is already this "precedent" when talks to total cover.
Cover:
1/2 Cover gives +2 on Dex Saving Throws
3/4 Cover gives +5 on Dex Saving Thrown
You can extrapolate this: FROM RAW, that this just would apply if the target is in Cover in relation to the epicenter of the explosion, TO making the cover bonus consider the "Caster/Point" relation, so you can arbitrary give a cover in accord of the obstacles that exist on the way. And again, I don't think this nerf is needed, but if you must, this is definitely the way I would go. AMOF I think this will already be frustrating for him, but making impossible for him to cast or giving the possibility of the spell colliding on the way would be even worse.
To further complicate it... one or more intervening bodies can certainly provide half cover or three quarters cover. Can a lot of intervening bodies actually provide total cover, to the point that the caster actually doesn't have line of sight and line of effect to that space 150 feet away?
Absolutely. But be consistent. If they can see that space, then it probably isn't behind enough bodies to provide "total cover," which should block sight. Just make a call, it is indeed pretty hard to see through a crowd, but not necessarily impossible.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Firstly thanks for replying :)
Yeah I had gathered that the wording is not as clear on targeting the spot. Let me give you an example that made me a little bit sceptical. So he's a goblin warlock. 3 foot tall. A group of dwarves headed by an Armoured Cave Bear (a large creature) is rushing down a tunnel towards the party, and the ground they are on is the same level as him. He said that because he could see the room beyond the bear that he could choose a square in the room beyond even if its behind the enemies. I understand that he wants to target only the enemies by triggering the spell far behind them outside of the range of allies fighting. But I find it hard to think that him, with his short hight and perspective, could physically see that point when he's got a bear in the way and a bunch of dwarves right on the bears tail, but its hard to argue that point when the player is looking over the table and from his aerial perspective looking over the table can find the perfect spot to trigger the spell. I have tried to reason that I would allow it if his character is able to find higher ground or a better vantage point of the battle, but he gets upset with me putting in these rules, accusing me of not understanding how the spell works. I guess to sum up this quandary in a single question, it would be can you choose the point of origin if there is an enemy in the way of you and that point? Assuming that that space exists behind them eventually even though the enemy is covering it from your line of sight?
As far as the spells radius is concerned I'm only confused because of the conflicting information in the spells RAW. Because the summery of the spell says its a got a range of 150ft and a 20ft area sphere then in the description it says its got a 20-foot radius sphere, so why doesn't it say that its a 40ft sphere in the summery? If its a 20ft sphere, it should have a 10-foot radius sphere, but if you look carefully it says twenty both times, so which is right?
And that's true, I mean that was my intention. I wanted to give him something fun but sadly its just been causing all of this angst and upset which does make me regret the decision slightly :/
Thank you so much for your response!
If he can see the room behind the enemies he can cast fireball there (unless there is some transparent cover such as invisible objects or glass windows). If he group of enemies completely his view so while he might have seen the room before they came rushing out he can not any more then he can not cast fireball. It is your call as DM if that is the case but as monsters do not fill the entire space they command there will always be arguments as to how many creatures are required to provide total cover and the players will feel you are cheating them.
Something else to bare in mind is that the target does not need to be at ground level. A 3 ft goblin can look over a 8 foot tall bear 30 ft away to cast fireball at a point 13 ft in the air 60ft away (30ft behind the bear) provide there are no ceilings in the way. This will make the area of effect slightly smaller at ground level (as fireball is a sphere) whch will require lots of maths to determine who is affected if you want to do things properly (causing a delay to the game). If you say you can not see through the group of enemies to cast fireball the player is very likely to decide to look over them meaning you then have to decide whether to pause the game while you work out what the radius is at the height of each creature potentialy in the sphere or just go with 20 ft radius. Things are a lot simpler and less argumentative if you just rule multiple creatures (almost) never provides full cover so if there is line of sight if the creatures were not there, there is lne of site with the creatures there.
Here, it's important to remember that a square on a battle map is five feet wide, which is significantly wider than most medium-sized creatures who would be occupying it. I think it's reasonable for a player to be upset with a ruling that intervening creatures just hard block line of sight. Creatures are simply not big enough to actually form a solid wall that would block line of sight. Would you disallow an archer from shooting at a farther back enemy?
The actual rules never say "20 ft. area sphere." D&D Beyond's summary is not official rules text, and it's ambiguous on its own as to what "20 ft." means. Always refer to the actual rules text, which is very clear that 20 feet is the radius of the sphere.
Firstly thank you for replying :)
Fair enough, so its effectively the same mechanic for targeting as magic missile?
To stop me repeating myself too much from my other response, what is your ruling on if the point of choice is at the back and behind enemies and objects from the players perspective? The player is under the understanding that so long as he is within150ft of a spot he can pick a spot behind a bunch of enemies so that it only targets them. As he 'himself' he can stand over the table, look over the map from an aerial perspective and find the perfect spot to trigger the spell for maximum damage to enemies and none to allies, which is what I mean by it feeling like and orbital strike, and what I'm not to comfortable with because it feels like he's using meta game knowledge for find the place of origin, rather then thinking of what he can see from his players perspective. I'd appreciate hearing your opinion on this.
To be honest it's only because I'm fairly new to this! Magic is a very varied, and there's many different effects and rules on targeting. Sometimes it acts like its a range attack, sometimes like this with an area of attack with different types of area and sometimes. The rules on whether spells travel in straight lines or if they home is also really important to a spells perspective. If fireball homes like magic missile then I have no problem with him choosing a spot behind a bunch of enemies and theoretically it will just maneuverer around them and get to the place of origin. But if it is a straight line of sight, if the player chooses a point beyond his line of sight, but within range of the spell what happens? Does it it hit the first thing between the player and that point of origin and detonate as technically it's hitting the first thing in their line of sight if they choses a point beyond it?
I'm just seeking some clarification, and I'm willing to be told that I'm wrong I just don't want to take the word of just my player who so far is really benefiting from my misunderstanding of this spells mechanics.
Again, what's relevant is whether or not the character can actually see the point they're targeting. You'll need to be more specific than "a bunch of enemies." If it's like fifty people, then sure, maybe there's not actually a clear line to the targeted point. But if it's like three? It's extremely likely that the character can find some point within their own 5-foot square from which you can draw a straight line to the targeted point that isn't obstructed by the enemies. Characters do not fill the space they control on the map.
The character does need to be able to see the point (and it also can't be behind total cover that can be seen through, like an invisible wall or whatever). It's just not reasonable to say that the character can't see the point because a few of the intervening squares have enemies in them. Enemies aren't (usually) big enough for that.
Saga has most of what I was going to say. I'll just add this bit
"But if it is a straight line of sight, if the player chooses a point beyond his line of sight, but within range of the spell what happens? Does it it hit the first thing between the player and that point of origin and detonate as technically it's hitting the first thing in their line of sight if they choses a point beyond it?"
Nothing happens. To cast a spell and have it take any effect you must cast it. To cast a spell you must have a valid target with a clear path to it (it cannot be behind total cover, even if that cover would be invisible, as Saga mentions). So if the character is unable to see where they want to target, then they cannot target it, so the spell cannot be cast. The "red streak" you're a bit hung up on is not created until you've got a valid target and have cast the spell because the streak is part of "spell effect" and is not part of the targeting/casting. This is why it doesn't have any chance of hitting something else or exploding early. This text is there to provide a visual representation not a restriction. Compare to something like Catapult which does state it stops at the first thing it hits. Fireball just doesn't work that way.
If you can see the targeted spot, that spot will be the centre of a fireball.
And yes, it must be the character that can see the spot, it doesn't matter if the player can. As Saga said creatures "occupy" their spaces but do not "fill" them - I mean, are you a walking five-foot cube of flesh? No. Nor are the humanoid creatures players can use as characters. The 5 ft cube you occupy is just the space you are moving around in - but you might not be in dead centre, especially when in battle. So a couple of medium creatures isn't going to block much.
Think of a small 1cm diameter marble. If you can visualise that marble somewhere in the area around you and can move that marble from your eyes to that point - you have satisfied the targeting criteria of fireball.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
The rules say that it works exactly as the player wants it to. The mechanics support this and describe the effects. You may imagine it however you like. It is not meta-gaming to be able to estimate the size of a sphere and how much area it will cover unless the player is targeting this in such a way as to be able to get within inside of the area of effect without risk of needing to make a save.
They can target any point in space they can see. You've said they do this. They can cast out to 150 feet, and have the ball of fire expand 20 feet in all directions from there, so they can reach, at the outermost limit, something 170 feet away, or a point is space as close as 30 feet away, without risk of having to make a save.
The Wand of Fireballs is Rare, and it requires Attunement. Properly by the Dungeon Master's Guide, this would normally be given out at 5th level at the earliest, so it's a bit over-powered at 3rd level, and you are learning now why that is. The player is not making any mistakes at all, you are. Hopefully you will learn from this and do better in the future.
Once the player's character reaches 5th level all should be fine. They will probably hang on to it until 11th level or possibly beyond, but at 11th level there should be other options that are very rare, but more potent.
<Insert clever signature here>
Placing AOE spells is inherently a little meta but Fireball is no worse than any else I'd say.
As a general advice for the targetting I'd say that in DnD creatures doesn't fully block LoS. For example you can move through another creatures space by using a bit extra movement and you can fire ranged attacks past creatures. Usually firing past one (or a few) counts as half-cover and firing past several counts as three-quarters cover. I've seen people deciding it be total cover too but that usually takes upwards to a hundred creatures or more.
It's all correct, you are just reading it a bit wrong.
The spell description (which is the same as in the official bocks) says 20ft radius.
The summary says 20ft and then has a pic of a little ball. That doesn't mean "a 20ft sphere", it means "20ft radius, sphere shaped" because a sphere is always measured by its radius. This is formatted the same for all spells so spheres, cylinders, cones and so on all have the relevant measurement and then a reminder of their shape.
Also keep in mind that the point of origin for the spell can be on the air. It is hard to imagine that a bear blocked so much of his view that he couldn't target some point behind it. 1 creature does not provide total cover to the squares behind it.
And the area of a sphere in spell descriptions always means radius (this is explained in spellcasting chapter of PHB). A fireball has a 20 foot radius in both its description and summary.
In general I wouldn't count "body" as a vision block. Maybe if there are an Army in front of him you could describe the scenario as hard to see 150ft ahead...
Now its always importante to reason if he is seeing the point or not, in the matter of VisionRange. So if its dark and he have Darkvision of 60ft he is restricted to this range, unless there is any light source after that (since light travel "indefinitely" on dark).
Being short can be just as much an advantage as a disadvantage. He can see between legs and under a horse, for example.
And if it helps you to think of it targeting like magic middle, that’s not too bad an analogy. If he can see it, he can target it (to 150 feet). It will swerve around and get where it needs to go.
And it just doesn’t hit things before that point on accident, so there’s no mechanic for what happens if it does. If there were, as other said, an invisible wall the character was unaware of, that might be an exception. Then, it would be up to you as DM to decide if it would blow up when it hit the wall, or just fizzle out as the spell fails.
And if you think about what would happen, practically, if you say they can’t aim it through enemies, fireball would get much less useful. You’d need the caster way off to the side to get a proper angle to hit enemies and not allies.
A huge thanks to everyone who replied to this post I really appreciate it :)
I'm humbled as with everything considered it seems like I have messed up on the ruling this time. But that's ok, I didn't come here to be told I'm right I came here to find out what was right by people with experience.
My feeling is I'll be a lot more lenient on my player in the future when using this spell. I'll be frank that my guard was up as my player has gotten ruling by me in the past as they're a more experienced player and a past dm themselves. So with this spell feeling too good to be true I was worried that I was being duped again.
I do also appreciate the advice for how you all would handle the spell in a fair way with fair restrictions. Its been a great help!
Fireball is a really good spell, and wand of fireballs is a really good item that is meant for around level 7 PCs probably.
I agree that giving a wand of fireballs to a level 3 party does significantly increase their damage. I also believe that the biggest step up in power is between 2nd and 3rd level. Fireball causes more damage than any other spell of its level for comparison with what else the player has I will compare it with shatter the standard second level AoE damage spell.
Shatter does 3d8 (average 13.5) damage in a 10ft radius sphere, a 3rd level Fireball does 8d6 (average 24) damage in a 20ft radius sphere so 4 times the area (8 times the volume but that is rarely relevent). With arcane recovery a level 3 wizard can cast 3, 2nd level spells a day, a wand of fireballs can be used 6 times in a day wthout risk of it being destroyed, if they are having multiple combats every day then one average they can cast it 4.5 times a day). Fire is more commonly resested but the noise of shhatter can attract more enemies so I'll call that a draw.
So the player can do twice as much damage, in an area 4 times as large between twice as often. And still have acces to there spell slots on top. That is a huge step up in power and as a new DM you are likely to have difficultly balancing encounters. A pride of 5 lions is a deadly encounter for a party of level 3 characters, but with a slightly above average damage roll and average saving throws a 3rd level fireball will kill 3 and leave the remaining 2 badly hurt.
To be honest, I would suggest to speak to the player involved and admit that you now realise the item is rather too powerful for a level 3 party and suggest the item is made somewhat less powerful for example it only has 1 charge (and doesn't have a risk of being destroyed), or it doesn't recharge (effectivly turning it into a necklace of fireballs).
If you don't go this way all your encounters need to bare in mind the wand of fireballs, for exampe keeping enemies far apart or having tight spaces to there is no point in sight that is within 20ft of most of the enemies but not the party. You will also have to decide what to do if (when) the other players expect similarly powerful items so they feel useful in the party .