Real simple question cause I can't find a clear answer. Is there a particular reason why Flame Strike is TWO LEVELS higher than fireball, when fireball does the same damage in a bigger area?
Fireball is a bad example - it is deliberately designed to be overpowered for its level, as is lightning bolt, due to being legacy spells from basically all editions.
When compared to other spells that weren't deliberately designed to be overpowered for the level, flame strike is perfectly fine.
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.
It's also possible that the classes that get access to it weren't conceptualized as blaster classes, so their blaster magic doesn't compare favorably to that of, say, Sorcerers.
The longer the game lives, the less this distinction exists, let alone matters, because of new content "crossing the streams." And arguably it's better this way. But you asked for reasons, not justifications.
As stated - Fireball is deliberately overtuned, and clerics were origin ally conceived as a class with excellent buffy/supporty spells but kinda booty-buttcheeks donkey dooky direct-damage spells. Flame Strike is visually evocative but mechanically meh, which fits the goal of clerics having some access to blasty spells without being blasters.
I think the cleric angle is onto something, since FS seems to be cleric exclusive. (Well certain subclasses can get it but only clerics as a base class, unless tashas gave it to anyone else.)
There's virtually no reason for say a wizard or sorcerer to take it, but in the context of the cleric spell list, maybe.
Fireball is a bad example - it is deliberately designed to be overpowered for its level, as is lightning bolt, due to being legacy spells from basically all editions.
When compared to other spells that weren't deliberately designed to be overpowered for the level, flame strike is perfectly fine.
Stuff like that shouldn't exist in the game. That's honestly super dumb.
Off the top of my head, the fiendlock is the only subclass that gets both Fireball and Flame Strike together on one spell list. There's not a huge incentive for that particular class to take both (especially since the Fireball will be dealing an extra 2d6 damage due to how Warlock spell slots work), but otherwise Flame Strike is a fairly reasonable spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Fireball is a bad example - it is deliberately designed to be overpowered for its level, as is lightning bolt, due to being legacy spells from basically all editions.
When compared to other spells that weren't deliberately designed to be overpowered for the level, flame strike is perfectly fine.
Stuff like that shouldn't exist in the game. That's honestly super dumb.
It's a branding thing. Fireball and Magic Missile are both super strong for their level because they are iconic spells that is strongly associated with DnD.
It's like if you look at SquareEnix and FinalFantasy. SquareEnix will never allow a mainline Final Fantasy game to fail because it's so closely associated with their brand, it's their flagship product. FFXIV launched to horrible reviews because it was a subpar game, and SquareEnix rebuilt it from scratch. No expense was spared because they needed to repair their brand and it's only recently that the game has become profitable.
In a similar fashion if a random spell is deemed as weak, it's not a big deal for WotC and D&D. But if Fireball or Magic Missile is deemed as weak that's a massive issue.
There are some minor additional perks, like being unavoidable Radiant Damage - that has significant implications against undead. Fire damage is the most commonly resisted form of damage in the game as well, so Fireball is often a little weak.
Fireball is a signature wizard/sorcerer spell. Clerics are not intended to be primarily magical artillery pieces, which is a common role for sorcerers and wizards. If you want "perfect balance" between classes then you're arguing for every class to have access to every spell and ability and at that point there is no point in having classes in the first place. Clerics have plenty of powerful spells of their own (including combat spells like guiding bolt, inflict wounds, spiritual weapon, and spirit guardians) that are mostly exclusive to them. If you want fireball for your cleric, take the Light domain which is specifically a blasting cleric.
Flame strike gives clerics an AoE blast'em spell (which has the benefit of doing half radiant damage, which is an advantage over fireball in some situations) but it's higher level because clerics aren't supposed to be as good at AoE blasting as sorcerers and wizards (who don't wear armor, can't heal, etc because they aren't clerics).
Flame Strike does have a shape that can be better (cylinder versus sphere).
However, I feel like the explanations are lacking somewhat. Just because it's legacy, doesn't mean it makes sense. Also the different class idea makes sense and that was my first instinct, until you realise that there are subclasses of Clerics and Warlocks that get both. No spell list should have higher level spells that are objectively stronger and better than lower ones - Flame Strike is only a better choice in some very niche circumstances, and even many of those stem from the lack of power.
They should change it so that you don't get both in the same spell list.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Fireball is a bad example - it is deliberately designed to be overpowered for its level, as is lightning bolt, due to being legacy spells from basically all editions.
When compared to other spells that weren't deliberately designed to be overpowered for the level, flame strike is perfectly fine.
Stuff like that shouldn't exist in the game. That's honestly super dumb.
It's a branding thing. Fireball and Magic Missile are both super strong for their level because they are iconic spells that is strongly associated with DnD.
It's like if you look at SquareEnix and FinalFantasy. SquareEnix will never allow a mainline Final Fantasy game to fail because it's so closely associated with their brand, it's their flagship product. FFXIV launched to horrible reviews because it was a subpar game, and SquareEnix rebuilt it from scratch. No expense was spared because they needed to repair their brand and it's only recently that the game has become profitable.
In a similar fashion if a random spell is deemed as weak, it's not a big deal for WotC and D&D. But if Fireball or Magic Missile is deemed as weak that's a massive issue.
Perhaps.
This just means that if I'm to be a DM I'll either nerf these overpowered spells, or let my players reflavour the other spells to a similar power level. I don't really care about the feelings of WotC when it comes to game balance.
FF14. I love that people love it. Personally I find it uninspiring and I'm not enjoying the leveling experience as I find no challenge in any of the content. Also the combat to me is super slow paced and simple.
Fireball is a bad example - it is deliberately designed to be overpowered for its level, as is lightning bolt, due to being legacy spells from basically all editions.
When compared to other spells that weren't deliberately designed to be overpowered for the level, flame strike is perfectly fine.
Flamestrike was always a weaker spell than Fireball. In 2nd it didn't even do radiant damage and was one of the only direct damage spells accessible to a Cleric for a long time.
Flame strike was an AD&D spell for clerics just like fireball was for Magic-Users. And it was cleric only. Sadly it didn’t get the same “legacy” treatment. It wasn’t as iconic as fireball but at least when I played AD&D it was iconic cleric and a go to spell. I don’t have access to my 1E books at the moment so I can’t say how it compared back then.
Real simple question cause I can't find a clear answer. Is there a particular reason why Flame Strike is TWO LEVELS higher than fireball, when fireball does the same damage in a bigger area?
Fireball is a bad example - it is deliberately designed to be overpowered for its level, as is lightning bolt, due to being legacy spells from basically all editions.
When compared to other spells that weren't deliberately designed to be overpowered for the level, flame strike is perfectly fine.
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.
It's not a great answer but fireball is intentionally over tuned. Now to spend a day hunting down the interview where they discussed that
Edit: outside of spells that break the curve, having multiple damage types including a rarely resisted one may be part of the spell level calculation
It's also possible that the classes that get access to it weren't conceptualized as blaster classes, so their blaster magic doesn't compare favorably to that of, say, Sorcerers.
The longer the game lives, the less this distinction exists, let alone matters, because of new content "crossing the streams." And arguably it's better this way. But you asked for reasons, not justifications.
As stated - Fireball is deliberately overtuned, and clerics were origin ally conceived as a class with excellent buffy/supporty spells but kinda booty-buttcheeks donkey dooky direct-damage spells. Flame Strike is visually evocative but mechanically meh, which fits the goal of clerics having some access to blasty spells without being blasters.
Please do not contact or message me.
I think the cleric angle is onto something, since FS seems to be cleric exclusive. (Well certain subclasses can get it but only clerics as a base class, unless tashas gave it to anyone else.)
There's virtually no reason for say a wizard or sorcerer to take it, but in the context of the cleric spell list, maybe.
Stuff like that shouldn't exist in the game. That's honestly super dumb.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
Off the top of my head, the fiendlock is the only subclass that gets both Fireball and Flame Strike together on one spell list. There's not a huge incentive for that particular class to take both (especially since the Fireball will be dealing an extra 2d6 damage due to how Warlock spell slots work), but otherwise Flame Strike is a fairly reasonable spell.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The genie warlock patron also gives it when you choose an Efreeti as the genie kind.
It's a branding thing. Fireball and Magic Missile are both super strong for their level because they are iconic spells that is strongly associated with DnD.
It's like if you look at SquareEnix and FinalFantasy. SquareEnix will never allow a mainline Final Fantasy game to fail because it's so closely associated with their brand, it's their flagship product. FFXIV launched to horrible reviews because it was a subpar game, and SquareEnix rebuilt it from scratch. No expense was spared because they needed to repair their brand and it's only recently that the game has become profitable.
In a similar fashion if a random spell is deemed as weak, it's not a big deal for WotC and D&D. But if Fireball or Magic Missile is deemed as weak that's a massive issue.
Because its not an evocation wizard spell. Its for weak clerics.
There are some minor additional perks, like being unavoidable Radiant Damage - that has significant implications against undead. Fire damage is the most commonly resisted form of damage in the game as well, so Fireball is often a little weak.
it also does Radiant damage mixed with fire damage. Radiant is far less resisted than Fire damage. But the area of the effect is bs for the level.
Fireball is a signature wizard/sorcerer spell. Clerics are not intended to be primarily magical artillery pieces, which is a common role for sorcerers and wizards. If you want "perfect balance" between classes then you're arguing for every class to have access to every spell and ability and at that point there is no point in having classes in the first place. Clerics have plenty of powerful spells of their own (including combat spells like guiding bolt, inflict wounds, spiritual weapon, and spirit guardians) that are mostly exclusive to them. If you want fireball for your cleric, take the Light domain which is specifically a blasting cleric.
Flame strike gives clerics an AoE blast'em spell (which has the benefit of doing half radiant damage, which is an advantage over fireball in some situations) but it's higher level because clerics aren't supposed to be as good at AoE blasting as sorcerers and wizards (who don't wear armor, can't heal, etc because they aren't clerics).
Flame Strike does have a shape that can be better (cylinder versus sphere).
However, I feel like the explanations are lacking somewhat. Just because it's legacy, doesn't mean it makes sense. Also the different class idea makes sense and that was my first instinct, until you realise that there are subclasses of Clerics and Warlocks that get both. No spell list should have higher level spells that are objectively stronger and better than lower ones - Flame Strike is only a better choice in some very niche circumstances, and even many of those stem from the lack of power.
They should change it so that you don't get both in the same spell list.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Perhaps.
This just means that if I'm to be a DM I'll either nerf these overpowered spells, or let my players reflavour the other spells to a similar power level. I don't really care about the feelings of WotC when it comes to game balance.
FF14. I love that people love it. Personally I find it uninspiring and I'm not enjoying the leveling experience as I find no challenge in any of the content. Also the combat to me is super slow paced and simple.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
Alright guys So to summarize: Fireball is better than flamestrike " 'Cause it is"
Maybe not the answer I wanted to hear, but an accurate answer none the less! Thanks all lol
Happy to help ;-) wish there was a more satisfying answer
Flamestrike was always a weaker spell than Fireball. In 2nd it didn't even do radiant damage and was one of the only direct damage spells accessible to a Cleric for a long time.
Flame strike was an AD&D spell for clerics just like fireball was for Magic-Users. And it was cleric only. Sadly it didn’t get the same “legacy” treatment. It wasn’t as iconic as fireball but at least when I played AD&D it was iconic cleric and a go to spell. I don’t have access to my 1E books at the moment so I can’t say how it compared back then.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?