We've all seen a situation like this... initiative is rolled, and the barbarian is up first! "I charge at the opponent and rage, then attack!". The wizard interjects, mentioning that they can't throw their AOE spell without hitting our raging friend. A debate ensues around the table, about who should be able to do their cool thing, since one person's cool thing screws over the other's cool thing.
Why does it have to be like this again??? I feel like we could improve the game by making AOE and melee work well together, instead of against. Imagine if an AOE damage spell buffed allies somehow instead of damaged them. I feel like that would be significantly better for the game, since it does the following things:
- I mean it's fun for both the martial and the caster, no more conflict!
- D&D is a team game, abilities should synergize, plus it's cool to do team power moves!
- It's a great incentive for melee, which from an optimization standpoint, is way too dangerous to be optimal instead of ranged, in most situations
--------------------------------
Now how do we thematically justify this? How can a martial not also get damaged by a fireball? This isn't the most "realistic" answer, but I think it works... I'd nominate giving all martial classes... Absorb Elements on steroids, a reaction ability which would entirely negate spell damage, and provide extra melee damage on your next attack, however it only works on ally's spells.
I think something like the following would be a great way to thematically justify it:
"The swordsman fights the dragon in front of him, both of them wounded. The swordsman charges, backed up by the mage behind him, the spreading burst of fire engulfs the dragon. The swordsman cuts through the fire to avoid it, as the fire creeps up his blade. With the blade raised up in the air he strikes the dragon down with it's heated metal." --------------- Overall, what are your thoughts? Do you have any alternate solutions or takes on this subject?
We've all seen a situation like this... initiative is rolled, and the barbarian is up first! "I charge at the opponent and rage, then attack!". The wizard interjects, mentioning that they can't throw their AOE spell without hitting our raging friend. A debate ensues around the table, about who should be able to do their cool thing, since one person's cool thing screws over the other's cool thing.
Why does it have to be like this again??? I feel like we could improve the game by making AOE and melee work well together, instead of against. Imagine if an AOE damage spell buffed allies somehow instead of damaged them. I feel like that would be significantly better for the game, since it does the following things:
- I mean it's fun for both the martial and the caster, no more conflict!
- D&D is a team game, abilities should synergize, plus it's cool to do team power moves!
- It's a great incentive for melee, which from an optimization standpoint, is way too dangerous to be optimal instead of ranged, in most situations
--------------------------------
Now how do we thematically justify this? How can a martial not also get damaged by a fireball? This isn't the most "realistic" answer, but I think it works... I'd nominate giving all martial classes... Absorb Elements on steroids, a reaction ability which would entirely negate spell damage, and provide extra melee damage on your next attack, however it only works on ally's spells.
I think something like the following would be a great way to thematically justify it:
"The swordsman fights the dragon in front of him, both of them wounded. The swordsman charges, backed up by the mage behind him, the spreading burst of fire engulfs the dragon. The swordsman cuts through the fire to avoid it, as the fire creeps up his blade. With the blade raised up in the air he strikes the dragon down with it's heated metal." --------------- Overall, what are your thoughts? Do you have any alternate solutions or takes on this subject?
Laughs in Evocation Wizard. 💥💥🔥🔥☄️☄️
That’s like the whole point of Evocation Wizard. Dropping AoE spell’s on your friends without damaging them.
We've all seen a situation like this... initiative is rolled, and the barbarian is up first! "I charge at the opponent and rage, then attack!". The wizard interjects, mentioning that they can't throw their AOE spell without hitting our raging friend. A debate ensues around the table, about who should be able to do their cool thing, since one person's cool thing screws over the other's cool thing.
Why does it have to be like this again??? I feel like we could improve the game by making AOE and melee work well together, instead of against. Imagine if an AOE damage spell buffed allies somehow instead of damaged them. I feel like that would be significantly better for the game, since it does the following things:
- I mean it's fun for both the martial and the caster, no more conflict!
- D&D is a team game, abilities should synergize, plus it's cool to do team power moves!
- It's a great incentive for melee, which from an optimization standpoint, is way too dangerous to be optimal instead of ranged, in most situations
--------------------------------
Now how do we thematically justify this? How can a martial not also get damaged by a fireball? This isn't the most "realistic" answer, but I think it works... I'd nominate giving all martial classes... Absorb Elements on steroids, a reaction ability which would entirely negate spell damage, and provide extra melee damage on your next attack, however it only works on ally's spells.
I think something like the following would be a great way to thematically justify it:
"The swordsman fights the dragon in front of him, both of them wounded. The swordsman charges, backed up by the mage behind him, the spreading burst of fire engulfs the dragon. The swordsman cuts through the fire to avoid it, as the fire creeps up his blade. With the blade raised up in the air he strikes the dragon down with it's heated metal." --------------- Overall, what are your thoughts? Do you have any alternate solutions or takes on this subject?
Laughs in Evocation Wizard. 💥💥🔥🔥☄️☄️
That’s like the whole point of Evocation Wizard. Dropping AoE spell’s on your friends without damaging them.
And Sorcerer’s with Careful Meta-Magic.
While this is true, I do feel like all caster and martial pairs shouldn't be anti-synergistic. Most people don't take those abilities/subclasses and I'm not blaming them. Not having conflicting abilities in your party should be the default, not the exception
I agree with optimistic, there’s already powers that let you do that, if that’s what you want to do. Beyond the ones mentioned, there’s rogues with evasion to take no damage, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard rogue players say “drop the fireball on me, I’ll be ok.” Barbarians will get advantage on the save, pallys will add their cha bonus to their save, fighter can use an indomitable. And I don’t see it as antagonistic. It’s a choices and consequences and tactics. You can’t always do just what you want, so you make the best of each situation.
Use single target spells. If all AoE would be directly party friendly, which would be the purpose of existence of single target spells? We even have multi-target party friendly, like upcasting the hold ones, banishment, etc.
Even if you're the standard "fireball solves all problems" wizard, this is only really a problem in confined quarters and once the melee gets messy. Without those situations, you can drop your fireballs enough behind the front line to miss the front-line fighters, at a cost of maybe not roasting every single enemy.
And spellcasters have plenty of spells that synergize well with the martials; they're just not the classic big boom spells. You can interdict portions of the battlefield, limiting the enemy's ability to maneuver. You can target the melee's fire support. You can wait until the front line solidifies, then toss a more controlled spell across it.
Spellcasters don't need the help. Their best damage spells have the drawback that they can't always use them. If they could, then they become even more dominant, and also more boring.
"if an AOE damage spell buffed allies somehow instead of damaged them" sounds like an encounter power from 4e. and the lesson learned there was that it's okay to have rough edges, imbalance, and conflict as long as it isn't boring. the same logic keeps fireball overtuned and eternally tempting to 'oops it slipped' beside allies.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Even if you're the standard "fireball solves all problems" wizard, this is only really a problem in confined quarters and once the melee gets messy. Without those situations, you can drop your fireballs enough behind the front line to miss the front-line fighters, at a cost of maybe not roasting every single enemy.
And spellcasters have plenty of spells that synergize well with the martials; they're just not the classic big boom spells. You can interdict portions of the battlefield, limiting the enemy's ability to maneuver. You can target the melee's fire support. You can wait until the front line solidifies, then toss a more controlled spell across it.
Spellcasters don't need the help. Their best damage spells have the drawback that they can't always use them. If they could, then they become even more dominant, and also more boring.
I could see this a lot. A lot of players are tempted to overuse spells like Fireball and Lightning Bolt even if they're overrated, and this will make that problem significantly worse. If this idea were to be in play, there would need to be something new to encourage newer players to not endlessly spam those spells Although I'd argue that I tend to see melee martials nerfed more by caster AOEs, than casters being nerfed by their own AOES if that makes sense. A martial in melee can get overwhelmed quick by multiple opponents, and having a caster in the back to eliminate the lesser opponents near the martial with AOE while a martial can focus on killing a boss further would make melee significantly less dangerous for a martial to enter
if only there were a way for casters to make a choice that allows them to not target allies...such as....evocation wizard.
As someone who's abandoned martial classes to play magic users...magic users do not need more help in finding opportunities to do cool things. I do not feel at all bad for a caster who loses initiative.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Honestly they have done so much to make AOE friendly 5e. Back in the day you had to do math if you cast a fireball in a small hallway. Usually you still got yourself and all your friends. What’s the volume of this hallway. Also unless your wizard is really slow on the initiative or the Barbarian is right in the middle of all the enemies they should be able to aim the spells center to hit most of the enemies while avoiding the Barbarian
We've all seen a situation like this... initiative is rolled, and the barbarian is up first! "I charge at the opponent and rage, then attack!". The wizard interjects, mentioning that they can't throw their AOE spell without hitting our raging friend. A debate ensues around the table, about who should be able to do their cool thing, since one person's cool thing screws over the other's cool thing.
Why does it have to be like this again??? I feel like we could improve the game by making AOE and melee work well together, instead of against. Imagine if an AOE damage spell buffed allies somehow instead of damaged them. I feel like that would be significantly better for the game, since it does the following things:
- I mean it's fun for both the martial and the caster, no more conflict!
- D&D is a team game, abilities should synergize, plus it's cool to do team power moves!
- It's a great incentive for melee, which from an optimization standpoint, is way too dangerous to be optimal instead of ranged, in most situations
--------------------------------
Now how do we thematically justify this? How can a martial not also get damaged by a fireball? This isn't the most "realistic" answer, but I think it works...
I'd nominate giving all martial classes... Absorb Elements on steroids, a reaction ability which would entirely negate spell damage, and provide extra melee damage on your next attack, however it only works on ally's spells.
I think something like the following would be a great way to thematically justify it:
"The swordsman fights the dragon in front of him, both of them wounded. The swordsman charges, backed up by the mage behind him, the spreading burst of fire engulfs the dragon. The swordsman cuts through the fire to avoid it, as the fire creeps up his blade. With the blade raised up in the air he strikes the dragon down with it's heated metal."
---------------
Overall, what are your thoughts? Do you have any alternate solutions or takes on this subject?
Laughs in Evocation Wizard. 💥💥🔥🔥☄️☄️
That’s like the whole point of Evocation Wizard. Dropping AoE spell’s on your friends without damaging them.
And Sorcerer’s with Careful Meta-Magic.
While this is true, I do feel like all caster and martial pairs shouldn't be anti-synergistic. Most people don't take those abilities/subclasses and I'm not blaming them. Not having conflicting abilities in your party should be the default, not the exception
I agree with optimistic, there’s already powers that let you do that, if that’s what you want to do. Beyond the ones mentioned, there’s rogues with evasion to take no damage, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard rogue players say “drop the fireball on me, I’ll be ok.” Barbarians will get advantage on the save, pallys will add their cha bonus to their save, fighter can use an indomitable.
And I don’t see it as antagonistic. It’s a choices and consequences and tactics. You can’t always do just what you want, so you make the best of each situation.
There's nothing wrong with having spells that work that way, plenty of spells are selective, but they'll necessarily be less powerful in other ways.
The easiest fix to friendly fire problems is to just make AoEs smaller. It's quite easy to place a 5' or even 10' radius so it won't hit allies.
Use single target spells. If all AoE would be directly party friendly, which would be the purpose of existence of single target spells? We even have multi-target party friendly, like upcasting the hold ones, banishment, etc.
Even if you're the standard "fireball solves all problems" wizard, this is only really a problem in confined quarters and once the melee gets messy. Without those situations, you can drop your fireballs enough behind the front line to miss the front-line fighters, at a cost of maybe not roasting every single enemy.
And spellcasters have plenty of spells that synergize well with the martials; they're just not the classic big boom spells. You can interdict portions of the battlefield, limiting the enemy's ability to maneuver. You can target the melee's fire support. You can wait until the front line solidifies, then toss a more controlled spell across it.
Spellcasters don't need the help. Their best damage spells have the drawback that they can't always use them. If they could, then they become even more dominant, and also more boring.
"if an AOE damage spell buffed allies somehow instead of damaged them" sounds like an encounter power from 4e. and the lesson learned there was that it's okay to have rough edges, imbalance, and conflict as long as it isn't boring. the same logic keeps fireball overtuned and eternally tempting to 'oops it slipped' beside allies.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
I could see this a lot. A lot of players are tempted to overuse spells like Fireball and Lightning Bolt even if they're overrated, and this will make that problem significantly worse. If this idea were to be in play, there would need to be something new to encourage newer players to not endlessly spam those spells
Although I'd argue that I tend to see melee martials nerfed more by caster AOEs, than casters being nerfed by their own AOES if that makes sense. A martial in melee can get overwhelmed quick by multiple opponents, and having a caster in the back to eliminate the lesser opponents near the martial with AOE while a martial can focus on killing a boss further would make melee significantly less dangerous for a martial to enter
if only there were a way for casters to make a choice that allows them to not target allies...such as....evocation wizard.
As someone who's abandoned martial classes to play magic users...magic users do not need more help in finding opportunities to do cool things. I do not feel at all bad for a caster who loses initiative.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Honestly they have done so much to make AOE friendly 5e. Back in the day you had to do math if you cast a fireball in a small hallway. Usually you still got yourself and all your friends. What’s the volume of this hallway. Also unless your wizard is really slow on the initiative or the Barbarian is right in the middle of all the enemies they should be able to aim the spells center to hit most of the enemies while avoiding the Barbarian
Lightning Bolt is usually more party friendly as is much easier to aim not hitting your allies but a good amount of enemies.