Why do fireballs in D&D media most of the time

[Zurvan]

Why do fireballs in D&D media most of the time look like balls made of fire rather than "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 an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure."?

Is there a reason for that?

[KillianHawkeye]

Yes, it's called artistic license.

There isn't much difference most of the time whether or not a pre-exploded fireball is pea-sized or not, and having it be larger fits with the more generally known notion of what a fireball is. Anyone watching the show who isn't closely familiar with D&D wouldn't understand what the pea-sized fireball was unless and until it goes off, and that can be seen as a problem for people who want their show to be relatable and understandable to the masses.

It's the same reason why D&D-related or D&D-inspired media normally doesn't cling too strictly to the D&D rules themselves, either.

[InvisibleBison]

I would guess it's some combination of the fireball only being depicted while it is detonating, the artist being ignorant of the rules text, and the author choosing to deviate from the rules text for aesthetic reasons.

[Anymage]

Ultimately? Because Gygax had to deal with players wanting to know how to use the in-universe physics to their advantage, and a small exploding pea was easier to work with than a 40' wide ball traversing the whole distance. Artists and directors are more concerned with what looks cool. That often makes fireballs significantly smaller than the explosive end of their d&d counterparts, but they look like actual balls of fire instead of small pellets the whole way through.

Or to be both more general and succinct, what's best for one guy in complete control of a story often isn't the same as what's best for an RPG.

[Tinkerer]

The classic fireball would be quite effective at being incredibly creepy though. Just a barely visible little speck flying through the air with no noise or anything, then KABOOSH!

[Mr Beer]

Is there a reason for that?

Depends what you mean by D&D media, but a single pea will be barely visible on screen, so you won't even see the fireball rushing towards the enemy.

More importantly a big glowing ball of fire looks cooler and visual media is about looking cool.

[Jay R]

Because the D&D Fireball spell existed for a quarter century before that description was written. It's one description of the spell, but by no means the only one.

[Calthropstu]

I am going to disagree on "cool" here. I picture the following: A small globe flies toward the party. The rookies in the party just look at it wondering what it is while the veteran shouts "Get down!" He tackles the rookie fighter and knocks the rookie mage out of the way, basically making them make their reflex save. The rogue sees the explosion as it comes and backflips behind an altar. One of the rookies doesn't make it.
The party then jumps into action. The cleric heals the guy who's down while the fighter jumps up and charges the mage. The veteran pulls out his bow and begins firing in rapid succession. The rookie mage throws a magic missle, and the attacker is forced to retreat or die, his surprise fireball attack having failed to wipe out the party as he'd hoped.
All in the space of a few seconds.

[tensai_oni]

Because a ball of fire that explodes into a huge ball of fire is cool, while a pea-sized bead is lame and, like other posters pointed out, won't even be visible in any kind of visual medium.

While we're at it, spells that are shot from a pointing digit are lame too, unless you are deliberately going for a smooth criminal vibe of a spellcaster with magic finger bullets. Projectiles emerging from the palm, literally thrown at the enemy, or just appearing out of thin air as a manifestation of arcane power - now that's cool.


I am going to disagree on "cool" here. I picture the following: A small globe flies toward the party. The rookies in the party just look at it wondering what it is while the veteran shouts "Get down!" He tackles the rookie fighter and knocks the rookie mage out of the way, basically making them make their reflex save. The rogue sees the explosion as it comes and backflips behind an altar. One of the rookies doesn't make it.
The party then jumps into action. The cleric heals the guy who's down while the fighter jumps up and charges the mage. The veteran pulls out his bow and begins firing in rapid succession. The rookie mage throws a magic missle, and the attacker is forced to retreat or die, his surprise fireball attack having failed to wipe out the party as he'd hoped.
All in the space of a few seconds.

Okay, first of all, a pea-sized bead is not "a small globe". It's so tiny that no one except superhuman gods of perception would be able to notice it on time and, once again, in any kind of visual medium it wouldn't be possible to even show it.

Second, how different would this scene play out if the fireball was a ball of fire and not a small globe? Either way everyone has only mere moments to react. The "party jumping into action" part would be identical too.

[weckar]

Okay, first of all, a pea-sized bead is not "a small globe". It's so tiny that no one except superhuman gods of perception would be able to notice it on time GLOWING pea-sized bead. That word makes the difference from imperceptible to easily visible.

[Knaight]

Because the D&D Fireball spell existed for a quarter century before that description was written. It's one description of the spell, but by no means the only one.

Plus the term "fireball" predates any spell description significantly, and even if it didn't it's a word where you could get the definition pretty close to accurate simply by being familiar with the words "fire" and "ball".

[Calthropstu]

Because a ball of fire that explodes into a huge ball of fire is cool, while a pea-sized bead is lame and, like other posters pointed out, won't even be visible in any kind of visual medium.

While we're at it, spells that are shot from a pointing digit are lame too, unless you are deliberately going for a smooth criminal vibe of a spellcaster with magic finger bullets. Projectiles emerging from the palm, literally thrown at the enemy, or just appearing out of thin air as a manifestation of arcane power - now that's cool.



Okay, first of all, a pea-sized bead is not "a small globe". It's so tiny that no one except superhuman gods of perception would be able to notice it on time and, once again, in any kind of visual medium it wouldn't be possible to even show it.

Second, how different would this scene play out if the fireball was a ball of fire and not a small globe? Either way everyone has only mere moments to react. The "party jumping into action" part would be identical too.

First: See the comment directly below yours. It would be like a small floating LED.
Second: You see a ball of fire coming at you, you know it's a ball of fire. There's no curious "What's that?"

[Kaptin Keen]

Is there a reason for that?

Whoever wrote the description missed every obvious opportunity to put some drama into it, making it intensely boring, which is why no one sees it that way. Simple. Drama is why.

[Vogie]

Probably because the "original" fireball-as-a-weapon was fired from a catapult. A Flaming ball of fire has that same look as an flaming arrow, just a ball rather than an arrow.

The description of the spell would look more like an explosive tracer round. Maybe a mortar or a tiny glowing RPG. Pew - Hit - Boom. While that is cool, it's doesn't actually look like a ball of fire. It is a spell that causes a ball of fire. That's a very subtle distinction.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-syPHGcfGnsw/TlqB4S9BaZI/AAAAAAAAAZg/y2_8Wn5-FK0/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/sunday_funny%2B%25287%2529.jpg

https://i.amz.mshcdn.com/-aTi_eXVS0kZf1Q0zRRl2dtHy4w=/fit-in/1200x9600/http%3A%2F%2Fmashable.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F05%2FTank.gif

[Tanarii]

https://i.amz.mshcdn.com/-aTi_eXVS0kZf1Q0zRRl2dtHy4w=/fit-in/1200x9600/http%3A%2F%2Fmashable.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F05%2FTank.gifMore like Delayed Blast Fireball. :smallbiggrin:

[AshfireMage]

I once lost a familiar due to the "pea-sized" aspect.

Cats (even intelligent ones) and small glowing explosive objects do not mix. He ate it, figuratively and literally.

[Xuc Xac]

More like Delayed Blast Fireball. :smallbiggrin:

It's not a delay if it goes off in the same round. That GIF shows the action of one round. Tank shoots and misses, Tony shoots back and hits, all in less than 6 seconds.

[Mutazoia]

It's not a delay if it goes off in the same round. That GIF shows the action of one round. Tank shoots and misses, Tony shoots back and hits, all in less than 6 seconds.

Debatable, as Tony does pause briefly, turns, and starts to walk away. But the "delay" of a "delayed blast fireball" can by any time between "instantly" or "when the maximum time limit is reached, as specified by caster level, etc."


https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=joker+blows+up+hospital+scene&view=detail&mid=05207CEEE5719C4A797E05207CEEE5719C4A797E&FORM=VIRE

[Segev]

I seem to recall, but won't try to cite a location, that at least in one edition, the bead could be expressly aimed with an attack roll to go through narrow openings.

[KillianHawkeye]

I seem to recall, but won't try to cite a location, that at least in one edition, the bead could be expressly aimed with an attack roll to go through narrow openings.

It's like that in 3e/3.5, at least.

[Xuc Xac]

Debatable, as Tony does pause briefly, turns, and starts to walk away.

"Less than 6 seconds" is not debatable. You can time it.

Tank shoots and misses. Tony shoots, hits, and takes his free 5 foot step. One round.

Movie fights often work a lot like RPGs with turn-based initiative. The camera can only focus on one thing at a time, so actions that would realistically be simultaneous are shown sequentially instead.

[wumpus]

"Less than 6 seconds" is not debatable. You can time it.

Tank shoots and misses. Tony shoots, hits, and takes his free 5 foot step. One round.

Movie fights often work a lot like RPGs with turn-based initiative. The camera can only focus on one thing at a time, so actions that would realistically be simultaneous are shown sequentially instead.

You really don't want to try to break this down in AD&D (1e only?) timekeeping. Players are expected to be "running as fast as they can [per Gygax, many chapters away from the rules]" but still take one minute to go 20 feet. Each round of combat takes one minute, with 6 seconds being nearly instantaneous (and since initiative was rolled on d6, if it is prorated you still won't be able to act ahead of the fireball).

1e needed a lot of work. RAW was not an option.

It was also never clear if there was any force behind the explosion. By rules there wasn't, unless you wanted dramatically damaged scenery (TSR sold modules [L1? was one] that included "fireball" damaged ruins that implied explosive fireballs. Plenty of DMs made use of fireball underground wildly dangerous (of course, fire was often used by sappers to remove underground supports), even before considering that there is virtually no way to fire a fireball down a corridor without hitting the entire party as well (it fits x cubic feet, that's a lot of 10'x10' corridor).

[Slipperychicken]

I recall hearing that the pressure clause was included later because the pressure used to blow up walls and cause other unintended consequences like roasting the party or caving in dungeons.

Also, I don't think anyone actually uses the 'pea-sized bead' lore. I don't like it myself. And nobody resolves fire damage to the players' belongings.

[tomandtish]

It's a common argument. Heck, even in other works of fiction this argument occurs, both how it should look and how it should WORK...


The wizard shrieked, and a fireball whipped over my head, exploding twenty-one feet in front of me, then spread out in a perfect circle, like the shock wave of a nuke, burning and roasting thugs as it went and stopping a bare twelve inches shy of my nose.

“Oh, come on!” I said. “It doesn’t work like that!”

“What?” demanded the wizard.

“It doesn’t work like that!” I insisted. “Even if you call up fire with magic, it’s still fire. It acts like fire. It expands in a sphere. And under a ceiling, that means it goes rushing much farther down hallways and tunnels. It doesn’t just go twenty feet and then stop.”

“Fireballs used to work like that.” The wizard sighed. “But do you know what a chore it is to calculate exactly how far those things will spread? I mean, it slows everything down.”

“It’s simple math,” I said. “And it’s way better than the fire just spreading twenty feet regardless of what’s around it. What, do fireballs carry tape measures or something?”

Billy the Werewolf sighed and put down his character sheet and his dice. “Harry,” he protested gently, “repeat after me: It’s only a game.”

I folded my arms and frowned at him across his dining room table. It was littered with snacks, empty cans of pop, pieces of paper, and tiny model monsters and adventurers (including a massively thewed barbarian model for my character). Georgia, Billy’s willowy brunette wife, sat at the table with us, as did the redheaded bombshell Andi, while lanky Kirby lurked behind several folding screens covered with fantasy art at the head of the table.

“I’m just saying,” I said, “there’s no reason the magic can’t be portrayed at least a little more accurately, is there?”

“Again with this discussion.” Andi sighed. “I mean, I know he’s the actual wizard and all, but Christ.”

Kirby nodded glumly. “It’s like taking a physicist to a Star Trek movie.”

“Harry,” Georgia said firmly, “you’re doing it again.”

“Oh, no, I’m not!” I protested. “All I’m saying is that—”

Georgia arched an eyebrow and gave me a steady look down her aquiline nose. “You know the law, Dresden.”

“He who kills the cheer springs for beer,” chanted the rest of the table.

[Mordaedil]

You really don't want to try to break this down in AD&D (1e only?) timekeeping. Players are expected to be "running as fast as they can [per Gygax, many chapters away from the rules]" but still take one minute to go 20 feet. Each round of combat takes one minute, with 6 seconds being nearly instantaneous (and since initiative was rolled on d6, if it is prorated you still won't be able to act ahead of the fireball).

1e needed a lot of work. RAW was not an option.
Nobody is talking about 1st edition? That combat is seconds long is in all editions of D&D since 2nd as far as I recall. And a round of combat was never 1 minute, that was a turn of combat, which consisted of 10 rounds.

[Tanarii]

Nobody is talking about 1st edition? That combat is seconds long is in all editions of D&D since 2nd as far as I recall. And a round of combat was never 1 minute, that was a turn of combat, which consisted of 10 rounds.
1e combat rounds were one minute, with six second segments, a turn was ten minutes.

2nd edition also used 1 minute rounds too, prior to Combat and Tactics, which changed it to 10 seconds (I think).

(Not that it's particularly relevant to your point that it wasn't specifically about 1e fireballs.)

[Anonymouswizard]

Yeah, it's rare for D&D fireballs to be presented with the glowing bead, because it can be hard to follow. I think the closest I've personally seen was in Dragon Age (which is not technically D&D, but close enough), where the fireball spell was a ball of fire that travelled to the target point and exploded into a bigger ball of fire.

Because the spell description I'm used to would essentially look like this: the wizard finishes his chant with a point and a glowing streak leaps from his outstretched finger which explodes at the point the wizard wishes. The spell resolves within a second or two, you can't notice the bead quickly enough to shout a warning once the casting has finished and to the unware it'll look like the fireball just appeared where the wizard wanted (which would also work).

Fireballs in fiction, even most D&D fiction I'm aware of, tends to act more like the Orb of Fire spell, a ball that streaks from the user's hand or is thrown and hits the target.

[Tanarii]

Not sure why the travel to point of explosion whatsit is needed anyway. Couldn't it just be evoked explosive fire at range? I mean, I suppose it makes it clear what happens if there is total cover you can see through (wall of force) between you and the target.

[Anymage]

Not sure why the travel to point of explosion whatsit is needed anyway. Couldn't it just be evoked explosive fire at range? I mean, I suppose it makes it clear what happens if there is total cover you can see through (wall of force) between you and the target.

In D&D? As touched on above, because a lot of the spell's backstory comes from versions of the game that tried to have realistic magic physics. Never mind how those words do not go together well at all, or how completely off the mark some of those attempts were.

In other fiction? Because it looks cooler to have someone throwing a ball of fire than to just have someplace explode. Plus, tying into both points, that "some random point just explodes in a ball of fire" opens the door up to a lot more sneaky tricks.

[Toofey]

The classic fireball would be quite effective at being incredibly creepy though. Just a barely visible little speck flying through the air with no noise or anything, then KABOOSH!

I agree, it would be a great slow motion element, with maybe one or two of the targets seeing it coming and trying to call out a warning, people throwing themselves behind cover etc, the back to normal time for the explosion. Maybe slightly cliche, but we all know what kind of scene I'm describing.

[Anymage]

I agree, it would be a great slow motion element, with maybe one or two of the targets seeing it coming and trying to call out a warning, people throwing themselves behind cover etc, the back to normal time for the explosion. Maybe slightly cliche, but we all know what kind of scene I'm describing.

While it makes for a cool scene in isolation, it doesn't really fit in with how I see fantasy fights. Following the missile for the explosive version of a kill cam shot assumes that the missile is both singular enough for that sort of focus, and devastating enough for a kill cam effect. (Even for normal kill cams, you assume that one bullet is deadly and effective all on its own.) Your average high fantasy hero can usually hold his own against magical attacks, and quite often the casters have plenty of fireballs to spare.

To go 5e D&D for a moment (which, for all its flaws, does work better with highly scene-based tropes), small balls of fire are your at-will attacks. The Big One is something that villains rarely pull off and that the heroes only pull off at a major turning point, and most often there's some other The Big One effect to pull off other than a massive burst of flame.

[Kami2awa]

I envision it a bit like a photon torpedo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4GpWd7sZXw

Poor old Will.

[Lord Haart]

Fireballs that don't have to travel and just explode out of the targeted place are more common in strategy games (both TBS and RTS).

Off the top of my hand, among the games/game series i frequently play that feature fireballs:

Non-exploding "fireballs" that hit only one target: Gothic (has a higher-level version that does explode), World of Warcraft, Battle for Wesnoth, Doom, fighting games. Personally i believe such "fireballs" to be a bit of a misnomer.

Small missile (usually a puffy, golfball to football-sized sphere rather than a bead) that explodes into a big explosion: feels like the most common variety. Diablo series, Nox (a beautiful game that visually codifies a lot of DnD-inherited stuff), Might and Magic 6-9, HoMM 4, Infinity Engine games (bigger than a bead, though), Skyrim, ADOM, Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup…

Instantaneous explosion originating in the targeted space, with no missile needed: Heroes of Might and Magic 1-3 and 5, Master of Magic, Might and Magic 3-5 (i believe; at least it did damage to several rows of enemies, including the closest range, but didn't harm the party)… Can't remember any more right now.

Warcraft 3 managed to go without a spell specifically carrying that name, somehow. Its fireball-like effects were either type 1 if non-ability attacks, or type 3 if active abilities.


When refluffing (because "a fireball" is such a recognisable, evocative name that says "this dude can blow things up with his arcane might"), i tend to call a spell this if it: can be evoked at a distance, has an area of effect bigger than one square (being ally-friendly is discouraged, but not prohibited), does fire damage (obviously), and feels like a decently-powered explosion either by virtue of doing good damage or by having explosion-y additional effects (like knocking targets prone). Fiery Burst reserve feat in 3.5 and Orbmaster's Incendiary Detonation (Wizard, lvl 1 encounter; damage a bit too low, but it knocks prone, so feels like an explosion) and Explosive Pyre (Sorcerer, lvl 1 encounter) in 4e are great low-level/spammable stand-ins for Big F when Big F itself is not avaiable (for various reasons), despite their relatively small (Fiery Burst only covers 4 squares) explosion size. The general idea is that every character's way of making fire ball is slightly different, and most deliberately don't train to cover a Whopping Big area because smaller-but-still-AoE ones are both less dangerous and less taxing.


And then, of course, there is this gem from Might and Magic 6:
http://mm6world.ru/pic/6_spells/f06.gif

[Taro]

When I think D&D fireball I think explosions, all the othe rorbs of fire only set the target ablaze.

[Eladrinblade]

Produce Flame is the closest thing to actual "fireballs" that most people think of when they hear the word.

[Calthropstu]

1e combat rounds were one minute, with six second segments, a turn was ten minutes.

2nd edition also used 1 minute rounds too, prior to Combat and Tactics, which changed it to 10 seconds (I think).

(Not that it's particularly relevant to your point that it wasn't specifically about 1e fireballs.)

Wrong, on all accounts. I have the 2e handbook right in front me. Combat is 6 seconds per round, 10 rounds to a turn.

I remember 1e being this as well. Never have I seen 1 round be 1 minute.

[KorvinStarmast]

Why do fireballs in D&D media most of the time look like balls made of fire rather than "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 an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure."? Yeah. The artists, being artists, aren't anal retentive but are instead creative. See "left brain" and "right brain" models of explaining human behavior.

[Tanarii]

Yeah. The artists, being artists, aren't anal retentive but are instead creative. See "left brain" and "right brain" models of explaining human behavior.
You mean the models that have been thoroughly discredited, and is only still around because simplistic pop-psychology sticks around long past its expiration date?

Edit: more to the point, I know lots of anal retentive traditionally creative artists, as well as plenty who 'create' analytically or constructively or mathematically or scientifically. Not holistically, by what's normally thought of as creative process.

Although they're certainly less common than traditionally creative types.

[Xuc Xac]

Wrong, on all accounts. I have the 2e handbook right in front me. Combat is 6 seconds per round, 10 rounds to a turn.

I remember 1e being this as well. Never have I seen 1 round be 1 minute.

What printing is that book? Is that something from the "Player's Option" series? AD&D (1E and 2E) had 1 minute rounds. Basic D&D had more reasonable 10 second rounds. 3E and 4E had 6 second rounds.

AD&D 1E: "The 1 minute melee round assumes much activity -- rushes, retreats, feints, parries, checks and so on. Once during this period each combatant has the opportunity to get a real blow in."

AD&D 2E: "A round is approximately one minute long. Ten combat rounds equal a turn... But these are just approximations..."
Player's Handbook page 91

[Mordaedil]

You mean the models that have been thoroughly discredited, and is only still around because simplistic pop-psychology sticks around long past its expiration date?

There's old models that were discredited, but new ones that have made the distinction more interesting.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfYbgdo8e-8

[Anonymouswizard]

Yeah. The artists, being artists, aren't anal retentive but are instead creative. See "left brain" and "right brain" models of explaining human behavior.

What annoys me about that is that as I'm both autistic and interested in science people would identify me as, I think it's 'left brained', and insist that I'm going to be bad at being creative. That's not true, I'm currently working on a couple of SF short stories I'm planning to either upload to my blog or compile into a PWYW collection. I just work more methodically, the first thing I do is to take what I like, take out elements from some of that stuff, and try to combine it together into something new.

Am I a brilliantly creative person? Not really, my style's a bit more suited to comic books than my preferred prose, and while I can write short stories of up to about 5,000 words easily I struggle with getting anything even novella length. But it's the same for many 'right brained' people. I know somebody who has written his own game (and hopes to publish it at some point, it's still in ongoing beta), he's a dyslexic with a PhD in physics and is now working on space stuff in the EU, and most people would consider him a 'left brained' person, but from a simple idea he's created an engaging setting and heavily modified his favourite system to blend perfectly (to the point where you can only notice the original system if you look very carefully).

I'm more a believer in 'logical versus intuitive', where both kinds of people can do well in any field, but that's just me making bad attempts to analyse my personal experience then anything that's likely true.


There's old models that were discredited, but new ones that have made the distinction more interesting.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfYbgdo8e-8

Yeah, that's an interesting video, although I've been told it doesn't get everything 100% accurate. Given me ideas for a fantasy story though, where somebody loses one of their souls (everybody in the setting has two) and suddenly becomes unable to recognise faces (and other nonspeaking brain stuff).

[Mordaedil]

It is only a 5 minute video, would be kinda crazy if he managed to put in every nuance into it and it's a fun philosophy lecture any way.

But yeah, while the brains are spearate, there's a lot they still coordinate since some signals go to both brains at the same time and we don't know everything there is to know about the brains as they really complicated things.

And classifying one as the "creative" part and the other as the "logical" part is hugely oversimplifying things we don't know much about and extrapolating based on observations in a minute few people.

It's all very lacking in terms of real science that can be applied broadly as definite. They serve almost more as guidelines.

[Anonymouswizard]

It is only a 5 minute video, would be kinda crazy if he managed to put in every nuance into it and it's a fun philosophy lecture any way.

But yeah, while the brains are spearate, there's a lot they still coordinate since some signals go to both brains at the same time and we don't know everything there is to know about the brains as they really complicated things.

And classifying one as the "creative" part and the other as the "logical" part is hugely oversimplifying things we don't know much about and extrapolating based on observations in a minute few people.

It's all very lacking in terms of real science that can be applied broadly as definite. They serve almost more as guidelines.

Yeah, I understand that, from what I gather it's more that even before speculation time he presents hypothesises as theories (from the science side of it), but it's still a very good introduction to the idea. I also like his video on the transporter.

[Mordaedil]

He is an intelligent man as one can gather from the podcasts he does, where he brings up the faults with his own videos and how they are cut in content and specifications for purposes of being entertaining as well as informative.

The pod-casts are harder to watch on that end, namely because they aren't made solely to entertain.