Fireball is a support spell - Change my mind

[Greywander]

Fireball is an above-average AoE blasting spell. And if you stop there, I think you're missing what really makes this a great spell.

Against a single target, Fireball does modest damage, which is impressive for an AoE spell. Where the real strength in Fireball lies, though, is in the following three traits:

8d6 averages out to 28 damage, which is enough to kill some CR 1 creatures in one shot. For reference, a 5th level [class with d8 hit die] with CON 10 has exactly 28 HP.
It deals half damage on a successful save, and 14 damage is enough to kill many CR 1/2 creatures instantly even if they pass the save.
It has a very wide area of effect, meaning it can potentially affect a lot of creatures, probably up to 40+ if they're tightly packed, but 10+ will still be quite common.

Now, by the time you get Fireball, CR 1 creatures should be fairly easy to deal with. But because of both the limits of the action economy and Bounded Accuracy, a horde of such creatures can rate as a Deadly encounter (even to high level PCs!) where a small group would be Easy. A well placed Fireball can vaporize two-thirds of the enemy forces, bringing a Deadly encounter back down to Easy.

To put it another way, when I see a group of 20 goblins standing next to each other, I don't think, "I'm about to do so much damage." Rather, I think, "I'm about to prevent so many incoming attacks."

This might lead us into a discussion of what could be called "damage tanking support", i.e. protecting your allies by killing enemies to prevent them from attacking. Damage tanking support shares the same principle as meat-shield tanking: damage doesn't matter unless it reduces someone to 0 HP. Meat shields work because they can absorb damage without being reduced to 0. Damage tanking support is hard because usually enemies have too many hit points to reduce them to 0 immediately, and every round where you fail to drop them to 0 is another round your party has to take attacks from that creature. Meat-shielding tends to be more effective than damage tanking support against such enemies, but where damage tanking support excels is against weaker enemies like goblins.

Generally, blasting isn't my cup of tea, but Fireball is a spell I'd probably want to always have prepared simply because it's so effective at cutting down enemy hordes. But if I knew that I wasn't going to drop the enemies down to 0 HP, I'd first consider if there might be a better spell to use. For example, I could create a wall that cuts the enemy forces in half, letting us only fight half of them at a time.

I've kind of wanted to write a guide on tanking survival for a while, and just haven't gotten around to it. What I'm hoping is that by offering a different perspective of Fireball, I can get people to start thinking about their abilities from a different perspective. Tanking Survival is a group effort, and everyone can contribute. Many spells and abilities go under the radar because people don't see beyond damage numbers and killing things as fast as possible. Ironically, killing things as fast as possible is exactly what damage tanking support does, but people fail to see this as tanking support. In particular, when given the choice between maximizing damage or dropping an enemy to 0 HP, there seems to be a preference for the former despite how beneficial it is to remove an enemy from the fight. People don't want to "waste" damage by attacking an already wounded enemy, or one that doesn't have many HP to begin with.

A lot of people here seem to agree with Treantmonk's guide to God Wizards, which encourages this sort of playing (control and support over blasting). But there's a difference between knowing and understanding. I think even Treantmonk might (keyword "might") underestimate how effective Fireball is, perhaps because he's still considering it in terms of a blast spell. But even if you're not a blaster, there are times when Fireball is the best thing you can do to protect your allies and support your party.

Basically, Fireball is a spell that, when used correctly, greatly reduces the number of incoming enemy attacks for the rest of the battle. Somewhat niche (it's a counter to a specific albeit common tactic), but still an excellent tanking support spell in the right context. Change my mind.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have to agree from personal experience. There's an Evoker in one of my games that has turned many a challenging encounter into mulch with a well-placed fireball (and shatter for that matter). Being able to drop it on the melee's heads doesn't hurt either.

[LudicSavant]

You don't need your mind changed, because you're already doing it right. :xykon:

[JakOfAllTirades]

Isn't this just "Blasting" by another name?

[LudicSavant]

Isn't this just "Blasting" by another name?

It is. There are many ways to describe the various impacts of a spell.

Back in 4e for example AoE damage was referred to by the designers as filling the "Controller" role, for pretty much exactly this reason; it helps with crowd control.

[Sigreid]

My main right now is an evoker and I can tell you your missing something. You can almost always place your fireball in such a way that cover is useless. :smallbiggrin:

But, you're right. The AOE spells, properly placed against the correct targets, can trivialize an encounter in an action or two greatly reducing the damage the party is subjected to. Especially if your DM takes into account that many critters that might survive the first spell are not going to be eager to experience a second one.

[MaxWilson]

5E's tactical structure looks roughly like this:

Low-CR swarms beat legendary solos
Legendary solos beat AoE spellcasters
AoE spellcasters beat low-CR swarms

For example, to create an adventure to challenge shepherd druids AND GWM Barbarians AND Evokers, use a mix of e.g. Flameskulls/Mind Flayers for AoE against conjured animals, Hobgoblin squads to threaten the Barbarian, and an Adult White Dragon to threaten the spellcasters. No single PC type will dominate the whole adventure.

AoE works best against non-tool-using enemies though. Hobgoblins have longbows and a sound tactical doctrine--you won't catch them in Fireball Formation unless you trick them into making a mistake somehow, like chasing you into tight quarters.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

A lot of people here seem to agree with Treantmonk's guide to God Wizards, which encourages this sort of playing (control and support over blasting). But there's a difference between knowing and understanding. I think even Treantmonk might (keyword "might") underestimate how effective Fireball is, perhaps because he's still considering it in terms of a blast spell. But even if you're not a blaster, there are times when Fireball is the best thing you can do to protect your allies and support your party.

Basically, Fireball is a spell that, when used correctly, greatly reduces the number of incoming enemy attacks for the rest of the battle. Somewhat niche (it's a counter to a specific albeit common tactic), but still an excellent tanking spell in the right context. Change my mind.

Dead is the best status effect goes back pretty far, and it (and you!) are right. The single best way to prevent enemies from attacking you is to kill them. But that's not always possible with wide blasting, and it's usually not possible with the biggest monsters, where the battlefield control style shines.

[Greywander]

Isn't this just "Blasting" by another name?
It's a different perspective on the same spell. Your perspective colors your view of the situation, and will influence how you use this spell. If you are "blasting", then you're probably focused on dealing as much damage as possible. But if your perspective is "tanking", then you're more interested in preventing as many enemy attacks as possible. This will change when you choose to use Fireball, as well as how you use it.

Damage dealing is still an important part of combat, but staying alive is more important than killing your enemies. Rogues are useful because they have high single-target damage, but sometimes they're more useful one-shotting weaker bodyguards first (damage tanking) rather than focusing on the boss monster first (damage dealing). Yeah, some of the damage might be "wasted" due to overkill, but it reduced the amount of damage the party ends up taking, which is worth some wasted damage. By changing your perspective, you might end up using the same abilities in different ways, and as a result end up surviving and winning more encounters.


5E's tactical structure looks roughly like this:

Low-CR swarms beat legendary solos
Legendary solos beat AoE spellcasters
AoE spellcasters beat low-CR swarms

For example, to create an adventure to challenge shepherd druids AND GWM Barbarians AND Evokers, use a mix of e.g. Flameskulls/Mind Flayers for AoE against conjured animals, Hobgoblin squads to threaten the Barbarian, and an Adult White Dragon to threaten the spellcasters. No single PC type will dominate the whole adventure.

AoE works best against non-tool-using enemies though. Hobgoblins have longbows and a sound tactical doctrine--you won't catch them in Fireball Formation unless you trick them into making a mistake somehow, like chasing you into tight quarters.
Some great insight I hadn't noticed, but it does make a lot of sense. If you've ever DMed and wonder why your players are either steamrolling or getting steamrolled by your CR-appropriate encounters, this might be why. Consider what type of PC they are (AoE, swarm, or solo) and offer them an appropriate mix of enemies to counter them without overwhelming them.


Dead is the best status effect goes back pretty far, and it (and you!) are right. The single best way to prevent enemies from attacking you is to kill them. But that's not always possible with wide blasting, and it's usually not possible with the biggest monsters, where the battlefield control style shines.
Exactly. Very rarely is a blast spell (or any other straight damage spell) the most effective spell you can be using. Leave the damage to the martials, and focus on controlling the battlefield and manipulating the odds in your favor. This is why I said that if I knew a group of enemies would survive a Fireball, I'd see if I had a better spell to use first. Just because a group of enemies are standing next to each other doesn't mean an AoE spell is the best option. I mean, it's a fair option, and you could do far worse, but it's not often the best option.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yep, area control spells (with "dead" being strong CC) are my favorite form of utility. I managed to pick up a Sunforger for my Redemption Paladin so that he has an AoE damage ability. Hypnotic Pattern is great but it doesn't work on a lot of the enemies we've been dealing with. Coupled with the party Sorcerer, we usually manage to keep horde swarming to a minimum.

You're supposed to say something contentious after asking "Change my mind" I can't argue with you when I agree with you :mad:

[MaxWilson]

Some great insight I hadn't noticed, but it does make a lot of sense. If you've ever DMed and wonder why your players are either steamrolling or getting steamrolled by your CR-appropriate encounters, this might be why. Consider what type of PC they are (AoE, swarm, or solo) and offer them an appropriate mix of enemies to counter them without overwhelming them.

Let me say, parenthetically, that just because you're building to challenge all three types of PCs doesn't necessarily mean the players will bring all three types of PCs to the game. They might all show up with single-target Sharpshooters and GWM Barbarians, and if so that is fine. They will have an easy time with the dragon, a tough time with the mind flayers, and the hobgoblins will be an interesting tactical puzzle that they may have to solve by leveraging partial cover.

Players' choices matter and the DM shouldn't alter the adventure to negate those choices.

[Gastronomie]

The best debuff is to kill.

[Greywander]

You're supposed to say something contentious after asking "Change my mind" I can't argue with you when I agree with you :mad:
Well, I was expecting more disagreement. I guess either my opening argument was too strong or too many people here are already on board with this line of thinking. Maybe if I'd just left the post itself blank and not presented an argument as to why I view Fireball as a tanking spell, I might have gotten more of a reaction.

[Galithar]

Okay I'll argue.

It's not a tanking spell because what you're doing is called moving the goal posts. People do this all the time when they try to apply terms from one setting to another. You're looking for ways to make something fit a name developed during the rise of MMORPGs to a TTRPG.

Tanking is the act of absorbing damage. What you say about the use of Fireball is absolutely correct, but it's controlling the battlefield, not tanking.



A tank (sometimes referred to as a meat shield kritagya) is a style of character in gaming, often associated with a character class. A common convention in real-time strategy games, role-playing games, fighting games, multiplayer online battle arenas and MUDs, tanks redirect enemy attacks or attention toward themselves in order to protect other characters or units.


Role names like tank, controller, dps, support were first used (or possibly just popularized) in MMOs. The Tank forces enemies to attack themselves to protect their allies. The controller limits the manner in which the enemy can attack their allies. The point of both roles is to limit the amount of damage absorbed by the rest of the party, but they are not the same role.

D&D doesn't have much in the way of actual tanks. An ancestral guardian Barbarian is probably the closest in that they can absorb damage and give Disadvantage to attack someone other then them. But even they don't tank in the original sense of the term.
EDIT: I believe there is a Paladin with similar ability, but I can't remember which one at the moment.

Fireball is a controlling spell. You are changing the way the enemies can attack by attempting to kill a large number of them in one spell. (Or potentially even cause then to scatter if they are intelligent and don't want to get hit with another one next round)


TL;DR Your logic is sound, but you are misappropriating the term 'tank' to replace the term 'controller' so fireball is not a tanking spell, but it is a spell that can reduce the damage your party receives. These are not synonymous statements.

EDIT: For clarity I feel there are very few 'tanking' spells in 5e, because tank is not a role that is designed to be filled. Aid, False Life, and other temp HP abilities all would assist tanking. To my knowledge Compelled Duel is the only spell that actually forces an enemy to focus damage on the caster, which makes it one of the only spells that actually aids in the caster directly tanking damage.
Summon spells on the other hand are fantastic for tanking damage and are one of the few true tanking spells in 5e. They create a giant pool of HP that has little to no effect on the party if it hits 0. All you have to do is get the enemy to pay attention to them... Which depending on the DM can be difficult.

[Nidgit]

I'm with Galithar. If you're calling Fireball a tanking spell, you're calling anything that does damage or otherwise harms your opponent a form of tanking. You can't call 3/4 of combat "tanking" without the term losing all meaning.

Two key components of tanking are 1)making yourself the focus of enemy fire and more importantly 2)directly mitigating the effects of that incoming damage in some way. The first part usually just means physically impeding your opponents, though abilities like Reckless Attack and a paladin's auras incentivize attacking the intended tank. The second typically comes in the form of high AC, resistances, or certain special abilities. Fireball touches on the first aspect in only the most generic of ways and is completely unrelated to the second.

Using Fireball to quickly eliminate mobs is obviously advisable. But it's more closely aligned with a high DPR/Nova or Controller role. It's as much a healing spell as it is a tanking spell, which is to say, not at all in any meaningful application of the term.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Well, I was expecting more disagreement. I guess either my opening argument was too strong or too many people here are already on board with this line of thinking. Maybe if I'd just left the post itself blank and not presented an argument as to why I view Fireball as a tanking spell, I might have gotten more of a reaction.

It's just that 5E doesn't have many "traditional" tanking abilities. Some of the closest we have are Compelled Duel (not a terrific spell, it doesn't actually force the target to attack you) and Warding Bond. You can't force people to attack you except by being the biggest threat in the room.

It works especially well if you happen to be the biggest threat in the room and can kill half the room before they realise that. Since 5E doesn't have many explicitly "tank" abilities, controllers melted in to that category in how they're viewed.

I think (opinion incoming) the only true tank in 5E is the Conquest Paladin. They have area control and their aura can actually prevent enemies from attacking something other than them. They pump out enough damage on top of that so that enemies who might not be affected by their fear would still consider them the most threatening unit on the field. All other "tanks" such as Ancients Paladin or Bearbarian lack the same battlefield control and usually key off mitigation instead of prevention, making them more like a support than a tank.

Glamour Bards run a close second in my eyes with their undisputable mastery of the Command spell, which is an incredibly powerful controlling spell.

The way I see tanking in 5E is "Who can prevent the most damage" and Fireballs (as well as other AoE spells) tend to prevent a lot of it.



Two key components of tanking are 1)making yourself the focus of enemy fire and more importantly 2)directly mitigating the effects of that incoming damage in some way. The first part usually just means physically impeding your opponents, though abilities like Reckless Attack and a paladin's auras incentivize attacking the intended tank. The second typically comes in the form of high AC, resistances, or certain special abilities. Fireball touches on the first aspect in only the most generic of ways and is completely unrelated to the second.

By this definition, all it takes for a Wizard to be considered a tank is to have the Abjuration School and Fireball. Fireball generates threat, when they are focused for being a large threat they then mitigate the damage they would have received.

And I don't disagree with that either, there's no reason why an Abjuration Wizard can't be a successful tank in this way, 5E lacks a lot of the finer mechanics required for a strict Tank/Controller split. They tend to overlap significantly.

[qube]

Basically, Fireball is a spell that, when used correctly, greatly reduces the number of incoming enemy attacks for the rest of the battle. Somewhat niche (it's a counter to a specific albeit common tactic), but still an excellent tanking spell in the right context. Change my mind.I actually disagree with that conclusion - because you blatantly ignore all the downsides. note how
You only talk about creatures it insta-kills.
As you very much pointed out: "damage doesn't matter unless it reduces someone to 0 HP. "
resistance is also a thing, and fire is quite common
location
My rule of thumb is that you can usually get 3 enemies without allies getting allies (and sure, you can get evoker to protect your allies, but if you take evoker, magic missle's you're daddy - as you get your int boost to each missle (confirmed by sage advice), at which point, refer to (1) & (2) - massive single target force damage is better )

All three parameters add up to the simple conclusion, that the strength of fireball, is NOT that

Fireball is a spell that, when used correctly
But

Fireball is a spell who's power is quite dependable on DM's descression (the choice of monster, the positioning, ...)

... and that's where a huge problem arises: the less a tank is dependant on the grace of the DM, the better. Just like a meat shield tank should have tricks to force enemies to attack 'm,a good "blasting tank" as you call it, shouldn't cross his fingers and hope the DM caters to 'm.

edit: or, the fact you need to specify "an excellent tanking spell in the right context." I see as nothing more then destroying your own argument. feathers are heavy "in the right context". Doesn't mean it's a good substitute for something heavy.

[ProsecutorGodot]

edit: or, the fact you need to specify "an excellent tanking spell in the right context." I see as nothing more then destroying your own argument. feathers are heavy "in the right context". Doesn't mean it's a good substitute for something heavy.

I wouldn't say pointing out that context matters is too much of a detraction from the point. Melee Attacks deal considerable damage using GWM in the right context. They do nothing against flying enemies or enemies otherwise immune to your weaponry (a Lava Child being immune to metal weapons for example).

Everything requires context as a basis when making an argument. Just because fireball is very typically a damaging AoE spell first and foremost doesn't mean it also can't be a viable tanking spell.

Compelled Duel is the only true example of traditional tanking mechanics in 5E and it requires a very coordinated group to even make it worth using at all. In many cases, it's just not worth the effort and won't actually accomplish what it's intended to.

[Witty Username]

Tanking as it exists in most video games simply doesn't exist in D&D, where you focus enemy attention on yourself to reduce the impact of damage. This is mostly because mitigating damage is better than redirecting damage, and most classes that can perform the role of tank depending on context(meaning most classes have ways to survive in combat so redirection is less of an issue).
Fireball is a tanking spell in the way that it is a good spell that should be on your list, but you are in no way encouraged to be attacked,like say Vampiric Touch(but it is also a bad spell so).

[Kane0]

What about ancestral barbarians and the like?

Blasting being a form of control/tanking is the same sort of thinking as preemptive counterattacks if you ask me. Technically correct but a few steps removed and others would probably use different terms.

[BurgerBeast]

The problem is that you can play this semantic trick all day. If damage is tanking, then all DPS classes are tanks. And you can also point out that tanks are really just melee CC. So everyone is CC. You can look through any lens you like, but some are more useful than others.

I thought you were going to point out that Fireball is incredibly effective at dispersing those who it doesn’t kill, or in the case of intelligent, cornered enemies, it is the ultimate aggro draw: “kill that freaking mage!”

But then intelligent enemies would also take out healers... so healers are effective tanks...

Something... DPS are tanks... something... tanks are CC... something... ad infinitum.

I’m not denying your claim that Fireball is very effective at killing large mobs. I just don’t care how you classify it.

[Greywander]

what you're doing is called moving the goal posts.
I understand how you could think this, but I disagree. From what you say, it sounds like you think of tanking as a method, whereas I think of tanking as a goal. A tank's job is to keep the party alive and prevent them from being harmed (which includes more than just damage). Yes, a meat shield can do this. But better than absorbing an attack is preventing it entirely. If someone else can do the tank's job better than the meat shield, why wouldn't we call that tanking?

This sort of narrow thinking is what leads groups to believe that they always need a meat shield, a healer, a skill monkey, etc., ignoring that there are other ways of accomplishing the same goals.

In my mind, meat-shielding, healing, and control are just specific forms of tanking. This is why you don't need a healer in 5e, as it's not a very effective method of tanking, though with the right optimization, party composition, and tactics, you can make combat healing more effective. By broadening your perspective and considering other ways you could keep your party alive, you can greatly improve your life expectancy. But narrowing your definition of tanking to just include meat-shielding means you're going to overlook other potential methods to prevent harm. And often these methods can be combined for compounding effect: if you can cast a spell to create a wall to cut the enemy forces in half and you have a meat shield who can absorb all of the attacks from the half on your side of the wall and you have a healer that can make sure they stay up and don't get debilitated, then you're probably going to win that fight.


I'm with Galithar. If you're calling Fireball a tanking spell, you're calling anything that does damage or otherwise harms your opponent a form of tanking. You can't call 3/4 of combat "tanking" without the term losing all meaning.
I'd argue that there are only two broad roles in combat: killing, and not being killed. Surviving is important, in fact, it's usually the more important of the two, but it's often kind of useless if you aren't able to actually defeat your opponents. There can be overlap between the two, though, so you need to consider what you're trying to accomplish (killing or not being killed) before you decide what action to take.

Consider Hold Person. It's a tanking spell, because it paralyzes the target, preventing them from attacking or casting spells. It's also a "damage" spell, not directly, but because it gives advantage on attacks against that target and turns all hits into crits. So before you cast Hold Person, you need to know if you're trying to kill, not be killed, or both, and this will inform how and when to use the spell.

Again, you seem to only be considering the method, rather than the goal. Dealing damage is only tanking if it drops an enemy to 0 hit points, which most of the time damage doesn't. D&D just isn't that lethal.


Using Fireball to quickly eliminate mobs is obviously advisable. But it's more closely aligned with a high DPR/Nova or Controller role. It's as much a healing spell as it is a tanking spell, which is to say, not at all in any meaningful application of the term.
It's all about perspective, and why you're doing what you're doing. What goal are you trying to accomplish.

I'm reminded of a (possibly fictitious) account of a person on trial after killing someone in self defense. When asked if he shot to kill, he responded, "No, I shot to live." The same methods can be used to accomplish different goals, even if it appears to be the same from a 3rd party perspective.


edit: or, the fact you need to specify "an excellent tanking spell in the right context." I see as nothing more then destroying your own argument. feathers are heavy "in the right context". Doesn't mean it's a good substitute for something heavy.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying that you should attempt to tank by only ever using Fireball. Fireball doesn't work for everything, just like AC doesn't help when you make a saving throw, and hit points don't help against debilitating status effects. A character who can only throw Fireballs is not a very good tank.

But you can sure make your tank's job easier by throwing a Fireball at the right time. Tanking is a team effort, and control spells can be very effective at helping your party stay alive.

What I find really interesting is that these last few posters who disagree about Fireball being a tanking spell seem to be fine with Fireball being a control spell, despite the fact that it only deals damage. It's not like Web, or Fog Cloud, or Wall of Stone, or Suggestion. Are damage spells control spells now? My answer is: it depends how they're being used. In other words, it's the goal, not the method, that is important.


What about ancestral barbarians and the like?

Blasting being a form of control/tanking is the same sort of thinking as preemptive counterattacks if you ask me. Technically correct but a few steps removed and others would probably use different terms.
If I said, "Fireball is a defensive spell," do you think there would be less disagreement? Because I wonder if that wouldn't be a harder sell.

For me, I find the term "meat shield" perfectly serviceable in describing what is traditionally thought of as tanking. By broadening the definition of tanking instead of creating a new term for it, I'm forcing people to think about something in a new way, which I'm hoping is more engaging and insightful than simply inventing a new word. By getting people to argue, "Wait, that's not tanking... is it?" I'm getting them to actually think about the subject and the implications of what I'm saying. As Nidgit said, "Using Fireball to quickly eliminate mobs is obviously advisable." But it's not a survival strategy, in their mind. Shouldn't it be, though?

[Laserlight]

Fireball is not a tanking spell because "killing the enemy" is not "tanking".

If "prevent attacks" is the criterion, then Deception+CHA is a far better tank ability, in my experience. The best defense is not "a good offense", it's "conning the enemy into joining your side."

[Kane0]

Using the word defensive would probably make your job harder

[Greywander]

Fireball is not a tanking spell because "killing the enemy" is not "tanking".

If "prevent attacks" is the criterion, then Deception+CHA is a far better tank ability, in my experience. The best defense is not "a good offense", it's "conning the enemy into joining your side."
This might be stretching the definition of tanking too much, but yes, getting what you want without a fight is an excellent strategy. Sadly, it's one that some groups tend to ignore.

But just as Fireball isn't always the right spell for an encounter, diplomacy isn't always the right tactic, either. It helps to diversify, so you can handle a broader variety of challenges.

Also, to be clear, I'm not saying that a good offense is the best defense. My goal with this thread was to provoke thought and discussion by turning expectations on their head. I could have taken any other spell or ability, but instead I chose one of the most traditional blast spells and demonstrated how it can be used with a defensive mindset (preventing attacks and keeping the party alive) rather than an offensive mindset. Lots of other abilities can be used to help the party stay alive, and once you start looking for ways to do so, you'll start seeing new ways to play the game more effectively.

Something that just popped into my head is that it's kind of like the difference between having a spellcaster with lots of spells versus one with only one or two spells. You can bet that the latter is going to be looking for all sorts of ways to use the few spells they know, whereas the former doesn't need to be as creative since they have more spells to choose from. But the former could be more effective if they possessed the creativity of the latter.

[Cazero]

Tanking isn't preventing attacks; tanking is redirecting attacks to you. The usual goal is to use superior durability to mitigate damage, but you shouldn't confuse the goals with the methods as tanking can serve completely different purposes than damage mitigation, like using disposable characters as ablative armor for your VIP.

So in a sense, if Fireball draws aggro, it's a tanking spell. Otherwise it's not tanking at all, and neither are Web, Shield and Cure Wounds.

[Chronos]

Fireball has always been primarily a spell for killing a bunch of weaker enemies who are grouped together. It's no great discovery to realize that, because everyone knows that.

[sambojin]

@Cazero And so, by that definition, squishy casters are the tanks. Because the DM redirects attacks to them where possible. It is only the slightly non-proactive stance of everything else stopping this.

[Sigreid]

When I played Everquest 2 I claimed my wizard was a healer. He mitigated damage by killing the opposition before the damage could take effect. Hehe

[Galithar]

I'll say again that changing the definition of a word to fit your predetermined parameters is called moving the goal posts. Your goal is to convince people that fireball is a tanking spell. Tanking is the act of absorbing damage into a high durability unit to protect low durability units. Fireball doesn't do this, do you modified the definition to be 'stopping the enemy from damaging anyone'.

You say that it's the tanks job to keep the team alive. You are using the same logic that immature MMO players often use to belittle other players. By that I mean that they think it's the tanks job to keep everyone alive and tell the player of the tank they suck if the team fails. You're not extending your logic into an insult, but you're still vastly broadening the definition of a tank.

Now to explain why fireball is a controlling spell but not a tanking spell you look at what it does. It deals medium damage to a wide area. That's the type of ability used for mob control. A controller has to manipulate the battlefield with their abilities. A powerful AoE ability can do this with damage by forcing a change of tactics on the enemy. A fireball can encourage an enemy force to disperse or, as is the number one use, can quickly dispatch large numbers of weak enemies. It's not the BEST control spell, but it does have a control aspect. It does not, in anyway, help you tank though. It doesn't absorb, or redirect damage.

[Sigreid]

I'll say again that changing the definition of a word to fit your predetermined parameters is called moving the goal posts. Your goal is to convince people that fireball is a tanking spell. Tanking is the act of absorbing damage into a high durability unit to protect low durability units. Fireball doesn't do this, do you modified the definition to be 'stopping the enemy from damaging anyone'.

You say that it's the tanks job to keep the team alive. You are using the same logic that immature MMO players often use to belittle other players. By that I mean that they think it's the tanks job to keep everyone alive and tell the player of the tank they suck if the team fails. You're not extending your logic into an insult, but you're still vastly broadening the definition of a tank.

Now to explain why fireball is a controlling spell but not a tanking spell you look at what it does. It deals medium damage to a wide area. That's the type of ability used for mob control. A controller has to manipulate the battlefield with their abilities. A powerful AoE ability can do this with damage by forcing a change of tactics on the enemy. A fireball can encourage an enemy force to disperse or, as is the number one use, can quickly dispatch large numbers of weak enemies. It's not the BEST control spell, but it does have a control aspect. It does not, in anyway, help you tank though. It doesn't absorb, or redirect damage.

In the grand scheme of things tanking, control and healing all serve the exact same purpose through different means and at different levels of effectiveness depending on the situation, mitigating incoming damage so your side can win the conflict with minimal losses.

[qube]

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that you should attempt to tank by only ever using Fireball. Fireball doesn't work for everything, just like AC doesn't help when you make a saving throw, and hit points don't help against debilitating status effects. A character who can only throw Fireballs is not a very good tank.

But you can sure make your tank's job easier by throwing a Fireball at the right time. Tanking is a team effort, and control spells can be very effective at helping your party stay alive.

What I find really interesting is that these last few posters who disagree about Fireball being a tanking spell seem to be fine with Fireball being a control spell, despite the fact that it only deals damage. It's not like Web, or Fog Cloud, or Wall of Stone, or Suggestion. Are damage spells control spells now? My answer is: it depends how they're being used. In other words, it's the goal, not the method, that is important.at the green part ... they have been since December 2007 ( - as it was a concept introduced to D&D 4E, the controller (the only controller in core) being the lead area damage dealer)

At the blue part ... you do realise you're trying to argue then, it's support, not tank.

I think this encapsulates it best:


Laserlight: If "prevent attacks" is the criterion, then Deception+CHA is a far better tank ability
You: But just as Fireball isn't always the right spell for an encounter, diplomacy isn't always the right tactic, either. It helps to diversify, so you can handle a broader variety of challenges.

note how you actually didn't disagree Deception+CHA is a tank ability (or how you want to call it)


By getting people to argue, "Wait, that's not tanking... is it?" I'm getting them to actually think about the subject and the implications of what I'm saying.Honestly, no.

You're trying to catorgise offense as defense under the guise of "well, offense is the best defense".

That doesn't spark ideas on how offense can be used as defense (ESPECIALLY with straight damage spells like fireball). Instead it sparks discussions on your baltant attempt to desolve the dichotomy between offense & defense.

Well, here you go: Next up:


Hit points are the most powerful offensive ability ever, because you can only kill the enemy if you have them.

Same logic.

[sambojin]

I can see some validity of the idea. If you want to stop a bunch of tiny creatures ganging up on someone, have a Fireball prepped. If you want battle-space of your enemies slightly more spread-out, have a Fireball prepped.

But that's not a lot different to saying "don't use your action surge until that time, so you can "tank" little stuff". Or "make sure you only ever summon wolves or velociraptors (especially wolves, because their AoO nerfs movement with proning too) because of DPS and you can spread it around heaps". Or throw in a quickened "whatever multitarget or AoE" plus a cantrip when there's lots of targets to blast. Or just use little smites against little things, but make sure you move into range of lots of them, so you can spread the smites around and massacre heaps in a turn.

That's not tanking. That's just doing the stuff you should do against certain sorts of enemies in certain situations.

Or even, at the other facet or side of tanking, "make sure you take Mantle of Command as a Mystic v3, so we can "tank" AoEs on your turn, by them not hitting us as a group, because you moved us all around".

I get what you're saying. It just expands the definition too broadly though. I mean, Spike Growth sort of isn't a "tanking spell", but I think it would come far closer to the definition than Fireball, due to its control and damage aspects. You get more slots worth too, so if you want, you can move it around (lvl2+lvl3-9 slots, rather than just lvl3-9 slots. It's still 4 more....). Or even the AoO/proning/HP minefield from Conjure Animals, regardless of their aggressive "on your turn" "sorta-instant-damage" uses. But Fireball sort of just does damage. Your DM can spread out smaller creatures because they know you have it prepped and a slot available. But is that any more choice dependent than being able to drop a Spike Growth on a heavily clustered set of ground troops? Except that they will have far worse choices to make with either Spike Growth or Conjure Animals cast than they would with Fireball, after the fact, and how the DM has to approach the entire encounter now that it is. They have to hit you to drop your concentration, or they take the damage and the other problems inherent in that spell being still extent.

And that's just some basic control+damage spells, they're not really "tanking" either (though Conjure x can come close).

Just saying, instant damage is instant damage. AoEs are AoEs. It mitigates damage by killing stuff (the best way of mitigating damage), but that's not "tanking" per-say, from a spell or not.

Maybe broaden it to "how likely is a Fireball dropped onto a PC likely to injure them significantly, compared to how much damage they'd have incoming at them from a horde of low HP stuff, that a Fireball would wipe out easily?", then you might be closer to using it for "tanking" purposes. But the question is so variable as to be hard to answer anyway. It's more of an AoE-use question, not really a tanking question at all.

[BurgerBeast]

I'd argue that there are only two broad roles in combat: killing, and not being killed.

But why stop at two? Since killing is a method of not being killed, why not just one role?

You can cut the game into as many roles as you like: 1, 2, 3, etc... and they all have some degree of merit. The question becomes one of which divisions are broadly and generally most useful...

Secondly, if you seriously think there are only two roles: killing and not being killed... then why are you talking about tanking?

Tanking would seem to not fit this paradigm. You could spin tanking as either role.

[Unoriginal]

I'd argue that there are only two broad roles in combat: killing, and not being killed.

Yes, and the terms "tank" and "tanking" only refers to a specific way of doing the second. Not even ALL the ways of not being killed.


Dealing damage is only tanking if it drops an enemy to 0 hit points

Dealing damage is never tanking.



It's all about perspective, and why you're doing what you're doing. What goal are you trying to accomplish.

No, it's about what you're doing.



I'm reminded of a (possibly fictitious) account of a person on trial after killing someone in self defense. When asked if he shot to kill, he responded, "No, I shot to live."

Yes, that's called a rhetoric trick. It's not an objective definition, it just creates the pathos of someone just trying to survive.

An actual objective answer would have been "yes, I estimated killing my aggressor was the only way I could survive" or "no, I shot hoping it would make the aggressor stop one way or another, but killing was not the intent".

Basing your argument on a rhetorical trick, basically "offense is the best defense", does not do your debate any favor.



If I said, "Fireball is a defensive spell," do you think there would be less disagreement? Because I wonder if that wouldn't be a harder sell.

It'd be equaly inaccurate. It's like calling a shotgun you take on an hunting trip "anti-bear armor".


By broadening the definition of tanking instead of creating a new term for it, I'm forcing people to think about something in a new way

No. You are over-generalizing a term, resulting in you using it incorrectly.

Also, while declaring that you're forcing people to think anything is just plain chuckles-worthy, declaring that your *intent* in to force people is pretty sad.



By getting people to argue, "Wait, that's not tanking... is it?" I'm getting them to actually think about the subject and the implications of what I'm saying.

You're getting people to disagree "that is not tanking."


As Nidgit said, "Using Fireball to quickly eliminate mobs is obviously advisable." But it's not a survival strategy, in their mind. Shouldn't it be, though?

"A survival strategy" is not equal to "tanking".

Selling out your friends to the BBEG can be a survival strategy, but it's not tanking.


Words have meaning. Declaring that A is B when there is no semantic, etymological, analogical, historical or metaphorical connection between A and B is simply being incorrect. Or at best ironic, but irony cannot be used for an objective, recognizable definition.

You made a thread to tell us that Fireball is good to kill hordes of mooks. Fair. We already knew that.

But killing hordes of mooks isn't tanking. Same way a cannon isn't a tank, regardless of the fact some tanks have cannons. Because killing people in an explosion isn't what makes a tank a tank.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Dealing damage is never tanking.

Hard disagree. A tank needs to present a compelling reason for things to attack it. Sometimes that can be accomplished with positioning, class abilities or spells, but often it just requires being a big enough threat that the character can't simply be ignored. Not matter what kind of AC, HP and saves a particular tanky character has, they're ineffective if the enemy doesn't have to fight them until the rest of the party is dead. Having functional ranged attack options, mobility and being able to kill stuff if left alone are all key components of being an effective tank. This is part of why barbarians are such good tanks - leave them alone and they'll hack you into little tiny pieces.

[sambojin]

Kind of why Moon Druids are too. It ain't the bear/anything-better that's causing the problems. It's the spell they cast before wildshaping. And the only way of stopping that spell is to punch that sack of HP as much as you can. And it's SOOOooooo easy to hit...... :)

Different reasons, same outcome. Barbs and Moons cop a lot of attacks. Thus, tanking.

It's a broad concept, but Fireball ain't it.


(kinda why I love Firbolg Moon Druids and rate them so highly. That 1/sr bonus-action invis popping can give you the options you need for actual caster "tanking" when needed. Be easy to hit, be hard to hit, just when you need to. You'll have damn fine movement to keep those spells up anyway. But sometimes, it's nice to get "be harder to hit until your next turn" from a racial package, with some pretty hefty ribbons as well (detect magic and disguise self are not exactly calligraphy tools. A tinsy bit more useful in fact)).

[Unoriginal]

Hard disagree. A tank needs to present a compelling reason for things to attack it. Sometimes that can be accomplished with positioning, class abilities or spells, but often it just requires being a big enough threat that the character can't simply be ignored.

In that context, you don't tank by dealing damage, you tank by giving the impression you're the bigger threat regardless of what damage you deals.

If there is a lvl 2 Barbarian and a lvl 2 Wizard in melee range against an Ogre, the Wizard may be doing more or less damage than the Barbarian depending on where dice land and what abilities are used, but no one would argue that the Wizard should be the one trying to become the Ogre's target.

[Skylivedk]

My brother's Forge Cleric (1) / Abjurer X is a tank. Fireball is a threat generator, not a tanking ability. His ward is a tanking ability. So is his ability to cast Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Haste and Invisibility. In different ways, they force the enemy to focus on his very very hairy and equally durable loudmouth and/or make him harder to kill. Polymorph can be seen as a tank-enabling ability. Warding Bond is clear tanking.
Oath of the Crown, Conquest and Redemption all have tank-properties.

You calling Fireball a tank spell is defusing the term to near-uselessness.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

In that context, you don't tank by dealing damage, you tank by giving the impression you're the bigger threat regardless of what damage you deals.

If there is a lvl 2 Barbarian and a lvl 2 Wizard in melee range against an Ogre, the Wizard may be doing more or less damage than the Barbarian depending on where dice land and what abilities are used, but no one would argue that the Wizard should be the one trying to become the Ogre's target.

Sure, the wizard shouldn't be trying to become the target, but they might very well anyway. Maybe they've got 18 Str and a quarterstaff and the barbarian, for whatever reason, is swinging their greatclub with 8 Str. The barbarian is a bad tank despite his 20 Con, because he can't present as a real threat to the ogre. Presentation helps, definitely, but even dumb monsters aren't stupid. They tend to know who's hurting them.

[Man_Over_Game]

Hard disagree.

Well, that depends. There's two different definitions of what people call "tanking":


Survivability (Which makes you get attacked less)
Aggro [or "Contribution"] (Which makes you get attacked more)


A Bear Totem Barbarian is a Survivability Tank, but it doesn't do anything to make enemies attack him. Enemies can ignore the Bear Barbarian, and they'll be all better for it, which is why Bear Totem Barbarians usually grab feats to provide more Aggro, either as a means of keeping enemies from ignoring them through force (Sentinel), or by just dealing more damage (Polearm master).

An Ancestral Guardian Barbarian is an Aggro tank, but it doesn't do anything to help itself survive. If enemies are already going to be attacking the Barbarian, the Ancestral Guardian Barbarian does literally nothing. This is why Ancestral Guardian Barbarians focus on survivability, with feats like Tough.

Tempest Clerics are Survivability tanks (by punishing enemies for attacking them), but War Clerics are Aggro tanks (by just straight up dealing tons of damage).

Ancients Paladins are Survivability tanks (by having resistance to magic damage), but Crown Clerics are Aggro tanks (by limiting enemy mobility to be near the Paladin).

Just because you don't deal much damage doesn't mean you can't provide Aggro (Ancestral Guardian), and just because you're not tanky doesn't mean that you can't effectively survive (Bladesinger).

Unless your specialization is working (like a Bear Barbarian that is being attacked more often than anyone else in the party), it's generally best to balance out your Aggro and Survivability aspects. Which is why you see Eldritch Knights grab PAM and Ancestral Guardians grab Mobile.


***********************

As for the original topic, Fireball is about as much of a "tanking" effect as any burst disabling effect. Sleep, Hypnotic Pattern, Cunning Action, Shield, Inflict Wounds; all of these have the same goal in mind: Stop badguys from hitting me.

Fireball might be somewhat more effective, due to its high damage and AoE, but it doesn't do anything different. In fact, as far as spells go, it's probably one of the most boring level 3 spells in the game. It just happens to have good numbers.

I guess, I'm confused as to how the concept of "Fireball is a tanking spell" is different than "X Combat Feature is a tanking feature". The overall goal of combat is to get the other side to stop hurting you, and I'm not aware of any combat features that don't contribute to that goal. Fireball just does it...faster?

Which seems odd, to me. That's like saying the Tough and Resilient feats aren't tanking features, because they're more effective at later levels.

[Unoriginal]

Sure, the wizard shouldn't be trying to become the target, but they might very well anyway. Maybe they've got 18 Str and a quarterstaff and the barbarian, for whatever reason, is swinging their greatclub with 8 Str. The barbarian is a bad tank despite his 20 Con, because he can't present as a real threat to the ogre. Presentation helps, definitely, but even dumb monsters aren't stupid. They tend to know who's hurting them.

You're just showing why the damage dealing is not important.

That STR 8 Club-using Barbarian may be a bad tank if they straightforwardly try to attack the Ogre, but that STR 18 Quaterstaff-using Wizard is a bad tank as well, because becoming the target of the Ogre is basically suicide for them.

The Barbarian *could* become a decent tank if they managed to make the Ogre focus on them, for example by being so annoying the Ogre wants to end them or by becoming too tempting a target (hello Reckless Attack).

Meanwhile the Wizard will always be a bad tank because getting hit at all is too dangerous for them. And this no matter how much damage they deal to the Ogre.

A good Tank is objectively the worse target to attempt hurting compared to their teammates due to high defensive capacities, but still manages to attract said attempted hurt.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

You're just showing why the damage dealing is not important.

That STR 8 Club-using Barbarian may be a bad tank if they straightforwardly try to attack the Ogre, but that STR 18 Quaterstaff-using Wizard is a bad tank as well, because becoming the target of the Ogre is basically suicide for them.

The Barbarian *could* become a decent tank if they managed to make the Ogre focus on them, for example by being so annoying the Ogre wants to end them or by becoming too tempting a target (hello Reckless Attack).

Meanwhile the Wizard will always be a bad tank because getting hit at all is too dangerous for them. And this no matter how much damage they deal to the Ogre.

A good Tank is objectively the worse target to attempt hurting compared to their teammates due to high defensive capacities, but still manages to attract said attempted hurt.

If we have a 6 Con rogue in the party, the wizard is a better tank than the barbarian, because he can actually provide an alternative threat that keeps the ogre from squishing the bigger threat. Dealing damage and being a concrete, objective threat is much better than trying to rely on the DM saying "ok, your barbarian is annoying enough that the ogre attacks, even though the barbarian isn't really contributing to the combat".

[sambojin]

Ok. Just to turn it on it's head.

You think Fireball is a good "tanking" spell, because it can kill multiple enemies in one turn?

I won't even say you can't upcast it, to the desired average of damage you think you'll need for any particular enemy type.


Does this mean that you think any instant-damage AoE spell, sometimes with better damage types against certain enemies, or against easier saves for you to get through, are also "good tanking spells"?

Because, and I think this is what everyone is trying to explain to you, they're just "good AoE instant-damage spells against those enemies, in that situation". That isn't tanking. That's just what those spells do. Cause instant damage with a good area of effect, against certain resistances or lack there-of, against certain saves that the enemy is hopefully poor at making.

That's what AoE damage spells do. That's their thing. It isn't "tanking". I don't think you understand what that word means in a D&D or MMO context.

[Trustypeaches]

Well, that depends. There's two different definitions of what people call "tanking":


Survivability (Which makes you get attacked less)
Aggro (Which makes you get attacked more)


A Bear Totem Barbarian is a Survivability Tank, but it doesn't do anything to make enemies attack him. Enemies can ignore the Bear Barbarian, and they'll be all better for it, which is why Bear Totem Barbarians usually grab feats to provide more Aggro, either as a means of keeping enemies from ignoring them through force (Sentinel), or by just dealing more damage (Polearm master).

An Ancestral Guardian Barbarian is an Aggro tank, but it doesn't do anything to help itself survive. If enemies are already going to be attacking the Barbarian, the Ancestral Guardian Barbarian does literally nothing. This is why Ancestral Guardian Barbarians focus on survivability, with feats like Tough.
Just as a small note, you’re talking about subclasses here. The barbarian base features provide a very strong foundation for both Aggro and survivability as is.

For survivability, you have a d12 hit die, solid AC, and get resistance to the most common forms of damage with rage. As far as aggro goes, you get reckless attack to both increase your damage output (more of a threat) and to make you a more attractive target by giving enemies advantage to hit you.

Every barbarian subclass builds upon these excellent features to improve survivability or aggro, but baseline the Barbarian is plenty good at both.

[Swosh]

While i agree that fireball can be a good tanking spell i still think it might be a bit more situasional. As you mention you will only use fireball against low level hordes but, something like an hypnotic pattern disables even high CR monsters and can also be used on low CR hordes, making it a more versatile tanking spell.

[MaxWilson]

If we're talking about ways to encourage intelligent monsters to focus attention on those you want them to attack, Seeming might be the best "tanking" spell ever. Make all of the glass cannons look like plate armored tanks, and all of the tanks look like squishies. And it lasts for 8 hours with no concentration requirement.

It only works against DMs who don't metagame though.

[Talakeal]

The OP could have been summed up as "The best defense is a good offense."

[DRD1812]

I've got issues with the idea of "tanking (https://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/tanking)" in general. Not to be a semantic Sally, but I think you're describing "crowd control" here. And killing the crowd is certainly a way to control it.

Blasting isn't bad. Thoughtlessly blasting when you could be doing something more effective--that's what's bad.

[Demonslayer666]

The only time Fireball would be a good spell for tanking is if the caster used it to taunt many enemies, forcing them to attack the caster, and the caster could take the attacks while the rest of the team deals with the horde. Maybe they hate fire? /shrug

Fireball does not accomplish tanking by killing lesser enemies efficiently. That simply being effective, and blasting is a more appropriate term.

[Unoriginal]

If we have a 6 Con rogue in the party, the wizard is a better tank than the barbarian, because he can actually provide an alternative threat that keeps the ogre from squishing the bigger threat. Dealing damage and being a concrete, objective threat is much better than trying to rely on the DM saying "ok, your barbarian is annoying enough that the ogre attacks, even though the barbarian isn't really contributing to the combat".

Again, you're only demonstrating further that damage doesn't matter.

That 6 CON Rogue will almost certainly always deal more damage than the staff-hitting Wizard, in that situation.

Remember that your earlier assessment of the Wizard tanking better than the Barbarian didn't rely on the Wizard being able to do some damage, but on them doing the most damage out of the two, because the Ogre would focus on the one that's the most dangerous, while the damage the Barbarian inflicts isn't enough to register as a worthwhile threat.


So, by your own logic, the Ogre would target the one doing the most damage, regardless of the damage the other two are doing.

So you, again, by your own logic, you have:

- A Barbarian who could take the hits but don't deal enough damage to be considered a priority threat

-A Wizard who couldn't take the hits and doesn't deal enough damage to be considered a priority threat.

-A Rogue who couldn't take the hits and is considered a priority threat because they deal the most damage

By the metric you presented, the Wizard is still the worst tank of the three.

So either your earlier assessment is correct and the one who does the most damage is targeted, or doing the most damage isn't important, in which case the Barbarian can still tank and should because they are the one with the most HPs, the Rage-resistance, and likely the better AC.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Isn't this just "Blasting" by another name?


It's a different perspective on the same spell. Your perspective colors your view of the situation, and will influence how you use this spell. If you are "blasting", then you're probably focused on dealing as much damage as possible. But if your perspective is "tanking", then you're more interested in preventing as many enemy attacks as possible. This will change when you choose to use Fireball, as well as how you use it.

Damage dealing is still an important part of combat, but staying alive is more important than killing your enemies. Rogues are useful because they have high single-target damage, but sometimes they're more useful one-shotting weaker bodyguards first (damage tanking) rather than focusing on the boss monster first (damage dealing). Yeah, some of the damage might be "wasted" due to overkill, but it reduced the amount of damage the party ends up taking, which is worth some wasted damage. By changing your perspective, you might end up using the same abilities in different ways, and as a result end up surviving and winning more encounters.

I've pretty much always seen Fireball used in the way you're describing, and always seen this referred to as "blasting" so I think (?) we're on the same page. I'd just rather not muddle up the terminology we use here; it confuses the new arrivals. :wink:

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Again, you're only demonstrating further that damage doesn't matter.

No, dude. This has always rested on the premise that the barbarian is not doing damage. For the purpose of this hypothetical, which is a dumb hypothetical that you generated anyway, he is not contributing anything to this encounter. There is no world in which doing zero of a good thing makes you better at that thing than someone doing a small amount of that good thing.

[Galithar]

In that context, you don't tank by dealing damage, you tank by giving the impression you're the bigger threat regardless of what damage you deals.

If there is a lvl 2 Barbarian and a lvl 2 Wizard in melee range against an Ogre, the Wizard may be doing more or less damage than the Barbarian depending on where dice land and what abilities are used, but no one would argue that the Wizard should be the one trying to become the Ogre's target.

Actually that's a very good scenario to explain why a tank needs to make the enemy want to attack them. It doesn't have to be through sheer damage, but that is one route to get the 'aggro' needed.

If the Wizard deals 20 damage to the Ogre, and the Barbarian only deals 5, then the Ogre is likely to attack the Wizard assuming all other factors are equal. If the same Barbarian could somehow have dealt 38 damage suddenly he's the bigger threat and will draw the attacks.
This can also be accomplished by things like an ancestral guardian. If the Wizard deals more damage, but the Ogre has disadvantage to attack him then he has more incentive to attack the Barbarian that he's more likely to hit, or he attacks the wizard at disadvantage.
If he attacks the Barbarian, that character successfully became a tank for their Wizard. If the Ogre attacks the Wizard then the Barbarian tried to mitigate the damage by imposing Disadvantage on the attack. So while he didn't successfully tank he became a minor controller for that action.

If you're not absorbing damage you're not tanking.

Everyone's job in a party is to make sure they live long enough to kill the bad guys. So saying that you're supporting that goal doesn't mean you're a tank, it means you're a member of the party. A tank does this but absorbing damage. A controller does it by manipulating how an enemy can deal damage. A support modifies the ability of allies to deal or receive damage. A healer focuses on undoing the damage dealt by the enemy. A DPS(R) focuses on killing the enemy as quickly as possible. All of these roles are helping the party to outlive their adversaries, but only one does do by tanking.

[Unoriginal]

No, dude. This has always rested on the premise that the barbarian is not doing damage.

Then your premise is inherently incorrect. A Barbarian with 8 STR and a Greatclub will still deal damage.




For the purpose of this hypothetical, which is a dumb hypothetical that you generated anyway,

Excu-***ing-me?


Sure, the wizard shouldn't be trying to become the target, but they might very well anyway. Maybe they've got 18 Str and a quarterstaff and the barbarian, for whatever reason, is swinging their greatclub with 8 Str. The barbarian is a bad tank despite his 20 Con, because he can't present as a real threat to the ogre. Presentation helps, definitely, but even dumb monsters aren't stupid. They tend to know who's hurting them.


You are the one who generated the hypothetical of a bad-damage dealing Barbarian and a attacking-with-a-staff-STR Wizard.

I only talked about a Barbarian and a Wizard being in melee range with an Ogre, which is far from dumb.


You are also the one who added the Rogue to this "dumb hypothetical", btw.



There is no world in which doing zero of a good thing makes you better at that thing than someone doing a small amount of that good thing.

And as demonstrated earlier, a Barbarian with STR 8 and a Greatclub will still deal damage, even if it's a small amount.


Once again, your own arguments defeat themselves.


The 8-STR-Greatclub-Barbarian is bad at dealing damage, but will damage the Ogre. They are capable of taking the Ogre's attacks

The Staff-18-STR-Wizard is better at dealing damage, and will damage the Ogre. They are not capable of taking the Ogre's attacks.

The 6-CON-Rogue is the best at dealing damage, and will damage the Ogre. They are not capable of taking the Ogre's attacks.


So, once more: either you stick with your earlier logic of "best damage = target = tank must do best damage", or you admit that one can tank despite doing less damage than their allies.

In both case, the wizard is still the worst tank of the 3 as they're either not dealing enough damage to attract the aggro or not likely able to survive the attacks of the Ogre.

Also, saying "doing zero of a good thing makes you better at that thing than someone doing a small amount of that good thing" doesn't make sense, because while dealing damage is a good thing, the specific good thing the Barbarian wants to do in that hypothetical is tanking. So yes, doing 0 of X does not mean you cannot do Y, even if someone else does 1 of X.


But in any case, I reiterate that you don't need to do damage to tank. You can tank while under the effects of Sanctuary, in some cases. You need to make yourself a worthwhile target, which can be made through dealing damage, but also by a variety of other ways.

What it takes to make one a worthwhile target depends of the opponent, of course. Ogres aren't known for leaving someone who spit in their face unpunished, for example. An intelligent enemy may avoid attacking someone who cast Sanctuary on themselves, while a beast would likely see no problem at keeping attacking as they don't realize the magical effect they're under.

[Talakeal]

Hard disagree. A tank needs to present a compelling reason for things to attack it. Sometimes that can be accomplished with positioning, class abilities or spells, but often it just requires being a big enough threat that the character can't simply be ignored. Not matter what kind of AC, HP and saves a particular tanky character has, they're ineffective if the enemy doesn't have to fight them until the rest of the party is dead. Having functional ranged attack options, mobility and being able to kill stuff if left alone are all key components of being an effective tank. This is part of why barbarians are such good tanks - leave them alone and they'll hack you into little tiny pieces.

To tank you need to have better surviveability than your allies and some way to force the enemy to attack you instead of them.

If you have good damage but don't have survivability, you arent a tank, you are just the best damage dealer.

If you somehow have both the best damage and best surviveability, you could be called a tank, but are most likely just an OP character and the rest of the party needs to get on your level for tanking to even matter.

[Greywander]

I think this is devolving into a semantic argument. It seems a number of people here view tanking as a specific method (specifically the meat shield). This is fine, it's a useful role to have filled in a party. I, however, find it more useful to think of tanking as a goal (keeping the party alive). And there are many ways that goal can be achieved, so while a meat shield is handy, it's not strictly necessary. Moreover, there's no reason you can't combine a meat shield with other methods of keeping the party alive.

And I don't think most people here actually disagree with this, they just don't like the choice of words I'm using. Thus, I don't think it will be productive to keep arguing over the use of the word "tanking" to describe Fireball. And I can concede that the word "tank" may better refer to something that is heavily armored and impervious to most attacks (AKA the meat shield), as with real life tanks used in war. It is, after all, where the word originated from.

Would the word "support" be better? Would you consider tanks and healers and controllers and "keeping the party alive" to all be support?


The OP could have been summed up as "The best defense is a good offense."
I don't actually think this in general, but I do think there are situations where this is true. Generally speaking, not just in D&D but gaming in general, I prefer to first harden my defense and make myself as unkillable as possible, then sharpen my offense until I can wear down the enemy. Not dying is the first priority. There are times, however, when this isn't the optimal strategy, and you need to strike hard and fast in order to deny your enemy a slight advantage that could snowball into a huge advantage if left unchecked.

Generally, when a large group of weak monsters present themselves, that's exactly the time when you need to hit them hard and eliminate as many as you can. If you wait a few rounds before throwing that Fireball, you're going to be much worse off than if you had thrown it on the first round. So, it just happens that this is one particular situation where going on the offensive pays more than staying on the defensive.


Blasting isn't bad. Thoughtlessly blasting when you could be doing something more effective--that's what's bad.
Exactly. Fireball is great at dealing lots of damage. But dealing lots of damage is what the martials are there for. As a caster, there are often much more effective things to be doing. So, all I'm saying is that you shouldn't be casting Fireball with the sole intent of dealing lots of damage (unless there really is nothing better for you to do, which can happen sometimes). You should be using it for the control aspect, and still assessing if there isn't a better spell you could be casting instead.

I just feel like too many people see casters as artillery platforms. And this isn't totally unviable, it's just that there's a lot more to being a caster. Treantmonk's guide opens up with an anecdote about rolling up his signature God wizard without a single damage spell, causing the survivability of his party to go way up, and yet his character was considered "useless" because he didn't blast. Treating wizards like blasters is like treating clerics as healers. Yeah, they can do those things, but that's not all they can do, and it's often not the most effective thing for them to be doing. For that matter, even martials can be doing other things besides dealing damage, such as grappling and shoving, or locking down enemy mages, and so on. It doesn't benefit anyone to cram a PC into a narrow role like that.

[ProsecutorGodot]

To tank you need to have better surviveability than your allies and some way to force the enemy to attack you instead of them.

If you have good damage but don't have survivability, you arent a tank, you are just the best damage dealer.

If you somehow have both the best damage and best surviveability, you could be called a tank, but are most likely just an OP character and the rest of the party needs to get on your level for tanking to even matter.

So Moon Druid, basically.



Would the word "support" be better? Would you consider tanks and healers and controllers and "keeping the party alive" to all be support?
In my opinion, there's just a lot of overlap in 5E between Supporting and Tanking. Bearbarian's are definitely great tanks, in terms of mitigation, but Wolf Totem is a more threatening unit. Their presence is enough to make everyone around them more dangerous, enemies that are aware of that are more likely to focus their efforts on disabling a Wolf Totem Barbarian than a Bearbarian. Focusing a Bearbarian is likely a waste of effort and their presence doesn't necessarily help their allies survive any longer. A Wolf Totem Barbarian can draw aggro passively, a Bearbarian must be actively engaging in threatening activity to make enemies believe they are worth killing first.

If I had to classify tanking on a scale (an arbitrary one) then I would put a line between Support and Tank and plot every archetype that would be classified as either on that line. Defining the ends of the scale would be a tad difficult. Life Cleric is the likely candidate for Support, Conquest Paladin a likely end point for tank. Conquest Paladin is one of the very few character classes that can force enemies to attack who they want and prevent them from doing otherwise reliably.

Defining tanking in 5E purely off mitigation through game mechanics is not accurate, at least to me. Since 5E lacks specific mechanics to draw aggro away from your allies being able to mitigate a lot of damage doesn't necessarily mean that you are "tanking".

[Talakeal]

I think this is devolving into a semantic argument. It seems a number of people here view tanking as a specific method (specifically the meat shield). This is fine, it's a useful role to have filled in a party. I, however, find it more useful to think of tanking as a goal (keeping the party alive). And there are many ways that goal can be achieved, so while a meat shield is handy, it's not strictly necessary. Moreover, there's no reason you can't combine a meat shield with other methods of keeping the party alive.

Traditionally AOE damage is considered to be subset of damage dealers and/or a subset of crowd controllers.

[Galithar]

It's been a 'semantic' argument since you posted claiming that 'keeping the party alive' which is literally the purpose of every role, was tanking and that fireball is a tanking spell.

The fact is that you're trying to redefine a word (tanking) and telling people that don't want to use your new misleading definition they are wrong.

Tanking does help your party stay alive, by absorbing damage that could have gone to your party.

EVERY character should be trying to keep the party alive, but not all of them do so by tanking. A Cleric may use well timed heals, debuffs, buffs, CC, or pure damage to kill the enemy first. None of those are tanking (which a Cleric could do if they chose to, but may not be the BEST at it, though that's a whole different discussion.)

If you ever have a character who's role does not include helping your party live longer then the things you're trying to kill then you're either a troll or comically bad at TTRPGs.

[Kane0]

It's not moving the goalposts nor semantics, it's an equivocation fallacy. You're using the term 'tanking' in more than one way and trying to argue as if it's all the same.

Edit: But probably is moving the goalposts (or similar) if you're trying to tell us our collective usage of the term 'tanking' is wrong compared to your differing one.

[GM_3826]

When I read the title of this thread, I thought it was going to be about abusing Fireball as an Eldritch Knight in some ludicrous way that depends on some obscure magic item or something. Nope, not really. It's just using the word "tanking" in an extremely weird way that no one else does, when there are other words that could be used to describe Fireball's ability to thin down crowds and reduce pressure on the rest of the party (i.e. "crowd control"). Following this definition, every character "tanks" to some extent and so the term is kind of useless. Not that it's incorrect, just that it's misleading and confusing. Tanking really should mean "meat-shielding" or the definition gets fuzzy.

[Unoriginal]

It's been a 'semantic' argument since you posted claiming that 'keeping the party alive' which is literally the purpose of every role, was tanking and that fireball is a tanking spell.

The fact is that you're trying to redefine a word (tanking) and telling people that don't want to use your new misleading definition they are wrong.

Tanking does help your party stay alive, by absorbing damage that could have gone to your party.

EVERY character should be trying to keep the party alive, but not all of them do so by tanking. A Cleric may use well timed heals, debuffs, buffs, CC, or pure damage to kill the enemy first. None of those are tanking (which a Cleric could do if they chose to, but may not be the BEST at it, though that's a whole different discussion.)

If you ever have a character who's role does not include helping your party live longer then the things you're trying to kill then you're either a troll or comically bad at TTRPGs.

This, all of it.

You can't attempt to redefine a term and then pretend it's not a semantic argument from the start.


It's not moving the goalposts nor semantics, it's an equivocation fallacy. You're using the term 'tanking' in more than one way and trying to argue as if it's all the same.

Doing that is still semantics, though.


. Tanking really should mean "meat-shielding" or the definition gets fuzzy.

Well meat-shielding is a subset of tanking.

I've seen a Monk tank, not by being a meat-shield but by being an in-the-enemy's-face hard-to-hit-but-attractive target.

[Kane0]

When I read the title of this thread, I thought it was going to be about abusing Fireball as an Eldritch Knight in some ludicrous way that depends on some obscure magic item or something. Nope, not really. It's just using the word "tanking" in an extremely weird way that no one else does, when there are other words that could be used to describe Fireball's ability to thin down crowds and reduce pressure on the rest of the party (i.e. "crowd control"). Following this definition, every character "tanks" to some extent and so the term is kind of useless. Not that it's incorrect, just that it's misleading and confusing. Tanking really should mean "meat-shielding" or the definition gets fuzzy.

Unrelated, I play a bloodrager in a PF game on the side and my battlecry is 'Flame on!' since our established tactic is to get the flame oracle to fireball me as soon as I enter rage and the enemies start piling onto me.
You could pull the same stunt with any character that gets a combination of good dex saves and fire resistance. Bear totem barbarians work well, but you can substitute in an appropriate race and go for another archetype.

[Kane0]

Doing that is still semantics, though.


Conceded. We should have started by defining our terms :smallamused:

[Unoriginal]

Conceded. We should have started by defining our terms :smallamused:

Nooo, not academic writing! We'll turn to ash!



Would the word "support" be better? Would you consider tanks and healers and controllers and "keeping the party alive" to all be support?


Well yes, but now you're just telling us what we already know: Fireball is a good crowd control spell.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Conceded. We should have started by defining our terms :smallamused:

I guess my argument is "Defining the Goalposts" then.

If I had to classify tanking on a scale (an arbitrary one) then I would put a line between Support and Tank and plot every archetype that would be classified as either on that line. Defining the ends of the scale would be a tad difficult. Life Cleric is the likely candidate for Support, Conquest Paladin a likely end point for tank. Conquest Paladin is one of the very few character classes that can force enemies to attack who they want and prevent them from doing otherwise reliably.

Defining tanking in 5E purely off mitigation through game mechanics is not accurate, at least to me. Since 5E lacks specific mechanics to draw aggro away from your allies being able to mitigate a lot of damage doesn't necessarily mean that you are "tanking".

I hadn't realized that I was proposing literal goalposts.

Would it be inappropriate to say that fireball has stronger utility for tanking (drawing threat) than many damage spells do? It might not be strictly a tanking spell, but a tank that is able to use Fireball would be more likely to be focused.

[GM_3826]

Well meat-shielding is a subset of tanking.

I've seen a Monk tank, not by being a meat-shield but by being an in-the-enemy's-face hard-to-hit-but-attractive target.

True. I suppose "evade tanking" (tanking by being hard to hit and encouraging enemies to hit you, rather than by being really durable) also works sometimes. Anything that doesn't really center around a character whose job is to try and be the center of attacks isn't really tanking, though, it's crowd control. It's probably the fact that tanking is a form of crowd control (especially in its more obvious forms) that causes some confusion.

Edit:
Unrelated, I play a bloodrager in a PF game on the side and my battlecry is 'Flame on!' since our established tactic is to get the flame oracle to fireball me as soon as I enter rage and the enemies start piling onto me.
You could pull the same stunt with any character that gets a combination of good dex saves and fire resistance. Bear totem barbarians work well, but you can substitute in an appropriate race and go for another archetype.

I suppose I should have expected something like this response when I said that :P

[MaxWilson]

When I read the title of this thread, I thought it was going to be about abusing Fireball as an Eldritch Knight in some ludicrous way that depends on some obscure magic item or something. Nope, not really. It's just using the word "tanking" in an extremely weird way that no one else does, when there are other words that could be used to describe Fireball's ability to thin down crowds and reduce pressure on the rest of the party (i.e. "crowd control"). Following this definition, every character "tanks" to some extent and so the term is kind of useless. Not that it's incorrect, just that it's misleading and confusing. Tanking really should mean "meat-shielding" or the definition gets fuzzy.

There certainly is value in Fireball for an EK: your single-target crowd control + damage is so good that enemies' best bet is to swarm you, but if they swarm you then you switch tactics and Fireball them. And because you're an EK, you can potentially Action Surge two Fireballs at once for 16d6 (54) damage, which is enough damage to mostly kill off even a mob of CR 2-3ish creatures like Orc Fangs of Shargas, Yetis and Githyankis. That's a very credible threat.

Counterplay of course is for the swarm of bad guys to switch to ranged weapons (Fangs of Shargas throwing darts) or goblin conga-line you (Githyanki Warriors w/ Misty Step) so that they're never in a good Fireball Formation. Counter-counterplay is for you to try to fall back on terrain where that kind of counterplay still forces them to bunch up enough to make Fireball viable.


True. I suppose "evade tanking" (tanking by being hard to hit and encouraging enemies to hit you, rather than by being really durable) also works sometimes. Anything that doesn't really center around a character whose job is to try and be the center of attacks isn't really tanking, though, it's crowd control. It's probably the fact that tanking is a form of crowd control (especially in its more obvious forms) that causes some confusion.

By this definition, tanking is inferior to crowd control. The best outcome for the party is for no one to be attacked, but if you do that you're not "tanking," so tanking = failure on some level, by definition.

[GM_3826]

There certainly is value in Fireball for an EK: your single-target crowd control + damage is so good that enemies' best bet is to swarm you, but if they swarm you then you switch tactics and Fireball them. And because you're an EK, you can potentially Action Surge two Fireballs at once for 16d6 (54) damage, which is enough damage to mostly kill off even a mob of CR 2-3ish creatures like Orc Fangs of Shargas, Yetis and Githyankis. That's a very credible threat.

Counterplay of course is for the swarm of bad guys to switch to ranged weapons (Fangs of Shargas throwing darts) or goblin conga-line you (Githyanki Warriors w/ Misty Step) so that they're never in a good Fireball Formation. Counter-counterplay is for you to try to fall back on terrain where that kind of counterplay still forces them to bunch up enough to make Fireball viable.


I agree with this completely.

[Kane0]

Double fireballs on your turn at level 13 is nothing to scoff at, even if your DC is a bit low and saves/resistance is getting more common.

[Sigreid]

Well yes, but now you're just telling us what we already know: Fireball is a good crowd control spell.

Well, yeah, but tanking is really just a style of crowd control. One that can be particularly effective on mobs that can't be killed outright or limited reliably via magic.

[Unoriginal]

I saw a D&D livestream where none of the 4 characters had any AoE.

The Fighter, the Rogue and the Monk all had to tank to save the squishy Bard, when they got attacked by 20+ goblins.

Thankfully they had minions + NPC help.


Well, yeah, but tanking is really just a style of crowd control. One that can be particularly effective on mobs that can't be killed outright or limited reliably via magic.

Yes, but it's all a question of subsets.


Meatshielding is a subset of tanking which is a subset of crowd control, while damage AoE is a different subset of crowd control.

[MaxWilson]

Double fireballs on your turn at level 13 is nothing to scoff at, even if your DC is a bit low and saves/resistance is getting more common.

Agreeing and expanding:

DC doesn't matter all that much anyway, especially on save-for-half spells. If your Int is 10, your DC at 13th level is still 13, which is good enough that a Githyanki Warrior (+2 to Dex saves) takes full damage (28) half the time and half damage (14) the other half the time. If your Int were 20, then 25% of the time a Githyanki would take an extra 14 points of damage, which means your damage would go up by 17%. Yawn.

Action Surging a second Fireball on the other hand makes your damage go up by 100%. :)

[Galithar]

This, all of it.

You can't attempt to redefine a term and then pretend it's not a semantic argument from the start.


Uh-oh... I feel things are in a dangerous area if Unoriginal and I are in such strong agreement :P

[Blood of Gaea]

I get what you're trying to say, but it's still not tanking. Dealing damage in an area makes to an AoE blaster, attacker, or DPS. It does not make you a tank. A tank draws enemy attacks and then mitigates the incoming damage somehow.

That's not to say that you can't use fireball on a tank. Eldritch Knight, Bladesinger, and Arcane Trickster come to mind for possible subclasses to do so.

[JakOfAllTirades]

I think this is devolving into a semantic argument.

You posted a semantic argument and challenged others to change your mind.

Devolution was not a factor here; there's really nowhere else to go with this.

[Greywander]

Would the word "support" be better? Would you consider tanks and healers and controllers and "keeping the party alive" to all be support?

Well yes, but now you're just telling us what we already know: Fireball is a good crowd control spell.
Great, I've updated the OP. Glad to see you agree with my assessment of Fireball, but there actually are people who grossly underestimate the value of good control spells, and in general don't assess their abilities beyond how quickly they let them kill things. It just seems that none of them post of these forums, apparently.


'keeping the party alive' which is literally the purpose of every role
Not everyone sees it this way. They relegate the job of keeping people alive solely to the tank and/or healer. I agree that keeping the party alive is the job of every role, and I want to encourage people to look at their abilities in terms of how it can help them protect their party members.


You posted a semantic argument and challenged others to change your mind.

Devolution was not a factor here; there's really nowhere else to go with this.
I disagree, people have been focusing on a periphery issue and ignoring the meat of my post. I've updated the OP, so the semantic argument should be gone now. My mind remains unchanged. Fireball, a traditionally offensive spell, is actually more effectively used to prevent incoming attacks. Maybe this isn't news to you, but I'm sure it's news to someone.

[Unoriginal]

Great, I've updated the OP. Glad to see you agree with my assessment of Fireball, but there actually are people who grossly underestimate the value of good control spells, and in general don't assess their abilities beyond how quickly they let them kill things. It just seems that none of them post of these forums, apparently.
[...]

I disagree, people have been focusing on a periphery issue and ignoring the meat of my post. I've updated the OP, so the semantic argument should be gone now. My mind remains unchanged. Fireball, a traditionally offensive spell, is actually more effectively used to prevent incoming attacks. Maybe this isn't news to you, but I'm sure it's news to someone.

Fireball IS an offensive spell. It kills things (provided those things are non-resistant-to-fire mooks) very well.

It is *also* a crowd control spell, because it kills enemies that doesn't act a certain way and clear out a lot of the space.

It's not "it's more effectively used to prevent incoming attacks". It's an offensive spell that is traditionally used to prevent incoming attacks. By everyone who ever took Fireball.

It's not because Treantmonk wrote that supposed guide about """"""God""""""" Wizards that there is an actual dichotomy between blasting and helping your team.

[ChildofLuthic]

Wait if fireball counts as a support spell, what DOESN'T count as support?

[Azgeroth]

this is one messy thread...

to the OP! i commend you on your effort to increase peoples capacity for creative problem solving, however if they havn't realised fireball is a great anti-mook spell, your probably wasting your time as their intuition simply doesn't go that way.

to say fireball is a 'tanking' or 'support' spell, is mute. ANY action you take, that has an impact on the combat, is support. it is after all a team game, as long as everyone plays their role, everyone is a support character.

however, tanking, support, blasting, cc, front line, back line, martial etc etc. are all debatable, will have slightly different meanings depending on your own interpretation because these words and phrasing are not a part of the system.

there is more than one way to skin a cat, some don't even require a cat. you can resolve an Encounter in a variety of ways, murder is one, but their are more, yes DnD is primarily a combat driven system, but the game plays how you play it, YMMW.

the act of murder may saves lives, that does not change the fact the act was murder.

fireball does damage, it may prevent damage, that does not make it a healing spell, or a buff spell. or a control spell, it is a damage dealing spell.

[Sigreid]

What's hilarious about this thread is pretty much on agreement about how to best use fireball and the argument is entirely about what to call that use.

[Kane0]

Is it because the term blasting has some sort of stigma attached to it?

[Unoriginal]

What's hilarious about this thread is pretty much on agreement about how to best use fireball and the argument is entirely about what to call that use.

Because this thread doesn't describe anything new about the Fireball use: it's the same thing anyone who has read the spell knows.

The only "new" thing OP did was call it something factually incorrect.


Is it because the term blasting has some sort of stigma attached to it?

Probably something like that. A lot of people seem happy with calling non-blasting wizards "god wizards" for some reason that elude and infuriate me.

[Sigreid]

Is it because the term blasting has some sort of stigma attached to it?

I think it's because people who go on internet forums largely do it to argue. 😁

[Boci]

Probably something like that. A lot of people seem happy with calling non-blasting wizards "god wizards" for some reason that elude and infuriate me.

I imagine a big part of it is that calling them "non-blasting wizards" doesn't sound nearly as cool as "god wizards". Names count for a lot. The same ability with different names can be recieved very differently.

[Unoriginal]

I imagine a big part of it is that calling them "non-blasting wizards" doesn't sound nearly as cool as "god wizards". Names count for a lot. The same ability with different names can be recieved very differently.

And calling a player character a god is 1) a ridiculous hyperbole 2) gives a negative connotation to all the other options for that kind of characters.

If you call the non-blasting wizard a god, then the blasting wizards sounds like a loser in comparison.


It's true that names count for a lot. Names have power, notably the one to make things sound better or worse than they are.

[Boci]

And calling a player character a god is 1) a ridiculous hyperbole 2) gives a negative connotation to all the other options for that kind of characters.

If you call the support wizard a god, then the non-support wizards sounds like a loser in comparison.

So people should stop having fun by calling support wizards god wizards? I don't understand your point here. Paladins are lawful stupid. PCs are murderhobos. You need a college degree to play a wizard "properly". Fighters are gods of the battlefield. Shake the rogue upside down after every dungeon to get the loot they stole for themselves. Sometimes people say things that sound fun but are in fact hyperbolic or even wrong. If you're going to be annoyed at that, well, it doesn't sound productive.

[MaxWilson]

Fireball IS an offensive spell. It kills things (provided those things are non-resistant-to-fire mooks) very well.

It is *also* a crowd control spell, because it kills enemies that doesn't act a certain way and clear out a lot of the space.

It's not "it's more effectively used to prevent incoming attacks". It's an offensive spell that is traditionally used to prevent incoming attacks. By everyone who ever took Fireball.

Not quite true. I've seen it used by idiots as a single-target damage spell (Fireball IX!) just because they can't stand not using up their biggest spell slots right away on direct damage. These idiots should have saved it for a situation where it would have killed off multiple weak enemies, and it is these idiots that Greywander is trying to communicate with in the OP. But apparently they don't read this forum. :-P

[Unoriginal]

So people should stop having fun by calling support wizards god wizards? I don't understand your point here. Paladins are lawful stupid. PCs are murderhobos. You need a college degree to play a wizard "properly". Fighters are gods of the battlefield. Shake the rogue upside down after every dungeon to get the loot they stole for themselves. Sometimes people say things that sound fun but are in fact hyperbolic or even wrong. If you're going to be annoyed at that, well, it doesn't sound productive.

I'm not annoyed that people say hyperbolic things, I'm annoyed that people give hyperbolic names to a certain kind of build and then people use it as if it was an objective qualifier.

There's more than one reason why the Sorcerer King guy's spam threads are atrocious, but claiming to be the most powerful character and calling it "Sorcerer King" (when it's not a king nor capable of being one) are two of them.

Similarly, if I wrote a thread about how a Fighter capable of killing 500 goblins and called it "God Fighter", then people would rightly call me out on it.


Words have meanings. Hyperbole is a fine literary device to make things seem more [insert adjective here] than they are. However, when you use an hyperbole for a build's name, it's making the build seem more awesome than it is, and so when people spread it it's giving false ideas.

When you call your tank "Eternal Cockroach", then people expect something that's eternal, or at least ridiculously resilient.

When you call your support build "God Wizard", then people expect something that is god-like, or at least ridiculously potent.

An hyperbole that is believed to be accurate is a misconception.

If the build proves popular, that misconception spread, and then all the Wizards that are not God get compared to it unfavorably. The idea become that blasting is weak because not the path to godhood.

And then you have threads like this one that are trying to re-frame blasting as something else to avoid the shameful connotation.

Having fun is one thing. Spreading misconceptions is another, and spreading misconceptions that affect other concepts badly is a third.

If you prefer it in other terms: the meme that Tom Bombadil could kick Sauron's donkey can be fun. Spreading it as if it was a fact is not, it's just being incorrect, and if it's accepted as fact by others it damages the understanding of the Lord of the Rings as a whole.


Not quite true. I've seen it used by idiots as a single-target damage spell (Fireball IX!) just because they can't stand not using up their biggest spell slots right away on direct damage. These idiots should have saved it for a situation where it would have killed off multiple weak enemies, and it is these idiots that Greywander is trying to communicate with in the OP. But apparently they don't read this forum. :-P

Fair enough.

[Boci]

If you prefer it in other terms: the meme that Tom Bombadil could kick Sauron's donkey can be fun. Spreading it as if it was a fact is not, it's just being incorrect, and if it's accepted as fact by others it damages the understanding of the Lord of the Rings as a whole.

Oh no, people having different opinions about Lord of the Rings? That's...sorry, just really not seeing how its bad for fans to believe "Even if the quest had failed and Sauron had crushed Gondor, Tom Bombadil still could have stopped him". Fans disagree about this kind of stuff all the time. I feel Vader did not redemmed himself in Jedi, but I'm not going to start claiming that those who disagree with me are damaging their understanding of Star Wars.

As for spreading misconceptions for fun? I will happily say "You're a paladin, you are required to be lawful stupid". If others take that at face value and don't question or think about it, that's on them.

[Unoriginal]

Oh no, people having different opinions about Lord of the Rings? That's...sorry, just really not seeing how its bad for fans to believe "Even if the quest had failed and Sauron had crushed Gondor, Tom Bombadil still could have stopped him". Fans disagree about this kind of stuff all the time. I feel Vader did not redemmed himself in Jedi, but I'm not going to start claiming that those who disagree with me are damaging their understanding of Star Wars.


It's not a question of opinions, it's a question of facts.

In-universe, the question is addressed, and the conclusion is that no, Bombadil could not have done it. That is the diegetic fact on the matter. Similarly, that Vader redeemed himself at the end is a fact in the story, no matter what the fans' opinions on it is.

I also think that just killing one bad guy just to save one person you personally mutilated because eh, now you care abou them isn't enough to be redeemed. But we can't argue about what happened, we can only argue if it's well done or logical or that it holds water. Anyone affirming "Vader was not redeemed" is factually incorrect. "I feel like Vader's redemption was not well-done, as his actions were too little, too late for it" or "I feel like Vader shouldn't have been redeemed like that" are opinions, and such can be subject of debate.

There is nothing wrong with opinions, but there is a difference between stating an opinion and making a claim.



As for spreading misconceptions for fun? I will happily say "You're a paladin, you are required to be lawful stupid". If others take that at face value and don't question or think about it, that's on them.

The thing is, if they take it at face value, they'll likely spread it. Either they believe it's a good thing, resulting in them playing lawful stupid paladins at the tables, criticizing paladin players who don't, disagreeing with people online about the subject, etc, or they'll believe it's a bad thing, resulting in them not playing paladins, criticizing people for playing paladins, and accusing 5e paladins of being only lawful stupid online when it's factually false.

Granted, you'd still be right it'd be on them, as the jest should have been obvious.

However, there are plenty of times when a misconception is used in a context that doesn't give reasons to believe it's not meant at face value. Calling a build "God Wizard" when you write a whole guide about it, completed with explanations as to why you think it's a fitting name, does not make people think "surely they're just having fun and it shouldn't be taken at face value".

Spreading misconceptions (not at jokes, but in a way that is meant to be believed) is a disservice for everyone interested in the subject. Like people who sincerely believe that medieval European sword were heavy, blunt, unwieldy lumps of simplistically-forged metal because someone online wrote it.

[Boci]

Similarly, that Vader redeemed himself at the end is a fact in the story, no matter what the fans' opinions on it is.

That is debatable. Remember Obi-wan argued that he hadn't lied when he said Vader murdered Luke's father? Its arguable Anakin and Vader are considered seperate indeviduals in the Star Wars universe, and that it was Anakin's ghost we saw at the end, not Vader.


However, there are plenty of times when a misconception is used in a context that doesn't give reasons to believe it's not meant at face value. Calling a build "God Wizard" when you write a whole guide about it, completed with explanations as to why you think it's a fitting name, does not make people think "surely they're just having fun and it shouldn't be taken at face value".

Literally the first words of the guide:

A note about style: First off should be my note about style, hopefully before all the players of other classes out there get all upset. Throughout this guide my tongue is planted squarely in my cheek, and yes, I can be a cheeky monkey. Also, this is by and large an opinion paper, so I will be expressing opinion regularly. I will be expressing it strongly, but yes, you are entitled to disagree.

( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IeOXWvbkmQ3nEyM2P3lS8TU4rsK6QJP0oH7HE_v67QY/edit )

[Unoriginal]

Literally the first words of the guide:

A note about style: First off should be my note about style, hopefully before all the players of other classes out there get all upset. Throughout this guide my tongue is planted squarely in my cheek, and yes, I can be a cheeky monkey. Also, this is by and large an opinion paper, so I will be expressing opinion regularly. I will be expressing it strongly, but yes, you are entitled to disagree.

( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IeOXWvbkmQ3nEyM2P3lS8TU4rsK6QJP0oH7HE_v67QY/edit )

1) It's not because people say they're just expression an opinion that they are. You wouldn't believe the number of people who makes claims thinking they're opinions. Giving a name to something is a claim, not an opinion.

2) Fair enough, Treantmonk did have a disclaimer. Then the issue lays on the people who didn't get the memo and started spreading their misunderstanding of the concept.

Am I allowed to be annoyed by that and those who do that, or is it

[Brookshw]

What's hilarious about this thread is pretty much on agreement about how to best use fireball and the argument is entirely about what to call that use.

That a thread was started to tell us that fireball kills enemies and dead enemies are less of a threat than live enemies is entertaining in its own right.

I have high hopes for the forthcoming thread Swords, good for stabbing and cutting :smalltongue:

[MaxWilson]

That is debatable. Remember Obi-wan argued that he hadn't lied when he said Vader murdered Luke's father? Its arguable Anakin and Vader are considered seperate indeviduals in the Star Wars universe, and that it was Anakin's ghost we saw at the end, not Vader.



Literally the first words of the guide:

A note about style: First off should be my note about style, hopefully before all the players of other classes out there get all upset. Throughout this guide my tongue is planted squarely in my cheek, and yes, I can be a cheeky monkey. Also, this is by and large an opinion paper, so I will be expressing opinion regularly. I will be expressing it strongly, but yes, you are entitled to disagree.

( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IeOXWvbkmQ3nEyM2P3lS8TU4rsK6QJP0oH7HE_v67QY/edit )

TreantMonk's origin story makes it clear that by "god" he means "apparently-but-not-actually-useless." Most important words in that document are the explanation of "god wizard": (emphasis mine)


What I find myself constantly explaining is that “being a god” doesn’t mean godlike power. I chose the name based on Greek Myths, where a god would get some hapless mortal to do their dirty work, merely interfering by magic to ensure that the hero always had the advantage. This is what a god wizard is, a wizard who lets the rest of the party have the glory, but subtly ensures through Battlefield Control, Buffing and Debuffing that the party always achieves victory.

Unfortunately, as Unoriginal notes, names have consequences, especially among those who don't share your context.