Explosive spells are really that bad or it's just me?

[chimchim]

In my fantasy campaign i house ruled techniques called bigger bang 1 and 2. B.B 1 was a hard technique at -5 and gave explosion 2. B.B. 2 was a hard tecnique at -10 and gave explosion 3 to the explosive spells.
I would allow a perk per spell to change from explosion to area 2yards. Then a technique at -5 per doubling of area.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Carlos

In anycase, am I the only one who thinks that Explosive Spells are bad?

The problem is making them less-bad without making them overpowered; as people have commented, they're still pretty solid as single-target attacks, even if they aren't very good as area attacks. Perhaps halve the energy per second (i.e. you can spend magery per second, not magery x 2) and then change the distance divisor to 1. Thus, someone with magery 3 can throw a 4d+2 fireball for 9 fatigue, rather than a 9d fireball for 18 fatigue, which will cut down on the 'instakill tough foes' effect.