Aiming a Spell - Range Area Effect spells

[Bagpuss]

New House Rule - what do folks think?

Aiming a Spell
Ranged Area Effect Spells
Some spells affect an area. Sometimes a spell description specifies a specially defined area, if that spell has a range greater than zero use the rules below.

Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don’t control which creatures or objects the spell affects.

While the point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection, but when targeting a ranged area effect spell, the caster must choose the centre of a square. Range is calculated by measuring from the centre of the square to the centre of the casters square. Once the target square has been determined the caster rolls 1d4, to determine which corner of the acts square acts as the grid intersection for the point of origin of the area effect spell.

Starting with the edge nearest the caster and counting clockwise from the bottom right corner the corners are number 1 to 4. So for example a roll of 3 would be the far left corner as seen from the caster’s position.

Once the grid intersection is determined which targets are in the area of effect are determined as normal as indicated in the Player’s Handbook (page 175).

 

[Bagpuss]

not one comment?

 

[Pyrex]

The first question would be: why introduce the added randomness?

Oh, and nitpick: This should apply to Bursts, Emanations and Spreads; but probably not Lines and Cones.

 

[Bagpuss]

Which it does, it only applies to spells that have there point of origin at an intersection not adjacent to the caster. Which was what I meant by Ranged Area Effect, but I can see the reason for confusion.

It's personally because I'm not completely happy with the accuracy casters seem to have gained with the move to miniatures based combat. In the days of 1st and 2nd Ed you did not go throwing fireballs into a melee that other party members were involved in unless you didn't mind frying them too. With 3rd Ed I bored of the way players will spend ages accurately working out just where to place the template so it gets the maximum enemies without touching the PC in melee with them less than a swords length away. They don't even suffer a targeting penalty like they would with a ray spell.

I could say 50% chance to hit adjacent targets in melee, but that actually increases the area of effect of the spell. This way there is a chance it might catch a party member if they try and fry the orc that they are in melee with. Players are more likely to use them as they did in previous edition to pick of large groups of enemies that aren't yet engaged with the PC's, and use other more accurate spells, like lines or rays at targets in melee.

 

[Pyrex]

...In the days of 1st and 2nd Ed you did not go throwing fireballs into a melee that other party members were involved in unless you didn't mind frying them too.

Sure you did. Or at least we did. It just involved asking the DM "How many can I hit without hitting allies?"

If your problem is with how long combat is taking, only give your casters a couple seconds to pick an intersection. It'll force them to figure it out ahead of time and speed up your combats.

Keep in mind that Lines and Rays typically aren't great choices when your target is in melee either. Getting into position to use a line without blasting an ally is near impossible; and most mages can't spare the feats for Precise Shot.

 

[Bagpuss]

It's not the time its the accuracy, when we were playing 2nd and before if you asked the question "Who can I hit without hitting my allies?" you were told which ones weren't in melee with your allies. If the DM was generous you had a 50% chance to hit you allies if you tried to target the spell so they were right at the end and the enemy inside it, but I think that was only introduced with non-weapon proficiencies and if you failed the check then your ally was hit too.

I'm planning on reducing the requirements for Extreme Spell Aim (I think I got that right) from Complete Adventurer to 5 ranks and allowing as DC 15 check to be able to move the final intersection one step clockwise or counter-clockwise to reflect our old non-proficiency check.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

My question would be "What are you giving the wizards in return for making it even harder for area-effect spells to kill anything?"

I personally find fireballs and the like to be pretty pathetic in 3.X.

DS

 

[el-remmen]

I use the exact same rule.

I believe, Monte Cook first suggested it.

However, I have also included a feat called "Accurate Caster" that eliminates it.

Accurate Caster [general]
You are skilled at placing the center of area spells.
Prerequisite: Caster level 1st, Int 13, Spot 2 ranks.
Benefit: You may choose the specific intersection of grid lines for the center of a spell with an area of effect.
Normal: When casting a spell with an area of effect, you choose a square on the battle map; you then roll a d4 to determine which corner of the chosen square serves as the center of the spell. (see Aiming Area Spells)

 

[Bagpuss]

My question would be "What are you giving the wizards in return for making it even harder for area-effect spells to kill anything?"

I personally find fireballs and the like to be pretty pathetic in 3.X.

DS

I give them a bonus feat at 1st level (but make Summon Familiar a feat - never had a player take a familiar yet even before I introduced that house rule), at 3rd level I give them another bonus feat to spend an action point to swap a spell they have memorized for one in their spellbook. +2 skill points a level (but then all classes except the Rogue get that, they get +4).