Aiming Fireballs soi they don't hit the party?

[Joker]

So, if the spellcaster in question is also a renowned archer, known for his ability to gauge distance, weather, and all other factors to consistantly hit his target, he has an equal chance to miss as the clumsiest mage in the lands? Odd.

The usual (AFAIK) method for attacking a square/intersection is to assign an AC of 5 (base AC of 10 with a 0 Dex) and then use the usual mods for attacks.

No, it's more of a way of showing that in the midst of combat you can't always hit that teeny little square at 200ft. It's a simple, albeit, illogical rule. But then again, it's not like DnD is short on illogical and non-sensical rules.

For our group it's just a way to put a little more excitement in an otherwise dull tactical sytem.

YMMV.

Right back at ya.

 

[Bryon_Soulweaver]

So if a rogue gets hit with a fireball and evades it; if sphere its impossible; if spread in a 40' by 10' by 10' hallway, what the heck do you hold onto to save your own ***? fire gets everything in its path, its just logical and common sense, nothing is safe. Unless the said character(s) can teleport away from the heat/fire and teleport back, its a crazy guideline.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Ugh. *clutches chest*

Too much trying to interject logic into D&D rules. The rules describe abstract circumstances. It is easier to explain in "realistic" terms what happens when you follow the rules exactly than it is to try to change the rules to be "realistic".

For instance:

"As the wizard began gathering arcane energy to complete his spell, time seemed to slow down, his vision became sharper. He knew the location of everything nearby him with perfect clarity. He saw, no, KNEW exactly where to place the spell, guided by the arcane sight. He simply had to picture it appearing where he wanted to and it would appear immediately, coming within 2 feet of all of his friends, but touching none of them. The spell appeared, enveloping the enemy rogue. The rogue, however, pulled his fire retardant cloak over his head and dropped to the ground, quickly, taking as much cover as he could behind a small rock that the wizard would not think possible to hide behind."

vs

1. Firing a fireball through melee should have a chance to hit people. House rule number 1.
2. You cannot count squares as you should have no idea where your spell will actually hit. House rule number 2.
3. A rogue cannot use evasion in the middle of a fireball with no cover around, no one can escape a 20 ft radius ball of fire. House rule number 3.

And this is 3 house rules for just ONE spell. You can point out just as many "logic" problems with every other spell in the book and if you "correct" them, soon you have a book of house rules. Also, your game requires about 3 or 4 more decisions and/or rolls for each action now as it has more rules, thus slowing the game down more. Plus, the arguements that come if the players aren't fully aware of these house rules when they start to cast a spell.

The second problem with these house rules is that 1 seems to be up to the DM when it applies, does it ALWAYS hit people when firing into or through melee? If so, it lowers the power of wizards a lot, balance wise, compared to other classes. The problem with house rule number 2 is that it favors those people who count squares in their head or use a template. It is easy to pull out a fireball template, put it on the table and arrange it so it doesn't hit your friends. If you allow this, one player will never hit his friends anyways, while the one who doesn't use one and just guesses does. He'll be a dangerous wizard to his allies due to OOC reasons.

 

[iwatt]

Oh, and the way we do it we don't point to squares all the time. If the player and DM know that its possible to aim the spell such that it only affects X, Y, and Z, then we don't calculate it out. We just say, I aim it so it hits X, Y, and Z.

Yep, me too. I hate agonizing over wether you can exactly place it. If my players think the PC can get 3 NPCs in their cone AE, they do. If I think the BBEG can get al 4 PCs in his AE sphere, he does. I trust my players and they trust me.

 

[Maliki]

Normally I let the wizard pull this off, I assume he knows what he is doing and is knowledgeable about how his spells work. Plus it makes the game flow quicker and seem more heroic.

 

[KarinsDad]

The issue that I have with the "allow the player to measure out the distances" concept is that the Wizard is able to be totally accurate, whereas all of the other PCs and NPCs have to roll dice to see if they hit.

I have no problem with a player saying "I place my Fireball here" and that is where it goes.

I have a problem with a player attempting to measure this out to the nth degree.


My PC got hit by friendly fire just a few game sessions ago. The DM asked which intersection the player of the Warmage was targeting his Fireball, and then we figured out who got hit. My PC happened to be just within the radius.

In fact, we recently started using metal templates that the DM made to figure out exact location of area effects like spreads and cones. It makes it pretty easy to just drop the template from above over the miniatures.

However, people who do not allow the players to make such mistakes are missing out on a fun element of roleplaying.

My PC and the PC of the other player had a serious discussion about targeting friends and foes. "Sure, it's good to damage multiple opponents, but unless the situation is dire and we will lose unless you do so, damaging an ally can also lead to dire situations".

That type of conversation won't happen in a game where the DM allows the players to measure out exact distances. An entire aspect of roleplaying is lost when you do this. And to me, it is no different than having a player move his PC through the squares and the DM saying "Ok, the Troll gets an Attack of Opportunity against you for moving through that square." and the player saying "Oh, in that case, I take this different route." and the DM saying "Ok".


Playing that way is like playing a computer game where your offensive spells do not affect your allies. Boring and lacking in plausibility (i.e. it reminds you that you are playing a game as opposed to you just experiencing the game).

People make mistakes. Oh well. If you are going to prevent that at all times when possible as a DM, why are you playing the game?

 

[dcollins]

The problem with house rule number 2 is that it favors those people who count squares in their head or use a template. It is easy to pull out a fireball template, put it on the table and arrange it so it doesn't hit your friends. If you allow this, one player will never hit his friends anyways, while the one who doesn't use one and just guesses does.

Obviously, using a template counts as pre-measuring. Disallowed in my game.

 

[Abraxas]

For those that require some sort of roll to determine if the fireball even makes it to the target intersection when aimed through a crowd, how do you determine where along its path it hits an obstruction when the caster misses?

Also, when a charcter uses a ranged weapon, do you not let them count to determine the range increment penalty on their attack? If they guess the target is farther away than it is do you apply a range penalty even if it normally would not apply?

My PC and the PC of the other player had a serious discussion about targeting friends and foes. "Sure, it's good to damage multiple opponents, but unless the situation is dire and we will lose unless you do so, damaging an ally can also lead to dire situations".

That type of conversation won't happen in a game where the DM allows the players to measure out exact distances. An entire aspect of roleplaying is lost when you do this.

We allow precise measuring and still have had this conversation and no roleplaying aspect is lost. Just because you can measure out distances doesn't mean you won't have friendly figures in the area of best effect. In one recent campaign we even had a code - announcing "This is going to hurt a little" meant that allied characters were going to be in the area of effect of some sort of spell. Hitting friends is then a deliberate act and not just a random event.

On a different note - if you use a battle mat of some sort with a grid, not allowing everyone to measure really only adversely affects those players who can't do the measuring in their heads. I happen to be pretty good at just eyeballing the grid and know the outline of the various cone and burst templates so I seldom have to count anything on the map. On the flip side I game with someone who, if not allowed to count, would consistantly miss their target and/or hit their allies. The "fun" would go out of a no measuring situation pretty quickly for the player and the rest of us.

 

[andargor]

Just wondering, how would you handle an Archmage with Mastery of Shaping if you disallow precise placement of spell effects normally?

Not a critique, just curious.

Andargor

 

[dcollins]

Note that my game is core-rules 3.0 only. But, honestly, it's a problem I'd solve when it came up, if ever -- probably give that specific power the ability to pick specific spaces, most likely.