Aiming Fireballs soi they don't hit the party?

[Abraxas]

Actually, you said you had that conversation and no roleplaying aspect was lost. By that, you implied the same type of conversation. I merely pointed out that it was not the same type of conversation.

As I said, we had the injuring an ally conversation - and the roleplaying it entailed - sorry you interpreted that to mean the exact same conversation. vagaries of message board communication.

Both are conversations about risk. Do I risk injuring my allies or not.
One is about the risk of wether or not you will injure an ally
The other is about the risk of actually injuring an ally.

Infinitely? Why? Because you are guaranteed an outcome and there is no risk (i.e. you can ensure you will or will not hit allies before deciding to cast the spell)?

No, because we get to choose when to risk injuring an ally and not leave that part up to chance (which doesn't penalize our spatially challenged friends).

This is a carry over from our 2nd edition, no battle map days - when players would announce that they were going to fire off an area effect spell and what effect they wanted to achieve, the DM would state wether or not the desired effect would include allied targets and the player would modify his action based on the DM's description

Example
Player: I want to get as many of the orcs with this fireball as possible
DM: OK, but you will hit PC 2, PC3 and PC4 also.
Player: Hmm, OK, I want to hit as many as i can without hitting other PCs.
DM: OK, you'll only be able to get this group of 6 then.
Player: OK

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

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.

Personally, I find it amusing that people worry so much about this. Seriously.

Obviously, the caster should know what they're doing. They know what the area of effect of their spell is, and if they practice AT ALL, they should have a pretty good judge of relative distance.

Do y'all not allow other PCs to count distance to targets? Or count squares of movement beforehand? Or consider their actions in any way, shape, or form?

Also, can you prevent me from looking over the map? And counting by eye, when it's not my turn? If not, then why are you penalizing people who aren't as able to do that?

Brad

 

[Hypersmurf]

Do y'all not allow other PCs to count distance to targets? Or count squares of movement beforehand? Or consider their actions in any way, shape, or form?

Things like "Am I within 30 feet?" for sneak attack.
"Am I within one range increment?" for a bowshot - the difference between 105 feet and 115 feet becomes significant.
"Are they within 15 feet of each other?" for a Magic Missile.

If you can tell those things, you should be able to place a fireball accurately so the 20' radius includes square X but not square X-1.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

Personally, I find it amusing that people worry so much about this. Seriously.

Nobody is worried about this. It is merely a discussion.

Obviously, the caster should know what they're doing.

They should?

They should never make a mistake? Why is a caster special in that regard?

And in fact, RAW appears to disagree with the "measure out to the nth degree" school of thought.

"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. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection. When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack. The only difference is that instead of counting from the center of one square to the center of the next, you count from intersection to intersection."

It clearly states here that you pick the grid intersection and then determine whether a given creature is within the area of the spell. Not the other way around.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It clearly states here that you pick the grid intersection and then determine whether a given creature is within the area of the spell. Not the other way around.

Yup. But you do get to centre the spell on the exact intersection you choose.

I agree - the player should state "I centre the spell there", and then the DM determines which creatures are affected by the spell. But I have no problem with 'there' being exactly 20 feet away from the near corners of the closest ally's square, if that's where the player points.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yup. But you do get to centre the spell on the exact intersection you choose.

I agree - the player should state "I centre the spell there", and then the DM determines which creatures are affected by the spell. But I have no problem with 'there' being exactly 20 feet away from the near corners of the closest ally's square, if that's where the player points.

Precisely.

 

[myradale]

A lot of the fun of being a spellcaster comes from these sorts of decisions.
One of my mages finest moments came from when the headstrong (annoyingly) halfling rogue dived into a throng of enemies and got himself WAY over his head.

The best thing I could think of to do... target my fireball directly at him and hoped he made his reflex evasion roll.
Led to QUITE a good bit of roleplaying I must say.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

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.

No odder than the World's Best Fighter having the same chance to miss a Grey Ooze as an Orc Warrior. It's a quick-and-easy house rule (only one extra roll, as the d20 rolls determines not only success, but also direction if missed) that helps simulate the chaos of combat, providing one means of satisfying those DMs who don't like "precision placement" of spells. If precision placement doesn't bother you, you don't need a house rule; if you're a more simulationist DM, use a more simulationist rule. There are a bunch of folks in the middle.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

It clearly states here that you pick the grid intersection and then determine whether a given creature is within the area of the spell. Not the other way around.

Again...if the caster has any idea of what they're doing, they should be able to eyeball who's going to be in the area of effect, and adjust their aim to make it most effective.

If the caster *doesn't* have any idea of what they're doing, well, they shouldn't be out in combat.

Brad

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

The best thing I could think of to do... target my fireball directly at him and hoped he made his reflex evasion roll.
Led to QUITE a good bit of roleplaying I must say.

Ah, scratching the evasion-having PC's back. Quite fun.

My rogue in Birthright had standing agreements with the magi to do that, and my al-Qadim warmage has an agreement with his monk to do that.

It's much easier in 3.5, since Save DCs aren't as high as they used to be.

Brad