Aiming Fireballs soi they don't hit the party?

[Infiniti2000]

Personally, I disallow measuring any distances before actions are declared (which includes movement, ranged attacks, and spell targeting). So, granted there's no chance of missing a particular intersection -- but if a player starts counting squares back on the map to find the perfect intersection, that's disallowed in my game.

This basically rewards players who are good at judging distances on the battlemap or who think beforehand to count up the squares (visually, which is not hard). I could easily do it, while I know my wife and some others could not. That's really unfair IMO and I'd hazard a guess that the same people in your group play the area effect spellcasters while the others are obligated to player the fighters, etc. I can see the potential for a lot of problems with this houserule with no benefit.

 

[Land Outcast]

The trouble with the

I disallow measuring any distances before actions are declared

Is that again, a house rule is trying to make things more realistic (my interpretation), and well, D&D is not realistic, specially in the combat rounds thing. In the 6s your character would be awarded he wouldn't have the time to decide who he will attack, where he will move, which spell to choose, count the enemies, AND take actions.
But, In D&D this time is suspended (well, I knoww one guy who makes the rounds last 6s, but I guess its not the norm) and players have the time to appraise the situation and take some time time for their decisions.

Back to the subject, Yes, no trouble targeting an intersection, but as previous posters mentioned, if the way is obstructed some roll will be needed.

L.O.

 

[Syntallah]

...The mage in the back row declares he is casting a Fireball centred just far enough to hit some of the orcs but not the party members standing infront of them...

Hannibal King

A favorite quote around my Table is "Combat is dynamic". What that reminds my players of is there is alot of stuff going on that is not covered by the rules. Fighters are assumed to be making several swings/misses/parries in a round, not just the 1 to 4 allowed by their Base Attack. A typical human does not take up 5' of physical space, but he needs that much room to fight effectively, so he must be moving around a bit in that square. Etc, etc, etc.

So, when a PC wants to hit a bad guy in melee combat with a party member with an area of effect spell I have that party member make the same save as the target. I then apply the equivalent of the cover rules depending upon the situation, which gives the PC a bonus to his Reflex save, and the equivalent of improved evasion to that spell (i.e. no damage if save is successful).

[NOTE: even though I play a 3.5 Game I still use the 3.0 Cover/Concealment rules as I prefer the flexibility.]

 

[D+1]

Personally, I disallow measuring any distances before actions are declared (which includes movement, ranged attacks, and spell targeting). So, granted there's no chance of missing a particular intersection -- but if a player starts counting squares back on the map to find the perfect intersection, that's disallowed in my game.

That's interesting since the point of using a grid is to ALLOW easy measurement of distances without PLAYERS having to guess and thus eliminating both player miscalculation and arguments over arbitrary rulings regarding placement and areas of effect.

The prohibition that some people have about "no measuring" is a holdover from the games roots in tabletop wargaming where it was indeed considered a form of "cheating" to measure the board for range and area of effect before making decisions about your course of action. However, it's a pretty pointless holdover for 3.0/3.5 D&D. Not only because accurate measurement is now inherent to the games design, but unlike previous versions of D&D you DON'T declare your actions at the beginning of the round prior to learning what other players or the DM are going to do. In older versions this too was a holdover effect from wargaming roots that promoted randomness, but required an exceptional level of arbitrary enforcement nonsense - like not being allowed to measure anything ahead of time. But in 3rd Edition rules you decide upon and take your actions at the same time when your turn in the game comes up, things ARE where they ARE and what you DO is what you DO. The arbitrary and random aspects of declaring actions and having to GUESS at what the battlefield situation will look like when your turn DOES come up are gone (and good riddance). Therefore the prohibition on premeasurement serves absolutely no useful purpose.

 

[Joker]

Personally, I use a house rule where a spellcaster has to roll a d20 to hit the square he is aiming for with spells like fireball.

9-20 it's on target, 1-8 it's in one of the squares adjacent to it.

 

[dcollins]

But, In D&D this time is suspended (well, I knoww one guy who makes the rounds last 6s, but I guess its not the norm) and players have the time to appraise the situation and take some time time for their decisions.

I also give each player a 6-count to declare their action when it is their turn. Then, they are treated as Delaying and we move to the next player. It's silly for the player to take 5 minutes deciding something their PC has only 6 seconds to react to & perform.

(My biggest grief with 3rd Ed. tabletop emphasis is the enormous amount of time some people expect combats to take, possibly hours. In my game, I've got to have combats proceed at a brisk pace or the irritation frankly makes it not worth playing.)

 

[ThirdWizard]

I also give each player a 6-count to declare their action when it is their turn. Then, they are treated as Delaying and we move to the next player. It's silly for the player to take 5 minutes deciding something their PC has only 6 seconds to react to & perform.

I have two players that if put under this Table Rule, would almost never act in combat. And, I can't imagine the DM being held to this, so isn't it a bit unfair to players?

Now, if you're all top notch wargamers, that's different.

 

[LordSkull]

Lets think about this from a fantasy realism standpoint. Think about all the training your typical wizard is susposed to have had. As well as his usually high intelligence. Min 13 for fireball use if I am not mistaken which while not genius level is still above average. Now take all this and try to tell me that he could not place his spell where it is susposed to go or calculate where on a grid it should fall to avoid hurting his friends. Think of all the novice wizards who would not last 30 seconds outside of the academy if they could not precicely target an area effect spell.

As far as players mesuring the grid. Think of it this way. Again back to the martial training issue. Most of us in no way resemble our typical Character. They live in a world vastly different from our own in some ways. Distance can be critical to may aspects of an adventurers life. So it stands to reason that this distance training would be a part of their basics. Players are trying to BE and THINK like their characters. If we were there with the minds they have then we could probably judge distance almost as accuratly as a player counting the grid. OR Decide on our action and change that plan and execute it all in 6s IF we had the minds of our TRAINED Characters. They live in a world HOSTILE to life where we live in a pretty CUSHY world. We no longer have to live and die in 6s so our minds take more time to process things.

Just my thoughts.

 

[dcollins]

I have two players that if put under this Table Rule, would almost never act in combat. And, I can't imagine the DM being held to this, so isn't it a bit unfair to players?

Of course the DM is held to this. And players who were previously slow at my table have drastically sped up their game, which was the whole point.

Lets think about this from a fantasy realism standpoint. Think about all the training your typical wizard is susposed to have had. As well as his usually high intelligence.

I have very intelligent players, and my assumption is that the advantage of the gods-eye-view from above the tabletop counteracts any supposed favorable PC proficiency.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Personally, I disallow measuring any distances before actions are declared (which includes movement, ranged attacks, and spell targeting). So, granted there's no chance of missing a particular intersection -- but if a player starts counting squares back on the map to find the perfect intersection, that's disallowed in my game.

I'm the opposite. I allow the precise placement of spells. It's usually justified by the spellcaster's casting attribute being super-high (22 int or wis makes for pretty darned good 3d visualization), and it merely adds another tactical aspect to the combat.

I do, however, require that the spellcasters' players do all their counting before it's their turn, rather than waste the group's time by starting to count on their turn and making everyone else wait.