Aiming Fireballs soi they don't hit the party?

[Inconsequenti-AL]

Templates and let them place it... If that takes more than about 10 seconds then I'll prompt them a little. Don't like to bring the players distance judgement into the actions of their PC.

Personally, I'd rather use NPC tactics to force a more difficult decision. Magic savvy opponents will mix in with the frontline PCs to make targeting more difficult. Had a couple of situations where AoE spells have been dumped on PCs to make for faster mook clearance... However, the PCs certainly can't discuss this - it's the wizards call to make.

Edit: I'd view fireballs in 2 ways. At lower levels - they're the wizards once/twice per day chance to showboat. Higher levels, they're a convenient way of disposing of large groups of much weaker opponents. Either way, I don't want to mess with their seconds in the spotlight. Doesn't happen very often, particularly at the lower levels...

 

[Wolf72]

I really like that second one. What sort of DC's do you look at?

all guestimated ... big thing to consider is how much change there is ... and you need to have an idea of your difficulty rating ...

DC 15: not to hard

DC 20: doable, but hard

DC 25: hard

DC 30: really hard

DC 35: good luck!

(that's off the top of my head, not sure how realistic it would be in game) ... maybe add in the level of the spell you're modifying as well.

I would probably use DC's 20 and 25 a lot

it worked great for winging it, especially when the only 3e book we had was the PHb

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

But, the conversation is different then as well.

Hitting friendly targets and then explaining why you did it on purpose is different than hitting them and explaining why you did it by accident.

 

[KarinsDad]

Templates and let them place it... If that takes more than about 10 seconds then I'll prompt them a little. Don't like to bring the players distance judgement into the actions of their PC.

Why?

People's personal judgement is used for all types of actions of their PC. For example, someone good at math might decide to use an (Eberron) action point whereas someone not so good at math might decide the opposite.

Why would distance judgement be any different than any other personal judgement?

 

[focallength]

I dont know if anyone has mentioned it yet but theres a feat I believe its in the exalted deeds book that allows you to deal damage from spells to neutral and evil creatures only.
So if all of your party is good you cast fireball in their midst and they take no damage, neutral alignments take half (evasion would apply so if a rogue is N he could evade for 1/4 or none or 1/2 or none depending on the evasion level) and evil Alignments take full. Or just take the feat that allows you to shape AoA spells, turn a 20' radius into a triangle or a donut or a hexagon...you get the picture.

 

[farscapesg1]

Personally, I miss the old days of playing 2nd edition without any sort of battle grid or miniatures. However, with all the extra options of AOO, Flanking, Charging, etc. the use of miniatures is almost required (unless you have DM that is great at detailing everything).

I do have a problem with the idea that a spellcaster must make a check to place a spell where they want it. If they need to make a check, that is why a ranged touch attack is for some spells.

Comparing it to other classes abilities that require rolls doesn't work, IMO. That is why the victims of the spell get a saving throw. The saving throw is equal to the attack roll of a fighter. If you want to make spellcasters make attack rolls to place an area effect spell, then you should make a fighter make a Dexterity check to make sure he is still within reach of his opponent after making an attack. Going with the idea that the combat is fluid and a character in a 5 ft space is constantly moving and might take damage from an area effect spell that hits the opponent his is in hand-to-hand combat with, the same thing needs to be taken into consideration with his attack. In other words, during the fluid movements of battle, he may be just out of reach of his opponent when he makes that attack roll, and even if he would hit, his reach is just not long enough.

What, don't want to look at it that way? Then what you are saying is that spellcasters need to be penalized just because they have area effect attacks that the warrior (or any melee character) doesn't have. What about whirlwind attack then? That is an area effect (any square within reach of the character). Why is it that the warrior can choose exactly the opponents he wants to attack in the area, but the spellcaster needs to be hampered? What about the archer trying to hit something that is 100+ feet away? He is allowed to hit the target with just a single attack roll?

What about ranged attacks against opponents in melee combat? Do those of you that require a spellcaster to make an Intelligence or Spellcraft check to hit an exact spot also use rules that you have the chance of hitting a friend in melee with your target?

The rules are already there. If the Cleric wants to call down a Flame Strike, he can specify exactly where that happens. The same works for Wizards with Fireball, Grease, Web, etc.. Adding an extra check to cast these spells is a slap in the face to caster characters.

 

[Space Coyote]

I originally made this ruling:

-If the area effect spell has no chance of harming allies, then its goes off where you want it to.
-If the area spell could catch allies and you want to aim it so it hits the enemies only, you had to make an Intelligence check (DC 10).
-If the check succeeded, the spells center point is right where you wanted it.
-If the check failed, I rolled a d8 for direction and the spells center point was 1 square in that direction.

After a few times, I decided to not bother with the rule. I found that using the graph to specifically aim spells was not unbalancing and enemies could do it as well.

 

[Abraxas]

But, the conversation is different then as well.

Hitting friendly targets and then explaining why you did it on purpose is different than hitting them and explaining why you did it by accident.

I didn't say they were the same. I commented that we have had the "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" conversation - which is possible if you allow exact placement or not.

We find it infinitely more acceptable to choose to subject allies to friendly fire than to have to suffer a random chance every time things are close. YMMVAAD

 

[KarinsDad]

I didn't say they were the same. I commented that we have had the "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" conversation - which is possible if you allow exact placement or not.

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.

One is a conversation about risk for gain and the other is a conversation about direct intent for gain. Additionally, the latter conversation should occur less often because the spell caster decides whether to have the conversation or not (i.e. by deciding whether to cast the spell or not if allies are in the area of effect).

We find it infinitely more acceptable to choose to subject allies to friendly fire than to have to suffer a random chance every time things are close. YMMVAAD

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)?

 

[Hypersmurf]

But, the conversation is different then as well.

Hitting friendly targets and then explaining why you did it on purpose is different than hitting them and explaining why you did it by accident.

Heh. Then there's deliberately including yourself in the area of effect...

The bugbear was coming up the stairs. The fighter met him halfway down. The cleric figured "If I can get behind the bugbear, we can flank him", and vaulted over the guard rail of the staircase into the dark room below...

... landing amidst a half-dozen hobgoblins. With all his backup on the other side of an angry bugbear.

So he made the obvious choice, and cast Sound Burst at his own feet, thinking "hobgoblins have about 6 hit points, and I've got 7 left... and a good Fort save..."

Miraculously, he rolled a 6 on the d8, and the hobgoblins were left staggered and stunned, while he still had 1 hp remaining...

-Hyp.