Fireball pellet discussion brings up an interesting question

[kreynolds]

Smart ass till I get a smart answer

Watch it, bub.

Seriously though, you just provided cover. I'm cool with that, but it isn't an absolute, unless a person provides full cover.

I completely agree that it isn't an absolute. You can get in front of the arrow, but there is no guarantee that you will actually block it. The bad guy might be that damn good of a shot.

From the -4 for shooting into melee, it looks like a person in combat provides 1/2 cover.

I'm inclined to agree (for two medium-size creatures).

Which is it?

Which is what?

 

[Pielorinho]

edit: D'oh! Lost my message. Gist of it was, there's a difference between being creative and being stupid. If, after I've warned someone that a tactic is unreasonable, they try it anyway, I have no problem with them failing. You can't outrun an arrow or a fireball in my game unless you've got some major mojo going.

I'm not gonna give someone five checks to make to outrun a fireball. I'm gonna warn them that it probably won't work; if they try it anyway, then I'll tell them about the failure.

Daniel

 

[LokiDR]

Watch it, bub.

I completely agree that it isn't an absolute. You can get in front of the arrow, but there is no guarantee that you will actually block it. The bad guy might be that damn good of a shot.

I'm inclined to agree (for two medium-size creatures).

Watch what?

Ok, if you can't absolutely block an arrow, what about a fireball pellet? Do you just force the caster to make a ranged touch attack against the target you are blocking, with a cover AC bonus from you? If this is the case, what if they completely flub the roll and miss the blocker too? Where is that fireball going to explode?

 

[da chicken]

Watch what?

Ok, if you can't absolutely block an arrow, what about a fireball pellet? Do you just force the caster to make a ranged touch attack against the target you are blocking, with a cover AC bonus from you? If this is the case, what if they completely flub the roll and miss the blocker too? Where is that fireball going to explode?

That's easy. At whatever range the caster specified, or until the pellet strikes a solid object. Fireball doesn't care if it hits or not, and there's no bonus if it does.

For spells that you can interfere with the line of effect for, I'd have the PC make a Dex check to see if he gets in the way (DC equal to spell's DC; probably give him a +2 to +4 modifier depending on circumstances). That represents the PC's attempt to hit the pellet. If the spell also requires a touch attack, then I'd also grant the intended target cover, as per normal ranged attack rules.

 

[LokiDR]

That's easy. At whatever range the caster specified, or until the pellet strikes a solid object. Fireball doesn't care if it hits or not, and there's no bonus if it does.

Huh? I am asking if a failed ranged touch causes the same effect as a ranged touch the succeed with the cover bonus. If it does, then you only have a 20% chance of ever taking a fireball for some one (+4 AC), regardless of dex, saves or otherwise. Seems daft to me.

Just giving cover vs the fireball isn't a good option. For a house rule, I would still say ref save.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Cut & Paste from the SRD Fireball entry:

"If the character attempts to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, the character must "hit" the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely."

So the DM can call for a ranged touch attack to target a fireball.

Though a medium-sized creature in the way wouldn't usually be sufficient cause for such a thing - a medium-sized creature /intentionally/ trying to 'catch' the fireball (and taking apropriate consequences, like foregoing his REF save), certainly could be.

 

[kreynolds]

Watch what?

Oh sure. Play innocent.

Ok, if you can't absolutely block an arrow, what about a fireball pellet?

A fireball bead doesn't have an attack roll. It heads in a straight line. It either hits you or it doesn't. If you step in the path of that line, it will hit you.

Do you just force the caster to make a ranged touch attack against the target you are blocking, with a cover AC bonus from you?

No. I don't think that would be necessary, unless we're presented with an arrow slit-like scenario.

 

[LokiDR]

I am innocent 0

A fireball bead doesn't have an attack roll. It heads in a straight line. It either hits you or it doesn't. If you step in the path of that line, it will hit you.

If that is your opinion, can I also assume you believe it would be easy to shoot down the pellet? If the wiz boy decides to get fancy and target 10' left of your friend? What about fireballs into the crowd? It would seem from the description of fireball that it would be easier to get in front an arrow than a fireball. All he has to do is point, presumably as the end of the spell.

Readied action also happens before the spell, right? Well, can't wiz boy just target to the side, still effecting person. You have moved, and he can just choose a line you aren't in, right? Also, I have always played fireball as being able to be shot past people. Doesn't the blocker need to at least swat at the pebble?

 

[da chicken]

Huh? I am asking if a failed ranged touch causes the same effect as a ranged touch the succeed with the cover bonus. If it does, then you only have a 20% chance of ever taking a fireball for some one (+4 AC), regardless of dex, saves or otherwise. Seems daft to me.

The caster shouldn't do anything in mose fireball cases (no attack roll needed except extreme cases). If the spell does require an attack roll, give them a cover penalty.

In either case, the impeding PC should make a Dex check to succeed (giving two ways to succeed with melf's acid arrow -- the attack and the check).

Just giving cover vs the fireball isn't a good option. For a house rule, I would still say ref save.

No. It should not be a Reflex save. It should be a Dexterity check. See DMG p94: "Key Concept 1: Checks are used to accomplish something, while saves are used to avoid something." The Dex check example they give is grabbing someone who is about to fall into a pit.

The check DC should be the spell's DC. "But that can make it impossibly hard to do!" you say. Duh. It should be extremely difficult to leap in front of an entirely magical projectile. Look at Deflect Arrows: DC 20 (granted, a save) for mundane objects. Exceptional DA is even higher.

If you want, you can make it a Tumble or Jump check, but I see no reason to. Maybe give them +2 on the check if they have 5 or more ranks, though.

 

[LokiDR]

No. It should not be a Reflex save. It should be a Dexterity check. See DMG p94: "Key Concept 1: Checks are used to accomplish something, while saves are used to avoid something." The Dex check example they give is grabbing someone who is about to fall into a pit.

The check DC should be the spell's DC. "But that can make it impossibly hard to do!" you say. Duh. It should be extremely difficult to leap in front of an entirely magical projectile. Look at Deflect Arrows: DC 20 (granted, a save) for mundane objects. Exceptional DA is even higher.

If you want, you can make it a Tumble or Jump check, but I see no reason to. Maybe give them +2 on the check if they have 5 or more ranks, though.

Point on the page reference. I don't neccessarily agree with the line, but that just my opinion that the designers were closed minded on the use of saves. I see little difference in jumping out of the way and jumping in the way.

You are right, a straight does make this quite hard to take a fireball for some one. I would call that the more realistic case, but simpler than spellcraft/sense motive/dex. In a more comic-book game, I still think reflex, or maybe tumble to give the player a better chance. Hey, if you want to throw your life away, who am I to argue?