Pinpointing area spells

[KarinsDad]

Because it avoids player conflict. More annoying OOC fights have been started in games I've played by people hitting each other with fireballs than any other single occurence I can think of. Second place is people hitting each other with lightning bolts. And don't get me started on 1E chain lightning. Also, subjectively, the game is more fun without it.

In our game, the PCs would be arguing over such a situation, not the players. And that is fun for some people. YMMV.

It's ok in your game for a PC to make a mistake with a trap, but to not make a mistake with targeting? It's ok for the PC Fighter to move out of position and the BBEG takes advantage of that to charge the PC Wizard, but it's not ok for the PC Wizard to make a targeting mistake? Strange.

Lots of bad PC decisions can injure or kill a fellow PC. It's not just targeting. Why protect from one type of mistake and not another? Strange.

 

[IanB]

In our game, the PCs would be arguing over such a situation, not the players. And that is fun for some people. YMMV.

It's ok in your game for a PC to make a mistake with a trap, but to not make a mistake with targeting? It's ok for the PC Fighter to move out of position and the BBEG takes advantage of that to charge the PC Wizard, but it's not ok for the PC Wizard to make a targeting mistake? Strange.

Lots of bad PC decisions can injure or kill a fellow PC. It's not just targeting. Why protect from one type of mistake and not another? Strange.

I suppose if those situations were created by the DM rushing player decisions then they would be comparable. As I don't do so, I don't see a contradiction.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

So I was watching Future Weapons on TV, and the host, a former sniper, picks up a new gun he's never used before because it is a new design, and hits a human-sized target at like just under a mile away.

And he probably wasn't studying his craft nearly as long as the wizard would have been.

Not to mention the myriad of tactical explosive devices they showed in other episodes, where they had close proximity non-targets to well, not destroy in the process.

And that awesome next generation Howitzer that lobbed multiple rounds into the air, hitting the same target simultaneously with as many as 5 shots.

We don't even have magic to help those things along. I'd imagine, if we did, we'd have fireballs that flew out, knocked on your front door, and blew up when you looked out the peep hole.

In D&D, magic works the same way every time, and a wizard would know his craft through-and-through, even if the player is clueless.

Oh, and the grid causes almost as many problems as it solves. Just try running a phalanx on 5ft squares.

 

[KarinsDad]

So I was watching Future Weapons on TV, and the host, a former sniper, picks up a new gun he's never used before because it is a new design, and hits a human-sized target at like just under a mile away.

With a scope and a bullseye.

Now, ask him to hit a target exactly 20 feet to the left of the target, another exactly 20 feet to the right, another 20 feet behind, another 20 feet in front. Bet he cannot do that and have all 4 shots hit within 19 to 21 feet of the original target.

Apples and Oranges between knowing exactly where the target is and guessing where the target is.

 

[KarinsDad]

I suppose if those situations were created by the DM rushing player decisions then they would be comparable. As I don't do so, I don't see a contradiction.

Nobody said anything about rushing the player, so you are adding a brand new element to the discussion and pretending that the opposing point of view is advocating it.

We talked about not allowing him to measure out distances between miniatures.

 

[Plane Sailing]

So I was watching Future Weapons on TV, and the host, a former sniper, picks up a new gun he's never used before because it is a new design, and hits a human-sized target at like just under a mile away.

I'd suggest that was irrelevant unless he was firing a grenade which managed to take out three foes who were engaged in hand to hand combat with three friendlies without touching the friendlies.

 

[shilsen]

It's ok in your game for a PC to make a mistake with a trap, but to not make a mistake with targeting? It's ok for the PC Fighter to move out of position and the BBEG takes advantage of that to charge the PC Wizard, but it's not ok for the PC Wizard to make a targeting mistake? Strange.

Lots of bad PC decisions can injure or kill a fellow PC. It's not just targeting. Why protect from one type of mistake and not another? Strange.

You don't see a difference between a PC decision that indirectly harms fellow PCs (giving the BBEG a way through) and a PC decision which directly causes harm to PCs (inflicting hit point damage to other PCs by making a targeting mistake)? Strange.

As threads on this forum make amply clear daily, what's strange to one person can be completely normal to another. It's like "common sense" and "realism." None of those are universally applicable/accepted.

 

[KarinsDad]

You don't see a difference between a PC decision that indirectly harms fellow PCs (giving the BBEG a way through) and a PC decision which directly causes harm to PCs (inflicting hit point damage to other PCs by making a targeting mistake)? Strange.

I also quoted a direct vs. direct. If the Rogue opens a chest and it blows up in a 30 foot radius, killing the Wizard. It was still a direct result of the Rogue's actions.

Level of "directness" is subjective. This just happens to be a line in the sand that some people draw and some people do not.

When it comes to getting caught in friendly fire area affect spells, it's not much different than doing some other stupid act that gets a fellow PC killed. One is just as deadly as the other. In both cases, a poor decision was made by a player and a different PC died because of the decision.

 

[IanB]

Nobody said anything about rushing the player, so you are adding a brand new element to the discussion and pretending that the opposing point of view is advocating it.

We talked about not allowing him to measure out distances between miniatures.

You're right, it was only implied. To me, telling a player to make a snap decision and point at an intersection is rushing him.

I also quoted a direct vs. direct. If the Rogue opens a chest and it blows up in a 30 foot radius, killing the Wizard. It was still a direct result of the Rogue's actions.

Level of "directness" is subjective. This just happens to be a line in the sand that some people draw and some people do not.

When it comes to getting caught in friendly fire area affect spells, it's not much different than doing some other stupid act that gets a fellow PC killed. One is just as deadly as the other. In both cases, a poor decision was made by a player and a different PC died because of the decision.

I actually liked your example with the fighter better. The rogue PC can hardly be blamed for failing a search check or a disable device check. In this trap scenario, the wizard can also bear some blame for making the choice to stand near a chest as it is opened. If the chest wasn't searched before being opened, they all bear some blame for not remembering to have anyone search it.

In any case, either of the scenarios you described can be avoided by good decision making on the part of the players. The targeting method you are using to me is going to lead to errors that aren't really the player's fault. That to me is the difference.

 

[KarinsDad]

I actually liked your example with the fighter better. The rogue PC can hardly be blamed for failing a search check or a disable device check. In this trap scenario, the wizard can also bear some blame for making the choice to stand near a chest as it is opened. If the chest wasn't searched before being opened, they all bear some blame for not remembering to have anyone search it.

Just like the Fighter bear some blame for making the choice to stand as near to the opponents in combat as he did when the Wizard Fireballs?

In any case, either of the scenarios you described can be avoided by good decision making on the part of the players. The targeting method you are using to me is going to lead to errors that aren't really the player's fault. That to me is the difference.

Those errors will only occur if the player decides to target close to the PCs. That's a conscious decision and any issues can be avoided with better decision making (like targeting it a bit further to ensure PCs are safe as opposed to trying to get every possible NPC in the radius).

The alternative solution is like a computer game where a colored template displays on the screen and can be moved and is green when safe and red when deadly.