Pinpointing area spells

[IanB]

"Like a computer game" does not translate to "automatically bad." A lot of things in D&D are like computer games, probably because so many of these computer games are, ultimately, derived from D&D!

 

[TYPO5478]

The guy playing DND might take hours of practice before he gets it right. His PC in the DND game is not good at it until he is.

I have a problem with this line of thinking. Does that mean that a player's monk shouldn't be able to jump across a 20-foot chasm until the player can do it too? Or that a player's paladin shouldn't be able to run 60 feet in 6 seconds while wearing full plate mail unless the player can do it? For that matter, why should a wizard be able to cast spells at all when her player can't replicate those magical effects? If the player knows how to construct an internal combustion engine, does that mean his rogue should as well?

Part of the point of D&D is to play characters that can do things the players can't. That's why it's fantasy. If being able to pinpoint the effect of a spell adds to the fantasy, what's wrong with it? The DMG talks about the difference between Player Knowledge and Character Knowledge; why ignore those guidelines in regard to spell targeting? There's no reason to believe that a wizard, who has made a career out of working magic, shouldn't be better at aiming his arcane effects than the 28-year-old computer programmer (or whatever) playing him.

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.

Bet he could. Snipers train for months, sometimes years, to be able to do exactly that: hit the target every single time.

 

[KarinsDad]

I have a problem with this line of thinking. Does that mean that a player's monk shouldn't be able to jump across a 20-foot chasm until the player can do it too? Or that a player's paladin shouldn't be able to run 60 feet in 6 seconds while wearing full plate mail unless the player can do it? For that matter, why should a wizard be able to cast spells at all when her player can't replicate those magical effects? If the player knows how to construct an internal combustion engine, does that mean his rogue should as well?

Part of the point of D&D is to play characters that can do things the players can't. That's why it's fantasy. If being able to pinpoint the effect of a spell adds to the fantasy, what's wrong with it? The DMG talks about the difference between Player Knowledge and Character Knowledge; why ignore those guidelines in regard to spell targeting? There's no reason to believe that a wizard, who has made a career out of working magic, shouldn't be better at aiming his arcane effects than the 28-year-old computer programmer (or whatever) playing him.

I find it extremely implausible (in fact impossible without explicit magic to do this) that a caster can see through multiple targets, can judge exactly how far each of a dozen targets are from each other, and can then mathematically determine the best place to target an area effect spell so that it hits some targets and misses others and be 100% precise with it.

RAW itself does not indicate that casters have this level of knowledge and precision, hence, I consider it something people are house ruling and adding to their game. The level of precision a caster has is to pick an origin point according to RAW. If he picks well, great. If he picks poorly, not so great. Whether or not he picks a good intersection point is totally dependent on the person playing him (regardless of which system is used, a player could still make a mistake, even if he puts a template down first).

If the definition of area effect spells stated that this level of knowledge is available to the caster, then I would give it to him.

But, this is adding spell immunity to fellow PCs which the game does not indicate exists.

Bet he could. Snipers train for months, sometimes years, to be able to do exactly that: hit the target every single time.

I suspect you misunderstood what I meant. Snipers are trained to precisely hit targets, not to precisely hit exact distances away from targets (which is what I stated). They would be no better at judging extraneous to the target distances than anyone else.

They might be able to train to do this well, but it is not part of their normal training.

 

[SlagMortar]

RAW itself does not indicate that casters have this level of knowledge and precision, hence, I consider it something people are house ruling and adding to their game. The level of precision a caster has is to pick an origin point according to RAW.

The rules are completely silent on the process the player must follow when choosing the point of origin. Restricting the process for choosing the point in any way is a house rule. Requiring the use of a template? House rule. Requiring a decision is made in 30 seconds? House rule. Forbidding counting squares? House rule. Using miniatures and a combat grid? House rule. Requiring the absence of miniatures? House rule.

Allowing something that the rules do not forbid is not a house rule.

 

[KarinsDad]

The rules are completely silent on the process the player must follow when choosing the point of origin. Restricting the process for choosing the point in any way is a house rule. Requiring the use of a template? House rule. Requiring a decision is made in 30 seconds? House rule. Forbidding counting squares? House rule. Using miniatures and a combat grid? House rule. Requiring the absence of miniatures? House rule.

Not completely accurate:

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. You can count diagonally across a square, but remember that every second diagonal counts as 2 squares of distance. If the far edge of a square is within the spell’s area, anything within that square is within the spell’s area. If the spell’s area only touches the near edge of a square, however, anything within that square is unaffected by the spell.

The entire section on selecting an origin point discusses grids and intersections.

It also indicates that determining targets is done by counting from the origin point, not that determining the origin point is done by counting from potential targets.

Doing it the opposite way can be done, but it would be a house rule.

 

[shilsen]

Doing it the opposite way can be done, but it would be a house rule.

(Not to KD to but to the thread in general) As I think we've established here, neither approach is clearly mandated by RAW. And each approach has features that will be bonuses to some and count as negatives to others. So the easy solution is to just use what suits you and not worry about how others do it or how to justify your choice.

 

[TYPO5478]

I find it extremely implausible (in fact impossible without explicit magic to do this) that a caster can see through multiple targets, can judge exactly how far each of a dozen targets are from each other, and can then mathematically determine the best place to target an area effect spell so that it hits some targets and misses others and be 100% precise with it.

That's what you find implausible in D&D? That is where your suspension of disbelief falters? He doesn't need to "judge exactly" how far all potential targets are from all other potential targets; he only needs to be able to eyeball within 5 feet who might be on the outside of the effect. You're making this more complicated than it needs to be (or, at least, your criteria for precision are way too high). If you were surrounded by a dozen people, some of whom are 20 feet away and some of whom are 25 feet away, do you really not think you'd be able to tell which ones are closer?

RAW itself does not indicate that casters have this level of knowledge and precision, hence, I consider it something people are house ruling and adding to their game. If the definition of area effect spells stated that this level of knowledge is available to the caster, then I would give it to him.

The rules don't say he can do it, so he necessarily can't??? The rules don't say characters can take a dump, either; should we assume no one ever goes to the bathroom? How about the rule in the front of the PHB that says characters can try to do anything they can imagine?

But, this is adding spell immunity to fellow PCs which the game does not indicate exists.

Of course it isn't. Other PCs can still be hit by spells if they are within the areas of those spells. That's like saying that taking Precise Shot is adding protection from arrows to other PCs; it does nothing of the sort.

I suspect you misunderstood what I meant. Snipers are trained to precisely hit targets, not to precisely hit exact distances away from targets (which is what I stated).

Actually, what you stated was that there would be other targets exact distances away from the original target. If that's the scenario you meant, then I see no reason why any sniper worth his rank shouldn't be able hit each target accurately (provided he can actually see them from his position). On the other hand, if you meant that you wanted him to hit nothing in particular exactly 20 feet away, then I did misunderstand; but then again, there's no reason that a sniper would be shooting at nothing instead of something.

This relates back to the topic at hand: there's no reason a caster should care if he's going to hit a set of squares with nothing in them, but if there's a possibility that he might hit a friendly character, he should be able to tell (not down to the inch, but within 5 feet) whether that character will be affected or not. I don't believe that wizards in general, when they must be precise in so many aspects of their craft, would haphazardly toss spells around without knowing what they're going to hit. They may not care what they hit, but there's a big difference between not knowing and not caring.

We have a new player who wants to count out every single square of his PC's movement before he moves his miniature. I stop him and say "tell me what your PC is doing and then move him, do not count it out".

So you admit that you have changed the rules for character movement? "...count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character...[emphasis yours]" The rules clearly state that, when moving a character, you should count out the distance from the origin, and yet you tell your new player to do the exact opposite? I don't have a problem with you making house rules; just don't call them RAW.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Please don't snipe at one another. Let's remember to keep things civil here. Also remember that discussion in the Rules Forum can involve interpretation just fine and that those interpretations are just as valid as those claiming to follow the "RAW". It doesn't make those interpretations house rules, it makes them interpretations of the rules as written, which are frequently quite blurry.

Dinkeldog
Moderator-Hat-On

 

[KarinsDad]

So you admit that you have changed the rules for character movement? "...count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character...[emphasis yours]" The rules clearly state that, when moving a character, you should count out the distance from the origin, and yet you tell your new player to do the exact opposite? I don't have a problem with you making house rules; just don't call them RAW.

Emphasis yours. The rules clearly state that.

When moving. Not before moving.

Thank you for supporting my stance that players should count out their movement when moving, not before.

 

[TYPO5478]

Please don't snipe at one another. Let's remember to keep things civil here. Also remember that discussion in the Rules Forum can involve interpretation just fine and that those interpretations are just as valid as those claiming to follow the "RAW". It doesn't make those interpretations house rules, it makes them interpretations of the rules as written, which are frequently quite blurry.

Dinkeldog
Moderator-Hat-On

My apologies, both to the forum at large and to the object of said snipage.

When moving. Not before moving.

I see. You're interpreting the phrase "when moving" to mean the act of moving and not the process. And I thought I was a literalist.

At least now I understand your argument.