Pinpointing area spells

[Kmart Kommando]

A wizard aiming his spell is like a Rally Car driver. He spent years studying his craft, just so he can drop a fireball nearly at his feet and not get burned. The driver is doing maneuvers normal peeps would think impossible.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Do you?

My argument is that certain aspects of the game emulate real life. For example, movement and judgment.

When a running back moves in real life in football for example, he picks a hole in the line and moves there. He does not take a top down view of the field and calculate how far away every possible defender may be located and then determine the best route. Ditto for the police throwing a stun grenade. They do not throw it near other police officers, they throw it at suspects. If other police officers are in close vicinity, they do not throw it.


The entire concept of counting out squares "ahead of time" is metagaming. Pure and simple.

One does not count the squares to the left of the melee in front of him and then to the right of the melee in front of him and then calculate which direction to go that gets him the furthest and consider it not metagaming.

This is analogous to playing some tabletop wargames. In some of those games, players get turns and are encouraged to "count out squares" to determine the best lines of fire and range, etc.

And if a group wants to play a wargeme-like DND game, that's ok. But the OP wanted to know if not doing that was ok and several of us told him that it was not only fine, it was in our opinion a better way to play the game because it forces players to decide between risk and reward and not just reward. It is also more "realistic" and less metagaming.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

It also greatly helps the guy at the end of the round than the one at the beginning, because he has a lot more "time" to study the map and pre-plan, even though they both take actions at the same time. And then, you need to consider how the DM will do it.

If you have rolling initiative, this is a benefit.

If the spellcaster (or any PC) takes long in my group, the DM counts 5-4-3-2-1 slowly and then declares "You Delay. Let me know when you know exactly what you are casting and where. Next!"

Delaying is not necessarily a bad thing.

As for an early initiative, that is not a disadvantage, as you could Delay for a "better" initiative count.

 

[frankthedm]

In D&D, magic works the same way every time

That's the heart of the problem

 

[Kmart Kommando]

How is that a problem?

You wiggle your fingers and say the words, and point where you want the bomb to go off, and the boom is always the same size.

Maybe you want to play a game where your fireball has a 1d6+6 square radius, centered within 1d6 squares of the one you choose. :\

I'll pass on that one. Killing off a character per encounter due to random rolls breeds hostility toward other players.

DM: "Okay, roll for initiative, then roll 1d6. If you roll a 1, your character dies this encounter.."
Players: "..wtf?.."

 

[Menexenus]

In response to OP:

Yeah, it's a bit unrealistic that players can maximize the effects of their spells by hovering over the battlefield and choosing the exact grid crossing without any chance for error. But in my group we just grin and bear it. After all, how much fun is it to accidentally kill your comrades with a randomly placed fireball? (Answer: not very, especially if you are the comrade!) We like to say that all D&D characters get a free feat called "Estimate Distance Without Error".

And, of course, what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. The DM gets to do the same thing against the players, so it all evens out.

 

[shilsen]

That's the heart of the problem

One man's problem is another man's preferred feature

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

My experience is you might as well give the spellcasters a bit of leeway to accurately place their spells.

As a practical matter, whatever placement rules apply to the PCs will be applied to the DM's NPCs. The DM has divided attention; the players can concentrate on their own PC. With a little practive he players will learn to optimize their tactics quickly, such that it will be difficult for the DM to be as effective overall on a per spell basis. Complicated placement rules tend to be an advantage for the PCs on average.

A simple and accurate spell placement system allows the DM to always place the NPC spells in a reasonably effective fashion. If that means that the PC spells are "unrealistically accurate" (whatever that means), then so be it.

I say apply rules that are simple and keep the game moving. There is little benefit in doing anything else.

 

[Nail]

If the spellcaster (or any PC) takes long in my group, the DM counts 5-4-3-2-1 slowly and then declares "You Delay. Let me know when you know exactly what you are casting and where. Next!"

I do this too, FWIW.