Placing area effect spells

[MTR]

As near as I can tell there's nothing stopping a spellcaster from placing spells (ie. Fireball) at the exact point they like. So they can automatically get an orc but not hurt Bob who's in melee with the orc.

Does this seem a little too precise to anybody else? Have I got the rules wrong?

 

[smetzger]

Correct thats how the rules are.

If you want suggestions on a 'fix' for this post in House Rules.

 

[MTR]

Thanks.

I'm not sure it needs a fix; we've been playing for a while like that. There are a awful lot of fireballs, but the only arcane caster in the group is a Sorceror, so there'd be lots of fireballs anyway

And a house rule that took into account all the shapes that areas can be (cone, line, radius, semi-circle) would probably be more trouble than it's worth.

 

[shilsen]

And a house rule that took into account all the shapes that areas can be (cone, line, radius, semi-circle) would probably be more trouble than it's worth.

That's the big advantage with the current system - keeping it simple. Sure, you could require a spellcaster to make a Spellcraft check or something similar to get it right, but that just adds time and effort. Put it down to magic. Also, combatants in melee make equally precise calculations (regarding how far they can move and get different amounts and varieties of attacks off), and the rules take that for granted, so it doesn't seem fair to spellcasters to penalise them.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Clay-O-Rama style!

Throw a bead of Play-Doh onto the battlemat. Where it lands is the centre of your fireball.

If your Play-Doh lands directly on top of a miniature, you get to give the miniature one solid thump with your fist. The DM assigns damage based on the effects the miniature displays.

-Hyp.

 

[haiiro]

If your Play-Doh lands directly on top of a miniature, you get to give the miniature one solid thump with your fist. The DM assigns damage based on the effects the miniature displays.

In this case, I think the damage would mainly be to your fist.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In this case, I think the damage would mainly be to your fist.

What do you expect? The rules were designed for use with Play-Doh, not lead figurines!

But you gotta work with what you got.

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

I'm about to enforce in my games a "no-measure in advance" table rule (similar to Warhammer and other wargames) for all movement, range fire, spellcasting etc.

The DMG definitely allows a spellcaster to pick the point of origin of any spell. However, there's nothing that explicitly allows them to measure the radius or look down over an area template in advance. Since that seems unrealistic, I won't be allowing it in the future.

You can pick the target point, but you can't whip out the ruler and see the minimum distance away from Bob you should be placing it.

 

[Rydac]

I too have had issues with Mages tinkering with max placement to get as many bad guys and no good ones. One of the best solutions I saw recently was to let the spellcaster pick the square and then roll randomly for which of the four corners the spell centered on. This has the advantage of being quick in play and generally letting the Mage pick his spot, but with the small variation they have to take some care casting into close quarters.

It will be interesting to see if the revised rules deal differently with spell centering, so that it is no longer on an intersection.

 

[IceBear]

I too have had issues with Mages tinkering with max placement to get as many bad guys and no good ones. One of the best solutions I saw recently was to let the spellcaster pick the square and then roll randomly for which of the four corners the spell centered on. This has the advantage of being quick in play and generally letting the Mage pick his spot, but with the small variation they have to take some care casting into close quarters.

It will be interesting to see if the revised rules deal differently with spell centering, so that it is no longer on an intersection.

I like that

IceBear