Placing area effect spells

[kreynolds]

Does this seem a little too precise to anybody else?

Not to me. The only time it bugs me is when someone takes too much time to place their spell. What you might do, and this works well for me, is limit the time the player has to place their spell. When you think about it, your spellcaster only has about 6 seconds to make up his mind. Once my players announce the spell they are going to cast, I give them about 10 seconds to place it. After 10 seconds, I get right up into their face and scream like a drill sgt "What is your major malfunction?! Place that spell! Place that spell! What?! Do you miss your momma?! Your momma's gonna miss you if you don't place that f****** spell right now!"

They place it pretty quick after that.

Have I got the rules wrong?

Nope. You've got it right. However, the rules do not say that a player can spend as much time as they want placing a spell. You need to decide what is reasonable and what is not (given the situation).

 

[Sirx]

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.

In the group I play with we do something similar but what we use the grenade rules in the PH. It's only used in cases like what Rydac stated and when it's in agreement by players and the DM that there's not a clear line of sight.

 

[mikebr99]

We use a Spellcraft check... DC is based on the radius of the spell, or half width of a cone. Every point the check is missed by translates into a 1ft. deviation from target point in a random direction. Range plays a factor also.

Higher level spellcasters can place spells with ease... it's the beginners you have to worry about!

Mike

 

[Storminator]

I just thought this up recently, and haven't used it yet.

Pick your target spot. Roll a d10. A 1 and a 10 are perfectly placed, with 2-9 being off target like a grenade. If you chose to take a full action to cast a spell, you may modify the number rolled by one. If you choose a full round action you may place the spell perfectly on your next turn. A full round casting risks disrupting the spell normally, and allows for foes to figure out your spell and to scatter, seek cover, etc.

For cones I wouldn't bother. You should have more control over a cone, since you are the anchor point.

It seems like it would work, but like I said, I haven't tried it. I will tho!

PS

 

[mikebr99]

I just thought this up recently, and haven't used it yet.

Pick your target spot. Roll a d10. A 1 and a 10 are perfectly placed, with 2-9 being off target like a grenade. If you chose to take a full action to cast a spell, you may modify the number rolled by one. If you choose a full round action you may place the spell perfectly on your next turn. A full round casting risks disrupting the spell normally, and allows for foes to figure out your spell and to scatter, seek cover, etc.

For cones I wouldn't bother. You should have more control over a cone, since you are the anchor point.

It seems like it would work, but like I said, I haven't tried it. I will tho!

PS

Then the skill of the caster has no bearing on where the spell lands?

 

[Rel]

Our solution to this "problem" has been very simple. We created templates for all the common spell areas (including cones and radii) on clear mylar sheets like you would use as a report cover.

When a caster casts an area effect spell, he takes a wet-erase marker and marks a point on the battlemat. Then we just place the center of the template over that point and draw around the edges. If the player misjudges things, it is possible that an unintended target could get caught in the area.

Of course it is possible that a given player could count the squares or hexes on the battlemat and see where the edge of the effect will end. But we try to have the caster place the center point fairly quickly. And if they managed to count out the squares while it was still coming around to their turn, that's just an ancillary benefit for paying close attention to the game.

 

[IceBear]

The problem with all these methods - making the player judge where to place the spell - is that the player != character. It is quite likely that an INT18 wizard would place the spell better than his player

Still, using a skill roll to simulate adds an extra roll.

Oh well

IceBear

 

[Storminator]

Then the skill of the caster has no bearing on where the spell lands?

Nope, not as written. Considering that you'll never be off by more than one square it seems like an added complication. LIke I said, I'd have to test it.

PS

 

[Storminator]

The problem with all these methods - making the player judge where to place the spell - is that the player != character. It is quite likely that an INT18 wizard would place the spell better than his player

Still, using a skill roll to simulate adds an extra roll.

Oh well

IceBear

My experience is that players place their spells perfectly. The exact right distance to get the maximum number of enemies while minimizing friendly fire.

I actually think that the player, sitting around the table, gods eye view of the battle laid out on precise grids, more real time than game time, no one trying to kill them, would do a better job than the character who is dodging axes, has limited line of sight, is measuring distance by eye, etc.

That's the point of making it harder, at least in my mind.

PS

 

[IceBear]

My experience is that players place their spells perfectly. The exact right distance to get the maximum number of enemies while minimizing friendly fire.

I actually think that the player, sitting around the table, gods eye view of the battle laid out on precise grids, more real time than game time, no one trying to kill them, would do a better job than the character who is dodging axes, has limited line of sight, is measuring distance by eye, etc.

That's the point of making it harder, at least in my mind.

PS

Agreed - with the way it is. I was responding to those that said "The player must pick a square immediately - without counting squares - and then we determine the area of effect".

That could be hard for someone that's spatially challenged

IceBear