Seeking commentary on a house rule

[Greenfield]

Area effect spells, such as Fireball, are notorious for being targeted with surgical precision.

Using Fireball as the example, the RAW says that the caster points in a direction and declares a distance. The spell begins centered at that spot (specifically the vertice where grid lines cross.)

In practice, players count squares on the battle mat to make sure it's in range, then plot who it will or won't hit (with surgical precision) and pick the precise spot for optimum coverage.

It makes sense for a PC to be able to sight a spot on the ground, a rock, bush, edge of a shadow etc, and say "Right there". And we, as DMs, generally allow it. It's not exactly as the rules say it should work, but it's workable.

Recently I've implemented a house rule to introduce a little bit of tactical uncertainty. If the caster can see their target location clearly and pin it to a spot on the ground, pinpoint precision is what they get. If they can't see that "landmark" spot on the ground I roll a D6 as an analogue scatter dice. Whichever way the 1 pip is facing is the direction of the scatter, and it's off by 5 feet.

So if you're aiming at a spot in the air rather than a hard target you'll be close but not necessarily precise. If I roll the one or the six, the shot is high or low. If the rolled error isn't possible because they don't have line of effect to the scatter location, then they're right on target.

I asked my players if this seemed fair before I implemented the rule, and they all liked it.

In our first occurrence the party Warmage wanted to surgical-strike a group of Orcish raiders, but there were PCs engaged in fighting some of them. I had scattered bits of lichen (check you local hobby or model railroad shop) around to depict low scrub and bushes in the area, and there happened to be one between the Warmage and his chosen target spot. I pointed this out and mentioned my new rule, with the understanding that it could work just the way he wanted (a 1 or a 6 wuld have still hit everyone he wanted to.) Some scatters might leave a few out of the burst, others might catch PCs in it.

The group (including the warmage) agreed that it was a good rule, and he decided to use a different spell.

(And yes, I know that throwing Orcs at a group with fireballs is a PC walkover. I just don't like to play as if the entire world leveled up with the PCs.)

So, thoughts? Commentaries? Are there consequences or factors that I didn't thnk of, making this a bad or questionable idea? Gimme some feedback, please.

 

[captnq]

Area effect spells, such as Fireball, are notorious for being targeted with surgical precision.

It makes sense for a PC to be able to sight a spot on the ground, a rock, bush, edge of a shadow etc, and say "Right there". And we, as DMs, generally allow it. It's not exactly as the rules say it should work, but it's workable.

There's no "allow" that's how the spell works. it's magic. Stop trying to impose your real world physics on internal game mechanics. It'll never work.

Recently I've implemented a house rule to introduce a little bit of tactical uncertainty. If the caster can see their target location clearly and pin it to a spot on the ground, pinpoint precision is what they get. If they can't see that "landmark" spot on the ground I roll a D6 as an analogue scatter dice. Whichever way the 1 pip is facing is the direction of the scatter, and it's off by 5 feet.
So if you're aiming at a spot in the air rather than a hard target you'll be close but not necessarily precise. If I roll the one or the six, the shot is high or low. If the rolled error isn't possible because they don't have line of effect to the scatter location, then they're right on target.

So, you want to take one of the worst schools (evocation) and cripple it even more. You want to take a spell that can be resisted by Cover (you need a to hit roll if the target spot has cover), A saving throw against Reflex (the most common saving throw, as well as a saving throw covered by evasion that completely negates the damage), spell resistance, and fire resistance, the most common energy damage defense.

Fireball is a lousy spell. The only thing it has going for it is range and AoE. Great for clearing out mooks so there's more room for the big guys to fight, but that's about it.

Now you wish to cripple it even further.

The group (including the warmage) agreed that it was a good rule, and he decided to use a different spell.

That right there. You might as well as say, "Don't bother with evocation. Become a ray specialist and focus on Save-or-Suck." Your house rule is nothing more then a nerf on something that already is nerfed to Hell and back.

It adds complexity and eats up RL time with an extra and unneeded die roll while providing nothing except to discourage players from using fireball.

So, What about flame strike? or cone of cold? or Wall of fire? How about mass cure light wounds? I need to target everyone? Why is is automatic? All mass cure/inflicts should have to hit rolls in your campaign.

See the slippery slope?

 

[Dandu]

I think that it's acceptable to know exact distance as D&D is partially a tactical miniatures game.

 

[Greenfield]

I had a long and relatively harsh response to captnq's post, but decided to start over. I asked for comments, and he provided.

I agree that Evocations, while flashy and good for clearing an area of the riff-raff, are relatively limited and lack the creative potential of many other spells. I don't see them as being that much weaker though. The scope of their use is limited to doing damage, but they fill that role very well.

I will say, in support of this house rule, that it isn't "physics", real world or otherwise. It's about a credible scene. Mortal, fallible people can't focus on a spot in midair and know, instantly, that it's 73 feet away from them and 25 feet from someone else. And saying that they can do that while being shot at?

And there's nothing in the game to say that "it's magic" when it comes to that sort of distance and volume estimation. That's players meta-gaming and there's nothing magical about that.

Having the exact center of effect vary by a single square doesn't negate the usefulness of the spell, it just follows the idea that explosions aren't precision weapons.

It is, in the end, a house rule. Use it or don't, as you choose, and thank you for the input, capnq.

 

[Dandu]

I will say, in support of this house rule, that it isn't "physics", real world or otherwise. It's about a credible scene. Mortal, fallible people can't focus on a spot in midair and know, instantly, that it's 73 feet away from them and 25 feet from someone else. And saying that they can do that while being shot at?

And there's nothing in the game to say that "it's magic" when it comes to that sort of distance and volume estimation. That's players meta-gaming and there's nothing magical about that.

[video=youtube;o2we_B6hDrY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2we_B6hDrY[/video]

 

[GMMichael]

Cool variation, Greenfield. I'm picturing not a fastball-pitch, but a wobbly little bead of fire that meanders, albeit quickly, toward its detonation point.

Fireball is a lousy spell.

So, What about flame strike? or cone of cold? or Wall of fire? How about mass cure light wounds? I need to target everyone? Why is is automatic? All mass cure/inflicts should have to hit rolls in your campaign.

I think I heard some pyromancers groan at that first comment.

Flame strike: magic attack roll.
Cone of cold: magic attack roll.
Wall of fire: no deviation if it's in short range.
Mass CLW: should be a burst, so the point of origin is pretty non-negotiable. BUT it SHOULD affect enemies as well...

Let's put this spin on captnq's digression: if your spell effects are at-will, there's room for error. If you have finite slots, you'll probably want effects to be automatic.

 

[Grogg of the North]

I asked my players if this seemed fair before I implemented the rule, and they all liked it.

That's all the info I need, right there.

If everyone is having fun with the house rule, then go ahead and use it! The number one rule for playing an RPG is, or at least should be, to have fun. If everyone is having fun, go with it.

 

[Celebrim]

In general, while I agree that it is reasonable that a 'to hit' roll is required to exactly aim a fireball, in most cases for the sort of 'super heroes' that can conjure balls of fire out of the air, the difficulty of accurately placing a fireball within the sort of tolerances needed (+/- 1-2 feet) is trivial. By the rules, it's hitting a medium sized immobile target with a ranged touch or DC 5. Even fired by a 5th level wizard, this is almost never going to miss.

The only times I've ad hoc imposed a question of accuracy of placement to something like a fireball are cases where the PC declared an intention to fire at a very small target where a miss by an inch or two would matter. For example, a player declared once that they would at distance fire a fireball through a 4" wide arrow slit so that it would explode in the room beyond. For that I might consider it reasonable to say, "Ok, that's an unusually fine targeting. You normally are happy to place a fireball somewhere in a 5' cube, here you must hit a slit that is 4" wide. Hit an AC of 9 with a ranged touch attack or you'll splash on the wall next to the arrow slit."

For myself, playing with RAW I almost always play a specialty mage that selects Evocation as a barred school as it is the least useful school by far, being really only helpful in eliminating masses of mooks that present no real threat anyway. You lose access to a very few good spells (and fireball isn't even on that list, I'm thinking more floating disk, stinking cloud, contingency, forcecage and telekinetic sphere), and no essential spells. There is very little reason to play an Evoker or learn or memorize evocation spells as it is. For the sake of realism, you are adding a new feature that negatively impacts the balance of area of effect spells and adds to resolution time and is questionable in its assumption of realism anyway since there is no way to negate the effect via high skill and no way to not miss. Surely at least some shots will not miss? Do you use D6 down to indicate 'on target' when firing at something standing on a platform, or do it indicate 'aimed to low' or 'aimed short'?

While your use of a the d6 to determine direction of scatter in three dimensions is innovative, I'm not sure that I buy your innovation on realism grounds. The main justification I can see for it is your particular group of players seems to enjoy the tactical challenge of finding useful fixed points to aim at. Why 'the monster' is not considered a useful fixed point but 'a bush' is, I have no idea.

 

[billd91]

I have to admit that with limited spell slots, too much futzing with the accuracy would be an annoyance whether it seems reasonable from an in-game perspective or not. That said, I have considered a little wobble in spells, though I haven't tried it with actual players.

If you're concerned with pinpoint accuracy, particularly with close support of melee allies, you may not need more than a little random fluctuation. Normally, area of effect spells are targeted to a vertex on the grid. Have them target the square instead and then roll a d4 to determine which vertex becomes the true center of the spell. Fireballs will only shift 5 feet in any direction, but that may be enough to deter attempting to be too surgical.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

You should do what works for you and your group. If the HR works for you then the argument is pretty much over. Game on and enjoy.

I assume we're talking about 3rd Edition rules here? If so then the whole system is MEANT to work by snapping to a grid. Not "allowed by" the rules - that IS how the rules work for movement, range, cover, areas of effect and more. It was done that way specifically as an attempt to ELIMINATE questions of imprecision just like this. If you really want magic to work unreliably then you're probably actually using the wrong rules, and maybe the wrong RPG entirely. D&D magic isn't meant to be imprecise and unreliable. It never was, although in older versions it was clearly more dangerous to the caster if he was trying it in the middle of combat than in later versions. With very few exceptions magic in D&D just works. Effects are placed where desired, affect whom it's intended it affect, and only as nearly an afterthought is the victim given an opportunity to avoid the effect, or reduce its effects. The unreliability or inaccuracy of magic is only seen in the saving throw - not in nerfing the casters ability to position effects or pick targets. 3E did affect that a good deal by giving PC's the ability to adjust saving throws by myriad cumulative means - but the spells still are ACCURATE.

Why would that accuracy be seen as a problem, or unrealistic? Can an archer not hit a target moving at any imaginable speed at a range of 500'? In other words, try shooting an unladen AFRICAN swallow hasted to fly at... 50 miles per hour, from about two football fields away. UTTERLY unrealistic? You bet. But you will never, EVER hear anyone complain about how ridiculous that is. You say that everyone considers your new rule fair and they seem to tolerate it - but why was this ever even considered a problem?