Seeking commentary on a house rule

[Celebrim]

Any bets they'll occasionally be off by an inch or two?

I'd bet within a few days of practicing they can place a fireball within a 1/2" consistently. Just because the players don't (yet) have a skill they have hitherto not needed, doesn't mean that such skills can't be developed. You ask an experienced carpenter how big a room is just by looking, and they'll generally be able to tell you to within an inch. Even more to the point, human subconscious spatial processing is incredibly precise - far more precise than there ability to measure - as evidenced by how accurately humans can throw a ball and how much processing an equivalent machine has to do to perform the same feat.

However, if the player is just spatially challenged and never gets it, then this will be yet another reason to not use Evocation spells which - I must concur - is the weakest school in 3e. Not only do its spells typically do damage that is weaker than the equivalent 1e spell while facing 3e foes with constitution bonuses and greater HD, but against opponents that matter they suffer from the triple whammy of having Reflex saving throws, facing spell resistance, and doing elemental damage. Sure, it's spectacular to kill a mass of 20 goblins with a single spell, but by the time you can do that, 20 goblins represent a fairly small challenge anyway because they'll generally need 19's and 20's to hit and die to almost every blow.

At 1st level, a Burning hands spell does just 1d4 damage with Reflex half - not even reliable kills on a goblin. Average damage is under 2 per target. By contrast, 1st level illusion spell 'Color Spray' is basically a win button that will drop even gnolls or sahaugin while you are still 1st level and is a likely game winner even against an Ogre. Burning hands cap damage of 5d4 save half means you basically almost never see it used in play. It's almost a wasted action in the tight action economy of 3e. With your 2nd levels, you do get a nice single target spell in the form of Scorching ray that does 4d6 damage and is scalable and potentially abusable by abusing metamagic enhancers, but without optimization it caps at 12d6 (with miss chances) or a mere 42 damage. Against a typical CR 12+ foe, this is pretty much pointless. And even when you first get it, the 4d6 damage is basically just letting you pull weight in one round when a great sword or archer optimized martial character can do every round (with better AC and more hit points than you). However, the second level illusion spell Glitterdust remains a potential win button, as blinding a foe will typically render defeating it trivial (to say nothing of negating most of the challenge of facing invisible and other stealth foes), optimizing Alter Self allows you to out melee most fighters when it first becomes available as well as solving any number of problems (like by giving you flight), Summon Swarm can be a win button against many foes as swarms are immune (immune!) to weapon damage and poison foes and steal actions and in many cases will out damage non-optimized Scorching Ray in the long run. Web is often an outright win button, and Hideous Laughter often is the same versus single targets. In 3e, trying to kill foes by damaging them as a spellcaster is generally a suboptimal strategy which has style points solely because it's often harder to do than incapacitating them and then letting someone else cut them down while they are basically helpless.

As you've defined your rule, it effects a very narrow case that rarely would come up. It has small impact that rarely happens. And it targets probably the weakest strategy that a 3e caster can use. There is no game justification for the rule and its simulation justification is weak, since a ranged touch attack against a 5' cube is fairly trivial and your argument that a character couldn't estimate the range accurately because the player couldn't necessarily estimate the range accurately makes me wonder how anyone hits anything with a ballistic weapon. As I pointed out, rarely is the caster actually shooting into space. They are generally shooting at a target that is say "20' beyond that line of goblin skirmishers" or "5' to the left of that goblin war priest". If it makes sense that this shot might be off by 5', then the same argument suggests that it ought to be off by 5' shooting at the goblin war priest directly. If it doesn't make sense that shooting at the goblin war priest will miss by 5', and by your rules it doesn't, it doesn't seem to make strong sense that it misses would be likely in any case that doesn't involve concealment.

That said, if you find the rule fun, by all means use it. But in terms of improvement of the aesthetics of play, I can't see the justification. For me it just reinforces sticking to the spells I know to be effective, versatile problem solvers and reliably game changing: charm person, color spray, grease, ray of enfeeblement, summon swarm, glitterdust, invisibility, alter self, web and the various defensive spells like mage armor, false life, mirror image, dispel magic, haste, etc. This is especially true of low level. Higher level starts bringing things like Black Tentacles, Wall of Force, Contingency and Force Cage. Fireball is the last thing I'd worry about nerfing, and even in my rebalanced variant of 3e that is intended to narrow the gap between casters and noncasters, I felt no need to touch it. Personally, my suspicion is that a DM that ad hocs a nerf versus fireball is just upset that a caster used a win button, but if fireball is the win button you are worried about, you've never seen a munchkined or even problematic caster in play.

Ironically, it tends to be better used against PC's than used by PC's, as it's a far better trade in the action economy when its you versus a group than by a group against anything else, but even then, because it doesn't stop a PC from closing with you, it's usually a last gasp by a caster or an opening move from beyond 120' or so. Just about the only good thing about the spell is its exceptionally long range, one of the few things that I did change about the spell but only as part of the overall reduction in range of almost every single spell (medium range is 1/2 RAW, and long 1/4).

 

[Greenfield]

I'll take your bet. They can try it for weeks and their margin for error will still endanger nearby allies.

Color Spray does no damage. Save negates completely. While, in theory, you could finish downed foes with a dagger (ignoring the "action economy" aspect), if even one makes the Save, you aren't killing any of them.

Glitterdust also does no damage, kills no one, and has a Save for absolute negation of any harmful effect.

A Ranged Touch against a 5 foot cube presumes you can "touch" the cube. You can't "touch" a spot in the air with such a spell. It goes right through.

Over all I agree that straight damage dealing spells are inferior to "Save or you're screwed" spells. Whether there's a superior spell from another school in any given situation is, however, beside the point.

The point is that ranged AoE spells aren't played at the table as they are written in the rules. Nobody does "Direction and Range". They do "Absolute placement", pointing directly to a target spot on the battlemat and declaring that they've successfully placed the spell there, with 100% accuracy. (You see, there are Conjuration spells like Avalanche that this rule applies to, not just Fireballs.)

"Absolute placement", throwing a spell like Fireball at a specific object or point on the ground works under RAW because you can set your "direction" right at it and declare a "distance" of maximum range. The fiery bead detonates when it hits the solid object (target or the ground) so overshoot or premature detonation aren't a factor.

When targeting a point in midair those safety rails are gone. You have to actually call the range right.

In the real world, before RADAR range finders, cannon crews at sea used to depend on a preliminary "ranging shot" to determine distance. They'd fire a shot into the water, in the direction of the target, with a powder charge and angle that generated a known distance, just to see how far off they were in targeting enemy shipping.

Today a good gunner can park a shell in your car's glove compartment. Once they're "ranged and sighted in", that is. That's why artillery spotters are still used, and the phrase "They've got our range now" is bad news for anyone on the receiving end.

The parallel is a fair one, since Evocations are the "artillery" of D&D. And they don't come with inherent pinpoint accuracy.

 

[Razjah]

The parallel is a fair one, since Evocations are the "artillery" of D&D. And they don't come with inherent pinpoint accuracy.

I like this idea. But more as a narrative element than a game mechanic, reading about this in something like Dresden Files or Harry Potter seems fine. But as a player? This would just aggravate me. Besides, simply because I don't have the knowledge or skills to accurately place the bead for a fireball for maximum damage, doesn't mean that my Wizard with a 22-25 INT can't do that? Requiring the roll to hit the right location just seems like excessive work on the players' side.

The example of a Warmage not being able to drop a precision strike fireball also makes less narrative sense to me. Warmages blow stuff up, it's kinda what they do. Making that harder for a specialized class isn't something I would enjoy.

I don't dislike the rule, but if I was a player in that game I would avoid using such spells. I often play casters when I don't really feel like rolling to hit. I make the enemies roll to dodge or shrug off effects. Rolling to hit, then allowing them to dodge or shrug off the effect seems to only make things more difficult, so I'd probably summon monsters or use spells that don't need such accuracy.

 

[Greenfield]

I find I've taken an adversarial stance on this, and it shouldn't be that way.

Celebrim suggested that Color Spray was a 1st level Illusion spell that could substitute for the Evocation, Burning Hands, and it was a good argument. I jumped on it because it didn't do actual damage, which was very unfair of me.

Burning Hands gets better with levels though, while Color Spray gets worse, so I'm comfortable with my position, just not with the way I expressed it. I'm sorry, Celebrim. You deserved better than I gave.

Razjah, I'm not sure how to involve something like this as a "narrative element" without it being a game mechanic. Game mechanics are what happens at the table, so if it doesn't happen there how can it be part of the narrative? I think I'm missing something there.

Right now a lot of players find it annoying that they have to take a -4 to attack when firing into a melee. But since they know the risk and the price in advance it's not unfair.

If I applied this in play without warning, yes it would be a problem. Changing the rules in mid play is a bad idea, and nobody can play any game well if they don't know the rules or how they'll be applied.

In Baseball, if an Umpire changes his definition of the Strike Zone size it's sure to earn some protests, or at least a lot of head scratching. In the pros they play through such stuff (because they're being paid millions ) but in other leagues an Umpire who does things like that gets red-flagged as a "bad ump'", and may find themselves on the bleachers a lot more often.

If everyone knows the rule, there are no surprises. Maybe the caster has to shift their position so they can see their target area a little better. Maybe the allow a bit more clearance before they drop an explosion into melee, the same way an archer would.

Ultimately, all I'm suggesting is that the hand grenade shouldn't be a more precise weapon than the sniper rifle.

 

[Razjah]

I mean narrative as in stories in a novel. If this was a novel and Fireball worked that way, cool. Wizards would be less precise and would likely only use area effect spells before their allies entered melee (like how grenades aren't often used with friendlies in the blast radius). Wizards either need to be very cautious of use a "spray and pray" method of using spells like fireball. As an example narrative element it would explain why Harry didn't unleash a fireball when a Death Eater grabbed Neville, since Harry would risk Neville being caught in the blast due to the potential inaccuracy. However, Mad-Eye Moody wouldn't have the same hesitation due to character reasons and his much more advanced skills in using magic in life or death combats.

But, aside from added potential realism, I see little gain from this rule. However, I know several friends who would love it. So while I think this is more trouble than its worth, I would be fine in a game using this rule- I would just use a different selection of spells or a different class.

 

[Greenfield]

Ah. I'm tempted to snark, but I'll restrain myself. I appreciate good story telling, and think that any adventure should make a good story when you're through. If it wouldn't be entertaining in the retelling, you did something wrong, in my opinion. For that specific reason I don't see a problem incorporating a "good narrative element" as an element of play as well. The game is, when all is said and done, a collective story telling, a sort of table top "participatory theater".

Maybe my game group is part of the reason the house rule was so easily accepted. We're a little unusual.

Anyone in our group may be the DM, depending on the week. We pass the duty around, all in the same campaign. So the rule I'm asking the players to accept for area affect spells (not just evocations) might end up being applied to anyone, by anyone, at one time or another.

Whether it's a Transformation spell like Entangle or a Conjuration like Avalanche, whether it's a spell cast by a Druid, Wizard, Cleric, Bard, or of it's an effect like a Thunderstone, the rule will be applied equally to anyone, including me, when appropriate. So nobody at the table sees it as being unreasonable, or unfairly penalizing any one character or any one school of spells.

I've known more than a few DMs who thought that using "explosion" effects as precision instruments was just wrong. The old "Horseshoes and hand grenades" line comes to mind, if you know what I mean. Some game systems call for a special ability or Feat to be able to place that precisely. Some DM's I know call for Spellcraft checks or "To Hit" with appropriate penalties if the caster is trying to split a melee with the edge of the effect.

The suggested minor scatter is simpler than most of those others.

But, like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder. You like it? Use it. You don't? Don't. The world is big enough for there to be more than one "right" answer to a lot of questions.

 

[Master Chr Smith]

Mass CLW: should be a burst, so the point of origin is pretty non-negotiable. BUT it SHOULD affect enemies as well...


note on the Mass Cures, it specifies in the spell a 'number of creatures in the area' so your specific wording is not precise, it CAN affect enemies not should, this more so (in my opinion) for divine spells than arcane since the magic is 'gods given'


As for the question in mind, it's not a BAD concept (argument to those complaining that so and so can't figure distance volume speed etc. you forget this is a wizard with an intelegence far above any normal person and thus should be taken into consideration, an int 10 couldn't do all that an int 15+ on the other hand absolutely could)

My suggestion if you are going to continue this rule consider granting a skill or feat that would allow to avoid said randomness, like ray attacks requiring point blank shot and precise shot same as with any ranged weapon. just my two cents

 

[Greenfield]

"Distance, volume, speed"? D&D makes no adjustment for a target's speed anywhere in the rules. If you decide to shoot an arrow out of the air on a Ready Action, the size penalty is the only one the rules would consider. (What the DM considers is another matter.)

That point aside, several people have mentioned the superior Intelligence of the Wizard as an explanation for this pinpoint accuracy in judging distance. Since area affect spells occur for pretty much all spell casting classes, would this justification apply to Clerics? Bards? Sorcerers? Druids? (The list goes on.)

And I've known some very intelligent people. They're not inherently better at judging distance. A dedicated mathematician could try to use Algebra/Geometry, based on the height of their eye from the ground and the exact angle they're looking at to site their target spot, but it's still an estimation. This method also presumes flat, level ground, *AND* a clearly visible spot on the ground to measure to. And when that last situation exists they already get precise placement.

Someone suggested that the players, with practice, would be able to consistently estimate distance on an unmarked table top, to the inch. I'd bet money that this would fail, if put to the test. They'll get it right, some times, but they'll get it wrong as well.

Practice in the real world? A professional golfer, with the Aid Another from a caddy, still has to take time to estimate the distance to the green, or to the dogleg in the fairway for a layup shot, and they're happy if they get it accurate within five yards. A professional quarterback gets paid a bloody fortune to be able to throw the ball through a 14 inch circle (traditionally a hanging tire), but still makes mis-throws in play. And they have range marks on the field (yard lines) and lots of practice at that particular shot.

Now I could see Precise Shot being applicable as a Feat to bypass this limit, since one major use/abuse of the precision is to "fire into melee" and have a Burst effect shave the line between to melee opponents. Considering that the situation doesn't come up too often though, and can often be bypassed by adjusting the caster's position to improve their view of the field. I don't see a lot of spell casters expending a Feat on it. Feats are just too precious.

As for some skill, the same argument applies. The Wizard has a high Int, so they get decent skills. The Bard and the Ranger have a large base number for skills, so they'd have some to spare. The other classes? Most Sorcerers I've seen are skill-tight. So are a lot of Clerics. (Again, the list goes on.) And I'm not even sure how you'd apply a skill, when there's no PC dice roll for shot accuracy or spell placement.

If I was to have an applicable skill, it would be either Spot or Spellcraft, probably with a DC of 15 for the check. Note that Spot specifically calls for range modifier, and it's cross-class for many classes, so a 15 isn't as easy as it might sound.

 

[Dandu]

[video=youtube;4Ugebzq3juE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ugebzq3juE[/video]

 

[Grogg of the North]

Okay, I'm just gonna throw this out there, again. [MENTION=6669384]Greenfield[/MENTION] has already run this house rule by his group and they liked it! Why are we arguing over whether it's a good rule or not if he and his group are having fun using it? For every bit of advice, guideline, or rule for better DMing, there is at least one game in your city, probably with people you know, that would be ruined by it.