Seeking commentary on a house rule

[Celebrim]

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.

Here we are in full agreement.

The rest of your post doesn't reflect my experience, and makes assumptions of intention that I think are unwarranted. I'm skeptical of claims to know 'why' rules are a certain way, or what propositions the designers intend to be resolvable.

If you really want magic to work unreliably then you're probably actually using the wrong rules, and maybe the wrong RPG entirely.

In general, the problem with unreliable magic in any RPG is that it tends to make resolution too difficult to resolve in play. At one time I had intentions to make magic more well, magical, and numinous. But it requires the DM reflecting on and knowing the aspects of every magic item in play at all times and simply becomes fiddly after a while. It's just simpler to have magic 'just work'. Even in my SIPS for Hogwarts game (homebrewed for my family), spell failure is part of the rules but happens fairly rarely and the rules system is so 'lite' (being designed originally for 5 year olds) that mechanical consequences are never complicated (and rarely happen anyway).

Your assertion that spells are 'accurate' is undermined by the fact that many spells do require 'to hit' rolls to place accurately. Why should the missile of a fire ball be any more accurate than the missile of a ray? Different sorts of saves are just mechanical differences. It's reasonable to say, "Fireballs don't require a 'to hit' roll, because a miss by a few inches either way is still 'close enough'" It's not however any more unreasonable to suggest that magic can be inaccurate in D&D than it is to suggest that the saving throw is meant to represent that inaccuracy. This is because D&D pays almost no attention to how magic works, rather than merely what magic does.

Can an archer not hit a target moving at any imaginable speed at a range of 500'?

Even in D&D hitting a diminutive fast target at 10 range increments requires a very lucky shot or a super human archer (you need a modified 37 or so on your to hit roll). Sure, we could complain about the fact that in D&D, you never have a less than 5% chance to hit the bull's eye, but it's equally true that no fortune mechanic is ever exactly going to represent reality in the extreme cases.

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?

First, never is a very strong word. In point of fact, using my house rules, you have a -1 penalty to hit a moving target with a missile weapon in my game for each 40' the target travelled during its last action - this on top the already high difficulty of hitting a small target at extreme ranges. Hitting a sparrow on the wing from 500' away would be hard to do even with True Strike in my game, precisely because I consider archery at such high ranges when you are trying to hit something smaller than a barn to be highly problematic. So, now, you've heard someone complain about how ridiculous that is. As for why this could be considered a problem, as I said before, I've had problems with players attempting to argue that the ability to perfectly snap to a grid perfectly implied not the simplified abstraction I see it to be, but rather actual perfect precision that I don't think is actually intended. Spells like fireball snap to a grid in order to simplify resolution, and not I think because they are meant to imply that the spell can be placed to within a 1/4" every single time. The vast majority of times to me it doesn't matter, since the rules for hitting an inanimate target imply that its generally a trivial task. But at times the players attempt to use this precision to subvert the clear intention of the rules elsewhere - say the rules for cover. At such times, to maintain the balance expected by the system, I ad hoc a 'say yes, and roll the dice' in response to their attempts at creativity to avoid the even worse problem of player's defining creativity in terms of subverting the rules.

The basic meta-rule here being, "If it's a doubtful thing, it requires a roll." At the very least, there is an element of dramatic tension involved. A similar idea would be, "The battle grid only exists to keep things simple. Where it makes things more complicated, as for example a room that doesn't fit well in a 5' grid or where moving the arbitrary grid around in the room would results in different rulings, it's subject to interpretation or even ignored." The later is to say, "You can place the grid where you want it. Every point in space is potentially a grid intersection." Consider for example the problem of the 7' wide corridor.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

It makes sense from a standpoint where you want the game rules to simulate the laws of physics in the world, and you want the player characters to not always have the perfect perspective that the players have. If a game was written, and that was a rule in it, then I wouldn't even blink at its inclusion.

When you're adding a house rule, though, you need to be sure that it's actually improving the game. Every additional rule adds mental over-head to running the game, and doubly-so when the players already think they know all of the rules because they've been playing the game for a while. I'm not certain that the benefit to verisimilitude is enough to offset the effort required to implement the rule.

It is also just a flat-out nerf to Fireball, though (and a few other spells). It might seem like scatter is a minor thing, because it's only five feet and Fireball is 40 feet across, but you're almost always going to have a melee party member adjacent to one of the enemies. With five feet of scatter, that will almost always be the difference between hitting the enemy but not your ally, or hitting both, or hitting neither. That's far too much uncertainty for me to ever be comfortable casting that spell.

Setting aside the question of how weak or powerful Fireball is, and whether or not it could use a nerf, I just don't think you're going to come up very often. Rather than a nerf to Fireball actually making Fireball less precise, it will just dis-incline people to ever cast it. If you implemented this rule, and I was dead-set on playing an Evoker, then I'd choose to focus on Lightning Bolt or Cone of Cold instead of Fireball. More likely, I would choose to play some other type of character, and save my Evoker concept for the next game with a DM who doesn't want to use that house rule.

 

[Greenfield]

As a general reply: Shooting through an arrow slit does require a "To Hit" roll, according to RAW.

Yes, D&D 3.5 is the game (as noted in the thread tag), and yes it's a hard tactical movement game where everything snaps to a grid. If the placement wasn't forced to be in 5 foot increments than it would be easier to say that characters right on the outside fringe might need some kind of adjusted Save (say, as if they had Improved Evasion) because the spell might overlap their space. But the hard grid system doesn't allow for "might overlap" It either affects their square or it doesn't.

Limits on pinpoint accuracy isn't a "physics" thing. There's nothing in the laws of physics that even addresses the issue. It's a "that's hard to believe" thing when it happens 100% of the time, even in a world with magic.

I'm not trying to make magic "unreliable". I'm not calling for a "to hit" roll, not for Fireball, nor Flame Strike, nor Ice Storm, nor even lowly Grease. Cone and Line type spells wouldn't be affected, since the "point of origin" will always be precise: The caster's hand, at a corner of their own square. The house rule simply says that if you're throwing a ranged AoE type spell, and you don't have a hard target in sight to aim at, you might be less than perfectly precise in your placement. 1/3 of the time (on a 1 or a 6) the blast works as advertised anyway, as far as the flat ground perimeter is concerned.

As far as it being "one more rule to remember" and slowing play, it's a pretty simple one, and it rarely needs to apply.

 

[Celebrim]

As a general reply: Shooting through an arrow slit does require a "To Hit" roll, according to RAW.

Ha! Since I pay it so little attention, I'm always pleasantly surprised to find that the RAW and myself have independently come to the same conclusions. I first required this back in 1e.

I'm not trying to make magic "unreliable". I'm not calling for a "to hit" roll, not for Fireball, nor Flame Strike, nor Ice Storm, nor even lowly Grease. Cone and Line type spells wouldn't be affected, since the "point of origin" will always be precise: The caster's hand, at a corner of their own square. The house rule simply says that if you're throwing a ranged AoE type spell, and you don't have a hard target in sight to aim at, you might be less than perfectly precise in your placement. 1/3 of the time (on a 1 or a 6) the blast works as advertised anyway, as far as the flat ground perimeter is concerned.

Ok, good. I wasn't sure if you were treating 'miss high' and 'miss low' as on target or wildly off target.

My problem remains with the reasonableness of your justification coupled with the impact on balance of one of the few areas of spell use I felt the need to buff compared to RAW.

Consider that if you have a target exactly on the grid, a fixed point to aim at, you say that the accuracy is automatic. So, if you have a bush on the grid point even if the bush is 150' away, there is no need to roll.

What is the difference between targeting a bush on a grid point and a reference point "5' to the left of the bush"? Surely if you can accurately pinpoint a bush 150' away, your spatial skills are sufficient to pin point a difference of 5' at that same range? If you couldn't, how could you accurately assess the range to the bush? What about "2' to the left of the bush" in the event of a bush in a square but not on a grid point? Is that sufficient referent?

So why not pin point precision for "5' to the left of this goblin archer?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Tangentially related, I believe that AD&D had a non-weapon proficiency which allowed you to aim your spells correctly. I don't recall the specifics, but I'm pretty sure that it was in the same book as the Concentration proficiency which allowed you to cast a spell even if you'd suffered one point of damage that round.

 

[Greenfield]

Consider that if you have a target exactly on the grid, a fixed point to aim at, you say that the accuracy is automatic. So, if you have a bush on the grid point even if the bush is 150' away, there is no need to roll.

What is the difference between targeting a bush on a grid point and a reference point "5' to the left of the bush"? Surely if you can accurately pinpoint a bush 150' away, your spatial skills are sufficient to pin point a difference of 5' at that same range? If you couldn't, how could you accurately assess the range to the bush? What about "2' to the left of the bush" in the event of a bush in a square but not on a grid point? Is that sufficient referent?

So why not pin point precision for "5' to the left of this goblin archer?

Is the point 5 ft to the left of the bush a spot on the ground that you can see? If it is, you hit exactly where you want.

If it's a point in mid-air, you scatter by 5 feet.

If you want a RAW justification: A spot in mid-air isn't "visible", air being pretty much unseeable. RAW calls for a 50/50 miss chance with a "miss" being a total failure.

We can play "what if" all day long, with people trying to gray-shade things. If five feet from the bush is precise, why isn't 10? Or 20? or 50? After all, 10 is only 5 feet from a precisely targetable point at 5 feet, so... The problem with gray-shaded rules is that the player can't plan an action if they don't know when a particular rule will or won't apply. And an uncertain rule is, in many ways, worse than a bad one.

You want a gray-shade where the player can know how the ruling is going to fall? Give them a Spot check to pick out that anchor/target point through the brush or whatever is concealing it from the caster. It adds another roll to the game, and thus slows things down, along with requiring that they be good at a cross-class skill (two reasons why I don't generally include it), but if they insist, go for it.

 

[Celebrim]

And an uncertain rule is, in many ways, worse than a bad one.

Well, that's what I was trying to suss out: is this rule something that can be consistently applied.

If five feet from the bush is precise, why isn't 10? Or 20? or 50?

You obviously see where I was going with that.

Is the point 5 ft to the left of the bush a spot on the ground that you can see? If it is, you hit exactly where you want.

So any point on the ground you can see is precisely targetable? If so, then it would see this rule would only frequently apply to trying to catch groups of flying creatures, or casting into concealment or cover. In the normal situations, as long as you can offset from something you see and target clear empty ground some offset away from a target, it would basically ensure that you can always precisely cut out your friends from foes in the way you normally could. It would be rare that you could say something like, "3' to the left and just beyond that goblin archer", or whatever.

 

[Greenfield]

So any point on the ground you can see is precisely targetable? If so, then it would see this rule would only frequently apply to trying to catch groups of flying creatures, or casting into concealment or cover. In the normal situations, as long as you can offset from something you see and target clear empty ground some offset away from a target, it would basically ensure that you can always precisely cut out your friends from foes in the way you normally could. It would be rare that you could say something like, "3' to the left and just beyond that goblin archer", or whatever.

Almost.

Any solid object can be targeted precisely, including a particular spot on the ground, even if it's generally featureless.

The only time this applies is if the center of effect is a point in the air.

 

[captnq]

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

Go ahead and be harsh. I don't mind. I prefer honesty

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 can replace every evocation spell with one illusion spell. I can perform the damage that evocation does better with conjuration spells. There's no "see" about it. It's simple math. Evocation is, mathmatically, the weakest school.

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 that's "real world". These aren't mortal, fallible people. These are adventurers. These are elves and Dwarves and Warforged living constructs. So, given a warforged has no blood, no heart beat, no breath, and a computer brain, would he be immune to your rule?

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.

Its. A. Fireball. That is magic.

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.

Yes, it does, when you think in 3 dimensions.
Here. Read my write up on the fireball.

http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=4571.msg82218#msg82218

You'll see what I mean.

 

[Greenfield]

I can replace every evocation spell with one illusion spell. I can perform the damage that evocation does better with conjuration spells. There's no "see" about it. It's simple math. Evocation is, mathmatically, the weakest school.

Which 1st level Illusion spell would you use to match the damage of a Burning Hands?
Which 2nd level Illusion spell would you use to match the damage of a Scorching Ray?
Which 3rd level Illusion spell would you use to match the damage of a Lightning Bolt? (And those are just the obvious ones.)

The fact is, you can "replace" most spells in the game with Wish or Miracle, but unless you're replacing them level for level it's an invalid comparison.

Given enough time, I can replicate the raw damage potential of any spell with a sword. Or a sharpened stick. Doesn't make the spell worthless.

So tell me, which 3rd level Conjuration spell would you use to replicate the damage of Fireball, which can affect up to 24 medium sized creatures in a single round? Presume a 5th level caster, if you would.

And that's "real world". These aren't mortal, fallible people. These are adventurers. These are elves and Dwarves and Warforged living constructs. So, given a warforged has no blood, no heart beat, no breath, and a computer brain, would he be immune to your rule?

It might be real world, but it isn't "physics", which is what I said.

As for them not being fallible: Are you saying that PCs never make mistakes? Because that's what "fallible" means.

And you've obviously never read the rules on Warforged. They don't get any special bonus on anything because of a "computer brain". As far as I know, the word "computer" is never used in describing them, or anything else in the game world for that matter. (By the way, I'm a computer programmer IRL, and I know just how imprecise robotic systems can be. One of my clients had to scrap a very expensive bit of automation after just three weeks because it kept fouling up. My mom used to work for Rand McNally, the map company, and when someone wanted to take a break all they had to do was turn up an edge on a piece of paper. The map folding machine couldn't handle it and would tie itself in knots so bad it took Engineering half an hour to get it running again. One piece on an assembly line is out of place by three inches and the robotic "hand" can easily fail to grab it. The computer is fast and great at repetitive operations, but it's only as "smart" as the programmer is able to make it, and far from perfect.)

Its. A. Fireball. That is magic.

I've noticed that you argue, not against what I wrote, but against something sort of in the neighborhood of a relative of someone who knows what I wrote. Try to keep up, please. (You said to go ahead and be harsh.)

I said that there's nothing to say "it's magic" about that sort of estimation of distance and area. Whether it's archery or a spell is irrelevant, if you're gauging distance to a target, there's nothing magic involved.

Try this with your group: Use a tabletop without a battlemat, without grid markings. Make them use the spell exactly as described in the rules, by choosing a direction and stating a distance. Then measure that distance with a tape measure. Don't let them measure in advance, not for range and not for area. And make them stick with their first declaration, they can't pull the old, "I guess I meant 65 feet, not 60" bit.

Any bets they'll occasionally be off by an inch or two? (And by "occasionally" I mean "always".) Will their placement miss some opponents? Include some allies or bystanders? Maybe they'll even decide to chose a less imprecise spell? Note that, by your estimation, choosing another spell isn't a downside, since just about any other spell of any other school can replicate or even surpass the Evocation spell.

Except they can't.

My house rule simply notes that their aren't any "grid lines" in mid air, no solid measure or target point.

(By the way, I'm trying to figure out what you meant by your last statement. It doesn't seem to be related in any way to the section you quoted and were apparently responding to. It's almost too ironic to see you this badly off target.)