Targetting Area Spells

[Saeviomagy]

Here's my problem with the whole system. Let's say a wizard has a range of 800 feet with his fireball. In poor lighting conditions, that's a -80 on his Spot check. Let's assume a human wizard, at sunset, in the heat of battle. If he's high up, like on a cliff, then it's no problem; he's just pointing to a location and having the fireball (or whatever) go off there. But if the wizard is trying to look through or over a crowd of bodies, there's no way he can even see that far, let alone know what's there to target.

It seems to me that in many circumstances, it would be fair to require a Spot check for the wizard to even know what's there to target. And, maybe, the DM should roll this and then tell the wizard what he sees--after all, in some circumstances there could be a mistake (I can't necessarily tell friend from foe at 800 feet), and then the wizard gets to fry his allies.

Dave

That's because the rules for spot checks suck, not because the rules for spell targeting do.

I mean really - I'm pretty sure I've got no problems spotting a person on an open field at 800 feet, or even picking out what he's wearing, or telling if he's a buddy of mine from his stance and the like. And I'm shortsighted.

But in D&D, you'd need to be at epic levels to do that.

The best approximation is "if it's out in the open, you don't need a check to see it".

Which makes it a bit unfair to have the wizard singled out for "no, you can't see that" treatment.

 

[Spatula]

The best approximation is "if it's out in the open, you don't need a check to see it".

Since that's how the rules actually work, I don't see the problem. Spot checks are only used to notice things that are hidden.

 

[irdeggman]

Yes Spot is the wrong skill to use to gage distance accurately. IMO it should be Search. Search is the skill used when actively looking for something in particular, while Spot is used to detect something not noticable.

Though Spellcraft is a reasonable one to use also in this case.