"Too Precise" Spell Effects

[Joust]

Seems like this has been discussed, but I can't find it on the boards. Sometimes it is a little irritating (IMO) when that killer Fireball blast does 40 points of damage on the big, bad Troll, but the fighter he was in melee with is not affected at all. Are there any rules you apply to deal with this type of thing?

I was thinking that maybe I would have my players pick the hex they want to target and make them roll a Spellcraft check. If they fail the check, the center hex would shift according to the rules for grenade-like weapons. Seems that this would add some variation that would mirror reality, but I don't want to slow the game down too much.

Your opinions would be appreciated.

 

[Negative Zero]

in my weekday group, we have a house rule like that. if you don't have an actual physical object/person/creature to center your spell on, you have to make a spellcraft check in order to get it exactly where you want it. if you fail, it scatters.

you pick "north" and roll d8 that determines the direction it scatters, for d4 5' squares. wish i could tell you what the DCs are, our DM is not a fan of lettingthe players have a whole lot of rules info. it seems like 10+spell lvl tho. altho it might be 12 or 13. (our DM doesn't like the idea of having all DCs static at multiples of 5.)

~NegZ

 

[nsruf]

I believe it is rather unfair to allow exact range calculation for movement but not spellcasting (when was the last time your fighter charged 5' short of his opponent?). If you use a grid, it is there to be used by anyone. The unrealistic effects this may have are not really worse than many others created by the rules - usually for the sake of simplicity (IMO, scatter rules for area attacks would only slow things down unnecessarily).

And as the NPCs can use the same precision, it is also not a balance issue. In fact, a clever strategy when facing fighters backed up by arcane casters would be to "mingle" and not form a straight line. Apart from granting more flanking opportunities, this makes it damn hard for fireballs to miss "friendly units".

That said, I find it annoying as DM if a player takes too long deciding where to place a spell for maximum effect. But you can always cut this short by demanding a snap decision or have the PC in question stand around for 1 turn, thinking hard. This can even give you the occasional "misfire".

 

[Hejdun]

My DM just says "Pick a square". No measuring, no counting squares (well, you could do it in your head, but you can't prevent that), just point and then place the template. If you're off, you're off.

 

[Uller]

Yeah. That's what I do. The same goes for movement, charging, etc. You say what you are going to do and do it. If you can't get there and still charge, too bad. If your spell catches a friend, too bad.

 

[0-hr]

I think it's unrealistic, but not really worth the hassle of trying to correct. One house rule that we've used is that people right on the border of a spell like that save for half or none. These days though, we don't really worry about it. Let the spell slingers have their precision casting, it's what they do.

I do like the idea of making a character just pick a square and go; but mainly because it would speed up play. If they had pre-calculated the exact intersection to center it on before hand; then that sounds like a good reward for being ready when their turn comes up.

 

[Artoomis]

Here is some real, practical gaming advice:

1. If the player can quickly find the right place to target the spell, then let it go as planned.

2. If you feel the PC will target it correctly, then just start at the edge of the planned spell effect and work backwords to find the center. This will speed things up a bit.

3. If you feel you must use a roll, a spellcraft roll is not a terrible choice, but a better choice might be something that is not otherwise beneficial to the caster (don't encourage them to be better at spellcraft - let them make that choice on their own at the cost of some other skill). Use a Dex check, or a Wisdom check - something they do not specialize in. Force the tough choice on them when making up their characters. Heck - I don't know, maybe some other skill check like Profession (spell slinger) or Knowledge (Arcana) or something. Force the hard choice.


That said, I don't recommend adding in any extra rolls - it will slow combat down, and that's generally a bad thing.

 

[Uller]

I do like the idea of making a character just pick a square and go; but mainly because it would speed up play. If they had pre-calculated the exact intersection to center it on before hand; then that sounds like a good reward for being ready when their turn comes up.

That's primarily why we do it that way. It speeds things up and encourages players to think about what they want to do between turns. It's a win-win!

 

[Joust]

Thanks for everyone's input--there are some good suggestions here, especially the "pick a hex and go" idea. Implementing this idea will speed up play (always good), or it will have the randomness I'm looking for. I'll make a decision before our next gaming session whether I go with that or use some kind of check for spell scatter.

 

[ouini]

Speedy combat

One of our GMs wrestled with this question (and with the players) for months. He figured a mage could eyeball exactly where he wanted a spell centered, but would make a player roll, as that eyeballed locale might not be the ideal spot.

He had other rolls, too, for how well the spell went off (possibly fumbling or criticalling), and using the variable save DC option in the DMG. At the worst point, a spellcaster's player might have to :

1 - Roll for arcane spell failure
2 - Roll for how well the spell was cast
3 - Roll for how well-placed the spell was
4 - Roll for the base save DC of the spell
5 - Roll for damage, effects, duration, etc.

It was ludicrous, though well-intentioned. We didn't manage to convince him to eliminate all the variables, but we did manage to convince him to consolidate the first four rolls into a single "all-or-nothing" d20 roll.