Waveform Spells

[Jeph]

yes, you could say that spells do the same damage throughout the entire area because the magic is evoked evenly throughout. But, what if you were playing a game in which, for instance, fireballs were a single concussive blast that spread outward?

I think I have a way to handle this: First, divide the area of the spell up into thirds. If the radius is not divisable by 3, make the center section the largest. Then, deal damage x1.5 in the first third, damagex1 in the middle section, and damage x0.5 in the extreem third.

This way, spells deal the same average damage over the whole area, but are a bit more effective closer to the point of origin, and a bit less efective further out. Casters will be better able to slam targets that are tightly packed, but will have more trouble if they spread out.

What do you think of this idea?

-Jeph

 

[Nifft]

Nice idea. I'm not sure if it is accurate to call it "waveform" though ... more like "graded" or "normally distributed".

I was thinking you meant a sonic attack spell, which filled a volume with a standing wave, and damaged creatures where the wave didn't cancel itself out. Nifty spell idea, but too much of a pain for me to work out the math.

-- Nifft

 

[Jeph]

To much of a pain? Wha?

It's just dividing something into three not necassarily even incraments. Not so hard. A common example:

Fireball, 20' radius burst.
Central Incrament: 5' radius
Mid Increment: 10' radius
Far Increment: 5' radius
5=10=5=20.

If you don't want to have to do this every time a spell is cast, consider doing it for all the spells and items you'll use in the session beforehand. Have the PCs work it out for their own spells.

 

[fuindordm]

yes, you could say that spells do the same damage throughout the entire area because the magic is evoked evenly throughout. But, what if you were playing a game in which, for instance, fireballs were a single concussive blast that spread outward?

I think I have a way to handle this: First, divide the area of the spell up into thirds. If the radius is not divisable by 3, make the center section the largest. Then, deal damage x1.5 in the first third, damagex1 in the middle section, and damage x0.5 in the extreem third.

This way, spells deal the same average damage over the whole area, but are a bit more effective closer to the point of origin, and a bit less efective further out. Casters will be better able to slam targets that are tightly packed, but will have more trouble if they spread out.

What do you think of this idea?

-Jeph

Hero had an "explosion" area type which was worth half as much as the radius area advantage. Explosions lost one damage class every hex away from the center.

This could be easily simulated by making fireballs lose 1d6 worth of damage every 5' distance, starting with the highest dice rolled.

Mathematically, if you want to divide up a circle into three areas of equal radius:

pi*(r^2 - r2^2) = pi*(r2^2 - r1^2) = pi*r1^2

r2^2 - r1^2 = r1^2 --> r2^2 = 2r1^2 --> r2 = 1.4r1

r^2 - r2^2 = r2^2 - r1^2 --> r^2 = 2r2^2 - r1^2
--> r^2 = 3r1^2 --> r = 1.7r1 --> r1 = 0.58r

So we get the inner radius should be 60% of the outer radius, and the second division should come at 80% of the outer radius. For a fireball we then get x1.5 damage within 12 feet of the explosion, normal damage from 12 feet to 16 feet, and half damage from 16 to 20 feet. You could round off to 10, 5, and 5 feet and the average damage over the area would be the same.

--Ben

 

[Jeph]

Um . . . can't we just divide by 3?

 

[Saeviomagy]

Oooh, ooh, why not just divide the damage done to each person in the radius of the blast by the square-root of their distance from the epicentre, measured in squares? 'course you'd need to have some sort of scaling factor which altered the amount by which it went down etc. etc.

In short - why? When you make a rule, you have to ask a few things
1. Does it make sense?
2. Does it make the game more fun?
3. Is it quicker?

If the answer to at least two of the three is yes, the rule is probably worthwile. Otherwise, you really ought to consider what it is you're really trying to achieve, beyond a really big houserule book.

 

[Jeph]

1- yes
2- maybe
3- no

So I probably won't use the rule. I might, however, let magic-using charactrers choose weather they get the 'normal' or 'wave-form' version whenevery tehy learn an area spell.

 

[fuindordm]

Um . . . can't we just divide by 3?

Not if you want equal area in each ring.

--Ben

 

[Jeph]

Not if you want equal area in each ring.

--Ben

Is it at all worth it? Personally, I think that the rounding way is better for one reason and one reason only: it's faster. You don't have to spend time argueing with the PCs:

GM: Okay, your in the primary zone.
PC: What?!? He 6 and 4/5 feet away from the blast, not 4/6!
GM: (after 5 minutes of arguement) Just . . . Just shut up. I need an asprin.

 

[Corlon]

just leave it the way it is, customizing DnD when it doesn't really make it cooler always has a bad outcome.

But if you want equal damage, I guess I'd have to agree with ben.