You've got physics in my D&D!

[Gez]

As far as I'm concerned, because of that point in the fireball rule:

--> If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.​

I allow a spellcaster to make a ranged touch attack to hit someone with the bead. If the RTA hits, that targetted creature is denied a Reflex save.

Otherwise, the fireball is centered on the creature's square, but a save is allowed normally.

 

[Numion]

Interestingly enough, I have been in the position to make that fireball decision before, and I remember deciding on the spot that the PC at the center of the event wasn't allowed a saving throw. As I recall, I simply made this decision and delivered it in a matter-of-fact manner to the player in question, who, despite being disappointed at being trapped in this particular situation, would never have even thought to argue.

Just a pop quiz for you too: how often have you denied the PCs enemies saving throws for being in the dead center of a fireball? Or how often do the situations favor the opposition .. because situations are the same for all (on average), and should favor PCs and NPCs equally.

I would explain the event according to the character's perceptions, i.e. an earlier injury made a character's leg stiff enough to hamper his movement at that critical moment, or the lose sand beneath the character's feet makes it impossible for him to move fast enough, etc. Or the fire simply rose all around him so fast that he had no idea what to do to escape immolation.

Aren't these explanations for why the save failed, not for why one wasn't allowed?

 

[Saeviomagy]

I accused him of being a "whiny crybaby" because he didn't understand why I wanted to discuss the possibility of a fortitude save or no save. The argument came about because he wasn't even able to enter the discussion. He just couldn't see any point of view apart from his own.

Probably because it meant his character just died. Players have a habit of not liking new rules which render their characters dead...

When I called it an argument, what I mean is I tried to put my point across, he got defensive and sulky, I tried to give him some idea where I was coming from, he got upset.

I didn't "come up with a rule on the spot" I told him I wasn't happy with the way the rules work, and tried to explain why. If I had come up with a rule on the spot I would have understood him having a problem.

You said "no, wait, I'm not comfortable with your character surviving that. How do you feel about a rule which means that he's dead?"

And then you're wondering why he didn't want to consider it?

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't do that.

Then when you're looking for moral support against someone who's not present, you could at least TRY to present an argument that makes your side of the story sound reasonable...

 

[Will]

If some spells don't sit right with the GM, changing the spell is a better idea than making stuff situational, IMO.

In the fireball case, for example, I could definitely see the desire to swap it with a Fort save, particularly given the description.

Actually, here's a fun modification:
If you are within 5' of the edge of the fireball, you can make a Reflex save for 0 damage. Yes, the effect is defined as instantaneous, but it actually builds up and takes effect in a non-0 amount of time
Otherwise, make a Fortitude save for 1/2 damage.

Sound good?

 

[halomachine]

here's one I have that isn't so much funny, as an argument I had with a player.

In the end I conceded that we would go with the rules.

Fireball. detonated at your feet. It spreads out to cover a large area. The rules give you a reflex save for half. I don't think you should always get that save.

........

If an explosion goes off at your feet and fills a large area, your chances of getting out of the way are pretty non existant. So your only defense is to wrap yourself in your clothes and hope they take some of the initial burn (hence half damage). Physically it would be impossible to move your body (when naked) so you would only take half damage from a large explosion happening at you feet.

......

I agree with the reflex save further out, but if the fireball is centred on you, I think it is circumstantial, dependent on the laws of physics.

Its not the rules you should be looking at....but the description of the spell...it states that the caster hurls a small bead at the target....this bead explodes into the fireball.....hence you're gonna see a little red bead of flame as it is hurled at your feet....thus you have the miniscule timeframe to dive out of the way of the bead (half damage).

 

[soulcat]

Fireball. detonated at your feet. It spreads out to cover a large area. The rules give you a reflex save for half. I don't think you should always get that save.

Obviously if your flat footed I don't think you should. If you don't see it comming I don't think you should. If you naked, I don't think you should.

.....

I agree with the reflex save further out, but if the fireball is centred on you, I think it is circumstantial, dependent on the laws of physics.

Having read the description again now, I would change my mind about the naked one. The reflex save would be to react to seeing the bead. But if your in combat I would say you'd need some sort of check to see if you saw it!

Then when you're looking for moral support against someone who's not present, you could at least TRY to present an argument that makes your side of the story sound reasonable...

No I wasn't looking for moral support. I was posting in a thread about physics, a physics type problem I had that had led to an argument. If I wanted moral support I'd have asked the other members of the group. I was joining in a discussion, whereas it seems you where jumping on one.

So to clarify. The way I run it is as it is written in the rules.

The way I would like to do it (and may in my next campaign, if the players are okay with it) is:

As the rules except. The caster may attempt a ranged touch attack to hit a target dead centre. If succesful the target gets a spot check of DC10 (she gets a -2 if they are in combat, and a further -3 if there back is to the caster). If they pass the spot check they get a reflex save for half. If they fail the spot they get a Fortitude (of Spell DC +5) save for half.

I'm not sure of the Spell DC +5 for the fortitude save, I want it to be harder to save for half if the caster hits you and you fail the saving throw, but I'm not sure exactly how much harder to make it (my next campaign is starting ECL 5).


****edit**** I'm also not sure about the spot DC (I don't have my books on me, so I'll be doing some research on that one), any input would be gratefully recieved.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Having read the description again now, I would change my mind about the naked one. The reflex save would be to react to seeing the bead. But if your in combat I would say you'd need some sort of check to see if you saw it!

Generally you only don't see an attack coming (ie - are denied your dex bonus to AC and become considered flat-footed) if you are totally and utterly surprised by it.

No I wasn't looking for moral support. I was posting in a thread about physics, a physics type problem I had that had led to an argument.

Except in a later post you insulted the guy who argued it with you, and basically said "yeah, well I was right, but I figured he'd just sulk about it anyway" and I pointed out to you that maybe there was a REASON he was sulking, since you seem to think that introducing a rule that means that a character would suddenly be dead is perfectly fair.

The way I would like to do it (and may in my next campaign, if the players are okay with it) is:

As the rules except. The caster may attempt a ranged touch attack to hit a target dead centre. If succesful the target gets a spot check of DC10 (she gets a -2 if they are in combat, and a further -3 if there back is to the caster). If they pass the spot check they get a reflex save for half. If they fail the spot they get a Fortitude (of Spell DC +5) save for half.

There is no such thing in 3e as "back to the caster". 3e has dispensed with facing for the sake of rules simplicity. Putting it back in would require you make up a lot of rules to cope with it...

I'm not sure of the Spell DC +5 for the fortitude save, I want it to be harder to save for half if the caster hits you and you fail the saving throw, but I'm not sure exactly how much harder to make it (my next campaign is starting ECL 5).


****edit**** I'm also not sure about the spot DC (I don't have my books on me, so I'll be doing some research on that one), any input would be gratefully recieved.

Well, given that the spellcaster has to speak in a loud, clear voice, and make gestures that don't even require a spot check to notice, it's probably not going to be that high. Also - shouldn't the free spellcraft check that people get to identify a spell being cast reveal the incoming fireball?

And whats to stop that person from shouting out "Incoming fireball!"?

Also there's the point that all this adds a lot of extra rolling to the game.

Not to mention the fact that what you'll actually be doing is:

1. Letting rogues, rangers and monks keep their reflex saves as-is.

2. Giving wizards, sorcerors, barbarians, fighters, bards, druids, paladins and clerics a more difficult fortitude save

Meaning that

All but one of the classes with a good reflex save suffer no change.

fighters, paladins and clerics (classes likely to have a good con and a bad dex, as well as a bad reflex save) get the double bonus of having high hitpoints AND a bigger chance of saving against the spell.

Barbarians probably end up much the same as they do without the rule - relying on their prodigious hitpoints to survive.

Sorcerors and wizards get screwed with a higher save DC, which compounded with their low hitpoints puts them in a worse situation. Except of course that they're the ones throwing the fireballs anyway.

Bards just get screwed. They don't have spot, they DO have a good reflex save, and they don't have a good fort save or many hitpoints.

In short - the sum effect of having 5 different rolls against a fireball instead of 1 is that bards get screwed. Yay new rule.

 

[bluegodjanus]

Yes, the effect is defined as instantaneous, but it actually builds up and takes effect in a non-0 amount of time.

'Instantaneous' isn't a time of 0. It is an interval, very short and close to zero. I'd suggest calculus to determine the rate of expansion.

 

[soulcat]

In short - the sum effect of having 5 different rolls against a fireball instead of 1 is that bards get screwed. Yay new rule.

You know. This is the point where I stop responding to you. Post anything you want feel free.

I post here, because I want feedback on what I have to say. Not a constant string of put downs.

I'm not suggesting you play to the new rule, I'm asking for feedback on it. Many of the points you make about it are valid, and I'm sure I'll take them on board, but your tone is so insulting.

So, thankyou for the feedback on what I had to say, and I'll take the whining and sulking of my player over your presumtious pomposity any day.

 

[Numion]

As the rules except. The caster may attempt a ranged touch attack to hit a target dead centre. If succesful the target gets a spot check of DC10 (she gets a -2 if they are in combat, and a further -3 if there back is to the caster). If they pass the spot check they get a reflex save for half. If they fail the spot they get a Fortitude (of Spell DC +5) save for half.

I'm not sure of the Spell DC +5 for the fortitude save, I want it to be harder to save for half if the caster hits you and you fail the saving throw, but I'm not sure exactly how much harder to make it (my next campaign is starting ECL 5).

There are specific circumstances when a spot check is required to notice an attack - thats when attacked from hiding. Or would you also require spot checks against archers in case you don't notice an arrow, thus being denied dex bonus to ac, if the archer wasn't hiding?

At least your alterations will make a Fireball much more useful. Consider making missing the attack roll to not automatically result in a normal (as per rules) fireball in the same location, but a possible scatter and waste of spell. IMO do not arbitrarily add a +5 to spell DC. It just makes no sense for a 3rd level fireball to be as tough to resist as a 8th level spell. Alternatively you could bump fireball to 4th or 5th level (with an increased damage cap, too).