PDA

View Full Version : TPK caused by friendly fire(ball)



HailDiscordia
2010-01-25, 04:41 PM
So our campaign came to an abrupt end with a total party kill in the last session. This certainly isn't the first we've had, but I don't think I've ever seen it go down quite like this. Oh yeah, I'm the DM.

The party are all 12th level (except one is 11th) and are starting to get involved in a double agent/political storyline. They were trying to rescue a political prisoner from a public execution in order to get in good with the insurgents, the plan being to then sell them out to the crown for lots of money. And then doublecross them too...The actual rescue plan got derailed like most plans do and they wound up having a big fight in the town square. They did not count on the appearance of a very tough foe and things went downhill pretty quick for the PC's. Two of the party were already dead when the Sorcerer teleported the Ghost Faced Killer and the Abjurant Champion into melee range of the main foe. They started battling him and on the following round the Sorcerer cast a fireball at him. Now, since they were all in melee range it affected them all and wound up killing everyone but the Sorcerer, who would then die the next round.

Of course the Sorcerer immediately tried to take it back when the other players started to groan, but I didn't let him. He is a novice player, this is his first campaign. But this was also the 14th adventure of the campaign and the third time that he did pretty much this same exact thing. I let him slide the first time, he almost killed the Abjurant Champion the second time, so you think he would have learned by now. Generally at our table if you say you are doing something then you've done it. Am I being too hard?

I'm a little bummed because I had some good things coming up, but I guess this is the way that it goes. We'll start a new campaign next week and look back fondly on this.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-25, 04:42 PM
Let him learn painfully.

Lapak
2010-01-25, 04:45 PM
Yeah, since this was the third time AND the entire party made enough bad decisions to turn a rescue mission into a brawl in the public square, I'd say let it stand. EDIT: I should really emphasize that the second half of that is the convincing factor for me. If he'd managed the TPK on his own, that'd be one thing, but there's blame to spare as you've described it. [/edit]

Figure out what the repercussions of their fight would be, advance the plot two months, have them start a new group of characters in the resulting political climate. You get to have them die and THEN realize the consequences from a living perspective, and they'll probably actually appreciate that their last group of characters had a meaningful impact on the campaign world (even if that impact wasn't entirely positive.)

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-25, 04:47 PM
And the new group's mission shall be to track down and bring to justice the pyromaniac who incinerated his team and several town guards two months ago...

HailDiscordia
2010-01-25, 04:56 PM
Figure out what the repercussions of their fight would be, advance the plot two months, have them start a new group of characters in the resulting political climate. You get to have them die and THEN realize the consequences from a living perspective, and they'll probably actually appreciate that their last group of characters had a meaningful impact on the campaign world (even if that impact wasn't entirely positive.)

Eh, I'm content to let the plot die. They really wanted to know what kind of treasures were buried in the castle, and now they never will! Plus, I'll recycle some of the surprises that were never realized. Though there is a good chance they may wind up hearing the tale of the party in a future campaign. And truth be told I'm surprised an evil party lasted as long as they did.

Person_Man
2010-01-25, 05:09 PM
Honestly if he doesn't understand how to use area of effect attacks intelligently, he shouldn't be using area of effect attacks. It's not like he can't play a sorcerer without them.

AslanCross
2010-01-25, 05:12 PM
Honestly if he doesn't understand how to use area of effect attacks intelligently, he shouldn't be using area of effect attacks. It's not like he can't play a sorcerer without them.

This, pretty much. I can't seem to wrap my head around why anyone would do that.

Starbuck_II
2010-01-25, 05:13 PM
They started battling him and on the following round the Sorcerer cast a fireball at him. Now, since they were all in melee range it affected them all and wound up killing everyone but the Sorcerer, who would then die the next round.

Do you use mini's? That usually helps you see rather than guessing fireball area.
Is it possible he could fireball the bad guy without hitting allies (unless they were flanking enemy)?

HailDiscordia
2010-01-25, 05:16 PM
Do you use mini's? That usually helps you see rather than guessing fireball area.
Is it possible he could fireball the bad guy without hitting allies (unless they were flanking enemy)?

We do not use any sort of visual representation. But he teleported two other characters in, both of which started to make full round attacks. It was pretty clear. It was really just a case of a player being real dumb. I'm not sure what else to say about it. He has cast dozens of fireballs, he certainly knew how the spell worked.

It was real funny though. The look of horror on the abjurant champions face was awesome. It was actually more disgust than horror.

Grumman
2010-01-25, 05:20 PM
I'm inclined to say this is all your fault.

Even if the player did not remember where everybody was, the character almost certainly should, and can probably see that their allies are in the blast radius. Every time a DM enforces this sort of thing, they force the players to fight the interface instead of having fun playing the game.

FishAreWet
2010-01-25, 05:26 PM
Even if the player did not remember where everybody was, the character almost certainly should, and can probably see that their allies are in the blast radius. Every time a DM enforces this sort of thing, they force the players to fight the interface instead of having fun playing the game.

100% agreed. Playing without a map is horrible.

Lapak
2010-01-25, 05:26 PM
I'm inclined to say this is all your fault.

Even if the player did not remember where everybody was, the character almost certainly should, and can probably see that their allies are in the blast radius. Every time a DM enforces this sort of thing, they force the players to fight the interface instead of having fun playing the game.That would be true, if not for the fact that he himself had JUST placed two allies in the blast radius, and they were currently engaging his target in melee. That's not a 'he forgot they were there' situation.

Fiery Diamond
2010-01-25, 05:27 PM
We do not use any sort of visual representation. But he teleported two other characters in, both of which started to make full round attacks. It was pretty clear. It was really just a case of a player being real dumb. I'm not sure what else to say about it. He has cast dozens of fireballs, he certainly knew how the spell worked.

It was real funny though. The look of horror on the abjurant champions face was awesome. It was actually more disgust than horror.

If you have no visual representation, then you can't place full blame on him. Unless they were flanking the foes or something similar, it is quite possible he could have hit at least one of the enemies without hitting allies. Personally, I think that playing a game without any form of visual representation is generally a bad idea. Minis are not necessarily better than other visual representations, but unless every single player is really good at doing geometry in his/her head, you can cause lots of unintentional problems via not all having the exact same mental image if you have no visual representation at all. Personally, I would never play in a game with no visual representation. In fact, if it was the DM's idea to have such a game, then I fault the DM for any geometry-related problems caused by the players. Especially for a novice player: if he isn't a geometry person, you should never impose a no-visuals game on a novice player, or all problems he causes relating to that issue are fully your fault, no exceptions.

To summarize: since you used no visuals, it was your (as DM) fault, not the sorcerer's. I cannot emphasize how much I disagree with your choice enough.

Edit: Ninja'd!

Ernir
2010-01-25, 05:30 PM
Generally at our table if you say you are doing something then you've done it.
If this is and has been the convention for 14 adventures, I can't say you're being too hard.
The player goofed up. This is how you handle goofs at your table. Tough luck.

It's not the way I do it (I'd mostly be afraid of the other players resenting the one who screwed up), but I don't think this is a non-viable way to do it.

Tavar
2010-01-25, 05:34 PM
Why couldn't he have just aimed the fireball so that the foe was caught on the edge of the blast? Seems you made a bit of an unfair call.

Optimystik
2010-01-25, 05:36 PM
I'm inclined to say this is all your fault.

Even if the player did not remember where everybody was, the character almost certainly should, and can probably see that their allies are in the blast radius. Every time a DM enforces this sort of thing, they force the players to fight the interface instead of having fun playing the game.

Couldn't have put it better myself. (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1216)

Sillycomic
2010-01-25, 05:43 PM
I don't think this is a question of geometry at all. Certainly playing with minis and having the board laid out can help, but I've played in decent games where there have been no such visual aids.

I even played a sorcer in one. All area of effect spells were a simple question to the GM when my turn came up, "Can I cast X and hit the bad guys without hitting any of my allies?"

Aside from that, it sounds like the sorcerer... being new, just wanted to deal damage. Fireball certainly works, but I'm sure a sorching ray or lightning bolt would do just as well, and have less friendly fire.

I can't even blame the GM for being a **** about it... not after the third time. At some point you just can't take things back. The other times when the GM did take back the players actions, he obviously didn't learn anything about his powerful spells, area attacks, or looking out for his own allies...

After this third time, lesson learned.

Dust
2010-01-25, 05:48 PM
I think it boils down to how the other players feel about it. If they're going to hold a grudge against the player for the TPK, even a little bit, then you did wrong. A lesson should never be taught in such a way that it negatively affects future gaming.

If they laugh it off and all's forgiven, then I'd say you made the right call.

Shardan
2010-01-25, 06:29 PM
My friends had a party in 4e that did this consistently... of course the two melee were a Tiefling and paladin wearing fire-resist armor...

A little planning goes a long way

(of course, I also had an evil wizard do that on purpose too.)

JadedDM
2010-01-25, 06:44 PM
I think you did the right thing. If the Sorcerer hasn't learned that age old D&D lesson by level 12, he had it coming.

Grumman
2010-01-25, 07:25 PM
I think you did the right thing. If the Sorcerer hasn't learned that age old D&D lesson by level 12, he had it coming.
Killing off everyone else's characters to teach one player a lesson seems rather petty to me.

Prime32
2010-01-25, 07:29 PM
I swear, this kind of thing would happen less if scorching ray was named "fireball" and fireball was named "raging inferno" or something. Everyone wants to cast fireball. :smalltongue:

Optimystik
2010-01-25, 07:29 PM
I think it boils down to how the other players feel about it. If they're going to hold a grudge against the player for the TPK, even a little bit, then you did wrong. A lesson should never be taught in such a way that it negatively affects future gaming.

If they laugh it off and all's forgiven, then I'd say you made the right call.

So I think Dust wins this one

Thrawn183
2010-01-25, 08:47 PM
See I did this with Maw of Chaos on my party's paladin once. He freaked out until he realized I was just going to hit him with Mass Heal the next round. *sigh*

(Also, it finished off a vampire that had been giving us lots of trouble)

Drakevarg
2010-01-25, 08:52 PM
Failing to notice that your allies are at point blank range of your target after you PUT THEM THERE is not at all a map issue. It's just plain stupid. The sorcerer got what he deserved, though it's the entire party's fault for getting in that scenario in the first place.

Tavar
2010-01-25, 08:57 PM
Failing to notice that your allies are at point blank range of your target after you PUT THEM THERE is not at all a map issue. It's just plain stupid. The sorcerer got what he deserved, though it's the entire party's fault for getting in that scenario in the first place.

Because, you know, you can't aim so that the enemy is on the edge of the effect, and your allies are unaffected.

Or, you know, you've never had problems while learning a game.

Flaming Nun
2010-01-25, 08:59 PM
^ You know that "DM" is just an abbreviation of "Death Machine."

If you aren't killing your players, you are not DMing properly.

Drakevarg
2010-01-25, 09:03 PM
Because, you know, you can't aim so that the enemy is on the edge of the effect, and your allies are unaffected.

Or, you know, you've never had problems while learning a game.

Fireball is not that hard to figure out. For starters it's not a single-target spell. If you wanna blast someone specific use scorching ray or something.

So I have no sympathy for someone who does not understand that you don't throw a grenade into melee.

Irreverent Fool
2010-01-25, 09:10 PM
Honestly if he doesn't understand how to use area of effect attacks intelligently, he shouldn't be using area of effect attacks. It's not like he can't play a sorcerer without them.

Some people understand perfectly how to use area-of-effect attacks intelligently and still place themselves at ground zero.


^ You know that "DM" is just an abbreviation of "Death Machine."

If you aren't killing your players, you are not DMing properly.

Can I sig this?

obnoxious
sig

Tavar
2010-01-25, 09:10 PM
Fireball is not that hard to figure out. For starters it's not a single-target spell. If you wanna blast someone specific use scorching ray or something.



Because, you know, you can't aim so that the enemy is on the edge of the effect, and your allies are unaffected.

Also, did he have scorching ray available?

sofawall
2010-01-25, 09:13 PM
Some people understand perfectly how to use area-of-effect attacks intelligently and still place themselves at ground zero.

*couch*Nuclear Dan*cough*

Drakevarg
2010-01-25, 09:15 PM
@Tavar: Perhaps, perhaps not. Personally I would never NOT have it available were I a sorcerer. But I'm a blaster so perhaps that's biased. If fireball was the only combat spell he had, though, he should've either saved it or used it on a group of mooks.

@OP: Did he specifically say "I cast fireball centered on the bad guy"? Cause if he did, clearly his fault for CENTERING an AoE on an oppoenent within melee range. If not, you should have made him specify the center.

Da'Shain
2010-01-25, 09:21 PM
14th session means he's had plenty of time to learn. Heck, third similar incident means he's had plenty of time to learn. If you can't visualize well enough to know that firing a spell with a 20 foot radius of explosive death in close combat is a bad idea, that's in no way a failure of the DM; that's a failure to understand how the game works at all. Sounds like this guy shouldn't be playing the blasty sorceror.

It's unfortunate that his teammates got stuck in that as well, but again: if it's happened twice before and they haven't taken him aside and explained to him exactly why you don't do that and how you could possibly aim Fireballs to hit people without damaging your teammates ... they deserve what they got. Magic is dangerous in the wrong hands.

It seems like the fight was probably pretty close to lost, though, if the single fireball wiped all of them out that badly. I'd imagine they had a high chance of dying anyway, so I doubt the players were too pissed off. If every player was actually incensed and making noise about not playing with each other again, I might offer a "do-over," but otherwise, TBH, I think there needs to be consequences for incompetence or else why bother using a system at all?


I like the way my current DM handles moments of sheer stupidity like that, though. He has a character roll either an INT check (for knowledge of how life, i.e. the system, worked) or a WIS check (for common sense) when they're about to do something that is really, well, stupid. If they fail, they do it anyway; if they succeed, he tells them why they shouldn't, reasoning that their character should know even if the player doesn't, and allows them to rethink their action. The most recent example of this happening was the party Sorc forgetting how Time Stop worked, so he mistimed all of his Delayed Blast Fireballs and ended up doing nothing but wasting spell slots. He was quite sad that he'd dumped INT; a penalty to his saving INT roll did not help.

elonin
2010-01-25, 09:24 PM
First since they were in melee with the guy I'd have to say this falls under stupid player decisions. I'm also surprised that the sorc didn't ask to place the fireball where the enemy was and not the friends. This may have been averted if minis were used.

HailDiscordia
2010-01-25, 11:39 PM
First off, no one was deprived of any fun and certainly no one cried foul when it happened. The one player was a bit frustrated, but it was his character who was fed up with the sorcerer. Not the player. We've already laughed about it and are meeting tomorrow to make new characters for the new game.

I have to say that I am bit surprised to hear some people say that it was my fault, as the DM. As a group we've decided that we don't really like using miniatures for a variety of reason. Players can always ask questions about battlefield geometry if there is something that they want to know, none of that is kept secret. Additionally, the fact that none of the other players argued that he should get to take it back and that they all groaned immediately when it happened (showing that they understood the battle scene) I think shows where the blame lies. No one is "guilty" of anything, it's just something that happened. I did not kill anyone, it's the way that the game went. No one was being taught a lesson either.

I feel like there is a strange vibe on these forums about the responsibility of the DM, and that if there is ever an instance where a player feels as if they have messed up or take the blame for something, then the DM has somehow failed in his responsibility. That strikes me as crazy. I am one part of a group that meets and plays a game, and I more than do my part to make sure that we all have a fun time each week. That does not mean that a player is excused from all failings. I hope none of the other players hold a grudge against him for it (and I don't think that they will) but I certainly don't feel as if I have failed because a player did something dumb that wound up having consequences. Deal with it.

And no, he did not have a scorching ray available. He did cast a magic missile the following round before he died, but he left a couple of good spells on the bench that fight.

Tavar
2010-01-25, 11:44 PM
If there's no map, how did he center the Spell? Did you default it to be centered on the target, or did he say "I cast fireball, centered on the enemy"? There's a big difference between the two, and I think the lack of information is causing some(including myself) to jump to conclusions.

Drakevarg
2010-01-25, 11:45 PM
By no means saying it's entirely your fault; in any situation, fault gets sprinkled amonst many peeps. I'm saying that if there was crucial information that he needed to know, and you didn't tell him, you dropped the ball.

Of course, after 13 sessions he should've known better, so not so much. Not entirely his fault either; he's new, perhaps still learning the tools of the trade, and honestly a rescue mission should not turn into a street brawl.

And of course theres the fact that everyone does something mindbogglingly stupid occasionally. The big problem, at least in terms of us pointing all these fingers, is that this topic is sitting here in cyberspace and not simply fading into irrelevancy a few minutes after it happens. Leaving us with plenty of time to overanalyze everything.

So in ultimate conclusion, I'd say "he goofed, oh well, roll new characters, move on."

Grumman
2010-01-26, 12:45 AM
First off, no one was deprived of any fun and certainly no one cried foul when it happened.
Nobody had less fun as a result of your campaign being cut short in such an anticlimatic way? Nobody had any attachment to the characters they had been playing?


I feel like there is a strange vibe on these forums about the responsibility of the DM, and that if there is ever an instance where a player feels as if they have messed up or take the blame for something, then the DM has somehow failed in his responsibility. That strikes me as crazy.
You destroyed your campaign due to an inherent weakness of PnP games, instead of working around that weakness. If it is incredibly obvious to the character that something is a bad idea, you should make sure that the player knows what their character knows before forcing them to go through with their bad idea.

ApatheticDespot
2010-01-26, 01:30 AM
I entirely agree with the people saying that this is mainly your fault. It is usually not particularly difficult to target a fireball to pick off enemies in melee, and if that isn't true for some reason it absolutely is the DM's responsibility to point that out. To simply to not actively hide it is nothing like enough.

Tiktakkat
2010-01-26, 01:33 AM
First off, no one was deprived of any fun and certainly no one cried foul when it happened. The one player was a bit frustrated, but it was his character who was fed up with the sorcerer. Not the player. We've already laughed about it and are meeting tomorrow to make new characters for the new game.

I have to say that I am bit surprised to hear some people say that it was my fault, as the DM. As a group we've decided that we don't really like using miniatures for a variety of reason. Players can always ask questions about battlefield geometry if there is something that they want to know, none of that is kept secret. Additionally, the fact that none of the other players argued that he should get to take it back and that they all groaned immediately when it happened (showing that they understood the battle scene) I think shows where the blame lies. No one is "guilty" of anything, it's just something that happened. I did not kill anyone, it's the way that the game went. No one was being taught a lesson either.

I feel like there is a strange vibe on these forums about the responsibility of the DM, and that if there is ever an instance where a player feels as if they have messed up or take the blame for something, then the DM has somehow failed in his responsibility. That strikes me as crazy. I am one part of a group that meets and plays a game, and I more than do my part to make sure that we all have a fun time each week. That does not mean that a player is excused from all failings. I hope none of the other players hold a grudge against him for it (and I don't think that they will) but I certainly don't feel as if I have failed because a player did something dumb that wound up having consequences. Deal with it.

Well . . .


Am I being too hard?

I'm a little bummed because I had some good things coming up, but I guess this is the way that it goes.

First, you asked if you are being too hard.
Nobody made you ask the question, you came here and asked it, and are getting it answered.
As it goes, some of those answers are "Yes".

Second, you say that you are a little bummed.
So I guess that at least person was deprived of at least some fun.

Beyond that, others have noted issues with area spells and not using a map.
I dislike using a map and figures as well. As a consequence, when doing so, I always err excessively in favor of the players when adjudicating area effects, flanking, and similar rules issues that require hard and fast tactical positioning.

Also, some have suggested that after 13 sessions a player you call a novice should "know better" and such.
If you want "too hard", that outstrips enforcing "you say it, it happens, no take backs" by a far sight.
I had played AD&D for 20 years before 3E came out, with another 2 years of wargaming before that, and after 13 sessions I barely had the least clue as to the intricacies of the rules and tactical requirements of 3E. And that was without advancing a level per session!
Expecting a completely new player to really understand everything about the rules and abilities of a spellcaster when gaining a level per session for their first campaign is so far beyond reasonable that I find it difficult to believe anyone would even suggest such a thing in the first place.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-26, 09:27 AM
This, pretty much. I can't seem to wrap my head around why anyone would do that.

I cast fireball centered on myself!

2xMachina
2010-01-26, 09:33 AM
I cast fireball centered on myself!

Always with fire immunity (or major, major resistance at least)

Person_Man
2010-01-26, 09:45 AM
As an aside, there's an excellent Incarnate soulmeld called Flame Cincture. It gives you 10 + (5 * essentia) Fire Resistance. If you bind it to your Waist chakra, then the round after you Resist Fire damage, you can blast any target within 60 feet for the same amount of damage (Ref for half). (You can even set up a *4 damage Fire loop by using Share Soulmeld with a familiar or companion and having each of you use a Fire area of effect attack). You can pull of a similar combo with Lord of the Uttecold. But I digress.

Killer Angel
2010-01-26, 10:02 AM
I entirely agree with the people saying that this is mainly your fault. It is usually not particularly difficult to target a fireball to pick off enemies in melee, and if that isn't true for some reason it absolutely is the DM's responsibility to point that out. To simply to not actively hide it is nothing like enough.

So, is fine to cast area spells in melee combats, without bothering of the consequences, because it's DM's duty to "adjust" the spell in favor of the PCs? :smallconfused:
It wasn't the first time. It was the third, and the first two, the DM saved them.
The sorc casted a fireball at a single enemy in melee with 2 other pcs, who were there because the sorc put them there with a teleport, without even bothering to specify nothing about try to leave them aside.
Let's also count that the sorc is evil.
In the end, I entirely agree with the people saying that this is mainly player's fault.

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 10:22 AM
If the player is new to Pen and Paper RPG's maybe he keeps thinking in video game terms. Most video games have friendly fire turned off as a default rule. So if he is used to playing those he might just not realize his attacks hurt his allies until its too late. I mean half the video games I play I ruitinely fire grenades, bombs, fireballs, and whatever else is handy at my allies since there is no Friendly Fire. So I can certainly see the player not thinking for a second and only realizing that DnD doesn't work like that after it was too late.

I think both the DM and Player deserve some blam honestly. What the player did was dumb but there are plenty of reasons that might explain why it happened and the character certainly should have known it was incredibly dumb. As such I think the DM should have allowed him to change his mind (as long as the Dice hadn't been rolled yet). Kind of like Chess. You can always take your move back if you haven't let go of the piece yet. So replace "let go of the piece" with "rolled the dice" and its the same idea.

mregecko
2010-01-26, 10:29 AM
I still don't understand why the original poster hasn't addressed the question of why the character in question couldn't have caught the enemy in the edge of an AoE. Without minis and a map to explicitly plot the battlefield, why couldn't the situation have been:

___
_E_
A_A

Where 'E' is the Enemy, and 'A' is the ally. Or:

A__
_E_
__A

Which provides a flank and can STILL be caught in the edge of a fireball.

All said, while I agree that the player could have acted slightly more specifically, WITHOUT A MAP, it is entirely feasible that a fireball could be appropriate in this situation.

Every mage I have has thrown an AoE effect into a melee at some point. It works just as often as it doesn't.

-- Gecko

ken-do-nim
2010-01-26, 10:32 AM
Because, you know, you can't aim so that the enemy is on the edge of the effect, and your allies are unaffected.


One of my D&D pet peeves. Combatants move around, they are not static. Feints, parries, lunges, you get the picture. Your mini represents roughly the central point of a cloud of action at least 5 feet in each direction. I think it would be incredibly difficult to reliably target an area of effect spell such that the badguy facing your allies get hit but they do not. Back in AD&D when this would come up, I'd force the spellcaster to make an intelligence check to get it right, at a suitable penalty given his distance from the action, visibility, etc. I guess I could come up with a suitable DC for 3E play but so far I've just said it's either 50/50 whether your allies are encompassed too or it's 50/50 whether you get the intended opponent at all, your choice.

2xMachina
2010-01-26, 10:58 AM
Actually, that would not make it harder. It's still easy to just make sure the blast range doesn't touch them

XXX
XXX
XXX

Each X is a 5 feet square. Lets say the blast radius is 15*15.

XXX
XEX
AXA

I just target the top center. It covers the whole of the enemies area where their electron could MUST be in, and would definitely not cover anywhere your allies electron cloud. It wouldn't even singe them, though they'd be standing next to an inferno. But thankfully, D&D does not model heat transfer of a fireball, so they're ok, if a bit surprised to have a view full of fire.

Kesnit
2010-01-26, 11:17 AM
So, is fine to cast area spells in melee combats, without bothering of the consequences, because it's DM's duty to "adjust" the spell in favor of the PCs? :smallconfused:

As others have pointed out, it is possible the spell could have been aimed to hit the enemy, but not the PC's. Unless the player said "I cast fireball, centered on the enemy," the DM should have at least asked WHERE the FB was being dropped. (Even without a map, a simple answer of "behind the enemy" or whatever so as to avoid allies would work.) It seems the DM assumed the caster intended to drop the fireball in the middle of melee.


It wasn't the first time. It was the third, and the first two, the DM saved them.

Which could point back to it being in part the DM's fault. If the DM just covered for the mistake, then there is no reason to think the player had any idea that the mistake occurred. (It's possible the DM did tell the players that he was covering the mistake. If so, obviously my comment becomes moot.)

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 11:27 AM
Which could point back to it being in part the DM's fault. If the DM just covered for the mistake, then there is no reason to think the player had any idea that the mistake occurred. (It's possible the DM did tell the players that he was covering the mistake. If so, obviously my comment becomes moot.)

To be fair to the OP he only covered the guys mistake the first time. The person you are qouting got it wrong. the second time the Duskblade was almost killed. So at the very least the Player had one example to base his experience in. I still contend that it's highly possible he forgot that DnD has friendly Fire turned on.

SensFan
2010-01-26, 11:32 AM
One of my D&D pet peeves. Combatants move around, they are not static. Feints, parries, lunges, you get the picture. Your mini represents roughly the central point of a cloud of action at least 5 feet in each direction. I think it would be incredibly difficult to reliably target an area of effect spell such that the badguy facing your allies get hit but they do not. Back in AD&D when this would come up, I'd force the spellcaster to make an intelligence check to get it right, at a suitable penalty given his distance from the action, visibility, etc. I guess I could come up with a suitable DC for 3E play but so far I've just said it's either 50/50 whether your allies are encompassed too or it's 50/50 whether you get the intended opponent at all, your choice.
I think you're forgetting something here.
Sorcerors casting Fireball likely are significantly smarter than the average human. They are also capable of advanced magic to the point where they make things appear out of mid-air.
Wizards casting Fireball are smarter than pretty much anyone in the world. They are also capable of advanced magic to the point where they make things appear out of mid-air.
Clerics casting [AoE spell] are getting their powers from a God.
Druids casting [AoE spell] are getting their powers from nature itself.

Sorry, but which one of the above casters are you claiming would be unable to target '20 feet behind the enemy', or else 'a ball of fire that engulfs a sphere of about 20 feet but stops just short of Bob and Joe'?

Sliver
2010-01-26, 11:33 AM
It already happened, and the players didn't assume "Oh it's ok, he didn't say he tries to center it somewhere else so we won't get hit, but the DM will do it anyway". They knew they are screwed, and the player knew it happened that way before and it's not like the DM suddenly stopped saving his ass, only the first time he saved him and it was as a warning, the second time he let him make the mistake. It means the DM made better job, not worse. If the TPK was caused after the first time the player's mistake wasn't ignored, sure, you could say something. But everybody knew it won't go that way. Their standards are different then yours, and it just means that by their standards, he done what he should have.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-26, 11:38 AM
Always with fire immunity (or major, major resistance at least)

Indeed.

Back on the topic, In such a situation, I would clarify if he was targetting the fireball centered on the baddie or targetting to just hit the bbeg. After all, "I fireball the bad guy" could mean either. When something could be taken multiple ways, clarification is preferable to simply taking the most player-hurting option.

Killer Angel
2010-01-26, 11:53 AM
As others have pointed out, it is possible the spell could have been aimed to hit the enemy, but not the PC's. Unless the player said "I cast fireball, centered on the enemy," the DM should have at least asked WHERE the FB was being dropped. (Even without a map, a simple answer of "behind the enemy" or whatever so as to avoid allies would work.) It seems the DM assumed the caster intended to drop the fireball in the middle of melee.


Point taken. But, unless I'm losing something, we don't know what really happened, in term of declarations.
Without further infos, I tend to justify more the DM, given the past events (one mistake corrected by the DM, and one almost-kill by the Sorc.).
Indeed, the absence of map, brings more responsability to the DM for describing correctly the situation and to make player sure about their decisions.


The person you are qouting got it wrong. the second time the Duskblade was almost killed.

I knew it, but I simplyfied wrongly, tnx for pointing it out.

Moak
2010-01-26, 12:12 PM
Indeed, the absence of map, brings more responsability to the DM for describing correctly the situation and to make player sure about their decisions.



Meh. If you are playing since 14 session you start rasoning in a mapless way....and after 2 incident you start to automatically say where/how are you trying to cast.

The DM have responsability in descrition...but also players got MORE responsabilities.

Players can screw.

After all is a high level sorcerer....that teleport buddies around in a mapless world..and teleport'em fine.

So,he know how to say how he want thing to go,I suppose.

If he didn't this time,after having the SAME PROBLEM twice before....it seems to me that he got at least to be biased as the DM...

(I don't think the DM was wrong. I think he made a good job. The only thing I will have made different,would have been in the after-event...trying to find a way to rebuild the situation via resurrection IF they wanted to find a way to "save"...after all,a sorcerer who teleported the other can teleport himself to safety,I think...
The group passed on it and are ready to restart.
The group decided to NOT use maps and mini.
So....let's go and let'em amuse themselves how they like.
EH. I even LOVED a near-tpk against 2 T-Rex one time only because they SNEAKED ON OUR ROGUE...and eaten him.)

Stycotl
2010-01-26, 12:48 PM
This, pretty much. I can't seem to wrap my head around why anyone would do that.

probably has something to do with this:


He is a novice player, this is his first campaign.


Personally, I think that playing a game without any form of visual representation is generally a bad idea...

Personally, I would never play in a game with no visual representation. In fact, if it was the DM's idea to have such a game, then I fault the DM for any geometry-related problems caused by the players...

To summarize: since you used no visuals, it was your (as DM) fault, not the sorcerer's. I cannot emphasize how much I disagree with your choice enough.


100% agreed. Playing without a map is horrible.

most of my best campaigns (both as player and as DM) were done without maps. not using maps is generally only horrible if they are a crutch to begin with. it is perfectly reasonable to play a game without one––even with people that suck at geometry. it just takes a bit of flexibility on the part of everyone involved.

EDIT: my point is not to argue that this is true for all groups, but that blanket statements such as "gaming without maps is a bad idea," are not even close to universal truths.

that said, killer angel has it right:


Indeed, the absence of map, brings more responsability to the DM for describing correctly the situation and to make player sure about their decisions.


not after the third time...

After this third time, lesson learned.

this is pretty much how i feel. but as others have said, we don't have all the details.


If there's no map, how did he center the Spell? Did you default it to be centered on the target, or did he say "I cast fireball, centered on the enemy"? There's a big difference between the two, and I think the lack of information is causing some(including myself) to jump to conclusions.

this is what i am talking about; we don't know if the player tried to maneuver the effect, or if he said that he blatantly casts it "at the" enemy, or what. we also don't know (as far as i have seen) if the DM allowed him the chance to aim the effect at something other than "centered on the enemy."

if the DM had all of that covered, then it is 100% the player's fault, with or without maps. especially when we remember the fact that this is serial friendly fire killer.

if the DM did not have that covered, then it can go either one of two ways: DM was negligent (especially probably with new players), and should have asked for clarification––but just as we can't always expect the players to remember details like that, the DMs can't either.

the second possibility is that the players have been warned (either verbally, or through IC consequences) to be careful of how they word things like wishes/, etc, and that in their game, area effect spells fall under the same prerequisite need for caution.

either way, i don't see it as a big deal, just a learning experience.


I like the way my current DM handles moments of sheer stupidity like that, though. He has a character roll either an INT check (for knowledge of how life, i.e. the system, worked) or a WIS check (for common sense) when they're about to do something that is really, well, stupid. If they fail, they do it anyway; if they succeed, he tells them why they shouldn't, reasoning that their character should know even if the player doesn't, and allows them to rethink their action.

that is a good variation on things i have done at times too. usually though, my incredulous stare is enough to let the player know that they have goofed (i don't have much of a poker face).



One of my D&D pet peeves. Combatants move around, they are not static. Feints, parries, lunges, you get the picture. Your mini represents roughly the central point of a cloud of action at least 5 feet in each direction. I think it would be incredibly difficult to reliably target an area of effect spell such that the badguy facing your allies get hit but they do not. Back in AD&D when this would come up, I'd force the spellcaster to make an intelligence check to get it right, at a suitable penalty given his distance from the action, visibility, etc. I guess I could come up with a suitable DC for 3E play but so far I've just said it's either 50/50 whether your allies are encompassed too or it's 50/50 whether you get the intended opponent at all, your choice.

not only that, but the radius (or line length, etc) of area effect spells represents the "fatal area," the area of maximum effect. even in a game world, i don't suppose that most of us are imagining this huge ball of expanding fire, hot enough to melt steel, that stops at the limits of a perfect sphere, where if you were on one side of that line, you'd be incinerated, and on the other, you'd not even smell the smoke.


Actually, that would not make it harder.

yes, it would.

sure, in the game, your character somehow manages to dodge fireballs, meteorites, falling trees, etc––all while staying in the same 5-foot square. but that is just one of a number of stupid rules in the game.


It's still easy to just make sure the blast range doesn't touch them.

and that is fine and dandy, but that rules flub strikes some of us as wrong, even taking into account the fantasy environment.


I think you're forgetting something here.
Sorcerors casting Fireball likely are significantly smarter than the average human. They are also capable of advanced magic to the point where they make things appear out of mid-air.
Wizards casting Fireball are smarter than pretty much anyone in the world. They are also capable of advanced magic to the point where they make things appear out of mid-air.
Clerics casting [AoE spell] are getting their powers from a God.
Druids casting [AoE spell] are getting their powers from nature itself.

Sorry, but which one of the above casters are you claiming would be unable to target '20 feet behind the enemy', or else 'a ball of fire that engulfs a sphere of about 20 feet but stops just short of Bob and Joe'?

i don't think that he is forgetting anything, though it is possible. super intelligence does not mean anything remotely close to omniscience or omnipotence, which is pretty close to what you'd need in order to successfully plant a non-directional explosive that is powerful enough to destroy buildings right next to your allies, without them getting hurt at all.


So I have no sympathy for someone who does not understand that you don't throw a grenade into melee.

i've thrown hand grenades in real life, and i know approximately the radius of their killing capability and the radius of their wounding capability, but i also know that those ranges overlap quite a bit, and that even far away from the blast, people have been hurt and killed by errant shrapnel. in real life, and indeed, in most fantasy settings, there is no such thing as a 30-foot kill radius, and then outside of that, nothing but peace and quiet.

hand grenades are hardly the only example. pretty much everything that goes BOOM, including fireballs, lightning bolts, explosive runes, etc, etc, does the same thing.

again, the rules don't represent that, but that does not mean that those of us that dislike the rules are forgetting the setting.


*couch*Nuclear Dan*cough*


I cast fireball centered on myself!

i actually did center a fireball on myself once in a campaign. i didn't even have fire resistance or anything. but this was back before we'd ever heard of the explosive spell metamagic feat, and we had a houserule that allowed you to start a bull rush with explosive-like spells (fireball, etc), and i had been grappled and thrown to the ground by a kelvezu assassin and was getting my ass handed to me. already almost out of spells, i opted for the cinematic escape, and threw the demon off of me with a fireball. i nearly died, but it threw the demon into our forest of tentacles that subdued it long enough for us to finish it off.

that was a memorable fight.

Starbuck_II
2010-01-26, 12:57 PM
i don't think that he is forgetting anything, though it is possible. super intelligence does not mean anything remotely close to omniscience or omnipotence, which is pretty close to what you'd need in order to successfully plant a non-directional explosive that is powerful enough to destroy buildings right next to your allies, without them getting hurt at all.

Buildings? What are they made of straw?
Hardness means fire does 1/2 damage automatically. Then subtract hardness.
Then apply to hps.

Meaning caster 10 fireball does average 35, 1/2 to non-straw buildings is only 17.5. Meaning most buildings are not destroyed (just damaged).

mregecko
2010-01-26, 01:10 PM
Their standards are different then yours, and it just means that by their standards, he done what he should have.

.... Well then why is he asking in a forum for other people's opinions???

faceroll
2010-01-26, 01:19 PM
@Stycotl

Fireballs aren't explosions, though. They're a brief flash of intense heat.

Sliver
2010-01-26, 01:22 PM
.... Well then why is he asking in a forum for other people's opinions???

Maybe he isn't sure if he wasn't to harsh and wants you to judge by their standards? It's not a rules thread where you assume RAW unless otherwise noted, you know their standards..

JadedDM
2010-01-26, 02:01 PM
Killing off everyone else's characters to teach one player a lesson seems rather petty to me.

It's just a game. Some of the best stories are the ones where the PCs screw up royally.

icefractal
2010-01-26, 02:05 PM
i don't suppose that most of us are imagining this huge ball of expanding fire, hot enough to melt steel, that stops at the limits of a perfect sphere, where if you were on one side of that line, you'd be incinerated, and on the other, you'd not even smell the smoke.Indeed I'm not. In fact, I'm not imagining Fireball as any kind of realistic explosion, because that would be very inconsistent with what the spell actually does*. When I'm imagining fireball, it might be like this:
A dimly glowing rune circle appears around the goblins, and then for a brief instant, the area inside merges with the plane of fire. The city of brass can be seen in the distance, but then the moment ends and all that remains are scorched bones.
Or like this:
A thick white fog rolls out from the center, forming a roughly spherical cloud. Then spontaneously, it ignites, burning phosphorous bright. Within a couple seconds, the fog has burned away, leaving melted slag behind.
Neither of which is inconsistent with the spell working as written.

Also, errors in positioning make sense when you imagine the spell as being aimed like a grenade, or a dart, but not so much when it's called forth by ancient pacts or force of will over reality. When your casting method is:
I call upon the Pact of Eternal Flame - let the goblins be burned to ashes but my fellows left unscathed.
Then concepts like "aiming it wrong" seem a poor fit.

*I actually made a homebrewed "Real Fireball" spell that reacted more like an explosion - more damage closer to the center, knocks people over, temporarily deafening shockwave, cloud of smoke left behind, etc. Fun, although rather overcomplicated. That one did require a roll to hit the square.

ken-do-nim
2010-01-26, 02:21 PM
Actually, that would not make it harder. It's still easy to just make sure the blast range doesn't touch them

XXX
XXX
XXX

Each X is a 5 feet square. Lets say the blast radius is 15*15.

XXX
XEX
AXA

I just target the top center. It covers the whole of the enemies area where their electron could MUST be in, and would definitely not cover anywhere your allies electron cloud. It wouldn't even singe them, though they'd be standing next to an inferno. But thankfully, D&D does not model heat transfer of a fireball, so they're ok, if a bit surprised to have a view full of fire.

No, my point was that sometimes combatant A is inside E's square, such as when he is delivering a blow. Likewise sometimes combatant E steps into A's square to deliver an attack. It is the fluidity of combat.

D&D is not chess and the snap-to-grid mentality doesn't fit for me.

faceroll
2010-01-26, 02:24 PM
Then concepts like "aiming it wrong" seem a poor fit.

If you read the rest of the spell description, you'll see that you can aim it wrong.

SensFan
2010-01-26, 02:28 PM
No, my point was that sometimes combatant A is inside E's square, such as when he is delivering a blow. Likewise sometimes combatant E steps into A's square to deliver an attack. It is the fluidity of combat.

D&D is not chess and the snap-to-grid mentality doesn't fit for me.
And I'm creating a spontaneous explosion using either ancient pacts or Gods themselves. Having it stop right between them is a fairly trivial matter, even if it means the 'fireball' has to reshape itself slightly.

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 02:29 PM
Also, errors in positioning make sense when you imagine the spell as being aimed like a grenade, or a dart, but not so much when it's called forth by ancient pacts or force of will over reality. When your casting method is:
I call upon the Pact of Eternal Flame - let the goblins be burned to ashes but my fellows left unscathed.
Then concepts like "aiming it wrong" seem a poor fit.

The spell describes a "pea-sized bead" shooting from your finger and exploding at the impact point. Honestly, by the description, it should require a to-hit roll.

If you want to re-fluff it into something else then thats a fine solution but the default spell is weird.

SensFan
2010-01-26, 02:36 PM
The spell describes a "pea-sized bead" shooting from your finger and exploding at the impact point. Honestly, by the description, it should require a to-hit roll.

If you want to re-fluff it into something else then thats a fine solution but the default spell is weird.
"By the ancient pacts that leave traces of arcane magic in my blood, send this bead 60 feet forward."
You think it will miss?

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 02:39 PM
"By the ancient pacts that leave traces of arcane magic in my blood, send this bead 60 feet forward."
You think it will miss?

It shoots from your finger. If your pointing in the wrong direction its not the ancient pact's fault. It thought you were smart enough to not be busy giving the party cleric a wet willy. It simply caused a bead of fire to shoot forth from your fingertip. Your fault for not aiming it first.

Anyr
2010-01-26, 02:42 PM
"By the ancient pacts that leave traces of arcane magic in my blood, send this bead 60 feet forward."
You think it will miss?

If that was really the way things worked, then wouldn't the same logic apply to spells like Scorching Ray? They almost always require a to-hit roll, despite drawing their power from the same source.

SensFan
2010-01-26, 02:43 PM
It shoots from your finger. If your pointing in the wrong direction its not the ancient pact's fault. It thought you were smart enough to not be busy giving the party cleric a wet willy. It simply caused a bead of fire to shoot forth from your fingertip. Your fault for not aiming it first.
Agreed. But if I'm pointing at the general area of the Dragon, there's no reason the bead shouldn't be able to go to precisely 19 feet behind him.

randomhero00
2010-01-26, 02:44 PM
Sounds like a tough call overall.

He was dumb. If players do whatever they want without consequence that quickly ruins the fun too.

Everyone dieing also tends to ruin the fun...

But you didn't have minis or a map...

Part of it would depend on how your players feel. Simply ask them if they'd like a mulligan or not. And perhaps make the sorc reroll or just lose the spell fireball.

Another thing depends on how the wording was done. Did he say, I teleport my allies *toward* the dude? If so then I suppose he may have been mixed up as to where they were, even though they were making full round attacks afterward, he's new and may have gotten confused or some such. And the wording on the aiming of fireball. Did he say I cast fireball at the dude? If so, that's pretty vague, at him where? His general vacinity? If it were me I'd ask him to be more precise than automatically assume he was targeting the bad guy directly.

The argument that his character would have never done that is also valid. Unless there's a specific roleplay reason for it of course.

Overall I would have gone easier on them.

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 02:45 PM
Agreed. But if I'm pointing at the general area of the Dragon, there's no reason the bead shouldn't be able to go to precisely 19 feet behind him.

Clearly the To-Hit roll is to make sure you didn't point your finger off slightly. The AC of the square is only a five anyway. It's basically an auto-success for anything but a Nat 1 (Which is when you were busy giving wet willies). Personally I think it should be refluffed to something else. The image seems silly to me. Makes me think of that Invader Zim episode when he had the slowed down explosion.

SensFan
2010-01-26, 02:49 PM
Clearly the To-Hit roll is to make sure you didn't point your finger off slightly. The AC of the square is only a five anyway. It's basically an auto-success for anything but a Nat 1 (Which is when you were busy giving wet willies). Personally I think it should be refluffed to something else. The image seems silly to me. Makes me think of that Invader Zim episode when he had the slowed down explosion.
The to-hit roll is only if you're trying to shoot the bead through an arrow slit or something.

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 02:50 PM
The to-hit roll is only if you're trying to shoot the bead through an arrow slit or something.

I was referring to the theoretical To-Hit roll I said the Fluff should require.

faceroll
2010-01-26, 02:51 PM
Agreed. But if I'm pointing at the general area of the Dragon, there's no reason the bead shouldn't be able to go to precisely 19 feet behind him.

Because the Dragon moves its massive girth and you unluckily strike him, the bead bursting prematurely, engulfing your allies in magical flame.

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 02:52 PM
Because the Dragon moves its massive girth and you unluckily strike him, the bead bursting prematurely, engulfing your allies in magical flame.

That's the purview of readied actions there.

SensFan
2010-01-26, 03:10 PM
Because the Dragon moves its massive girth and you unluckily strike him, the bead bursting prematurely, engulfing your allies in magical flame.
I think you're missing the 'deep arcane pacts flowing in my blood' part.

As for adding on a theoretical to-hit roll, I think that's a terrible idea. If I'm casting Fireball, there is not a 1/20 chance that my finger is pointing somewhere other than my target.

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 03:12 PM
I think you're missing the 'deep arcane pacts flowing in my blood' part.

As for adding on a theoretical to-hit roll, I think that's a terrible idea. If I'm casting Fireball, there is not a 1/20 chance that my finger is pointing somewhere other than my target.

If I'm shooting an arrow at a tree there is not a 1/20 chance that my arrow is pointing somewhere other than my target.

Except in DnD there is.

Ormagoden
2010-01-26, 03:12 PM
I have to admit (and not contribute to the discussion) The title of this thread made me chuckle quite loudly. Well done!

faceroll
2010-01-26, 03:13 PM
I think you're missing the 'deep arcane pacts flowing in my blood' part.

As for adding on a theoretical to-hit roll, I think that's a terrible idea. If I'm casting Fireball, there is not a 1/20 chance that my finger is pointing somewhere other than my target.

There already is a to-hit roll with fireball. Read the spell description again.

SensFan
2010-01-26, 03:14 PM
If I'm shooting an arrow at a tree there is not a 1/20 chance that my arrow is pointing somewhere other than my target.

Except in DnD there is.
If you're shooting an arrow, perhaps a finger on either of your hands slips a fraction of an inch, sending the arrow askew.
I'm shooting magical energy, with my finger just pointing in the general direction.


There already is a to-hit roll with fireball. Read the spell description again.
I suggest you read it again. That to-hit roll is for shooting through an arrow slit, or something of that nature. The description specifically says it explodes at the exact spot you want it to, provided it doesn't hit anything.

randomhero00
2010-01-26, 03:14 PM
If I'm shooting an arrow at a tree there is not a 1/20 chance that my arrow is pointing somewhere other than my target.

Except in DnD there is.

Eh, one is magic one isn't. Don't argue wizard business! ;)

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 03:16 PM
If you're shooting an arrow, perhaps a finger on either of your hands slips a fraction of an inch, sending the arrow askew.
I'm shooting magical energy, with my finger just pointing in the general direction.

Oh well maybe the wind blew your finger slightly off course. Or your old man wizard Arthritis started acting up. Or you sneezed. Or coughed. You blinked and the dragon moved a few inches and now your pointing at its wing. The ground slid under your foot a tiny bit. Etc.

SensFan
2010-01-26, 03:18 PM
Oh well maybe the wind blew your finger slightly off course. Or your old man wizard Arthritis started acting up. Or you sneezed. Or coughed. You blinked and the dragon moved a few inches and now your pointing at its wing. The ground slid under your foot a tiny bit. Etc.
This is magic. The spell implies (and it makes sense, given the whole magic thing) that unless I'm having to specifically aim through something, that the bead can very slightly correct itself if I'm off a tiny margin. Just like the flames it creates can expland in a way to shift slightly if needed to avoid my party.

faceroll
2010-01-26, 03:23 PM
I suggest you read it again. That to-hit roll is for shooting through an arrow slit, or something of that nature. The description specifically says it explodes at the exact spot you want it to, provided it doesn't hit anything.

A readied action and you can move in the way of that bead and cause it to prematurely detonate. Using the synchronicity power, you can even act of of turn and do it. Once you shoot that fireball, it's out of your control. No take backs.


This is magic. The spell implies (and it makes sense, given the whole magic thing) that unless I'm having to specifically aim through something, that the bead can very slightly correct itself if I'm off a tiny margin. Just like the flames it creates can expland in a way to shift slightly if needed to avoid my party.

It doesn't do any of that anywhere in the spell description, though. Once you cast the spell, you lose all control over it. If an ogre pushes your friend 5 feet in response to you casting the spell, you don't magically miss your friend.

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 03:25 PM
This is magic. The spell implies (and it makes sense, given the whole magic thing) that unless I'm having to specifically aim through something, that the bead can very slightly correct itself if I'm off a tiny margin. Just like the flames it creates can expland in a way to shift slightly if needed to avoid my party.

The spell implies nothing of the kind. It assumes that the wizard can hit a square often enough to not require a roll unless he is trying to get it through a small opening.

My point is that given the fluff of the spell it should require a roll. (Actually my ideal solution would be to refluff the spell so I'm not shooting exploding peas out of my finger.)

faceroll
2010-01-26, 03:32 PM
My point is that given the fluff of the spell it should require a roll. (Actually my ideal solution would be to refluff the spell so I'm not shooting exploding peas out of my finger.)

Correction: it's exploding bat poop.

Sliver
2010-01-26, 03:32 PM
Actually my ideal solution would be to refluff the spell so I'm not shooting exploding peas out of my finger.

I prefer them coming out of your fingers, thank you very much.

Umael
2010-01-26, 03:33 PM
SensFan:

Did you ever play the "twisted wish" game? The one where you come up with a wish and your friend interprets it in a literal manner than is not what you meant?

Or have you heard the motif of having the power to do something, but not the power to control it?

That's what all your "arcane pacts" are. As a spellcaster, you are given the power to create a flaming ball of destruction. That's what the arcane pact gives you. No more. Controlling it is your issue.

Look, we have the technology and the weaponry to do things that put the classical fireball to shame. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful with it. Saying "it's all part of my arcane pact" is just saying, "it's magic and I shouldn't have to worry about the details".

But to whatever forces granted you the power to create the fireball, well, they gave you the power. Why should they do double-duty and give you the errors-free troubleshooting support for it? What do you want, total customer satisfaction, or your wizard's tuition refunded? Read the fine print!

That "arcane pact" doesn't protect you if you decide to cast the spell at ground zero, i.e., at your feet. Why should it? That's your problem if you don't have fireproof underwear and SPF 50 million.

Saying that the fireball should do exactly what you want it to do (such as ignoring your two friends, but frying the bad guy) implies that your arcane pact is either extremely sophisticated or is operated by a self-aware concept that cares to follow the spirit of your desires instead of the rough tactical courses you gave it. That's a rather large assumption, and it works just as well (if not better) the other way.

So... in light of all that... would you like to make an arcane pact with me and I'll grant you a wish?

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 03:33 PM
Correction: it's exploding bat poop.

Exploding pea shaped bat poop.

Douglas
2010-01-26, 03:36 PM
So... in light of all that... would you like to make an arcane pact with me and I'll grant you a wish?
Sure, just let me look up that open source wishing website...:smalltongue:

SensFan
2010-01-26, 03:36 PM
A readied action and you can move in the way of that bead and cause it to prematurely detonate. Using the synchronicity power, you can even act of of turn and do it. Once you shoot that fireball, it's out of your control. No take backs.



It doesn't do any of that anywhere in the spell description, though. Once you cast the spell, you lose all control over it. If an ogre pushes your friend 5 feet in response to you casting the spell, you don't magically miss your friend.
If an enemy specifically readies an action to try and intercept the bead, yes, they might manage to hit it. If they do not ready an action, the bead has a 0% chance of ever hitting them. By far the easiest way to interpret that is that the fact it's magic allows it a few inches of leeway here or there. Just like the easiest interpretation to the fact that I can have it hit the Dragon without hitting Bob and Ryan in front of the Dragon is that the fire can sculpt its shape slightly to avoid hitting people I don't want it to.

Again, I'm not changing the mechanics of anything here. I'm giving the simplest explanations for how the spell works as it does.

HailDiscordia
2010-01-26, 03:36 PM
To further clarify some things:

His wording was, "I shoot a fireball at (bad guy)." To me that means he was the target and the area of effect's origin is him. Pretty straightforward I think.

It was not a group of new players. I've played for about 20 years and the other four players are all pretty experienced. Also, we were not leveling up every adventure. The campaign started at 9, and the Sorcerer was only at 11th. I agree to everyone who will say that it's a horrible idea to start new players at anything other than level 1. We had made the characters at 9 and were excited to start at a higher level, and then this player wanted to join in. He had played one other mini campaign with a different DM as a dwarf fighter (level 1) and really wanted to be a spell caster. I suggested Sorcerer as the easiest. The point is that he had cast fireball dozens of times, there was no mystery about what it did. He knew. He just did something stupid. It was not the fault of a lack of maps or minis, really just a lapse in something involving attention I suppose. Honestly, I'm not sure that D&D is for him.

I also guess that I was not clear enough in the OP about my question, which was if other DMs would have let the player take back his action after seeing the calamity that ensued.

SensFan
2010-01-26, 03:39 PM
SensFan:

Did you ever play the "twisted wish" game? The one where you come up with a wish and your friend interprets it in a literal manner than is not what you meant?

Or have you heard the motif of having the power to do something, but not the power to control it?

That's what all your "arcane pacts" are. As a spellcaster, you are given the power to create a flaming ball of destruction. That's what the arcane pact gives you. No more. Controlling it is your issue.

Look, we have the technology and the weaponry to do things that put the classical fireball to shame. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful with it. Saying "it's all part of my arcane pact" is just saying, "it's magic and I shouldn't have to worry about the details".

But to whatever forces granted you the power to create the fireball, well, they gave you the power. Why should they do double-duty and give you the errors-free troubleshooting support for it? What do you want, total customer satisfaction, or your wizard's tuition refunded? Read the fine print!

That "arcane pact" doesn't protect you if you decide to cast the spell at ground zero, i.e., at your feet. Why should it? That's your problem if you don't have fireproof underwear and SPF 50 million.

Saying that the fireball should do exactly what you want it to do (such as ignoring your two friends, but frying the bad guy) implies that your arcane pact is either extremely sophisticated or is operated by a self-aware concept that cares to follow the spirit of your desires instead of the rough tactical courses you gave it. That's a rather large assumption, and it works just as well (if not better) the other way.

So... in light of all that... would you like to make an arcane pact with me and I'll grant you a wish?
Have you read the spell description? Assume for the moment there is no narrow gap I'm shooting through. In that case, the arcane pact does in fact let me pick any spot I want and have the Fireball detonate exactly there, with no chance of hitting anything on the way. That's nothing I'm making up, that's the spell description.

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 03:41 PM
If an enemy specifically readies an action to try and intercept the bead, yes, they might manage to hit it. If they do not ready an action, the bead has a 0% chance of ever hitting them. By far the easiest way to interpret that is that the fact it's magic allows it a few inches of leeway here or there. Just like the easiest interpretation to the fact that I can have it hit the Dragon without hitting Bob and Ryan in front of the Dragon is that the fire can sculpt its shape slightly to avoid hitting people I don't want it to.

Again, I'm not changing the mechanics of anything here. I'm giving the simplest explanations for how the spell works as it does.

Yes. If you refluff the spell to fit the mechanics thats fine (In fact thats what I was saying was an ideal solution). My point is that the fluff does NOT match the mechanics as is. By the fluff it should require a To-Hit Roll at AC 5 for the square. Now I don't think this is a wonderful idea but it fits the fluff better than the current mechanics do.

SensFan
2010-01-26, 03:45 PM
Yes. If you refluff the spell to fit the mechanics thats fine (In fact thats what I was saying was an ideal solution). My point is that the fluff does NOT match the mechanics as is. By the fluff it should require a To-Hit Roll at AC 5 for the square. Now I don't think this is a wonderful idea but it fits the fluff better than the current mechanics do.
I don't see why it's so hard to believe that a bead of magic can move out of the way of incidental contact from creatures.

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 03:48 PM
I don't see why it's so hard to believe that a bead of magic can move out of the way of incidental contact from creatures.

If it can dodge creatures why not the walls for a narrow slit? It can't do that so it shouldn't be able to avoid everything else in the way either. Or maybe your finger was pointing off. I mean how many times have you pointed directly at something only to have everyone else have no clue what your pointing at? Same idea. You thought you were pointing at the right spot but it was slightly off. Too bad. You miss. The Fluff of the spell makes this the more reasonable interpretation (to me) than your interpretation. the mechanics don't match but that's not what I'm arguing.

Umael
2010-01-26, 03:55 PM
Have you read the spell description?

Yes, I have, and I'll thank you not to imply that I'm being ignorant. That is very rude of you.



Assume for the moment there is no narrow gap I'm shooting through. In that case, the arcane pact does in fact let me pick any spot I want and have the Fireball detonate exactly there, with no chance of hitting anything on the way. That's nothing I'm making up, that's the spell description.

I am not arguing the idea you controlling the location of the point of impact.

I was referring to this:


And I'm creating a spontaneous explosion using either ancient pacts or Gods themselves. Having it stop right between them is a fairly trivial matter, even if it means the 'fireball' has to reshape itself slightly.

That's my issue (in bold for easy reference).

You argued "it's in the spell description", but there is nothing in the spell description about the fireball reshaping itself. It is a "sphere" of fire (more like a square in 4.0, but whatever). That's the spell, as written, is it not? A blanket area, everything within saves to take half damage? Yes?

For the record:
From a flavor-viewpoint, I don't care for the exact control the spellcaster has over where the spellcaster places the epicenter, but I recognize the trouble if the spell was make to resemble an explosion more, or if other details were included (such as making flameable objects near the area of effort save versus combusting). Keep it simple, keep the game flowing, a more believable fireball isn't necessary.

Sliver
2010-01-26, 03:55 PM
Discussing the maneuverability of the common flying explosive pea has never been more fun and not really important for the discussion at hand! :smallbiggrin:

DabblerWizard
2010-01-26, 04:01 PM
I agree with a previous poster who liked the topic title. It is witty.

As far as this discussion is concerned, I find all of the finger pointing rather unproductive. It's possible to give constructive criticism without name calling.

When people suggest that the player should have known better because he had been in this scenario multiple times, I both agree and disagree. Repetition can sometimes be enough to have someone learn a rule. But sometimes repetition is not enough.

Being impatient with someone because they're not learning through rote repetition, is silly. Needing to repeat something time and time again, can be irritating, but instead of just throwing one's hands up in the air, they can be more productive, by helping the player remember the rules in another way.

If a player repeats a behavior over and over again, he either (1) doesn't understand what he's doing wrong, (2) he knows the rule, but he just forgot, or (3) he doesn't recall the rule because he hasn't really "integrated" it. In other words, it "hasn't stuck".

Do any of these scenarios warrant impatience with the player? Wouldn't it be easier and more productive to be a bit more patient?

Furthermore, maybe verbal reminders aren't enough for this player. Maybe he needs to keep a list of "rules" as quick reminders, including: "Fireball = AOE... DANGER!!" Other helpful reminders exist.

I'm inclined to be patient with my players' learning ability. Remember, it's the player who is being forgetful, not the sorcerer.

I disagree with allowing a negative reaction to occur in-game, when the whole point of contention is based on an out-of-game problem. For this reason, I disagree with the DM's decision.

Sliver
2010-01-26, 04:09 PM
Next time he blows up his allies, take a stapler and attach a note with the words "Fireball = AOE... DANGER!!" like the poster above suggested.. To the player's hand.

Tiktakkat
2010-01-26, 04:22 PM
To further clarify some things:

His wording was, "I shoot a fireball at (bad guy)." To me that means he was the target and the area of effect's origin is him. Pretty straightforward I think.

From a novice player with only 13 sessions under his belt and no map?
Yes, that is pretty straightforward - it means he wants to catch the bad guy in the area of effect, and not incinerate the rest of his party accidentally as he has done before.


It was not a group of new players. I've played for about 20 years and the other four players are all pretty experienced.

And with all that experience you saw no reason to give the preponderance of consideration to the new player?
Do you remember all the mistakes with rules and tactics you regularly made when you started playing 20 years ago?
Do you remember how it was the first time your first character was able to start throwing area effect spells around with impunity?


Also, we were not leveling up every adventure. The campaign started at 9, and the Sorcerer was only at 11th. I agree to everyone who will say that it's a horrible idea to start new players at anything other than level 1. We had made the characters at 9 and were excited to start at a higher level, and then this player wanted to join in.

So he never even had time to develop the character, learning the details of all the lower level spells, or what an area spell could do to the rest of the party when it was likely to just singe them instead of ending the campaign?
That does not qualify as better than leveling every session.
Yet you still expected him to adapt immediately.
How many sessions did you play 20 years ago before ever having a 9th level character? 1? 10? 50?
Then see above and consider how well you played.


He had played one other mini campaign with a different DM as a dwarf fighter (level 1) and really wanted to be a spell caster. I suggested Sorcerer as the easiest.

No spellcaster is the "easiest" to play as a novice, spontaneous caster or not.
Giving him his preference is a good thing, but it requires taking on the additional responsibility of helping him learn everything about the character.


The point is that he had cast fireball dozens of times, there was no mystery about what it did. He knew. He just did something stupid. It was not the fault of a lack of maps or minis, really just a lapse in something involving attention I suppose. Honestly, I'm not sure that D&D is for him.

No, he did something instinctive - he used his attack on the bad guy. Only that time, as only apparently 2 times before, there were people nearby. And without a map and learning the intricacies of placing area effects in 3.5, he defaulted to using his attack on the bad guy. It was your interpretation of that was he intended to kill the rest of the party at the same time.
And yet it was just a lapse of his attention?
I have an incredible spacial awareness, and I still regularly confuse the area templates of 3.5. Most people I play with are utterly lost without the metal frame templates.


I also guess that I was not clear enough in the OP about my question, which was if other DMs would have let the player take back his action after seeing the calamity that ensued.

For a new player, who may just want to hang out and socialize without caring too much about the game, and without a map, there would be nothing to take back.
I would have first directly asked him if he meant he just wants to catch the bad guy on the edge of the effect, then if necessary confirmed that he really wants to blow up the rest of the party, then asked again noting for him that blowing up the entire party at that moment would probably qualify as a Bad Thing (TM). And if he still wanted to do it, I would have conferred with the rest of the party and asked them how they felt about the impending action.

denthor
2010-01-26, 04:32 PM
[QUOTE]Quote Discordia
He is a novice player[/QUOTE

It never cease to amaze me the people that should never run a caster are the ones that always do.

This is a first time player you should have forced him to be a fighter or if he needed to be a caster then a cleric.

That way you could have the bad guys fireball there own to show him how bad it can be to make mistakes and ruin the party.

They are all dead let the game continue or start over.

SensFan
2010-01-26, 04:33 PM
That's my issue (in bold for easy reference).

You argued "it's in the spell description", but there is nothing in the spell description about the fireball reshaping itself. It is a "sphere" of fire (more like a square in 4.0, but whatever). That's the spell, as written, is it not? A blanket area, everything within saves to take half damage? Yes?
Yes, exactly. But given that I can have the fire hit someone, but completely unaffect a person in melee with him, the easiest answer (in my mind) is that the burst isn't prececisely 40-feet, but that it can be 39.5 feet at one spot to curve around my ally if need be.

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 04:33 PM
[QUOTE]

It never cease to amaze me the people that should never run a caster are the ones that always do.

This is a first time player you should have forced him to be a fighter or if he needed to be a caster then a cleric.

That way you could have the bad guys fireball there own to show him how bad it can be to make mistakes and ruin the party.

They are all dead let the game continue or start over.

You should never force someone to play a character they don't want to.

Tavar
2010-01-26, 04:36 PM
You should never force someone to play a character they don't want to.

I'd actually disagree with this. I've had completely new players play casters before, both as a DM and as a Player. It doesn't end well. Yes, you shouldn't make people play what they don't want to, but you also should keep their own capabilities in mind, and not let they play something beyond them. That never ends well.

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 04:38 PM
I'd actually disagree with this. I've had completely new players play casters before, both as a DM and as a Player. It doesn't end well. Yes, you shouldn't make people play what they don't want to, but you also should keep their own capabilities in mind, and not let they play something beyond them. That never ends well.

I doubt making them play a fighter or whatever will end any better. If someone tried to force me to play a character that I didn't want to because "new players find casters too hard" I would seriously consider quitting the group. It sets a very bad tone for the rest of the gaming experience.

Tavar
2010-01-26, 04:40 PM
I doubt making them play a fighter or whatever will end any better. If someone tried to force me to play a character that I didn't want to because "new players find casters too hard" I would seriously consider quitting the group. It sets a very bad tone for the rest of the gaming experience.

So in other words; everyone should have a sucky experience? That's helpful...

FoE
2010-01-26, 04:40 PM
As a DM, I generally warn the players whenever they're about to make a Really Stupid Decision (RSD), especially if they're novices. No matter how many times they come to an RSD, you give them a fair warning.

But at the same time, there reaches a point where you can't save players from their own idiocy; if they insist on a course of action despite your promptings, you let them suffer for their mistake. And I don't allow takebacks.

I say, if you at least made an attempt to warn the player, then you're not at fault.

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 04:44 PM
So in other words; everyone should have a sucky experience? That's helpful...

Or maybe the group should work together to help the new player learn the ropes? The horror.

Starbuck_II
2010-01-26, 04:52 PM
To further clarify some things:

His wording was, "I shoot a fireball at (bad guy)." To me that means he was the target and the area of effect's origin is him. Pretty straightforward I think.

Nope. That was not straightforward.
Fireball is not a single target spell: so unless he said the eact words: "origin the bad guy" He didn't meant blow up 20 feet around bad guy, but catch bad guy in fireball's Area.

You were pretty badly reading him. It would be like if I asked for a glass of water. You handed me a pitcher when all I wanted was the glass (cup). You reply the pitcher is glass and there is water in it.



The point is that he had cast fireball dozens of times, there was no mystery about what it did. He knew. He just did something stupid. It was not the fault of a lack of maps or minis, really just a lapse in something involving attention I suppose. Honestly, I'm not sure that D&D is for him.

He knew what it did. The problem was the DM didn't recognize his intent. He didn't know you wouldn't understand what he meant.
He just meant attack bad guy, not origin of fireball's spread at the bad guyl.

He just wanted bad guy to get hit.

You should have asked is that the origin of the fireball. Then you'd know without any douby he wanted to blast his allies. Instead you caused him to do it.

Ask yourself: why am I reading him as hurting his alliies? Am I sure this is what he meant since he didn't say this explicitly? Am I assuming too much?

I think you were assuming too much.

Drakevarg
2010-01-26, 04:55 PM
The obvious solution to incompetant teammates is to punt them off a cliff when they aren't expecting it. Actively planning to do so to my team's sorcerer...

HailDiscordia
2010-01-26, 04:56 PM
I think that what appears to have been lost in all of this is that everyone had a good time, laughed about it, and are excited about the new game that we are making characters for tonight. Aren't dumb things part of playing D&D? Should the DM police everything that goes on? Can't the argument be made that if I had refused to allow it to happen I would be committing the cardinal sin of DMing and been railroading the party into life, when death had been chosen? I know that it was not a collective decision by the party, but what is?

As far as experience shaping decisions as a player, this is exactly the kind of thing that does that. If your first character did not die a stupid, unneccesary death than you've missed out on a great experience. Perhaps I come from a school of gaming that is less forgiving than others, in my eyes characters are very transient things. As are plots, parties, storylines, etc... It's very easy to get new ones so there is no reason to go out of your way to coddle them.

And like I had said, the first time it happened I explained to the player about area effects and what that means. I'm not some sort of cruel DM with little patience for new players, quite the opposite in fact. Which is why I let him be a spellcaster, because that is what he wanted. I explained that they were more difficult, but I am not so arrogant to force my opinions on someone. He chose to be a character that he wanted and was allowed to do so, much like he chose to cast a fireball at his party.

Umael
2010-01-26, 04:58 PM
Yes, exactly. But given that I can have the fire hit someone, but completely unaffect a person in melee with him, the easiest answer (in my mind) is that the burst isn't prececisely 40-feet, but that it can be 39.5 feet at one spot to curve around my ally if need be.

No.

You go with the spell description as stated or you don't (meaning you might have to go back and re-argue the pin-point the origin of the explosion).

Here's your cake.

Have it or eat it. You don't get both.

Tavar
2010-01-26, 04:59 PM
Did he really? Or did he simply cast a fireball at a bad guy, and you assumed that he included the party inside the blast raduis?

Drakevarg
2010-01-26, 04:59 PM
Y'opened a can a worms, man. It's the internet, people like to randomly assign blame. At this point it's probably less actual malice and simply an intellectual exercise.

Starbuck_II
2010-01-26, 05:06 PM
Did he really? Or did he simply cast a fireball at a bad guy, and you assumed that he included the party inside the blast raduis?

That is exactly what he said. He decided "fire ball at the bad guy" means bad guy is origin. Not just hit by blast radius.

SensFan
2010-01-26, 05:09 PM
No.

You go with the spell description as stated or you don't (meaning you might have to go back and re-argue the pin-point the origin of the explosion).

Here's your cake.

Have it or eat it. You don't get both.
I'm taking it 100% as stated.

The logical reason that the blast hits the dude whose miniature is in one grid square but misses the dude whose miniature is in another grid square is that the blast is not exactly 40 feet, but maybe 39.8 feet.

Umael
2010-01-26, 05:17 PM
I'm taking it 100% as stated.

The logical reason that the blast hits the dude whose miniature is in one grid square but misses the dude whose miniature is in another grid square is that the blast is not exactly 40 feet, but maybe 39.8 feet.

No, that's NOT 100% as stated.

Is the blast 39.8 feet or is it 40 feet? Does it say anywhere that the blast can change dimensions, even "ever so slightly" (meta-magic feats and the like not withstanding)?

If you go by the grid, then if the layout of the fireball will hit someone who is within the stated, exactly blast area, then that person is hit.

If that person isn't hit, then you aren't going by the grid.

Again - here is your cake. You get to eat or you get to have it. You cannot have both.

Vizzerdrix
2010-01-26, 05:22 PM
A dimly glowing rune circle appears around the goblins, and then for a brief instant, the area inside merges with the plane of fire. The city of brass can be seen in the distance, but then the moment ends and all that remains are scorched bones.


Ooooh. I like this image :smallredface: :smallsmile:

Spell Thematics is fast becoming my favorite feat. I just wish I could use it on more than one spell per level.

Tavar
2010-01-26, 05:26 PM
Ooooh. I like this image :smallredface: :smallsmile:

Spell Thematics is fast becoming my favorite feat. I just wish I could use it on more than one spell per level.

As long as you don't care about the Added spellcraft difficulty or the upped CL, you should be able to do it with any spell you have. It's even suggested in the DMG.

Vizzerdrix
2010-01-26, 05:28 PM
As long as you don't care about the Added spellcraft difficulty or the upped CL, you should be able to do it with any spell you have. It's even suggested in the DMG.

I'll stick with the feat. it has perks :smallsmile:

SensFan
2010-01-26, 05:37 PM
No, that's NOT 100% as stated.

Is the blast 39.8 feet or is it 40 feet? Does it say anywhere that the blast can change dimensions, even "ever so slightly" (meta-magic feats and the like not withstanding)?

If you go by the grid, then if the layout of the fireball will hit someone who is within the stated, exactly blast area, then that person is hit.

If that person isn't hit, then you aren't going by the grid.

Again - here is your cake. You get to eat or you get to have it. You cannot have both.
Thanks, but I'm going to stop this debate here. You seem to enjoy being a pain in the ass for the sake of being a pain in the ass.
I'm saying "This is how the spell works. I'm not changing a single thing mechanically, but making a change so minor as to never affect gameplay, but that makes things make basic sense, and makes the spell work as it says it does."
You reply with "NO STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE SPELL!!!!!"

tyckspoon
2010-01-26, 05:43 PM
I'm taking it 100% as stated.

The logical reason that the blast hits the dude whose miniature is in one grid square but misses the dude whose miniature is in another grid square is that the blast is not exactly 40 feet, but maybe 39.8 feet.

Or the grid squares all represent a five-foot zone and a dude's exact position within that zone is indeterminate at best. It hits one dude and not the other because the one who didn't get hit moved to/was standing near the far edge of his zone, not the front edge where the fireball's surface is. Which is.. you know, how the rules work already.

Umael
2010-01-26, 05:59 PM
You seem to enjoy being a pain in the ass for the sake of being a pain in the ass.

Wrong. Don't make assumptions about me.



I'm saying "This is how the spell works. I'm not changing a single thing mechanically, but making a change so minor as to never affect gameplay, but that makes things make basic sense, and makes the spell work as it says it does."
You reply with "NO STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE SPELL!!!!!"

Again, wrong. As for how you can "make it work", tyckspoon has a good explanation.

As for what I am saying, well, you got that wrong. Obviously.


Thanks, but I'm going to stop this debate here.

Good-bye.

denthor
2010-01-26, 06:28 PM
I guess the party can take care of it.

The last time I made a mistake with a radius spell Entangle.

I caught the party they killed that character and the next two casters. No support for the first. They torched the second one on the ground when he was at zero hit points in a fight.

The third was a cold blooded murder.

I did not even cause the death of a player with the entangle.

Tiktakkat
2010-01-26, 10:47 PM
I think that what appears to have been lost in all of this is that everyone had a good time, laughed about it, and are excited about the new game that we are making characters for tonight.

Then why did you say you felt bad about everything ending so suddenly and anti-climactically?


Aren't dumb things part of playing D&D?

A lot of things are part of playing D&D.
That does not mean they should be the driving force behind a campaign.


Should the DM police everything that goes on?

Pretty much by definition the DM is always policing everything that goes on.


Can't the argument be made that if I had refused to allow it to happen I would be committing the cardinal sin of DMing and been railroading the party into life, when death had been chosen?

It could, but it would be pretty feeble, primarily because it presupposes an active choice for party suicide, but also because it deliberately conflates cautioning a player against a wildly destructive action with forcing a specific action on them.


I know that it was not a collective decision by the party, but what is?

You might be surprised. Sometimes a group will actively choose to just crash and burn for any of a number of reasons. Or look for a way to go out in an over the top manner.


As far as experience shaping decisions as a player, this is exactly the kind of thing that does that. If your first character did not die a stupid, unneccesary death than you've missed out on a great experience. Perhaps I come from a school of gaming that is less forgiving than others, in my eyes characters are very transient things. As are plots, parties, storylines, etc... It's very easy to get new ones so there is no reason to go out of your way to coddle them.

Only if the new player fully understands why you made the choice to interpret his action in that way.
If not, "coddling" becomes a non-issue used to obscure the deeper issues.


And like I had said, the first time it happened I explained to the player about area effects and what that means. I'm not some sort of cruel DM with little patience for new players, quite the opposite in fact. Which is why I let him be a spellcaster, because that is what he wanted. I explained that they were more difficult, but I am not so arrogant to force my opinions on someone. He chose to be a character that he wanted and was allowed to do so, much like he chose to cast a fireball at his party.

No, he chose to cast the fireball at the bad guy.
You chose to interpret that as casting it at the party as well.
Without actually asking the player what he intended, it is impossible to guess what he had chosen to do beyond just using a particular spell.

Fiery Diamond
2010-01-27, 12:38 AM
stuffs


stuffs


stuffs

My sentiments exactly.


I'd actually disagree with this. I've had completely new players play casters before, both as a DM and as a Player. It doesn't end well. Yes, you shouldn't make people play what they don't want to, but you also should keep their own capabilities in mind, and not let they play something beyond them. That never ends well.

Your experience is not everyone's. I've been able to run multiple campaigns perfectly fine with completely new players playing casters without any problem.

Tavar
2010-01-27, 12:53 AM
Your experience is not everyone's. I've been able to run multiple campaigns perfectly fine with completely new players playing casters without any problem.

Were they simply knew to DnD? Or to Roleplaying in general?

Plus, remember that I'm saying you should keep their capabilities in mind. The person in question was having a difficult enough time with Saves, BaB, Attributes, Class, Level, etc. Much less Spells per day, spells memorized, Spell effects, conserving spells, etc.

icefractal
2010-01-27, 02:46 AM
Two things. First, yes, Fireball does have an attack roll to send it through arrow slits. An attack roll against the square, which means probably you only fail on a natural 1, even if the attack roll was house-ruled to occur every time. That is a lot different than the "50/50 chance to place it exactly where you want" that some people were suggesting. I would also point out that Fireball is just about the only AoE with an attack roll, so that argument applies even less to any other spell.

Second, based on "cast it at the bad guy", I can see how it could be interpreted as "centered on the bad guy", because it was not specifically stated as "cast it so the edge catches the bad guy but omits my team-mates". However, I feel this falls into the same category as "You didn't say you picked your weapons up after the fight, so they're still back in that cave" or "You didn't specify casting defensively (even though you automatically pass the check to do so) so you take an AoO" - "Press X to not die" bookkeeping which adds nothing to the game, IMO.

Personally, if there are two ways to do something, and one is better in every way, I'm going to assume that the PCs are doing it that way unless explicitly stated otherwise. I find it frees up time from running down SOP checklists ands lets us get on with the game.

Knaight
2010-01-27, 03:10 AM
Personally, I think that playing a game without any form of visual representation is generally a bad idea. Minis are not necessarily better than other visual representations, but unless every single player is really good at doing geometry in his/her head, you can cause lots of unintentional problems via not all having the exact same mental image if you have no visual representation at all.

Would you apply this to any game? Particularly narrative types and similar, where exact movement ranges and such don't exist? What about games that don't use a round structure, and assume fluid movement?

Fiery Diamond
2010-01-27, 03:18 AM
Would you apply this to any game? Particularly narrative types and similar, where exact movement ranges and such don't exist? What about games that don't use a round structure, and assume fluid movement?

I was referring to games where exact movement and area ranges do exist, such as D&D. If geometry doesn't affect the game mechanics, it becomes less necessary (or not needed at all, depending on the players) to have visual representation, although you would still want to make sure that everyone was okay with it.

2xMachina
2010-01-27, 03:32 AM
I'll stick with the feat. it has perks :smallsmile:

IMO, if you're just reflufing the spell, it shouldn't need the feat at all. But if you want the extra benefits, yeah, feat description needs to be followed.


Two things. First, yes, Fireball does have an attack roll to send it through arrow slits. An attack roll against the square, which means probably you only fail on a natural 1, even if the attack roll was house-ruled to occur every time. That is a lot different than the "50/50 chance to place it exactly where you want" that some people were suggesting. I would also point out that Fireball is just about the only AoE with an attack roll, so that argument applies even less to any other spell.

Second, based on "cast it at the bad guy", I can see how it could be interpreted as "centered on the bad guy", because it was not specifically stated as "cast it so the edge catches the bad guy but omits my team-mates". However, I feel this falls into the same category as "You didn't say you picked your weapons up after the fight, so they're still back in that cave" or "You didn't specify casting defensively (even though you automatically pass the check to do so) so you take an AoO" - "Press X to not die" bookkeeping which adds nothing to the game, IMO.

Personally, if there are two ways to do something, and one is better in every way, I'm going to assume that the PCs are doing it that way unless explicitly stated otherwise. I find it frees up time from running down SOP checklists ands lets us get on with the game.

Roll a fort save.

Why?

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0086.html

You forgot to say you went to the toilet for the last few adventuring days. That reminds me, did you say when you last ate/drink? Or blinked? You're now blinded due to dry eyes. Also, you didn't say you breathed, so you're now drowning.

Leon
2010-01-27, 11:13 AM
[QUOTE=denthor;7769961]

You should never force someone to play a character they don't want to.

QFT

If someone wants to play a particular class but has never played it or anything before then you as the more experienced gamer should be helping them create the PC they want not trying to force what you think is right on them - it will most often turn out for the worst

elonin
2010-01-28, 07:35 PM
There was a comment earlier about how this player made this mistake earlier. I've been around players before who in face to face games tried to bring on a TPK.

Grumman
2010-01-28, 08:00 PM
There was a comment earlier about how this player made this mistake earlier. I've been around players before who in face to face games tried to bring on a TPK.
If he was trying to bring on a TPK, he wouldn't have tried to take it back once he realised what he was doing.

And if he was trying to bring on a TPK, the solution is not to kill the entire campaign unless the rest of the party feels the same way.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-28, 08:28 PM
Yeah....if you get some guy who DOES want to kill the entire party for the lulz, the correct response is generally not "Sure, why not?".

At any rate, it shouldn't be unless unrestrained pvp is the goal.

Xenogears
2010-01-28, 09:01 PM
Yeah....if you get some guy who DOES want to kill the entire party for the lulz, the correct response is generally not "Sure, why not?".

At any rate, it shouldn't be unless unrestrained pvp is the goal.

Intentional unprovoked TPKs tend to inspire the risk of OOG PvP...