PDA

View Full Version : Precision of Area Attacks in RPGs



Lapak
2010-01-25, 05:59 PM
Another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139766) got me thinking about this, and I thought I'd ask for some opinions. How do you all feel about the current state of area-effect attacks in D&D or other games? It has (it seems) become absolutely expected that spellcasters can toss a fireball or a slow spell or whatever on exactly the spot they desire, with laser-guided precision. I don't have a problem with the precise placement in and of itself; the spell goes where the wizard wants. But the idea that he can figure out within 5 feet exactly where to place his Fireball so that it scorches his foes but leaves his friends untouched? That is, exactly what spot he SHOULD will the spell to hit? That strikes me as weird, and as an artifact of the game environment and the battle map rather than making any sense in context.

In a typical fantasy battle, you're talking about a chaos-filled melee with anywhere from a handful to dozens of combatants, constantly moving, with the characters under stress and threat of death or wounding, in terrain that ranges from sunlit open fields to stalactite-filled caverns where the ability to see any given point might strobe in and out as creatures or objects come between the light source and your target point. Even in an open meadow at noon, many people would be hard-pressed to point at an otherwise featureless spot and say 'that is EXACTLY sixty feet from me, whereas my buddy Joe is precisely forty feet from me.' (I know wizards have high INT, but not all casters are wizards and spatial recognition is quite possibly distinct from spell-intelligence anyway.)

It may be just me, but it feels off that a caster can serve as precision artillery with an area spell against targets currently engaging his friends in melee. It's almost to the point where I feel like I should come up with a house rule to treat the point of origin for area affects as grenade-like weapons in some circumstances, or something similar.

What are the opinions of the community? Is this something I shouldn't be worried about? Does it make perfect sense to you, or do you also think it's counter-intuitive?

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-25, 06:01 PM
It's magic.

Optimystik
2010-01-25, 06:04 PM
It's magic.

You go with that. I'll be focusing on the metaphysical imprint their battlefield presence has impressed on my mindscape.

God, I love psionics.

Grumman
2010-01-25, 06:05 PM
I have no problem with a superhumanly intelligent or wise character taking advantage of their mental abilities to provide accurate close support in this manner. CHA-based spellcasters are harder to justify in-character, though.

But I do think that this is essential to make a multiplayer game playable. Everyone has had bad strings of unlucky rolls that either hurt yourself or fail to help your allies. Letting unlucky rolls kill your allies would be a bad thing.

Eldariel
2010-01-25, 06:07 PM
I personally use a touch attack using Caster Level over BAB vs. AC 5 (AC of a square). If there're some small openings or such you need to cast through, the AC will scale accordingly. If there's miss chance, it'll be rolled. In the event of a miss, a d10 will be rolled to see where it ends up. 1-8 on the d10 present the adjacent squares from the target, 9-0 mean reroll for the next sphere.

Dust
2010-01-25, 06:08 PM
DnD 3.5 is one of the only settings that quickly jump to mind where friendly fire is so incredibly common. Even deadly, interparty-conflict settings like Call of Cthulhu don't have rules for, say, misfired bullets harming allies.

The fact that 3.5 is always ready with a rule to cause you to kick yourself or your allies in the proverbial genitalia has always seemed bizarre to me. 'It's magic' is a perfect reason why you should be able to create a wall of sweeping flame across the battlefield to scorch foes, but leave your allies unharmed by the heat.

Ernir
2010-01-25, 06:10 PM
It's kind of silly, I agree. Especially since most (all?) spells have their full effect on everyone within the affected area, and none on anyone outside of it. No minor zing-ing from a nearby Fireball. No nausea from a nearby Stinking Cloud. All or nothing.

Unjustifiable? I don't think so.

Wizards calculate the blast radius.
Sorcerers' magic is intuitive, it's like an extension of their limb anyway.
Clerics ask for divine guidance.

Satyr
2010-01-25, 06:10 PM
It's almost to the point where I feel like I should come up with a house rule to treat the point of origin for area affects as grenade-like weapons in some circumstances, or something similar.

That actually sounds like a good idea, but it would only leads to a sinking popularity of the affilicted spells and more focus on spells who don''t deal damage but are otherwise effective. If you want to do this, you should spread some uncertainty to any spell, or otherwise you just shift the problem.

lsfreak
2010-01-25, 06:17 PM
Most of the time, it's a matter of 'pick a point in space, it appears there,' no aiming required. When it gets to long-range stuff, Int or Wis checks to tell whether their ally is within that 20 foot blast radius or not. But if it's being targeted as a matter of 'on top of that guy,' 'ten feet to to the northeast of the one with the shield,' and so on, doesn't matter.

The time presented as the 3 seconds it takes to cast the spell, plus presumably at least some idea of what's going on due to move actions before that, is enough to gauge for closer ranges where spells need to be targeted to avoid hitting allies.

(Plus really, it's one of those things that at first glance nerfs casters but really just ends up ****ing over the melee even more.)

peterpaulrubens
2010-01-25, 06:20 PM
I've always thought that the caster has some minor influence on spell shape, such that he can make a rough estimate of where he wants the spell mentally, and whatever little bit he's off on his estimation, he simply mentally "muscles" the spell into where he wanted it.

ericgrau
2010-01-25, 07:12 PM
For all practical purposes, yes, they can locate the spell precisely. It is reasonable to assume that they are also practiced enough to estimate the radius within a couple feet, though a reasonable houserule I've seen basically gives damage but improved evasion to anyone at the exact edge of the spell radius. The spell description does give situations where firing it through a narrow space requires an attack roll. But the AC of the square is only 5 and even if you did miss you'd still be close, so in most situations it's simpler to say the wizard hits automatically instead of figuring out the details.

If players try to push the limits and line up the fireball perfectly while wasting a bunch of game time, I think the above house rule is quite reasonable. The better solution is to use common sense in terms of what your character could estimate when chucking fireballs and don't cut it so close, so there is no need for such a house rule.

Thurbane
2010-01-25, 07:27 PM
During combat, our group requires a ranged touch attack against a static (low) AC to lob an area effect exactly where you want it. Last night, actually, an enemy cleric fudged the attack roll with a flame strike and missed 1/2 the party...

Kantolin
2010-01-25, 08:16 PM
We keep super-precise area attacks in our games, as it wouldn't add anything to our games to remove it.

All it'd really do, if you ask me, is limit the amount of people making area of effect attacks. Which is a bad thing in my book - I'm totally cool with the wizard using fireball.

Now, we also have amusing explanations for this:

Cleric: Pelor?
Pelor: Oh conflabbit... okay lemme see... carry the three... aim here.
Cleric: Here?
Pelor: Oh for my sake. *Aims it for him*
Cleric: Thanks, Pelor!

~~

Wizard: I've been studying complex mathematics for my entire life. I complex mathematics the fireball exactly where it needs to be given wind resistance.
Sorceror: I've been studying complex mathematics for my entire life. I complex mathematics the fireball exactly where it needs to be given wind resistance. *Rolls 38 on bluff*

^_^ But really, we just leave it alone.

Lapak
2010-01-25, 08:48 PM
Well, I think I can consider my question answered. No, I do not need to worry about it. :smalltongue:

Susano-wo
2010-01-25, 09:54 PM
It really does bother the crap out of me, though mostly for directed AoE. Like fireball. its not that you are willing X to go over Y area, its that you are shooting out a little bullet to hit X area, or, worse, precisely commanding it to detonate at just the right spot!
Course whether making rolls for the exact spot would be unfun is probably dependent upon the group, and upon how often what things did so.
Also, it still breaks realism with certain spontaneous creation of energy effects. Like, for instance, creating a firewall where you can't necessarily see with 100% accuracy (like in a room in a dungeon, how are you going to know that the point you are willing it to is actually behind your party member, or if it just looks that way)
But oh well, I'm really about immersion, so I get canal about that stuff ^ ^

Rixx
2010-01-25, 10:00 PM
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/1481/magic.png

Tengu_temp
2010-01-25, 10:04 PM
We keep super-precise area attacks in our games, as it wouldn't add anything to our games to remove it.


This. Adding a roll to see if your fireball hit only makes the game even more time-consuming, and results in area attacks being used less, as if they weren't easy enough to avoid already.

Vinsurgent
2010-01-25, 10:14 PM
I like the previous posts about choosing a point in space and the effect appearing there.
Even with a spell where something is "thrown" like the 4E Druid's Flame Seed, it's not a dexterity or strength-based movement like throwing a baseball. Keep in mind that magic comes directly from the mind of the caster, which means that it's also guided by the mind, and not the arm. A caster can see a spot that's close to enemies but a few feet from any allies, throw a ball of magic, and even if he got picked last in gym class, he can mentally guide that ball to an exact point in space.

Also, keep in mind that a 1" square is 5 by 5 feet. There's a few feet of wiggle room, especially if the ally knows that the spell is being cast, and can sidestep a bit (less than 5 feet, not a move action, possible when it's not their turn).

Demented
2010-01-25, 10:14 PM
Another possibility:

You don't become a wizard if you can't put a fireball within 5 feet of where it needs to be.

Asbestos
2010-01-25, 10:25 PM
When you really need accuracy, you DO need to roll a touch attack vs AC for Fireball


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

Ormur
2010-01-25, 10:27 PM
But a sorcerer, any idiot with the right genes and a bit of charisma can become one. You could enforce spot checks. Although on second though I wouldn't want to give the already chaotic sorceress in my game an excuse for throwing fireballs at her party, accidentally.

Also if for some reason the mage is one-eyed and/or lacks depth perceptions it becomes even stranger.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-01-25, 10:36 PM
It doesn't bother me. I got quite good at targeting fireballs in BG2. And you're usually shooting it well behind *their* half of the field.

Anybody who plays shooters a lot knows that it's probably not unusual to be able to aim a shot that well. It's something I'd just expect adventurers to pick up.

Yuki Akuma
2010-01-25, 10:37 PM
But a sorcerer, any idiot with the right genes and a bit of charisma can become one.

Instinct.

People with a natural ability to do something can usually do that something with remarkable proficiency. It's called "talent", and you don't become a sorcerer without it.

Eldariel
2010-01-26, 12:06 AM
Not having any chance to screw up is sorta boring IMHO tho; I find the "Nat 1"-mechanic quite amusing, which is why I prefer forcing the flat AC 5 attacks on spells.

High-level casters still won't fail once you institute the epic "roll at -20 for a nat 1" rule, but it creates for lots of amusing scenarios in lower-level play (and even high-level casters can **** up when they really try something hard).

Sstoopidtallkid
2010-01-26, 12:44 AM
Wizards calculate the blast radius.
Sorcerers' magic is intuitive, it's like an extension of their limb anyway.
Clerics ask for divine guidance.^This^. Plus, it's a 5th level Wizard. That's something like 53 encounters. Figure 1/4th are either non-combat or he used a crossbow the entire time, that's still 40 AoE's thrown into combat. By the time he casts Fireball, he knows what it will hit.

icefractal
2010-01-26, 12:49 AM
But oh well, I'm really about immersion, so I get canal about that stuff ^ ^I'm into immersion too, but it only breaks immersion if you visualize spells as being aimed like a weapon. When "casting Fireball" means "calling on ancient contracts with the elemental lords of fire" or "forcing your will on reality until the air decides to spontaneously combust", it makes perfect sense that you could direct it such as to avoid your allies. If anything, it would make sense for spells to be more shapeable.

Lapak
2010-01-26, 12:55 AM
I'm into immersion too, but it only breaks immersion if you visualize spells as being aimed like a weapon. When "casting Fireball" means "calling on ancient contracts with the elemental lords of fire" or "forcing your will on reality until the air decides to spontaneously combust", it makes perfect sense that you could direct it such as to avoid your allies. If anything, it would make sense for spells to be more shapeable.At the other extreme, if you consider it to be 'wrenching at reality through powers that even the wisest only poorly comprehend' or 'unbinding the rules of the universe itself under the tenuous control of a human mind' or 'calling upon dark and mysterious powers to perform what mortals cannot' - all of which carry equal fantasy pedigrees in terms of how magic functions - you would be extremely unwise to unleash magic in the immediate vicinity of anyone you liked.

icefractal
2010-01-26, 05:21 AM
Well yeah, but in that case, the exact placement of the spell is going to be the least of your problems. If Fireball could go totally out of control and flambe the entire battlefield, or summon an uncontrolled demon, or whatnot, then you really should only be casting spells at foes in another room, with someone ready to slam the door immediately afterwards.

I just think that "the spell's parameters are entirely consistent, except for the positioning, which has to be aimed like a wobbly arrow" is an unlikely situation. But it's what a lot of of house-rules relating to this boil down to.

Vaynor
2010-01-26, 05:30 AM
A thousand catgirls just died.

Seriously though: "I don't think it's plausible that the WIZARD could accurately place the BALL OF FIRE HE SUMMONED OUT OF NOWHERE in such a precise location. That just doesn't make sense."

Did I mention BALL OF FIRE?

Emphasis mine.

Satyr
2010-01-26, 05:39 AM
"It's magic" or "it's fantasy" is not an expalanation; it is an excuise, and a poor one at that.
If something has an equivalent in reality, it is easy to handle it, because there is always a reliable bottom line you can refer to; anything fantastic or supernatural does not have this luxury, and therefore has to make sense all in itself. Fantastic elements must be more plausible in themselves than supposedly realistic ones, and inner consistency - or the lack of it is a good indicator for a talented,storyteller/author/gamemaster, or a hack.

Killer Angel
2010-01-26, 05:41 AM
Seriously though: "I don't think it's plausible that the WIZARD could accurately place the BALL OF FIRE HE SUMMONED OUT OF NOWHERE in such a precise location. That just doesn't make sense."


Well, it's not only a matter of target precision (understandable), but the ability to evaluate the exact spread of the effect, leaving out exactly your friends, in a combat field with confusion and partial cover. It's like throwing grenades in a melee: even if you can place them with accuracy, you cannot predict the effects all around.


A thousand catgirls just died.


Oh no! I love catgirls. Yes, the casters can do it with supernatural precision.

Rasman
2010-01-26, 06:02 AM
I follow the saying, Close only comes in Horseshoes, Hand Grenades and Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I believe that a Wizard would fall under the latter two at the very least. An Arcane caster is the equivilant of a recon squad giving targeting data and the bomber dropping the payload, rolled into one. So the fact that he can target that directly isn't that odd. You also just need to chalk it up to, he's a master of the Arcane arts, he'd be a failure if he couldn't do that, for the most part.

Demented
2010-01-26, 06:57 AM
Well, it's not only a matter of target precision (understandable), but the ability to evaluate the exact spread of the effect, leaving out exactly your friends, in a combat field with confusion and partial cover. It's like throwing grenades in a melee: even if you can place them with accuracy, you cannot predict the effects all around.
It's not actually that difficult considering the fireball always has a very precise and unchanging radius every time. (Something that cannot be said for grenades in a melee, unless you're playing an FPS game.)
You can see this often in RTS games.

Lapak
2010-01-26, 09:38 AM
It's not actually that difficult considering the fireball always has a very precise and unchanging radius every time. (Something that cannot be said for grenades in a melee, unless you're playing an FPS game.)
You can see this often in RTS games.Amusingly enough, it's CRPGs that decided me on whether I should post this. I was reading that other thread, and I thought about the last time I was playing Dragon Age. Fireballs and other AOE spells do have a precise, unchanging radius in that game, and they DO go exactly where you put them, but if you try to place them on the fly and tag enemies in melee with you, you will hit your allies as often as not. Every time I place one, I have to pause the action, and even with the giant target-thing that highlights everyone it will hit it takes me a few seconds to get it in JUST the right spot so that it hits my enemies and not my friends.

Wizards, unless they are in a Time Stop, do not get to pause the action while they figure out exactly where the point of origin should be.

It sounds like doing anything about this would be more trouble than it's worth, but I think that there is a legitimate reason to feel a hit to my suspension of disbelief, even if magic is a precision tool that does exactly what you expect every time.

Person_Man
2010-01-26, 10:38 AM
I understand the sentiment, having played a lot of tabletop miniature games growing up. I don't know what the rules are now, but an older version of Warhammer made you guess distance AND used a scatter roll.

But it doesn't convert to D&D. Obviously you can't guess distance if you're using a hex map, as the distance is perfectly measured out for you. And using a scatter roll of just pisses off your friends, and nerfs the reliability of your attack. You could compensate for this by making area of effect attacks more deadly, but that just makes the friendly fire even worse.

And you can't guess distance if you're not using a map (as many old school D&D'ers still do), because obviously there is no map. And using a scatter roll REALLY pisses off your friends, because there it's a lot harder to judge where everyone is standing based on the DM's description.

So again, I hear where you're coming from. But it would detract from the fun of the game, without really adding anything.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-01-26, 12:57 PM
Speaking of which, one of the gamers in my previous group was a veteran who worked around artillery.

We struck up a conversation about WH40k (he didn't know what it was exactly) and we brought up the the mechanism of artillery in that game. He claimed that he was very good at gauging distances. That in another tabletop "wargame" involved monkeys with weapons, he picked the grenade launcher that worked by just such a mechanism.

He got banned from using the grenade launcher.

Dimers
2010-01-27, 02:09 AM
In D&D, I just ignore this eyebrow-raising precision. I say to myself, "Self, these people are professionals. They know what they're doing. Well, all the casters are, anyway. The poor schmucks who swing swords do so with widely varying degrees of success. But the casters are professionals." :smallbiggrin:

In the game system I'm building, I apparently made adjustments for attack precision without noticing I was doing so. The perception stat is far more important than it first seems, a fact as true for precise aim as it is for almost every other endeavor ... people who have experience in reshaping reality can try to 'bend' their spells without having to take a feat to do it ... and for added friendly-fire fun, all spells are more potent if you roll a critical success, whether or not the result is then pleasing to The Good Guys. So you thought you would only be broiling goblins, but the fireball got twice as large as you wanted. That'll teach you to mess around with reality! Just one more reason to cast buffs and debuffs instead of AoE.

icefractal
2010-01-27, 02:56 AM
Wizards, unless they are in a Time Stop, do not get to pause the action while they figure out exactly where the point of origin should be.

It sounds like doing anything about this would be more trouble than it's worth, but I think that there is a legitimate reason to feel a hit to my suspension of disbelief, even if magic is a precision tool that does exactly what you expect every time.I can understand what you're saying, but this is the case: if you want to target a square (with an arrow, for instance), then it's an attack against AC 5. Past really low level, you only miss on a natural 1. So even if you're saying that spells would be physically targeted, we're only talking about a 1/20 failure rate - whereas what many people propose as house-rules is more like a 50% failure rate. In the reality of D&D, AC 5 encompasses the difficulty to hit a relatively precise location.

ken-do-nim
2010-01-27, 06:48 AM
It's not gauging the distance that bothers me, it is the notion that when it is your turn on the initiative sequence it is assumed that everyone else on the battlefield is not moving and staying precisely where there mini says they should be. Combat is simultaneous, broken into manageable turns for ease of play. If an allied fighter does a trip attack before or after the sorcerer's turn, then folks, what that means is that he moved into his opponent's position and could get singed. If the ally has a short weapon or is a monk doing open hand attacks, then he was touching the opponent. Even in a swordfight combatants can get quite close to one another. How the heck does the sorcerer target a fireball so perfectly that it doesn't touch the ally? You can say "it's magic" but I find that weak. I also think that if a genuine grenade was introduced into the game you'd play it the same way.

potatocubed
2010-01-27, 07:27 AM
Well yeah, but in that case, the exact placement of the spell is going to be the least of your problems. If Fireball could go totally out of control and flambe the entire battlefield, or summon an uncontrolled demon, or whatnot, then you really should only be casting spells at foes in another room, with someone ready to slam the door immediately afterwards.

And yet people keep playing wild mages.

(Including me.)

2xMachina
2010-01-27, 07:35 AM
It's not gauging the distance that bothers me, it is the notion that when it is your turn on the initiative sequence it is assumed that everyone else on the battlefield is not moving and staying precisely where there mini says they should be. Combat is simultaneous, broken into manageable turns for ease of play. If an allied fighter does a trip attack before or after the sorcerer's turn, then folks, what that means is that he moved into his opponent's position and could get singed. If the ally has a short weapon or is a monk doing open hand attacks, then he was touching the opponent. Even in a swordfight combatants can get quite close to one another. How the heck does the sorcerer target a fireball so perfectly that it doesn't touch the ally? You can say "it's magic" but I find that weak. I also think that if a genuine grenade was introduced into the game you'd play it the same way.

Hmm, I don't know about you, but D&D turns are pretty discrete to me.

A acts first. Full attacks E, and kills E. B now can walk through E's threatened area to F and full attack F without provoking AoO from E. (Say, belt of battle to get the move if you wanna be RAW about how it works). Each full attack takes nearly the whole round, and yet, 2 different people can do it in the same round, with the first having an effect on the 2nd.

Yeah, it kills the immersion/simulation, but that's how the TBS system works. If it's not your turn, you kinda freeze (only get to do certain things like Evasion, or save/AC)

sdream
2010-01-27, 09:09 AM
I completely respect the opinions of those who say "it's magic in an imaginary game, assuming accuracy of magic spells is the least odd part about it"...

but for my own game with my family I felt that such fine control over large area of effect spells seemed to break belief a bit.

Yes, they can channel otherworldly power, but that doesn't mean they have perfect unerring eyes and spatial skills. I simply added a house rule that if they are trying to fine tune the edge of a blast so it hits some people but not others right next to them then they have to roll a d6.

1-2 - They are too careful, and fail to hit the foes at that edge
3-4 - They are perfect and hit the foes, but not the allies
5-6 - They are too aggressive, and hit everybody

AoE spells are still great for clumps of foes, but now they have to be careful about their edges (or get a friendlier spell). It adds cohesiveness to my simulation, I feel, with very little cost (and one the party can manage and control).

Runestar
2010-01-27, 09:16 AM
When are people just going to accept that certain parts of dnd will never conform to common sense, nor should they? :smalltongue:

ken-do-nim
2010-01-27, 10:32 AM
Hmm, I don't know about you, but D&D turns are pretty discrete to me.

A acts first. Full attacks E, and kills E. B now can walk through E's threatened area to F and full attack F without provoking AoO from E. (Say, belt of battle to get the move if you wanna be RAW about how it works). Each full attack takes nearly the whole round, and yet, 2 different people can do it in the same round, with the first having an effect on the 2nd.

Yeah, it kills the immersion/simulation, but that's how the TBS system works. If it's not your turn, you kinda freeze (only get to do certain things like Evasion, or save/AC)

Yeah, that is basically the default way to play 3.5. One of the reasons I prefer 1E. I'd like to think it isn't the only way to think of 3.5 combat, but I admit it certainly is the easiest.

Edit: I much prefer the concept of simultaneous actions and initiative is there to show who gets the edge.

Dimers
2010-01-27, 01:03 PM
Yeah, that is basically the default way to play 3.5. One of the reasons I prefer 1E. I'd like to think it isn't the only way to think of 3.5 combat, but I admit it certainly is the easiest.

The easiest in pen-and-paper, anyway. I remember characters in Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dales and so forth running outside the fireball's max range while it was bursting ... ahh, good times. :smallsmile:

Draz74
2010-01-27, 03:15 PM
A thousand catgirls just died.
Good riddance. :smallbiggrin:


Seriously though: "I don't think it's plausible that the WIZARD could accurately place the BALL OF FIRE HE SUMMONED OUT OF NOWHERE in such a precise location. That just doesn't make sense."

Did I mention BALL OF FIRE?

Someone needs to review the difference between realism and verisimilitude. I recommend reading actual (good-quality) fantasy books. There are lots of characters there who could throw around balls of fire, but could not magically place those balls of fire with laser-guided precision in the midst of a chaotic battle.

So yeah, tally me up as someone who is slightly bothered by this, and would love to find a houserule that fixes it without slowing down the gameplay every time a spell is cast.

Lapak
2010-01-27, 04:40 PM
So yeah, tally me up as someone who is slightly bothered by this, and would love to find a houserule that fixes it without slowing down the gameplay every time a spell is cast.The easiest-to-implement houserule is one which assumes that people fighting each other are too close to avoid hitting:

OPTIONAL RULE: [edited version]
Collateral Damage
Any creatures without reach who are engaged in melee combat with targets caught in a burst, emanation or spread area of effect are treated as if they had been within that area themselves.

---

So this won't spread the 'effective area' of a spell if you're casting it at a large group of enemies - they're not fighting each other, and so they are not considered too close. But it means you can't toss a Fireball right on the razor-edge of the front line, either. If that's too far the other way, allow a feat to negate it:

FEAT
Precision Casting
Prerequisites: BAB + 1, Precise Shot, able to cast arcane or divine spells.
Area-of-effect spells cast by a character with this feat ignore the Collateral Damage rule. This feat can be taken as a bonus Wizard feat.

Grumman
2010-01-27, 04:50 PM
The easiest-to-implement houserule is one which assumes that people fighting each other are too close to avoid hitting:

OPTIONAL RULE:
Collateral Damage
Any characters engaged in melee combat with targets who are caught in a burst, emanation or spread area of effect are treated as if they had been within that area themselves.

So this won't spread the 'effective area' of a spell if you're casting it at a large group of enemies - they're not fighting each other, and so they are not considered too close. But it means you can't toss a Fireball right on the razor-edge of the front line, either. If that's too far the other way, allow a feat to negate it:
If you were going to use this rule, they should only get hit if they're using a natural weapon or a weapon with a reach of 5 feet.

Lapak
2010-01-27, 04:52 PM
If you were going to use this rule, they should only get hit if they're using a natural weapon or a weapon with a reach of 5 feet.True enough. I'll edit it.

Kantolin
2010-01-27, 05:18 PM
...precise shot?

So in order to be a fireball-slingin' wizard after round one pre-archmage, I have to take three feats, two of which are of absolutely no value to me as a fireball-slingin' wizard (Point blank shot, Precise shot), in order to sometimes not blast my allies if they are all on one side of an enemy and not attempting to get flanking against it?

That makes fireball more and more of 'bad idea' territory. :smallconfused: I mean, that now sounds like something I'd hardly ever take, or would maybe memorize one of in case of a few less common scenarios?

I mean, there can still be use out of it (Fire immune allies, lowish save with an ally rogue who has tons of evasion), but it sounds like you're just encouraging people to use, say, slow or something. At least, if you're going to do something like that, give fireball slingers a cookie or something to make up for the difficulty in that chosen option until archmage comes around.

(I assume archmage's mastery of shaping is exempt from this rule?)

Edit: To go further on the statement that among other things that's mean on the prerequisites, if you take the first two of them, you can just kind of erase fireball from your spell list and take scorching ray, which is improved by the first two. You can then take a feat for a spell that's hard to use with flanking being involved anyway, isn't shattering worlds or anything, and be able to use it... sometimes? Poor fireball. O-o

jiriku
2010-01-27, 05:20 PM
There's an easy way to model this if you feel like getting that wargame-y "realism". Build your own maps, and build them precisely, but remove the grid before printing them. Everybody uses minis with appropriately scaled bases. When somebody casts an AoE, have them nominate a point for the spell's center. Bust out your template and see who gets hit, allowing some nominal wiggle room to the caster of the spell. I've done it, it works great, and it takes very little extra time during combat, but be warned that it favors players who have strong three-dimensional visualization skills (like the aforementioned grenade-user), and disadvantages players who lack such skills or who have poor depth perception (like one player in my group who is blind in one eye).

Starbuck_II
2010-01-27, 05:26 PM
That makes fireball more and more of 'bad idea' territory. :smallconfused: I mean, that now sounds like something I'd hardly ever take, or would maybe memorize one of in case of a few less common scenarios?

Poor fireball. O-o

Yep, people are trying to kill the spell.

Lapak
2010-01-27, 05:31 PM
...precise shot?

So in order to be a fireball-slingin' wizard after round one pre-archmage, I have to take three feats, two of which are of absolutely no value to me as a fireball-slingin' wizard (Point blank shot, Precise shot), in order to sometimes not blast my allies if they are all on one side of an enemy and not attempting to get flanking against it?It's always not blast your allies, but yes. And this is just idea-tossing for people who are seriously annoyed by the situation as it stands; I'm not about to run out and implement this in my own game tomorrow and I have no opinion at all about whether you should.


That makes fireball more and more of 'bad idea' territory. :smallconfused: I mean, that now sounds like something I'd hardly ever take, or would maybe memorize one of in case of a few less common scenarios?It doesn't just affect Fireball, mind; Web, Glitterdust and other such save-or-suck favorites are also caught out by the proposed house rule. Slow is safe, admittedly, and I thought it wouldn't be, but it and other 'Choose X creatures in Y area' spells would be exempt as their targeting is built in.


I mean, there can still be use out of it (Fire immune allies, lowish save with an ally rogue who has tons of evasion), but it sounds like you're just encouraging people to use, say, slow or something. At least, if you're going to do something like that, give fireball slingers a cookie or something to make up for the difficulty in that chosen option until archmage comes around.

(I assume archmage's mastery of shaping is exempt from this rule?)Indeed. I'd be happy ramping up spell-damage AOEs to d8 or even d10, provided that they became actual pre-melee (or at least rear-rank) artillery. Damage AOEs have needed a bump for a long time anyway, given that they've remained the same since 2e while hit points have absolutely skyrocketed.


Edit: To go further on the statement that among other things that's mean on the prerequisites, if you take the first two of them, you can just kind of erase fireball from your spell list and take scorching ray, which is improved by the first two. You can then take a feat for a spell that's hard to use with flanking being involved anyway, isn't shattering worlds or anything, and be able to use it... sometimes? Poor fireball. O-oIt certainly would mean that you should hit targets with fireball early in a combat if you're going to hit them at all.

ken-do-nim
2010-01-27, 06:33 PM
The easiest-to-implement houserule is one which assumes that people fighting each other are too close to avoid hitting:


As I said in the other thread I use the following: As the caster, you get to choose whether your placement is conservative or risky. Conservative and enemies on the front-line have a 50/50 chance to not be in the blast radius. Risky and you are sure to get the front-line baddies, but in addition each of your allies fighting them with only 5 foot reach has a 50/50 chance to be hit.

Lapak
2010-01-27, 06:59 PM
As I said in the other thread I use the following: As the caster, you get to choose whether your placement is conservative or risky. Conservative and enemies on the front-line have a 50/50 chance to not be in the blast radius. Risky and you are sure to get the front-line baddies, but in addition each of your allies fighting them with only 5 foot reach has a 50/50 chance to be hit.Sure, but that does involve a die roll for each target either way. I was responding to the post that wanted something that didn't slow down gameplay at all. Yours is perfectly good otherwise.

Thurbane
2010-01-27, 07:58 PM
Someone needs to review the difference between realism and verisimilitude. I recommend reading actual (good-quality) fantasy books. There are lots of characters there who could throw around balls of fire, but could not magically place those balls of fire with laser-guided precision in the midst of a chaotic battle.

So yeah, tally me up as someone who is slightly bothered by this, and would love to find a houserule that fixes it without slowing down the gameplay every time a spell is cast.
I tend to agree with all of this. But egenrally, we sweep it under the carpet to keep gameplay flowing. The current DM requiring a ranged touch attack is an exception to our rule.

icefractal
2010-01-28, 06:02 AM
Many of these houserules seem a bit overboard. I mean, if an archer is trying to shoot an enemy that's 5' from someone, he doesn't have a 50% chance to hit the wrong person! Requiring an attack roll to hit the square could potentially make sense, depending on how you see magic as functioning. Requiring a roll with a 50% chance of failure only makes sense if you see aiming a spell as like hurling a poorly balanced watermelon while dizzy.

Nameless Ghost
2010-01-28, 06:28 AM
I would probably houserule inaccuracy like this:
Roll to hit against an arbitrary AC (eg, 10) for the target square for the AoE attack.
On a miss, roll d8 and move the AoE by "AC - missed-by-amount" according to the d8.

I can't see that taking much longer than normal if you throw the d8 alongside the d20.

As for how you can normally be so accuate? Well if thinking is a free action...

Lapak
2010-01-28, 07:27 AM
Many of these houserules seem a bit overboard. I mean, if an archer is trying to shoot an enemy that's 5' from someone, he doesn't have a 50% chance to hit the wrong person! Requiring an attack roll to hit the square could potentially make sense, depending on how you see magic as functioning. Requiring a roll with a 50% chance of failure only makes sense if you see aiming a spell as like hurling a poorly balanced watermelon while dizzy.
For most of us, the issue has little to do with hitting the point the mage wants. That's almost a given. The issue has to do with that point being the right place to be exactly the center of a 20 foot circle in every direction such that everyone you want is inside and no one you don't want is. That's easy on a map, because no one is in motion and the positions are so well defined, but would be very difficult indeed for the person actually inhabiting the game world.