Should players be able to measure when using AoE spells?

[Kryx]

Assuming you're playing with miniatures and a grid should players be able to measure the area that their AoEs effect?

For example if casting a fireball, should they be able to measure 20 ft in all directions from a point to perfectly place the AoE?

[MaxWilson]

Assuming you're playing with miniatures and a grid should players be able to measure the area that their AoEs effect?

For example if casting a fireball, should they be able to measure 20 ft in all directions from a point to perfectly play the AoE?

Yes. 5E has no grenade-scatter rules, and avoiding ambiguity about AoE is half the point of playing on a grid.

[Shaofoo]

Maybe not measure it to the foot but the caster should know from a glance if a spell would hit a certain person or not, there shouldn't be any check to make him realize that. People eyeball distance based on effects all the time.

If you want to roleplay make it so a creature just outside the AoE be visibly ruffled from the blast but not affected by it.

[Madeiner]

In pathfinder, I usually asked for a check when the conditions were extreme.

Say you want to lob an acid arrow through an arrow slit, or target a fireball at a very distant combatant (fireball had like 800+ feet range if im not mistaken) AND you are trying to avoid friendlies as you would do in a normal encounter, i would require a check. Never happened yet in 5e, i guess a spellcasting check would be right.

I have to admit however, i don't like my players actively trying to measure each single square hoping to find the perfect spot where you hit none of your allies, but all of the enemies. Not because of game reasons, it just kills immersion for me.
That's why i usually ask how roughly they are trying to place the spell, and i'll try to place it on maptools based
on instructions.
Fortunately, my players haven't realized yet that you could target a fireball at a point in mid air, as there would be very, very little opportunities for friendly fire if you check for cubes and not squares.

I would prefer if all area spells needed to be casted on a target creature (and the template originated from the target, not a grid-intersection). Way, way easier to adjudicate, instead of "no, i cast it 5 feet to the left" every time.


Edit: i was also toying with the idea of area effect spells only targeted on creatures, and without measuring anything, to speed up gameplay and make it more interesting, while also giving allies reduced effect from the spell (say, half damage, or adv to saves, etc) but that would impact with class abilities too much i suppose.
That would represent the caster trying to "direct the flames" from the fireball around allies as the spell is being cast and is still producing effects.

[MrConsideration]

I allow it but I probably shouldn't, as it seems the time spent precision-playing would be impossible in the mere seconds that a turn represents. I tend to ask the Fireball or whatever 'hit' something though, like the above poster - either an enemy or the roof or a pillar or something, not just exploding in mid air.

Players get a lot of satisfaction from dropping a solid AoE spell though.

[Telwar]

That's kind of the point of playing on a grid. You don't even necessarily need to plot it out, just know what the AOE "box" would be and figure that out. 4e's square* AOEs were really handy in that regard.

If they're doing this for a living, the character would be good at determining who they're going to hit, too.



* - Or cubic, really. The moment when you realize you can airburst an AoE to hit the Large/Huge creature and not your allies in melee with it, or get the flying monsters, is great fun.

[Mellack]

I would say that they should be allowed to measure. Although, with a grid it really doesn't seem necessary. To my mind the PC's are professionals, and they should have developed the ability to use their powers accurately. As a real world comparison I will use my brother-in-law. He works construction, so he has done lots of measuring. He can tell by sight how long a wall, or object is. Even how deep a hole is. He consistently is within an inch. I would think a caster would have no problem being with a foot or so with a spell.

[mephnick]

I think it's needlessly complicated to worry about "fumbling" a distance spell.

Plus, there's lots of people in the real world that can hit a target at long range (athletes in a lot of sports), so making high fantasy characters worse at targeting an area seems a little off to me.

At most I'd add a chance to scatter a spell if rolled at a distance disadvantage for being out of the spell's natural range.

[Mr.Moron]

Its's valid any way you do it. My tables generally allow premeasurement for everything but keep in mind the more players have to measure, make decisions, and possibly debate about the linger things take. Knowing all the distances adds much more time in terms of information processing than it removes by reducing uncertainty.

[Lanced Crescent]

Since players are already allowed to know precisely how far things are relative to them to measure against range for attacks and effects, I'd say it's an implicit conceit that they can measure AoE as well.

[Coidzor]

Yes. Doing otherwise provides no benefit and just makes it more cumbersome for the DM and other players. It is a net negative for everyone.

[Kryx]

Doing otherwise provides no benefit
One could argue that the benefit would be more realism as a player couldn't precisely calculate what creatures will be hit within such a short time period as a round (minus the casting time).

But as others have said maybe that concern of "verisimilitude" isn't worth the trouble and D&D doesn't care so much about realism in other examples such as waiting for an attack to resolve before shooting a second arrow.

[Doof]

Unless it's agreed upon with the players that accurately measuring AoE effect will not be available, then it'll just be making things more tedious/annoying for the sake of realism.

If the players are cool with it, then roll with it.

But telling them 'I like realism so you don't get to decide where the fireball lands precisely' isn't going to float many people's boats.

Seeking realism and seriousness is good, yes, but never at the cost of what's fun for the table.

Edit: if somebody knows how to use a spell, I would reasonably assume they know how to aim it too.

[Aurthur]

I use an egg timer for actions. If they can determine their range, etc, in a minute...great. If not, default atk action or cantrip at closest.

[Safety Sword]

I have cardboard cut outs of the common areas of spells which players and NPCs all use to see who is caught in which effects.

[Pex]

Yes, the character is right there.

Yes, the character knows how to do his thing.

Yes, NPCs get to do so via the DM.

Yes, the DM should not be such a jerk to deny the player even more agency.

Contrary to the belief of some, player characters are actually supposed to be good at what they do. They are not incompetent morons. It's a feature, not a bug.

[Kane0]

Yes, the character is right there.

Yes, the character knows how to do his thing.

Yes, NPCs get to do so via the DM.

Yes, the DM should not be such a jerk to deny the player even more agency.

Contrary to the belief of some, player characters are actually supposed to be good at what they do. They are not incompetent morons. It's a feature, not a bug.
Yep.

Also if i'm a level 5 wizard and I'm planning to use my only fireball for the day I want to make DAMN sure it goes where I want it to. The same also applies to level 1 and burning hands / thunderwave.

[MeeposFire]

One could argue that the benefit would be more realism as a player couldn't precisely calculate what creatures will be hit within such a short time period as a round (minus the casting time).

But as others have said maybe that concern of "verisimilitude" isn't worth the trouble and D&D doesn't care so much about realism in other examples such as waiting for an attack to resolve before shooting a second arrow.

But is it really that realistic? How do you really evaluate how accurately a caster can judge space? I remember getting very good in BG2 at casting SOE spells without pausing the game without hitting allies and keeping it close. How would we show that acquired skill especially since if you are worried about realism it needs to be based on character rather than player skill? Also after that will it be done in such a way that does not bog down the game or the fun?

Not saying it can't be done but that is a lot of issues to work through.

[Coidzor]

One could argue that the benefit would be more realism as a player couldn't precisely calculate what creatures will be hit within such a short time period as a round (minus the casting time).

Not even misplaced concerns about realism care about the players' relative ability to visually tell what an AoE blast would be shaped like without a visual aid or taking a moment or two to look at the battle grid. They certainly don't care about whether the DM can eyeball it for themselves accurately.


But as others have said maybe that concern of "verisimilitude" isn't worth the trouble and D&D doesn't care so much about realism in other examples such as waiting for an attack to resolve before shooting a second arrow.

There's no real concern about verisimilitude for individuals who understand their spells to be able to use them.

So, yeah. No benefit. Well, unless the DM and players want to play fast and sloppy and off the cuff for everything.

[Malifice]

If it's really tight I might call for a spell attack roll vs AC 15.

Trying to lob a fireball through an arrow slit, or perfectly position one to exclude surrounding allies.

Failure = deviation. I just roll a W40K scatter dice and let the amount missed by be my guide.

[Longcat]

I have allowed it in the past, but my players have abused the living daylights out of it, often taking upwards of 10 minutes to calculate optimal AoE patterns, resulting in a heavy wargame atmosphere. It also kills any sense of immersion, as rounds are supposed to be 6 seconds long, but you're effectively hitting a pause button in a video game.

The next time I DM, the players would need to immediately announce the target area if they intend to cast an AoE spell.

[Kane0]

I have allowed it in the past, but my players have abused the living daylights out of it, often taking upwards of 10 minutes to calculate optimal AoE patterns, resulting in a heavy wargame atmosphere. It also kills any sense of immersion, as rounds are supposed to be 6 seconds long, but you're effectively hitting a pause button in a video game.

The next time I DM, the players would need to immediately announce the target area if they intend to cast an AoE spell.

Sounds like the kind of players that either consider their turns at watching-grass-grow speed or don't think until it's their turn. May want to implement an egg timer or something, it'll speed up more than just AoE targeting.

/2cp

[Longcat]

Sounds like the kind of players that either consider their turns at watching-grass-grow speed or don't think until it's their turn. May want to implement an egg timer or something, it'll speed up more than just AoE targeting.

/2cp

It's not that, my players are just highly analytical and want to do "optimal" moves every turn.

[Safety Sword]

It's not that, my players are just highly analytical and want to do "optimal" moves every turn.

You game sounds like a video game in person. You should make them all hurry up and watch the fun that the occasional wild abandon moment creates.

[Malifice]

You game sounds like a video game in person. You should make them all hurry up and watch the fun that the occasional wild abandon moment creates.

I count slowly to six when they take too much time.

[Atalas]

Just a quick counting of squares is all my players need. The casters are always the veteran players so they don't take up much time. Mostly, discussion is trying to figure out how far a fireball will come towards you when you cast it in an enclosed hallway.

[Thisguy_]

Just a quick counting of squares is all my players need. The casters are always the veteran players so they don't take up much time. Mostly, discussion is trying to figure out how far a fireball will come towards you when you cast it in an enclosed hallway.

This. Don't let players be "measure it to a hundredth" precise. Have 'em pick a target square if it's becoming a problem, and they have 10 seconds to do so once their turn in combat starts. Or whatever works for you.

[Coidzor]

I have allowed it in the past, but my players have abused the living daylights out of it, often taking upwards of 10 minutes to calculate optimal AoE patterns, resulting in a heavy wargame atmosphere. It also kills any sense of immersion, as rounds are supposed to be 6 seconds long, but you're effectively hitting a pause button in a video game.

The next time I DM, the players would need to immediately announce the target area if they intend to cast an AoE spell.

You realize there's a middle ground where people get an allotted time in which to take their turn, right? Certainly casters should know roughly where they're going to drop a spell before their turn rolls around, unless something to really change up the battlefield happens immediately before their turn, but having immediately picked where to place it as soon as their turn begins is overdoing it in the opposite direction as much as you were overdoing it to allow the game to get bogged down for 10 minutes in the first place.

[Longcat]

You realize there's a middle ground where people get an allotted time in which to take their turn, right? Certainly casters should know roughly where they're going to drop a spell before their turn rolls around, unless something to really change up the battlefield happens immediately before their turn, but having immediately picked where to place it as soon as their turn begins is overdoing it in the opposite direction as much as you were overdoing it to allow the game to get bogged down for 10 minutes in the first place.

I wouldn't require them to immediately announce it once their turn begins. What I would require is e.g. for the Wizard player to say "I cast Fireball centered on this square" while pointing at the square in question. Currently, it's more like "Ok guys, I'm going to cast a Fireball. Let's see..." and then they start measuring and even using premade templates to determine the AoE.

[Safety Sword]

I wouldn't require them to immediately announce it once their turn begins. What I would require is e.g. for the Wizard player to say "I cast Fireball centered on this square" while pointing at the square in question. Currently, it's more like "Ok guys, I'm going to cast a Fireball. Let's see..." and then they start measuring and even using premade templates to determine the AoE.

I use pre-made templates and it speeds things up considerably.

Show me where the fireball lands. OK, it hits everything under this area. Makes my job pretty simple when I have up to 30 creatures to take care of.

As has been mentioned above, I think it's fair to assume that mighty wizards have knowledge of what their spells (and limits thereof) are.

I don't allow measuring and remeasuring to maximise the number of creature affected though, that can draw it out.

[Coidzor]

I wouldn't require them to immediately announce it once their turn begins. What I would require is e.g. for the Wizard player to say "I cast Fireball centered on this square" while pointing at the square in question. Currently, it's more like "Ok guys, I'm going to cast a Fireball. Let's see..." and then they start measuring and even using premade templates to determine the AoE.

How are premade templates worse than measuring with a ruler? Using them should make the process fairly quick unless your players are just vacillating weenies.

[Forum Explorer]

Assuming you're playing with miniatures and a grid should players be able to measure the area that their AoEs effect?

For example if casting a fireball, should they be able to measure 20 ft in all directions from a point to perfectly place the AoE?

Yes, pretty much always. I can see some circumstances where there should be a chance to miss, but those should be clear and rare (like shooting a fireball through an arrow slit to hit everyone on the other side. And in those cases, I just have the miss have the fireball hit the terrain in question and explode from there.


But besides that? Yes.

[Vogonjeltz]

Assuming you're playing with miniatures and a grid should players be able to measure the area that their AoEs effect?

For example if casting a fireball, should they be able to measure 20 ft in all directions from a point to perfectly place the AoE?

Yes, if you're using a grid actually measuring physically so everyone can see is no different than the player mentally measuring.

If you're all agreeing to avoid using measurements, you should use theater of the mind.


I have allowed it in the past, but my players have abused the living daylights out of it, often taking upwards of 10 minutes to calculate optimal AoE patterns, resulting in a heavy wargame atmosphere. It also kills any sense of immersion, as rounds are supposed to be 6 seconds long, but you're effectively hitting a pause button in a video game.

The next time I DM, the players would need to immediately announce the target area if they intend to cast an AoE spell.

I think that just requires knowing when to prod the player for an action before more than a minute has elapsed.

In addition, players ought to be making these determinations when it's not their turn so they know in advance how they're going to act. (i.e. If Fireball is a possibility, determine approximately where they would be using it, and if circumstances change have an alternative course of action thought out in advance).

If they're trying to conceive every possible outcome on their turn, like they have their fingers stuck in a choose your own adventure book so they can read all the outcomes at once, that's when you as DM need to step in and ask them for their action to maintain pacing.

[N810]

Yep, I'd totally make them a set of templates and even wright down the range on top of the templates as well. :smallcool:

[KorvinStarmast]

Yes, the character is right there.

Yes, the character knows how to do his thing.

Yes, NPCs get to do so via the DM.

Yes, the DM should not be such a jerk to deny the player even more agency.

Contrary to the belief of some, player characters are actually supposed to be good at what they do. They are not incompetent morons. It's a feature, not a bug. We have played spellcasters and heartily endorse this message.

[Mr.Moron]

Yes, the character is right there.

Yes, the character knows how to do his thing.

Yes, NPCs get to do so via the DM.

Yes, the DM should not be such a jerk to deny the player even more agency.

Contrary to the belief of some, player characters are actually supposed to be good at what they do. They are not incompetent morons. It's a feature, not a bug.


You understand space exists between:

"Executes everything perfectly every time and is able to land complex effects in a moving battlefield, including melee combatants with no risk of miscalculation, timing errors, flawed communication, or bad luck in even the tiniest capacity." (Always allow for perfect pre-measuring and no targeting uncertainty)

and

"Incompetent Morons" (apparently anything but doing that??)

Launching anything into a chaotic battle is tough feat even for the sharpest minds. Saying that they have some chance to target with something less than perfection is not making them "not good at what they do" or "bad at what they do", but is making them "merely fallible in some likely small capacity". Which is not to say that any one approach is perfect for every table, pre-measuring is as good as not premeasuring (and I tend to play my tables with pre-measuring).

However, playing things such that characters have some chance of making mistakes due to circumstances beyond their direct control is not being a jerk, and is not robbing them of agency. The wind does not rob me of agency when I throw a ball and it gets knocked off course, it merely means I'm not the god-of-all-throwing.

[Coidzor]

You understand space exists between:

"Executes everything perfectly every time and is able to land complex effects in a moving battlefield, including melee combatants with no risk of miscalculation, timing errors, flawed communication, or bad luck in even the tiniest capacity." (Always allow for perfect pre-measuring and no targeting uncertainty)

and

"Incompetent Morons" (apparently anything but doing that??)

Launching anything into a chaotic battle is tough feat even for the sharpest minds. Saying that they have some chance to target with something less than perfection is not making them "not good at what they do" or "bad at what they do", but is making them "merely fallible in some likely small capacity". Which is not to say that any one approach is perfect for every table, pre-measuring is as good as not premeasuring (and I tend to play my tables with pre-measuring).

However, playing things such that characters have some chance of making mistakes due to circumstances beyond their direct control is not being a jerk, and is not robbing them of agency. The wind does not rob me of agency when I throw a ball and it gets knocked off course, it merely means I'm not the god-of-all-throwing.

You're advocating for doing more work, mind. And for very little actual gain, unless the whole group gets off on the idea of spells as hand grenades.

[Safety Sword]

You understand space exists between:

"Executes everything perfectly every time and is able to land complex effects in a moving battlefield, including melee combatants with no risk of miscalculation, timing errors, flawed communication, or bad luck in even the tiniest capacity." (Always allow for perfect pre-measuring and no targeting uncertainty)

and

"Incompetent Morons" (apparently anything but doing that??)

Launching anything into a chaotic battle is tough feat even for the sharpest minds. Saying that they have some chance to target with something less than perfection is not making them "not good at what they do" or "bad at what they do", but is making them "merely fallible in some likely small capacity". Which is not to say that any one approach is perfect for every table, pre-measuring is as good as not premeasuring (and I tend to play my tables with pre-measuring).

However, playing things such that characters have some chance of making mistakes due to circumstances beyond their direct control is not being a jerk, and is not robbing them of agency. The wind does not rob me of agency when I throw a ball and it gets knocked off course, it merely means I'm not the god-of-all-throwing.

If you want to make everything harder to resolve for the sake of "realism" you can house rule away.

I'm playing on a grid for the express purpose of giving my players a visual aid so that they can view the battle space and there are no quibbles about how many goblins are having funerals after this fireball.

[Thrudd]

I prefer no grid, I like using cut out templates for area spells, for sake of speed and ease. I allow one pre-action measurement per turn, either distance or area. Once the target spot is selected, the template comes out and effects are determined. I don't want to trick the players into wasting spells or friendly fire, but I also don't want immersion and action breaking calculations happening that waste time.


Also, the argument that characters are professionals who wouldn't make a mistake with the range or area of their spells is a flawed one, unless we're talking about very high level characters. A 5th level wizard just learned the fireball spell. It is reasonable to think such a person might misjudge the range or area of their spell a couple times, especially when they are under duress. As the player gets better at eyeballing the distance with repeated uses, the character likewise is growing in experience and skill. By the time fireball spells are "old hat", both player and character will rarely make mistakes.

[Vogonjeltz]

You understand space exists between:

"Executes everything perfectly every time and is able to land complex effects in a moving battlefield, including melee combatants with no risk of miscalculation, timing errors, flawed communication, or bad luck in even the tiniest capacity." (Always allow for perfect pre-measuring and no targeting uncertainty)

and

"Incompetent Morons" (apparently anything but doing that??)

Launching anything into a chaotic battle is tough feat even for the sharpest minds. Saying that they have some chance to target with something less than perfection is not making them "not good at what they do" or "bad at what they do", but is making them "merely fallible in some likely small capacity". Which is not to say that any one approach is perfect for every table, pre-measuring is as good as not premeasuring (and how my tables tend to play).

However to say that playing things such that characters have some chance of making mistakes due to circumstances beyond their direct control is not being a jerk, and is not robbing them of agency.

I think the real problem is that, if you use a grid, there can be no targeting uncertainty. If you're not using a grid, sure, but it also seems like a betrayal of player trust and/or just creating a meta-game of avoiding using AoE by the players. I say just by the players, because the DM tendency would be to still use aoe, and probably always use it more or less perfectly.

[Mr.Moron]

You're advocating for doing more work, mind. And for very little actual gain, unless the whole group gets off on the idea of spells as hand grenades.

I'm not advocating for anything save keeping perspective. You'll note I have multiple times said that I generally allow premeasuring at my tables when we're not using theater of the mind. My objection is to the idea that anything but perfection is incompetence and potentially enforcing rules, "House" or otherwise that make room for non-perfection is agency-robbing jerkiness.


If you want to make everything harder to resolve for the sake of "realism" you can house rule away.

I'm playing on a grid for the express purpose of giving my players a visual aid so that they can view the battle space and there are no quibbles about how many goblins are having funerals after this fireball.

Have I complained about "Realism" at any point in this thread? My objection was specific to the idea that mere fallibilty is incomptence, and that table-style choices with reasonable grounding are inherently "being a jerk" and "agency robbing". You're fighting against points I didn't make.


I think the real problem is that, if you use a grid, there can be no targeting uncertainty. If you're not using a grid, sure, but it also seems like a betrayal of player trust and/or just creating a meta-game of avoiding using AoE by the players. I say just by the players, because the DM tendency would be to still use aoe, and probably always use it more or less perfectly.

Depending on how good you are at mentally counting squares quickly, there certainly can be. I've certainly known many, many players that aren't certain about where their AoE is going until they've selected the center point, counted out the squares in every direction twice and then are still surprised at what they do/don't catch.

If you're not allowing any explicit premeasuring (counting squares after choosing a center point but before moving to resolution/target confirmation), I can say confidently there is a non-trivial portion of the playerbase that would at best have rough estimate of what they're hitting.

[Safety Sword]

Have I complained about "Realism" at any point in this thread? My objection was specific to the idea that mere fallibilty is incomptence, and that table-style choices with reasonable grounding are inherently "being a jerk" and "agency robbing". You're fighting against points I didn't make.

Yes.



Launching anything into a chaotic battle is tough feat even for the sharpest minds. Saying that they have some chance to target with something less than perfection is not making them "not good at what they do" or "bad at what they do", but is making them "merely fallible in some likely small capacity". Which is not to say that any one approach is perfect for every table, pre-measuring is as good as not premeasuring (and I tend to play my tables with pre-measuring).

However, playing things such that characters have some chance of making mistakes due to circumstances beyond their direct control is not being a jerk, and is not robbing them of agency. The wind does not rob me of agency when I throw a ball and it gets knocked off course, it merely means I'm not the god-of-all-throwing.

The default for this game is that spells go where you target them. If you do anything that requires a player take any extra effort to ensure accuracy because "chaotic battle", then you are taking a realism argument. You're house ruling extra condition into the spell casting process.

It doesn't say anything about circumstances making it more difficult to target spells in a "regular battle". The only considerations are usually line of sight or line of effect and that you meet the component requirements.

[Mr.Moron]

Yes.

This is not a complaint about realism. It is pointing out that there is a good faith basis in realism for there being something other than a perfection/moron binary. In in the same post say both methods are valid and neither is to be held above the other. I am not calling for realism here, as I pointed out multiple times I use the "Unrealistic" method a my table.




The default for this game is that spells go where you target them. If you do anything that requires a player take any extra effort to ensure accuracy because "chaotic battle", then you are taking a realism argument. You're house ruling extra condition into the spell casting process.


We're talking about pre-measuring. The game at no point makes a declarative statement that which creatures/objects/other game entities are included in an area are to be determined before the target is declared and also makes no explicit allowances for changing targets after declaration.. This is the realm of a stylistic choice a table using miniatures, grids, tape measures or other such tools that provide strict measurable areas.

In theater of the mind combat where there are strict areas that are easily measured, what is or is not in any AoE that's "Aimed between the two orcs, as far from Paul as I can get it" is by definition strictly a narrative call made as part of the spell resolution.

None of the things described here can fairly be called a house rule, but may create or eliminate target uncertainty depending on how they're used. The "realism" scenario is only to point out that the interpretations not related to perfection can be made in good faith, not as compelling reason for one methodology to be more correct than the other.

[Kryx]

I agree with Moron that there is a huge gap between "perfectly proficient" and "incompetent". But there doesn't seem to be a way to model that.

[Mr.Moron]

I agree with Moron that there is a huge gap between "perfectly proficient" and "incompetent". But there doesn't seem to be a way to model that.

Well when using theater of the mind it's rather it's rather easy

Player A:"I Cast fireball at the Orcs attacking us"
GM: "You're all bunched in rather close it might be hard to get a good shot"
Player: "What's the most I can catch without hitting anyone?"
GM: "You can easily catch 2 orcs at no risk, you can catch 4 but there's a 50/50 chance someone else in the area, you'll get all 6 if you just blast the center of the area housing down everyone"
Player A (looks to group): Well
Player B: We need these guys gone, worth the risk to go for 4.
Player C: I Agree
Player A: Ok. I'm going for 4.
GM: "OK. Roll a 1d6. On a 1-3 you've got no one, on a 4 you got player A, on 5 player B, on a 6 player C"


Since there are no miniatures and no absolute positions we're not really breaking any rules here, just the GM narratively tracking positions and describing the results of actions. Note that the d6 roll at the end there has a large emotional impact either way it plays out, feeling like you got away with more for nothing (1-3) and having to grit your teeth and roll against an ally (4-6) which can be anywhere from a minor frustration - hit a beefy character a full HP, to harrowing trial by damage roll (hit a squishy character at low hp). This is an engagement driver, far more so than a static result.

With miniatures or similar physical representations it can be harder without resorting to "House Rules". The really the only way is the most primitive enforce target selection without pre-measuring, with time limits on how long a turn can make. I dislike this because it forces the player to make mistakes rather than the character.

If you're willing to move into the realm of house rules, there are any number of mechanics you can employ as it is a pretty rich design space. A good design is going to be one that's fun interact with and where the aggregate of the "Good Shots" and the "Bad Shots" creates an overall play dynamic more satisfying that a static guaranteed success. Which is less difficult than what you might expect at first. The tension that something might go well or might go bad is generally more engaging than predictable results. It's the reason people watch sports where people throw balls, rather than just watch them drop them straight down from on top of a tower.

There's reason a d20 attack roll with all it's potential for flubs and critical hits, is more exciting than +10 damage modifier in all it's unambiguous certainty. (The centralization of effect of large dice pools on something like fireball does a great deal to dampen that effect, despite rolling being involved. ).

[Kryx]

With miniatures or similar physical representations it can be harder without resorting to "House Rules". The really the only way is the most primitive enforce target selection without pre-measuring, with time limits on how long a turn can make. I dislike this because it forces the player to make mistakes rather than the character.

If you're willing to move into the realm of house rules, there are any number of mechanics you can employ as it is a pretty rich design space. A good design is going to be one that's fun interact with and where the aggregate of the "Good Shots" and the "Bad Shots" creates an overall play dynamic more satisfying that a static guaranteed success. Which is less difficult than what you might expect at first. The tension that something might go well or might go bad is generally more engaging than predictable results. It's the reason people watch sports where people throw balls, rather than just watch them drop them straight down from on top of a tower.
I play with minis on roll20. I'm open to houserules to come up with something between perfect and incompetent.

Any mechanics to handle it?

[djreynolds]

We use a grid and minatures. And it's okay. It helps with player's movement and AoO and hiding. It enhances the play, I don't think it takes away from the theatre of the mind. I find the map keeps players focused on the game. Especially young kids who need to understand the battle. But players must be focused and gameplay faster.

[Fwiffo86]

Assuming you're playing with miniatures and a grid should players be able to measure the area that their AoEs effect?

For example if casting a fireball, should they be able to measure 20 ft in all directions from a point to perfectly place the AoE?

If they are targeting a creature, yes.

If they are targeting a location they can clearly see, yes (essentially they are looking right at it)

If there is any modifier to either of these? Probably not.

[Malifice]

I play with minis on roll20. I'm open to houserules to come up with something between perfect and incompetent.

Any mechanics to handle it?

A spell attack roll to land it at the right grid intersection works. Move it 5' in a random direction (d8 works) on a miss.

[Kryx]

A spell attack roll to land it at the right grid intersection works. Move it 5' in a random direction (d8 works) on a miss.
vs what DC? 5 is what was previously used, though that wouldn't matter at level 1 (2 prof + 3 int). 10 would stop mattering at 9th level assuming stat boost (4+5).

[JFahy]

Nope. Combat becomes interesting when you have to make decisions and adapt
your actions to what's happening on the battlefield. If one side closes with their
opponent and that makes AoE dangerous to use, you now have an interesting
situation. Use it anyway? Switch to different spells? Do something to reposition
your friends and/or your enemies?

When the community almost unanimously allows this kind of thing, and then
complains about games being harmed by 'caster dominance', it's kind of hard to sympathize.

[JFahy]

Isn't there a feat, Sculpted Spell or something like that, which makes you a
surgeon at catching exactly the right people with AoE? I think somebody in
Hoard of the Dragon Queen has it, but I don't remember if it's in the PH or
if it's something special that one NPC had.

[Kryx]

Isn't there a feat, Sculpted Spell.
Nope. That's either an Evo Wizard thing or a Sorc Metamagic thing.

[NNescio]

Isn't there a feat, Sculpted Spell or something like that, which makes you a
surgeon at catching exactly the right people with AoE? I think somebody in
Hoard of the Dragon Queen has it, but I don't remember if it's in the PH or
if it's something special that one NPC had.

It's an Evoker (Evocation Wizard) class feature. It applies to Evocation spells, but it technically doesn't modify the AoE (heck, it can even work on spells without AoE). Instead, you can designate targets you see to automatically succeed on saving throws against that particular spell you just cast, and they take no damage if they normally take half damage on a successful save.

Sorcerers also have something similar with the Careful Spell metamagic. This one is school-agnostic, and also lets you grant automatic saving throw successes to affected targets you can see. They still take any effects (including half damage) on a successful save though. It also consumes sorcery points to use.

[Malifice]

vs what DC? 5 is what was previously used, though that wouldn't matter at level 1 (2 prof + 3 int). 10 would stop mattering at 9th level assuming stat boost (4+5).

DC 10 plus cover works best. 5 is too easy (it's harder hitting a 10' wide gelatinous cube) You're only scattering by 5' (maybe 10 on a natural 1 for the lols) so DC 10 is the sweet spot.

5th level wizards miss only around 15 percent of the time. By the time they hit 11th it's down to a natural 1 (not including cover).

Trying to lob one through an arrow slit (+5 cover) brings the DC to 15 (10 base plus 5 cover).

I'd give PCs with the spell sniper feat advantage on the attack roll.

[Kryx]

@Malifice: Do you/would you actually use that rule?

It wouldn't really solve the "issue" for spells that just appear like Hunger of Hadar for example. "A 20-foot-radius sphere ... centered on a point within range".

[djreynolds]

Caster's already have to roll for ranged attack spells. And the other spells get saves vs their effects. Now you're telling me I may miss with my fireball and they get a save on top of it to evade it and maybe are resistant to it. How in the world will I ever live to get that wish spell!!!!

I don't mind and even enjoy a faster gameplay in combat. And aside from the monk counting Ki points and flurry of blows and our ranger forgetting to move hunter's mark and rolling damage for colossus slayer, and hunter's mark and etc, combat really moves fast, oh and the paladin adding smite for this and that and oh now I want to cast a bonus action spell... who has the PHB.

The wizard should have all the time in the world to sit there and count squares, he/she should be doing just that.

But I have no objections to DM's making house rules to punish stupid actions. Like firing arrows into a crowd or launching a fireball near a crowd or sending a lightning bolt through a giant and the wall five feet behind him and the cleric he's stepping on. For this we roll percentile dice or if its an attack, say firing a bow into a crowd and you roll a 1, now you roll a percentile dice to see if you hit a party member else with that arrow. Draconic, yes.

Usually once is all it takes and play in the game runs smoother. I'd rather have a kid counting squares, than someone launching spells and not know where they are going. Obviously we're not supposed to have a top down view of the battle in reality, but it makes player more conscious of their decisions and that promotes better gameplay all together.

[Malifice]

@Malifice: Do you/would you actually use that rule?

It wouldn't really solve the "issue" for spells that just appear like Hunger of Hadar for example. "A 20-foot-radius sphere ... centered on a point within range".

Yeah I do (in corner cases). If a PC was trying to lob a fireball through an arrow slit or in the middle of a swirling melee then I might call for such a roll.

DMs call on when appropriate.

Same token I award advantage to players for good descriptions of actions or clever roleplaying, sometimes the tasks get harder depending on circumstances.

In melee you might award disadvantage to land a ranged Attack in a thunderstorm or on the deck of a ship in rough seas. With spells I might call for a spell Attack roll to land an AOE spell right were you want it.

It's not an 'every day' thing. Depends on the circumstances.

[Malifice]

Caster's already have to roll for ranged attack spells. And the other spells get saves vs their effects. Now you're telling me I may miss with my fireball and they get a save on top of it to evade it and maybe are resistant to it. How in the world will I ever live to get that wish spell!!!!

I don't mind and even enjoy a faster gameplay in combat. And aside from the monk counting Ki points and flurry of blows and our ranger forgetting to move hunter's mark and rolling damage for colossus slayer, and hunter's mark and etc, combat really moves fast, oh and the paladin adding smite for this and that and oh now I want to cast a bonus action spell... who has the PHB.

The wizard should have all the time in the world to sit there and count squares, he/she should be doing just that.

But I have no objections to DM's making house rules to punish stupid actions. Like firing arrows into a crowd or launching a fireball near a crowd or sending a lightning bolt through a giant and the wall five feet behind him and the cleric he's stepping on. For this we roll percentile dice or if its an attack, say firing a bow into a crowd and you roll a 1, now you roll a percentile dice to see if you hit a party member else with that arrow. Draconic, yes.

Usually once is all it takes and play in the game runs smoother. I'd rather have a kid counting squares, than someone launching spells and not know where they are going. Obviously we're not supposed to have a top down view of the battle in reality, but it makes player more conscious of their decisions and that promotes better gameplay all together.

I dislike it personally. Sometimes I'll allow a player to take his time on his turn (say if a TPK is imminent) but I'll generally hurry them up and if they take more than a few seconds to declare an action and a target if any, I'll start a count to 6 and have them default to the dodge action if nothing is declared before then. Turns are short and sharp.

Simulates the chaos of battle better for my taste, speeds up turns (so other players aren't waiting as long) and makes players stay focussed on the action when it's not their turn (shorter gaps between turns and a need to use the time between turns to plan your next move).

It's more engaging, more realistic and more exciting that way I find.

[djreynolds]

Well I like the count to 6 and if not take the dodge action. Draconic, that's good

[Kryx]

Caster's already have to roll for ranged attack spells. And the other spells get saves vs their effects. Now you're telling me I may miss with my fireball and they get a save on top of it to evade it and maybe are resistant to it.
I expect this type of reaction which is why I'm so cautious about it. Though that reaction feels like knee-jerk reaction.

If we consider the end result:
AC 10 to hit a square would have the caster hitting the exact point he wants to have a fireball emanate from 75% of the time at level 1. In the 25% case they simply miss their target by 5 feet, but the effect still goes off (just adjusted 5 feet to one side).
That would be the most fair way to adjudicate if it hits the intended area imo. You seem to prefer percentile dice and maybe that's a better solution, but you haven't quite spelled out how it works.

The result I'm after is something between "perfectly proficient" and "incompetent". I'll use the old edition rules for splash weapons so to me it would be a logical extension of those rules with only minor consequences of failing. The other result is perfect spell placement, which is the norm in all editions, but is unrealistic.



Though maybe this isn't even worth considering. Many people play without it. I'd have to have my players agree before implementing it.

[Mr.Moron]

I play with minis on roll20. I'm open to houserules to come up with something between perfect and incompetent.

Any mechanics to handle it?

Nothing specific I'm afraid. I use the premeasuring method or ToM so I've never had the need to come up with any mechanics for this sort of thing. That said I can conceptually see a lot of design space that might range from spells drifting, to spells not being consistent in size or shape, to some kind of secondary-save system around the selected area.

I do think it's the kind of thing that could work, but I don't think there is an easy/quick solution from a design standpoint. There's a lot to consider and the system would have be engaging to play with not simply "Spells work exactly as they do now, but sometimes they're crappy".


However I'll just do some top-of-my-head brainstorming in this post, in case any of it useful. I've placed it in a spoiler as it's a long, rambling stream of consciousnesses sort of post that puts forward the loose idea of system that hasn't been double-checked or play tested. tl;dr below.


The easiest place to start is by considering what variables go into getting a "Good Shot" out of an AoE spell.
-Accurately placing the origin of the effect.
-Timing the effect correctly.
-Executing the spell correctly, to get the proper size & shape.

The first two factors broadly reflect what is abstracted by the hit-roll/AC mechanic, while the second doesn't have any good analogues to it. Since ideally our system would account for all three we want something that's both AC-like but also incorporates some element that models the spell control.


From a practical gameplay standpoint we don't want to:

-Bloat the spellcasting process with too many extra die rolls
-Lower the power/utility level of AoE spells much, something about our system should provide a new upside to make up for the possible downsides.

Now on the second point, this sounds an awful like a crit system to me obviously we can't port those mechanics exactly but the idea that when you do very well on some part of the casting process the spell works better is probably a sound now. Now spells aren't hit rolls and crits already thing so we want something new, going back we had that "Spell Execution" idea, so that's gonna get two birds with one stone here.

We're introduce a new roll - the control roll. Your bonus is the same as your spell hit prof + cast stat. The DC is per-spell basis a designer/GM running this system would have to go in and rate everything. However I'm thinking probably 10+spell level (not the slot of spell level being used, baseline spell level), might be a good baseline. However I think rating individual spells on their own merits probably has more flavor and room for making system flexible but would be more work.



So, you cast an AoE spell you make your control roll. Failure means you've failed to control the spell properly, now there's a lot that could go wrong and we don't really want to add mores at this point. So lets make our control roll pull double duty. On a failure let's look at the one's digit of the control roll.

1 and 11 will tend to fail against lower control dcs than 9 and 19 will, the worst penalties should be at the bottom top of the scale. In other words you can only hit the "0" result if you fail on a 10 or 20. Of these only failing on a 10 is actually possible, and will only happen if your Prof Bonus + Casting modifier is lower than the level of the spell you're trying to cast and so should be impossible without very low ability scores.



1-3: Target off. Move the center of the spell 10ft directly towards the caster if their initiative value is even, away if it is odd.
4-6: Bounding Problem. Enlarge the AoE of the spell by 10ft if the caster's initiative value is even, reduce it by the same amount if it is odd.
7-9: Sculpting Error. Place a 10ft cone at the center spell, facing twoards the caster if their initiative value is even, twoards them if it is odd. This the spell has no effect in this area. Place the same cone originating from the edge AoE at the point nearest too and directly pointing at the nearest creature outside the AoE.
0 : Full Inversion. If there are more allies than enemies in the intended AoE of the spell, center the AoE on the furthest visible enemy from the caster. If there are more enemies than allies in the intended AoE of the spell, center the AoE on the closest visible ally to the caster other than themselves, or themselves if no other allies are visible.


(We use iniative her because we can't triple-load the control check easily, and we want to avoid rolling more dice. Since this value will already be in place for the fight and should only come up once or twice using the initiative value seems like an easy way to get it initialized)

This handles the "Things Go Wrong" side, now we need upside. Again individual upsides for spells would be best, but if we want something quick and dirty

If a spell control roll exceeds the DC of the spell by 5 or more the caster has landed the spell with better accuracy and control than normal, and can re-roll any effect/damage dice of their choosing.

If a spell control roll exceeds the DC of the spell by 10 or more the caster has landed the spell with perfect control and accuracy, enemies have disadvantage against the save(s) of the spell if it has one, and any allies caught in the effect in spite of this have advantage on any save(s) of the spell if it has one.

Other thoughts:

A caster can spend inspiration to auto-pass a spell control check.
Sorcerers can spend sorcery points equal to 1/2 (round up) the spell level to get advantage on a spell control check.
Casters have advantage on spells they have ready through class-specific packages like Domain or Oath Spells.



tl;dr. Have casters make roll to control their AoE spells. If they fail it doesn't work exactly as expected, if they roll extra ordinarily well they get some bonuses. Staple-on some class specific benefits that give bonuses on the roll.

[Malifice]

Nothing specific I'm afraid. I use the premeasuring method or ToM so I've never had the need to come up with any mechanics for this sort of thing. That said I can conceptually see a lot of design space that might range from spells drifting, to spells not being consistent in size or shape, to some kind of secondary-save system around the selected area.

I do think it's the kind of thing that could work, but I don't think there is an easy/quick solution from a design standpoint. There's a lot to consider and the system would have be engaging to play with not simply "Spells work exactly as they do now, but sometimes they're crappy".


However I'll just do some top-of-my-head brainstorming in this post, in case any of it useful. I've placed it in a spoiler as it's a long, rambling stream of consciousnesses sort of post that puts forward the loose idea of system that hasn't been double-checked or play tested. tl;dr below.


The easiest place to start is by considering what variables go into getting a "Good Shot" out of an AoE spell.
-Accurately placing the origin of the effect.
-Timing the effect correctly.
-Executing the spell correctly, to get the proper size & shape.

The first two factors broadly reflect what is abstracted by the hit-roll/AC mechanic, while the second doesn't have any good analogues to it. Since ideally our system would account for all three we want something that's both AC-like but also incorporates some element that models the spell control.


From a practical gameplay standpoint we don't want to:

-Bloat the spellcasting process with too many extra die rolls
-Lower the power/utility level of AoE spells much, something about our system should provide a new upside to make up for the possible downsides.

Now on the second point, this sounds an awful like a crit system to me obviously we can't port those mechanics exactly but the idea that when you do very well on some part of the casting process the spell works better is probably a sound now. Now spells aren't hit rolls and crits already thing so we want something new, going back we had that "Spell Execution" idea, so that's gonna get two birds with one stone here.

We're introduce a new roll - the control roll. Your bonus is the same as your spell hit prof + cast stat. The DC is per-spell basis a designer/GM running this system would have to go in and rate everything. However I'm thinking probably 10+spell level (not the slot of spell level being used, baseline spell level), might be a good baseline. However I think rating individual spells on their own merits probably has more flavor and room for making system flexible but would be more work.



So, you cast an AoE spell you make your control roll. Failure means you've failed to control the spell properly, now there's a lot that could go wrong and we don't really want to add mores at this point. So lets make our control roll pull double duty. On a failure let's look at the one's digit of the control roll.

1 and 11 will tend to fail against lower control dcs than 9 and 19 will, the worst penalties should be at the bottom top of the scale. In other words you can only hit the "0" result if you fail on a 10 or 20. Of these only failing on a 10 is actually possible, and will only happen if your Prof Bonus + Casting modifier is lower than the level of the spell you're trying to cast and so should be impossible without very low ability scores.




(We use iniative her because we can't triple-load the control check easily, and we want to avoid rolling more dice. Since this value will already be in place for the fight and should only come up once or twice using the initiative value seems like an easy way to get it initialized)

This handles the "Things Go Wrong" side, now we need upside. Again individual upsides for spells would be best, but if we want something quick and dirty

If a spell control roll exceeds the DC of the spell by 5 or more the caster has landed the spell with better accuracy and control than normal, and can re-roll any effect/damage dice of their choosing.

If a spell control roll exceeds the DC of the spell by 10 or more the caster has landed the spell with perfect control and accuracy, enemies have disadvantage against the save(s) of the spell if it has one, and any allies caught in the effect in spite of this have advantage on any save(s) of the spell if it has one.

Other thoughts:

A caster can spend inspiration to auto-pass a spell control check.
Sorcerers can spend sorcery points equal to 1/2 (round up) the spell level to get advantage on a spell control check.
Casters have advantage on spells they have ready through class-specific packages like Domain or Oath Spells.



tl;dr. Have casters make roll to control their AoE spells. If they fail it doesn't work exactly as expected, if they roll extra ordinarily well they get some bonuses. Staple-on some class specific benefits that give bonuses on the roll.

If I called for a spell Attack roll to land a fireball and the caster got a nat 20, I'd be more than happy to add on some rule of cool effect like creatures that failed their saves catch fire for (spell level x 2 damage) at the end of their turns and can't take reactions unless they take an action to put it out.

[Mr.Moron]

If I called for a spell Attack roll to land a fireball and the caster got a nat 20, I'd be more than happy to add on some rule of cool effect like creatures that failed their saves catch fire for (spell level x 2 damage) at the end of their turns and can't take reactions unless they take an action to put it out.

Right and so would I in some fashion, but in the context of this thread I got the impression what was desired/being discussed were rules of a more concrete and codified kind than allow for "Rule of Cool".

[Malifice]

Right and so would I in some fashion, but in the context of this thread I got the impression what was desired/being discussed were rules of a more concrete and codified kind than allow for "Rule of Cool".

Dude this is 5E. Rule of cool/ make it up as you go along is King.

AC 10 + Cover when it feels right to do so to the DM. Move it 5' in a random direction on a miss (d8 is perfect to determine the intersection). 10' (or it strikes something in the path) on a natural one. Rule of cool effect on a natural 20.

That covers it in more than enough detail.

[Kryx]

AC 10 + Cover when it feels right to do so to the DM. Move it 5' in a random direction on a miss (d8 is perfect to determine the intersection). 10' (or it strikes something in the path) on a natural one. Rule of cool effect on a natural 20.
I would agree with this, but many would call that "rule of uncool" because it's "nerfing casters".

He was referring to me wanting more concrete mechanics. What you outlined is exactly what I would do if my players don't disagree.

[Malifice]

I would agree with this, but many would call that "rule of uncool" because it's "nerfing casters".

He was referring to me wanting more concrete mechanics. What you outlined is exactly what I would do if my players don't disagree.

I'f my players 'disagreed' with the above ruling, I'd find new players personally.

That's just me I guess.

[Kryx]

So how do you run other AoE spells like Hunger of Hadar then? There is no spell attack in the fluff. Do you assume those are perfectly placed, or not? If not, how do you do it?