If my memory serves, there is nothing in the rules about this.
If I were to guess, I would say most, to nearly all, groups roll once for all.
But if your group doesn't mind the extra work and time, rolling individually shouldn't break the game at all.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Damage is traditionally rolled only once, with individual saves allowed. That is, I don't roll just once for the saves, but allow one roll per creature, provided the number of creatues is roughly under 8 creatures/enemies/targets.
Also,
Since this thread might end rather quickly - - -let met just toss out another related question?
How many of you allow players to place the fireball radius? I use a wire template for fireballs and spells, and I notice the players always strategically placing it. I just wondered if there was a better way to make these events less..... perfect?
Thoughts?
|
I would ignore counting out distances much (though they can easily do this before their turn) and just encourage them to pick a point, then have the fireball spread from that point and apply the wire template. Though if they really want to make sure it's placed exactly, I don't think it's a huge deal.
Also,
Since this thread might end rather quickly - - -let met just toss out another related question?
How many of you allow players to place the fireball radius? I use a wire template for fireballs and spells, and I notice the players always strategically placing it. I just wondered if there was a better way to make these events less..... perfect?
Thoughts?
I let them target the square they want, but then we roll a d4 to determine on which corner of that square the center of effect is.
|
|
I let them target the square they want, but then we roll a d4 to determine on which corner of that square the center of effect is.
Also,
Since this thread might end rather quickly - - -let met just toss out another related question?
How many of you allow players to place the fireball radius? I use a wire template for fireballs and spells, and I notice the players always strategically placing it. I just wondered if there was a better way to make these events less..... perfect?
Thoughts?
Oh..... THAT is what I was wondering, and, an interesting tactic! Mostly allows control, with just a touch of variability!
I'm losing my touch-why didn't I think of that??!?! Thank you.
I let them target the square they want, but then we roll a d4 to determine on which corner of that square the center of effect is.
Funny, I do the exact same thing. Target the square and then the actual intersection point is random.
|
|
I let them target the square they want, but then we roll a d4 to determine on which corner of that square the center of effect is.Funny, I do the exact same thing. Target the square and then the actual intersection point is random.
Maybe this tradition comes from an old ruleset.... maybe AD&D 2e? But in any case, thanks.
I let them target the square they want, but then we roll a d4 to determine on which corner of that square the center of effect is.Funny, I do the exact same thing. Target the square and then the actual intersection point is random.
Why not let them do an attack roll to see if they can pick a corner?
Why not let them do an attack roll to see if they can pick a corner?I let them target the square they want, but then we roll a d4 to determine on which corner of that square the center of effect is.Funny, I do the exact same thing. Target the square and then the actual intersection point is random.
Too much rolling for me. Roll to see if they can pick a corner, if not, roll to pick a corner. I just assume that combat is extremely chaotic and in constant motion, making picking an exact, precise centerpoint too tricky. It serves the purpose (for me) of getting rid of surgically placed spells very well. The spell is still very close to where they intended, and 25% of the time precisely where they intended.
|
|
Too much rolling for me. Roll to see if they can pick a corner, if not, roll to pick a corner. I just assume that combat is extremely chaotic and in constant motion, making picking an exact, precise centerpoint too tricky. It serves the purpose (for me) of getting rid of surgically placed spells very well. The spell is still very close to where they intended, and 25% of the time precisely where they intended.Why not let them do an attack roll to see if they can pick a corner?I let them target the square they want, but then we roll a d4 to determine on which corner of that square the center of effect is.Funny, I do the exact same thing. Target the square and then the actual intersection point is random.
jreyst - I tend to agree. I like the minor abstraction of chaos to have just enough of a chance without becomming a series of rolls, and don't wish to allow a possible "happy path" for the PCs. The impetus for this has been the surgical placing of the template-which makes the event seem so sterile and contrived. I like the way jreyst describes the chaos of combat.
One addition question? What would you say to using that old "throw grenade chart" that we occassionally see in DMGs but never seem to use... you know, the d8 roll, or was it d12 (gasp!)? In any case, I could see using an "attack roll" to send the little fire bead into the right square- and if the attack misses, then roll randomly to determine placement. This would actually use existing rules, rather than invent new ones. I am not saying it is optimal, nor my preferred, but I am asking whether using such a method would make use of the existing ruleset properly, before layering a new 1d4 roll. ?
Thoughts?
One addition question? What would you say to using that old "throw grenade chart" that we occassionally see in DMGs but never seem to use... you know, the d8 roll, or was it d12 (gasp!)? In any case, I could see using an "attack roll" to send the little fire bead into the right square- and if the attack misses, then roll randomly to determine placement. This would actually use existing rules, rather than invent new ones. I am not saying it is optimal, nor my preferred, but I am asking whether using such a method would make use of the existing ruleset properly, before layering a new 1d4 roll. ?
Thoughts?
Personally, I would love the chaos and randomness that would cause...
But it isn't just me playing the game.
With that in mind, I would say the "grenade like weapons" chart is too much.
It requires the worst BAB classes to make a to-hit roll.
It drastically reduces the potential of the spells that suffer the biggest stigma already. (The belief that blasting spells are below the effectiveness of control-type spells.)
And it greatly increases the chance of hosing your own group with it.
If that is what you want, can I play too?
But for most groups, I think it penalises casters too much.
The D4 roll should do nicely.
I agree with Disenchanter. Using the grenade rules requires looking up the table to determine where something actually hits, causes the classes with the worst bab to be the ones most often affected by it, and just, in general, is too much dice rolling. For me, its really quick and easy when the player says, "I cast fireball" I say, "ok, pick a square and roll d4" then I point to which corner is #1 and go clockwise from there. Its really quick, requires no additional looking up of rules, and preserves an amount of randomness I like.
Do whatever works for you though! I'm just saying what I like :)
|
|
I agree with Disenchanter. Using the grenade rules requires looking up the table to determine where something actually hits, causes the classes with the worst bab to be the ones most often affected by it, and just, in general, is too much dice rolling. For me, its really quick and easy when the player says, "I cast fireball" I say, "ok, pick a square and roll d4" then I point to which corner is #1 and go clockwise from there. Its really quick, requires no additional looking up of rules, and preserves an amount of randomness I like.
Do whatever works for you though! I'm just saying what I like :)
I like it too.
And, Disenchanter—you're always welcome at my table.
Okay—one last thing... if the placement isn't dependent on a corner, but rather calls for centeredness on a square, would you say the 1d4 can apply, or would you use 1d8 to place it in one of the adjacent squares? Maybe this is a non issue?
I don't know of any area effect spell that centers on a square...
Do you have an example?
|
|
Okay—one last thing... if the placement isn't dependent on a corner, but rather calls for centeredness on a square, would you say the 1d4 can apply, or would you use 1d8 to place it in one of the adjacent squares? Maybe this is a non issue?I don't know of any area effect spell that centers on a square...
Do you have an example?
Nope, but I'm known for my thoroughness. Thanks. I guess that solves that.
With that in mind, I would say the "grenade like weapons" chart is too much.
It requires the worst BAB classes to make a to-hit roll.
It drastically reduces the potential of the spells that suffer the biggest stigma already. (The belief that blasting spells are below the effectiveness of control-type spells.)
And it greatly increases the chance of hosing your own group with it.If that is what you want, can I play too?
But for most groups, I think it penalises casters too much.
The D4 roll should do nicely.
I agree with the d4 for completely different reasons.
If you're casting it on a square, the d4 assumes you hit the square, you're just determining the middle point for a blast radius.
If you're making an attack roll on a square, not a creature in that square, you're making a ranged touch attack on a 5 foot square of immobile space. You hit! Success! (Unless you critical fumble, I guess.) So...uh... roll a d4 to see which corner you hit. :-P
I do actually like the idea of making a ranged touch attack to determine the center of a blast radius, but I don't think it should be more specific than a square and I don't really see the need to roll a ranged touch attack on a square of immobile space if there's approximately 0 miss chance.
In my games I've been running it as letting the caster pick the corner of the square but I think I'm going to start having the players roll d4 as mentioned here.
|
|
With that in mind, I would say the "grenade like weapons" chart is too much.
It requires the worst BAB classes to make a to-hit roll.
It drastically reduces the potential of the spells that suffer the biggest stigma already. (The belief that blasting spells are below the effectiveness of control-type spells.)
And it greatly increases the chance of hosing your own group with it.If that is what you want, can I play too?
But for most groups, I think it penalises casters too much.
The D4 roll should do nicely.
I agree with the d4 for completely different reasons.
If you're casting it on a square, the d4 assumes you hit the square, you're just determining the middle point for a blast radius.
If you're making an attack roll on a square, not a creature in that square, you're making a ranged touch attack on a 5 foot square of immobile space. You hit! Success! (Unless you critical fumble, I guess.) So...uh... roll a d4 to see which corner you hit. :-P
I do actually like the idea of making a ranged touch attack to determine the center of a blast radius, but I don't think it should be more specific than a square.
In my games I've been running it as letting the caster pick the corner of the square but I think I'm going to start having the players roll d4 as mentioned here.
Yes. This 1d4 corner roll really seems right, and adds just enough variability to assure the PC sorcerer doesn't conveniently miss friendly PCs every single time. I use the steel squire radius templates, so its very much in my face as I see the player jockeying the template just perfectly. And, since I don't seem to allow the fighters or rogues at the table have such luxury, the 1d4 corner roll should smooth this out nicely. I am so very glad I asked. I love these forums.
In some campaigns, I've had mages roll Spellcraft basically as a "to hit" and then used the normal grenade bounce diagram from there. Mostly back in 2e though, in 3e+ everyone seems to have the default assumption that all characters place all kinds of things they want to do perfectly. I'm more a "fog of war" fan.
|
|
In some campaigns, I've had mages roll Spellcraft basically as a "to hit" and then used the normal grenade bounce diagram from there. Mostly back in 2e though, in 3e+ everyone seems to have the default assumption that all characters place all kinds of things they want to do perfectly. I'm more a "fog of war" fan.
Well, and honestly, this has me thinking. I'm a little worn from the days of PCs being "entitled" to strike/hit/achieve things with lightning precision. I'm not bitter, but it just seems to lack a sense of fantasy story, and becomes more like the mechnics seen in video games.
Ernest—do you GM? Do you still use the normal 2e grenade bounce diagram along with the to-hit roll?
If someone is shooting an arrow-we seem to require this type of targeting, and when the fighter is throwing his molotov cocktail, doesn't he need to do the same? Where did we give WIZ/SORC the executive pardon? Just curious...
If someone is shooting an arrow-we seem to require this type of targeting, and when the fighter is throwing his molotov cocktail, doesn't he need to do the same? Where did we give WIZ/SORC the executive pardon? Just curious...
because the chance of failure mechanism is on the part of the defender rolling a save. After the arrow hits the target does not then roll a reflex save to dodge it. Spell has that.
In my group we require the caster to immediately pick the chosen corner before he or she pulls out the template, (eyeballing it) giving a second or two to make the choice, then the template comes out and he see's what gets caught in the blast. I believe the accuracy of magic should be straight forward, but its the players quick judgments which are more representative of the chaos of battle.
If someone is shooting an arrow-we seem to require this type of targeting, and when the fighter is throwing his molotov cocktail, doesn't he need to do the same? Where did we give WIZ/SORC the executive pardon? Just curious...because the chance of failure mechanism is on the part of the defender rolling a save. After the arrow hits the target does not then roll a reflex save to dodge it. Spell has that.
In my group we require the caster to immediately pick the chosen corner before he or she pulls out the template, (eyeballing it) giving a second or two to make the choice, then the template comes out and he see's what gets caught in the blast. I believe the accuracy of magic should be straight forward, but its the players quick judgments which are more representative of the chaos of battle.
I had a DM who said "6.5.4.3.2.1."
That made us quick to pick the point! As long as you weren't going first, you had a minute to pick the optimum point. Otherwise, no, and you'd lose your action, along with your spell. Your caster couldn't aim in the heat of battle.
The 1d4 system is what is used in d20 modern for grenades, as long as you hit the square. Miss it and the d8s and d12s come into play...
However, it is one of the few rules in d20m that I was excited about, and I have no idea why I didn't think of it for 3.5.
How many of you allow players to place the fireball radius? I use a wire template for fireballs and spells, and I notice the players always strategically placing it. I just wondered if there was a better way to make these events less..... perfect?
If placement is an issue we usually use a spellcraft roll with an arbitrary DC (usually 15-20 but higher sometimes). If the spellcraft roll fails then it doesn't quite work right (DMs discretion)
I let them target the square they want, but then we roll a d4 to determine on which corner of that square the center of effect is.
Hmm... this is kind of cool, simple and elegant. I'll have to think on this one.
I had a DM who said "6.5.4.3.2.1."
I've never had huge problems with this but this is A GREAT idea for indecisive/ overly precise players in general.
I let them target the square they want, but then we roll a d4 to determine on which corner of that square the center of effect is.Hmm... this is kind of cool, simple and elegant. I'll have to think on this one.
I agree; this sounds like a neat idea. It's just about the perfect amount of variability, I think. Although I admit that I've cast a lot of Sleep spells into melee in my time; that probably would be counterproductive using this system!