|
No matter what edition of the game I've played, when it has come to using Area of Effect spells, the centre of the effect's location invariably becomes a committee decision amongst the players. It's only human nature that you want to help your comrades in getting the most "bang" for the spell with the minimal threat to "friendlies" on the board. Lately this "AoE by Committee" process has gotten out of hand in my game and I realize it's time for me to become a "hard-ass" DM about it again.
Back in 1E/2E I used to dock XP but I think there's better potential with the 3.xE mechanics to give a player an opportunity to call on the "committee" but at a cost.
The spellcaster is the sole person to declare the location of an Area of Effect spell. Once they've designated the Area of Effect, they cannot change it without making a Spellcraft check with a DC of 15 plus spell level. The DC has the following modifiers to reflect fatigue/fog of war: +5 if spellcaster is at 51-75% of their maximum hit points; +10 if the spellcaster is at 11-50% of their maximum hit points; +20 if the spell caster's hit points are 10% or less. If another player blurts out suggestions before the Area of Effect is first designated, the spellcaster must make the Spellcraft check regardless of where they finally declare the Area of Affect.
Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?
Is this a little harsh? Or will such a table rule curtail the in-combat decisions by "committee" that slows the pace of combat more than necessary?
Geez, an egg timer always worked for me. Give em 30 seconds, no more, no less. Anyone who wants to complain can play the caster next time :)
I agree with Ender. Mainly I could hardly care if the PCs are doing this by committee or not. I mean their yelling at the fighter to trip or not to trip as well. 3.5 takes a long time to resolve combat so its sort of a good thing if all the players are involved in each others turn. It sure beats them falling asleep in the 10 minute (or longer) interim between when their character last had a turn and their next turn.
However if you feel that these debates are slowing the game down to an unacceptable level then of course the benefits of all the players being engaged in the game are out weighed by the fact that everything is slowing to a crawl. At this point some kind of a timer is probably a good idea.
However I'd definitely not do this simply for 'realisms' sake. This game takes way to long for their to be a policy of 'shut up and be bored when its not your turn'. Better that everyone gets in on the fun then that.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I agree with Jeremy. Also, if such a rule is necessary, tying it to hit points seems like a major pain, particularly if any part of your goal is to speed up play. Rather than arguing about AoE placement (or perhaps, in addition to arguing about AoE placement) this rule will result in players spending time trying to calculate the applicable DC. Just make it a straight DC of 15 plus spell level.
why not make area affect spells like fireballs "grenade-like" and have them roll a 1d10 every time the spell is cast, 1-2 mean that the pell went of as designated, 3-10 indicate a displacement of 5 feet from the original center in a circular pattern.
Im not particularly in favor of it, but it seems simple and less time consuming mathematics wise.
I tend to agree with Jeremy, Sebastian, and Rhavin for the most part…a time limit would be more effective short- and long-term. Too much complex math just mucks up the flow. A timer of some sort (egg timer, sweep hand on your watch, whatever) should be enough to get the idea across.
If they can’t agree within the time limit, the AoE goes off at the default minimum distance for the spell. Yes, in many instances this will have the spell activate on the caster and anyone around him, but it will only take one or two of these incidents to get the player telling the others to butt out, because he’s tired of his character getting whacked by its own magic. That way you’re not alone in being the “heavy”.
|
|
...less time consuming mathematics wise.
I had not considered multiplying a PCs hit points by 0.75, 0.50, or 0.10 as difficult or time consuming before but I'll note the hesitation towards math. Most of my players gamed with me during 2E when determining initiative was an exercise in math (d10 + weapon speed/2 rounded up - Dex adjustment) so I doubt the potential math in this case will be an issue.
The points about keeping the combat a cooperative effort are well made. Boredom and the distractions they cause are good reasons to keep AoE, flanking, tripping, charging, and other combat tactics open to a committee. Keeping the debate to a minimum to keep the pace steady is a likely solution; perhaps a timer is due to make an appearance.
Thank you for the comments thus far!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
...less time consuming mathematics wise.I had not considered multiplying a PCs hit points by 0.75, 0.50, or 0.10 as difficult or time consuming before but I'll note the hesitation towards math. Most of my players gamed with me during 2E when determining initiative was an exercise in math (d10 + weapon speed/2 rounded up - Dex adjustment) so I doubt the potential math in this case will be an issue.
It's not so much the math (or not just the math), it's also the decision tree involved. You've added an additional roll (the spellcraft roll), made the DC variable based on two different factors (spell level and hit points), and added in two triggering conditions for the roll. Every time you introduce another factor that has to be determined, you slow down combat. The initiative example you provide isn't very hard to implement because at core, it's a single roll made once per round, every round, using more or less the same modifier. By contrast, the rule you have will only come into play when certain specific conditions are met, involves non-intuitive numbers not recorded on the character sheet, and changes each time the character gets hurt or levels.
|
|
By contrast, the rule you have will only come into play when certain specific conditions are met, involves non-intuitive numbers not recorded on the character sheet, and changes each time the character gets hurt or levels.
Good points indeed if it were the player's responsibility to set the target DC. As I, the DM, know the player's maximum hit points and track the damage they've suffered, I should have a Spellcraft DC set by the time the committee has resolved their tactical issues in placing the AoE spell.
Perhaps I am trying to instill the aspects of uncertainty upon the battlefield too much. I believe that is my real source of heartburn with the committee tactics. In a single 3.xE round, equivalent to a "segment" in my old 1E/2E mentality, I have difficulty allowing prolonged discussion about a tactical move. The "fog of war" should affect the PC's ability to recognize the best tactical situations. If a player can use the birds-eye perspective that a battlemat/miniatures provides to their own advantage, great! I hope that during their comrade's initiative, that player was already thinking about their tactics. When they're up, they should know immediately what to do and (hopefully) the rules to resolve the tactic. My issue is when other players interject with "no, you want to put the AoE here so you can get these guys too" or "charge and get an attack this round too". Invariably that becomes the new location of the AoE spell and the player forgoes the double move for a charge attack. Granted, our characters are typically "smarter" than the players running them, especially with wizards. The committee aspect provides a group intelligence that probably corresponds closer to the game mechanic Intelligence of the character.
That is why I am trying to come up with a mechanic that reflects that PC's ability to adjust their thinking in the "fog of war" accurately. A Spellcraft check seems logical to me for designating AoE spells. Perhaps a Level or Wisdom check would work for combat tactics derived by committee. The hit point loss variable to the target DC captures the the "fog of war" element. It always seemed odd to me that a rogue making a Climb check has the same chance of success when at maximum hit points and as when down to his last one. I'm sure such a mechanic wasn't considered because of the constant variables needed to be calculated. To expedite a fantasy RPG, some elements of realism have to be omitted, otherwise we'd all be playing Rifts. ::rimshot::
I have plenty to consider on this. Thank you all that have added input.
this has come up several times before on the threads; it is not assumed that your character's hitpoints represent the amount of physical damage that they can take. I have always viewed HP as being the characters ability to dodge or reduce the damage of blows to their person before finally taking a solid hit. Thus a character at 50% HP is not one who is 50% of the way to dieing, he is 50% of the way towards either falling down from making that critcal arror due to exhaustion.
IME, it depends on teh noobness of teh caster. And if the other players are/were caster players in other campaigns. I just got so tired of the constant scrutiny of the game board, taking 5 minutes to figure out optimum placement. Sorry, I've been shot at before, and you don;t worry all that much about exact placement. You try and get as close as possible, and keep from getting hit. So I started the egg timer thing, but I haven't had to use it in a while.
I wouldn't have any kind of penalty that requires more math or rolls. This slows things down. Many of you have said something about how it is good to have community discussion/planning on who is doing what particularly AoE spells, because it keeps everyone interested while they have to wait for their turn. I have found that if you sufficiently speed up combat by reducing all of the “you should do….” It keeps them interested because their turn is coming around faster. They also have to still pay attention to what the others did because it can effect what they wanted to do. So I try to keep this kind of talk to a minimum.
My worst case scenario of how to accomplish this, and yes I did invoke these rules for one campaign I ran because before I did everything seemed to be a committee decision even if they weren’t in combat. One put them on a timer, give them something reasonable like 3 min. In this time they must tell you what they are doing and have at least the first die rolled by the time limit. Failure means your character does nothing this round. Tough. Second to keep others from wasting time and interjecting their opinions make it where anyone who does so loses a set amount of xp and all other penalties from lost xp. And no do not allow any form of restoration for this loss of xp. In my campaign I used 10,000. You can allow the person whose turn to ask one other for advice and that person can then speak without suffering the penalty. But make sure they only ask one. Not Bill asks Sam and when Sam is done Bill ask Paul. Because this will lead to back to the community discussion but it will be even longer than before. I know some of this sounds kind of harsh but sometimes you have to keep things from getting out of hand.
On a merely thematic level, I allow a minor amount of "committee" placment if the caster in question is very intelligent (usually a mage). I have low intel casters make the choice on their own.
And I do use an egg timer for turns. Viva la egg timer!
Wow... am I the only DM who has never had this problem?
I have never had this problem, because it doesn't bother me in the slightest if the players want to kibitz. If it starts to slow the game down too much, I point it out to them and ask them to pick up the pace. That's always worked for me.
Wow... am I the only DM who has never had this problem?I have never had this problem, because it doesn't bother me in the slightest if the players want to kibitz. If it starts to slow the game down too much, I point it out to them and ask them to pick up the pace. That's always worked for me.
Ditto. What's the big deal if the players discuss their strategy and tactics? So long as it isn't turning the game into a grinding crawl around the table, let it be. I know that there have been times as a player when the guy across the table says he wants to do something, and I've thought "no, use this ability instead!" And I've always just said that. I can't imagine how stressful and boring it would be if the players weren't allowed to collaborate on their actions.
Also, the placement of an AoE spell has never been a big issue. "I'm going to shoot it here." Followed by "Hey, could you possibly get these two guys as well?" Either "Yes" and repositioning or "No" and proceeding. Either way, that's it.
That said, I do use a Dungeoncraft suggestion (don't remember which issue it's in) regarding AoE spells in my game. The only thing annoying about it, to me, is when the fighter is in melee with an orc and the wizard drops a fireball so that his friend isn't even singed and the orc gets toasted. I have a problem with even a genius level intellect being able to use that pin-point of accuracy so quickly.
What I do, and what I suggest you do, is a tiny extra die roll, as per the Dungeoncraft article. Rather than centering an AoE on a grid intersection, you center it on a square and roll a d4. Each number corresponds to a corner of the square. So, you can get pretty accurate, but never pin-point. There's always a 5-foot variance, so there's a good chance your fighter buddy might get roasted if you drop that fireball to catch the orc. Or, you could play it safe and risk not hitting either. But there's some uncertainty and it's a very minor, simple, straight-forward roll. I find it works beautifully.
|
That said, I do use a Dungeoncraft suggestion (don't remember which issue it's in) regarding AoE spells in my game. The only thing annoying about it, to me, is when the fighter is in melee with an orc and the wizard drops a fireball so that his friend isn't even singed and the orc gets toasted. I have a problem with even a genius level intellect being able to use that pin-point of accuracy so quickly.What I do, and what I suggest you do, is a tiny extra die roll, as per the Dungeoncraft article. Rather than centering an AoE on a grid intersection, you center it on a square and roll a d4. Each number corresponds to a corner of the square. So, you can get pretty accurate, but never pin-point. There's always a 5-foot variance, so there's a good chance your fighter buddy might get roasted if you drop that fireball to catch the orc. Or, you could play it safe and risk not hitting either. But there's some uncertainty and it's a very minor,...
I took this exact advice from Dungeoncraft and it has made a world of difference even in "AoE by committee" decisions. Now no one is exactly certain where the spell will go off, so there is alot less jerrymandering to try and include an extra foe or two. My players want to keep the game moving and this added uncertainty (done whenever the party is under duress but skipped when the caster is not in combat or otherwise is not limited by the Fog of War) keeps discussion about AoE placement to brief comments.
|
|
What I do, and what I suggest you do, is a tiny extra die roll, as per the Dungeoncraft article. Rather than centering an AoE on a grid intersection, you center it on a square and roll a d4. Each number corresponds to a corner of the square. So, you can get pretty accurate, but never pin-point. There's always a 5-foot variance, so there's a good chance your fighter buddy might get roasted if you drop that fireball to catch the orc. Or, you could play it safe and risk not hitting either. But there's some uncertainty and it's a very minor,...
Best suggestion I've read yet. Thanks for the pointer.
Agreed. just brought it up to my group to chew on. Mind you, I made it a "we don't really have an issue yet" discussion, not a "this is a new rule" discussion.
|
|
Agreed. just brought it up to my group to chew on. Mind you, I made it a "we don't really have an issue yet" discussion, not a "this is a new rule" discussion.
Rarely is the combat tactics by committee situation a concern in my games, typically only when a combat starts to go overly long. Lately, we've had a lot of long combats. For example, after a seven hour combat for the first round of the Champion's Games in the Age of Worms adventure path everyone was getting pretty irritable about any delays in getting the combat over. In so much as "something needs to be done about this" was a comment I had from two of the six players as my gentle reminders to keep the pace were falling upon deaf ears. That's enough for me to look into options and the catalyst for my initial post. I chose Paizo.com to field suggestions rather than our own gaming site for the different, objective opinions it should yield. Everyone that had constructive comments, thank you. My delimma is resolved and I leave this thread to those that need further comment.