I realize there's nothing in the rules regarding this (except perhaps by indirect inference), and that is why I have this nagging question:
Is it reasonable for a spellcaster casting a damaging area spell (e.g. fireball) to judge instantly and accurately what a 20-foot radius is--from 300' away no less--so that the outer edge of the blast just catches the final bad guy but not the fighter ally engaging him in melee combat?
I imagine that with the chaotic nature of combat raging several hundred feet away, that kind of long-range, pinpoint accuracy is hardly likely. It seems rather incredible that someone could plop a 40-foot wide explosion so neatly that his buddies feel only the radiant heat but take none of the damage.
Any thoughts?
|
Any thoughts?
Well, you could put it down to training and practice.
I'd say it is up to the GM to rule, as long as they clarify it with the players before hand. You could offer a spellcraft check to the caster if you wanted a mechanical solution.
Personally I allow it. It may be hard to believe, but otherwise it really hampers a mages ability to contribute to combat from range - and why have such long ranges on spells if you can't make use of them?
I realize there's nothing in the rules regarding this (except perhaps by indirect inference), and that is why I have this nagging question:
Is it reasonable for a spellcaster casting a damaging area spell (e.g. fireball) to judge instantly and accurately what a 20-foot radius is--from 300' away no less--so that the outer edge of the blast just catches the final bad guy but not the fighter ally engaging him in melee combat?
I imagine that with the chaotic nature of combat raging several hundred feet away, that kind of long-range, pinpoint accuracy is hardly likely. It seems rather incredible that someone could plop a 40-foot wide explosion so neatly that his buddies feel only the radiant heat but take none of the damage.
Any thoughts?
Magic is guided by just that, magic, the caster has to look to where he wants it to land and it will land there.
However something my group does, is when the caster decides to cast something like a fireball, or other area effect spell he must immediately point to the corner he wants it on. Only then may he put down the template and see what gets hit. No holding the template over the battlefield and sliding it over till only the baddies get hit.
I have always played that the caster has control of the spell under normal circumstances so they can choose where the spell is targeted and then as the DM apply the results. I get your point of the chaos of battle but for my gaming groups the PC's are heros and I dont see the need to bog down game play with oops you burned the fighter too type senarios. Trying to get to realistic with the rules slows down the game to much for me.
If you wanted to homerule something you do make the caster select his/her target spot(if its not centered on an obvious creature or item) and make them roll a concentration check to see if they are successfull. Falure could mean the spell actual goes off X random feet in a random direction from the target point.
Personally I allow it. It may be hard to believe, but otherwise it really hampers a mages ability to contribute to combat from range - and why have such long ranges on spells if you can't make use of them?
Agree. Making the spells difficult to target really hampers their use, making a situational spell even more situational.
|
If the pinpointing of spells bothers you, you could treat aiming a spell similar to t a grenade-like weapon. AC to target the corner modified for range, soft cover, etc. and have them roll an attack against that square/corner, then resolve it normally. Using the grenade-like weapon rules might add some variability that would make tight targeting more challenging (or at least risky).
-Skeld
If the pinpointing of spells bothers you, you could treat aiming a spell similar to t a grenade-like weapon. AC to target the corner modified for range, soft cover, etc. and have them roll an attack against that square/corner, then resolve it normally. Using the grenade-like weapon rules might add some variability that would make tight targeting more challenging (or at least risky).
-Skeld
I have a very big problem with that. You are now doubling up on the rolls. Not only does this slow things down, it means there are 2 chances for failure instead of 1. If you are going to make spells grenade like, there should not be a save for them. With a few exceptions there should not be spells that have both an attack roll and a save.
First, there is no rule preventing pinpoint targeting.
That said, the best compromise that I've heard is let the mage pick a *square* instead of a point. Then roll 1d4 for which corner is the actual center.
If you wanted more than that, then you could say at Medium range (over Short, under Medium max), this would be a 10' square, and at Long a 15' or 20' square.
For the record, I just allow the pinpointing, but should I decide at some point it's iffy - I'll do this.
Certainly is a + for reach weapons :)
Quarterbacks are pretty accurate with footballs, while 300 pound men are trying to crush them so I dont see why not.
First, there is no rule preventing pinpoint targeting.
That said, the best compromise that I've heard is let the mage pick a *square* instead of a point. Then roll 1d4 for which corner is the actual center.
Yeah, this sounded like the most reasonable house rule to me too (if you were shopping around for one).
I like the group rule of: point at the intersection, done. You don't get to fiddle around and make sure that you get exactly what you want. This has the accuracy of magic while still factoring in the ability of the character (or Player) to perceive where exactly they want something. For a spell like Fireball, this makes even more sense, since the spellcaster is shooting a little orb and then it explodes in the 20 ft. burst, it's a lot harder to imagine the 20 ft. radius than it is to target a specific point in space.
I have a very big problem with that. You are now doubling up on the rolls. Not only does this slow things down, it means there are 2 chances for failure instead of 1. If you are going to make spells grenade like, there should not be a save for them. With a few exceptions there should not be spells that have both an attack roll and a save.
I don't think he's suggesting adding an attack roll to see if the spell goes off, but just to see if the spell goes off exactly where you want it. If you miss the AC, the spell center is moved randomly by 5 (maybe 10) feet.
Often, you wouldn't even need to make the extra roll, since five feet in any direction wouldn't make a difference. If you are targeting a 10x20 block of enemies that is 100 feet from the nearest friendly, any intersection within 10 feet of the middle of the block is fine.
The only time (I think) it will matter is when you're trying to precisely position the effect to either include enemies on opposite sides of the effect or include an enemy while excluding the adjacent ally.
Quarterbacks are pretty accurate with footballs, while 300 pound men are trying to crush them so I dont see why not.
+1, as they say (:
I don't think he's suggesting adding an attack roll to see if the spell goes off, but just to see if the spell goes off exactly where you want it. If you miss the AC, the spell center is moved randomly by 5 (maybe 10) feet.
Often, you wouldn't even need to make the extra roll, since five feet in any direction wouldn't make a difference. If you are targeting a 10x20 block of enemies that is 100 feet from the nearest friendly, any intersection within 10 feet of the middle of the block is fine.
The only time (I think) it will matter is when you're trying to precisely position the effect to either include enemies on opposite sides of the effect or include an enemy while excluding the adjacent ally.
That's pretty much it. I've considered making it like a splash weapon--pick a square, roll to hit AC 10 (modified by distance), random distance/direction off-target if "missed"--but as pointed out, this is further bogs down combat by adding more dice rolls.
I fully understand the "ease-of-play" argument, the "it's-magic" argument, and the "they're-heroes" argument. I've been chewing on those for a while. And yet:
- Bowmen fully trained to wield their weapons must take a penalty to hit when firing into melee (negated by a feat).
- Many spells are "shapeable," implying that they can be easily woven around and between people the caster doesn't want to affect.
- Especially when it comes to long ranges, judging that precise 20-foot radius would seem a difficult task.
My thoughts include allowing the caster to take the Precise Shot feat to mitigate the difficulties of pinpointing.
|
|
I don't think he's suggesting adding an attack roll to see if the spell goes off, but just to see if the spell goes off exactly where you want it. If you miss the AC, the spell center is moved randomly by 5 (maybe 10) feet.
This is exactly what I suggested. It adds a layer of risk to pinpoint targeting of areas of effect. It forces the players to calculate another variable when tactically placing their miniatures around the combat zone.
You are now doubling up on the rolls.
It won't always double-up on rolls. It will occasionally add another roll (when it matters) or 2 if your caster "misses." Also, it's a roll for a character that normally doesn't have to roll anything except the damage. Now you roll a d20 along with your handful of d6's.
-Skeld
I don't think he's suggesting adding an attack roll to see if the spell goes off, but just to see if the spell goes off exactly where you want it. If you miss the AC, the spell center is moved randomly by 5 (maybe 10) feet.This is exactly what I suggested. It adds a layer of risk to pinpoint targeting of areas of effect. It forces the players to calculate another variable when tactically placing their miniatures around the combat zone.
You are now doubling up on the rolls.It won't always double-up on rolls. It will occasionally add another roll (when it matters) or 2 if your caster "misses." Also, it's a roll for a character that normally doesn't have to roll anything except the damage. Now you roll a d20 along with your handful of d6's.
-Skeld
You dont roll an attack role but your target(s) roll a save, the 'attack roll' is simply reveresed. So yes you are indeed doubling up on rolls.
|
|
You dont roll an attack role but your target(s) roll a save, the 'attack roll' is simply reveresed. So yes you are indeed doubling up on rolls.
I don't agree as the term "doubling-up" implies there are twice as many rolls as before, which there are not. The caster makes an additional roll. One character. In some situations. If it might make a difference.
Also, it's not an attack roll, per se. It's more like a placement roll. It's adds a small bit of randomness to the placement of a spell. It doesn't change the mechanics of the spell. It doesn't make the spell "fail." It simply might cause a shift the area of effect such that might make a difference who has to make a save.
But for the sake of your argument, let's say that it did double the number of rolls... so?
-Skeld
My DM has a house rule that avoids the need for this. Any area spell targeting an enemy who's in combat with party members will automatically also target the party members.
So even when party members are outside the radius (a 10'x10' area cast on a large opponent), they're still subject to the spell.
Needless to say I hate the rule ;-)
Really cuts back on my battlefield control. Going the archmage route now for the spellshaping ability to overcome this since that specifically states that I can leave party members out of the spell area.
Quarterbacks are pretty accurate with footballs, while 300 pound men are trying to crush them so I dont see why not.
I guess to go further it should be easy for them to hit the target square without an attack roll. 300 feet is the length of a football field, and most battles dont go out past 100 feet which is about 33 yards. An easy pass for even a H.S QB, and not even a good one.
Quarterbacks are pretty accurate with footballs, while 300 pound men are trying to crush them so I dont see why not.
And not only that, they're accurate in predicting exactly where both the receiver and any backs covering him will be when the ball reaches them. When you're talking about a pass that goes 30 yards in the air, that's a couple seconds of hangtime, and these guys can run a considerable distance in that time. So it's not even like the QB is targeting a relatively static melee; he's targeting a guy who's running full-out with a guy matching him whose sole job is to make sure the receiver doesn't get the ball.
The human mind is quite capable of doing that kind of math quickly on the fly, and that's just football players. Not that football players are stupid (especially QBs!), but that they aren't experimental physicists like wizards are. A good football QB is going to have maybe a +1 or +2 int bonus. A good wizard is going to have a +5 int bonus, minimum.
I realize there's nothing in the rules regarding this (except perhaps by indirect inference), and that is why I have this nagging question:
Is it reasonable for a spellcaster casting a damaging area spell (e.g. fireball) to judge instantly and accurately what a 20-foot radius is--from 300' away no less--so that the outer edge of the blast just catches the final bad guy but not the fighter ally engaging him in melee combat?
I imagine that with the chaotic nature of combat raging several hundred feet away, that kind of long-range, pinpoint accuracy is hardly likely. It seems rather incredible that someone could plop a 40-foot wide explosion so neatly that his buddies feel only the radiant heat but take none of the damage.
Any thoughts?
It's silly to think he could do it from 25' away, too.
Really. I've stood next to a decent sized campfire. It's unpleasantly hot if you get too close, but I wasn't burned. I am sure, however, that moving just a foot or so closer would have resulted in burns.
But fireball is a different story. It's a campfire that's 40' from one side of the firepit to the other. And it's far, far hotter. 10d6 damage is far more devastating than the 1d6 a person who falls into a camfire would take.
And yet a wizard can stand right behind his fighter and cast with such precision that all of the orcs die but the fighter doesn't even lose an eyebrow.
Impossible.
Oh, wait, we're dealing with magic. That makes everything possible.
So, at this point I say that it's the magic of the spell itself that lets the wizard place that little bead where he wants it, such that it detonates on the very exact millimeter of the battlefield where the wizard wills it to detonate.
I would go so far as to say the wizard doesn't choose that millimeter of the battlefield. Instead, he selects his fighter to be safe and the orcs to not be safe and the little flaming bead errorlessly strikes the exact millimeter that it must strike to fulfill the wizard's target selection.
Any other solution and it's just pure silliness that the wizard could see the exact millimeter, target it, and hit that target, regardless of whether he's 25' away or 600' away.
Is it reasonable for a spellcaster casting a damaging area spell (e.g. fireball) ...
Yikes and double-yikes!!!
I just re-read your post and realized how horrible the notion is. Evocation is already the weakest form of magic there is. Evokers in 3.5/Pathfinders are horrible choices for specialization, and non-specialists would do very well to consider never waking up in the morning and preparing an evocation spell.
Yet your opening post specifically targets damaging spells.
Why???
Is it easier to place an area of darkness, or fear, or a sleetstorm, or glitterdust, etc., than it is to place a fireball?
I daresay, in the CORE rules I won't play an evoker. My mages will almost never even consider most damaging spells. Buffing and debuffing and battlefield control are 10x more effective than damage.
But in a game system that includes any houserules by which the only useful evocation spells (the ones that fry a whole group of badguys) are potentially able to fry my allies, that would be the final nail in the coffin of all evocation magic for me.
Maybe some of your players would feel differently, but to them I say, give me a call, I'll explain in precise detail why evocation is dead under such a houserule (and even without it) and they'll see the light of day in no time.
My point is, if you're going to houserule that AE magic is difficult to place on a battlefield, make it fair all across the board: All AE magic suffers, not just damaging spells.
I believe that would drastically tip the balance of the classes such that spellcasters won't enjoy their class as much, and such that villain casters will be far far more dangerous than PC casters, but that's a different issue.
On the topic: I, too, have found the idea of pinpoint targeting of AoE spells to be imprecise and/or abused by players, sometimes. I like the idea of adding a "grenade attack"-like roll. However, as said before, it adds unnecessary complexity. So, it's up to the DM again.
Off-topic: the (american!) football QBs don't always succeed. They are not computers who predict where their comrade will be at the end of the throw. They throw approximately (they get better with training, too), and the other player has to continue running to get the ball. It's a joint action. Teamwork.
Back on-topic: following the previous analogy, an AoE spell caster could yell something (ever heard the things shouted before the action in a football game?), and his allies get a bonus on the save, or evasion, or something. Methinks it'd be a fine houserule. Up to the DM again.
In fine: the fireball is often compared to regular fire, but its magic has often been explained as being quite different. There is no "heat wave" per se. This is not a "create 40 ft-wide bonfire"-like spell. I'd rather have it renamed to "black hole of fire" (because of its "horizon") but its name is a staple of the game and had been for years.
And... should my fireball/ice storm/whatever damage the fighter? If he's at the border, that is what we are discussing. If he's in the middle, well... that's another can of worms.
These are my thoughts at the moment, and I don't intend to offend anyone.
In combat the fighter is not running around the field. He will normally be within 30 feet or 10 yards. At the most 45 feet or 15 yards(normally), which is very close. I am sure at that range the caster can put the spell far enough away. Even the average middle school quarterback can do that. Since the fireball is 20 feet across just drop it 10-15 feet or 3-5 yards away from your guy.
In combat the fighter is not running around the field. He will normally be within 30 feet or 10 yards. At the most 45 feet or 15 yards(normally), which is very close. I am sure at that range the caster can put the spell far enough away. Even the average middle school quarterback can do that. Since the fireball is 20 feet across just drop it 10-15 feet or 3-5 yards away from your guy.
I believe that the original post meant "can a wizard 300 feet away cast a fireball so that it affects a foe who's in melee with his fighter ally, without affecting said ally?"
Would a quarterback be able to throw a ball from one end of the field to the other so that it strikes precisely 20 ft from a guy standing there? I don't know.
Even if not totally appropriate (because of the mass of said ball), the parallel is still interesting, and had given me a couple ideas already :-)
That said, the best compromise that I've heard is let the mage pick a *square* instead of a point. Then roll 1d4 for which corner is the actual center.
This is what I have done for several years and it has worked well. 25% of the time the spell goes exactly where the spellcaster wanted it to, but 75% of the time its just a tiny bit off. This introduces one 1d4 roll when the spellcaster goes to cast the spell and gives a little bit of unpredictability to area spells. I've liked it and even the players playing spellcasters in my campaigns have seemed to appreciate it.
|
|
In combat the fighter is not running around the field. He will normally be within 30 feet or 10 yards. At the most 45 feet or 15 yards(normally), which is very close. I am sure at that range the caster can put the spell far enough away. Even the average middle school quarterback can do that. Since the fireball is 20 feet across just drop it 10-15 feet or 3-5 yards away from your guy.
I am not disputing the validity of any rule for AoE spells with this statement that follows.
What the hell kind of high school football quarterback did you know that could target an 'X' on the ground at 30-60 feet and consistently hit it every time he threw the ball, never being more than 2 feet off? That dude must be the god of football throwing or something and I expect he will end up winning a superbowl single-handedly.I know that in reality (yeah, the 'R' word) QBs miss. They throw balls high by several feet, low by several feet, behind the passer, in front of the passer, etc.
They miss. I hate that everyone is pretending that they have pin-point accuracy in this thread because they don't. A good, smart receiver is a must for a good, smart QB to look good because, like someone mentioned teamwork, the accuracy displayed by a QB is a joint effort between the QB being fairly accurate and the receiver making course corrections to get the ball in his hands.
In combat the fighter is not running around the field. He will normally be within 30 feet or 10 yards. At the most 45 feet or 15 yards(normally), which is very close. I am sure at that range the caster can put the spell far enough away. Even the average middle school quarterback can do that. Since the fireball is 20 feet across just drop it 10-15 feet or 3-5 yards away from your guy.I believe that the original post meant "can a wizard 300 feet away cast a fireball so that it affects a foe who's in melee with his fighter ally, without affecting said ally?"
Would a quarterback be able to throw a ball from one end of the field to the other so that it strikes precisely 20 ft from a guy standing there? I don't know.
Or even better, would I trust a quarterback to throw a grenade so that it kills the guy next to me but leaves me unharmed? Probably not. :-)
Having said that, I don't bother with a house rule.
To Hogarth: The same goes for alot of rules in the game, things like whizzing around a greatsword within 5 feet of your allies without penalty or chance of being hit.
In general: To re-affirm my earlier point, the opportunity to get good use out of a fireball or other large AoE spell is pretty limited in most small area combats, so when the chance comes up there's really no reason to knock the wind out of the wizard's sails by telling him it cant be placed accurately. If he's spending 20 minutes trying to find the most advantageous location, that's one thing, but if he's just placing it so it maximizes effect while minimizing damage to his allies, that's just playing smart and within the rules. The rules give no difference in placing a fireball at a 20 ft range or a 300 ft range, if it were meant to be difficult to place in a pinpoint location, then there would be an attack or some other sort of roll needed. Marginalizing one of the iconic and extremely fun to use spells in the game for the sake of realism in a fantasy based game where many non-realistic things happen on a daily if not hourly basis can be a real downer when trying to enjoy an arcane caster.
But for the sake of your argument, let's say that it did double the number of rolls... so?
-Skeld
You are reducing the chance for success, which changes the issue from one of 'realism' to one of balance. AC of 10 (for a square) at low levels for a caster is a big deal. You are also adding another chance for the d20=0 sucks to be you situation. Imagine if the target has SR, now the caster has to roll an attack roll, then spell resistance, and then the enemy rolls a save. That is 3 d20 rolls he has to get through to succeed with their action. That is a significant balance issue.
|
|
You are reducing the chance for success, which changes the issue from one of 'realism' to one of balance. AC of 10 (for a square) at low levels for a caster is a big deal. You are also adding another chance for the d20=0 sucks to be you situation. Imagine if the target has SR, now the caster has to roll an attack roll, then spell resistance, and then the enemy rolls a save. That is 3 d20 rolls he has to get through to succeed with their action. That is a significant balance issue.
As Maezer pointed out above, the AC to target a grid intersection is 5 not 10. For some reason, I was thinking about the Aid Another action for attacks.
That said, an AC5 wouldn't be very hard for even a low-level Wizard. Even he could make that roll 80% of the time. By the time he's able to cast fireball at level 5, his BAB is +2 and his chances increase to 90%. Easy at low levels and trivial at higher levels. That's the real problem with doing it this way: it becomes trivial by mid-levels.
I don't understand what you mean "...adding another chance for the d20=0 sucks to be you situation..." Failing the roll doesn't cause the spell to fail. Let me say that again: failing the placement roll wouldn't cause the spell to fail. It causes it to be shifted randomly to an adjacent square. At the worst, you miss and enemy that was in an edge square, or get an ally that was just outside the square. The spell still works normally, it just didn't activate precisely where you wanted it to. Tactically speaking, the Wizard wouldn't want all his targets on the edge of the effect or else he risks missing some (but chances are he would get them all anyway).
As for the target having SR, that's not a very good argument. The target either is or isn't going to have SR regardless of whether this houserule were used. In other words, the caster already has that chance for failure regardless of any other rolls. The two rolls are independent, having no effect on one another.
By the way, what 3 rolls are you talking about? If the spell were, say, fireball, all I see are 2 rolls (placement and potentially SR). Maybe for something like fireball, you're thinking about the Reflex save. That would make 3 rolls, albeit not by the same player. Realistically though (game table realistic, not game mechanics realistic), the Reflex save is going to happen because it's fireball. The SR check is going to happen only if warranted by the opponent (maybe it happens, maybe it doesn't). The placement check would only come into play if the spell placement were tight, and I suspect that a tactically-thinking player is going to place his spells in such as way as to try and avoid the check altogether. Really, I don't see it slowing down the game any appreciable amount.
Besides, I like Jreyst's idea better. If I were going to do something like this (and I'm not, so it's a moot point), I'd probably use his idea. It seems simpler and less trivial.
Afterall, this is something someone wants for a houserule ... it's not going in to the core rulebook. Balance isn't nearly as important when it comes to houserules. As long as the rule works for the group in question and they are having fun, no one else's opinions really matter.
-Skeld
By the way, what 3 rolls...
I am talking over all rolls, the saving throw is a roll, it is the same as an attack roll just from the other side of things. The player doesnt have to roll it but the roll still happens.
And I realize SR stil applies without this house rule i am just saying with this you are adding yet another dice roll where others could and do already exist.
With the 5 ac instead of 10 that isnt particularly bad, but perhaps my understanding is incorrect but with grenade like weapons isnt a 0 on the d20 still a complete miss?
In general: To re-affirm my earlier point, the opportunity to get good use out of a fireball or other large AoE spell is pretty limited in most small area combats, so when the chance comes up there's really no reason to knock the wind out of the wizard's sails by telling him it cant be placed accurately. If he's spending 20 minutes trying to find the most advantageous location, that's one thing, but if he's just placing it so it maximizes effect while minimizing damage to his allies, that's just playing smart and within the rules. The rules give no difference in placing a fireball at a 20 ft range or a 300 ft range, if it were meant to be difficult to place in a pinpoint location, then there would be an attack or some other sort of roll needed. Marginalizing one of the iconic and extremely fun to use spells in the game for the sake of realism in a fantasy based game where many non-realistic things happen on a daily if not hourly basis can be a real downer when trying to enjoy an arcane caster.
Riatin, this is probably the best counterpoint I've received, and makes me seriously stop to consider the "fun" aspect of the game as opposed to the "realism" aspect. In my campaign, DM and players alike yearn for a bit more verisimilitude, and so introducing more realism is not something we necessarily avoid.
Thanks for all your replies, fellow Paizonians. My games will be better because of your input.