Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Munz 12-15-05, 10:26 AM	What would be a good way to involve a check with an area effect spell so the party wizard cannot just say, hey, I'm gonna angle it this way so as to avoid the person standing next to the opponent? Spellcraft, maybe? Intelligence? Do any DM's out there do this as well?
Bard06 12-15-05, 10:32 AM	Do any DM's out there do this as well? I personally do not, but it is an interesting suggestion to the character/player knowledge. When a character learns a spell lets say fireball, I assume he would almost master that spell. I would say an Intelligence check would suffice to the placeing of the area spell if I would was to require a check! Hope this helps! :) -Bard06
Chobemaster 12-15-05, 11:06 AM	We use a grid. I don't let players touch or nearly touch the squares to count movement...they have to estimate/count just with their eyes...if the mage player thinks everyone is more than 6 squares away from his designated target intersection, great, that's what the mage character thinks too...THEN I count the squares/apply a cutout and apply damage.
grandaustino 12-15-05, 11:13 AM	I understand your idea, but I think it is completly unworkable. If your wizard were to fail his check you would force him to place the spell somewhere where he wouldn't want it? A wizard who has devoted himself to the study of magic should be pretty good at avoiding toasting his teammates.
DrMorganes 12-15-05, 11:15 AM	I believe there's a metamagic feat which allows casters to shape holes in their area effects to miss their fellows. Other than that, there aren't many options to control an area spell. This is why tactics are important. Tanks rushing into the fray put a serious crimp on casters' area spells, and wizards get the worst of it! A sorcerer can simply choose to cast a single-target spell instead. A wizard gets to whip out his crossbow and hope he can hit something. Good option from Chobemaster.
clarkvalentine 12-15-05, 11:20 AM	Meh. I just let the players cast it where they want it, as per RAW (not that I advocate slavish devotion to the RAW, it's just easier in this case). If they take too long counting squares, I'll just ask them to move it along.
Chobemaster 12-15-05, 11:45 AM	I believe there's a metamagic feat which allows casters to shape holes in their area effects to miss their fellows. Other than that, there aren't many options to control an area spell. This is why tactics are important. Tanks rushing into the fray put a serious crimp on casters' area spells, and wizards get the worst of it! A sorcerer can simply choose to cast a single-target spell instead. A wizard gets to whip out his crossbow and hope he can hit something. Good option from Chobemaster. I apply it to movement and archery also...real battles aren't on a grid...if you THINK you're within charging range, charge...if it turns out you're 5' farther away than it looked, then you don't get there. If your target LOOKS like it's 300 feet away, but is actually 305, you don't find that out until your arrow falls 5' short. too late to say, oh, I wouldn't have fired, then.
MarkB 12-15-05, 12:58 PM	I apply it to movement and archery also...real battles aren't on a grid...if you THINK you're within charging range, charge...if it turns out you're 5' farther away than it looked, then you don't get there. If your target LOOKS like it's 300 feet away, but is actually 305, you don't find that out until your arrow falls 5' short. too late to say, oh, I wouldn't have fired, then. A dedicated fighter should be a heck of a lot more competent at such estimates than a gamer staring at a battlegrid - they're trained for it, after all. In fact, they should be suficiently well trained to get it absolutely right just about 100% of the time.
Ogmug 12-15-05, 01:22 PM	I use an invisible grid LOL basically, i adapted warhammer method of measuring to d&d. Movement is handled by rough estimates aided by rulers i have made (6 inches, 9 inches, etc) . They are cheap and easy to make. Area affects are measured using a template. Some players still mess up thier measurements and target thier fellows, etc. It is different on the online game. I have to provide a grid, so they can count/etc there.
Arak the mighty 12-15-05, 01:40 PM	I apply it to movement and archery also...real battles aren't on a grid...if you THINK you're within charging range, charge...if it turns out you're 5' farther away than it looked, then you don't get there. If your target LOOKS like it's 300 feet away, but is actually 305, you don't find that out until your arrow falls 5' short. too late to say, oh, I wouldn't have fired, then. That's how we play it also. In the cacophony that is combat, nothing's for sure. And it's not like 'you don't get there'..........it means it takes you a few seconds longer to get there than you thought it would. My players know to not even ask IF they're in charging range. They charge, or do what they do. If they're in range, I say so, if not, they don't argue. But anyways, as to area effect spells........they are what they are. Don't want to singe the fighter with the fireball? Tell him to stay out of the way! I let the PC's target their spells pretty much spot on, such as fireball, but if there's no way they can position it without catching an ally, so be it.
JamesDruidDM 12-15-05, 02:15 PM	I believe there's a metamagic feat which allows casters to shape holes in their area effects to miss their fellows. Other than that, there aren't many options to control an area spell. This is why tactics are important. Tanks rushing into the fray put a serious crimp on casters' area spells, and wizards get the worst of it! A sorcerer can simply choose to cast a single-target spell instead. A wizard gets to whip out his crossbow and hope he can hit something. Good option from Chobemaster. I do belive its called Shape Spell
Ogmug 12-15-05, 02:28 PM	extraordinary spell aim - complete adventurer also
celtredleg 12-15-05, 03:46 PM	I use a non-grided battlemap. They place the marker for the center of the effect, then I measure to see who gets hit. Sometimes there are surprises. As for being experts, I would say that NFL quarterbacks are pretty much experts at throwing footballs, but every sunday I see passes go all over the place. The stress of the momment causes mistakes.
True Cavalier 12-15-05, 04:08 PM	I've played a wizard for long in CRPGS and I've noticed that even without a marker for the area (neverwinter nights, for example, or baldur's gate; you only click the point of origin) it's still very easy to avoid hitting your friends. Also, we use miniatures (no grid) and though I've never let my players actually count the squares before shooting, if they say "I'll throw it over there so it scorches these guys, but not these guys that are in melee with them but on the other side of the point of origin" it's alright. Scorching your allies isn't *that* fun anyway.
Chobemaster 12-15-05, 06:06 PM	A dedicated fighter should be a heck of a lot more competent at such estimates than a gamer staring at a battlegrid - they're trained for it, after all. In fact, they should be suficiently well trained to get it absolutely right just about 100% of the time. eh, IMO, its much easier to count six squares, even without pointing at them, than to judge the difference between 30 and 35'' on an unmarked surface, so I don't think the metagame ability disparity is a significant problem, or at least one that that cheats the character. Snipers and golfers, our modern-day best guessers at a long distances, use rangefinders. Tiger woods can't tell you the difference between 200 and 202 yards accurately. (2 yards, we need a drumkit smiley)
MarkB 12-15-05, 06:30 PM	eh, IMO, its much easier to count six squares, even without pointing at them, than to judge the difference between 30 and 35'' on an unmarked surface, so I don't think the metagame ability disparity is a significant problem, or at least one that that cheats the character. Snipers and golfers, our modern-day best guessers at a long distances, use rangefinders. Tiger woods can't tell you the difference between 200 and 202 yards accurately. (2 yards, we need a drumkit smiley) Sure, but IRL those little judgements don't matter so much. Mis-estimating the range of a shot by 5 feet won't ever reduce a real-life sniper's chances of hitting the target by 10% (range increment penalty) or mean they can't shoot for a vital spot anymore (point-blank range). It's only in the more granular game system that such small differences can have large impacts, so reducing the players' ability to judge those differences has a similarly large impact.
Chobemaster 12-15-05, 06:46 PM	Sure, but IRL those little judgements don't matter so much. Mis-estimating the range of a shot by 5 feet won't ever reduce a real-life sniper's chances of hitting the target by 10% (range increment penalty) or mean they can't shoot for a vital spot anymore (point-blank range). It's only in the more granular game system that such small differences can have large impacts, so reducing the players' ability to judge those differences has a similarly large impact. ?? Misestimating the range of a sniper shot by 5' could EASILY be the difference between a hit and a miss once you (mis) factor in crosswind and ballistics. 5' short with a golf shot = a miss.
Ogmug 12-15-05, 06:52 PM	(2 yards, we need a drumkit smiley) :rimshot: you mean that one? not sure if that is what you mean by drumkit
clarkvalentine 12-15-05, 08:43 PM	?? Misestimating the range of a sniper shot by 5' could EASILY be the difference between a hit and a miss once you (mis) factor in crosswind and ballistics. 5' short with a golf shot = a miss. It could be the difference between a hit or a miss, but his point is that it doesn't change your chance to hit by 10%.
Always-Late 12-15-05, 09:28 PM	Well, you could always aim a fireball 30' above some opponents head and toast that enemy only.
angelshelper81 12-15-05, 09:36 PM	If there was a skill check to accurately place an area of effect spell, wouldn't it be a wisdom based one rather than an inteligence based one? Estimating how far apart two things are seems more like Spot than any of the other skills, to me.
ezogoul 12-18-05, 11:51 PM	I use a scatter rule. Spellcraft dc 15+spell lvl+1 for every 5' to the targeted square. The scatter rule is simply a d8 to figure scatter direction, and 1d6 squares in the direction of the scatter. This allows the use of a grid, without allowing the peskyness of "I place my spell right here so that my allies don't get hurt".
Munz 12-19-05, 11:23 AM	I tend to rather like chobemaster's interpretation of the sniper and golfer. I know I personally cannot tell an accurate measurement when it comes to distance, and I know I can't be the ONLY one that is poor at it. Hence why I even posted the question to begin with. I would like to acknowledge the poster that brought up that a wizard is one thought to dedicate his life to his understanding of his spells. While I think that may be accurate, I still feel there would be SOME room for error when it comes to judgement of where to place the spell. Especially when you're talkin some of the distance a few of these spells offer for their range! As stated, Spellcraft IS for spells, and I think I would agree that for this kind of check, a Spot check would be more appropriate.
Phrennzy 12-19-05, 12:07 PM	Ugh - the last thing I need is ANOTHER roll everytime someone pops off an area effect spell. The PCs have it rough enough without having their teammates accidently incinerate them.
Mirage_1 12-19-05, 12:22 PM	Ugh - the last thing I need is ANOTHER roll everytime someone pops off an area effect spell. The PCs have it rough enough without having their teammates accidently incinerate them. I'll second this one. DnD is not about being realistic, but rather a rough simulation (if that). I have a ton of ideas to make it more realistic, but they would seriously slow down the game Plus the small matter of fun. Plus, I as a DM already have tons of stuff to do, and keeping combat running quickly is not easy (at least not for me). I don't want to have to start making accuracy rolls for all NPC's (if I make the PC's do it, the NPC's should as well)
Chobemaster 12-19-05, 12:23 PM	It could be the difference between a hit or a miss, but his point is that it doesn't change your chance to hit by 10%. Seems like a distinction without a difference. If it's "easily" the difference, how is that definitely not a 10% difference? and why do CHARACTERS know the granular quanta of range increments? Obviously its a simplification, partly because we use d20...if attack roll were on d%, you'd anticipate more & shorter range increments since we'd have more precise measurement. and if it were D%.xx, then we could get more granular still. Point being, the CHARACTERS aren't thinking in terms of -1's.
clarkvalentine 12-19-05, 12:28 PM	When I GM I want to tell my wizard player "OK, you pop off the fireball. FOOM! Now which of my guys need to make saves, and what's the DC?" Combat takes long enough as it is, I prefer my players to keep track of as much for me as possible. Not another roll, please, nor more hidden information. Cast the spell, roll the damage, and let's keep the game moving. Besides, realistic or not, gimping wizards like that isn't something I prefer to do. If it's "easily" the difference, how is that definitely not a 10% difference? Because in RL things usually aren't as granular as in your example.
Quoriil 12-19-05, 12:31 PM	I let my PCs place the spell where it will miss their allies if the environment is open and it makes sense to allow it. If the quarters are cramped; in a narrow passage in the badlands or the 20'x5' hallway of dungeons of yore, then the caster has to tell me where it is placed and accept the consequences. When I actually DM I either use a grid or the point-and-measure tactic and havn't noticed too much error in either case. Additionally, I'm with Phrennzy in that I can't see requireing another roll in a combat round where there are going to be numerous saving throws in addition to any other combat actions that are taking place.
Millennium 12-19-05, 12:59 PM	Here's how I deal with things like this: Once you tell me you're going to cast a spell and target a square rather than a creature, you have six seconds -the length of a round- to tell me which square you want to center it on. You can use any method of measurement that you like, as long as you can do it in six seconds or less. If you take longer than six seconds the spell still goes towards the square you indicate, but roll 1d10. On a 9 or a 10 it hits the square you intended, but otherwise you're one square off (http://d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#throwSplashWeapon), as if you'd missed with a splash weapon that had a range increment of one square. On a hex-grid map, you a d8 instead of a d10 for the same effect: 7 and 8 hit while the others miss. If a player wants, he can have his character take longer to think about the range and direction, to get a better estimate. Mechanically, all the character has to do is ready an action to cast the spell at the start of the next round. If the character does this, then as long as the player doesn't get disruptive he can take as long as he wants to measure. A dedicated fighter should be a heck of a lot more competent at such estimates than a gamer staring at a battlegrid - they're trained for it, after all. In fact, they should be suficiently well trained to get it absolutely right just about 100% of the time. Why? No one in a D&D game is going to know calculus, and unless they're very well-educated they're not even going to know algebra. Even if they did know these things, carefully crunching the numbers on paper is very different from doing it in the heat of battle. Almost all of a character's estimates are going to be very rough and ad-hoc; they just don't have the tools to do it with mathematical precision. This is not to say that their estimation skills are worthless. On the contrary, someone can get very good at these kinds of "eyeball guesses", given enough time and training. However, they remain eyeball guesses, and subject to fail for any number of reasons.
Munz 12-19-05, 01:06 PM	So what you guys are telling me is that none of you would have a problem if you were in a melee combat situation and one of your comrades just started lobbing grenades out there? Wouldn't you want to know that THAT someone is able enough to determine WHERE to lob that grenade and not just throw it out there blindly? I mean let's face it, if that combat grid wasn't there the players would have no CLUE where to place it unless they AS PLAYERS got out a ruler and measured it. And THAT is precisely what I am getting at here... if PLAYERS are going to do some sort of measuring to distingush where to place it, I should think a wizard that is throwing a spell out there should have to make SOME sort of judgement call as to where it is to be placed. I mean, the DMG imposes penalties to spot for every 10 feet and even worse with poorer weather conditions. Now you or I could easily look across ten or twenty or more feet and not really seem to notice any problem at all... but what about 400 feet? At it's limit that would be a -40 penalty. That seems pretty substantial of a penalty to just be ignored altogether. I know it would add more work, but I think it would add an extra element to the game that could be interesting.
Chobemaster 12-19-05, 01:32 PM	When I GM I want to tell my wizard player "OK, you pop off the fireball. FOOM! Now which of my guys need to make saves, and what's the DC?" Combat takes long enough as it is, I prefer my players to keep track of as much for me as possible. Not another roll, please, nor more hidden information. Cast the spell, roll the damage, and let's keep the game moving. Besides, realistic or not, gimping wizards like that isn't something I prefer to do. Because in RL things usually aren't as granular as in your example. this doesn't seem to really have much to do w/ anything that I've posted. Which is fine, of course, it's a free country, but it's confusing in that it implies it's addressing the quoted material.
clarkvalentine 12-19-05, 01:54 PM	this doesn't seem to really have much to do w/ anything that I've posted. I was making a general comment, then I responded directly to your comment. Sorry to imply otherwise.
clarkvalentine 12-19-05, 01:56 PM	So what you guys are telling me is that none of you would have a problem if you were in a melee combat situation and one of your comrades just started lobbing grenades out there? Spells aren't grenades. By the RAW, area effect spells go right where the caster wants them to. Realistic? Probably not (but how do you define realism when it comes to casting a spell, really?). But it makes the game run smoother, and realism is not the highest priority on my list. If it were I'd be running a different system.
Chobemaster 12-19-05, 02:01 PM	I was making a general comment, then I responded directly to your comment. Sorry to imply otherwise. cool
Chobemaster 12-19-05, 02:02 PM	Spells aren't grenades. By the RAW, area effect spells go right where the caster wants them to. Realistic? Probably not (but how do you define realism when it comes to casting a spell, really?). But it makes the game run smoother, and realism is not the highest priority on my list. If it were I'd be running a different system. ;) I think the issue is the accuracy of "where the caster wants them to."
Sereno 12-19-05, 02:04 PM	As for being experts, I would say that NFL quarterbacks are pretty much experts at throwing footballs, but every sunday I see passes go all over the place. The stress of the momment causes mistakes. True, but throwing a football is a physical action that can't (necessarily) be completely duplicated every time. The problem isn't simply that they're failing to correctly discern the proper distance. Wind, player motion, the endurance of the QB all play a role in his accuracy. None of those things affect a cast spell. The spell goes where the caster wants it to go, regardless of wind or terrain or movement. I would think that judging distances accurately is part of the rigors of learning to cast the spell at all.
clarkvalentine 12-19-05, 02:06 PM	;) I think the issue is the accuracy of "where the caster wants them to." Indeed it is! ;) My group is pretty good about counting things out quickly or ahead of time, so time-wasting square-counting is usually not an issue. Making aim checks for area effect spells would slow down the game at my table, but that's not universally true for everyone. Whatever works at your table.
giantt 12-19-05, 02:08 PM	I just started another campaign where they have to us a spellcraft to make sure it goes off where they want. While I know the rules say it goes off where you want there should be penalities IMO. I then take into consideration the combat, the level of the spell, the level of the character, the number of times they have used the spell and make it a rather easy check. That said there will be times that the casters screw up. Think of it as the guys lobbing granades into a battle field, or the guys with the morders (sp?) in the military. Nine out of ten times they can land those things right where they want but occasionally they screw up. Same with casters IMO. Some of my players like it some don't. Out of all the checks I think maybe half a dozen times something has gone wrong, I think that is realistic without "screwing" up battle and one more die roll isn't going to kill anyone. Just my two copper.
Chobemaster 12-19-05, 02:40 PM	Indeed it is! ;) My group is pretty good about counting things out quickly or ahead of time, so time-wasting square-counting is usually not an issue. Making aim checks for area effect spells would slow down the game at my table, but that's not universally true for everyone. Whatever works at your table. Indeed. My solution above is about as fast a resolution as we found fair...no rolls, no precounting and hmming/hawing...pick a spot (we always pick a grid intersection for radius effects), then we see what it hits.
Mirage_1 12-19-05, 03:03 PM	;) I think the issue is the accuracy of "where the caster wants them to." I think the opponents getting those saves to reduce the damage is enough to describe the inexact nature of the blast otherwise...combats are slow enough, realism takes a back seat to the game being enjoyable and not being brought to a boring slow as one tries to adjust for realism
grandaustino 12-19-05, 03:15 PM	I think the opponents getting those saves to reduce the damage is enough to describe the inexact nature of the blast otherwise...combats are slow enough, realism takes a back seat to the game being enjoyable and not being brought to a boring slow as one tries to adjust for realism Hear Hear. Plus there is no way to enforce a check without making the caster place the spell where he/she dosen't want it which would justifyably anger a lot of spellcasters. How would you decide the direction and displacement of the miss in a way that is not arbitrary? Spellcaster: But I cast my spell right here? DM: Too bad, you screwed up and really centered it here hitting three party members. Spellcaster: :weep:
Chobemaster 12-19-05, 03:52 PM	I think the opponents getting those saves to reduce the damage is enough to describe the inexact nature of the blast otherwise...combats are slow enough, realism takes a back seat to the game being enjoyable and not being brought to a boring slow as one tries to adjust for realism eh, area of effect is a completely different concept from saving throws...someone indisputably in the middle might pass while 2 figures on opposite edges may fail. and my solution requires no slowdown at all. Point to a grid intersection on the map. It's a free action for the player.
ezogoul 12-19-05, 05:54 PM	As stated, Spellcraft IS for spells, and I think I would agree that for this kind of check, a Spot check would be more appropriate. I do agree that distance would be more of a spot type check, However, I do add an extra chance for a wizard to toast his allies with my scatter rules if they fail their spellcraft roll. But I am not going to be rude enough to make it an out of class skill aswell. I use spellcraft since most wizards tend to have high ranks in it, and the basis of a wizard spending his life studying magic can be symbolized by his Spellcraft ranking. These are the reasons I use spellcraft other than spot. I also ok all of my house rules with my players before a campaign starts, allowing each of them to state thier opinions, and possibley other house rules that they would like to see. No one in our group has ever stated that they do not like the rule.