Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Daldolin15 12-30-04, 09:00 PM	Many months ago I saw a post on the boards detailing a variant rule with magic. Since the board changes I'm unable to find the thread and I was wondering if anyone had ever played with such a variant in their games. It had to do with casters being able to hit with pinpoint accuracy the exact target they wanted to hit within the max range of the spell. It went something like this: -Magic that had specific rules for targetting (such as rays or magic missile) are left unaffected. -However, spells that are Area Effect or simply have a max range have added on to them a DC (or magic AC?) that must be made in order to hit the spot that the spell is targetting. -In both cases the DC would be based totally off the distance of the target rather than any characteristics of the target itself. -The "attack roll" to meet this DC would be augmented by the caster level of the caster and perhaps even by feats(?). -If the caster fails to make the DC than the spells target point moves by the grenade rules. Example: Bob the cleric wants to flamestrike a small group of orcs that are fighting with his ally Jim the Fighter. Now in normal D&D Bob would avoid hitting his ally by targeting the center of the flamestrike in a spot so that the circle would hit as many of the orcs as possible without it enveloping Jim. With the variant rules he would have to roll an attack roll and add his cleric level to the roll. The DC would be some number augmented by the distance the target point was from him. If he fails then there is a chance that it targets in a spot that may hit his ally. So has anyone heard of this or have ideas of ways to determine the DC? I'm thinking that each type of range (short, medium, long) would have its own set of range increments and that each increment adds a number to the DC. Thanks!
On_the_wings_of_TPK 12-30-04, 09:20 PM	Okay, I just did a search for you, and I couldn't find anything on aiming an area effect spell. As for the house rule itself, it sucks. What's the point? The AC for hitting a square is 5. Who's going to miss that? And just what would the range increment be on a Fireball? Furthermore, why are you nerfing all area effect spells? Are you having problems with them in your game? Ever hear of Evasion? Spell Resistance or energy resistance? City campaigns where the players can't blow every single building to kingdom come in pursuit of the baddies work well too. Cheers.
e-z0r 12-30-04, 11:18 PM	If it isn't broken, don't try and fix it. There's really no need for you to force aiming area effects upon your players, is there?
Daldolin15 12-31-04, 12:21 AM	Okay, I can see the problems you guys have with this idea but there are a few things I wanted to state. First this is something my PCs and I have already discussed for the upcoming campaign. They like the idea of making a new dimension to spells as they too were unsatisfied with the "point and click" style some spells can be used as. Also, this is not just an idea I came up with on my own but was posted some time ago in very good detail and people were quite satisfied with it. When the boards changed over a lot of posts were lost (I've already spent a good amount of time searching for the thread) and I was hoping to rebuild the ideas. If I remember correctly each type of spell ranged (short, medium, and long) had its own set of range increments going out to their max ranges. Also the caster level of the caster adds to the their role so these DCs would be anything but impossible. For the most part, experienced casters would have no problem getting past the DC, but there would always be that chance of a low role or natural 1 that could cause the spell to land off target. I thought it just made the game a little more interesting and I was wondering if anyone had ideas to help it out.
e-z0r 12-31-04, 12:25 AM	No ideas. But I just don't agree with you. There's just no reason for this.
Invarus 12-31-04, 12:34 AM	It's a point I've actually been considering for some time. Being able to aim an explosive blast of fire with such precision that the blazing outer shell of it stops literally inches from an ally's face seems rather silly, and it means that anybody with an area effect spell is incredible at both estimating distances and hand-eye coordination. It's not just me as a DM either, everybody I play with is usually a little amused at this, and I know at least a few have explicitly said they wouldn't mind a change. The problem is that the most obvious solution, assigning the standard attack roll for a grenade-like weapon, just won't work. As previously stated, nobody is going to miss an attack against AC 5. Thinking about it now though, putting a fairly short range increment onto a spell could raise the bar enough to introduce at least a little uncertainty.
Daldolin15 12-31-04, 12:42 AM	Yeah, I agree that the base AC for any square should be 5. The idea is that as the spell is aimed farther away the AC should increase with some kind of increment. I think that the max DC for any of the three range types should end up somewhere around 15-16 so that high level casters will never fail (except for the dreaded nat 1 variant) and even low and mid-level casters should not have too high a chance of failure.
Stuntman 12-31-04, 12:45 PM	The AC to hit is 5. There is no range increment because there is none for range touch spells. If you miss, there is some optional rule regarding missile deviation in the DMG, I think. Then again, maybe I'm thinking of grenade-like weapons. I know there's something on this in the PH or DMG. A miss will mean the target deviates. Don't forget about the +4 AC if the square or intersection is behind cover. This makes the AC 9 if you have to shoot it over any creatures. Usually for a fireball, you want to target an intersection behind some creatures. If the caster has the Improved Precise Shot feat, then there is no AC bonus if the square or intersection is behind cover. Also, if you want to drop an area affect spell so that it does not affect an ally, but it will affect a square that is adjacent to this ally, then you take a -4 attack penalty as if you are firing into melee. If you have the Precise Shot feat, you do not have any attack penalty. Rules for concealment also apply. If you failed the miss chance roll (20% for concealment or 50% for total concealment), then the missile deviation rule applies. The Blind Fight feat does not help you here because it applies only to melee attacks. However, if you want to target an adjacent square or an intersection that touches an adjacent square, you can reroll your miss chance because the target square or intersection is close enough that it is almost like melee. You can choose to take 10 on your attack roll if you are not being threatened. This rule is for spells that benefit allies. If you have an area affect spell that benefits your allies and want to use it prior to going into battle, this will ensure that you don't accidentally miss. If you are already in battle (being threatened), you cannot take 10. Here's a typical example of how this works. You have a line of tanks in front of the wizard, the enemy creatures engage the tanks. The wizard wants to drop a fireball so it is on an intersection 20' past the line of tanks. If the fireball goes of on target, it will affect the creatures engaged with the party tanks, but not the tanks themselves. The AC is 9 = 5 (base) + 4 (for cover). Since the spell affects squares adjacent to the party tanks, but not the tanks themselves, the wizard gets a -4 attack modifier as if he is firing into melee. The wizard is level 5 and has 14 dex. His attack bonus is 2 (BAB) + 2 (Dex) - 4 (firing into melee) = 0. This means the wizard needs to roll a 9 on his attack roll to exactly target the intersection he wants. If he misses, the missile deviation for grenade-like missile apply and the spell is targeted at the new intersection.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 12-31-04, 01:20 PM	So what you're saying is that the low hit points, and poor reflex and fortitude saves on a wizard aren't enough of a drawback, you have to screw with their best offensive weapons too. But higher level casters would have no problems with this? Right, becuase Meteor Swarm and Delayed Blast Fireball are soooo much weaker then regular Fireball. Perhaps higher level casters needed just a little boost that the lower ones don't? :confused: Seriously, the variant rule is stupid. Exactly what is the point of this anyways? Are you honestly trying to see if you can force your party wiz to accidentally drop a Fireball on your party? Oh wait, I know! "The point and click area effect doesn't make logical sense." Yeah, because magic is so logical it's almost a science. Have you ever heard of suspension of disbelief? Or are you one those poeple that has to explain everthing with logic, including fiction and fantasy? Maybe it's fantasy because it doesn't make logical sense, and it couldn't happen in real life. Really, why would you even try to apply the laws of physics to something that is supposed to break them?
e-z0r 12-31-04, 02:28 PM	This rule is just really dumb. The golden guideline to house rules is: Unless it's making a problem, don't change it. It's just needless complication and frankly, unbalancing. The spellcasters are currently well balanced ('cept at high levels, where this thing won't matter anyway) and they just don't need to be complicated with stupid rules like this. For christ's sake you could start asking for a balance roll for walking on every single step to see if the character slips or not. It's just as stupid.
Daldolin15 12-31-04, 02:59 PM	Thank you e-z0r and On_the_wings_of_TPK for your comments. I can see where your coming from but as I discussed earlier this is already something my PCs and I have discussed to add a different feel to the game. As with all house rules its within the DM's right to change whatever he feels like as long as the players he has are alright with it. I'm making these posts so that the end result will not be some horrible thing but will make both parties feel good about it. If you have any further comments to help move the process along than please continue posting, otherwise you've made your points. Also thank you Stuntman and Invarus for your comments. Alright, first and foremost Stuntman I was not thinking of using a system quite like what you suggested. That depends heavily on the wizard's physical attributes and could really screw them. Wizard's already have to worry about dex based aiming for their rays and missiles and I don't want these other spells to be quite the same.Their "BAB" on these rolls would be their actual caster level (kind of like the caster receiving a fighter's BAB for these kind of rolls). The base AC would still be 5 and that number would be augmented by distance slightly. I've decided I like the idea of having cover or concealment add to that number. So instead a DC of 15 would only be required if the target square was in the farthest range increment AND was also behind cover or concealment. Interesting...
Stuntman 12-31-04, 03:45 PM	Also thank you Stuntman and Invarus for your comments. Alright, first and foremost Stuntman I was not thinking of using a system quite like what you suggested. That depends heavily on the wizard's physical attributes and could really screw them. Wizard's already have to worry about dex based aiming for their rays and missiles and I don't want these other spells to be quite the same.Their "BAB" on these rolls would be their actual caster level (kind of like the caster receiving a fighter's BAB for these kind of rolls). The base AC would still be 5 and that number would be augmented by distance slightly. I've decided I like the idea of having cover or concealment add to that number. So instead a DC of 15 would only be required if the target square was in the farthest range increment AND was also behind cover or concealment. Interesting... You're welcome. The reason I suggested using the BAB is that it is similar to ranged touch attacks. It uses an existing system of attacking instead of a separate one. Also, I did not include range increments because I wasn't aware that ranged touch attacks had range increments. If they do, then I would suggest using the same range increments. Note that concealment doesn't affect the AC of the target. It is a straight miss chance that is independent of the attack roll. You only roll the miss chance when you hit. If you incorporate concealment into the AC of the target, you are again adding another new rule. The rule that I suggested tries to use as much of the existing rules as possible. That way it is intuitive to those who already know the rules of ranged combat. AC is obvious (5 = 10 (base) - 5 (0 Dex)). Attack rolls are based on ranged attack bonus (BAB + Dex Mod). Cover and concealment are the same as for ranged combat. The only thing I added on was the modified firing into melee which to me seems intuitive if you want an area affect to just barely miss your allies. This is where I'm coming from when I made my suggestion. The example I gave you needed to roll a 9 or better. This means the level 5 wizard has a 60% chance of targetting the spell exactly. The accuracy can be improved using feats, spells (Cat's Grace) or tactics. One tactic is for your tanks to step back 5' in response to your casting fireball. That way it will give the wizard an increase of 20% chance of success because he will not incur the penalty of firing into melee. He would need to roll a 5 or higher which is an 80% chance of success. If you gain initiative or if the targets are really far away, then your chances are even better since there are no allies to worry about. The BAB system is pretty universal. If you feel that the chances of success are too low, you can allow spell casters to use their primary spell casting ability bonus instead of Dex for their attack roll with spells. For wizards, use Int, for sorcerers, use Cha. This also increases their chances of success. Keep in mind that you are making a ranged touch attack which is not trivially easy, but not that hard even for wizards and sorcerers. By higher levels, they will be able to succeed quite often. If you want to increase the success, you can try the following: -- Use total caster level instead of BAB like you suggested. -- Make the AC to hit 0 (10 Base - 5 (Dex) - 5 (targetting a square/intersection which is big)) -- Use the primary spellcasting stat to modify the attack bonus. If you do not feel that a level 5 wizard in my example should have a 60% chance of success, what do you think the chance should be? Should it be higher or lower? I think my proposal does add the extra dimesion to spell casting that you are looking for. There are tactical ways to maximising your chances of success. If you feel that the 60% chance of success is too low, then I would suggest that you use tactics. I have suggested one already. Another thing is to have your scout find the location of your opponents so you can catch them by surprise. That way, your allies are nowhere near the area of effect.
Invarus 12-31-04, 07:02 PM	I think the idea was actually to introduce range increments for ranged spells. But no, they don't currently have any. I'm amazed at how touchy people are getting about this, it's not like it applies to any of your systems. These PCs are happy with a change to the rules in order to introduce a different experience, as explained by Daldolin. I've heard of a few campaigns where spellcasters of any persuasion are branded as witches and persecuted, wouldn't you say that's a bigger blow to their power than just a little bit of uncertainty as to where their area nukes land? Anybody I've heard talking about being in such campaigns seems to have enough fun.
Shard of Suzail 12-31-04, 08:04 PM	The only time i ever saw a targetting roll in one of our games was this.. Very crowded combat, wizard targets a fireball in such a way as to avoid all allies and include numerous enemies, most of whom had just finished bursting out of the undergrowth to surprise us. The gm called for a spellcraft roll to aim so precisely. The t.n was not massive and the player passed handsomely. His aim was true and the end villain and his numerous wolf beasts were all blown to bits in the first round of combat (well, the villain staggered on another round). It was the first time he had used the spell and the first time we had fought a villain and henchmen without another player getting an attack in. Needless to say, we were humbled by the arcane powers that day. Still, the aiming roll was used and seemed right for such precise targetting under surprise conditions in a thick forest. Hasnt been used since.