Something interesting popped up in our game the other night.
Our party was being swarmed by by 100 skeletons(possibly more). The party Wizard decided to cast fireball in to the center of the group skeletons to take out as many as possible.
When I thought about it, I pointed out that this didn't really make sense. We had no elevation advantage to look down at the skeletons. We could only see their front line and some behind them. At best the fireball should only affect the ones in the front.
An arguement ensued and several things were brought up.
-It was said that the fireball is lobbed to the target location before it explodes instead of going in a straight line to the target. To support that point It was stated that because the spell does not say "Line 150 ft" on it's range descriptor(Like lighting spell) it therefore does not travel in a straight line to the target. So it's like playing basketball.
:I considered the possibility that it can be lobbed, but I didn't agree with the "Line" comment because "Line means that everything on that line is affected by the spell. It does not refer to the path the fireball takes before it explodes.
-It was said that the surrounding skeletons to not block the area nor do they give it partial cover. So the spell should take effect.
:The problem with this is that it's not exactly true. The skeletons are not actively blocking the area targetted or giving cover but there is a blocking of sight so you can't clearly see the area.
-It was said that the fireball spell is centered on an area, not a target.
:The arguement ended with this point until I thought about because I agreed with it till I thought about it later.
It seemed to me that the fireball should start at the front line of the skeleton swarm and explode from there if it goes in a straight line.. It should not be able to go past the first or second line unless the skeletons were spread out far apart(They were not they were all cluttered together)
It also seemed to me that If the fireball was being lobbed there would have to be some kind of check to see if it land in the right spot. Also, it would be like playing basketball and not knowing where the hoop is since you can only see what's infront of you. If you had a birds eye view it would make sense to target the center.
Finally if for some reason they decided that the fireball blew up over the heads of the skeletons with the hope fo damaging as many as possible by centering the blast then I would say it's near impossible to have a spot in the air as a target, but also you would affect fewer skeletons since the blast radius is elevated.
As my group is describing fireball right now its possible to have a 3ft wide passage(So people are touching the walls with their shoulders) with a 5'8" high roof(So the top of peoples heads are just skimming the roof) and a 50ft long corridor filled with people, and a wizard coul target the center of that 50ft line, bypassing everyone in the front. That really makes no sense to me.
I'd like to see the communities take on this.
I think you're overthinking it. The spell description (the flavor text) says "a bright streak flashes from your finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a roar into an explosion of flame." It doesn't say it's a straight line and it doesn't say the point of explosion has to be in sight of the caster. I would allow the caster to choose where it 'detonates' and let them have the glory of wiping out scores of skeletons - sounds like there are plenty more.
[Edit]: Cover section on p. 196 PHB says "some spells can reach such a target (with total cover) by including it in an area of effect (such as a fireball's)" Parentheses are mine but I think it supports the idea that the caster chooses where the spell explodes.
Might be a separate topic, but I wonder what happens when a fireball is cast in a corridor, too - it has a radius of 20 ft. in the open but if the corridor is only 10 ft. wide and high does it expand to fit the volume of a 20 ft. radius sphere?
Fireball creates a "bright streak" that flashes from the caster's pointing finger to a point chosen within range, it then explodes (for lack of a better term) outward.
This means that there isn't actually an kind of arc like tossing a ball, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can't choose a point behind the front line of your enemies. All that is required for a target to be a valid choice, whether it is a creature or a point of your choosing, is that you have a "clear path to it," which the rules clarify to simply mean the target can't be behind total cover (page 204). Since creatures, skeletons especially, don't provide total cover, a point behind some of them is a valid choice for targeting a fireball.
El_Condoro wrote:
When I'm in doubt about something like this I just refer to the "How many targets should an AoE effect of type x and size y hit?" section in the DMG and use the number recommended there to determine how many monsters are hit by spell. I don't have the DMG with me at the moment to point out the page, though.
I'd never have the spell be less effective because of fluff text that isn't supported by mechanical effects. The fireball spell doesn't mention you need a straight line for it to have effect.
You'd need line of sight to the point where you cast the spell, as that is a general rule. You can't cast it through a wall. If you can cast it through a wall of skeletons is up to the DM. I can see a point in them swarming so tight together you can't see through them.
But then you can simply cast the spell over them, to a point just above their skulls, and let it explode there. Just like you can cast it over walls to try and hit the people hidden behind it.
Earlier editions mentioned the missile you threw to look like "a fiery pellet" that you shot in a straight line. "A bright streak" doesn't suggest a straight line to me. Describing it as arcing past interfering targets to it's destination sounds ok to me. That's just the fluff of it, of course.
I could see adjudicating that the mage can't tell where the exact center of the skeletons would be, since he doesn't have a birds-eye view. But whereever he decides to cast the fireball.... it works just fine.
Nice thing is, if a DM says the skeletons in the middle do have total cover from you, then you should have total cover from them too. Probably a net plus for you if they are armed with bows!
El_Condoro wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
DMG p. 249 Adjudicating Areas of Effect
Razintarr wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
If the hallway was filled with gelatinous cubes I could see your point. Maybe even a phalanx of soldiers with tower shields that by shear coincidence fill the hallway.
But It's not - it's full of skeletons. Yes they are tightly packed but can't really be completely filling the squares. So the streak of fire goes out in a line that barely squeezes through the packed masses going through a rib cage here, the jaw of another skeleton there until if finally reaches it's destination.
Something like this should be an excuse for a fun cinematic moment where the wizard really shines by doing a slow-motion spell casting and gets it just right to get the effect he needs. The rules don't support the spell being blocked (the hall is crowded, not completely blocked) and it's more fun.
Although having a hallway full of skeletons so eager to get to the PCs that they are literally a writhing wall of bone as skeletons climb over and on top of each other would be kind of awesome.
What real, tangible benefit accrues to your group by ruling fireball works in the particular way you (the OP) describe? How does it help you achieve the goals of play, that is, everyone having a good time and creating an exciting, memorable story as a result of play? That it led to an argument is enough proof for me that it adds nothing positive to the game experience and is thus something to be disregarded in the future.
The other thing to consider is that skeletons don't fill up much of a 5 foot square and they are milling about within that square. That leaves some very large gaps that can lead quite far back into the masses.
OoftaMeg wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
This is easy...
The wizard knows how big the diameter of his spell will be. He simply says he picks a spot far enough back that it will still catch the front row in the blast and then fires it directly over the heads of the skeletons.
The character is a wizard - he was schooled in the use of magic, and it's safe to assume that included how to effectively use his offensive spells offensively.
Mad_Jack wrote:
So he casts it to explode a few inches over their heads, problem solved.
Mad_Jack wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
We've given you the rule. If you want to house rule the spell, you can. If you don't house rule the spell, then they can hit the skeletons in the middle just by having it explode above them at a pinpoint of the wizard's choosing.
FrogReaver wrote:
If you are really that concerned about making a houserule for aoe effect, decide what the AC of a square or point is and apply modifiers to that AC based on how much cover lies between you and the target square or point. Then make the caster make a spell attack against that AC. If they miss, make it blow up on the first target between the caster and the point they were targetting.
Example: Blow up 100 skeletons
AC of square is 5, modified by cover making it +2 AC, so now they make a spell attack against AC of 7
Alternatively if you want to say it is very crowded and difficult to hit, then give the square 3/4 cover (+5 AC). So now a spell attack is made against AC of 10
These are houserules though, as written a spell aoe happens exactly where the player chooses.
iserith wrote:
Fireball spreads around corners, therefore any cover short of an enclosed space doesn't apply so long as they are in the area of effect.
The whole POINT of Fireball is to do a mass wipe of mooks, with an average of 14 damage if they make the save, and it does that job with a happy blast of flame.
I think this is a case of, you, as the DM, has the final ruling. As the rules in the book state, the player can detonate the fireball anywhere in his line of sight, within range. Monsters, skeletons or otherwise, only provide partial cover, therefore any point beyond them is still in sight. That applies to 100 skeletons on 100 squares. But there have been plenty of times in my games where I've told my players that such and such a rule doesn't apply here for such and such a reason. If you're describing the horde in the way that someone above described it, a massive wall of bone with the skeletons literally thronging together and on top of one another, then that seems a viable excuse as to why the normal rule wouldn't apply. Just be sure that the reasoning that you use makes sense, because there's a fine line between players feeling a bit unhappy and downright cheated. Of course my players, given the above scenario, would definitely choose to detonate just a few feet above the throng's head, which, by the rules, is also completely valid, AND, if you previously adjudicated that they were so tightly packed that you couldn't see through them, you'd have to consider the possibility of that fireball, detonated overhead, taking out more skeletons than the number of squares it hits!
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
The skeletons were armoured and they really don't take up less space than an average person. They just have no musculature. The 5ft sq is only assumed for combat and what is needed for combat.
Orethalion wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
Cover doesn't stack in 5e. You might rule that a single rank of skeletons provides half cover but then a hundred ranks of skeletons providing half cover a hundred times over is still only half cover because layers of cover don't add. You just take the highest which is - half cover. Therefore, the point in the middle of the horde of skeletons is not behind full cover, from the Wizard's point of view. So he can legitimately choose it for the origin of the fireball.
BoldItalic wrote:
iserith wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
Razintarr wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
MasterNamer wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
WizardV wrote:
DKitten wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Casting a fireball is not like throwing a grenade. Trust me, I've cast a lot of fireballs.
rpascuttini wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
I get your point, but I think our concepts differ about "how magic works."
Aimed throwing involves a number of brain and bodily functions excluded in my interpretation of magic, at least in the case of many saving throw spells which cause damage. Spell attacks like scorching ray are more analogous to aimed throwing, hence their susceptibility to coverage. The aiming and cooking off of the 'grenade' which is a fireball is done entirely within the sensory/planning portions of the brain, with no transfer of information through the motor cortex and peripheral nervous system.
That said, a fireball is described a "streak flashes from your pointing finger." That is, it has a trajectory that can be blocked if the caster is aiming it straight through the middle of a horde. Stacking cover doesn't exist in RAW, but it does in my own set of house rules. In my game, the fireball would explode 10 feet into the mass of skeletons (1 enemy = 1/2 cover, 2 = 3/4 cover, 3 = full).
However, I disagree strongly with your contention that it should be difficult to aim at a point above their heads. If we could communicate at the speed of thought, and you were to lob a softball over a crowd of people, I could reliably tell you when that softball is very close to directly above the middle of the crowd. Same thinking goes for aiming that fireball. All you need is a point of reference, in this case, the tops of their heads.
rpascuttini wrote:
How you overcomplicate stuff. If someone says he shoots a fireball into a group of 100 skeletons, I say 4 skeletons are hit. End of story.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Horwath wrote:
Horwath wrote:
iserith wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
The recommended number of targets for a spherical attack is radius/5, rounded up.
EDIT: If the targets are spread out / packed tight, use a modifier of +/- 1d3. /EDIT
The same section also says that if you want more accuracy, use minis.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Exactly. It's ridiculous to blame a spell you perfectly set up to be above normal effective in a given situation you as the DM created.
rpascuttini wrote:
Right, having a player other than the DM constantly claiming people can't take specific actions or say specific things is incredibly annoying. You need to stop trying to control what everyone else can and cannot do at the table. The DM is the one who's job is to arbitrate the game, not yours.
rpascuttini ,
I think the rules do cover targeting a point you cannot see. (You can't target points you cannot see).
But as long as you can see the point you can target it. By the rules there is no question whether a wizard can target a specific point he can see. He can. It doesn't matter if it's in the air or on the ground.
If that creates a suspension of disbelief for you then the rules create a suspension of disbelief.
The simple fact is, everything in DND 5e is pinpoint accurate and it should be because it's not fun for other players to have a chance of getting hit by a friendly fireball when the wizard could have prevented it by casting it somewhere different. It's not fun for the fighter to be hit by an arrow when the archer misses his intended target. Things like that just aren't fun for the other players.
Fireball:
It's also worth noting that even though there are 100 skeletons, they are not 5 feet wide, and it is also very likely that you can see through their ribcages.
3e and earlier, Fireball did indeed need an unhindered path from finger to target. The descriptions went on to say the bead detonated if it hit anything along the way. Given this, paired up with the, "...from your pointing finger to a point you choose..." I can easily see how a DM can conclude that the spell could be blocked by intervening obstacles. While not the only interpretation, a DM ruling this way is not wrong, just as a DM siding with the prevailing sentiment in this thread is not wrong.
One thing about about 5e some seem to be forgetting: The one medium creature per 5' square rule is no more. This is only optional. The square grid is optional. There could be any number of creatures in a given 5 foot area. That means there really could be 100 skeletons in a 30' x 30' space (or smaller) in a given campaign. In such a rare case, where the creatures are super densely packed in an area with a low ceiling, I can see not being able to target the center of the mass. Still, if the creatures are dense packed so severely that a streak of light can't make it through, a fireball detonationg upon the front ranks of such a mass is going to affect a lot of creatures and, if their HP are low enough, leave a gaping hole in the "formation."
As a DM, I would probably rule in the player's favor on this (unless it truly was a "dense critter wall" as I mentioned above). In fact, there are many occassions where I present my players encounters with lots and lots of creatutres with the express idea that they will have fun blowing up lots of stuff in a target rich environment. 
Nevvur wrote:
Lol, unless there was only 4 skeletons in the blast radius I would argue against only 4 skeletons being hit, especially if there was no reason for it.
This is battle we had was a unique situation though. A large group of skeletons have been packed into 1 area so more then 4 should be affected.
I have no problem if more skeletons are compacted into the area and they get hit. It makes sense.
This issue I'm bringing up is also a strategic one. If a person on a hill or even a cliff that is above your head level, then the further he moves back, the less of him you will see because the cliff/hill starts to hide him. A similar rule was used in the game battletech. a mini could be on an elevated source 2 or 3 levels high, If would be out of sight and out of direct line of attack if it moved back 2 hexes. As I've stated before, I'm arguing because of suspension of belief and veracity, but it's also strategy I'm looking at here.
Take this for example. If I changed the parameters a bit such as, you have a 200ft high cliff. There is an army on the cliff. Can you aim the fireball 20ft behind the army
Line of sight to that point should be blocked.
Army
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I* * * * *
Take my creative little side view ASCII diagram above. The stars on the bottom are places that a fire ball could be shot from. The lines are the cliff(Each one 25ft). the word Army = the enemy army. From some of those spots the fireball can't go over the army at top(Unless it was lobbed)
I am thinking of something similar to this. I know the situation isn't exactly the same. The situation we are discussing is more like...
X
Army* * * *
lol I wouldn't blame the DM for this. I don't even know how you guys got to that opinion. Like I said it's a conditional situation.
rpascuttini wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
It's very situational, I was just demonstrating that just saying "4 skeletons are hit" is fully covered by the rules and you will not have endless discussions with the players where they can aim the fireball at. Hell, given the situation I'd even increase the number a bit so the players are happy that I made the fireball stronger than intended. But hitting 25 skeletons... that's more than 6 times as powerful as the average fireball spell should be... I wouldn't do that. Too much XP with a single spell. (But then again, I also wouldn't swarm 100 skeletons at my group and force them to fight them.)
Not to mention there was never any info about the positioning of those skeletons, so it's not clear at all.
If the question is just if you can shoot a fireball through a line of skeleton with each skeleton 5ft next to another skeleton then I'd say "yes, of course". The size section is pretty clear that the area of control of a unit is much larger than the unit itself. It's the area the unit needs to fight effectively. So unless whatever you are shooting is like 3ft wide, it should fit through just fine.
"That's what the rules say" is cold comfort for making a ruling the players don't find very fun.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I say dealing 8d6 damage to 4 monsters is incredibly powerful already. More damage than anything else will deal at level 5.
In most situations you wouldn't really fight more than 4 monsters anyway.
It's true however, that I missed the part on the +1d3 when monsters are densely together, which should also be applied in the current situation, so it should hit 5-7 monsters.
I think the recommendation does apply here...
Well it depends on how it is done:
1. Using minituares -> special rule doesn't apply just ask the player which cell is targetted, then draw a circle and think which cell are far enough inside the circle that they actually get hit.
2. Only info is "There are 100 skeletons": 4 are hit.
3. Info is "There are 100 skeletons densely packed together in a room": 5-7 are hit.
4. DM goes by gut feeling:
Player: "I shoot a fireball into the skeletons."
DM: "That will hit 7 skeleton."
Player: "Can't I shoot the fireball into the middle of the skeletons to hit as many as I can?"
DM: "Well okay, nice idea, let's say your skills with the spell are good enough to hit 12 skeletons if you concentrate your aim as good as you can."
Those are basically the situations covered in the rules.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Horwath wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
LOL! What exactly do you think is being discussed in this forum? I don't mind discussions about DMing philosophy but this is not going in that direction.
I misunderstand nothing... you are not empowered to establish... "He can't see fully into the mass of the army to know where the central mass is. There is no way for him to measure distance over a mass of people to target it so the fireball explodes straight back to the front line..." is therefore a completely erroneous objection ... So as you can see, this is a problem of your own creation. Luckily, it's also one you can solve yourself
Horwath wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
I don't think hitting 5-7 targets is overpowered, but hitting 25 skeletons at once is. Just think about it, the damage of fireball is enough to have a very high chance to kill a skeleton (13 HP), even on a successful save. So let's assume all 25 skeletons are killed. That's 50*25 = 1250 XP with a single spell. That's just too much for a level 3 spell.
I'm aware that spells should be much stronger than a normal attack due to strongly limited spell slots, but not so much you can basically get a full level in a single adventuring day.
Plus, just compare the damage to single target spells. Disintegrate is a 6rd level spell and does 10d6+40 damage. That's 75 damage on average. A fireball does 28 damage on average per target. So already with just 3 targets hit, it's more damaging than a 6rd level single target spell.
The table WotC provides to determine the number of targets hit might seem low at first, but if you start doing comparisons, you will see that it's actually quite balanced to use it.
Iserith,
I don't totally disagree with what you are saying about rulings over rules. I don't agree with your applicaton of what your saying in it's treatment of the relationship between DM and players.
You repeat, "Rulings of over rules" over and over again and that's your only point.. Sure it's a good idea, but there are subtle nuances to the idea that are important too. This is mantra is something I've known for along time since me and the DM years ago discussed thow ridiculous it is for a player to use a vorpal dagger to cut off an older dragons' head.
If it was simply, "Rulings over rules" there would be no reason for an enitre book called the Dungeoun Masters Guide to explaine various other situations, or calls the DM can use or make, and none of the material in the DMG is rulings or rules. Nor does the 1 mantnra adbicate the DM from the trust that he must establish with his players and vice versa.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
I agree with you on that part.
It's also bad DMing to waste a lot of time discussing about how many targets are hit and whether a fireball can fly through a group of skeletons or not, rather than just determine it as DM, though.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
You're contradicting yourself.
"That's what the rules say" is cold comfort for making a ruling the players don't find very fun.
Nevvur wrote:
iserith wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Again, READ THE PHB, DMG, MONSTER MANUAL.
Those 3 books are required reading if you're going to DM and if you're going to come to the rules forum to discuss. You have no idea what you're talking about on almost every subject you comment on.
@Nevvur
It doesn't talk about a rope with 2 HP on that page at all. It says you can only cut it with a knife but not how much time you need or anything. You could rule that it's a tiny object and equally as easy to destroy as a bottle, but I wouldn't. A rope to hold a bridge that can hold 15 bandits can not be collapsed that easy. Even the small bridge in the starter set campaign's first dungeon needs to take 10 HP damage before it collapses. Not to mention that a rope isn't fragile, it's resilient. And don't forget that it also has 11 AC.
@Noctaem
Can you stop harrassing me please? I read the rules and follow them.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
This is my opinion on the "only 4 or so opponents should be killed per single action" guideline in the DMG:
One of the most gratifying things in D&D combat for any player is grabbing a handful of dice, rolling them, counting up to a huge number while gleefully announcing said number and watching a hord of minis, counters, M&Ms, etc-- AKA critters-- get swiped off the table in one sweep of the DM's hand.***
Any DM who would deny that experience to their players based off a vague guideline from the DMG is missing out on one of the most rewarding aspects of DMing: Getting to see your players happy, and getting to trash a gob of scrub mobs makes most players very happy.
Doesn't matter if this happens via spell or something like destroying a rope bridge. It is part of what makes the combat side of the game fun. If there are 25 skeletons in a fireball's blast and the damage done is enough to kill them, ALL the skeletons are blown up. If the players manage to topple a bridge with 15 bandits on it, ALL those bandits will suffer the effects --be it falling damage, having to grab on for dear life, etc.
I never get mad when players demolish my critters that way. After all, I can always make more monsters. Real DMs let their players enjoy target rich environments!
*** It's even better if the critter "tokens" are edible like, M&Ms, Skittles, etc... He who kills them gets to eat them. 
Kishri wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
@Noctaem
I'm following the rules, people say I'm not, I try to get information from them why they think so and some do. Then I explain them where they made a mistake in their thinking and why I think my version is correct. That's normal discussing of the rules. That's what this forum is for.
You on the other hand, don't seem to have any interest discussing the rules, you just think whatever you think is the absolute truth and anybody who says something else is wrong. And then when I tried to explain to you why your interpretation isn't the only correct one you started to post everywhere I post in "Read the rules" (without linking to any page or quoting any sentence that would prove me wrong), "That's nonsense", "That guy is just trolling", "We've proved you wrong already". I call that harassing.
If you don't have interest in discussing the rules then just ignore me. You can tell players what you think the rules mean and I tell them what I think they mean and then they can decide themselves what they think is more reasonable.
@Nevvur
It's true that it's pure DM estimation how stable a bridge can be. But when doing that decision, I'd also factor in balance. If I think making the bridge collapse in 6 seconds is too much of an advantage for the PCs, I would rather decide the rope is small and resilient, so they need 2-3 turns or stronger attacks to make it collapse. But you can't argue like that, you have to find a reasonable explanation as DM. So for me a reasonable explanation would be "A bridge that hold 15 creatures must be very stable and if the rope is the only thing that stops that bridge from collapsing, then it must be a very thick and resilient rope". Pretty sure my players would be perfectly fine with that explanation.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
@FrogReaver
Yeah exactly, but that was my point all along. Depending on how the situation is described, you apply different rules. And if the only information is "There are 100 skeletons swarming the room", there is no exact information how close they are together, so you either use your gut feeling as DM or use the table to determine how many are hit.
Orethalion wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
DarkSphinx wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
The skeletons horde was described as being packed so tightly you couldn't see past the front row (and some behind them).
I don't agree with your use of the word overpowered. The spell is affected by the conditions of the environment and enemies. It also depends on the game style of the group.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
iserith wrote:
Challenges should always be a net positive to the game experience, even if those challenges end badly for the characters. That is part and parcel to achieving the goals of play. This is discussed in the Basic Rules, page 2. Further, the interaction between the players and DM has an impact on achieving the goals of play. Your objections, questions, and arguments during play may have an impact on everyone's good time.
Here are sideview images of the minis.
http://postimg.org/image/rzt5b43ed/
http://postimg.org/image/r5e58po8p/
http://postimg.org/image/8oajqetix/
This is essentially what our characters were faced with.
That's a really tight space. If you imagine that the skeletons were moving you would see that spaces between their legs would disappear.
From this angel you cannot even tell what line the skeletons are in and beyond the front line it's extremelly difficult to tell distance between one skeleton and the next since they start to block each other off.
To aim over the top of a skeletons heads you would have to pick a specific target like that axe in the middle or that spear in the middle, but there i no way to tell how deep in that spear is.
rpascuttini wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
Horwath wrote:
iserith wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
You keep claiming it should be difficult to explode the fireball overhead, but never with sufficient explanation as to why. Why should it be difficult? How does magic operate in your version of the narrative that aiming entirely with your mind -- rather than mind and body, as in the case of throwing a physical object -- has any possibility of error? Why is it difficult to identify a point in space, given a point of reference (i.e. the top of the axe, or whatever).
Further, if you want to be consistent, every spell that targets a point in space needs to have a chance of failing to hit the designated spot. I said as much before, but Spell Attack effects are aimed, and Spell Save effects happen exactly where you want them to. It's a design choice written by the developers according to "how magic works" internally to the game/narrative. Again, casting a fireball overhead is not like cooking off a grenade and throwing it, hoping it explodes at a precise time/location. It's like a heat seeking missile, only the heat signature is empty space relative to a point of reference.
Next time you see a large moving crowd from 60 feet away, pick out the tallest person, and see if you can keep track of him for about 6 seconds. That's how difficult it should be to target fireball over a crowd of skeletons.
This thread is 4 pages longer than it needed to be. Would you allow an archer to shoot one of the skeletons in the middle? The answer to that question is the same answer to whether or not someone can target the middle of the crowd with a fireball.
Horwath wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
@rpascuttini: You raised an objection during the game in the form of a question that led to an argument. An objection, mind you, that has been shown by others to be bogus based on the rules of the game. You then further represented yourself in a manner that underscores that you likely behave in a disruptive manner at the table in more situations than the one about which you originally posted. Your posts speak for themselves and I'll leave you to them.
My posts are shorter, by the way, because your statements are unreasonable and hard to follow, especially when they are made days after others. There is little of value I can gain from this exchange, so I'll leave off here.
reddaemon wrote:
iserith wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
Horwath wrote:
Seriously, this here is the experiment now.
We've all discussed it. I'm asking you to prove it now.
Also, imagine if you would have to do this in a matter of 6 seconds.
Anyone, pick a skeleton as your target, in 6 seconds (no examining the picture for a long period of time) as a target.
I'll assume that the target you've chosen is ...what? 20ft inside? You tell me.
PS. No debating the target or telling someone to change their target.
rpascuttini wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
What about if I were to say "I aim my fireball right next to that upraised spear" ?
I'm not going to actually jump through the hoop of downloading the picture and painting my target, but I will say this: I looked at the pictures and I can totally see which skeleton is a good reference point to center my fireball near (I say near because over his head would be just fine, I don't need to hit him in the chest or anything like that).
Noctaem wrote:
Your experiment is flawed. We have two eyes, not one (looking at an image doesn't give you the depth perception that seeing through two eyes does). Because we have depth perception, you could very easily target a point 20 feet behind the front of the crowd 10 feet in the air. Depth perception is the reason that you can throw a ball into the air and catch it by only looking at the ball and not having to look at your hand. Try it yourself, throw a ball into the air and catch it without ever looking at your hand(only watching the ball). Now close one eye and try to do it again. You very well might still be able to catch it, but it should be obvious to you that it felt much more difficult to do.
The human brain is very skilled at calculating depth perception on the fly, that's why grenades are useful and accurate when we throw them. Even still, if you want to make the character do an easy Intelligence check to simulate their brain's depth perception, that's your call.
reddaemon wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
DarkSphinx wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
Pretty sure the answer to your question is no. I believe this is because in his "common sense" argument, cover by the skeletons to the back rows is cumulative and so stacks, even though the rules specifically state that cover does not stack and you only take the greatest form of cover and ignore the rest. That I think is a major part of the problem.
Noctaem wrote:
I don't have a problem with it outside of people trying to push their rulings/houserules (however you want to call it) as actual rules from the book. That's where I object because that implies that everyone should be following their houserule/ruling when that's not the case at all. These are also the same people who then tell others they are wrong for following the rules in the book. Which is exactly what this person is doing.
FrogReaver wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Anyways, here are scenes of the battle field from an angle. One picture is clearer then the other. The clearer image actually has 2 peices missing. I think our barbarian killed them. The slightly fuzzy one is the match for the images I posted previously.Anyways, here are scenes of the battle field from an angle. One picture is clearer then the other. The clearer image actually has 2 peices missing. I think our barbarian killed them. The slightly fuzzy one is the match for the images I posted previously.
http://postimg.org/image/hypjp8ygn/
http://postimg.org/image/67qzth655/
I didn't set up this scenario. Our DM set it up. I just took the picture. If you look at the original images I posted you'll see that I cut off more enemies on the right.
Even with the cut off there are about 34 enemies. Without the cut of there were 49 enemies. (The one lying on the floor is wounded not dead). Don't count the non black or white peices. That was our party.
FrogReaver wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
I lost interest in page three and someone might have already stated it in page 4 and 5. Is an underlying issue here the DM playing the NPC like its his PC and the players aren't comfortable with him using the wizard to steal the spot light? I think most have stated thing along the same lines the way I would rule it, wizard casts fireball into the middle of a horde of skeletons, pick the spot for the radius measurement for the blast. The OP obviously feels strongly in his position but it's not something "in game" to discuss and sounds like it might have turned into an arguement. The other player that was upset, was he arguing the same point you made or arguing that the DM's controlled NPC can cast it?
On a side note, a friend was playing a wizard for the first time and cast fireball at approaching enemies in a corridor but didn't factor in the blast radius and caught his melee party that were moving up to engage in the blast. Did it again the next session and 20 years later we still have a laugh at it when we play 
EthanSental wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
So if I understand correctly, you don't have a rules question, you are asking for input on your table's houserules? In that case, your ruling makes sense and is reasonable. I would have no problem if a DM ruled that way at a table where I was playing. The only thing that would bother me is if the DM later contradicted their ruling and had archers shoot me from behind a similar army after ruling that my fireball can't.
I was confused as you posted this thread in the rules questions forum and I was under the impression that you were asking how the rules work in your situation. RAW cover doesn't stack no matter how many creatures a target is hiding behind. RAW multiple creatures can't occupy the same space (assuming medium skeletons, they must be spaced 5 feet apart from each other according to the rules). RAW an AOE can be placed anywhere you can see (remember, cover doesn't stack).
Not trying to be a jerk about it, but it seems like debating a situation that has already departed from the written rules seems like a waste of everyone's time.
Oh man, I'm really sorry reddaemon. You right. This should have gone to another section. When I saw the sections I felt that my question was appropriate for the rules questions section not realizing that it was for clarification of questions only.
Initially my point was only about the fireball going through a large group which I didn't think was possible and wanted to discuss it. That was based on the rules to a point I felt. It did veer from that point.
I'm really sorry to everyone for the confusion.
reddaemon wrote:
Omg, I am really really sorry everyone. I didn't realize this section of the forum was strictly for rules clarification.
Ugh, all the confusion and arguing is making sense now.
greyhobbit13 wrote:
greyhobbit13 wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
EthanSental wrote:
greyhobbit13 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
EthanSental wrote: