Precision of Area Attacks in RPGs

[Lapak]

Another thread got me thinking about this, and I thought I'd ask for some opinions. How do you all feel about the current state of area-effect attacks in D&D or other games? It has (it seems) become absolutely expected that spellcasters can toss a fireball or a slow spell or whatever on exactly the spot they desire, with laser-guided precision. I don't have a problem with the precise placement in and of itself; the spell goes where the wizard wants. But the idea that he can figure out within 5 feet exactly where to place his Fireball so that it scorches his foes but leaves his friends untouched? That is, exactly what spot he SHOULD will the spell to hit? That strikes me as weird, and as an artifact of the game environment and the battle map rather than making any sense in context.

In a typical fantasy battle, you're talking about a chaos-filled melee with anywhere from a handful to dozens of combatants, constantly moving, with the characters under stress and threat of death or wounding, in terrain that ranges from sunlit open fields to stalactite-filled caverns where the ability to see any given point might strobe in and out as creatures or objects come between the light source and your target point. Even in an open meadow at noon, many people would be hard-pressed to point at an otherwise featureless spot and say 'that is EXACTLY sixty feet from me, whereas my buddy Joe is precisely forty feet from me.' (I know wizards have high INT, but not all casters are wizards and spatial recognition is quite possibly distinct from spell-intelligence anyway.)

It may be just me, but it feels off that a caster can serve as precision artillery with an area spell against targets currently engaging his friends in melee. It's almost to the point where I feel like I should come up with a house rule to treat the point of origin for area affects as grenade-like weapons in some circumstances, or something similar.

What are the opinions of the community? Is this something I shouldn't be worried about? Does it make perfect sense to you, or do you also think it's counter-intuitive?

[Pharaoh's Fist]

It's magic.

[Optimystik]

It's magic.

You go with that. I'll be focusing on the metaphysical imprint their battlefield presence has impressed on my mindscape.

God, I love psionics.

[Grumman]

I have no problem with a superhumanly intelligent or wise character taking advantage of their mental abilities to provide accurate close support in this manner. CHA-based spellcasters are harder to justify in-character, though.

But I do think that this is essential to make a multiplayer game playable. Everyone has had bad strings of unlucky rolls that either hurt yourself or fail to help your allies. Letting unlucky rolls kill your allies would be a bad thing.

[Eldariel]

I personally use a touch attack using Caster Level over BAB vs. AC 5 (AC of a square). If there're some small openings or such you need to cast through, the AC will scale accordingly. If there's miss chance, it'll be rolled. In the event of a miss, a d10 will be rolled to see where it ends up. 1-8 on the d10 present the adjacent squares from the target, 9-0 mean reroll for the next sphere.

[Dust]

DnD 3.5 is one of the only settings that quickly jump to mind where friendly fire is so incredibly common. Even deadly, interparty-conflict settings like Call of Cthulhu don't have rules for, say, misfired bullets harming allies.

The fact that 3.5 is always ready with a rule to cause you to kick yourself or your allies in the proverbial genitalia has always seemed bizarre to me. 'It's magic' is a perfect reason why you should be able to create a wall of sweeping flame across the battlefield to scorch foes, but leave your allies unharmed by the heat.

[Ernir]

It's kind of silly, I agree. Especially since most (all?) spells have their full effect on everyone within the affected area, and none on anyone outside of it. No minor zing-ing from a nearby Fireball. No nausea from a nearby Stinking Cloud. All or nothing.

Unjustifiable? I don't think so.

Wizards calculate the blast radius.
Sorcerers' magic is intuitive, it's like an extension of their limb anyway.
Clerics ask for divine guidance.

[Satyr]

It's almost to the point where I feel like I should come up with a house rule to treat the point of origin for area affects as grenade-like weapons in some circumstances, or something similar.

That actually sounds like a good idea, but it would only leads to a sinking popularity of the affilicted spells and more focus on spells who don''t deal damage but are otherwise effective. If you want to do this, you should spread some uncertainty to any spell, or otherwise you just shift the problem.

[lsfreak]

Most of the time, it's a matter of 'pick a point in space, it appears there,' no aiming required. When it gets to long-range stuff, Int or Wis checks to tell whether their ally is within that 20 foot blast radius or not. But if it's being targeted as a matter of 'on top of that guy,' 'ten feet to to the northeast of the one with the shield,' and so on, doesn't matter.

The time presented as the 3 seconds it takes to cast the spell, plus presumably at least some idea of what's going on due to move actions before that, is enough to gauge for closer ranges where spells need to be targeted to avoid hitting allies.

(Plus really, it's one of those things that at first glance nerfs casters but really just ends up ****ing over the melee even more.)

[peterpaulrubens]

I've always thought that the caster has some minor influence on spell shape, such that he can make a rough estimate of where he wants the spell mentally, and whatever little bit he's off on his estimation, he simply mentally "muscles" the spell into where he wanted it.

[ericgrau]

For all practical purposes, yes, they can locate the spell precisely. It is reasonable to assume that they are also practiced enough to estimate the radius within a couple feet, though a reasonable houserule I've seen basically gives damage but improved evasion to anyone at the exact edge of the spell radius. The spell description does give situations where firing it through a narrow space requires an attack roll. But the AC of the square is only 5 and even if you did miss you'd still be close, so in most situations it's simpler to say the wizard hits automatically instead of figuring out the details.

If players try to push the limits and line up the fireball perfectly while wasting a bunch of game time, I think the above house rule is quite reasonable. The better solution is to use common sense in terms of what your character could estimate when chucking fireballs and don't cut it so close, so there is no need for such a house rule.

[Thurbane]

During combat, our group requires a ranged touch attack against a static (low) AC to lob an area effect exactly where you want it. Last night, actually, an enemy cleric fudged the attack roll with a flame strike and missed 1/2 the party...

[Kantolin]

We keep super-precise area attacks in our games, as it wouldn't add anything to our games to remove it.

All it'd really do, if you ask me, is limit the amount of people making area of effect attacks. Which is a bad thing in my book - I'm totally cool with the wizard using fireball.

Now, we also have amusing explanations for this:

Cleric: Pelor?
Pelor: Oh conflabbit... okay lemme see... carry the three... aim here.
Cleric: Here?
Pelor: Oh for my sake. *Aims it for him*
Cleric: Thanks, Pelor!

~~

Wizard: I've been studying complex mathematics for my entire life. I complex mathematics the fireball exactly where it needs to be given wind resistance.
Sorceror: I've been studying complex mathematics for my entire life. I complex mathematics the fireball exactly where it needs to be given wind resistance. *Rolls 38 on bluff*

^_^ But really, we just leave it alone.

[Lapak]

Well, I think I can consider my question answered. No, I do not need to worry about it.

[Susano-wo]

It really does bother the crap out of me, though mostly for directed AoE. Like fireball. its not that you are willing X to go over Y area, its that you are shooting out a little bullet to hit X area, or, worse, precisely commanding it to detonate at just the right spot!
Course whether making rolls for the exact spot would be unfun is probably dependent upon the group, and upon how often what things did so.
Also, it still breaks realism with certain spontaneous creation of energy effects. Like, for instance, creating a firewall where you can't necessarily see with 100% accuracy (like in a room in a dungeon, how are you going to know that the point you are willing it to is actually behind your party member, or if it just looks that way)
But oh well, I'm really about immersion, so I get canal about that stuff ^ ^

[Rixx]

[Tengu_temp]

We keep super-precise area attacks in our games, as it wouldn't add anything to our games to remove it.

This. Adding a roll to see if your fireball hit only makes the game even more time-consuming, and results in area attacks being used less, as if they weren't easy enough to avoid already.

[Vinsurgent]

I like the previous posts about choosing a point in space and the effect appearing there.
Even with a spell where something is "thrown" like the 4E Druid's Flame Seed, it's not a dexterity or strength-based movement like throwing a baseball. Keep in mind that magic comes directly from the mind of the caster, which means that it's also guided by the mind, and not the arm. A caster can see a spot that's close to enemies but a few feet from any allies, throw a ball of magic, and even if he got picked last in gym class, he can mentally guide that ball to an exact point in space.

Also, keep in mind that a 1" square is 5 by 5 feet. There's a few feet of wiggle room, especially if the ally knows that the spell is being cast, and can sidestep a bit (less than 5 feet, not a move action, possible when it's not their turn).

[Demented]

Another possibility:

You don't become a wizard if you can't put a fireball within 5 feet of where it needs to be.

[Asbestos]

When you really need accuracy, you DO need to roll a touch attack vs AC for Fireball

"If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely."

[Ormur]

But a sorcerer, any idiot with the right genes and a bit of charisma can become one. You could enforce spot checks. Although on second though I wouldn't want to give the already chaotic sorceress in my game an excuse for throwing fireballs at her party, accidentally.

Also if for some reason the mage is one-eyed and/or lacks depth perceptions it becomes even stranger.

[LurkerInPlayground]

It doesn't bother me. I got quite good at targeting fireballs in BG2. And you're usually shooting it well behind *their* half of the field.

Anybody who plays shooters a lot knows that it's probably not unusual to be able to aim a shot that well. It's something I'd just expect adventurers to pick up.

[Yuki Akuma]

But a sorcerer, any idiot with the right genes and a bit of charisma can become one.

Instinct.

People with a natural ability to do something can usually do that something with remarkable proficiency. It's called "talent", and you don't become a sorcerer without it.

[Eldariel]

Not having any chance to screw up is sorta boring IMHO tho; I find the "Nat 1"-mechanic quite amusing, which is why I prefer forcing the flat AC 5 attacks on spells.

High-level casters still won't fail once you institute the epic "roll at -20 for a nat 1" rule, but it creates for lots of amusing scenarios in lower-level play (and even high-level casters can **** up when they really try something hard).

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Wizards calculate the blast radius.
Sorcerers' magic is intuitive, it's like an extension of their limb anyway.
Clerics ask for divine guidance.

^This^. Plus, it's a 5th level Wizard. That's something like 53 encounters. Figure 1/4th are either non-combat or he used a crossbow the entire time, that's still 40 AoE's thrown into combat. By the time he casts Fireball, he knows what it will hit.

[icefractal]

But oh well, I'm really about immersion, so I get canal about that stuff ^ ^

I'm into immersion too, but it only breaks immersion if you visualize spells as being aimed like a weapon. When "casting Fireball" means "calling on ancient contracts with the elemental lords of fire" or "forcing your will on reality until the air decides to spontaneously combust", it makes perfect sense that you could direct it such as to avoid your allies. If anything, it would make sense for spells to be more shapeable.

[Lapak]

I'm into immersion too, but it only breaks immersion if you visualize spells as being aimed like a weapon. When "casting Fireball" means "calling on ancient contracts with the elemental lords of fire" or "forcing your will on reality until the air decides to spontaneously combust", it makes perfect sense that you could direct it such as to avoid your allies. If anything, it would make sense for spells to be more shapeable.

At the other extreme, if you consider it to be 'wrenching at reality through powers that even the wisest only poorly comprehend' or 'unbinding the rules of the universe itself under the tenuous control of a human mind' or 'calling upon dark and mysterious powers to perform what mortals cannot' - all of which carry equal fantasy pedigrees in terms of how magic functions - you would be extremely unwise to unleash magic in the immediate vicinity of anyone you liked.

[icefractal]

Well yeah, but in that case, the exact placement of the spell is going to be the least of your problems. If Fireball could go totally out of control and flambe the entire battlefield, or summon an uncontrolled demon, or whatnot, then you really should only be casting spells at foes in another room, with someone ready to slam the door immediately afterwards.

I just think that "the spell's parameters are entirely consistent, except for the positioning, which has to be aimed like a wobbly arrow" is an unlikely situation. But it's what a lot of of house-rules relating to this boil down to.

[Vaynor]

A thousand catgirls just died.

Seriously though: "I don't think it's plausible that the WIZARD could accurately place the BALL OF FIRE HE SUMMONED OUT OF NOWHERE in such a precise location. That just doesn't make sense."

Did I mention BALL OF FIRE?

Emphasis mine.

[Satyr]

"It's magic" or "it's fantasy" is not an expalanation; it is an excuise, and a poor one at that.
If something has an equivalent in reality, it is easy to handle it, because there is always a reliable bottom line you can refer to; anything fantastic or supernatural does not have this luxury, and therefore has to make sense all in itself. Fantastic elements must be more plausible in themselves than supposedly realistic ones, and inner consistency - or the lack of it is a good indicator for a talented,storyteller/author/gamemaster, or a hack.