Another comment by Andreas was that a Wizard or other spellcaster should have to make some sort of attack roll to successfully target a fireball or similar spell. My comment at the time was that such an attack roll would remove the need for a saving throw from such spells, which would hurt rogues and the like.
I have since recalled that the rules for grenades in d20 Modern are almost exactly like those Andreas proposed, where the user of a grenade must make an attack roll to target the grenade, and victims receive saving throws for half damage (a fact that annoyed me to no end, since more than half the party had at least one level of Fast Hero to get the Evasion talent, but nevermind).
That being the case, I propose that the correct ruling would be exactly as expressed: In order to successfully target a spell whose area of effect is determined by pinpointing a grid intersection (so, fireball is included, but lightning bolt and magic missile are not - and I'm sure there's a more elegant way to express this notion, but I can't think what it is, but anyway, you get the idea) the character must make an attack roll against the grid intersection.
The AC of a grid intersection is 10. The attack roll is modified by -2 for every range increment between the wizard and the target point, determined by the range of the spell, as follows:
Short Range: Range increment is 10 feet.
Medium Range: Range increment is 40 feet.
Long range: Range increment is 100 feet.
If the attack roll hits, the spell affects the intended area. Otherwise, roll a d8 scatter dice, as for a grenade-like missile. On a roll of 1, the spell targets an intersection in a direct line further away from the wizard than intended. Other results cause the spell to move in a different direction, as per normal. The spell is centred on an intersection 1 square away from the intended target for every range increment between the wizard and the intended target.
For example, Luc wants to fireball some orcs who are 300 feet away. Because Marius has been good enough to get up close to the orcs, Luc has carefully calculated just the right spot to centre the fireball to hit them all, but miss Marius, a distance of 310 feet from the sorcerer.
Fireball has a range of Long, so 310 feet is 3 range increments away from Luc. To hit the desired spot, Luc must make an attack roll at a -6 penalty against an AC of 10 (alternatively, he must hit AC 16 - the math is the same).
If Luc hits, the fireball goes off as expected. If he misses, he must roll a scatter die. The fireball is then centred on an intersection 3 squares away from the intended target.
It is, of course, impossible to score a critical hit when aiming spells in this fashion.
The downside of this rule is that it slightly weakens spellcasters - suddenly their offensive spells are a lot less reliable. The upside is that I no longer need to get frustrated at players who take the token and work out the exact placement of the spell for absolute best effect, when their character couldn't possibly have that sort of perspective.
Anyway, that's that.
Sunday, 11 July 2004
Critical Saves
Another comment that was made a while ago, this time by Andreas, was that a natural 20 on a saving throw, instead of causing the character to automatically save, should instead allow the character to take no damage from the effect.
This is certainly a decent idea, and doesn't damage the game over-much, except for one detail: there exists the case where a character can save only on a 20. In such an instance, the character either takes full damage from the attack, or takes no damage. This is similar to the case found in many 2nd-edition house rules on critical hits, where a natural 20 did double damage.
That being the case, I offer the following house rule as an alternative that does basically what Andreas suggested, fits the existing rules, and solves the problem just outlined:
When a character must make a saving throw against a spell or other effect, where a successful save causes the character to take reduced damage or a reduced effect (so, also includes the like of "Will partial" saves), a character has the possibility of rolling a "critical save".
If the die roll on the saving throw is a natural 20, this roll is considered a lifeline. The player should immediately roll a second saving throw against the same DC, using all the same modifiers. If this second roll is also a successful save against the effect, the character has rolled a critical save. In this instance, the character is completely immune to the effect, taking no damage or being otherwise affected.
This is certainly a decent idea, and doesn't damage the game over-much, except for one detail: there exists the case where a character can save only on a 20. In such an instance, the character either takes full damage from the attack, or takes no damage. This is similar to the case found in many 2nd-edition house rules on critical hits, where a natural 20 did double damage.
That being the case, I offer the following house rule as an alternative that does basically what Andreas suggested, fits the existing rules, and solves the problem just outlined:
When a character must make a saving throw against a spell or other effect, where a successful save causes the character to take reduced damage or a reduced effect (so, also includes the like of "Will partial" saves), a character has the possibility of rolling a "critical save".
If the die roll on the saving throw is a natural 20, this roll is considered a lifeline. The player should immediately roll a second saving throw against the same DC, using all the same modifiers. If this second roll is also a successful save against the effect, the character has rolled a critical save. In this instance, the character is completely immune to the effect, taking no damage or being otherwise affected.
Taking the Hit
Ages ago, Johannes mentioned something about wanting an option in D&D for a character to voluntarily take a hit in order to get some bonus. For instance, he might do so to draw his opponent's weapon out of the way, or to protect the party wizard, or whatever.
The problem with allowing this is the core system is that the abstract nature of damage and hit points in D&D doesn't really make allowance for such actions, in the same way that it doesn't allow for specific injuries.
(Case in point: the PCs capture an enemy warrior. They tie said warrior up, and interrogate him. Then, as punishment for his crimes, they decide to cut off his hands. How does the system adjudicate this? It doesn't, and with a good reason: it would really suck if that happened to a PC, and anything allowable for a PC has to be allowable for an NPC. That's a weakness in the system, though, since the action is certainly a reasonable thing to want to try.)
Anyway, in terms of the taking the hit question, there are two problems. Firstly, if the warrior wishes to take the hit in place of the wizard, he might reasonably expect his armour to have some impact on the success of the blow. This, if allowed, causes a huge problem - the warriors in the group can then cluster around the wizard, rendering him immune to damage. This isn't so much a problem when tried by PCs; it's a major problem when the NPC wizard hires a bunch of peasants to stand around in full plate and take attacks for him.
The second problem is one of hit points. Let's assume that the character basically wants to allow his opponent to stab him, to thus get the opponent's weapon out of the way (as was done in the Wheel of Time, and as is a really stupid thing to do in combat, but anyway). Alas, even if the 10th level Fighter takes an automatic hit as a result of this, he probably has a hundred hit points, and can just shrug it off.
So, here's what I would suggest: If a character wishes to voluntarily take a hit, that character automatically foregoes the benefits of his armour class. In fact, the character automatically takes damage from the attack as though he has taken a critical hit from the attack. Sneak attack damage applies to this attack as well, if applicable.
Two more vicious variants are possible: after the character takes the hit, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage taken), or die (essentially, giving a free coup de grace to his opponent). Alternately, the character takes a normal (non-critical) hit. Sneak attack damage does NOT apply. However, the damage done applies to the character's Constitution, rather than his hit points.
Truth be told, I don't like the notion of a character voluntarily taking a hit any more than I like the notion of characters taking called shots to specific body parts, or facing the possibility of permanent injuries. But, if I were implementing this sort of thing, that is how I would do it.
The problem with allowing this is the core system is that the abstract nature of damage and hit points in D&D doesn't really make allowance for such actions, in the same way that it doesn't allow for specific injuries.
(Case in point: the PCs capture an enemy warrior. They tie said warrior up, and interrogate him. Then, as punishment for his crimes, they decide to cut off his hands. How does the system adjudicate this? It doesn't, and with a good reason: it would really suck if that happened to a PC, and anything allowable for a PC has to be allowable for an NPC. That's a weakness in the system, though, since the action is certainly a reasonable thing to want to try.)
Anyway, in terms of the taking the hit question, there are two problems. Firstly, if the warrior wishes to take the hit in place of the wizard, he might reasonably expect his armour to have some impact on the success of the blow. This, if allowed, causes a huge problem - the warriors in the group can then cluster around the wizard, rendering him immune to damage. This isn't so much a problem when tried by PCs; it's a major problem when the NPC wizard hires a bunch of peasants to stand around in full plate and take attacks for him.
The second problem is one of hit points. Let's assume that the character basically wants to allow his opponent to stab him, to thus get the opponent's weapon out of the way (as was done in the Wheel of Time, and as is a really stupid thing to do in combat, but anyway). Alas, even if the 10th level Fighter takes an automatic hit as a result of this, he probably has a hundred hit points, and can just shrug it off.
So, here's what I would suggest: If a character wishes to voluntarily take a hit, that character automatically foregoes the benefits of his armour class. In fact, the character automatically takes damage from the attack as though he has taken a critical hit from the attack. Sneak attack damage applies to this attack as well, if applicable.
Two more vicious variants are possible: after the character takes the hit, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage taken), or die (essentially, giving a free coup de grace to his opponent). Alternately, the character takes a normal (non-critical) hit. Sneak attack damage does NOT apply. However, the damage done applies to the character's Constitution, rather than his hit points.
Truth be told, I don't like the notion of a character voluntarily taking a hit any more than I like the notion of characters taking called shots to specific body parts, or facing the possibility of permanent injuries. But, if I were implementing this sort of thing, that is how I would do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)