I can do it too, it's easy. It's basically the edge of your range of vision with the fog of war minus a little bit. Even though I almost never fry my own party members with a fireball anymore I still want the indicator.
@ajwz hah! The whole grid paper thing.. well, your GM could have exercised some discretion and let the party get nuked (unless the mage had the equivalent of advanced spatial reasoning). Just because you have the squares doesn't mean you need to know the exact scale.
Have your tanks buffed with fire resistance then blast away with impunity.
Extra fun if the fire resistance is above 100%. I managed to heal Shar-Teel through a nasty part of Durlag's Tower a few years ago with some potions of fire resistance, and some fire resistance-boosting items.
Have your tanks buffed with fire resistance then blast away with impunity.
Extra fun if the fire resistance is above 100%. I managed to heal Shar-Teel through a nasty part of Durlag's Tower a few years ago with some potions of fire resistance, and some fire resistance-boosting items.
Yes, and the only way I trust myself to use lightning bolt is if all my characters anywhere near it have full electricity protection!
As said before me: This has been discussed during fall or summer in Feature Request. My opininon is still the same though: 1: I don't think characters can aim spells so accurately, as you would with a circle. So I think it's unrealistic. 2: It would be too easy. 3: With practice you can learn to aim quite precisely anyway. About friendly fire: Just doesn't make sense. Go play some lame modern rpg if you want that, but even there it will be hard to find something like this.
Although I understand the OP idea, I prefer the way as it is. You can't imagine how awesome I feel, when my fireball hits ONLY enemies, with super-precize shot, without any artificial help.
I think the title is fairly self-explanatory - the idea is a kind of transparent field that would show under your cursor every time you're targeting a Fireball, a Hold Person, or any other AoE spell, which would let you know what area would be affected by your magic. Simple in theory, and I'm guessing rather difficult to implement. Still, I think it would be immensely helpful and a huge improvement to the game.
I think I must have had different pen and paper games to everyone else. For our games we assumed that people in melee were actually moving around quite a bit rather than just standing still and swinging at each other - melee rounds are supposed to last a full minute after all.
When we played (and I'm pretty sure its in the rulebooks somewhere) trying to fire arrows at melee combatants was pretty much a lottery as to whether you would hit the enemy or your ally. Fireballs and the like were reserved for distant targets, not at enemies in melee combat with the party (unless you were truly desperate).
So personally I'd prefer not to mark the area affected by a spell - makes it more realistic to my mind. That said, I'm happy for it to be included as an option if people want that.
I support optional targetting assistance on spells. Whether it's a colored overlay that jars the senses, lags your machine and interrupts your sense of combat immersion or if it's just a marked "boundary", it doesn't change my game. Can definitely see the use.
And @karnor00, are you sure combat rounds were 1 minute long? In 2nd Ed AD&D I believe rounds lasted 6 seconds, and turns lasted 10 rounds or 1 min.
Was definitely 1 minute combat rounds in 2nd ED AD&D. A turn was 10 rounds = 10 minutes.
In the handbooks it mentioned that in a melee combat the participants would spend time dodging and parrying, and that the attack roll was the chance to land a significant blow within that time.
That said the 1 minute combat round idea doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny. Maybe it just about works for melee combat, but a really good archer should be able to get off around 20 shots/minute, not 2/minute.
I'd love to see it as an option. I understand ppl who don't want that. Their choice, that's why I want it as an option, but the fact I don't know how big my fireball will be exactly dies not mean my wizard don't know it. He knows, so why should I be denied his knowledge?
And for spells that are already in place, like web, marking area affected seems almost a must-have! If there IS a web, pretty physical one, my characters should see it, and I should see it as well.
@karnor00 I'm checking it right now and you're right. My bad. In my group we used 6 second rounds and I forgot how the original rules went. Good thing BG doesn't make you wait 1 real-time minute between rounds, eh?
A - it's not true to life (spellcasters don't "see" borders to their area of spell, they just know it or can even define it) B - learn the range of the area by yorself! C - nothing is funnier than seeing somebody waste half his party with a misplaced spell ^_^
I will say, it seems odd to me that people want a continual delineation for "Web". During casting? Sure! I can see that. Give you an idea of how far out it'll expand.
But once it's running? It's..pretty much expanded to its maximum range. Isn't it? Even if a particular portion of the web disappears and reappears, I still get a remarkable sense of the area and where "Not to go", just by sort of visualizing the whole thing as a circle. Plus, they disappear and reappear with frequency, meaning even if you aren't 100% sure on where the boundary is this second because a segment or two disappeared, you will be 2 seconds from now when they reappear.
spellcasters don't "see" borders to their area of spell
Have you ever cast a spell in real life? If no, how can you know it? Different books describe it in different ways and I'm damn sure some of Faerun books (Drizzt series) said that burning party embers with spells couldn't be accidental and "accidents" was just a drow caster's excuse. Blah, even Neera's plot is based on the assumption that burning friends was caused by her wild magic, and not something normal, trained spellcaster could do by accident. And that's the point - you don't expect player to have high enough STR to wear armor, or high enough DEX to shot arrows, right? You expect CHARACTER to have it. So why require PLAYER to memorize spells, areas etc, why isn't it enough if his CHARACTER has high enough INT? Even if it's only "visualization" and something chara knows even if not actually see.
spellcasters don't "see" borders to their area of spell
Have you ever cast a spell in real life? If no, how can you know it? Different books describe it in different ways and I'm damn sure some of Faerun books (Drizzt series) said that burning party embers with spells couldn't be accidental and "accidents" was just a drow caster's excuse. Blah, even Neera's plot is based on the assumption that burning friends was caused by her wild magic, and not something normal, trained spellcaster could do by accident. And that's the point - you don't expect player to have high enough STR to wear armor, or high enough DEX to shot arrows, right? You expect CHARACTER to have it. So why require PLAYER to memorize spells, areas etc, why isn't it enough if his CHARACTER has high enough INT? Even if it's only "visualization" and something chara knows even if not actually see.
I clearly stated (even though you didn't quote it) that spellcasters can define the area of their spells with e.g. fireball.
Things in the game are dividable in 3 categories
-) things that can only be experienced in-game (e.g. the very act of memorizing a spell by using your thoughts) -) things that can be experienced in-game and on the computer screen (learning a spell from a scroll) -) things that can only be seen on a meta-level (hitpoints, interface, a green circle to mark a charmed enemy)
so I didn't state it was illogical to visualize spell areas by displaying them on the meta-level (and the meta-level ONLY), it's just unnecessary. you don't draw "hand gestures" with your mouse or speak the command words into the microphone either (though that would be fun, lol).
of course, if there really is something in the rulebooks about spellcasters seeing their spell areas, prove me wrong.
of course, if there really is something in the rulebooks about spellcasters seeing their spell areas, prove me wrong.
Why don't you prove me wrong?
Not rulebook but Faerun's canon books - Drizzt series. First surface expedition. Why wizards did not go? Cause of fireball accidents that none of experienced drow wizard believed to be an accidents 'cause it was impossible to make mistale like that NOT on a purpose. Not ruebook but BG:EE materials - Neera's plot, about burning her fellows due to being wild mage, not a normal one. I pointed both already. Anything to counter it?..
AD&D 2nd Edition - Th Complete Wizard's Handbook: "Spells that are cast over a general area can be cast by wizards with impaired vision, although their effects may not be as precise as they would be if the wizard could see. For instance, a wizard with impaired vision could cast flaming sphere in front of himself and direct it to move straight ahead toward an area where he hears a group of screeching goblins. But if the goblins scatter at the approach of the flaming sphere, the wizard will not be able to accurately direct its movement to run them down." Seems to me that wizzie without impaired vision should be able to cast over a general area with precision of single goblin (one square, one small creature).
If you'll try tou counter any of that 3 sources with good, sourced counter-arguments I'll try to get access to more sourcebooks and Faerun material. For now - it still seems to me my wizard can cast accurately. 3 sources saying accidental friendly fires with area spells are not (normally) happening, 0 for them to happen. 1 saying it's about seeing what are you doing (Complete Wizard's handbook), 0 against.
From Player's handbook "The caster must be able to see the point of explosion and the intervening distance." states clearly it's about sight, but does not state clearly what needs to be in area seen by caster. Words "intervening distance" does not appear in the Magic chapter ever again.
As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter whether marking AoE is "canon" or not. In concept, it's supposed to be an optional usability feature, not a lore expansion.
Comments
About friendly fire: Just doesn't make sense. Go play some lame modern rpg if you want that, but even there it will be hard to find something like this.
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/185/mark-the-area-that-will-be-affected-by-a-spell
Here is also interesting topic:
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/1527/radius-effect-spell-effect-question
Actually this is strange, I was almost sure that @TrentOster would push this as an optional update, that will be convenient for new players.
You can't imagine how awesome I feel, when my fireball hits ONLY enemies, with super-precize shot, without any artificial help.
Who's with me?
Well, with you as my companion, who needs enemies?
@Jalily some merging is needed
having accidentally friend a NPC or two in my time, I'm all for this .
When we played (and I'm pretty sure its in the rulebooks somewhere) trying to fire arrows at melee combatants was pretty much a lottery as to whether you would hit the enemy or your ally. Fireballs and the like were reserved for distant targets, not at enemies in melee combat with the party (unless you were truly desperate).
So personally I'd prefer not to mark the area affected by a spell - makes it more realistic to my mind. That said, I'm happy for it to be included as an option if people want that.
And @karnor00, are you sure combat rounds were 1 minute long? In 2nd Ed AD&D I believe rounds lasted 6 seconds, and turns lasted 10 rounds or 1 min.
Whether it's a colored overlay that jars the senses, lags your machine and interrupts your sense of combat immersion or if it's just a marked "boundary", it doesn't change my game. Can definitely see the use.
In the handbooks it mentioned that in a melee combat the participants would spend time dodging and parrying, and that the attack roll was the chance to land a significant blow within that time.
That said the 1 minute combat round idea doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny. Maybe it just about works for melee combat, but a really good archer should be able to get off around 20 shots/minute, not 2/minute.
And for spells that are already in place, like web, marking area affected seems almost a must-have! If there IS a web, pretty physical one, my characters should see it, and I should see it as well.
A - it's not true to life (spellcasters don't "see" borders to their area of spell, they just know it or can even define it)
B - learn the range of the area by yorself!
C - nothing is funnier than seeing somebody waste half his party with a misplaced spell ^_^
During casting? Sure! I can see that. Give you an idea of how far out it'll expand.
But once it's running? It's..pretty much expanded to its maximum range. Isn't it? Even if a particular portion of the web disappears and reappears, I still get a remarkable sense of the area and where "Not to go", just by sort of visualizing the whole thing as a circle. Plus, they disappear and reappear with frequency, meaning even if you aren't 100% sure on where the boundary is this second because a segment or two disappeared, you will be 2 seconds from now when they reappear.
Things in the game are dividable in 3 categories
-) things that can only be experienced in-game (e.g. the very act of memorizing a spell by using your thoughts)
-) things that can be experienced in-game and on the computer screen (learning a spell from a scroll)
-) things that can only be seen on a meta-level (hitpoints, interface, a green circle to mark a charmed enemy)
so I didn't state it was illogical to visualize spell areas by displaying them on the meta-level (and the meta-level ONLY), it's just unnecessary. you don't draw "hand gestures" with your mouse or speak the command words into the microphone either (though that would be fun, lol).
of course, if there really is something in the rulebooks about spellcasters seeing their spell areas, prove me wrong.
EDIT: And I very much agree because this would make it easier for new players to jump into the game too!
Not rulebook but Faerun's canon books - Drizzt series. First surface expedition. Why wizards did not go? Cause of fireball accidents that none of experienced drow wizard believed to be an accidents 'cause it was impossible to make mistale like that NOT on a purpose.
Not ruebook but BG:EE materials - Neera's plot, about burning her fellows due to being wild mage, not a normal one.
I pointed both already. Anything to counter it?..
AD&D 2nd Edition - Th Complete Wizard's Handbook:
"Spells that are cast over a general area can be cast by wizards with impaired vision, although
their effects may not be as precise as they would be if the wizard could see. For instance, a
wizard with impaired vision could cast flaming sphere in front of himself and direct it to move
straight ahead toward an area where he hears a group of screeching goblins. But if the goblins
scatter at the approach of the flaming sphere, the wizard will not be able to accurately direct its
movement to run them down."
Seems to me that wizzie without impaired vision should be able to cast over a general area with precision of single goblin (one square, one small creature).
If you'll try tou counter any of that 3 sources with good, sourced counter-arguments I'll try to get access to more sourcebooks and Faerun material. For now - it still seems to me my wizard can cast accurately. 3 sources saying accidental friendly fires with area spells are not (normally) happening, 0 for them to happen. 1 saying it's about seeing what are you doing (Complete Wizard's handbook), 0 against.
From Player's handbook "The caster must be able to see the point of explosion and the intervening distance." states clearly it's about sight, but does not state clearly what needs to be in area seen by caster. Words "intervening distance" does not appear in the Magic chapter ever again.