Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)
I am currently building a high-powered NPC villain that likes to use wands. I
was thinking that it would be incredibly cheesy to be throwing around spells
with RTA's and virtually ignore all the party's armor, especially when the
confrontation is likely to initiate at long range.
Should spells requiring ranged touch attacks have a range increment? If not, why
not? How about a Spot check instead
I figure there ought to be some kind of limit on a character's ability to
discriminate the target from background even if the target is illuminated,
within line of sight, and neither covered nor concealed.
Regardless of whether you use a spell, a bow & arrow, a throwing knife, you are
having to test your hand-eye coordination. On the other hand, for those spells
that don't need aiming, "if you can see it you can shoot it", and the target's
size is irrelevant.
But if a spell needs aiming, it's not an intangible undodgable
magic-missile-like thing you're attacking with, it's some kind of ray or
unguided projectile of finite size. In such cases, smaller targets are going to
be harder to accurately target than bigger ones at the same distance, and a
target farther away than another one of the same size is going to be harder to
accurately target. Not just in terms of absolute size (which applies to the
target's touch AC), but also apparent size due to distance. A smaller target up
close could be easier to hit than a larger target further away. There is a
decrease in profile due to distance.
Of course, unlike with arrows, throwing knives, or cannonballs, there is no
projectile deviation due to gravity or wind sheer with spells. We may assume a
spell RTA propagates at the speed of light, making any apparent motion of the
target irrelevant.
Also, more powerful ranged weapons have a greater range; they can compensate for
smaller targets better by cutting down on the delay between launch and strike.
You don't have to lead them as much; wind and gravity have less of an effect on
the projectile. Aerodynamics also plays a role -- wind resists an arrow flying
headlong into it less than it does a thrown club tumbling end over end.
But would a weapon with speed-of-light velocity be able to compensate for target
size, making the distance to target irrelevant? I doubt it.
So what should a speed-of-light ranged weapon's R.I. be?
If the answer really is practically infinite, then as an alternative, a Spot
check could be substituted for RTA R.I.'s. If a spell's R.I. could really be
considered infinite, then Spot checks are the next best thing to ask for, to
make sure the caster can discern the target in order to make the attack. Fail a
spot check and the caster cannot aim properly. Or if the caster can aim at the
target's square, he will need to make a Spot check to see that part of the
environment.
What do you all think? Which is the better approach.
--
Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)
"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen
I am currently building a high-powered NPC villain that likes to use wands. I
was thinking that it would be incredibly cheesy to be throwing around spells
with RTA's and virtually ignore all the party's armor, especially when the
confrontation is likely to initiate at long range.
Should spells requiring ranged touch attacks have a range increment? If not, why
not? How about a Spot check instead
I figure there ought to be some kind of limit on a character's ability to
discriminate the target from background even if the target is illuminated,
within line of sight, and neither covered nor concealed.
Regardless of whether you use a spell, a bow & arrow, a throwing knife, you are
having to test your hand-eye coordination. On the other hand, for those spells
that don't need aiming, "if you can see it you can shoot it", and the target's
size is irrelevant.
But if a spell needs aiming, it's not an intangible undodgable
magic-missile-like thing you're attacking with, it's some kind of ray or
unguided projectile of finite size. In such cases, smaller targets are going to
be harder to accurately target than bigger ones at the same distance, and a
target farther away than another one of the same size is going to be harder to
accurately target. Not just in terms of absolute size (which applies to the
target's touch AC), but also apparent size due to distance. A smaller target up
close could be easier to hit than a larger target further away. There is a
decrease in profile due to distance.
Of course, unlike with arrows, throwing knives, or cannonballs, there is no
projectile deviation due to gravity or wind sheer with spells. We may assume a
spell RTA propagates at the speed of light, making any apparent motion of the
target irrelevant.
Also, more powerful ranged weapons have a greater range; they can compensate for
smaller targets better by cutting down on the delay between launch and strike.
You don't have to lead them as much; wind and gravity have less of an effect on
the projectile. Aerodynamics also plays a role -- wind resists an arrow flying
headlong into it less than it does a thrown club tumbling end over end.
But would a weapon with speed-of-light velocity be able to compensate for target
size, making the distance to target irrelevant? I doubt it.
So what should a speed-of-light ranged weapon's R.I. be?
If the answer really is practically infinite, then as an alternative, a Spot
check could be substituted for RTA R.I.'s. If a spell's R.I. could really be
considered infinite, then Spot checks are the next best thing to ask for, to
make sure the caster can discern the target in order to make the attack. Fail a
spot check and the caster cannot aim properly. Or if the caster can aim at the
target's square, he will need to make a Spot check to see that part of the
environment.
What do you all think? Which is the better approach.
--
Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)
"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram