Judging height vertically by eye is actually extremely difficult. You only have to look into observer accounts of low flying aircraft, crashes, near misses and even ufo reports to see that. I give approximate heights for really tall objects at 100 feet or more, with precise heights for castle walls and towers of up to 30 - 40 foot ish. The other possibility is that the DM did not know how to work it out that accurately. Not every one that plays D&D is a math whiz or can do more than basic math. I have played at tables where players where adding up a d20 dice roll and modifier on their fingers.
At my table, we've gotten into the habit of adding out loud. "16 plus 7 modifier is 23". We do it to show we're not cheating, and help the DM keep track of the various modifiers. (We're all Engineers and Accountants. :) )
At my table, we've gotten into the habit of adding out loud. "16 plus 7 modifier is 23". We do it to show we're not cheating, and help the DM keep track of the various modifiers. (We're all Engineers and Accountants. :) )
I do the same thing, though it hasn't really caught on in my groups (I do AL and private games, or used to rather 😭).
Judging height vertically by eye is actually extremely difficult. You only have to look into observer accounts of low flying aircraft, crashes, near misses and even ufo reports to see that.
This is not because of vertical height. It is because of a lack of any other objects of known size/distance to estimate scale. And it does not only happen vertically. It happens in the sky with pilots and airline passengers looking at things horizontally off in the distance in a clear sky, and they can't tell if the thing is 100 feet away and small, or 1,000 feet away but larger.
Most UFO reports come from ground based observers looking into the sky, because there are just so many more millions of people on land than flying around in airplanes... but the same mistakes happen in air-bound witnesses.
If someone is looking up in the sky at a hovering object, yes, hard to judge distance unless you know objectively how big the object is. But if you standing beside a house looking up at something on the wall partway up toward the roof, you will be very good at estimating how far it is, because you have the rest of the objects (house, windows, shutters, bricks on the wall, etc) to help you judge distance.
We judge distance using the things around an object and our implicit knowledge of things like, how big is a car, or a bike, or an airplane. We lose the ability to judge distance when things have nothing around them or between us and them to help judge scale and even more so if we have no idea what size the object we're looking at is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Judging height vertically by eye is actually extremely difficult.
It's trivial to judge 'that object is about as tall as it is far away'. The hard part is knowing how far away something is in the first place, and if you're using a battle map, you've already accepted that PCs can know how far away objects are.
In a session (d&d 5e) I see a tall tower in front of me. I count the squares on the grid we play on, and see that its 140ft away. I ask about the height of the tower and my DM says I can’t figure the exact height. On the tower there is an enemy and I want to cast Fireball at him without moving. The tower's real height is 100ft, so the real distance between me and the target is 172ft.
But my PC can’t know this. But can I ask the DM, if I cast Fireball (150ft +20ft blast) would it hit the target? My DM said my PC isn’t sure the target is in range for the spell and thinks there could be a chance he’s out of range.
After the session we discussed about the matter. I thought he had to tell me beforehand either that the spell can reach the target or that the spell wont reach the target. He thought that my PC cant be sure about that.
Is this matter covered by some rule we're missing? If not how would you deal with this situation?
Okay I can't remember the location. Doesn't 5E ignore the pytherom theorem on distance? So to be simple the distance is 140ft? Or was that buried in sage advice?
Okay I can't remember the location. Doesn't 5E ignore the pytherom theorem on distance? So to be simple the distance is 140ft? Or was that buried in sage advice?
By default, yes. Many groups don't like their circles being square though.
In a session (d&d 5e) I see a tall tower in front of me. I count the squares on the grid we play on, and see that its 140ft away. I ask about the height of the tower and my DM says I can’t figure the exact height. On the tower there is an enemy and I want to cast Fireball at him without moving. The tower's real height is 100ft, so the real distance between me and the target is 172ft.
But my PC can’t know this. But can I ask the DM, if I cast Fireball (150ft +20ft blast) would it hit the target? My DM said my PC isn’t sure the target is in range for the spell and thinks there could be a chance he’s out of range.
After the session we discussed about the matter. I thought he had to tell me beforehand either that the spell can reach the target or that the spell wont reach the target. He thought that my PC cant be sure about that.
Is this matter covered by some rule we're missing? If not how would you deal with this situation?
Okay I can't remember the location. Doesn't 5E ignore the pytherom theorem on distance? So to be simple the distance is 140ft? Or was that buried in sage advice?
That would be the default for playing on a battlemap, but most people I've played with use the optional variant that increases it by 5ft for every two diagonal squares. If you use that in three dimensions, take the longest distance, add half of the other two. In this case, that would put it at 190ft.
Digging up this old thread since it came up in my search to check a similar rule, and I think I can help clarify for anyone finding this.
The question being, does the DM need to tell you the distance to the target? Answer: Yes and no. Depending on spell and interpretation. Going by RaW (Rules as Written), as I interpret it.
- Why yes? Let's look at Fireball. Range : 150ft Target : A point within range, chosen by the caster.
Nice interpretation : For many, this means when you attempt to cast the spell you can only form the spell if you select a valid point of space within 150ft of you. If you attempt to target outside of that 150ft, you cannot form the spell and thus cannot even initiate the spell casting action... thus retaining your spell slot and action. Rough interpretation : Some have you expend the spell slot, and then attempt to select the target. If the target is invalid (such as outside of range), the spell fails and you have wasted your action and the spell slot.
- Why no? Let's look at Find Traps. Range : Self Area : 120ft radius Duration : Instant Effect : All traps within line of sight (so not behind cover) and within 120ft of the caster, are listed for the caster. Light level is not considered for this, it's line of sight... not vision.
Interpretation : If you technically can see any part of the trap - such as a hole for it to launch from, the trigger plate, an object that will be moved as part of the trap's intent - then it is added to the list. You do not find out the distance to the traps, only what they do. Example : You cast the spell, and I give you this list. This is what the list would look like when given to players: A boulder catapult, a boulder catapult, a drop door, a spiked pitfall.
This is my list of traps. This is the order I checked them, not your proximity to the trigger. And explaining why you did or did not get it on your list... and my secret notes. 1) A boulder catapult (The trigger is under a paving stone that is in your line of sight. The paving stone is technically part of the trap because of this. You do not see the boulder.) 2) A boulder catapult (The boulder is visible to you, as it sticks out on a hill to your right. No actual mechanisms are visible to you. The trigger plate is 170ft ahead of you.) 3) A drop door (There is a building and the slots the door will slide down are in your line of sight and range. Yes, this makes it obvious where the trap is since it is the only building.) 4) A spiked pitfall (The disguise hiding the trap is in your line of sight, and since it is intended to conceal it you get the information about the hazard of the trap.) Not Included) Alchemist's Fire Bouncing Betty. (This is behind a bush. The entire mechanism is buried and the dirt hiding it is concealed form you by the bush. I have an ambush waiting to lure you towards it... but I have no guarantee anyone will step on it. One hostile is going to forget after round 2 of combat, and can then be lured to step on it themselves... if the situation allows it.) Not Included) A dart trap, with incidental toxic cloud. (The trigger is inside the building, blocked from your line of sight. The dart hole is aimed at the door entry and is near the hiding hostiles. However, an old and decrepit pack is covering it. The pack was not placed as part of the trap, and was placed without knowing about the trap... so it does not count as a trap for detection. The pack contains old vials of a toxic poison that will explode into a cloud if the dart trap is triggered... thus catching the hostiles. Yup, a small reward for getting yourself trapped in the building.)
In that example, I don't have to tell you if any traps will show up when you cast it. For all you know, you may waste a level 2 slot to get an empty list. Actually, most of the time it will be a waste.
Another Yes: Charm Person. This must target a humanoid you can see within 30ft of you. When you consider casting it, your magic reaches out and tells you all valid targets... if the one you want is not in range then you can't begin casting without picking one in range. Or... the mean ruling, you begin casting and it seeks a valid target. If the one you want is not in range you must pick someone who is... if no one is in range, the action and spell slot are lost with no effect. And yes, this means you would have to target a party member if they are the only humanoids in range.
Another No: Mage Hand I've got you locked in a cell. You see what looks like the keys for the cell hanging on the wall at the other end of the cell corridor. You jump straight to casting mage hand to grab the keys... and it fails. You just learned the keys are not within 30ft of you. You cast the hand closer to yourself, and send it towards the keys... and learn that the keys are still outside 30ft of you. You cast it again, have it grab a broom from nearby and try to knock the keys off the hanger... and learn it is farther than 30ft + the broom from you.
--- Back to the original tower posed for the question. The person you want to hit with fireball is 172ft away. You are trying to pick the person as your point for fireball. So I would tell you that your magic cannot reach the person to target them. However, I would rule that your magic maps all potential points within your range... so you basically have a 'laser pointer map' of every location you could target. However, you see that you can't even target the base of the battlement. Comparing to what you see of the height in relation to the battlement on top, you figure there is no placement that would catch them in the blast. But, you also aren't sure how much forward you must move to change this... until you move forward, or roll better estimation of distance.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
At my table, we've gotten into the habit of adding out loud. "16 plus 7 modifier is 23". We do it to show we're not cheating, and help the DM keep track of the various modifiers. (We're all Engineers and Accountants. :) )
I do the same thing, though it hasn't really caught on in my groups (I do AL and private games, or used to rather 😭).
This is not because of vertical height. It is because of a lack of any other objects of known size/distance to estimate scale. And it does not only happen vertically. It happens in the sky with pilots and airline passengers looking at things horizontally off in the distance in a clear sky, and they can't tell if the thing is 100 feet away and small, or 1,000 feet away but larger.
Most UFO reports come from ground based observers looking into the sky, because there are just so many more millions of people on land than flying around in airplanes... but the same mistakes happen in air-bound witnesses.
If someone is looking up in the sky at a hovering object, yes, hard to judge distance unless you know objectively how big the object is. But if you standing beside a house looking up at something on the wall partway up toward the roof, you will be very good at estimating how far it is, because you have the rest of the objects (house, windows, shutters, bricks on the wall, etc) to help you judge distance.
We judge distance using the things around an object and our implicit knowledge of things like, how big is a car, or a bike, or an airplane. We lose the ability to judge distance when things have nothing around them or between us and them to help judge scale and even more so if we have no idea what size the object we're looking at is.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
It's trivial to judge 'that object is about as tall as it is far away'. The hard part is knowing how far away something is in the first place, and if you're using a battle map, you've already accepted that PCs can know how far away objects are.
Okay I can't remember the location. Doesn't 5E ignore the pytherom theorem on distance? So to be simple the distance is 140ft? Or was that buried in sage advice?
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
By default, yes. Many groups don't like their circles being square though.
That would be the default for playing on a battlemap, but most people I've played with use the optional variant that increases it by 5ft for every two diagonal squares. If you use that in three dimensions, take the longest distance, add half of the other two. In this case, that would put it at 190ft.
Digging up this old thread since it came up in my search to check a similar rule, and I think I can help clarify for anyone finding this.
The question being, does the DM need to tell you the distance to the target?
Answer: Yes and no. Depending on spell and interpretation. Going by RaW (Rules as Written), as I interpret it.
- Why yes?
Let's look at Fireball.
Range : 150ft
Target : A point within range, chosen by the caster.
Nice interpretation : For many, this means when you attempt to cast the spell you can only form the spell if you select a valid point of space within 150ft of you. If you attempt to target outside of that 150ft, you cannot form the spell and thus cannot even initiate the spell casting action... thus retaining your spell slot and action.
Rough interpretation : Some have you expend the spell slot, and then attempt to select the target. If the target is invalid (such as outside of range), the spell fails and you have wasted your action and the spell slot.
- Why no?
Let's look at Find Traps.
Range : Self
Area : 120ft radius
Duration : Instant
Effect : All traps within line of sight (so not behind cover) and within 120ft of the caster, are listed for the caster. Light level is not considered for this, it's line of sight... not vision.
Interpretation : If you technically can see any part of the trap - such as a hole for it to launch from, the trigger plate, an object that will be moved as part of the trap's intent - then it is added to the list. You do not find out the distance to the traps, only what they do.
Example : You cast the spell, and I give you this list.
This is what the list would look like when given to players: A boulder catapult, a boulder catapult, a drop door, a spiked pitfall.
This is my list of traps. This is the order I checked them, not your proximity to the trigger. And explaining why you did or did not get it on your list... and my secret notes.
1) A boulder catapult (The trigger is under a paving stone that is in your line of sight. The paving stone is technically part of the trap because of this. You do not see the boulder.)
2) A boulder catapult (The boulder is visible to you, as it sticks out on a hill to your right. No actual mechanisms are visible to you. The trigger plate is 170ft ahead of you.)
3) A drop door (There is a building and the slots the door will slide down are in your line of sight and range. Yes, this makes it obvious where the trap is since it is the only building.)
4) A spiked pitfall (The disguise hiding the trap is in your line of sight, and since it is intended to conceal it you get the information about the hazard of the trap.)
Not Included) Alchemist's Fire Bouncing Betty. (This is behind a bush. The entire mechanism is buried and the dirt hiding it is concealed form you by the bush. I have an ambush waiting to lure you towards it... but I have no guarantee anyone will step on it. One hostile is going to forget after round 2 of combat, and can then be lured to step on it themselves... if the situation allows it.)
Not Included) A dart trap, with incidental toxic cloud. (The trigger is inside the building, blocked from your line of sight. The dart hole is aimed at the door entry and is near the hiding hostiles. However, an old and decrepit pack is covering it. The pack was not placed as part of the trap, and was placed without knowing about the trap... so it does not count as a trap for detection. The pack contains old vials of a toxic poison that will explode into a cloud if the dart trap is triggered... thus catching the hostiles. Yup, a small reward for getting yourself trapped in the building.)
In that example, I don't have to tell you if any traps will show up when you cast it. For all you know, you may waste a level 2 slot to get an empty list. Actually, most of the time it will be a waste.
Another Yes:
Charm Person.
This must target a humanoid you can see within 30ft of you. When you consider casting it, your magic reaches out and tells you all valid targets... if the one you want is not in range then you can't begin casting without picking one in range.
Or... the mean ruling, you begin casting and it seeks a valid target. If the one you want is not in range you must pick someone who is... if no one is in range, the action and spell slot are lost with no effect. And yes, this means you would have to target a party member if they are the only humanoids in range.
Another No:
Mage Hand
I've got you locked in a cell. You see what looks like the keys for the cell hanging on the wall at the other end of the cell corridor. You jump straight to casting mage hand to grab the keys... and it fails. You just learned the keys are not within 30ft of you. You cast the hand closer to yourself, and send it towards the keys... and learn that the keys are still outside 30ft of you. You cast it again, have it grab a broom from nearby and try to knock the keys off the hanger... and learn it is farther than 30ft + the broom from you.
--- Back to the original tower posed for the question.
The person you want to hit with fireball is 172ft away. You are trying to pick the person as your point for fireball. So I would tell you that your magic cannot reach the person to target them.
However, I would rule that your magic maps all potential points within your range... so you basically have a 'laser pointer map' of every location you could target. However, you see that you can't even target the base of the battlement. Comparing to what you see of the height in relation to the battlement on top, you figure there is no placement that would catch them in the blast. But, you also aren't sure how much forward you must move to change this... until you move forward, or roll better estimation of distance.