-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Can you do a "diamond" shaped blast?
- Thread starter tafkamhokie
- Start date
Mithreinmaethor said:
Actually I'd say WOTC has taken a Set your phasers to suck principle(yeah SYPTS isn't a cool acronym) with a large amount of oversimplification. What the RAW crowd frequently are trying to do is shake a little bit of suck of there game when the simplification becomes an oversimplification.
So what does the player want to do in this situation, oh yeah use his breath weapon in a way so he does not hit the other characters. Totally broken or cool, I'm falling on the cool side of this one. So yeah I'd prefer a reading of the rules that allowed the cool. In my game I'd likely require some kind of stunt check but I have no problem with the premise of trying to make a diamond shape breath weapon.
4e D&D reminds me a lot my opinion of 4e shadowrun a huge change in the system mechanics, which has some great core ideas behind it. And maybe in 5e they will get it right, or Advanced 4e maybe. I'll still play and run both since I do like a lot of the core system premises, but it could be a whole heck of a lot better.
Ziana
First Post
There is no discussion; there's a simple and intellectually honest reading of the rules, and there's picking a fight with people in order to satisfy one's ego.
The rules don't have to prevent this. They do not have to account for all possible twisting or misunderstanding or the rules. They merely have to show what is the correct or intended way to implement a game feature. In the case of calculating a blast area, they provide clear visual examples in addition to a straightforward definition. The burden of proof is on those who assert that their absurd twisting of the rules is in fact correct; not that the rules fail to discount it.
4E encourages the use of battle grids to provide a visual reference for combat, and make determining things like line-of-sight, and areas of spell effects easy.
For sake of simplification, they make diagonal movement equivalent to straight movement on the grid. The PHB only refers to movement in this manner; it doesn't describe treating anything else on the battlegrid diagonally: not turning creatures or players 45º, not rotating spell areas, and certainly not arbitrarily deciding to count squares diagonally to determine an area.
A blast is, by PHB definition, a 3-square-by-3-square area.
Is the diagonal form on the grid originally presented a 3x3 area?
1a A 3 square x 3 square area consists of 3 columns and 3 rows
1b By simple math, an area constituting 3 columns and 3 rows has 9 constituent squares. Each row consists of 3 squares, and there are 3 rows, per the definition.
1c From the figure, there is an checkerboard pattern of squares that appears to constitute 3 diagonal lines by 3 diagonal lines, with an intervening four squares between them.
1d The figure encompasses more squares than allowed for per the definition.
1e The figure is not a 3 square by 3 square area.
2a A 3 square x 3 square area consists of 3 columns and 3 rows
2b The distance from one corner to the opposite corner must consist of 3 squares, one for each row and column. Any additional intervening squares would not be consistent with 2a.
2c The figure presented has five squares from "corner" to "corner".
2d The figure is not a 3 square by 3 square area.
From 1 & 2, the figure is not a 3 square by 3 square area.
From 2, this is in fact a 5 square by 5 square area, with 3 squares removed from each corner. That is not consistent with the PHB definition.
WotC provided a simplified method to deal with diagonal movement on the battlegrid, to help make the game more accessible to newcomers as part of their new design philosophy. Some may agree with this, some may not. The effects of this philosophy will be seen in years to come as the D&D community either thrives or dwindles.
One of the consequences of this particular choice is some minor mathematical incongruities, that largely pose no problem for people who just want to play the game and have fun. One is that it takes just as many steps to take a wide diagonal detour, as to move in a straight line on the grid. Another consequence is that this fact can be abused by those who would seek to bend the rules in ways justified nowhere in the books. Since the books are written for "players, not lawyers", WotC had to trust that its customers have some modest amount of common sense, and so will apply a little thinking in applying the rules and considering what's is or is not consistent or intended.
People who argue "the rules say nothing against it so it's legal" regarding absurd misreadings of the rules do a disservice to the player community and help ruin this game for others.
The rules don't have to prevent this. They do not have to account for all possible twisting or misunderstanding or the rules. They merely have to show what is the correct or intended way to implement a game feature. In the case of calculating a blast area, they provide clear visual examples in addition to a straightforward definition. The burden of proof is on those who assert that their absurd twisting of the rules is in fact correct; not that the rules fail to discount it.
4E encourages the use of battle grids to provide a visual reference for combat, and make determining things like line-of-sight, and areas of spell effects easy.
For sake of simplification, they make diagonal movement equivalent to straight movement on the grid. The PHB only refers to movement in this manner; it doesn't describe treating anything else on the battlegrid diagonally: not turning creatures or players 45º, not rotating spell areas, and certainly not arbitrarily deciding to count squares diagonally to determine an area.
A blast is, by PHB definition, a 3-square-by-3-square area.
Is the diagonal form on the grid originally presented a 3x3 area?
1a A 3 square x 3 square area consists of 3 columns and 3 rows
1b By simple math, an area constituting 3 columns and 3 rows has 9 constituent squares. Each row consists of 3 squares, and there are 3 rows, per the definition.
1c From the figure, there is an checkerboard pattern of squares that appears to constitute 3 diagonal lines by 3 diagonal lines, with an intervening four squares between them.
1d The figure encompasses more squares than allowed for per the definition.
1e The figure is not a 3 square by 3 square area.
Code:
. . X . .
. X o X .
X o X o X
. X o X .
. . X . .
o = intervening square.2b The distance from one corner to the opposite corner must consist of 3 squares, one for each row and column. Any additional intervening squares would not be consistent with 2a.
2c The figure presented has five squares from "corner" to "corner".
2d The figure is not a 3 square by 3 square area.
Code:
. . 1 . .
. X 2 X .
1 2 3 4 5
. X 4 X .
. . 5 . .From 2, this is in fact a 5 square by 5 square area, with 3 squares removed from each corner. That is not consistent with the PHB definition.
WotC provided a simplified method to deal with diagonal movement on the battlegrid, to help make the game more accessible to newcomers as part of their new design philosophy. Some may agree with this, some may not. The effects of this philosophy will be seen in years to come as the D&D community either thrives or dwindles.
One of the consequences of this particular choice is some minor mathematical incongruities, that largely pose no problem for people who just want to play the game and have fun. One is that it takes just as many steps to take a wide diagonal detour, as to move in a straight line on the grid. Another consequence is that this fact can be abused by those who would seek to bend the rules in ways justified nowhere in the books. Since the books are written for "players, not lawyers", WotC had to trust that its customers have some modest amount of common sense, and so will apply a little thinking in applying the rules and considering what's is or is not consistent or intended.
People who argue "the rules say nothing against it so it's legal" regarding absurd misreadings of the rules do a disservice to the player community and help ruin this game for others.
Ziana
First Post
By all means if the players and DM want to do something that suits them or their situation, that's entirely up to them. The first rule is having fun isn't it?Ahglock said:
That doesn't mean one needs the official rules to "allow the cool"; they already do. Everything is permitted. Throw out any rules you don't like, or make up new ones. But the question here was addressing how the PHB indicates spell areas are treated; not what interesting house rules could be applied.
Certainly it's great for allowing for player creativity and improving the "realism" of the game. I kind of liked Spido's solution. You could even apply 50% damage to all partially filled squares. Antialiasing.
However, I hope the players will be equally happy when the ancient black dragon decides its breath weapon can emerge at a diagonal, extending 9 squares at its farthest, instead of 5.
Ziana said:
I agree with pretty much everything you've said.
Just realize that many of the RAW crowd really aren't interested in anything other than a debate over minutae (their personal reasons for this vary - some will argue RAW in one debate, but designer intent in another). By argueing minutae with them, you've already given them what what they want. They'll usually ignore everything else in your post after the RAW debate, as they consider it irrelevent.
That is why (in my humble opinion) some individuals ( DEFINITELY NOT KARINSDAD WHO IS A SCHOLAR AND A GENTLEMAN AND ALWAYS THE SOUL OF REASONED DEBATE ) seem to get so irritated when they see a post that doesn't treat this style of debate with the respect they think it deserves - especially if you refuse to include any RAW arguements in it for them to focus on.
They see it as a personal attack on them, since they seem to feel that is the only valid way to debate the rules, so if you disrespect that you disrespect them. (Disclaimer: The "RAW crowd" as I call it is not a monolithic entity, individuals within it may have their own unique motivations and points of view. They are all delicate snowflakes. Please don't hurt me.)
So try not to take it too personally if they don't seem "get" your point of view (or seem actively hostile to it). I used to do that and had to force myself to take an extended vacation from the boards.
I like a good rules debate - it can enlighten and educate. I just don't think RAW debates are good rules debates when taken to the extremes that they usually are. I also find them extremely boring (even when I'm one of the participants), so I tend to discuss other things. (Which probably says more about me than it does about them.)
So what's that saying? "Make something foolproof, and someone will build a better fool?" Sometimes a plain simple description complete with illustration just isn't enough.
The thing that baffles me is that there doesn't even seem to be anyone who seems to be unclear as to what the rules as intended are, but simply want to argue for argument's sake what some person might possibly misinterpret the rules as and how reasonable or unreasonable that misinterpretation is. Is that accurate, or do I assume too much?
Anyway, my attachment shows what I believe is a totally analogous argument to what is being made, which I think illustrates the absurdity.
The thing that baffles me is that there doesn't even seem to be anyone who seems to be unclear as to what the rules as intended are, but simply want to argue for argument's sake what some person might possibly misinterpret the rules as and how reasonable or unreasonable that misinterpretation is. Is that accurate, or do I assume too much?
Anyway, my attachment shows what I believe is a totally analogous argument to what is being made, which I think illustrates the absurdity.
Attachments
Torg Smith
First Post
As I do not post much here I should say my post was more playful than serious. That is why I placed the wink at the end of it.
To throw another wrench in to the discussion is that the rules for blast are on 3 pages in the PHB.
Page 56; In the section Close subsection Close blast [number]:
A close blast power allows you to target creatures or objects within an adjacent area that is the indicated number of squares on a side. See page 272 for how to determine the area of the blast.
Page 271; In the shaded section Close Attack subsection Origin Square it just talks about line of effect from the origin to target.
Page 272;
1) In the shaded section Area of Effect subsection Blast:
A blast fills an area adjacent to you that is a specified number of squares on a side.
2) There is an image showing to blast areas.
Now when I first read these things and looked at the image, I got the impression that the origin square had to be lined up with the center of the side of the blast area adjacent to the origin square. I saw this as saying there were eight adjacent squares around the origin square. If the adjacent square shared a side with the origin square you map the blast area like it is in the top part of the image. If the adjacent square was one of the corner squares you map the blast area like it is in the lower part of the image.
I should preface that while I only represent 4 positions on the code section I am referring to the relative position that is representative of all squares around the blast area.
From what I have read of the web at different sites it seems most people are reading the all (A, B, C, and D) positions are valid for the origin square. The way I first read it was that only positions A and D where valid origin squares as the image on page 272 presented it this way. Another reason for this thought was that this was to represent an effect that originated for the caster so it would make sense to put the origin square in the center of the edge of the blast area.
I have decided to do the first reading of having all (A, B, C, and D) be valid origin squares. Also that the squares have to be aligned with the battle map as I do not want to spend the additional time of trying to calculate what is inside the area if it is rotated and whether or not a creature should take partial damage as its square is not fully inside the blast area.
To throw another wrench in to the discussion is that the rules for blast are on 3 pages in the PHB.
Page 56; In the section Close subsection Close blast [number]:
A close blast power allows you to target creatures or objects within an adjacent area that is the indicated number of squares on a side. See page 272 for how to determine the area of the blast.
Page 271; In the shaded section Close Attack subsection Origin Square it just talks about line of effect from the origin to target.
Page 272;
1) In the shaded section Area of Effect subsection Blast:
A blast fills an area adjacent to you that is a specified number of squares on a side.
2) There is an image showing to blast areas.
Now when I first read these things and looked at the image, I got the impression that the origin square had to be lined up with the center of the side of the blast area adjacent to the origin square. I saw this as saying there were eight adjacent squares around the origin square. If the adjacent square shared a side with the origin square you map the blast area like it is in the top part of the image. If the adjacent square was one of the corner squares you map the blast area like it is in the lower part of the image.
Code:
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| | | | | | | |
| | X | X | X | X | X | |
| | | | | | | |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| | | | | | | |
| | X | X | X | X | X | |
| | | | | | | |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| | | | | | | |
| | X | X | X | X | X | |
| | | | | | | |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| | | | | | | |
| | X | X | X | X | X | |
| | | | | | | |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| | | | | | | |
| | X | X | X | X | X | |
| | | | | | | |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| | | | | | | |
| A | B | C | D | | | |
| | | | | | | |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+I should preface that while I only represent 4 positions on the code section I am referring to the relative position that is representative of all squares around the blast area.
From what I have read of the web at different sites it seems most people are reading the all (A, B, C, and D) positions are valid for the origin square. The way I first read it was that only positions A and D where valid origin squares as the image on page 272 presented it this way. Another reason for this thought was that this was to represent an effect that originated for the caster so it would make sense to put the origin square in the center of the edge of the blast area.
I have decided to do the first reading of having all (A, B, C, and D) be valid origin squares. Also that the squares have to be aligned with the battle map as I do not want to spend the additional time of trying to calculate what is inside the area if it is rotated and whether or not a creature should take partial damage as its square is not fully inside the blast area.
Dormain1
Explorer
All this "discussion" is due to the 1-1 scale
if a fighter can move 3 diagonal and attack why can't a blast effect the same area, you can't have one set of rules for one and not the other
WotC were the ones to introduce the 1-1 scale, I just think it would be easier to use hexes
sure the players may hit more enemies or they may miss their allies but then so do the monsters
if a fighter can move 3 diagonal and attack why can't a blast effect the same area, you can't have one set of rules for one and not the other
WotC were the ones to introduce the 1-1 scale, I just think it would be easier to use hexes
sure the players may hit more enemies or they may miss their allies but then so do the monsters
N0Man said:
It's called discussion for discussion sake, not argument for argument's sake (some people really get confused over that and in some cases, have for many years now).
It's how synergy of ideas are spread amongst the gaming community.
Nobody is really discussing this to convince anyone else of anything. Some of us are discussing this to get that synergy moving and to explore possibilities. Other people are meta-discussing these types of discussions (whatever floats their boat).
For example, is there an easy way to rotate the area and make the game more fun? Sure:
Code:
. . . . . .
. x O O x x
. . x O x .
. . B x C .
. . . A . .A casts his close burst diagonally. It's just not a square. It's more like a cone. The "3x3 blast" is still 9 squares. From a plausibility standpoint, it makes more sense than the current RAW rules of square shape blasts that somehow do not actually start at an origin point and move outwards, instead are just a super simplified square plopped down on the grid.
And, such a rotation works at at all sizes. The number of squares is always the same (if the cone is on an axis). 1 long = 1, 2 long = 4, 3 long = 9, 4 long = 16, etc.
It would not have hurt WotC in any way to allow blasts like this. People who need super simple rules (which in reality, there are very few people who do) could ignore it. The rest of us could be having more fun.
Is it a reasonable "house rule"? Of course. People should not be handcuffed into the written RAW as the only way to have fun.
Torg Smith
First Post
Now if you are going with the cone then you should be able to control the expansion. The following is a cone of nine squares and you could take a straight line of nine squares.
Code:
..x..
.xxx.
.xxx.
..x..
..x..Similar Threads
