Diagonal area of spells

[Krachek]

Hello guys... one of my powergame players have a strange idea... he is using cube effect spells in a diagonal pattern... like a diamond.
getting a bad guy that is between two players with the point of the diamond...

Theres nothing in the rules against it... and nothing favoring this...

It feels to me a little cheese... (but i already have some bias against this player)

What do you guys think about this... would you be okay with it??

Thanks in advance

It can be ok,
but your caster and monster can do the same, including dragon that will place their breath with millimetric precision.

 

[Satyrn]

Hello guys... one of my powergame players have a strange idea... he is using cube effect spells in a diagonal pattern... like a diamond.
getting a bad guy that is between two players with the point of the diamond...

Theres nothing in the rules against it... and nothing favoring this...

It feels to me a little cheese... (but i already have some bias against this player)

What do you guys think about this... would you be okay with it??

Thanks in advance

I think if I was to rule against your player's idea, I'd do so by telling him that the orientation of all areas are determined in relation to the caster. For a sphere or circle this changes nothing, but when it comes to squares and cubes, I'd tell him that one side would have to be perpendicular to the imaginary line between the spell's area and the caster.

This still lets the player accomplish his goal, but he'll have to move to a spot on the battlefield that would let it work.


So I guess I wouldn't fully rule against the playe's idea, but I would temper it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Two of the better parts of using a grid are position certainty and ease of counting distance, alternate 1-2-1 counting of diagonals loses both of those, since you have an extra step to counting distance and diagonal distances can end up depending on who's counting or what order you move in, and areas can end up too big or small due to what amounts to a rounding error.

Certainty of position is only useful if everything else is equally certain. Sometimes losing five feet due to rounding is preferable to always varying measurements based on arbitrary grid orientation.

There's no benefit to counting quickly if the answer you end up with is too far different from the underlying reality. If the answer you get when applying the grid is different from the answer you would get from tracking exact positions mentally (theater of the mind), then the grid isn't actually helping.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Certainty of position is only useful if everything else is equally certain. Sometimes losing five feet due to rounding is preferable to always varying measurements based on arbitrary grid orientation.

That's the thing, if a square is always 1, then it doesn't matter if there's a diagonal, the distance & position is certain, orientation has nothing to do with it.

There's no benefit to counting quickly if the answer you end up with is too far different from the underlying reality.

The grid is the underlying reality. The fantasy world being modeled, not being real.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The grid is the underlying reality. The fantasy world being modeled, not being real.

That is the most ridiculous thing which has been said on these forums so far this year.

There is an underlying reality which is the game world, and the rules are an attempt to model that reality. That is the fundamental premise of a role-playing game. If you aren't going to take this seriously, then there's no point in your posting.

 

[Satyrn]

That is the most ridiculous thing which has been said on these forums so far this year.

Drat!

I need to up my game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That is the most ridiculous thing which has been said on these forums so far this year.

I'm sure I've already said something like it earlier this year.

Plus, Mearls's whole "we shouldn't design for the action economy..."

There is an underlying reality which is the game world, That is the fundamental premise of a role-playing game.

No, confusing a game world with a reality is the fundamental premise of Mazes & Monsters, staring Tom Hanks.

and the rules are an attempt to model that reality.

They are modeling an imagined world, yes, but the process goes reality > modeling > imagined world, not alternate-reality > modeling > RL-reality. We use our imaginations and the game system to create the imagined reality of the in-game world.

 

[Shiroiken]

Do we actually have a RAW to imply that the grid is fixed? I don't use a grid so I am not sure... it just occurred to me that a fixed grid is obviously convenient, but perhaps not strictly required by the RAW, although the books normally refer to moving diagonally on a grid (which kind of implies that the grid must be fixed indeed).

The DMG has specific rules for playing on a grid, and how spells work on it. I don't necessarily agree with it, preferring to play fast and loose with the system.

A check is better than advantage on ST, IMHO, because the latter only works if there actually is a ST, and advantage sometimes implies something more than just a better chance.

However, my general opinion is that this situation is a corner case, both because very few offensive spells use a cube area (most cubes are creation spells or illusions) and because orienting the cube would be useful only in some occasions... so I'd very much prefer not to add more rules here, just allow/disallow without any extra check.

To each his own. I think that consistency is the key, so whatever the DM decides, they should try to keep to it, as well as having NPCs and monsters apply the same rules themselves.

 

[Nevvur]

Hello guys... one of my powergame players have a strange idea... he is using cube effect spells in a diagonal pattern... like a diamond.
getting a bad guy that is between two players with the point of the diamond...

Theres nothing in the rules against it... and nothing favoring this...

It feels to me a little cheese... (but i already have some bias against this player)

What do you guys think about this... would you be okay with it??

Thanks in advance

It's fine. I consider it smart tactical play, not exploitative, and it's certainly not going to cause power balance issues.

Check that bias. Do you want to fix a player or the mechanics?

 

[Nevvur]

@Oofta

I'm curious if you're aware of the passage in the DMG p. 251 under Areas of Effect: "If an area of effect is circular and covers at least half a square, it affects that square." Following this guidance produces snap-to-grid templates slightly more generous than the images you posted.