I cast a blast spell, you say: how high?

[James McMurray]

Only if the rabbit has a breath weapon.

 

[Incenjucar]

I knew 4E was going to suck at 3D since August 07 when I asked whether DDI had a 3rd dimension and made the entire panel at PAX blink.

Unfortunately, I really don't expect 3D combat to be given a proper treatment until some company comes out with 3D miniatures fantasy combat and scares WotC into competing with the new paradigm.

And that could take decades.

If we're lucky, there will be enough people annoyed by the fact that they'll release some official rulings down the pipe.

 

[keterys]

In all seriousness... encouraging flight not to devolve into 'neener, neener, I'm so high you can't hit me' is a good thing. This solution is, however, silly. It doesn't change the fact that the game shouldn't necessarily support having full 3D rules (such a pain), either.

Far better to just say that the entire world has the Tarrasque's aura.

 

[Incenjucar]

I, personally, think 3D rules are an extremely important part of any system with flying mounts and enemies and items and spells.

I just don't see anyone doing much about it unless there's a major economic pressure.

 

[James McMurray]

The game handles 3d combat very well except for the unfortunate lack of explanation for area effects (especially blasts). A FAQ entry saying whether you can angle a blast, and a straightforward clarification of what "all directions" means in terms of a burst's z-axis is all you need to have a fully formed 3d combat.

Our last paragon level fight involved a whole bunch of flying undead and it worked well, apart from me having to constantly ask "what altitude is he at" because we weren't using any counters to indicate it. Because of the simplified distance rules, it was only slightly more complicated than if everyone had been on the ground.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Well, the 3D rules in 3e was quite detailed. Unfortunately, when they made 3.5, and removed facing, they couldn't do it for flight .. 'cos the whole forced forwards movement, speed alteration for angles of climb & dive, degrees of turn allowed per amount of forwards movement .. got very complicated.
And nigh impossible to represent on a battlemat.
And made some players cry in frustration.

I'm going to chalk this one up to an attempt to simplify and fail.

 

[mendahu]

As far as I'm concerned, the bursts detail themselves enough for satisfaction (as all directions includes up and down).

As for blasts, you could apply the same reasoning thus, so a blast 3 is a 3x3x3 cube. However, this means you have to apply this to creature size (so large creatures are 2x2x2), and it enables a PC to use a blast effect from the upper square over some friends against a Large or larger foe. You may want to house rule that a cubic blast has to include any square adjacent to a PC on x or y axis, not just any adjacent square.

It's a fixable problem, but definitely a major oversight on the part of WotC. It doesn't do much to improve the edition's growing infamy.

 

[keterys]

It doesn't do much to improve the edition's growing infamy.

LUCKY: The infamous El Guapo.
DUSTY: What does that mean? Infamous?
NED: Ah, Dusty! Infamous is when you're more than famous!

 

[Branduil]

The easiest ruling is that it extends as high as it does on a side.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

LUCKY: The infamous El Guapo.
DUSTY: What does that mean? Infamous?
NED: Ah, Dusty! Infamous is when you're more than famous!

We all have our El Guapo's to face...