Square of Origin of a Close Blast

[Kordeth]

They are both square areas. They look like polygons, but I stated that I drawn them like that to highlight the contradiction. Just imagine the blue area as a square and you are done.

No, they aren't. A blast fills a square area. Your examples from the first post fit within a square area, but they do not fill it, because the caster's space is not affected by the blast. Ergo, they don't fill a square area, ergo they aren't blasts.

 

[Maudragon]

No, they aren't. A blast fills a square area. Your examples from the first post fit within a square area, but they do not fill it, because the caster's space is not affected by the blast. Ergo, they don't fill a square area, ergo they aren't blasts.

I am sorry to object again. They blasts fill a square area in any case, since they are squares. Furthermore, "the origin square is not affected" by the blast is an exception to the rule because that square is filled by the area nonetheless (there is overlapping of two adjacent squares). Nowehere is stated that the square of origin interrupts or "breaks" the area of the blast. Furthermore, this wording is still in contradiction with the space definition of Large creatures.

Ciao

 

[James McMurray]

I think it's clear which interpretation you want to go with, and that you're looking for reasons why you should use it. If you're the GM, or the GM agrees, then go for it.

 

[Draz]

I was thinking about this. The part no one has quoted yet is: "Blast: A blast fills an area adjacent to you that is a specified number of squares on a side."

In the diagram to the left the blast is adjacent to the spider, in the example to the right it includes the spider, which means it's not adjacent. The example to the right is great for the spider if it's immune to whatever the blast is. but I don't think the rules allow it. When read in it's entirety I believe the example on the left is correct and the right not allowed.

I believe these are both valid. I have seen no rules quoted that would invalidate the second picture.

 

[Kordeth]

I believe these are both valid. I have seen no rules quoted that would invalidate the second picture.

As the post you quoted said, "a blast fills an area adjacent to you." The area in the right most picture is not an area adjacent to the spider, it's an area overlapping the spider's space.

 

[hong]

What the heck is this thread about?

 

[frankthedm]

What the heck is this thread about?

starts out as a question about point of origins of blasts. Now it is on the issue of whether a creature can willingly position it's blast on itself.

DDM rules specifically forbid doing this IIRC, the 4E rules look like they prevent doing it as well, provided one reads "a blast fills an area adjacent to you." means you can't have the blast overlap you.

 

[Nadaka]

The the clause that states that the originating square is unaffected clearly defines the intent. Why would the originating square be affected if it could not also fall within the area of effect? It would not. Therefore, yes a creature can indeed place itself within its own blast. It seems very, very clear to me.

 

[James McMurray]

If they didn't say the origin wasn't affected, people would be arguing about how every close blast hurts the caster, because he's in the origin.

 

[Nadaka]

If they didn't say the origin wasn't affected, people would be arguing about how every close blast hurts the caster, because he's in the origin.

I am sorry, that argument does not hold water. By the perspective that the area of a blast can never overlap the creature, his square would never be in the area of effect and would never be affected.