Line Spells / Lightning Bolt

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Sure, DMs can (and should) always adjudicate. [MENTION=6976296]James Grover[/MENTION] suggested advantage on the saves earlier which hits me as a way I might represent it.

Just be consistent - do the same for a fireball radius that covers a square only partially.

I've found it works well for me and my group. I've been ruling that way in earlier versions when we used minis as well, but in earlier versions (since there wasn't the "advantage" system), it was half damage and save for none, like others have used.

Not 100% sure I understand. Was this for theater of the mind play (not that I knew that term back then)? If so, seems reasonable.

Yup. No minis used in those days for my group, just me narrating battles and ruling who could move to do what and where. I used it mostly for lightning bolts, but also Blue and Black dragon breaths.

 

[Oofta]

*shrug* It's in the rules in the PHB, page 191. I'm not adding value by repeating them to you.

That still doesn't explain anything. People are really at most a 2 ft square if facing the caster. In a 10 ft hallway two people therefore only occupy 2-4 feet, leaving up to a 6-8 ft gap depending on facing that the lightning bolt could pass through. Based on exact positioning, you could miss every creature. While people control a block of space 5 ft square, they do not occupy it all simultaneously.

Add in the fact that the wizard is likely to be several inches off the exact center and who knows how many will actually be hit.

Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Fire a lightning bolt down a line and you'll have a 50% chance to hit creatures on either side of the line in my campaign and I'll ask you to not do it again because it's a waste of time.

 

[S'mon]

Humans frozen in place may be that size. A human moving, fighting, getting their Dex bonus is assumed to be within the space as listed in the PHB. It is explicitly called out as the amount of space needed to fight effectively. There are rules for squeezing if you only want to fit into a smaller space next to one wall, and those rules give penalties.

I can see you are very much into eating your cake and having it too!

 

[Azzy]

Given the recent ruling in Sage Advice:

"Using 5-foot squares, does cloud of daggers affect a single square? Cloud of daggers (5 ft. cube) can affect more than one square on a grid, unless the DM says effects snap to the grid. There are many ways to position that cube."

I would say that the 5 ft. line could affect adjacent targets (again, unless the DM says effects snap to the grid).

 

[Blue]

I can see you are very much into eating your cake and having it too!

Actually, all I'm doing is quoting rules from the PHB. That the rules determine that a medium creature takes up an entire 5'x5' space (while not squeezing to fit in a smaller space) is a design decision.

If you feel that 5' square is a bad size choice for realism I won't argue with you. It shows even more then you think that a small creature has the same 5' square. I'm not disagreeing with that at all, just presenting what the rules say.

 

[Oofta]

Actually, all I'm doing is quoting rules from the PHB. That the rules determine that a medium creature takes up an entire 5'x5' space (while not squeezing to fit in a smaller space) is a design decision.

If you feel that 5' square is a bad size choice for realism I won't argue with you. It shows even more then you think that a small creature has the same 5' square. I'm not disagreeing with that at all, just presenting what the rules say.

The rules don't say that. Page 191 of the PHB: The Size Categories table shows how much space a creature of a particular size controls in combat. Nowhere does it say they occupy all corners of the square at the same time.

See? I can quote rule too! I know how I'd rule, you rule differently which is fine. What bothers me is your appeal to authority ... especially when it comes down to a DM ruling.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

It's perfectly reasonable to rule it either way. Thinking of the roughly two feet of space a human might physically occupy in a 5-foot area, threading the needle between two targets could easily miss both, or at least would be unlikely to deal full damage IMO. I see several options (and I am sure others would come up with more) that could work depending on how the DM rules it:

1. you rule both targets have to make saves as normal
2a. you rule both targets makes saves, but have advantage
2b. you rule one makes a save as normal, the other has advantage
3a. you rule both targets take half damage, and a successful save indicates no damage
3b. you rule one makes a save as normal, the other takes half and makes a save for no damage
4. the DM rolls 50/50 to see which of the two is actually affected by the spell. that single target makes their save as normal
5. the DM has the player roll a special "spell attack" to determine if they can place the lightning bolt so that both targets are affected
and so on...

Pick an option, they are all within the parameters of the rules and how you interpret them and wish to rule the results.

 

[Blue]

The rules don't say that. Page 191 of the PHB: The Size Categories table shows how much space a creature of a particular size controls in combat. Nowhere does it say they occupy all corners of the square at the same time.

See? I can quote rule too! I know how I'd rule, you rule differently which is fine. What bothers me is your appeal to authority ... especially when it comes down to a DM ruling.

You are correct that it doesn't say anything explicitly about corners. Neither did I.

Part you didn't quote above from pg 191 says "A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively." When combined with the rules for squeezing into a smaller space (pg 192) where you can not fight effectively, pretty much shows that you are, for game mechanics sense, in your entire space unless you are squeezing into a smaller space.

I can Squeeze (taking the penalties) to have a smaller space, and if that space is now outside the area of effect - then I'm outside the area of effect.

If I'm not Squeezing, then by the rules I don't have a smaller space.

There would not need to be rules for reducing to a smaller space if it was something that you could do on-the-fly and for-free to avoid area of effects.

Is a creature's space a gamist simplification that doesn't match well with how much space people take up in reality? Sure. That's why realism-based arguments aren't particularly relevant - the game has already put them aside to make something easily playable. I'm not saying this to support my argument (so you don't try to refute it and think it affects the stance above), I'm saying it because I understand where you are coming from. It doesn't make perfect real-world sense. Neither do all doors being 5' wide, but we still see that everywhere from the same design decision.

 

[S'mon]

Actually, all I'm doing is quoting rules from the PHB. That the rules determine that a medium creature takes up an entire 5'x5' space (while not squeezing to fit in a smaller space) is a design decision.

If you feel that 5' square is a bad size choice for realism I won't argue with you. It shows even more then you think that a small creature has the same 5' square. I'm not disagreeing with that at all, just presenting what the rules say.

It does not 'take it up' in the sense of physically occupying the entire space at all times. It controls the space and others (unfriendlies) can't move into/through it. If you aim a 5' wide lightning bolt at it you will hit it. If you deliberately aim a bolt NOT at it there is no reason for the GM to rule you still hit it.

Re cake - you want to treat monsters as abstract 5x5x5 cubes while treating the lightning bolt as a real thing that is really 5' wide in-world. You are applying two different paradigms in order to have cake and eat it.

If you are going to treat monsters as 5x5x5 cubes then you should treat lightning bolt as a sequence of 5x5x5 cubes on the grid. If you are going to treat one as real then you should treat the other as real, too. Otherwise you are just abusing the system by cherrypicking.

 

[KarinsDad]

There would not need to be rules for reducing to a smaller space if it was something that you could do on-the-fly and for-free to avoid area of effects.

Actually, there are rules that affect this, just not squeezing. DMG page 251.

Choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin of an area effect, then follow its rules as normal. If an area of effect is circular and covers at least half a square, it affects that square.

I think this is just a case of the designers missing the 5 foot cube case. If you put Cloud of Daggers at a grid intersection of a set of square grids, then it would cover 1/4th of each of the squares. I wouldn't allow <50% of a circular area effect to not affect the square and 25% of a cube area effect to affect the same square. That's nonsensical and inconsistent.

Just snap the 5 foot cube to grids and be done with it, just like larger cube sizes (except without an intersection point).