D&D 5E SPIRIT GUARDIANS range clarification

[DND_Reborn]

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Even though it's not backed up by any rules, I also prefer the way in "Fig. C".

Mainly because I find it much much easier to just calculate the distance to the caster (can easily be done on the fly), rather than drawing a circle around a questionably placed point of origin and then wondering which cells are covered more than 50% by it.

WotC really should have just gone for that instead.

 

[NotAYakk]

Talking about a 15' radius is going to confuse the issue.

Imagine a spell with a 5' radius around a creature. Like "A flaming aura surrounds the air within 5' of the creature".

If you cast it on a dragon 20' by 20' dragon, does it cover some 10' diameter sphere? Or does it cover everything within 5' of the dragon?

The second is clearly what it should be, which then makes 15' radius around something also projecting from that thing.

For playing on a grid, this makes the shape a (very) rounded rectangle. 4 quarter-circles of radius 15', and 15' x 5' columns. Then apply the rules for where the quarter-circle covers. To be lazy, I'd just use an octagon.

..........
...***....
..*****...
.*******..
.***X***..
.*******..
..*****...
...***....
..........

this scales naturally for larger creatures -- just extend the flat areas at the compass points by 1 for each size-up.

It also works for radius' near 15' -- 10' is just 1 smaller (only corners missing), 5' is a 3x3 area (plus yourself), 20' would be 1 larger. Beyond that you probably want to care about the quarter-circles.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

The second is clearly what it should be

There is not a single word in the rules, nor in any Sage Advice or Errata that backs this up.

 

[NotAYakk]

There is not a single word in the rules, nor in any Sage Advice or Errata that backs this up.

So, "within a 5' radius" of a castle won't include someone touching the castle?

Then, I will never understand you.

 

[billd91]

There is not a single word in the rules, nor in any Sage Advice or Errata that backs this up.

Sure there is:

A spell’s description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere. Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell’s energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how you position its point of origin. Typically, a point of origin is a point in space, but some spells have an area whose origin is a creature or an object.

Not a point on the creature or within the creature or object. The point of origin IS the creature or object. And that's exactly what we've got with spirit guardians.

 

[Hriston]

I rule this affects creatures that could be attacked if the caster had a 15' reach, so a creature three squares away from the caster (two squares diagonally) is considered within range.

 

[Voadam]

I hate this so much. I wish it was less ambiguous.

"Range: Self (15-foot radius)" looks like it says a 15-foot radius/30-foot diameter effect centered on you (range self), not defined as extending 15 feet from the edge of the square you control. A radius is the line from the center of a circle to the circumfrence, the cross-section lengths of the donut parts of a donut are not radius measurements. So if it is a 15-foot radius that is a 30-foot diameter circle.

"You call forth spirits to protect you. They flit around you to a distance of 15 feet for the duration." sounds more like they go out three squares from you creating a 35-foot Diameter effect on the grid.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Sure there is:

Not a point on the creature or within the creature or object. The point of origin IS the creature or object. And that's exactly what we've got with spirit guardians.

A point does not have a width or length by definition.

Not to mention that the word "radius" implies a circle.

I hate this so much. I wish it was less ambiguous.

"Range: Self (15-foot radius)" looks like it says a 15-foot radius/30-foot diameter effect centered on you (range self), not defined as extending 15 feet from the edge of the square you control.

Exactly!

The spell should should not talk about "radius" at all and instead just say "15 feet from the edge of the caster's area of control". Then it would be clear.

So, "within a 5' radius" of a castle won't include someone touching the castle?

Not when "radius" is defined as a circle around a point of origin that needs to be on a grid intersection. Then it's just a small 10' diameter circle somewhere inside or at the edge of the castle.

 

[NotAYakk]

But, "radius" is not defined as a circle around a point of origin that needs to be on a grid intersection.

The entire grid rules of 5e are completely optional. Claiming that the definition of what spells do is defined by optional rules is sort of backwards.

If your explanation of how a 5e spell works doesn't make sense with no grid whatsoever involved, you are misreading the spell (or the spell has a typo). The optional grid rules are a way to use the gridless 5e rules and put it on a grid.

They are intended to make it quick and easy to interpret the gridless rules when you have a grid. If they fundamentally change how the gridless rules work beyond "lets simplify this", that (again) is a sign you are reading the rules not the way they where intended to be read.

5e is, at its base, gridless. Every time the grid makes the rules change, it should be viewed through a lens of "is this a small change to make things easier to adjudicate or run faster?" Those optional rules shouldn't (say) take a 5' radius fire-aura around a 30' long dragon and suddenly turn it into a 10' diameter bubble.

And you can't help but be referring to the optional grid rules if you are talking about "grid intersections".

Make the spell make sense gridless first, then talk about the grid-based compromises.