attacking an area a little higher: blasts and bursts in 3D
- Thread starter evilbob
- Start date
Styracosaurus
Explorer
It surprises me, but I wouldn't allow my PC's to "aim high". I don't really see it as creative, just manipulative. Only in a certain circumstance would I allow "aiming high" (such as casting high over a prone comrade at the feet of a giant).
My reasoning is for speed/fun of the game. In my experience, once a tactic is allowed then we spend a lot of time discussing when/how it'll be used. What about the shape of other spells? What are the ramifications of using a spell versus a missile weapon? Are we granting -2 to our AC when we duck into prone position? Why don't all the short races use this? What if I put my shield over my head when I duck?
For the most part, I like to just let the game be played.
For the rare event that I get to be a PC (I am 80% DM), I HATE when fellow PC's start pitching a tent about the rules that they can twist. As in this example, "aiming high" presumes that all prone positions are the same. There is no way that "prone" means you are flat on the floor, face down with an approximate height of two feet. That condition is called "helpless" or "sleeping soundly" but is distinctly different from being "prone" which basically means getting knocked on your butt (as in Mace Windu kicking some Palpatine on the window ledge.)
My reasoning is for speed/fun of the game. In my experience, once a tactic is allowed then we spend a lot of time discussing when/how it'll be used. What about the shape of other spells? What are the ramifications of using a spell versus a missile weapon? Are we granting -2 to our AC when we duck into prone position? Why don't all the short races use this? What if I put my shield over my head when I duck?
For the most part, I like to just let the game be played.
For the rare event that I get to be a PC (I am 80% DM), I HATE when fellow PC's start pitching a tent about the rules that they can twist. As in this example, "aiming high" presumes that all prone positions are the same. There is no way that "prone" means you are flat on the floor, face down with an approximate height of two feet. That condition is called "helpless" or "sleeping soundly" but is distinctly different from being "prone" which basically means getting knocked on your butt (as in Mace Windu kicking some Palpatine on the window ledge.)
evilbob
Adventurer
frankthedm: You're talking about centering a spell on an intersection. I was talking about centering it on the middle of a space. I'm not sure if 3.5 RAW required centering on an intersection, but I'd argue the same principle for centering on a space for that, too. But in any case, I think you'd agree that a sphere allows for some placement that does not include a full 20' radius.
Styracosaurus: I just don't see this as manipulative, only using your power to the best of your abilities. And I still think it's rather germane to air-based or water-based combat (altho the DMG never actually answers this question in either of those descriptions). I would think being able to avoid small-sized creatures and only hit medium-sized creatures is more along the lines of being "manipulative," but prone, unconscious creatures vs. standing, medium creatures? There's got to be over 1/2 a "square" difference between the two. Why is it manipulative to shoot a power 1/2 a square higher?
Leatherhead: I think bursts are certainly cubes - they do say 1 square in every direction from the origin. But why are blasts squares? Couldn't they be cubes as well? I have always thought of blasts like cones, but then again that's probably because the first blast I read about was burning hands...
So folks don't seem to have a problem with aiming high to hit larger creatures and missing medium creatures: so why can you not apply that exact principle to 1/2 a square up instead of a full square up? Not that realism has really anything to do with this point, but I would think a wizard using thunderwave could easily move his origin point 3' up or down instead of just 5', especially since he can choose any point along a 5' line to originate a blast.
In fact, I may have just proved my point. If you look at the two blast examples in the PHB on page 272, the lower one starts in the corner of one space, and the other effectively has a point of origin that is in the center of the wizards north (top) square. The center is effectively 1/2 a square over with respect to how that mini is situated. I think this shows you can move 1/2 a square up or down, as well - just imagine the lower blast example with an origin point halfway along the wizard's south (lower) side.
The main question left is whether or not a blast is a cube or a square. (I still lean toward cube, like area effects.)
Styracosaurus: I just don't see this as manipulative, only using your power to the best of your abilities. And I still think it's rather germane to air-based or water-based combat (altho the DMG never actually answers this question in either of those descriptions). I would think being able to avoid small-sized creatures and only hit medium-sized creatures is more along the lines of being "manipulative," but prone, unconscious creatures vs. standing, medium creatures? There's got to be over 1/2 a "square" difference between the two. Why is it manipulative to shoot a power 1/2 a square higher?
Leatherhead: I think bursts are certainly cubes - they do say 1 square in every direction from the origin. But why are blasts squares? Couldn't they be cubes as well? I have always thought of blasts like cones, but then again that's probably because the first blast I read about was burning hands...
So folks don't seem to have a problem with aiming high to hit larger creatures and missing medium creatures: so why can you not apply that exact principle to 1/2 a square up instead of a full square up? Not that realism has really anything to do with this point, but I would think a wizard using thunderwave could easily move his origin point 3' up or down instead of just 5', especially since he can choose any point along a 5' line to originate a blast.
In fact, I may have just proved my point. If you look at the two blast examples in the PHB on page 272, the lower one starts in the corner of one space, and the other effectively has a point of origin that is in the center of the wizards north (top) square. The center is effectively 1/2 a square over with respect to how that mini is situated. I think this shows you can move 1/2 a square up or down, as well - just imagine the lower blast example with an origin point halfway along the wizard's south (lower) side.
The main question left is whether or not a blast is a cube or a square. (I still lean toward cube, like area effects.)
Styracosaurus
Explorer
I agree with the spirit of allowing "Ducking", but it opens a can of worms in the system. In the past systems (I haven't played 4e yet), house rules have taken on a life of their own. When one ability gets tweaked, then it has repercussions on other classes and features.
In our scenario listed, allowing "ducking" can circumvent a class feature or feat that would have been fun otherwise. This is especially bad if you have a PC in the group that loses out because their character is nerfed since everyone gets his class features anyway. You can try to balance everything out after the fact, but then you are just dealing with it all over again.
Every group ends up with some house rules whether they realize it or not and 4e is not mature enough to know what rules affect which classes.
"Ducking" is just a place that I wouldn't want to go yet.
In our scenario listed, allowing "ducking" can circumvent a class feature or feat that would have been fun otherwise. This is especially bad if you have a PC in the group that loses out because their character is nerfed since everyone gets his class features anyway. You can try to balance everything out after the fact, but then you are just dealing with it all over again.
Every group ends up with some house rules whether they realize it or not and 4e is not mature enough to know what rules affect which classes.
"Ducking" is just a place that I wouldn't want to go yet.
evilbob
Adventurer
"Ducking" seems perfectly balanced to me. First, you're going to have to wait until everyone's turn comes up so they can take a free (or is it minor?) action to drop prone. Second, everyone who does this is now more vulnerable to melee attacks. So you're asking the team to take a penalty (if nothing else, a movement penalty to stand back up) just so you can get a clear shot.
There's a feat that comes later that allows you to open holes in your AOE, and this does not come close to matching that level of power.
There's a feat that comes later that allows you to open holes in your AOE, and this does not come close to matching that level of power.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Interesting.Leatherhead said:
Remember the explosion of the Death Star, or the explosion of the moon Praxis in Undiscovered Country? 2D Shockwaves in 3D space...
Particle_Man
Explorer
I have this vision of bursts and blasts being infinitely high square prisms. 
Maybe someone should send a question to wotc?
Maybe someone should send a question to wotc?
Similar Threads
