Can you do a "diamond" shaped blast?

[hong]

I like peanut butter.

 

[Obryn]

OOH! My turn!

I'm going to start creating Walls that straddle TWO squares, since it's silly to be confined by an arbitrary grid. I'll even start and end the wall kind of in the middle of squares, so it occupies quarter-squares on its two ends and half-squares all the way down its length!

I can more than double the spell's effectiveness!

-O

 

[Zimri]

If a figure is X squares by X squares, then there is dimension U with parallel lines of squares that can be numbered 1, 2, and 3; and there is dimension V with parallel lines of squares that can be assigned A, B, and C.

. . 3 . . .
. 2 . X . .
1 . X ? X .
. X ? X ? X
A . X ? X .
. B . X . .
. . C . . .

Each X corresponds to both one of three designated squares on one side, and one of three on the perpendicular side. Since the ? marks do not correspond to either of the 3 squares per side, they are not part of the defined area. Either one believes that spell effects have a patchwork result, or one has made a mistake in their method of determining an effect area.

In fact, the count of internal squares is entirely implicit in the definitions provided in the PHB. A 3 x 3 square has an area of 9 using basic mathematics. If the result of your counting differs, then the only reasonable conclusion is You're Doing It Wrong™.

As I previously showed, by definition, a figure with 3 squares on a side must logically also have 3 squares diagonal. For example, A1 to C3 consists of 3 countable squares. However, this figure:

. . 1 . .
. X 2 X .
1 2 3 4 5
. X 4 X .
. . 5 . .

Has a crosssection consisting of 5 squares, and in fact occupies an area of 5 squares by 5 squares on the board, with corners removed. If an area is 3 squares on a side, but it takes 5 squares to walk from one corner to the other, and fractional squares aren't permitted, then this area contradicts the definition provided. It isn't 3x3.

The diamond is not a 3 square by 3 square area, and is not consistent with an accurate 45º rotation of a 3x3 area rendered squarely on the battle grid.

Unless the rules explicitly state "You may determine a spell effect area by counting a number of squares diagonally, and another 3 at a right angle from the first and taking all interior squares of the figure within", then doing so is not actually part of the rules. It's a houserule which is within your rights, but not part of the D&D 4th Edition game as presented to players.

I take it you admit the definition of counting X squares from center in all directions is sufficiently unassailable. Due to the treatment of diagonals, the result is actually a fine approximation of a circular effect. Welcome to a non-Euclidian space.

For any spell effect, when authors or DMs are determining an appropriate level of damage, it should be possible to predict the total area that spell can act upon.

I previously asked a similar question, but did not receive a satisfactory answer: what is the maximum number of minions that can be killed by a 10x10 blast effect?


A diamond figure is not 3 squares on a side. It is an expanded pattern of squares only available by counting diagonally, and results in larger horizontal and vertical dimensions than the rules provide for.


Only if you believe the rules have a burden to specifically address all possible misreadings, rather than expecting reasonable players to work from the examples provided.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with houseruling things. Use hexes, or play with alternate spell effect shapes all you like. My problem, from the beginning, has been the insistence that because the rules do not disallow a particular interpretation (which is not their burden) then that interpretation is a correct reading of the rules.

So Ziana the new diamond shreddies take up more space than the old square shreddies is that what you're trying to make me believe ? Even the cereal company isn't trying to make me believe that.

 

[Ziana]

Dear Zimri:

Take 9 shreddies, and put them together in a 3 by 3 square, with edges touching.

Now move your shreddies, so that they all only touch at the corners, and form 3 diagonal lines of 3. Do you see those gaps? Those shreddie sized gaps? Put four more shreddies in them.

Now, do you have more shreddies than you started with? Notice how the center of the shreddies is now a 3x3 square like you started with, but with 4 shreddies making points on the outside?

Is that the same as turning your original set of shreddies 45º to make a diamond? Or did you actually just expand the space they took up by adding more shreddies?

 

[Zimri]

Dear Zimri:

Take 9 shreddies, and put them together in a 3 by 3 square, with edges touching.

Now move your shreddies, so that they all only touch at the corners, and form 3 diagonal lines of 3. Do you see those gaps? Those shreddie sized gaps? Put four more shreddies in them.

Now, do you have more shreddies than you started with? Notice how the center of the shreddies is now a 3x3 square like you started with, but with 4 shreddies making points on the outside?

Is that the same as turning your original set of shreddies 45º to make a diamond? Or did you actually just expand the space they took up?

Dear Ziana take 1 shreddie that has a flat end facing you, Rotate it so that now a corner is facing you.

Did the shreddie magically grow ?

Cut any sized square out of cardboard and try it. I bet the cardboard doesn't grow either.

 

[Ziana]

Dear Ziana take 1 shreddie that has a flat end facing you, Rotate it so that now a corner is facing you.

Did the shreddie magically grow ?

Of course not. So if someone claims they are "turning" a spell area on a board consisting of squares, is it acceptable that the result is significantly larger than the original?

 

[Zimri]

Of course not. So if we turn a spell area on a board consisting of squares, is it acceptable that the result is significantly larger than the original?

if you rotate a square without changing anything else all you have done is rotate it. The lines didn't grow, the universe didn't bend or stretch.

 

[Ziana]

if you rotate a square without changing anything else all you have done is rotate it. The lines didn't grow, the universe didn't bend or stretch.

Then we are forced by pure logic to necessarily conclude that a diamond figure constituting 13 squares is not a rotated form of a square constituting 9 squares.

Thank-you.

 

[KarinsDad]

if you rotate a square without changing anything else all you have done is rotate it. The lines didn't grow, the universe didn't bend or stretch.

Diagonal movement in 4E would disagree with this assertion.

Hence, it is a fallacy.

 

[Zimri]

Then we are forced by pure logic to necessarily conclude that a diamond figure constituting 13 squares is not a rotated form of a square constituting 9 squares.

Thank-you.

If you take a 3 inch by 3 inch square (which covers 9, 1 inch squares) and turn it so that a pointy end faces you rather than a flat side you do not suddenly have that same square covering 13 1 inch squares.

Yes it may now "touch" more squares that are on a surface that is orientated differently but the raw amount that it actually covers remains the same. That it can have an effect on squares it "touches" rather than only ones it covers completely doesn't change the fact that the base unit did not suddenly grow.