Can you do a "diamond" shaped blast?

[Nifft]

Because blast areas in 4E are circles under the distance metric in 4E, there is no way to "rotate" them which does not result in exactly the same figure. They are perfect circles in 4E space and any attempt to rotate them that results in a different figure is based on translation into a different spatial measurement system--and specifically, it involves transforming the figure in a faulty way.

If you want to cover different kinds of areas, I strongly suggest that you house-rule a change in coordinate systems.

I think this is the best take-home point in the thread, and gives a nice intuition into why those shapes are "natural" to 4e.

4e blasts & bursts may not have arisen organically from 4e geometry, but they fit it perfectly.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Torg Smith]

I see common sense is about as common here as it is elsewhere.

Common sense is common otherwise it would be uncommon sense or rare sense.

 

[KarinsDad]

2) Although it is expressed in terms of "an n-x-n square", a 4E blast covers a circle in 4E space. The circle has diameter n.

Reasonable math except for one thing.

The text explicitly defines it as an "n-square by n-square" representation, not "an n-x-n square".

This is the thing that Ziana keeps tripping over. He either does not understand this, or he is purposely being obtuse on the point. But, the text is in the PHB.

For example, the wizard power thunderwave is a blast 3, which means the power affects a 3-square by 3-square area adjacent to you.

English 101.

"3-square by 3-square" is not the same as "3 by 3 square" no matter how much people want this to be the case.


If one asks Ziana or any of the people on the non-RAW side of this discussion to show a single rule in the PHB which states that the area of a blast must be a square shape, they cannot. They have not been able to do so for 13 pages of discussion.

They handwave it away and keep claiming it must be square. They handwave away the fact that there are no "the area must follow the orthogonal axes" rules and say it must.

There are no such rules. They have no support for their POV from a RAW perspective. They just keep shouting that they are right without any rules to support their POV. Might as well be watching WWE wrestling for the amount of rules being used by the anti-RAW side in this discussion.

<shrug>


So to the original OP, 13 pages and counting. By RAW, your shape is valid. By RAI, it is not.

 

[Branduil]

"3-square by 3-square" is not the same as "3 by 3 square" no matter how much people want this to be the case.

Er, yes it is.

And either way, they both add up to nine squares. If you use some kind of fuzzy math that results in more than nine squares being effected, you're doing it wrong.

 

[KarinsDad]

Can't draw it with text, of course.

But...

(1) A wall is so-and-so numbers of squares.
(2) If the diagonal interpretation is used, obviously the squares of an area effect do not need to line up with the squares on the combat grid.
(3) If I take an 8-square horizontal wall and straddle 2 rows on the grid with it, I can affect 16 squares with my wall.

OK. Leave it there if it makes sense. From there...

(4) If it's offset a bit - say a half-square to the right - it can affect even more squares, a total of 18 if I'm doing my math right.

Except that "a wall fills continguous squares" according to the rules. The moment a square is filled, it counts as a square. If you half fill squares, you are ignoring the first sentence of a wall definition and you do not have a wall.

The blast discussion is not ignoring any of the rules.

 

[KarinsDad]

Er, yes it is.

And either way, they both add up to nine squares. If you use some kind of fuzzy math that results in more than nine squares being effected, you're doing it wrong.

Nope. Sorry, but that is not accurate.

The rule is "A blast fills an area adjacent to you that is a specific number of squares on a side.".

This is the rule. It then goes on to give the example. The information here is that the number of squares on a side is defined, the area must be filled, and the area starts adjacent to the user. No more. No less.

As long as the area meets the criteria of this sentence (e.g. each side is n squares in length), it follows the rule.

Yes, a square area meets this criteria. Unfortunately, so does the diamond one. So does the mini-diamond one.

"3 x 3 square" states that something is square in shape.

"3-square by 3-square" states that something has sides of length 3.

Two totally different English phrases where the former one is a subset of the latter one.


This is not fuzzy math. It's not even math. It's English.

 

[Torg Smith]

Reasonable math except for one thing.

The text explicitly defines it as an "n-square by n-square" representation, not "an n-x-n square".

This is the thing that Ziana keeps tripping over. He either does not understand this, or he is purposely being obtuse on the point. But, the text is in the PHB.



English 101.

"3-square by 3-square" is not the same as "3 by 3 square" no matter how much people want this to be the case.


If one asks Ziana or any of the people on the non-RAW side of this discussion to show a single rule in the PHB which states that the area of a blast must be a square shape, they cannot. They have not been able to do so for 13 pages of discussion.

They handwave it away and keep claiming it must be square. They handwave away the fact that there are no "the area must follow the orthogonal axes" rules and say it must.

There are no such rules. They have no support for their POV from a RAW perspective. They just keep shouting that they are right without any rules to support their POV. Might as well be watching WWE wrestling for the amount of rules being used by the anti-RAW side in this discussion.

<shrug>


So to the original OP, 13 pages and counting. By RAW, your shape is valid. By RAI, it is not.

I must admit that the understanding of basic geometry is necessary to understand the example. I will demonstrate. 3-square-by-3-square area is a description of an Area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area). An area is defined for a square as side * side and in the example they refer to two sides as being necessary to define the area of the blast. The phrase 'which means' in the example states the following text is a clarification of the rules. The word by has the meaning next to. Now you can run this however you want in your game, but to say the WotC was lacking because they expected people to understand the properties of calculating an area is misplaced. I would have been disappointed if they would have wasted space telling people that you calculate an area by multiplying two sides together.

 

[KarinsDad]

I will repeat my last post.

The example on page 272 clearly states ‘The wizard power thunderwave is a blast 3, which means the power affects a 3-square-by-3-square area adjacent to you. The ‘which means’ is clearly a clarification of the rule as opposed to an arbitrary example. This defines the area as a square. A square has all four sides of equal length.

A blast fills an area adjacent to you that is a specific number of squares on a side. For example, the wizard power thunderwave is a blast 3, which means the power affects a 3-square by 3-square area adjacent to you.

Saying that "3-square by 3-square" (especially in reference to the actual previous rule of a specific number squares on a side) means "3 x 3 square" and ONLY "3 x 3 square" does not make it true. Ask any English major.

I really do not know how to get people to understand the differences between these two English phrases if they do not understand it.

I understand that in your mind, "3-square by 3-square" means the exact same thing as "3 x 3 square". I get it.

It's not the only possibility (it's a subset of the possible 3-square by 3-square shapes, not the superset), but I understand that you firmly and honestly believe it to be the only possibility.

I do not think we can go any further here if you cannot get past this. I don't know how to make you have an epiphany and suddenly comprehend how the phrase "3-square by 3-square" is not restricted to only a "3 x 3 square".


3 squares on a side is not the same as 3 by 3 square. The former is a superset of the latter.

 

[Torg Smith]

As a follow up the term Blast X is a single number that represents two sides next to each other that meets the need of calculating an area. This in its self defines a square.

 

[KarinsDad]

I must admit that the understanding of basic geometry is necessary to understand the example. I will demonstrate. 3-square-by-3-square area is a description of an Area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area). An area is defined for a square as side * side and in the example they refer to two sides as being necessary to define the area of the blast. The phrase 'which means' in the example states the following text is a clarification of the rules. The word by has the meaning next to. Now you can run this however you want in your game, but to say the WotC was lacking because they expected people to understand the properties of calculating an area is misplaced. I would have been disappointed if they would have wasted space telling people that you calculate an area by multiplying two sides together.

Nobody said that WotC was lacking. You are making this up to support your POV.


And yup. A square is defined as you state. I do not disagree. That does not mean that other non-square shapes cannot have fixed length sides.

Your point?