Torg Smith
First Post
KarinsDad said:
your quote of "3-square by 3-square" is incorrect. it is "3-square-by-3-square area"
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Can you do a "diamond" shaped blast?
- Thread starter tafkamhokie
- Start date
your quote of "3-square by 3-square" is incorrect. it is "3-square-by-3-square area"
Torg Smith said:
You made this up too.
Totally illogical and nonsensical, but you are persistent if nothing else at making stuff up.
Code:
. . . . . .
. x x x . .
. . x x x .
. . . x x x
. . . . . ."a single number (3) that represents two sides next to (next to does not mean perpendicular) each other that meets the need of calculating an area" which is not a square.
Your phrase here is not in the rules, but it too is not limited to a square.
Several pages ago, I gave a civility warning. It appears to me people are starting to ignore it.
I will remind you all that there is no need to "win" this thread. You get no prize for beating the other guy into submission. You can run the rule in any way you want in your own game. Thus, there is only so much need for repetition, and exactly zero need to get nasty about it.
Torg Smith
First Post
Umbran said:
Yes, I agree with you and will post no more on this topic.
This is why Pi = 2 is not a good idea
The easiest solution is to house-rule diagonals back as they are in 3.x. Otherwise, you're stuck in a geometry that has a Pi of 2, where circles are squares, and any accurate visualization of even this trivial of a problem requires double the number of dimensions one would expect (4 in this case).
Using a crude method of estimation, I think that a diagonal "square" that's length roughly 2.12 (=3/sqrt(2)) on the right side (why? Because in that direction, sqrt(2) = 1 in the other direction. really - you need to look at this problem in 4 dimensions. Make a bunch of circles in paper, and tape them together so that each circle touches 8 others, and has no empty space between circles, and you'll quickly see what I mean as you'll run out of 3-space very quickly) would get you close to the same area as the one on the left side.
Of course, this is sort of a meaningless exercise - why? because the square you show on the left side of your example is, in fact, diagonal. Even worse, if you rotate it any number of degrees, you get exactly the same shape as the one on the left side; the one on the right is no form of rotation, of the one on the left. That's because a square is a circle. From a geometric standpoint, what you're trying to do on the right side is the same as offsetting a area effect in 3.x so that it hits different partial squares. As such, only portions of some squares are hit.
So if I were to allow offsets, I'd permit a diagonal of 2 (why? because 2 is a simpler number than 2.12), which would likely mean that 2 orcs is are fully hit, and 2 orcs are hit in half their space (perhaps give them +2 to defense and evasion?).
Now, obviously I'm ignoring RAW above. If you do permit the shape on the right, I'd consider virtually always using it - it simply hits more area. If you want an argument to disallow it, note that the shape on the right is not a square.
The easiest solution is to house-rule diagonals back as they are in 3.x. Otherwise, you're stuck in a geometry that has a Pi of 2, where circles are squares, and any accurate visualization of even this trivial of a problem requires double the number of dimensions one would expect (4 in this case).
Using a crude method of estimation, I think that a diagonal "square" that's length roughly 2.12 (=3/sqrt(2)) on the right side (why? Because in that direction, sqrt(2) = 1 in the other direction. really - you need to look at this problem in 4 dimensions. Make a bunch of circles in paper, and tape them together so that each circle touches 8 others, and has no empty space between circles, and you'll quickly see what I mean as you'll run out of 3-space very quickly) would get you close to the same area as the one on the left side.
Of course, this is sort of a meaningless exercise - why? because the square you show on the left side of your example is, in fact, diagonal. Even worse, if you rotate it any number of degrees, you get exactly the same shape as the one on the left side; the one on the right is no form of rotation, of the one on the left. That's because a square is a circle. From a geometric standpoint, what you're trying to do on the right side is the same as offsetting a area effect in 3.x so that it hits different partial squares. As such, only portions of some squares are hit.
So if I were to allow offsets, I'd permit a diagonal of 2 (why? because 2 is a simpler number than 2.12), which would likely mean that 2 orcs is are fully hit, and 2 orcs are hit in half their space (perhaps give them +2 to defense and evasion?).
Now, obviously I'm ignoring RAW above. If you do permit the shape on the right, I'd consider virtually always using it - it simply hits more area. If you want an argument to disallow it, note that the shape on the right is not a square.
Xorn
First Post
"A meteor lands on your head, killing you."
"What? I was casting thunderwave."
"Yup. Immediate Interrupt for participating in that thread on EnWorld. It does a million d10 + 150% of your max hit points. You die. Messily. Anyone else want to argue for 14 pages on how to place a blast?"
The above is my official table rule. We've added it to our campaign footnotes.
"What? I was casting thunderwave."
"Yup. Immediate Interrupt for participating in that thread on EnWorld. It does a million d10 + 150% of your max hit points. You die. Messily. Anyone else want to argue for 14 pages on how to place a blast?"
The above is my official table rule. We've added it to our campaign footnotes.
Dracorat
First Post
KarinsDad, thank you for understanding.
I hadn't considered that the original shape I was using was the same as the unrotated with additional points on the side. Larger shapes wouldn't be, but at this size it is. Anyway, it's probably the best example I've seen that RAI is not matching RAW.
With that in mind, I'll have the players stick to the square or rhomboid variants. Those handle the majority of what we need them to do anyway.
That is, the group not using 3.5 shapes anyway.
Most of the chatter here I am no longer responding to. I believe my point has been illustrated beautifully and that most of the follow up has been a reiteration of point already discussed, so there is nothing to be had by reiterating my own points.
Again, thanks for your objectivity. (And the few other people who were able to see where I was coming from.)
I hadn't considered that the original shape I was using was the same as the unrotated with additional points on the side. Larger shapes wouldn't be, but at this size it is. Anyway, it's probably the best example I've seen that RAI is not matching RAW.
With that in mind, I'll have the players stick to the square or rhomboid variants. Those handle the majority of what we need them to do anyway.
That is, the group not using 3.5 shapes anyway.
Most of the chatter here I am no longer responding to. I believe my point has been illustrated beautifully and that most of the follow up has been a reiteration of point already discussed, so there is nothing to be had by reiterating my own points.
Again, thanks for your objectivity. (And the few other people who were able to see where I was coming from.)
Obryn
Hero
No, I'm not half-filling squares. The BLAST DIAMOND OF FOUR EXTRA SQUARES AND DEATH can fill entire squares even when its corners are just going into spaces. Therefore, the WALL OF AWESOME fills squares when it's halfway into spaces.KarinsDad said:
"Blast: A blast fills an area adjacent to you that is a specified number of squares on a side."
A Wall says... "A wall fills a specified number of contiguous squares within range"
My WALL OF AWESOME is still filling contiguous squares.
-O
Similar Threads
