Can you do a "diamond" shaped blast?

[KarinsDad]

KarinsDad, thank you for understanding.

No thanks needed. I enjoy discussions like these. It gives many people the opportunity to exchange ideas and delve deeper into topics than they normally would, even if we do not all agree.

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.

Actually, there is another type of RAI.

Rules as Interpreted.

The vast majority of arguments over issues like these are that one group of people interpret the exact same words in the book differently than another group of people. Both sides are positive that their interpretation is the stronger interpretation (or for some people in some discussions, the correct or only valid interpretation and I include myself in this group sometimes ).

The Rules as Intended side also sometimes think that they have the Designer Moral High Ground as well, and that is true for RAI discussions. It is just not true for RAW discussions.

Designer intent has nothing to do with RAW discussions, just RAI discussions. Some people on the RAI side either forget this, or do not believe it. RAI trumps RAW in a RAW discussion is illogical, but fact to some people. RAI trumps RAW should often be strongly considered for how people play their games though. People should try to model their games off of what the rules intend (shy of house rules). But, RAI trumps RAW has no real valid weight in a RAW discussion.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

"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

Sorry, I'm not understanding you. You really need to draw a picture or explain it in a way that I can understand (sorry, I'm sometimes slow on the uptake). If you use a text picture with the

 tags and different letters for different wall elements, you should be able to explain it.

 

[Ziana]

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.

Logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

Show us the rule that says a blast can be counted diagonally, or that you can take a square blast area and tack 4 extra squares on it and call it the same.

The diagrams on 272 are part of the rules. They are instructive. The rules only provide square examples of what a "blast" is.

There are no rules that suggest that blasts can be anything else than square; ergo you are making up new rules.

 

[Lurker Abover]

So according to the RULES, the following are all legal 3x3 blasts:

. . . . .
. x x x .
. x x x .
. x x x .
. . . . .

. . . . .
. . x . .
. x x x .
x x x x x
. x x x .
. . x . .
. . . . .

. . . . .
x x x . .
. x x x .
. . x x x
. . . . .

Question. Two-Part. Not arguing with you, just asking for your honest opinion.

Part One. Suppose you were to select a hundred English-speaking adults at random from the general population. And suppose you gave each of them a sheet of graph paper with those three figures, labeled 1-3 in the order they appear here, followed by this multiple-choice question:

Which figure(s) shown here could be described as both "an area 3 squares on a side," and as "a 3-square-by-3-square area?"

a.) 1
b.) 2
c.) 3
d.) 1 and 2
e.) 1 and 3
f.) 1, 2, and 3
g.) None of the above

Roughly how many people would you expect to choose each answer, a through g?


Part Two. Suppose you gave a different 100 people, also English-speaking adults selected at random from the general population, a blank sheet of graph paper and asked them to "draw an area three squares on a side, which means a 3-square-by-3-square area." Roughly how many of them would you expect to draw each of the three figures you've shown here?

 

[Ziana]

The problem is, he thinks he's found a loophole that allows infinite oregano. It doesn't matter how obviously wrong that is on the face of it.

 

[Nifft]

"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.

Oh my god, you just participated!

"We're both doomed!", -- N

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

I have several things to add or repeat.

A) First off, as I expressed along ago, I know what the writers intended, and do not believe it is anything but square shaped blasts. RAI is different then RAW though, and we are simply discussing how it is worked by the letter, and not how it is supposed to be ruled.

B) The actual problem here is that using squares as a measurement results in different distances depending on how you orient the squares. However it is perfectly legal in D&D. This is proven because of how movement works.

s
o x x
o x x
o x x

s
o x x
x o x
x x o

Assuming the o's are the path of movement and s is the starting square, both of these are perfectly legal distances to move. However if you measure the distance moved on the grid, they are different amounts of movement. BOTH are three squares of movement though even though they are not the same distance. I know that makes no sense at first, but such is using diagonals and not counting them as more distance. The same applies to a blast area drawn under the same rules.

Yes, the rules leave you to believe that the blasts should be squares, but do say they HAVE to be. If you go by the diagrams provided, and say those are the only intended shapes then you would have to say there is only one wall that can ever be made because the wall diagram only shows that. There can be no other shapes.

Again, the key wording is that the parameters for a blast do not say you cannot measure the sides of the blast diagonally ( even though I believe they should say blasts can only be squares. )

KarinsDad is NOT saying it must be run this way, or that the writers intended for it to be such, simply that it is the way it is written.

 

[James McMurray]

Question for those arguing that diamonds should be allowed. Will you be allowing this in your games, or arguing for it if you're not the GM?

 

[silentounce]

Question. Two-Part. Not arguing with you, just asking for your honest opinion.

Part One. Suppose you were to select a hundred English-speaking adults at random from the general population. And suppose you gave each of them a sheet of graph paper with those three figures, labeled 1-3 in the order they appear here, followed by this multiple-choice question:

Which figure(s) shown here could be described as both "an area 3 squares on a side," and as "a 3-square-by-3-square area?"

a.) 1
b.) 2
c.) 3
d.) 1 and 2
e.) 1 and 3
f.) 1, 2, and 3
g.) None of the above

Roughly how many people would you expect to choose each answer, a through g?


Part Two. Suppose you gave a different 100 people, also English-speaking adults selected at random from the general population, a blank sheet of graph paper and asked them to "draw an area three squares on a side, which means a 3-square-by-3-square area." Roughly how many of them would you expect to draw each of the three figures you've shown here?

So, I guess the capital of Canada really is Toronto.

 

[Lurker Abover]

So, I guess the capital of Canada really is Toronto.

It's almost like you had a point to make about something I posted, but then instead, you posted this weird non-sequitur.

ETA: You know what? That's too snarky. I'll go ahead and pretend you made your argument like a grown-up and answer the same way.

First of all, I just asked a question. I ask questions, as a rule, not to score points off of people or try and trip them up, but because I want to know the answer. In this case, I'm trying to figure out if Karin's Dad actually thinks there's any difference in the degree of reasonableness of the three interpretations that he seems to be claiming are legitimate readings of the rule in question.

This is not a factual question, like "What's the capital of Canada?" This is a question of resolving a use of language that some people seem to think is ambiguous. In such a case, I don't think it's out of line to wonder whether a reasonable person would actually find the various interpretations of the phrase in question equally valid.