Can you do a "diamond" shaped blast?

[James McMurray]

He's saying that consensus doesn't matter, because a consensus can be wrong. He's ignoring the fact that WotC wrote 4e for real people not rules lawyers, and would probably consider an explanation that the vast majority of regular Joes can understand to be a good one, rather than complicate things trying to write for the small percentage of people who will derive joy in finding technical holes in an otherwise clear rule set no matter how detailed and nitpicky you get.

 

[Branduil]

He's saying that consensus doesn't matter, because a consensus can be wrong. He's ignoring the fact that WotC wrote 4e for real people not rules lawyers, and would probably consider an explanation that the vast majority of regular Joes can understand to be a good one, rather than complicate things trying to write for the small percentage of people who will derive joy in finding technical holes in an otherwise clear rule set no matter how detailed and nitpicky you get.

Infinite Oregano. Some people enjoy eating infinite oregano, and if they want to do that, they're free to do so. But I think arguing it is permitted in the rules requires an intellectually dishonest reading of the rules. It's fairly obvious what the designers intended as far as blasts go. They even included some helpful diagrams. If they intended to complicate things by allowing for rotation, they almost certainly would have included diagrams indicating so.

 

[Nifft]

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.

Descriptivist! Descriptivist! BURN THE HERETIC!

"Prescription: FIRE!", -- N





PS: If my players brought this theory about non-circular/square blast shapes to me, I'd say: there's exactly enough information to describe a square/circular blast, and there isn't enough information to describe any of these other shapes, so I'm going to go with what's expressly allowed rather than what might be technically not prohibited.

 

[Branduil]

There's nothing in the rules that says I can't have an "I win" at-will power.

 

[Ziana]

The "RAW" POV ultimately doesn't matter, and any discussion of it is for all practical purposes, worthless. What matters is how the game should actually be played. It doesn't make sense to use infinite oregano, to set the battle mat on fire just because rules don't say you can't, or to deliberately count areas in a way that the rules don't even hint at doing, and clearly has absurd mathematical consequences simply because you can't find where the rules say not to.

Gaming licenses are written in legalese, rules aren't. Expecting a rulebook under 300 pages to account for every possible unintuitive misinterpretation is utterly unreasonable.

 

[hero4hire]

I cant believe this thread is going this long...

 

[Branduil]

Now, an area where there is room for legitimate debate is the height of a blast. That is something which, as far as I can tell, isn't addressed at all in the rules.

 

[James McMurray]

Infinite Oregano. Some people enjoy eating infinite oregano, and if they want to do that, they're free to do so. But I think arguing it is permitted in the rules requires an intellectually dishonest reading of the rules. It's fairly obvious what the designers intended as far as blasts go. They even included some helpful diagrams. If they intended to complicate things by allowing for rotation, they almost certainly would have included diagrams indicating so.

Agreed. I wasn't judging, just explaining.

 

[James McMurray]

Now, an area where there is room for legitimate debate is the height of a blast. That is something which, as far as I can tell, isn't addressed at all in the rules.

Yeah, I'd love a clarification of how many squares tall a burst or blast is besides the nonsensical "just consider the creature in the square" answer that one poster got.

 

[Ziana]

there's exactly enough information to describe a square/circular blast, and there isn't enough information to describe any of these other shapes, so I'm going to go with what's expressly allowed rather than what might be technically not prohibited.

Well put. The rules don't account for every possibility. They're a set of instructions for playing the game, much like a recipe; which is why the infinite oregano joke is so apt.

It's fairly obvious what the designers intended as far as blasts go. They even included some helpful diagrams. If they intended to complicate things by allowing for rotation, they almost certainly would have included diagrams indicating so.

The problem is that some assert that even if the intention and meaning of a rule can be easily understood from the book and clearly reflects the actual will of the designer, if the "Rule as Written" (cue deep, stern voice) can possibly be interpreted differently, it's somehow more valid. Thankfully most players aren't Rules Lawyers and WotC hasn't felt the need to write the books in legalese.