Can you do a "diamond" shaped blast?

[Torg Smith]

This is 3 squares on a side, the squares just happen to be turned 45 degrees.

The attached diagram is (literally) also 3 squares by 3 squares.


Still waiting for a rules quote folks.

.
.
.
.
.

Note: I know how WotC customer service will answer this and I understand the intent, but so far, nobody has posted actual rules to deny it. It's all been opinion and narrow interpretation.

Ok I have the rules for you.

DMG P7 in section Battle Grid it clearly says a square on the grid is 1 inch square.

PHB page 272 in the shaded area titled Areas of Effect sub section Blast as quote:
A blast fills an area adjacent to you that is a specified number of squares on a side.

This most clearly states that the area is of squares that is 1 inch grid on your battle map. The only way you can rotate the area 45 degrees is if you cut out the 3” by 3” area of your battle map and rotate it. Otherwise you are clearly in violation of the rules as written.

 

[KarinsDad]

The RAW crowd knows this. They just don't care. They are quite willing to ignore intent if it let's them have pedantic arguements.

I see 4e will be no different than 3e in that regard.

Ditto for the commentary with no intent other than to disparage others crowd.

 

[KarinsDad]

This most clearly states that the area is of squares that is 1 inch grid on your battle map. The only way you can rotate the area 45 degrees is if you cut out the 3” by 3” area of your battle map and rotate it. Otherwise you are clearly in violation of the rules as written.

Clearly?

If it were clear, the discussion would not have come up.

It's amazing how some people interpret the same text in the book as one and only one valid interpretation, and other people can see multiple interpretations from the same words.

 

[Mithreinmaethor]

Some say interpret others say twist. People will go out of their way to try and interpret/twist what they read to A make things the way they want them to be or B just to cause an argument/discussion.

WOTC has taken the KISS (Keep it Simple Stupid) principle for 4th edition and people continue to try and make it much more complicated than it is.

Also refer to Ockham's Razor.

 

[Ziana]

The burden is not on the authors of the D&D books to anticipate every possible absurd misreading of the rules. It is only to make a set of consistent and easily understood rules that allow players to use them as the basis for enjoyable and entertaining game sessions. Any REASONABLE person should be able to grasp how to apply the rules without much difficulty.

The rules aren't perfect and there are problems. These problem areas should be discussed so that people can get feedback on the best way to deal with them in practice. These discussions and their results can be forwarded to the authors to inform them of areas needing improvement or errata.

However, how area effect attack areas should be dealt with is not a problem. This is a straightforward section in the rules, and numerous examples have been made in this thread showing how they should be understood, and why that interpretation is reasonable.

The RPG community does not benefit from rules-lawyers who strive to pick apart even the most mundane aspect of the books to satisfy their need to generate dispute and discord. They may get their jollies from arguing about trivial things, but this only serves to paint rpg players in a bad light. It's an embarrassment and poisonous to the community. If we want to welcome new players and help them grasp the concepts of the game quickly and easily, then we should provide straightforward answers to questions.

 

[Caliban]

Ditto for the commentary with no intent other than to disparage others crowd.

I see you don't disagree with my statement though.

 

[KarinsDad]

I see you don't disagree with my statement though.

I ignored the content your statement. It had nothing to do with the rules discussion. I only commented on your intent.

Didn't you used to have me on your ignore list? Can I be back on it? I don't want to be incentivized to come up with witty comebacks when you prefer to discuss the posters as opposed to what they post. I really would prefer to discuss the topic at hand (which we are getting off of).

 

[Lurker37]

As I understand it, the diagonal version is illegal because some of the affected squares are more than 3 squares from the origin.

And I'm assuming it isn't in the RAW because no-one tried to rotate the areas in playtesting. More errata, oh joy.

 

[Caliban]

I ignored the content your statement. It had nothing to do with the rules discussion. I only commented on your intent.

How can you reliably divine my intent merely from my written text? I thought a major contention of the RAW viewpoint was that such a thing could not be done.

Didn't you used to have me on your ignore list? Can I be back on it? I don't want to be incentivized to come up with witty comebacks when you prefer to discuss the posters as opposed to what they post. I really would prefer to discuss the topic at hand (which we are getting off of).

*shrug* I didn't respond to you or directly refer to you in any way in my initial post. You are the one who chose to respond to my post with your "witty comeback". You are the one who is now discussing the poster (rather than what was posted), which is what you are accusing me of. Ironic, some might say. (Others might describe it otherwise, but I prefer not to dwell on such things.)

If you would prefer to discuss the topic at hand, then I cordially suggest you do so, rather than waste your time replying to me.

Since my simple statements seem to be upsetting you on some level, I apologize for causing you distress. (Not that I want to make any assumptions about your state of mind based on your written word, of course. You may have been enlightened and invigorated instead of upset, in which case: kudos.)

But I don't apologize for my statements, as I believe they are accurate regarding the general "RAW" contingent, even if they may not apply to certain individuals within that august body of sophisticated and detail oriented debaters.


With all due respect,

Caliban

 

[Hussar]

How exactly can you rotate bases?

Nothing on the battlemap can be outside it's base. You cannot take a 3x3 monster, rotate it 45 degrees and say that it reaches further than before. A 3x3 base monster (or whatever) must always line up with the lines on the battlemap.

Why would area of effect spells be different?

Nothing in the game allows you to do this. Yes, there may very well be no specific exact rule that disallows it, but, considering there are numerous rules that completely fail to work if you do allow it, I'm pretty sure you can disallow it even without specific text to the contrary.