Can you do a "diamond" shaped blast?

[Torg Smith]

On a lighter side, I call this blast the help your buddies out blast.

......
.xxxx.
.x..x.
.xxx..
..O...

 

[KarinsDad]

Now if you are going with the cone then you should be able to control the expansion. The following is a cone of nine squares and you could take a straight line of nine squares.

..x..
.xxx.
.xxx.
..x..
..x..

Your cone is fine, but it's not simple. People would quickly get confused as to how wide it could be made, how long, etc. as they try to vary it. For example, why is the extra square at the bottom and not the top? Etc.

The advantages of the one I illustrated are that it always works the same and has the same number of squares as the norm, regardless of blast size.

The disadvantage of the one I illustrated is that it is limited to an orthogonal axis (when going diagonally, one should just use the square in the book).

There is another orthogonal / diagonal half cone that also can be used.

x x x x .
x x x . . 
x x . . .
A . . . .

An issue of the half cone is that the number of squares vary from the norm. 1 = 2, 2 = 5, 3 = 9, 4 = 14, 5 = 19, etc. But, a player of a Wizard or Cleric probably wouldn't mind that, just to get the versatility of using a half cone. A DM might mind the 1=2 for a size 1 (course, that could be adjusted easily enough back to 1).

 

[silentounce]

So what's that saying? "Make something foolproof, and someone will build a better fool?" Sometimes a plain simple description complete with illustration just isn't enough.

The thing that baffles me is that there doesn't even seem to be anyone who seems to be unclear as to what the rules as intended are, but simply want to argue for argument's sake what some person might possibly misinterpret the rules as and how reasonable or unreasonable that misinterpretation is. Is that accurate, or do I assume too much?

Anyway, my attachment shows what I believe is a totally analogous argument to what is being made, which I think illustrates the absurdity.

Since OotS isn't upgrading to 4e would you like to start your own version for us? I think it has great potential. Order of the Grid, maybe?

 

[Torg Smith]

KarinsDad,

Your expansion was increase one square in width each square out. My example was increase one square in width every two squares out. I added the final square out as I doubt many players would want to lose that one square of area.

Edit: A post got in before my post so I wanted to clarify my post was in response to KarinsDad.

 

[Ahglock]

There is no discussion; there's a simple and intellectually honest reading of the rules, and there's picking a fight with people in order to satisfy one's ego.

The only people picking a fight here are people like you. No one has disagreed with what the writers intended for this rule. Some have pointed out that a literal interpretation without intent can allow this. If you do not want to get into a RAW discussion then don't. Insulting those who are in that discussion is picking a fight, discussing RAW isn't.

 

[KarinsDad]

Your expansion was increase one square in width each square out. My example was increase one square in width every two squares out. I added the final square out as I doubt may players would want to lose that one square of area.

Your idea is fine, it's just not simple and intuitive. My model just goes up diagonal lines. Yours is more jagged and can have a corner case of different numbers of extra squares left over at the end of the cone. Let's take your example up to 4 squares:

.xxx.
xxxxx
.xxx.
.xxx.
..x..
..x..

That looks ok, but one has to remember it is 3 squares on the last line and not 5.

How about your 2 case:

.xx..
..x..
..x..

The third row has an even number of squares in it, so it is not centered.


Your model works so so. But, it might be just as confusing to some people as rounded off square area effects of 3E because it does not just move up the diagaonals. It's a step function instead.

The idea is to come up with simple areas, not non-intuitive ones. The idea behind yours is simple, but the implementation is less simple, requires people to count out squares, and it has corner cases (at the end of the cone) which are non-intuitive and different each time.

My idea was a simple up the diagonal line triangle. No special corner cases. No counting 1 1 3 3 5 5, etc. No you get two rows of a given max width for some cones, you don't for others.

Your idea is more problematic in actual use.

Note: I'm not trying to give you a hard time here. I'm just pointing out that your model is not an especially good one for gaming unless you game with math geeks such as myself.

 

[KarinsDad]

The only people picking a fight here are people like you. No one has disagreed with what the writers intended for this rule. Some have pointed out that a literal interpretation without intent can allow this. If you do not want to get into a RAW discussion then don't. Insulting those who are in that discussion is picking a fight, discussing RAW isn't.

Not to get off topic too much, but you won't win this one. People who want to rag on the people who discuss RAW will continue to do so and will continue to think that it is not only fine, but important for them to do so. It's almost as if they think that they are doing a gaming community service by doing so (real gamers vs. rules lawyers or some such).

They do not understand that they are the problem, not the people discussing the rules. They will probably never understand that and I do not ever recall one being smart enough to realize their mistake and apologize.

Of those 7 or so such posts so far in this thread, only one actually then went back to the actual rules discussion at hand. It's the nature of the beast. They don't like RAW discussions, so their reaction is to attack and insult the poster instead of just moving on to the next thread.

You won't change it, but thanks for giving it a shot.

 

[Zimri]

so then what I have gathered

The new diamond shaped shreddies I see advertised are completely different from the old square shreddies that used to be sold, and aren't just a marketing ploy because squares and diamonds are completely different

 

[rhm001]

Now if you are going with the cone then you should be able to control the expansion. The following is a cone of nine squares and you could take a straight line of nine squares.

..x..
.xxx.
.xxx.
..x..
..x..

I would allow players to "turn the square," but it should be the same size, and it should trade one covered square for an extra square of distance, like this:

             .  .  .  .  .
             .  .  x  .  .
             .  x  x  x  .
             .  x  x  x  .
             .  .  x  .  .
             .  .  C  .  .
                (Caster)

 

[Ahglock]

The new diamond shaped shreddies I see advertised are completely different from the old square shreddies that used to be sold, and aren't just a marketing ploy because squares and diamonds are completely different

Yeah totally, one is at a 45 degree angle one isn't. And don' try to pick one up and turn it cause that would be cheatin, and you don't want to be low down dirty cheater do ya.