Can you do a "diamond" shaped blast?

[Dracorat]

None of it is dishonest evasiveness. It is me answering the question and you not liking it. You don't have to like it. That's also not required.

 

[Caliban]

There is probably not a single rule in the book that couldn't give rise to a petulant discussion of how far it can be misinterpreted, by those who lack the ability to read in context. It's neither amusing nor interesting, and certainly doesn't help improve anyone's game experience.

Ziana, while I agree with you, it really doesn't do any good to get upset with them. All they will do is call you stupid for not appreciating their intellectual acumen in debating the subtle points of the rules (as someone has already done, I'm sure).

Don't take it personally.

 

[WayneLigon]

My figure is 3 squares by 3 squares. And if things were so clear, this thread would not exist.

Only if one ignores the common usage of words and what the word 'square' means. Rules-lawyering like this is what gets people thrown out of games. The illustration on 272 shows the only two possible interpretations of '3x3'. And there's 'two' of them because of the orientation of the caster.

 

[Ziana]

None of it is dishonest evasiveness. It is me answering the question and you not liking it. You don't have to like it. That's also not required.

Z: How many squares does it affect?
D: ten squares by ten squares.

That's not an answer, it's evasion. It's deliberately refusing to answer because you know the answer demonstrates how faulty your reasoning is.

 

[Ziana]

Ziana, while I agree with you, it really doesn't do any good to get upset with them. All they will do is call you stupid for not appreciating their intellectual acumen in debating the subtle points of the rules (as someone has already done, I'm sure).

Don't take it personally.

Caliban, you are right. It was my hope that I could appeal to rationality; but clearly once backed into a logical corner, they simply start playing games.

 

[Dracorat]

Now we even elevate to personal attacks! My players enjoy my games very much thank you.

And part is because I don't hold them prisoner to arbitrary and needless pointlessness like "it doesn't orient east to west".

 

[hamishspence]

Logical point:

Any diamond shape will already contain a 3 by 3 square area, plus extras. So you can point and say that in the middle is a 3 by 3 square area. Anything extra does not count.

 

[Umbran]

Ziana, and everyone else...

This is a rules forum. It is all about discussing rules, often in deep and excruciating detail. I dare say that anyone posting in here - yourself included - is a rules lawyer by that measure.

Be that as it may, we have a policy here - Keep it Civil. That means no name calling. Trying to slap a derisive label on someone so you can dismiss them is schoolyard stuff, and we expect better here.

If you don't like what they have to say, you can pass on responding, or you can respond respectfully. Don't be rude.

 

[Dracorat]

Any diamond shape will already contain a 3 by 3 square area, plus extras. So you can point and say that in the middle is a 3 by 3 square area. Anything extra does not count.

A compromise I could easily see any DM willing to go with. It'd be a house rule, but makes some level of sense too. It would help satisfy those who object to the fact when oriented as such, more squares are affected than when oriented east to west.

 

[The Little Raven]

It would help satisfy those who object to the fact when oriented as such, more squares are affected than when oriented east to west.

Well, a blast 3 is obviously supposed to be a 9 square/maximum of 9 target attack, so adding 4 additional squares/targets is a bit much.