Can you do a "diamond" shaped blast?

[RefinedBean]

Maybe simply state (well, not so simple for non-mathematical people like me, who had to give this some heavy thought) that the boundary of a blast must be made of lines going from one adjacent point of an outer-most included square to another? That way, when rotating it 45 degrees, the total area of the square/diamond is not using diagonals for a measure...which was, if I remember, a problem in 3.5 as well.

Or something. I'm not really a math guy.

 

[hamishspence]

More a reason to reject player arguments

Specifically. if someone presented me said diamond template, thats what i'd say: that there is already a 3 by 3 square in the middle of the template. Or "if there are two ways of drawing a 3 by 3 square, choose the smallest"

 

[Dracorat]

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.

Usually I would agree with this line of logic but all logic was thrown out when blasts became squares anyway.

At that point, you just have the rules to go on. =/

 

[Ziana]

Ouch, I got told!

The PHB simply presents square 3x3 areas that conform to the battle grid, which is consistent with keeping the combat system relatively simple and smooth-flowing.

If you want to houserule tilting that square to allow variations, it wouldn't expand the area or significantly affect its reach. You might say that any rhombus with 3 squares on a side is acceptable. So something like:

...XXX
..XXX.
.XXX..
O.....

If you're concerned about using this to overextend the range of an area effect, you could confine it to 3 squares directional from the origin, tilting only within that limit.

 

[Obryn]

I should note that I have found a rules exploit which will allow me to get INFINITE OREGANOSQUARES out of the blast. It's in the book, so we have to use it!

-O

 

[Dracorat]

It does say square and squares are defined by 90 degree corners. I'm not debating that part. But being at 45 degree offsets, it's still got 90 degree corners.

 

[The Little Raven]

Usually I would agree with this line of logic but all logic was thrown out when blasts became squares anyway.

No, the logic is fine because combat is abstracted on a square-based grid. Using circles, diamonds, and dodecahedrons is illogical when the abstracted is based on squares.

At that point, you just have the rules to go on. =/

The rules include diagrams. There's no 13 square blast 3 diamond diagram.

 

[Dracorat]

The rules include diagrams. There's no 13 square blast 3 diamond diagram.

Yes yes they do. But those diagrams also don't include starting a blast from one square over (standing beside but not diagonal to a corner square) neither. They are meant as example, but certainly not all-inclusive.

If someone wants to interpret that as "they must face east to west" then I won't begrudge them for doing so, but what the rules state is only 3 squares to a side. I am arguing that the sides needn't be east/west and north/south and yet they'll still fit that requirement.

 

[RefinedBean]

It does say square and squares are defined by 90 degree corners. I'm not debating that part. But being at 45 degree offsets, it's still got 90 degree corners.

The individual squares have 90 degree corners. The angles of the turned-blast only has 90 degree corners if you measure halfway in from the outside diagonal on the corner squares, or halfway out again.

And, of course, if we do this, some poor monster that only has 1/4 of its mass in the area of effect is still attacked and will take full damage. And if you use the latter, the attacker is being affected by his own attack.

Nasty.

 

[Dracorat]

Monsters partially in areas of effect have always been subject to the full effects. I see this as no different.

The squares themselves have 90 degree corners yup. But so do square areas which include them. And the caster doesn't have to be in the area to be beside it (the other requirement - placement).