Can you do a "diamond" shaped blast?

[Zimri]

Diagonal movement in 4E would disagree with this assertion.

Hence, it is a fallacy.

Okay KD take a piece of cardboard, cut a 3 inch by 3 inch square, rotate it, if a team of scientists say that rotating it made the cardboard itself grow I'll give you a kudos.

 

[RefinedBean]

I like peanut butter.

But good god, man...crunchy or creamy?!

 

[Ziana]

If you take a 3 inch by 3 inch square (which covers 9, 1 inch squares) and turn it so that a pointy end faces you rather than a flat side you do not suddenly have that same square covering 13 1 inch squares.

No, you don't. But that's not what I have been arguing against. I have been addressing the idea of counting diagonals as a valid means to "rotate" a square area, which it isn't. It results in much larger coverage.

Yes it may now "touch" more squares that are on a surface that is orientated differently but the raw amount that it actually covers remains the same. That it can have an effect on squares it "touches" rather than only ones it covers completely doesn't change the fact that the base unit did not suddenly grow.

D&D 4E does not appear to be built to handle portions of squares or accurate distances. The combat system is extremely simplified from the old-school miniature warfare games that would rely on rulers, fractional turns, and so on. The idea is to have a system that's easier to learn and makes for faster gameplay. To that end, it's more than sufficient. As I stated quite a while ago, treating diagonals as one square for movement has some unintuitive mathematical consequences.

If you or anyone else wants to use template overlays and deal with partial effects in edge squares, you're free to make your houserules as complex as you like. But the rulebooks we have simply don't provide for spell areas being anything other than squares which conform to the battlegrid.

 

[KarinsDad]

So according to the RULES, the following are all legal 3x3 blasts:

. . . . .
. x x x .
. x x x .
. x x x .
. . . . .

. . . . .
. . x . .
. x x x .
x x x x x
. x x x .
. . x . .
. . . . .

. . . . .
x x x . .
. x x x .
. . x x x
. . . . .

The blast does not have to be square.

The blast area does need to be filled.

The sides of the blast have to consist of squares.

The blast has to be adjacent to the origin square.


According to designer intent, it would seem that only the first blast illustrated here is legal.


That appears to pretty much sum it up unless I am missing something. I didn't see any rules listed that contradict this, just a bunch of opinions to the contrary.

 

[KarinsDad]

Okay KD take a piece of cardboard, cut a 3 inch by 3 inch square, rotate it, if a team of scientists say that rotating it made the cardboard itself grow I'll give you a kudos.

I will do that after you take a string and illustrate that diagonal movement in 4E is the same distance as orthogonal movment.

Quid pro quo.

Real world physics have nothing to do with this conversation. Get used to it.

 

[Obryn]

I will do that after you take a string and illustrate that diagonal movement in 4E is the same distance as orthogonal movment.

Quid pro quo.

Real world physics have nothing to do with this conversation. Get used to it.

But what about my mega-awesome-superwall?!

If this works, so does my superwall.

-O

 

[Ziana]

So according to the RULES, the following are all legal 3x3 blasts:

Where do the rules say a blast can be anything but square?

Don't tell me they don't say it can't; it's not the WotC authors' responsibility to account for every possible misinterpretation. Rather, they provide a straightforward definition, two similar features in the rules specifically and absolutely deny diagonal shapes (bursts cannot be diagonal due to the definition, walls in the text disallow diagonal steps), and they give PICTURES of what blasts look like. "Here is a blast. Let us show you them."

Furthermore, I have repeatedly demonstrated why the diamond figure is not a 3 by 3 area. It contains squares that correspond to none of the 3 defined squares on either side. In reality, if you count across diagonally, you are encompassing a total of 5 squares, that's how you get 5 from "corner" to "corner." As others have indicated, what you actually have is the original 3x3 square with 4 squares tacked onto the sides. That's not a rotation, it's an expansion.

The rhombus shape seems a great idea for a houserule, as it maintains the spell area.

But just for exercise:

What is the maximum number of minions that can be killed by a 10 x 10 blast?

 

[KarinsDad]

Where do the rules say a blast can be anything but square?

You are asking the wrong question.

The proper question is:

Where do the rules say the area of a blast must be a square shape?

I may have missed it, but I did not see such a rule.


Note: the rest of your post there is irrelevant. None of it is according to the rules. The rules do not limit a diagonal dimension of a blast area to 3, it limits the sides to 3. The rules do not limit the number of squares within the area. You are grasping at non-rules straws in a RAW discussion.

 

[KarinsDad]

But what about my mega-awesome-superwall?!

If this works, so does my superwall.

Draw a picture. Your text was unclear.

 

[Ziana]

Where do the rules say the area of a blast must be a square shape?

Where do the rules say you cannot light the battle mat on fire? Because they do not, does this mean this is "legal" in Dungeons and Dragons?

The very notion of a "blast" does not exist without the rulebooks. The D&D books are additive, bringing into existence the rules from a null state. They are not proscriptive, attempting to whittle away all potential interpretations and meanings until purity is found. Rather, sufficient information is given that any reasonable person should be able to discern how to use the rules in a practical game setting. That the rules are imperfect or incomplete is natural and to be expected. There's a trust on the part of the authors that we will be sensible and apply some common sense.

As the authors have themselves stated, the books are written for players, not lawyers. They do not constitute formal symbolic logical or machine code.

The burden is on you to demonstrate where the rules say a blast takes shapes other than square. They helpfully provided pictures of square blasts. This might have been a hint.

Until errata or a new book comes out with helpful pictures of diamond-shaped blasts, anything else is a houserule. Use any houserules you wish, but your personal drive to deliberately misconstrue every trivial element of the rules has no bearing on what instructions the rules are actually offering.

I maintain as I did before this sort of behavior is only harmful to the rpg community at large. New players deserve simple, straightforward answers.