I know you're better than that, HS- I stated that the guy behind the shield was within the area- you even quoted me as such.
Color spray (or, for the Brits, colour spray)
- Thread starter der_kluge
- Start date
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Dannyalcatraz said:
I assumed you were talking about the tower shield mentioned previously. If the tower shield is providing total cover, then there is no line of effect from the point of origin to the guy behind the shield, and he is thus not within the area affected by the spell, even if his miniature is in the cone template on the battlemat.
-Hyp.
Its clear to me that you'd rule that the effect can wrap around the corners of an object providing less than total cover.
The language on p175 cites not affecting creatures with total cover- on that we agree 100%, its clear & precise. If the sentence stopped there, I'd be agreeing with your points, but the language continues with the imprecise modifier: "in other words, its effects don't extend around corners." It doesn't say 90deg corners, or 89deg or 45deg corners- just "corners."
To me, this imprecision means anything that interrupts the LOS with the spell's point of origin is a reason to at least consider some kind of mitigation of the effects. For simplicity's sake, I rule it to be a 100% cancellation, instead of creating some kind of set of "umbral" rules where an object within the area merely reduced the spell's effects. I think this is fair for a 1st level spell, considering that the similar, higher level spells don't have this "hole."
You, OTOH, default the language to mean 90deg or greater (or so it seems), allowing the spell to take effect when . Its a fair reading, but I think it makes bursts more powerful vis a vis emanations or spreads which expressly ignore corners of all kinds.
The language on p175 cites not affecting creatures with total cover- on that we agree 100%, its clear & precise. If the sentence stopped there, I'd be agreeing with your points, but the language continues with the imprecise modifier: "in other words, its effects don't extend around corners." It doesn't say 90deg corners, or 89deg or 45deg corners- just "corners."
To me, this imprecision means anything that interrupts the LOS with the spell's point of origin is a reason to at least consider some kind of mitigation of the effects. For simplicity's sake, I rule it to be a 100% cancellation, instead of creating some kind of set of "umbral" rules where an object within the area merely reduced the spell's effects. I think this is fair for a 1st level spell, considering that the similar, higher level spells don't have this "hole."
You, OTOH, default the language to mean 90deg or greater (or so it seems), allowing the spell to take effect when . Its a fair reading, but I think it makes bursts more powerful vis a vis emanations or spreads which expressly ignore corners of all kinds.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Dannyalcatraz said:
And what interrupts line of sight?
Line of Sight
Two creatures can see each other if they can trace at least one clear straight line from any part of one creature's space to any part of the other creature's space. The line is clear if it doesn't cross or even touch squares that block line of sight.
There's line of sight from the creature's space to the point of origin; he can see it.
Apart from that, line of sight to the point of origin isn't even required; he's in the area of the spell, and he's not sightless. He's a valid subject for the effects.
-Hyp.
Not if he's facing the other way; not if he's hiding his face behind a shield- any shield. In either case, the caster may have LOS on the target, but the target definitely doesn't have LOS on the caster or the origin point of the spell.
My view is at least internally consistent with the way I run the other spells.
You may recall some months ago, HS, you and I differed on whether a Monk in a tiny room could still make his reflex check to completely evade the effects of a Fireball (a "spread" spell) launched into the room.
You said he could, citing the RAW.
I said he couldn't, also citing the RAW, but declaring him effectively helpless to completely avoid the effects of the spell. Since the spread fills the entire room, he can do no better than protecting half of his body by pressing against a floor or wall (or ceiling, if he has some such ability)- no better than any other character. There is nowhere in the room he can get to where there is no fire effect on some part of his body. IOW, he can save for half damage, same as any other PC, but if he can't escape the area in some way, he can't save for zero damage.
Is either of my position RAW? Not 100%- I'm actually applying a little common sense to the game, but that doesn't scare me one bit. Everyone does that somewhere in the games they run.
I've said my piece, and you're not convincing me to change my mind on this one.
My overall point?
Figure out which way you're going to run bursts, spreads, etc., and be consistent.
Last edited:
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Dannyalcatraz said:
The target has line of sight to the caster if any line can be traced from anywhere in his square to anywhere in the caster's square, because 'facing the other way' isn't a concept that applies to determination of line of sight.
-Hyp.
I know some pilots who would beg to differ.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Dannyalcatraz said:
I suspect they're not restricted to straight lines when they run, too!
-Hyp.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Dannyalcatraz said:
Thus making the working assumption that a spread uniformly fills its area, rather than assuming that it affects everyone within its area but may not fill the area uniformly.
It is a common assumption, but by no means follows directly from the rules. Different options could be classified as 'more restrictive' or 'less restrictive' to guys with evasion. My personal preference is to go for the 'less restrictive' approach that allows evasion unless there really is no room for the evader to move (chained down/crawling through a narrow chimney/etc).
Cheers
