Jhyrryl
First Post
And we're not talking ice cream here.
It looks like the definition of a cone has changed from "always as wide as the distance from the caster" (paraphrase) to something like "a quarter circle with a diameter equal to the cone's range". While the increased size aspect of the change doesn't bother me, I do find it mildly annoying that the area of a "straight" cone is greater than the area of a diagonal cone (not that this is new).
15' cone
diagonal - 6 squares
straight - 7 squares
30' cone
diagonal - 24 squares
straight - 28 squares
60' cone
diagonal - 96 squares
straight - 104 squares
120' cone
diagonal - 384 squares
straight - 400 squares
The reason for this difference (not including the 15' cone, which is an exception), is that a cone is defined as always starting at an intersection of squares adjacent to the caster, rather than in an adjacent square. As it turns out then, the difference in area is exactly the area define by the single strip of squares running down one straight side of the cone.
I know it's a minor thing, but I plan on house-ruling the removal of an appropriate number of squares, by redefining cones to start in a square rather than an intersection. This will prevent a cone spell from ever affecting two opponents who are adjacent to the caster. My question is, should I simply remove a full strip, or should I try messing with an alternation scheme, where one square is removed from side A at the first increment, then a square from side B at the second increment, etc.?
The first scheme will generally be easier to adjudicate, while the second will be more symmetrical. Alternately, straight cones can actually be drawn in such a way using the game's diagonal rules, that with a rule of starting in a square rather than at an intersection, an exact match in area (compared to a diagonal cone) can be achieved, and be symmetrical. Maybe I should just rework the templates in that fashion?
It looks like the definition of a cone has changed from "always as wide as the distance from the caster" (paraphrase) to something like "a quarter circle with a diameter equal to the cone's range". While the increased size aspect of the change doesn't bother me, I do find it mildly annoying that the area of a "straight" cone is greater than the area of a diagonal cone (not that this is new).
15' cone
diagonal - 6 squares
straight - 7 squares
30' cone
diagonal - 24 squares
straight - 28 squares
60' cone
diagonal - 96 squares
straight - 104 squares
120' cone
diagonal - 384 squares
straight - 400 squares
The reason for this difference (not including the 15' cone, which is an exception), is that a cone is defined as always starting at an intersection of squares adjacent to the caster, rather than in an adjacent square. As it turns out then, the difference in area is exactly the area define by the single strip of squares running down one straight side of the cone.
I know it's a minor thing, but I plan on house-ruling the removal of an appropriate number of squares, by redefining cones to start in a square rather than an intersection. This will prevent a cone spell from ever affecting two opponents who are adjacent to the caster. My question is, should I simply remove a full strip, or should I try messing with an alternation scheme, where one square is removed from side A at the first increment, then a square from side B at the second increment, etc.?
The first scheme will generally be easier to adjudicate, while the second will be more symmetrical. Alternately, straight cones can actually be drawn in such a way using the game's diagonal rules, that with a rule of starting in a square rather than at an intersection, an exact match in area (compared to a diagonal cone) can be achieved, and be symmetrical. Maybe I should just rework the templates in that fashion?
B would be the 3rd option I mentioned.
