Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Geron Raveneye" data-source="post: 4069741" data-attributes="member: 2268">Wrong. In 3.X, a circle is treated as a circle of the specified radius. What is &quot;approximated&quot; is where in this circle a character is affected by the effect described by the circle. If the border of the effect includes the far corner of a square, everything within the square is affected, if only the near corner is included, nothing in that square is affected. Which might be a bit wishy-washy, and could as well have been handled by allowing a static bonus to the save (and probably raised the howls of the already bonus-ridden <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> ), but it preserves the close approximation of the geometry on the 5'-square grid. It paints a bit of a wonky picture of how magical effects work sometimes (&quot;Hmmmm, standing at this angle and distance, the fireball seems to have a cold pocket. Interesting.&quot;)4E simplifies geometry in a way that a &quot;circle&quot; with a radius of 20' will equal a square of 40'x40'. That's not an approximation anymore...or rather, it's about as much an approximation as you can, if you want, approximate a cat in freefall as a rotating cylinder. In its highly abstracted form it both serves to greatly simplify calculations, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with reality as it is. So either reality in a D&amp;D world is wonky, or it shifts to wonky when battle begins, and back to normal when battle ends. Either way, wonky.Both editions had an error in the distance of a diagonal of a 5' square though, I grant you that. 3.X was 6% too severe, and 4E is 30% too lax. How much error (and wonky consequences) you are willing to tolerate in exchange for easy of play is, of course, up to every individual player. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Geron Raveneye, post: 4069741, member: 2268"] Wrong. In 3.X, a circle is treated as a circle of the specified radius. What is "approximated" is where in this circle a character is affected by the effect described by the circle. If the border of the effect includes the far corner of a square, everything within the square is affected, if only the near corner is included, nothing in that square is affected. Which might be a bit wishy-washy, and could as well have been handled by allowing a static bonus to the save (and probably raised the howls of the already bonus-ridden :lol: ), but it preserves the close approximation of the geometry on the 5'-square grid. It paints a bit of a wonky picture of how magical effects work sometimes ("Hmmmm, standing at this angle and distance, the [i]fireball[/i] seems to have a cold pocket. Interesting.") 4E simplifies geometry in a way that a "circle" with a radius of 20' will equal a square of 40'x40'. That's not an approximation anymore...or rather, it's about as much an approximation as you can, if you want, approximate a cat in freefall as a rotating cylinder. In its highly abstracted form it both serves to greatly simplify calculations, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with reality as it is. So either reality in a D&D world is wonky, or it shifts to wonky when battle begins, and back to normal when battle ends. Either way, wonky. Both editions had an error in the distance of a diagonal of a 5' square though, I grant you that. 3.X was 6% too severe, and 4E is 30% too lax. How much error (and wonky consequences) you are willing to tolerate in exchange for easy of play is, of course, up to every individual player. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification