AWESOME. JUST AWESOME.Number47 said:
AWESOME. JUST AWESOME.Number47 said:
i c uSaepiroth said:AWESOME. JUST AWESOME.
Supwhydirt said:i c u
Sup man. I'm about to go to bed, but I was just cruising through the Enworld boards one last time.Saepiroth said:
I think you'll be banned, slandered, and hunted down by geeks wielding explosive dee-twenties.whydirt said:ps-do you think i can claim this thread for FYAD?
See Number47's comment and p.68-69 of the DMG.reapersaurus said:This might be technically and mathmatically correct, but I don't think 3E uses that convention when determining what squares are affected by a radius effect.
Squares that are 1/2 intersected are affected normally, although that's an imprecise rounding offI think that's what you're saying.... the pdf doc you attached has lines that intersect squares, so it's hard to tell.

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.