Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jens" data-source="post: 1047435" data-attributes="member: 605">SnowDog,If you don't like that a mage can cast a line spell so precisely that he can straddle the boundary between two squares perfectly and hit nobody (when casting it at a *slightly* different angle would hit one of the squares), how can you like it any better that a mage can cast a line spell so precisely that he can straddle the boundary between two squares perfectly and hit both (when casting it at a *slightly* different angle would miss one of the squares)?I think both are problematic, but I think the latter is worse than the first. An in-game reason for this is that creatures don't typically take up *all* of a 5'x5' square; two characters in adjacent squares do not touch each other, there is space between them.Imo, the best solution is to rule that a mage simply *cannot* aim the line spell that accurately (after all, it would have to be 'infinitely' accurate, which is pretty difficult), meaning that he must affect one of the squares and cannot affect both. The practical implication is that a line spell cannot be aimed through an intersection. However, this will probably lead to arguments so it wouldn't be practical.Imo, the second best (but probably more practical) solution is to rule that line spells only affect squares which are entered; to affect the most squares, a mage should avoid hitting intersections (and we know this is really easy) but if he wants to hit fewer squares it's no big deal (even though we know this is really difficult). The only problem would be casting straight N/S/E/W, in which case I wouldn't hesitate to require the caster to deside which of the two possible columns/rows he wants to affect.Jherryl,I'm not sure what you mean by saying that something 'has no shape'. I distinctly remember several of my professors teaching about 'open balls' and 'open half-planes' as opposed to closed dittos. I'm not trying to twist your argument; I just don't really know how to respond. I don't think it's a matter of semantics but of geometric definitions, which should be precise. But I don't remember any definition of a square resembling those of points and lines etc., so even though I don't think you're right, I can't really argue with your assertion that a square must be bounded.Anyway, I stand by what I said earlier: A rule that relies on the (un)boundedness of grid squares does not belong in the game. Therefore, (un)boundedness should not matter for the interpretation.</blockquote>

Verification