Light sources

[Dracorat]

Personally I would always measure light sources that are held from the creature's square and not an intersection. For large creatures, this includes each square the creature occupies. I would also treat a dropped object as something occupying a square, but this could easily be done either way.

If you don't do it that way, you run into all kinds of annoying "facing"-esque issues that 3.5 generally tried real hard to stamp out. Down with facing! Held light-objects occupy all squares and directions!

Sorry: no RAW to back me up, though.

What happens with Bulls-eye lanterns?

 

[Artoomis]

What happens with Bulls-eye lanterns?

Nothing different from any thing else that is done in a direction. You do no face the direction of the light as there is no facing in 3.5e.

"A bullseye lantern provides clear illumination in a 60-foot cone and shadowy illumination in a 120-foot cone. It burns for 6 hours on a pint of oil. You can carry a bullseye lantern in one hand."

 

[frankthedm]

Bottom line, start in a square, not a corner. If you try and switch corners around all the you'll go a bit stir crazy.

Why? it would be a free action to switch it. DMs have the right to reasonably limit free actions and a 'ready' to move a light source gives up a standard action that would be worth it most times.

For bigger creatures than that, some DM judgement will be needed. No way around that.

Choosing a grid intersection solves that problem.

 

[Artoomis]

Why? it would be a free action to switch it. DMs have the right to reasonably limit free actions and a 'ready' to move a light source gives up a standard action that would be worth it most times.

You'll drive everyone nuts. This round a square is lit - next round it is not because of the whim of the light wielder in switching which intersection he is using that round. Much silliness may ensue.

Choosing a grid intersection solves that problem.

As would choosing a square.

 

[frankthedm]

You'll drive everyone nuts. This round a square is lit - next round it is not because of the whim of the light wielder in switching which intersection he is using that round. Much silliness may ensue.

The being without light or darkvision takes a 5' adjustment. Since an obnoxious majority of monsters have darkvision and low light vision getting this to work takes some ludicrously precise effort to make that work. If a player is wasting so much time counting squares, it is time for the DM to say, “Finish your turn or lose your turn.”

Anyhoo. I think this is the way it works out looks like this.
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/4318/torchcl1.gif

 

[Infiniti2000]

If you think about "Light" as having a range instead of a radius, it becomes easy. Treat it the same as a range weapon for deciding which squares it can reach.

No, it doesn't, it becomes harder. Much harder. Just thinking about a Medium creature with a 5ft radius (range) candle. The diameter is clearly 10ft, is it not? In your method, however, it becomes 5ft 15ft. It becomes a whopping 20ft for larger creatures!

Bottom line, start in a square, not a corner. If you try and switch corners around all the you'll go a bit stir crazy.

I see no problem with that and disagree with your assertion of going stir crazy.

Nothing different from any thing else that is done in a direction. You do no face the direction of the light as there is no facing in 3.5e.

It's vastly different because a cone in D&D is defined on a grid intersection. We have no definition for the center of a square, or worse yet as you make it out, the accumulation of four squares.

You'll drive everyone nuts. This round a square is lit - next round it is not because of the whim of the light wielder in switching which intersection he is using that round. Much silliness may ensue.

I can't understand why you think it's a problem. Can't the light wielder do the same thing by making 5ft-step adjustments each round or just moving?

 

[Felix]

No, it doesn't, it becomes harder. Much harder. Just thinking about a Medium creature with a 5ft radius (range) candle. The diameter is clearly 10ft, is it not? In your method, however, it becomes 5ft. It becomes a whopping 20ft for larger creatures!

Bigger candle?

 

[Artoomis]

No, it doesn't, it becomes harder. Much harder. Just thinking about a Medium creature with a 5ft radius (range) candle. The diameter is clearly 10ft, is it not? In your method, however, it becomes 5ft. It becomes a whopping 20ft for larger creatures!...

No , what it really becomes is 5' out from the creature in every direction.

Seems reasonable, since you are carrying the candle and moving it about all during you turn (the same way you can strike out in any direction with your sword).

Think about it - the way the rules are written at any point in time the light souce could be in any corner of your square - effectively making it in ALL coners at once, or, for simplicity, just use your square and count it off from there.

Simple, eh?

 

[frankthedm]

Using the DMG this time.

 

[Infiniti2000]

No , what it really becomes is 5' out from the creature in every direction.

Seems reasonable, since you are carrying the candle and moving it about all during you turn (the same way you can strike out in any direction with your sword).

I'm sorry, I made a typo (fixed above). Anyway, I don't think that artificially increasing the diameter of the radius is reasonable at all. And, making additional rules to simulate the proper diameter/radius better is where you completely lose the simplicity.

Think about it - the way the rules are written at any point in time the light souce could be in any corner of your square - effectively making it in ALL coners at once, or, for simplicity, just use your square and count it off from there.

Simple, eh?

Not simple because I don't understand what you mean. Can you please explain it differently? Specifically, what do you mean by "at any point in time" in game terms, and "any corner" in your method when you don't use corners. You have me thinking I don't understand your method at all.