Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 7556573" data-attributes="member: 20564">You are correct that it doesn't say anything explicitly about corners.&nbsp; Neither did I.Part you didn't quote above from pg 191 says &quot;A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively.&quot;&nbsp; When combined with the rules for squeezing into a smaller space (pg 192) where you can not fight effectively, pretty much shows that you are, for game mechanics sense, in your entire space unless you are squeezing into a smaller space.&nbsp; I can Squeeze (taking the penalties) to have a smaller space, and if that space is now outside the area of effect - then I'm outside the area of effect.If I'm not Squeezing, then by the rules I don't have a smaller space.There would not need to be rules for reducing to a smaller space if it was something that you could do on-the-fly and for-free to avoid area of effects.Is a creature's space a gamist simplification that doesn't match well with how much space people take up in reality?&nbsp; Sure.&nbsp; That's why realism-based arguments aren't particularly relevant - the game has already put them aside to make something easily playable.&nbsp; I'm not saying this to support my argument (so you don't try to refute it and think it affects the stance above), I'm saying it because I understand where you are coming from.&nbsp; It doesn't make perfect real-world sense.&nbsp; Neither do all doors being 5' wide, but we still see that everywhere from the same design decision.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blue, post: 7556573, member: 20564"] You are correct that it doesn't say anything explicitly about corners. Neither did I. Part you didn't quote above from pg 191 says "A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively." When combined with the rules for squeezing into a smaller space (pg 192) where you can not fight effectively, pretty much shows that you are, for game mechanics sense, in your entire space unless you are squeezing into a smaller space. I can Squeeze (taking the penalties) to have a smaller space, and if that space is now outside the area of effect - then I'm outside the area of effect. If I'm not Squeezing, then by the rules I [I]don't[/I] have a smaller space. [I]There would not need to be rules for reducing to a smaller space if it was something that you could do on-the-fly and for-free to avoid area of effects.[/I] Is a creature's space a gamist simplification that doesn't match well with how much space people take up in reality? Sure. That's why realism-based arguments aren't particularly relevant - the game has already put them aside to make something easily playable. I'm not saying this to support my argument (so you don't try to refute it and think it affects the stance above), I'm saying it because I understand where you are coming from. It doesn't make perfect real-world sense. Neither do all doors being 5' wide, but we still see that everywhere from the same design decision. [/QUOTE]

Verification