D&D 5E (2014) [OOC] Securing the Alliance: An Adventure in Tethyr [ENDED]

[Forged Fury]

Not a caster...

Cleric 1 (Life)

Uh?

 

[Forged Fury]

I fail to see how moving diagonally could take up 10 feet and not 5. If each square is 5 ft x 5 ft, then it's 2.5 feet from any point along it's sides to the center. If you move 2.5 feet from the center of one square to its corner, then move 2.5 feet from that corner into the middle of the next diagonal square, how is it that this is 10 feet and not 5?

Actually, the distance of a diagonal in a 5' square is about 7' (since diagonals are longer than the sides of the square), which I believe is where 3.5 came up with the concept that alternating diagonal squares are closer to 15' than 10' since the total is a little more than 14'. This is why the bottom version is much closer to reality than the top one.

Mathematically, the area covered by the top example is 400 square feet. The bottom one is 325 square feet. The area of a circle with a 10 foot radius is about 314 square feet, so the bottom one is a lot closer to covering the area dictated by what would be enclosed in a 10' radius circle if we weren't using a grid.

But yeah, just polling right now.

 

[CanadienneBacon]

Well, crap. Damn. I guess I am a caster.

It's your call how you want to do AoE spells. I'm easy either way, if the math is right (really, someone double check that), I won't be fussed about losing 18.75%. I'm curious to know what prompted you to want to do it this way. Is it easier for you? If so, then my hearty approval in backing it. I'm all for what makes the DM's job easier.

 

[Forged Fury]

The DMG may actually have good rules for this, I neglected to check last night. I'll take a look at it when I get home and see what it suggests. I know they have ALL KINDS of crazy cover rules for squares and hexes that I don't want to consider, LOL.

ETA: Oops, I meant to include a reply to why I was looking at it that somehow changed to something else. To be honest, I'm not sure how the rules are supposed to work. The PHB pretty much goes out of its way to avoid dealing with grid-type language, so it comes down to DM fiat of "is this target covered by enough of what the spell it covers says it should be" for edge cases. Since the PHB avoids grid discussion, the whole "one square is 5 feet" deal isn't even there. I recall AoE effects and how they worked back in 1st and 2nd edition when grids were introduced and I recall them generally looking like what I'm suggesting.

 

[hafrogman]

I think it's gonna have to depend on the spell.
As far as I know, outside of 4e, a 10' radius sphere or cylinder will not be the top model, but a 20' cube should be. The system does call out cubes and spheres differently. So I'd expect a 10' radius to be the fat plus like the old 3.5 templates.

------
--oo--
-oooo-
-oooo-
--oo--
------

12 squares. Your proposed version is a little bigger, and a little easier to target in PbP (which I assume is the point) since you just have to state a square. It's fine by me as long as we maintain consistency, and don't change spells that are specifically cubes.

 

[Forged Fury]

Yeah, 3E introduced the whole "pick an intersection" thing, from what I recall, since it was the first system that really devoted itself to grid combat (aside from BattleSystem). I was never a fan of that, to ge honest. The "cube" above was based on my limited understanding of 4E where any movement across any single square was considered 5'.

ETA: I think cubes are a lot easier to handle. The square indicated by the caster will actually indicate the top left corner of the square. That should make it easier to target. Regardless of the selected "point of origin" effects will operate based on the spell description (so even though a caster may be selecting a square opposite them, a Thunderwave spell would still push enemies away from the caster).

 

[Egon]

Yeah, 3E introduced the whole "pick an intersection" thing, from what I recall, since it was the first system that really devoted itself to grid combat (aside from BattleSystem). I was never a fan of that, to ge honest. The "cube" above was based on my limited understanding of 4E where any movement across any single square was considered 5'.

ETA: I think cubes are a lot easier to handle. The square indicated by the caster will actually indicate the top left corner of the square. That should make it easier to target. Regardless of the selected "point of origin" effects will operate based on the spell description (so even though a caster may be selecting a square opposite them, a Thunderwave spell would still push enemies away from the caster).

That's how I view things as well; movement across any square is 5 feet, unless other issues force it to be more (like moving through an occupied square for a non-hostile doubles movement through that square, as an example).

 

[Forged Fury]

Yeah, I just don't like it because it isn't at all realistic and creates much larger AoE effects than are normal.

Then again, I'm sure y'all are going to be facing spellcasters at some point so if bigger AoEs is what you want, we can go with it.

People can continue to weigh in here if they want. I do want to wait to check to see what the DMG suggests about area of effect spells and grid combat before we totally put it to bed.

 

[Egon]

I'll state that whatever you decide I'm good with. I know that it will impact not only us but the bad guys as well, so we're all going to be using the same rules. And this really only affects those spells that aren't cubes or squares, so I'm not sure how much of an impact it will have with the spells I've got (most of which are cubes or state to pick a target in LOS).

 

[hafrogman]

Yeah, we might want feedback from Marcelus14, as I currently think Gnorth might have our only AoE damage spell with shatter.