Questions about Scorching Burst!

[Revinor]

So, your bad orc shaman is on his own infinitely tall square on the battle mat. 5' directly behind him his pet vulture, flying 15' off the ground. They don't occupy the same square of the battlemat.

Can the wizard kill both the orc and the vulture with one casting of his Scorching Burst?

Or, the orc shaman is waiting on the ground while his orc girlfriend is climbing a rope up the side wall of the castle. She is on her rope 15' above the ground, and in the square directly in front of the orc shaman - he's looking up her skirt. Again they're not on the same square, so the arbitrary no stacking rule doesn't figure into this scenario.

Can the wizard kill both the orc and his girlfriend with one casting of his Scorching Burst?

We can complicate the question with shaman being in the small cave in the middle of the cliff (so he won't be affected by 'fire from the sky' nor by 'fireball from target'). I think that this problem with be mostly ignored by rules, or solved by "blast is blast, everybody in horizontal range is affected, regardless of z-axis".

Why shouldn't a flyer end his turn over someone else's miniature?

Because it is explicitly forbidden in rules? Ok, miniature rules, but do you think that D&D RPG will have different rules for that? Of course, we can house-rule anything, but I'm talking about official statement in the book. Same way in 3e you were not able to finish the move on the same square as your ally, even if we could argue that they could hug together and still fit in 5'x5' square.

Please note, I'm in no way trying to argue how it SHOULD be done, or what is a realistic simulation, or how we can houserule the aerial combat in. I'm talking about expectations about how they will solve it in official PHB/DMG rules.

Do you want to enter the bet? I'm telling that PHB will explicitly disallow ending your movement on the same square as somebody else, WITHOUT exception for flying. We can come back to this thread after 6th June and continue the discussion.

 

[keterys]

D&D Miniatures Flight isn't true flight - it's just movement that lets you avoid obstacles. It worked that way for 3rd edition too. If your entire argument is based on the rules for D&D Miniatures, then you're asking for disappointment.

 

[Revinor]

D&D Miniatures Flight isn't true flight - it's just movement that lets you avoid obstacles. It worked that way for 3rd edition too. If your entire argument is based on the rules for D&D Miniatures, then you're asking for disappointment.

Ok, 3rd edition then.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm#movingthroughaSquare

Ending Your Movement
You can’t end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless.

Can you find me a ruling which allows flying creatures to do otherwise?

 

[VannATLC]

Find me the assumption that a square is infinitely tall >.>

But yes, I didn't step in, because I expect Revinor to be right, within the rules given.

I've always ruled squares as cubes, regardless of all other factors, and extended facing in what seems a logical manner. But this is, obviously, house-ruling, and I don't expect 4e to dip its hat to 3d any more than 3e did.

 

[vagabundo]

Area = burst 1 within 10 squares

I read this as one square within ten squares of the caster.

Is this right?

 

[Kaisoku]

Just as a note.. Manual of the Planes has a bit on Three Dimensional combat.

The jist of it being that you treat a person's space as being cubed (5x5x5) and all three dimensional spaces around it being his reach/adjacent spaces (he can be attacked by members in all 26 spaces is how they put it).

This would stand to reason that since it's an adjacent space, and thus not the actual space, you could end in it without issue.


This covers flying, ladders.. pretty much any issue at this point, since the "grid" becomes cubed.

 

[Kaisoku]

I read this as one square within ten squares of the caster.

Is this right?

I think that Burst 1 is "one square outward of burst"... so the first square, and all adjacent squares outward.

The 10 squares away is correct too... so think of it as a 15' diameter Flamestrike that can be tossed up to 50' away. Except that we don't know how high exactly...

 

[vagabundo]

I think that Burst 1 is "one square outward of burst"... so the first square, and all adjacent squares outward.

The 10 squares away is correct too... so think of it as a 15' diameter Flamestrike that can be tossed up to 50' away. Except that we don't know how high exactly...

Okay I'm nearly there..

Okay I think I have got it, the radius is one square, centred on one. So:

***
*@*
***

* is the 1 square radius burst
@ is the targeted square.

So a burst 2:

*****
*****
**@**
*****
*****

Ahhh..

 

[Spinachcat]

1) 9 squares

2) 1d6 +5 only

1) A 9 square explosion gives the wizard the at-will ability to do 9D6+45 damage (avg 77) in a single action. If there is a cluster of monsters, he could use an action point to do 18D6+90 damage (avg 153). If the monsters are vulnerable to fire, this average damage increases even more dramaticly.

Doesn't that sound kinda extreme for 1st level wizard at-will power? That's why I wonder if the burst is not "target + all adjacent" squares.

2) I am confused on the idea that if a radius explosion occurs, why a creature who takes up more than 1 square would only suffer the same damage since a much larger area of the monster is suffering from the damage.

Kobold 1 + Kobold 2 standing adjacent would suffer 1D6+5 each BUT the front end of the horse adjacent to Kobold 1 would suffer 1D6+5 while the backend of the horse adjacent to Kobold 2 would not suffer any damage even if it is still in the area of effect???

 

[Revinor]

Kobold 1 + Kobold 2 standing adjacent would suffer 1D6+5 each BUT the front end of the horse adjacent to Kobold 1 would suffer 1D6+5 while the backend of the horse adjacent to Kobold 2 would not suffer any damage even if it is still in the area of effect???

Do you think that pixie thrown into lake of lava should get damage x, human put into it should get 16x damage and dragon 250x damage ? (because it is probably a ratio between real areas of contact between such creatures and lava). Or will you argue that pixie is still 1 square, so only dragon should take 16x more than human?

Hp are abstract. Damage is dealt per unit of battle, not per square. Thats it.