Rotating area bursts to be off-grid

[MrGrenadine]

Of course you should allow it.

All of these posts about "if you play a Wizard, then those are the mechanics of the game, etc." are hogwash, frankly. D&D is, and has always been, a malleable system that you can change however you wish. So to paraphrase another poster: be the DM, and do what you want.

Of course, some changes to the game will disrupt game balance, so you have to choose house rules wisely, but I haven't seen one good piece of evidence that shows how game balance will be significantly disrupted by slipping the area effect off the grid slightly--although I suppose someone out there can work up the math to show that when an AoE is locked to the square grid, wizard spells' average damage is X, and if you slip the AoE off the square, then the added squares affected make the average damage X.394 or something--but I would really doubt its significant.

And the simple and logical way of making sure that slipping the AoE doesn't simply result in a huge power boost for the Wizard:

(1) every creature in the game can do the same thing

and (2) the damage in the spell's description is only for creatures in squares that are completely covered by the AoE, and any creature in a square not completely covered will have the damage halved.

That way the Wizard can choose: stick to the grid and affect fewer creatures with full dmg, or slip the AoE off the grid and affect more creatures, but do less dmg to some.


Also, AngryMojo's idea to lose the grid and use measurements and actual circle AoEs is a good one. Then there would be no need to halve the damage for creatures only partially in the AoE: since the AoE of a 3" diameter circle is smaller than the total area of a 3" x 3" square, I'd rule that all creatures take the same damage whether they're completely inside the AoE or just partially.

 

[NMcCoy]

What about when the Medium PCs are fighting a Large monster. Can you have your fireball explode in the air, so that the bottom of its area misses the 1 square lowest to the ground that your allies are occupying?

This is in personal rules-interpretation territory, but I'd say yes (and have played things this way in several games). This has become an especially important question to answer now that we're in Paragon and combat is substantially more 3D.

If you're riding a horse and you use a close burst 1 attack, do you burst from just one square out of the horse's 4, or do you burst out 1 square from the horse's space? If the former, do you hit your own horse?

It's my understanding that as of Essentials the mount rules have been revised such that close attacks use your space, not the mount's, and you can end up hitting your mount with them.

 

[LostSoul]

Offer a penalty to attacks/bonus to defence for the half-squares and I think you should be okay.

 

[drothgery]

Given that battle-mat geometry is non-Euclidian (because diagonal movement always costs 1), trying to coherently work out areas of effect for bursts and blasts that are 'off grid' seems painful.

 

[nnms]

I'd make him a couple transparent circle templates with a diameter equal to the length of the sides of the original spell. So a burst 1 within 10 would be 3 x 3 squares or a 3" diameter circle. A burst 2 would be 5x5 or a 5 inch circle.


He can place them whereever he wants and any square even partially under is included in the attack. So an area 1 within 10, you can plunk the circle down anywhere within 10 inches of the caster that you have line of signt and effect to. A close blast would have the template adjacent to his square.

 

[BobTheNob]

Of course you should allow it.

All of these posts about "if you play a Wizard, then those are the mechanics of the game, etc." are hogwash, frankly...

Actually, I remember back in the 3.0 days we had a debate whether someone was "in the blast radius" of a fireball. The measurements we inconclusive, the way it was being used debatable, and the night ended with people storming out of the room.

If you want to talk about what it means to be a DM, learning from experience is one of the best qualities a person can have, and I never want a situation like that again. I thought square fireballs was rubbish when I first read it, but now we have been running with it I know it was one of those strokes of genius by the designers.

Players will always try to talk up why "reality" should make their character more powerful (though I have noticed that at a certain maturity level they stop doing it) than the rules ever intended, and another of the jobs of a DM is to contain this behavior and control player expectations.

Now, I do agree with the point that the game does, and needs to be, adapted to each groups needs, and if this change is what th OP's group needs, then fine, go with it.

I come to this forum above any other because the quality of response has proven (to me) to the best qualified and though out, and the responses I have seen on this thread reflect that. So please, dont accuse the respondents to this thread of "speaking hogwash", its just dis-respectful.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would absolutely not allow this in my game.

When 4e first came out, I hated the squared-circle geometry. I had implemented houserules to have diagonal moves use up 1.4 moves, and mode a whole set of templates for proper blast radii. It was too complicated and sucked all of the fun and simplicity out of the combat system.

pi is 4, not 3...

and its not crazy... it is just using the infinite norm... we learned it in our 1st or second linear algebra lesson... oh wait it IS crazy^^

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Actually, I remember back in the 3.0 days we had a debate whether someone was "in the blast radius" of a fireball. The measurements we inconclusive, the way it was being used debatable, and the night ended with people storming out of the room.

I was always giving improved evasion to everyone caught at the edges of a fireball... this seemed a fair solution to everyone...

with the infinite norm based circles you don´t have half squares... so everything is clear... and rotating doesn´t change the shape of the circle (square)

 

[jbear]

I understand the square burst as an abstract circle that takes into account the squares that the edge of the circle touches.

I agree with the notion of making a circular template for the wizard and then allow it to rotate it to his hearts content.

 

[RHGreen]

He's already getting extra target squares in the corners of the square blast. If it was more accurate the corner squares would be missing on anything larger than a 3x3.

If you want it more realistic get rid of the corners.