Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8521037" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Y'know what rule I hate most, even though so many people think it's absolutely vital?Measuring diagonals as 1-2-1-2-1-2 etc.It's very tedious, while adding very very little to almost any actual situation. You're still approximating quite heavily, and for most area sizes (in the 10-20 foot radius region) it literally only makes a difference of like 20% area--in the corners, where it's least likely to have an impact. Yeah, I get that this means &quot;square fireballs,&quot; but honestly, this is a level of simulationism that just screams obsessive attention to detail. The difference almost never matters in practice and mostly just serves to bog down the process of figuring out what happens. And it STILL isn't accurate to the real world, because it's still more than 6% off from the proper value--sure it's less inaccurate, but at what cost?The vast majority of the time, just declaring that things cover an NxN area when they have &quot;radius N&quot; is orders of magnitude faster. The efficiency gained is well worth the minor discrepancies from real circles--which frequently get lost in the noise of discrete-square-chunky-area anyway.Welcome to caster-centric design, where yes, this literally can be true, depending on what that spellcaster has prepared.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8521037, member: 6790260"] Y'know what rule I hate most, even though so many people think it's absolutely vital? Measuring diagonals as 1-2-1-2-1-2 etc. It's very tedious, while adding very very little to almost any actual situation. You're still approximating quite heavily, and for most area sizes (in the 10-20 foot radius region) it literally only makes a difference of like 20% area--in the corners, where it's least likely to have an impact. Yeah, I get that this means "square fireballs," but honestly, this is a level of simulationism that just screams obsessive attention to detail. The difference almost never matters in practice and mostly just serves to bog down the process of figuring out what happens. And it STILL isn't accurate to the real world, because it's still more than 6% off from the proper value--sure it's [I]less[/I] inaccurate, but at what cost? The vast majority of the time, just declaring that things cover an NxN area when they have "radius N" is orders of magnitude faster. The efficiency gained is well worth the minor discrepancies from real circles--which frequently get lost in the noise of discrete-square-chunky-area anyway. Welcome to caster-centric design, where yes, this literally can be true, depending on what that spellcaster has prepared. [/QUOTE]

Verification