Well, in my previous drawing, I strictly followed the rules in the Dungeon Master's Guide for using an intersection of squares (is that correct, right?),but (shhh) to be honest, when I'm DMGing, we center the point of origin on the side of the square (maybe with different angles), which I find more intuitive.
Yea that is what the rules say. Not sure that many actually do that though, we sure don't.
The Dungeon Master Guide offer guidance on adjudicating circular area of effect covering at least half a square which the DM can apply to other ones such as cone for exemple.
Areas of Effect: The area of effect of a spell, monster ability, or other feature must be translated onto squares or hexes to determine which potential targets are in the area and which aren't. Choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow its rules as normal. If an area of effect is circular and covers at least half a square, it affects that square.
Ok, ok, thanks Plaguescarred.
I follow that rule, indeed, for all kind of areas of effect. I mean, if the player wants to point a cone, line or cube diagonally, and doing so, some squares are partially covered, then the creatures in that area are affected by that effect.
Why not just use the much clearer set of rules presented in the newer sourcebook (XGtE)?
The Dungeon Master Guide offer guidance on adjudicating circular area of effect covering at least half a square which the DM can apply to other ones such as cone for exemple.
Areas of Effect: The area of effect of a spell, monster ability, or other feature must be translated onto squares or hexes to determine which potential targets are in the area and which aren't. Choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow its rules as normal. If an area of effect is circular and covers at least half a square, it affects that square.
Ok, ok, thanks Plaguescarred.
I follow that rule, indeed, for all kind of areas of effect. I mean, if the player wants to point a cone, line or cube diagonally, and doing so, some squares are partially covered, then the creatures in that area are affected by that effect.
Why not just use the much clearer set of rules presented in the newer sourcebook (XGtE)?
Well, when I wrote my question a couple of days ago, it was because I was reading some forums here on DnD Beyond and Role-playing Games Stack Exchange, and I wanted to know your opinion about how to manage situations where a cone/line/cube AoE is touching someone's square, using only the Dungeon Master's Guide or your experience.
With XGtE, it's simpler, but let me write here my understanding to know if I'm applying the rules ok.
Essentially, for all types of area of effect spells (not just cones, lines, or cubes, but also spheres and cylinders), if the square is partially covered, the creature in that area is affected. This is the relevant text from XGtE:
If any part of a square is under the template, that square is included in the area of effect. If a creature's miniature is in an affected square, that creature is in the area. Being adjacent to the edge of the template isn't enough for a square to be included in the area of effect; the square must be entirely or partly covered by the template.
There are many ways to rule on areas. I would only use that template rule if I were actually using templates. Otherwise, I tend to use other rules in my games: creatures and areas snap to grid, and each ares affects a set of grid squares. I prefer essentially the token method.
I feel that XGtE shows better how designers expect that areas get played.
There are many ways to rule on areas. I would only use that template rule if I were actually using templates. Otherwise, I tend to use other rules in my games: creatures and areas snap to grid, and each ares affects a set of grid squares. I prefer essentially the token method.
I feel that XGtE shows better how designers expect that areas get played.
Oh! True! I just realized that in my questions I was always thinking about using grids with templates. The token method is more accurate, I believe.
Sorry if not mentioning it was confusing for some of you 😣
Also, one confession: I started using square grids and miniatures in DnD 5e, not in 3e or AD&D (many years ago). My experience is not too much.
The issue that has been debated in my table is that the option to be not affected by the spell means that you can be inside a corner of a cube, and even so be immune to it.
Could the caster choose the direction of the cube growing towards herself?
For instance, casting it in the grid right left of her, then making it occupy from her left to her right?
At least for Thunderwave, I think that's not possible (or not the intended rule). The spell has a Range of Self and it states (emphasis mine): "A wave of thunderous force sweeps out from you."
@InquisitiveCoder already gave a very good explanation here.
Could the caster choose the direction of the cube growing towards herself?
For instance, casting it in the grid right left of her, then making it occupy from her left to her right?
The issue that has been debated in my table is that the option to be not affected by the spell means that you can be inside a corner of a cube, and even so be immune to it.
No it's not possible because a cube's point of origin lies anywhere on a face of the cubic effect.
The issue that has been debated in my table is that the option to be not affected by the spell means that you can be inside a corner of a cube, and even so be immune to it.
Are you saying that if the caster chooses, create bonfire produces no effect? I.e. the single 5’ cube affected is not affected?
While not official ruling, the Dev also tackle the question in the past;
@mrlong78 Thunderwave Spell:Where is the cube? Is the caster at the center of the cube, or on one side of the cube? Caster's choice?@JeremyECrawford The point of origin of a cubic area of effect, including thunderwave's, is on a face of the cube (PH, pg 204), not inside it.
In my case, the question arose when someone asked if you could throw a harmful cubic spell with the caster inside it and choosing do not be affected by it.
They ruled out in the game that you can't, but the overall argument intrigued me
The point of origin for a cube is outside it (on its face expanding in straight line) but can be included in the area of effect if you decide, so is the caster for range of self. Therefore, you can choose to target yourself in an area of effect. Here's some relevant rules:
A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin.
Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell's effect must be you.
If you are in the area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself.
You select a cube's point of origin, which lies anywhere on a face of the cubic effect.
A cube's point of origin is not included in the cube's area of effect, unless you decide otherwise.
Could the caster cast a cubic spell that would include his own square grid and still decide to not be affected by it? Say: he is being flanked and want to harm both opponents with the same cubic-shaped spell.
Could the caster cast a cubic spell that would include his own square grid and still decide to not be affected by it? Say: he is being flanked and want to harm both opponents with the same cubic-shaped spell.
PHB RULES VARIANT: PLAYING ON A GRID, for ranges say you start counting from a square adjacent, so a range of self (15-foot cube) start from the square next to the caster.
DMG additional guidelines for spells say that you choose an intersection of squares as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow the rules for that kind of area as normal, so the point of origin still is on the face of the cube, thus excluded from it.
Regardless if using Theater of the Mind or Grid Play, if the spell has a range of self, you can choose to target yourself (you, not your square) with a cube area of effect because self point of origin for cube can decide to be included. I see it as a paradox between the these rules.
If you play out a combat using a square grid and miniatures or other tokens, follow these rules:
Each square on the grid represents 5 feet.
To determine the range on a grid between two things—whether creatures or objects—start counting squares from a square adjacent to one of them and stop counting in the space of the other one. Count by the shortest route.
Area of Effect: Choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow its rules as normal.
This tweet from the Dev is also interesting for this thread:
@JeremyECrawford A note about D&D spells with a range of "Self (XYZ)": the parenthetical—which says "5-foot radius," "15-foot cone," or something else—means you are the spell's point of origin, but you aren't necessarily its target. You're creating an effect that originates in your space.
The issue that has been debated in my table is that the option to be not affected by the spell means that you can be inside a corner of a cube, and even so be immune to it.
That was a feature of older editions, the ability of a magic-user to selectively choose who would be effected by AOE spells, but it was a pain to keep track of so it was dropped.
The Dungeon Master Guide offer guidance on adjudicating circular area of effect covering at least half a square which the DM can apply to other ones such as cone for exemple.
Areas of Effect: The area of effect of a spell, monster ability, or other feature must be translated onto squares or hexes to determine which potential targets are in the area and which aren't. Choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow its rules as normal. If an area of effect is circular and covers at least half a square, it affects that square.
Ok, ok, thanks Plaguescarred.
I follow that rule, indeed, for all kind of areas of effect. I mean, if the player wants to point a cone, line or cube diagonally, and doing so, some squares are partially covered, then the creatures in that area are affected by that effect.
Hey @Plaguescarred, look! The rule now includes all the Area of Effect shapes :)
An area of effect must be translated onto squares or hexes to determine which potential targets are in the area. If the area has a point of origin, choose an intersection of squares or hexes to be the point of origin, then follow its rules as normal. If an area of effect covers at least half a square or hex, the entire square or hex is affected.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yea that is what the rules say. Not sure that many actually do that though, we sure don't.
Why not just use the much clearer set of rules presented in the newer sourcebook (XGtE)?
Well, when I wrote my question a couple of days ago, it was because I was reading some forums here on DnD Beyond and Role-playing Games Stack Exchange, and I wanted to know your opinion about how to manage situations where a cone/line/cube AoE is touching someone's square, using only the Dungeon Master's Guide or your experience.
With XGtE, it's simpler, but let me write here my understanding to know if I'm applying the rules ok.
Essentially, for all types of area of effect spells (not just cones, lines, or cubes, but also spheres and cylinders), if the square is partially covered, the creature in that area is affected. This is the relevant text from XGtE:
There are many ways to rule on areas. I would only use that template rule if I were actually using templates. Otherwise, I tend to use other rules in my games: creatures and areas snap to grid, and each ares affects a set of grid squares. I prefer essentially the token method.
I feel that XGtE shows better how designers expect that areas get played.
Oh! True! I just realized that in my questions I was always thinking about using grids with templates. The token method is more accurate, I believe.
Sorry if not mentioning it was confusing for some of you 😣
Also, one confession: I started using square grids and miniatures in DnD 5e, not in 3e or AD&D (many years ago). My experience is not too much.
Could the caster choose the direction of the cube growing towards herself?
For instance, casting it in the grid right left of her, then making it occupy from her left to her right?
Hyped by the wrong stuff, for the right reasons!
quatroventos.wordpress.com
The issue that has been debated in my table is that the option to be not affected by the spell means that you can be inside a corner of a cube, and even so be immune to it.
Hyped by the wrong stuff, for the right reasons!
quatroventos.wordpress.com
At least for Thunderwave, I think that's not possible (or not the intended rule). The spell has a Range of Self and it states (emphasis mine): "A wave of thunderous force sweeps out from you."
@InquisitiveCoder already gave a very good explanation here.
No it's not possible because a cube's point of origin lies anywhere on a face of the cubic effect.
Are you saying that if the caster chooses, create bonfire produces no effect? I.e. the single 5’ cube affected is not affected?
While not official ruling, the Dev also tackle the question in the past;
Fair enough!
Hyped by the wrong stuff, for the right reasons!
quatroventos.wordpress.com
Does anyone have any clue what the mechanical significance of that sentence really is? It seems superfluous.
Not sure what you are pointing out.
In my case, the question arose when someone asked if you could throw a harmful cubic spell with the caster inside it and choosing do not be affected by it.
They ruled out in the game that you can't, but the overall argument intrigued me
Hyped by the wrong stuff, for the right reasons!
quatroventos.wordpress.com
The point of origin for a cube is outside it (on its face expanding in straight line) but can be included in the area of effect if you decide, so is the caster for range of self. Therefore, you can choose to target yourself in an area of effect. Here's some relevant rules:
Could the caster cast a cubic spell that would include his own square grid and still decide to not be affected by it? Say: he is being flanked and want to harm both opponents with the same cubic-shaped spell.
Hyped by the wrong stuff, for the right reasons!
quatroventos.wordpress.com
PHB RULES VARIANT: PLAYING ON A GRID, for ranges say you start counting from a square adjacent, so a range of self (15-foot cube) start from the square next to the caster.
DMG additional guidelines for spells say that you choose an intersection of squares as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow the rules for that kind of area as normal, so the point of origin still is on the face of the cube, thus excluded from it.
Regardless if using Theater of the Mind or Grid Play, if the spell has a range of self, you can choose to target yourself (you, not your square) with a cube area of effect because self point of origin for cube can decide to be included. I see it as a paradox between the these rules.
This tweet from the Dev is also interesting for this thread:
That was a feature of older editions, the ability of a magic-user to selectively choose who would be effected by AOE spells, but it was a pain to keep track of so it was dropped.
Hey @Plaguescarred, look! The rule now includes all the Area of Effect shapes :)