All plants within a 100ft radius. This is not limited to horizontal distances. Like fireball, this would be a sphere of influence. It doesn’t bypass full cover though.
Common Misconception:
Fireball doesn't explode upwards and downwards. It just spreads around corners. Its all in the wording: Compare Fireball to Flaming Sphere for the example of wording. Spells that operate in a Sphere, or Cube or anything like that, specify that it is 3 dimensional vs 2dimensional, and specify the height as well.
Where’s the part in plant growth that says it’s 2 dimensional and the height?
Do you mean the land enrichment part over 8 hours?
the spell doesn’t specifically state it’s a sphere. So it’s not specifically a sphere. It generally states its radius. The radius isn’t the issue, but since specific trumps general, RAW, plant growth is not a 3-d spell. RAI maybe they meant it so, and it can certainly be home brewed that way by whomever. But RAW…..
You are correct that Plant Growth does not specify the exact shape of the area of effect. However you have provided no other justification for why you believe Plant Growth's AoE is strictly two dimensional. I can make the same argument that the spell can't be treated two dimensionally. Nowhere in Plant Growth's description does it specify that it is a two dimensional area.
In fact all of the shapes described in the Areas of Effect section in the PHB (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/spellcasting#AreasofEffect) that involve a radius are three dimensional shapes, the Sphere and the Cylinder. Also between these two shapes the one that only uses a radius measure is the Sphere, the Cylinder requires a radius and a height. So if the use of the word radius is significant in Plant Growth's description then it implies a sphere. If the word radius is not significant then the shape of all points within 100 feet of the chosen point of origin depends on if the game world itself, is two or three dimensional? If the game world is three dimensional then the shape is a sphere because being a fixed distance from a single point is the mathematical definition of a sphere.
So why didn't the authors simply describe the AoE as a sphere? I see two reasons for not describing it as a sphere. The first (and I feel most important) is that Plant Growth does not cause plants to grow beyond the space they already occupy, the area of effect is the space occupied by plants within 100 feet of the chosen point of origin. The second reason for not describing the AoE as a sphere is because the caster " . . . can exclude one or more areas of any size within the spell's area from being affected." So the exact area of effect is depending on both the space plants occupy and the specific omissions the caster makes when they cast this spell.
Is a "line" 3-dimensional?
I don’t know of a spell effect that uses a line that isn’t 3 dimensional.
So lightning bolt... this 100 foot long, and 5 feet wide line... if there are enemies in that line that are flying 20 ft above are they hit if you aim at people on standing on the ground? what about 50 ft up? 80ft up?
Just because "I don't know of..." doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or isn't a thing, or isn't the rule. There's a guy in another thread arguing about cyanide pills aren't a thing in DND when there's literally a magic item that does that and they responded "I didn't know about that"
I''ll re-ask you this, as a simple question, from basic math, intro geometry, intro pre-algebra, etc: Is a line 3 dimensional?
All plants within a 100ft radius. This is not limited to horizontal distances. Like fireball, this would be a sphere of influence. It doesn’t bypass full cover though.
Common Misconception:
Fireball doesn't explode upwards and downwards. It just spreads around corners. Its all in the wording: Compare Fireball to Flaming Sphere for the example of wording. Spells that operate in a Sphere, or Cube or anything like that, specify that it is 3 dimensional vs 2dimensional, and specify the height as well.
Where’s the part in plant growth that says it’s 2 dimensional and the height?
Do you mean the land enrichment part over 8 hours?
Where's the part that says it's 3 dimensional?
All normal plants in a 100-foot radius centered on that point become thick and overgrown.
Does a "thick" and "overgrown" hedge grow to 100 ft tall and wide? What about a redwood tree? do those become as thick around as a circus tent?
the spell doesn’t specifically state it’s a sphere. So it’s not specifically a sphere. It generally states its radius. The radius isn’t the issue, but since specific trumps general, RAW, plant growth is not a 3-d spell. RAI maybe they meant it so, and it can certainly be home brewed that way by whomever. But RAW…..
You are correct that Plant Growth does not specify the exact shape of the area of effect. However you have provided no other justification for why you believe Plant Growth's AoE is strictly two dimensional. I can make the same argument that the spell can't be treated two dimensionally. Nowhere in Plant Growth's description does it specify that it is a two dimensional area.
In fact all of the shapes described in the Areas of Effect section in the PHB (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/spellcasting#AreasofEffect) that involve a radius are three dimensional shapes, the Sphere and the Cylinder. Also between these two shapes the one that only uses a radius measure is the Sphere, the Cylinder requires a radius and a height. So if the use of the word radius is significant in Plant Growth's description then it implies a sphere. If the word radius is not significant then the shape of all points within 100 feet of the chosen point of origin depends on if the game world itself, is two or three dimensional? If the game world is three dimensional then the shape is a sphere because being a fixed distance from a single point is the mathematical definition of a sphere.
So why didn't the authors simply describe the AoE as a sphere? I see two reasons for not describing it as a sphere. The first (and I feel most important) is that Plant Growth does not cause plants to grow beyond the space they already occupy, the area of effect is the space occupied by plants within 100 feet of the chosen point of origin. The second reason for not describing the AoE as a sphere is because the caster " . . . can exclude one or more areas of any size within the spell's area from being affected." So the exact area of effect is depending on both the space plants occupy and the specific omissions the caster makes when they cast this spell.
Is a "line" 3-dimensional?
I don’t know of a spell effect that uses a line that isn’t 3 dimensional.
So lightning bolt... this 100 foot long, and 5 feet wide line... if there are enemies in that line that are flying 20 ft above are they hit if you aim at people on standing on the ground? what about 50 ft up? 80ft up?
Just because "I don't know of..." doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or isn't a thing, or isn't the rule. There's a guy in another thread arguing about cyanide pills aren't a thing in DND when there's literally a magic item that does that and they responded "I didn't know about that"
I''ll re-ask you this, as a simple question, from basic math, intro geometry, intro pre-algebra, etc: Is a line 3 dimensional?
The point isn't that lightning bolt extends upwards and downwards, it's that you can shoot it upwards or downwards so that it traverses 3 axes at once. If you've got yourself a point and then are directed to shoot a bunch of 100ft lines out of that point to see what's affected, there's no reason you wouldn't shoot upwards or downwards.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
the spell doesn’t specifically state it’s a sphere. So it’s not specifically a sphere. It generally states its radius. The radius isn’t the issue, but since specific trumps general, RAW, plant growth is not a 3-d spell. RAI maybe they meant it so, and it can certainly be home brewed that way by whomever. But RAW…..
You are correct that Plant Growth does not specify the exact shape of the area of effect. However you have provided no other justification for why you believe Plant Growth's AoE is strictly two dimensional. I can make the same argument that the spell can't be treated two dimensionally. Nowhere in Plant Growth's description does it specify that it is a two dimensional area.
In fact all of the shapes described in the Areas of Effect section in the PHB (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/spellcasting#AreasofEffect) that involve a radius are three dimensional shapes, the Sphere and the Cylinder. Also between these two shapes the one that only uses a radius measure is the Sphere, the Cylinder requires a radius and a height. So if the use of the word radius is significant in Plant Growth's description then it implies a sphere. If the word radius is not significant then the shape of all points within 100 feet of the chosen point of origin depends on if the game world itself, is two or three dimensional? If the game world is three dimensional then the shape is a sphere because being a fixed distance from a single point is the mathematical definition of a sphere.
So why didn't the authors simply describe the AoE as a sphere? I see two reasons for not describing it as a sphere. The first (and I feel most important) is that Plant Growth does not cause plants to grow beyond the space they already occupy, the area of effect is the space occupied by plants within 100 feet of the chosen point of origin. The second reason for not describing the AoE as a sphere is because the caster " . . . can exclude one or more areas of any size within the spell's area from being affected." So the exact area of effect is depending on both the space plants occupy and the specific omissions the caster makes when they cast this spell.
Is a "line" 3-dimensional?
I don’t know of a spell effect that uses a line that isn’t 3 dimensional.
So lightning bolt... this 100 foot long, and 5 feet wide line... if there are enemies in that line that are flying 20 ft above are they hit if you aim at people on standing on the ground? what about 50 ft up? 80ft up?
Just because "I don't know of..." doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or isn't a thing, or isn't the rule. There's a guy in another thread arguing about cyanide pills aren't a thing in DND when there's literally a magic item that does that and they responded "I didn't know about that"
I''ll re-ask you this, as a simple question, from basic math, intro geometry, intro pre-algebra, etc: Is a line 3 dimensional?
The point isn't that lightning bolt extends upwards and downwards, it's that you can shoot it upwards or downwards so that it traverses 3 axes at once. If you've got yourself a point and then are directed to shoot a bunch of 100ft lines out of that point to see what's affected, there's no reason you wouldn't shoot upwards or downwards.
and the point is:
spells state when they specifically are 3-dimensional, vs a 2-dimensional spell than can be "shoot it upwards or downwards so that it traverses 3 axes (axis) at once)
the point
I made the point to begin with, so I know what the point is, since its on me to defend the point
still is if you have 9 enemies in a straight line on the ground, lightning bolt hits 9. if 3 ar eon the ground and 6 are in the air. you can hit the 3 on the ground, or try and find a way to maximize how many in the air you hit from an angle of it. it doesn't hit all 9.
this is a very very very very uncomplicated concept that is being made really complicated.
the spell doesn’t specifically state it’s a sphere. So it’s not specifically a sphere. It generally states its radius. The radius isn’t the issue, but since specific trumps general, RAW, plant growth is not a 3-d spell. RAI maybe they meant it so, and it can certainly be home brewed that way by whomever. But RAW…..
You are correct that Plant Growth does not specify the exact shape of the area of effect. However you have provided no other justification for why you believe Plant Growth's AoE is strictly two dimensional. I can make the same argument that the spell can't be treated two dimensionally. Nowhere in Plant Growth's description does it specify that it is a two dimensional area.
In fact all of the shapes described in the Areas of Effect section in the PHB (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/spellcasting#AreasofEffect) that involve a radius are three dimensional shapes, the Sphere and the Cylinder. Also between these two shapes the one that only uses a radius measure is the Sphere, the Cylinder requires a radius and a height. So if the use of the word radius is significant in Plant Growth's description then it implies a sphere. If the word radius is not significant then the shape of all points within 100 feet of the chosen point of origin depends on if the game world itself, is two or three dimensional? If the game world is three dimensional then the shape is a sphere because being a fixed distance from a single point is the mathematical definition of a sphere.
So why didn't the authors simply describe the AoE as a sphere? I see two reasons for not describing it as a sphere. The first (and I feel most important) is that Plant Growth does not cause plants to grow beyond the space they already occupy, the area of effect is the space occupied by plants within 100 feet of the chosen point of origin. The second reason for not describing the AoE as a sphere is because the caster " . . . can exclude one or more areas of any size within the spell's area from being affected." So the exact area of effect is depending on both the space plants occupy and the specific omissions the caster makes when they cast this spell.
Is a "line" 3-dimensional?
I don’t know of a spell effect that uses a line that isn’t 3 dimensional.
So lightning bolt... this 100 foot long, and 5 feet wide line... if there are enemies in that line that are flying 20 ft above are they hit if you aim at people on standing on the ground? what about 50 ft up? 80ft up?
Just because "I don't know of..." doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or isn't a thing, or isn't the rule. There's a guy in another thread arguing about cyanide pills aren't a thing in DND when there's literally a magic item that does that and they responded "I didn't know about that"
I''ll re-ask you this, as a simple question, from basic math, intro geometry, intro pre-algebra, etc: Is a line 3 dimensional?
The point isn't that lightning bolt extends upwards and downwards, it's that you can shoot it upwards or downwards so that it traverses 3 axes at once. If you've got yourself a point and then are directed to shoot a bunch of 100ft lines out of that point to see what's affected, there's no reason you wouldn't shoot upwards or downwards.
spells state when they specifically are 3-dimensional, vs a 2-dimensional spell than can be "shoot it upwards or downwards so that it traverses 3 axes (axis) at once)
And where is this fact stated in the rules, exactly?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I think of a lightning bolt as a long 5 foot wide rod. Yes you can fire it in any direction but its only 5 foot wide. But you can not hit anything more than 5 feet away from each other along that line.
Nothing in the rules is stating it can not be fired in any direction.
The spell says over grown. Not grown larger or older. Basically it would mean that they get more branches and leaves. The 'undergrowth' gets twice as thick to walk through. More intertwined with each other.
the spell doesn’t specifically state it’s a sphere. So it’s not specifically a sphere. It generally states its radius. The radius isn’t the issue, but since specific trumps general, RAW, plant growth is not a 3-d spell. RAI maybe they meant it so, and it can certainly be home brewed that way by whomever. But RAW…..
You are correct that Plant Growth does not specify the exact shape of the area of effect. However you have provided no other justification for why you believe Plant Growth's AoE is strictly two dimensional. I can make the same argument that the spell can't be treated two dimensionally. Nowhere in Plant Growth's description does it specify that it is a two dimensional area.
In fact all of the shapes described in the Areas of Effect section in the PHB (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/spellcasting#AreasofEffect) that involve a radius are three dimensional shapes, the Sphere and the Cylinder. Also between these two shapes the one that only uses a radius measure is the Sphere, the Cylinder requires a radius and a height. So if the use of the word radius is significant in Plant Growth's description then it implies a sphere. If the word radius is not significant then the shape of all points within 100 feet of the chosen point of origin depends on if the game world itself, is two or three dimensional? If the game world is three dimensional then the shape is a sphere because being a fixed distance from a single point is the mathematical definition of a sphere.
So why didn't the authors simply describe the AoE as a sphere? I see two reasons for not describing it as a sphere. The first (and I feel most important) is that Plant Growth does not cause plants to grow beyond the space they already occupy, the area of effect is the space occupied by plants within 100 feet of the chosen point of origin. The second reason for not describing the AoE as a sphere is because the caster " . . . can exclude one or more areas of any size within the spell's area from being affected." So the exact area of effect is depending on both the space plants occupy and the specific omissions the caster makes when they cast this spell.
Is a "line" 3-dimensional?
I don’t know of a spell effect that uses a line that isn’t 3 dimensional.
So lightning bolt... this 100 foot long, and 5 feet wide line... if there are enemies in that line that are flying 20 ft above are they hit if you aim at people on standing on the ground? what about 50 ft up? 80ft up?
Just because "I don't know of..." doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or isn't a thing, or isn't the rule. There's a guy in another thread arguing about cyanide pills aren't a thing in DND when there's literally a magic item that does that and they responded "I didn't know about that"
I''ll re-ask you this, as a simple question, from basic math, intro geometry, intro pre-algebra, etc: Is a line 3 dimensional?
The point isn't that lightning bolt extends upwards and downwards, it's that you can shoot it upwards or downwards so that it traverses 3 axes at once. If you've got yourself a point and then are directed to shoot a bunch of 100ft lines out of that point to see what's affected, there's no reason you wouldn't shoot upwards or downwards.
and the point is:
spells state when they specifically are 3-dimensional, vs a 2-dimensional spell than can be "shoot it upwards or downwards so that it traverses 3 axes (axis) at once)
the point
I made the point to begin with, so I know what the point is, since its on me to defend the point
still is if you have 9 enemies in a straight line on the ground, lightning bolt hits 9. if 3 ar eon the ground and 6 are in the air. you can hit the 3 on the ground, or try and find a way to maximize how many in the air you hit from an angle of it. it doesn't hit all 9.
this is a very very very very uncomplicated concept that is being made really complicated.
I agree in that it’s definitely being over complicated. I think there is are a few assumptions being made.
I’m still waiting for the part in the rules that somehow explains your assertion that spells not described as a 3 dimensional shape are all 2 dimensional.
I’m also awaiting the description in the of the plant growth spell that explicitly states it’s 2 dimensional.
those seemed to be the two different and so far unsupported claims that were made so far.
If this understanding is indeed so obvious to you then I ask that you take some time to restructure the explanation so that we may understand. I am genuinely interested in how you arrived at the “2D” conclusion regarding these effects.
on a somewhat related note, do you apply this same understanding to effects that aren’t necessarily spells? Like auras or various breath options?
Yalls problem is you're ignoring that while most people add in a z axis and height matters for their 3d grids.... the rules are written from the perspective that everything happens on a 2d battlemap.
You necessarily need to homebrew solutions to how tall some effects are in many cases, because much of the rules simply forget that height exists. Just take a look at any of the grid rules and it sorta pops out at you just how poorly reach functions when you factor in creature height.
How does a 4ft dwarf and an 8ft goliath have the same vertical weapon reach? That's only a problem if you include 3d grids. On 2d grids there is no problem. If they're adjacent to you, you smack em. Who cares if they're 100ft up. They're occupying the square within your reach.
But with nonsense like that, it is no wonder we have to adhoc 3d grids into existence. No one really likes that bizarre behavior to the 2d grid. So the rules fail us and we must add to them.
Enter a topic like this. The spell is clearly written for a 2d grid. It is just a change to the squares and makes exactly zero consideration for the fact a z axis exists.
You can't find a raw answer to a issue created by the willful gap in the rules. You literally need to just make up the answer at your tables and roll with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yalls problem is you're ignoring that while most people add in a z axis and height matters for their 3d grids.... the rules are written from the perspective that everything happens on a 2d battlemap.
You necessarily need to homebrew solutions to how tall some effects are in many cases, because much of the rules simply forget that height exists. Just take a look at any of the grid rules and it sorta pops out at you just how poorly reach functions when you factor in creature height.
How does a 4ft dwarf and an 8ft goliath have the same vertical weapon reach? That's only a problem if you include 3d grids. On 2d grids there is no problem. If they're adjacent to you, you smack em. Who cares if they're 100ft up. They're occupying the square within your reach.
But with nonsense like that, it is no wonder we have to adhoc 3d grids into existence. No one really likes that bizarre behavior to the 2d grid. So the rules fail us and we must add to them.
Enter a topic like this. The spell is clearly written for a 2d grid. It is just a change to the squares and makes exactly zero consideration for the fact a z axis exists.
You can't find a raw answer to a issue created by the willful gap in the rules. You literally need to just make up the answer at your tables and roll with it.
2D grid is the variant.
VARIANT: PLAYING ON A GRID If you play out a combat using a square grid and miniatures or other tokens, follow these rules. Squares. Each square on the grid represents 5 feet. Speed. Rather than moving foot by foot, move square by square on the grid. This means you use your speed in 5-foot segments. This is particularly easy ifyou translate your speed into squares by dividing the speed by 5. For example, a speed of 30 feet translates into a speed of 6 squares. If you use a grid often, consider writing your speed in squares on your character sheet. Entering a Square. To enter a square, you must have at least 1 square of movement left, even if the square is diagonally adjacent to the square you're in. (The rule for diagonal movement sacrifices realism forthe sake ofsmooth play. The Dungeon Master's Guide provides guidance on using a more realistic approach.) Ifa square costs extra movement, as a square of difficult terrain does, you must have enough movement left to pay for entering it. For example, you must have at least 2 squares of movement left to enter a square of difficult terrain. Corners. Diagonal movement can't cross the corner of a wall, large tree, or other terrain feature that fills its space. Ranges. To determine the range on a grid between two things-whether creatures or objects-start counting squares from a square adjacent to one ofthem and stop counting in the space ofthe other one. Count by the shortest route.
the problem is that 3 dimensional spaces and variables are inherently more complex to understand and implement. So most people play without them because of assumptions made regarding the feeling of 2D caused by playing mostly within the first 5ft of space by most players and even DMs.
how many times have we seen discussions about how weak various creatures are to the party only to end up at the realization it can fly or hover and didn’t so so at all.
Yalls problem is you're ignoring that while most people add in a z axis and height matters for their 3d grids.... the rules are written from the perspective that everything happens on a 2d battlemap.
You necessarily need to homebrew solutions to how tall some effects are in many cases, because much of the rules simply forget that height exists. Just take a look at any of the grid rules and it sorta pops out at you just how poorly reach functions when you factor in creature height.
How does a 4ft dwarf and an 8ft goliath have the same vertical weapon reach? That's only a problem if you include 3d grids. On 2d grids there is no problem. If they're adjacent to you, you smack em. Who cares if they're 100ft up. They're occupying the square within your reach.
But with nonsense like that, it is no wonder we have to adhoc 3d grids into existence. No one really likes that bizarre behavior to the 2d grid. So the rules fail us and we must add to them.
Enter a topic like this. The spell is clearly written for a 2d grid. It is just a change to the squares and makes exactly zero consideration for the fact a z axis exists.
You can't find a raw answer to a issue created by the willful gap in the rules. You literally need to just make up the answer at your tables and roll with it.
If you select a point, and then affect everything within xft of that point. You have affected a sphere. You don't need to call it a sphere for it to be one.
Interesting.
To everyone else: I am not sure I see a reason for discussing this matter further, everyone who is willing to come to a consensus has. The only person still genuinely debating the issue is not only unwilling to provide evidence for their fundamental assumptions, they are unable to.
the spell doesn’t specifically state it’s a sphere. So it’s not specifically a sphere. It generally states its radius. The radius isn’t the issue, but since specific trumps general, RAW, plant growth is not a 3-d spell. RAI maybe they meant it so, and it can certainly be home brewed that way by whomever. But RAW…..
You are correct that Plant Growth does not specify the exact shape of the area of effect. However you have provided no other justification for why you believe Plant Growth's AoE is strictly two dimensional. I can make the same argument that the spell can't be treated two dimensionally. Nowhere in Plant Growth's description does it specify that it is a two dimensional area.
In fact all of the shapes described in the Areas of Effect section in the PHB (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/spellcasting#AreasofEffect) that involve a radius are three dimensional shapes, the Sphere and the Cylinder. Also between these two shapes the one that only uses a radius measure is the Sphere, the Cylinder requires a radius and a height. So if the use of the word radius is significant in Plant Growth's description then it implies a sphere. If the word radius is not significant then the shape of all points within 100 feet of the chosen point of origin depends on if the game world itself, is two or three dimensional? If the game world is three dimensional then the shape is a sphere because being a fixed distance from a single point is the mathematical definition of a sphere.
So why didn't the authors simply describe the AoE as a sphere? I see two reasons for not describing it as a sphere. The first (and I feel most important) is that Plant Growth does not cause plants to grow beyond the space they already occupy, the area of effect is the space occupied by plants within 100 feet of the chosen point of origin. The second reason for not describing the AoE as a sphere is because the caster " . . . can exclude one or more areas of any size within the spell's area from being affected." So the exact area of effect is depending on both the space plants occupy and the specific omissions the caster makes when they cast this spell.
Is a "line" 3-dimensional?
I don’t know of a spell effect that uses a line that isn’t 3 dimensional.
So lightning bolt... this 100 foot long, and 5 feet wide line... if there are enemies in that line that are flying 20 ft above are they hit if you aim at people on standing on the ground? what about 50 ft up? 80ft up?
Just because "I don't know of..." doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or isn't a thing, or isn't the rule. There's a guy in another thread arguing about cyanide pills aren't a thing in DND when there's literally a magic item that does that and they responded "I didn't know about that"
I''ll re-ask you this, as a simple question, from basic math, intro geometry, intro pre-algebra, etc: Is a line 3 dimensional?
The point isn't that lightning bolt extends upwards and downwards, it's that you can shoot it upwards or downwards so that it traverses 3 axes at once. If you've got yourself a point and then are directed to shoot a bunch of 100ft lines out of that point to see what's affected, there's no reason you wouldn't shoot upwards or downwards.
and the point is:
spells state when they specifically are 3-dimensional, vs a 2-dimensional spell than can be "shoot it upwards or downwards so that it traverses 3 axes (axis) at once)
the point
I made the point to begin with, so I know what the point is, since its on me to defend the point
still is if you have 9 enemies in a straight line on the ground, lightning bolt hits 9. if 3 ar eon the ground and 6 are in the air. you can hit the 3 on the ground, or try and find a way to maximize how many in the air you hit from an angle of it. it doesn't hit all 9.
this is a very very very very uncomplicated concept that is being made really complicated.
I agree in that it’s definitely being over complicated. I think there is are a few assumptions being made.
I’m still waiting for the part in the rules that somehow explains your assertion that spells not described as a 3 dimensional shape are all 2 dimensional.
I’m also awaiting the description in the of the plant growth spell that explicitly states it’s 2 dimensional.
those seemed to be the two different and so far unsupported claims that were made so far.
If this understanding is indeed so obvious to you then I ask that you take some time to restructure the explanation so that we may understand. I am genuinely interested in how you arrived at the “2D” conclusion regarding these effects.
on a somewhat related note, do you apply this same understanding to effects that aren’t necessarily spells? Like auras or various breath options?
Aura has a very different meaning than "line". and "cone" which is the other breath option, is a 3 dimensional shape by definition.
Yalls problem is you're ignoring that while most people add in a z axis and height matters for their 3d grids.... the rules are written from the perspective that everything happens on a 2d battlemap.
You necessarily need to homebrew solutions to how tall some effects are in many cases, because much of the rules simply forget that height exists. Just take a look at any of the grid rules and it sorta pops out at you just how poorly reach functions when you factor in creature height.
How does a 4ft dwarf and an 8ft goliath have the same vertical weapon reach? That's only a problem if you include 3d grids. On 2d grids there is no problem. If they're adjacent to you, you smack em. Who cares if they're 100ft up. They're occupying the square within your reach.
But with nonsense like that, it is no wonder we have to adhoc 3d grids into existence. No one really likes that bizarre behavior to the 2d grid. So the rules fail us and we must add to them.
Enter a topic like this. The spell is clearly written for a 2d grid. It is just a change to the squares and makes exactly zero consideration for the fact a z axis exists.
You can't find a raw answer to a issue created by the willful gap in the rules. You literally need to just make up the answer at your tables and roll with it.
You have much more of a silver tongue than i do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blank
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Where’s the part in plant growth that says it’s 2 dimensional and the height?
Do you mean the land enrichment part over 8 hours?
So lightning bolt... this 100 foot long, and 5 feet wide line... if there are enemies in that line that are flying 20 ft above are they hit if you aim at people on standing on the ground? what about 50 ft up? 80ft up?
Just because "I don't know of..." doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or isn't a thing, or isn't the rule. There's a guy in another thread arguing about cyanide pills aren't a thing in DND when there's literally a magic item that does that and they responded "I didn't know about that"
I''ll re-ask you this, as a simple question, from basic math, intro geometry, intro pre-algebra, etc: Is a line 3 dimensional?
Blank
Where's the part that says it's 3 dimensional?
Does a "thick" and "overgrown" hedge grow to 100 ft tall and wide? What about a redwood tree? do those become as thick around as a circus tent?
Blank
The point isn't that lightning bolt extends upwards and downwards, it's that you can shoot it upwards or downwards so that it traverses 3 axes at once. If you've got yourself a point and then are directed to shoot a bunch of 100ft lines out of that point to see what's affected, there's no reason you wouldn't shoot upwards or downwards.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
and the point is:
spells state when they specifically are 3-dimensional, vs a 2-dimensional spell than can be "shoot it upwards or downwards so that it traverses 3 axes (axis) at once)
the point
I made the point to begin with, so I know what the point is, since its on me to defend the point
still is if you have 9 enemies in a straight line on the ground, lightning bolt hits 9. if 3 ar eon the ground and 6 are in the air. you can hit the 3 on the ground, or try and find a way to maximize how many in the air you hit from an angle of it. it doesn't hit all 9.
this is a very very very very uncomplicated concept that is being made really complicated.
Blank
And where is this fact stated in the rules, exactly?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I think of a lightning bolt as a long 5 foot wide rod.
Yes you can fire it in any direction but its only 5 foot wide.
But you can not hit anything more than 5 feet away from each other along that line.
Nothing in the rules is stating it can not be fired in any direction.
As for the spell Plant Growth.
The spell says over grown. Not grown larger or older.
Basically it would mean that they get more branches and leaves. The 'undergrowth' gets twice as thick to walk through. More intertwined with each other.
I agree in that it’s definitely being over complicated. I think there is are a few assumptions being made.
I’m still waiting for the part in the rules that somehow explains your assertion that spells not described as a 3 dimensional shape are all 2 dimensional.
I’m also awaiting the description in the of the plant growth spell that explicitly states it’s 2 dimensional.
those seemed to be the two different and so far unsupported claims that were made so far.
If this understanding is indeed so obvious to you then I ask that you take some time to restructure the explanation so that we may understand. I am genuinely interested in how you arrived at the “2D” conclusion regarding these effects.
on a somewhat related note, do you apply this same understanding to effects that aren’t necessarily spells? Like auras or various breath options?
Yalls problem is you're ignoring that while most people add in a z axis and height matters for their 3d grids.... the rules are written from the perspective that everything happens on a 2d battlemap.
You necessarily need to homebrew solutions to how tall some effects are in many cases, because much of the rules simply forget that height exists. Just take a look at any of the grid rules and it sorta pops out at you just how poorly reach functions when you factor in creature height.
How does a 4ft dwarf and an 8ft goliath have the same vertical weapon reach? That's only a problem if you include 3d grids. On 2d grids there is no problem. If they're adjacent to you, you smack em. Who cares if they're 100ft up. They're occupying the square within your reach.
But with nonsense like that, it is no wonder we have to adhoc 3d grids into existence. No one really likes that bizarre behavior to the 2d grid. So the rules fail us and we must add to them.
Enter a topic like this. The spell is clearly written for a 2d grid. It is just a change to the squares and makes exactly zero consideration for the fact a z axis exists.
You can't find a raw answer to a issue created by the willful gap in the rules. You literally need to just make up the answer at your tables and roll with it.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
2D grid is the variant.
VARIANT: PLAYING ON A GRID
If you play out a combat using a square grid and miniatures or other tokens, follow these rules.
Squares. Each square on the grid represents 5 feet.
Speed. Rather than moving foot by foot, move square by square on the grid. This means you use your speed in 5-foot segments. This is particularly easy ifyou translate your speed into squares by dividing the speed by 5. For example, a speed of 30 feet translates into a speed of 6 squares.
If you use a grid often, consider writing your speed in squares on your character sheet.
Entering a Square. To enter a square, you must have
at least 1 square of movement left, even if the square is diagonally adjacent to the square you're in. (The rule for diagonal movement sacrifices realism forthe sake ofsmooth play. The Dungeon Master's Guide provides guidance on using a more realistic approach.)
Ifa square costs extra movement, as a square of difficult terrain does, you must have enough movement left to pay for entering it. For example, you must have at least 2 squares of movement left to enter a square of difficult terrain.
Corners. Diagonal movement can't cross the corner of a wall, large tree, or other terrain feature that fills its space.
Ranges. To determine the range on a grid between two things-whether creatures or objects-start counting squares from a square adjacent to one ofthem and stop counting in the space ofthe other one. Count by the shortest route.
the problem is that 3 dimensional spaces and variables are inherently more complex to understand and implement. So most people play without them because of assumptions made regarding the feeling of 2D caused by playing mostly within the first 5ft of space by most players and even DMs.
how many times have we seen discussions about how weak various creatures are to the party only to end up at the realization it can fly or hover and didn’t so so at all.
Interesting.
To everyone else: I am not sure I see a reason for discussing this matter further, everyone who is willing to come to a consensus has. The only person still genuinely debating the issue is not only unwilling to provide evidence for their fundamental assumptions, they are unable to.
Aura has a very different meaning than "line". and "cone" which is the other breath option, is a 3 dimensional shape by definition.
Blank
You have much more of a silver tongue than i do.
Blank