As the quoted rule says, with a X-ft cone, if you angle it upward, or maybe downward because you're flying, you will get a diameter of X-ft at the cone's end. X could be 15, 30, 60, or any other typical cone size.
Also, in case it's interesting to anyone, this is how we represent a 15-ft cone when we're playing on a grid (see also #8):
As the quoted rule says, with a X-ft cone, if you angle it upward, or maybe downward because you're flying, you will get a diameter of X-ft at the cone's end. X could be 15, 30, 60, or any other typical cone size.
Also, in case it's interesting to anyone, this is how we represent a 15-ft cone when we're playing on a grid:
I thought the point of origin of AoE spells has to be a corner. At least in the ‘24 DMG that’s what it says.
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.
In this situation that would actually yield a surprisingly small affected area of 2 squares x 2 squares.
I've forgotten if this rule has been altered or eliminated from the 2024 rules.
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.
In this situation that would actually yield a surprisingly small affected area of 2 squares x 2 squares.
And none of that within 5ft of the caster even.
Not that surprising though, a 15ft square hits 9 squares (3x3) and a triangle (a cone in 2D) should hit about half so 4 squares ain't off by much. But this might a bit to much math for the situation.
Edit: If you aim it at an angle though it hits 6 squares (all 50% or more).
Also, shouldn't it really be 2x2x2 squares (due to 3D) right?
As the quoted rule says, with a X-ft cone, if you angle it upward, or maybe downward because you're flying, you will get a diameter of X-ft at the cone's end. X could be 15, 30, 60, or any other typical cone size.
Also, in case it's interesting to anyone, this is how we represent a 15-ft cone when we're playing on a grid:
I thought the point of origin of AoE spells has to be a corner. At least in the ‘24 DMG that’s what it says.
That's the rule, you're right, for both the 2014 and 2024 DMG, as noted above. What I draw is just how we handle it in our games, and to me, it makes more sense.
I drew some examples in the past here Self/cube spells origin (2014 rules), comparing the number of affected squares depending on your ruling:
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.
Pretty sure the thick lines are 5 foot squares, though. They’re then divided in fourths for… some reason.
Yes, but what Lia_Black is saying is that "intersection" works for both the corners and the sides. An intersection, in geometric terms, is just a set of points where two shapes overlap. The side of each of those squares intersects with an adjacent square, so you should be able to place the point of origin anywhere on any side of the square.
Pretty sure the thick lines are 5 foot squares, though. They’re then divided in fourths for… some reason.
That's just because of the drawing tool I'm using. The small squares aren't meaningful, so we can ignore those for the discussion related to intersections.
Anyway, I agree with Lia and Sabin's interpretation.
If you are talking about the intersection of the squares, that would be anywhere at least two squares touch. So any of those drawings work.
The rule is written using an intuitive common language definition for "intersection" which refers to the points where the grid lines which make the squares or hexes actually "cross over" each other, which occurs at the corners of the squares.
In the 2014 DMG, this intention can be seen just a couple of paragraphs later when discussing the rules for Cover on a grid:
To determine whether a target has cover against an attack or other effect on a grid, choose a corner of the attacker's space or the point of origin of an area of effect. Then trace imaginary lines from that corner to every corner of any one square the target occupies. If one or two of those lines are blocked by an obstacle (including another creature), the target has half cover . . .
On hexes, use the same procedure as a grid, drawing lines between the corners of the hexagons.
In addition, Xanathar's Guide to Everything published some additional details for these procedures which expanded upon the above DMG rule. The location of the point of origin was taken directly from the DMG rule and when visual examples were given for the Template method (Diagram 1 for a Cone Template and Diagram 2 for a Sphere Template) the authors very clearly drew these shapes such that the point of origin aligned with the intersection of grid squares at the corners of the squares.
Edit: If you aim it at an angle though it hits 6 squares (all 50% or more).
I was assuming that the OP's question was specifically about a Cone that is directed straight down onto the ground / grid "at" a location that is 15 feet away from the spellcaster -- which would look like a circle upon the grid from a top-down viewpoint.
But in general, that's a good point -- the spellcaster is not restricted in which direction he chooses for orienting the Cone so depending on what is chosen it can get pretty complicated and presumably is capable of including some additional grid "cubes" in 3D space beyond the number that you would get with the straight-down orientation. That would be pretty headache-inducing to try to figure out on the fly . . .
If you are talking about the intersection of the squares, that would be anywhere at least two squares touch. So any of those drawings work.
The rule is written using an intuitive common language definition for "intersection" which refers to the points where the grid lines which make the squares or hexes actually "cross over" each other, which occurs at the corners of the squares. <snip>
Sorry, but to me the common language definition of intersection is exactly what I said. You may believe it to be the intersection of the lines, but the text says the intersection of the squares not lines. You can play it how ever you like of course.
Also I would say it is less intuitive to think of using the corner of your square when there is a intersection dead center right in front of you. I would suggest that more people assumed you could not use that corner piece than assumed that is where it should be. As it does feel like a bit of cheese with line spells making a 5' wide line effectively 10 foot wide. That's the rule, but I suspect most people until it was pointed out to them assumed otherwise upon reading it.
If you are talking about the intersection of the squares, that would be anywhere at least two squares touch. So any of those drawings work.
The rule is written using an intuitive common language definition for "intersection" which refers to the points where the grid lines which make the squares or hexes actually "cross over" each other, which occurs at the corners of the squares. <snip>
Sorry, but to me the common language definition of intersection is exactly what I said. You may believe it to be the intersection of the lines, but the text says the intersection of the squares not lines. You can play it how ever you like of course.
If it were as you are saying it would have been written differently. The phrase used is:
"choose an intersection of squares or hexes to be the point of origin"
This refers to a single point, not an entire side or a point somewhere along a side. I've already quoted just a paragraph or two later where the location of the point of origin is used in context to discuss the rules for Cover which are clearly using the corners of the squares. It's also shown graphically in Xanathar's Guide to Everything.
I can see how some might feel like there is some ambiguity in the chosen wording of "intersection of squares" instead of just saying "intersection of grid lines", but what I've described above is the best interpretation of the rule.
Also I would say it is less intuitive to think of using the corner of your square when there is a intersection dead center right in front of you. I would suggest that more people assumed you could not use that corner piece than assumed that is where it should be. As it does feel like a bit of cheese with line spells making a 5' wide line effectively 10 foot wide. That's the rule, but I suspect most people until it was pointed out to them assumed otherwise upon reading it.
I got your point, but I'd like to say that I think for a Line 5 feet wide, where your character is the point of origin, because the creature occupies the entire square, the range is calculated from the edge of its tile outward, so this should be an example based on that:
@RaywkLam I think thunderwave (5ft cube) is the red area. My friend argued it is the yellow. who is correct? @JeremyECrawford The red square in the image represents the 15 ft. cube of thunderwave. See p. 204 in the PH for how cubes work. @AardvarkBlue I believe the caster can also be 5′ right or left – not required to be center of the face they are touching. @JeremyECrawford That's correct. A cube's point of origin needn't be in the center of one of the cube's faces.
If it were as you are saying it would have been written differently. The phrase used is:
"choose an intersection of squares or hexes to be the point of origin"
This refers to a single point, not an entire side or a point somewhere along a side.
This will be my last post on this because I don't want to give a full class on basic elementary school geometry, but a Point is typically represented by a dot and does not have dimension such as length or height. When you have two squares with their sides touching such as a grid, the intersection is the entire side, a Point can be anywhere along that intersection. You have even shown that you understand the concept in your sentence above. In the diagram provided by TarodNet shown below, the intersection of the Triangle and the bolded Square is a Point and that Point exists on the intersection of the bold Square and the Square next to it. There is no ambiguity because basic geometry has existed for thousands of years. I honestly can't even believe this is a discussion.
Also I would say it is less intuitive to think of using the corner of your square when there is a intersection dead center right in front of you. I would suggest that more people assumed you could not use that corner piece than assumed that is where it should be. As it does feel like a bit of cheese with line spells making a 5' wide line effectively 10 foot wide. That's the rule, but I suspect most people until it was pointed out to them assumed otherwise upon reading it.
Frankly, if you're using a VTT or even have those plastic cutouts for live play, the intuitive placement of an AoE is to do whatever catches as many enemies as possible (and, presumably, avoids party members unless you're a pure chaos gremlin) while still originating at your caster's square/mini
Rigidly following grid lines is almost a nerf
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
[...] Rigidly following grid lines is almost a nerf
Agreed.
I only tried to help with the drawings I made, but they just reflect how I understand the rules, or at least how I follow them to represent Areas of Effect in the way I've most often seen.
At the same time, the quoted rules in the DMG are, to me, more of a guide or advice, so I also agree that you could orient or represent the Areas of Effect differently. And ultimately, it's a DM's territory.
question is a 15 feet from above make a radius of 5.5
which covers 9 squares.
since the picture in the magic section show it as an Ice cream cone looking down.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Moderator“A Cone’s width at any point along its length is equal to that point’s distance from the point of origin. For example, a Cone is 15 feet wide at a point along its length that is 15 feet from the point of origin.”
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/br-2024/rules-glossary#ConeAreaofEffect
Thus its 15 foot diameter (when 15 feet away from the source) would mean it has a 7.5 foot radius.
Need help with D&D Beyond? Come ask in the official D&D server on Discord: https://discord.gg/qWzGhwBjYr
As the quoted rule says, with a X-ft cone, if you angle it upward, or maybe downward because you're flying, you will get a diameter of X-ft at the cone's end. X could be 15, 30, 60, or any other typical cone size.
Also, in case it's interesting to anyone, this is how we represent a 15-ft cone when we're playing on a grid (see also #8):
I thought the point of origin of AoE spells has to be a corner. At least in the ‘24 DMG that’s what it says.
In the 2014 DMG there was this rule:
In this situation that would actually yield a surprisingly small affected area of 2 squares x 2 squares.
I've forgotten if this rule has been altered or eliminated from the 2024 rules.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorThe 2024 quote largely says the same:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/dmg-2024/running-the-game#AreasofEffect
Need help with D&D Beyond? Come ask in the official D&D server on Discord: https://discord.gg/qWzGhwBjYr
And none of that within 5ft of the caster even.
Not that surprising though, a 15ft square hits 9 squares (3x3) and a triangle (a cone in 2D) should hit about half so 4 squares ain't off by much. But this might a bit to much math for the situation.
Edit: If you aim it at an angle though it hits 6 squares (all 50% or more).
Also, shouldn't it really be 2x2x2 squares (due to 3D) right?
That's the rule, you're right, for both the 2014 and 2024 DMG, as noted above. What I draw is just how we handle it in our games, and to me, it makes more sense.
I drew some examples in the past here Self/cube spells origin (2014 rules), comparing the number of affected squares depending on your ruling:
If you are talking about the intersection of the squares, that would be anywhere at least two squares touch. So any of those drawings work.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorPretty sure the thick lines are 5 foot squares, though. They’re then divided in fourths for… some reason.
Need help with D&D Beyond? Come ask in the official D&D server on Discord: https://discord.gg/qWzGhwBjYr
Yes, but what Lia_Black is saying is that "intersection" works for both the corners and the sides. An intersection, in geometric terms, is just a set of points where two shapes overlap. The side of each of those squares intersects with an adjacent square, so you should be able to place the point of origin anywhere on any side of the square.
That's just because of the drawing tool I'm using. The small squares aren't meaningful, so we can ignore those for the discussion related to intersections.
Anyway, I agree with Lia and Sabin's interpretation.
The rule is written using an intuitive common language definition for "intersection" which refers to the points where the grid lines which make the squares or hexes actually "cross over" each other, which occurs at the corners of the squares.
In the 2014 DMG, this intention can be seen just a couple of paragraphs later when discussing the rules for Cover on a grid:
In addition, Xanathar's Guide to Everything published some additional details for these procedures which expanded upon the above DMG rule. The location of the point of origin was taken directly from the DMG rule and when visual examples were given for the Template method (Diagram 1 for a Cone Template and Diagram 2 for a Sphere Template) the authors very clearly drew these shapes such that the point of origin aligned with the intersection of grid squares at the corners of the squares.
I was assuming that the OP's question was specifically about a Cone that is directed straight down onto the ground / grid "at" a location that is 15 feet away from the spellcaster -- which would look like a circle upon the grid from a top-down viewpoint.
But in general, that's a good point -- the spellcaster is not restricted in which direction he chooses for orienting the Cone so depending on what is chosen it can get pretty complicated and presumably is capable of including some additional grid "cubes" in 3D space beyond the number that you would get with the straight-down orientation. That would be pretty headache-inducing to try to figure out on the fly . . .
Sorry, but to me the common language definition of intersection is exactly what I said. You may believe it to be the intersection of the lines, but the text says the intersection of the squares not lines. You can play it how ever you like of course.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Also I would say it is less intuitive to think of using the corner of your square when there is a intersection dead center right in front of you. I would suggest that more people assumed you could not use that corner piece than assumed that is where it should be. As it does feel like a bit of cheese with line spells making a 5' wide line effectively 10 foot wide. That's the rule, but I suspect most people until it was pointed out to them assumed otherwise upon reading it.
If it were as you are saying it would have been written differently. The phrase used is:
"choose an intersection of squares or hexes to be the point of origin"
This refers to a single point, not an entire side or a point somewhere along a side. I've already quoted just a paragraph or two later where the location of the point of origin is used in context to discuss the rules for Cover which are clearly using the corners of the squares. It's also shown graphically in Xanathar's Guide to Everything.
I can see how some might feel like there is some ambiguity in the chosen wording of "intersection of squares" instead of just saying "intersection of grid lines", but what I've described above is the best interpretation of the rule.
I got your point, but I'd like to say that I think for a Line 5 feet wide, where your character is the point of origin, because the creature occupies the entire square, the range is calculated from the edge of its tile outward, so this should be an example based on that:
Similarly to how a Cube is usually represented. Taking advantage of this conversation with the Dev:
This will be my last post on this because I don't want to give a full class on basic elementary school geometry, but a Point is typically represented by a dot and does not have dimension such as length or height. When you have two squares with their sides touching such as a grid, the intersection is the entire side, a Point can be anywhere along that intersection. You have even shown that you understand the concept in your sentence above. In the diagram provided by TarodNet shown below, the intersection of the Triangle and the bolded Square is a Point and that Point exists on the intersection of the bold Square and the Square next to it. There is no ambiguity because basic geometry has existed for thousands of years. I honestly can't even believe this is a discussion.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Frankly, if you're using a VTT or even have those plastic cutouts for live play, the intuitive placement of an AoE is to do whatever catches as many enemies as possible (and, presumably, avoids party members unless you're a pure chaos gremlin) while still originating at your caster's square/mini
Rigidly following grid lines is almost a nerf
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Agreed.
I only tried to help with the drawings I made, but they just reflect how I understand the rules, or at least how I follow them to represent Areas of Effect in the way I've most often seen.
At the same time, the quoted rules in the DMG are, to me, more of a guide or advice, so I also agree that you could orient or represent the Areas of Effect differently. And ultimately, it's a DM's territory.
EDIT: for clarity.