That kind of the idea. If the creatures have to snap to grid, the effects should, too.
So, I’m a corner guy, not a side guy, but I’m trying to understand. If you do sides, how do you measure spheres? Cause, say a fireball starting at a corner, you go out four squares in each direction. With a side, going perpendicular is still an easy 4 squares, but what happens with the parallel directions? Are you going like 3.5 squares to each side of the origin square? Because to me, that would mean that, in practice, it’s 9 squares across instead of 8, since if 1/2 a square is covered, the creature is in the effect. It ends up make the spheres ovals and bigger than intended.
That kind of the idea. If the creatures have to snap to grid, the effects should, too.
So, I’m a corner guy, not a side guy, but I’m trying to understand. If you do sides, how do you measure spheres? Cause, say a fireball starting at a corner, you go out four squares in each direction. With a side, going perpendicular is still an easy 4 squares, but what happens with the parallel directions? Are you going like 3.5 squares to each side of the origin square? Because to me, that would mean that, in practice, it’s 9 squares across instead of 8, since if 1/2 a square is covered, the creature is in the effect. It ends up make the spheres ovals and bigger than intended.
By RAW you get to pick which ever one you want. In the case of spells like Fireball I would likely pick the corner to make it easy if I am not using a template, but I pretty much always use a template so my Fireballs are spheres instead of cubes so it balances out anyway.
That kind of the idea. If the creatures have to snap to grid, the effects should, too.
So, I’m a corner guy, not a side guy, but I’m trying to understand. If you do sides, how do you measure spheres? Cause, say a fireball starting at a corner, you go out four squares in each direction. With a side, going perpendicular is still an easy 4 squares, but what happens with the parallel directions? Are you going like 3.5 squares to each side of the origin square? Because to me, that would mean that, in practice, it’s 9 squares across instead of 8, since if 1/2 a square is covered, the creature is in the effect. It ends up make the spheres ovals and bigger than intended.
By RAW you get to pick which ever one you want. In the case of spells like Fireball I would likely pick the corner to make it easy if I am not using a template, but I pretty much always use a template so my Fireballs are spheres instead of cubes so it balances out anyway.
That helps, thank you. So of we’re just talking about cones here (which now that I think about it is the point of the thread) then sides can definitely make more sense.
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.
Nonetheless, that definition for an intersection is not what the rule is talking about here and that fact is obvious when reading the additional context clues that I have pointed out twice now. When looking up the words "intersect" or "intersection" in the dictionary, there are common definitions which typically refer to a point at which things "cross over" each other, such as with an intersection of roads or streets and then usually further down there is mention of geometric / mathematical definitions of "overlap" which is closer to what you are talking about as well as more philosophical definitions such as an intersection of ideas and so on. In a vacuum it might not be easy to know which definition is meant, but words are generally used in context and there is more than enough evidence in this case to determine the "best" interpretation for the RAW which also aligns with the obvious RAI which is talking about the corners of the squares in this case.
Again, the above claim that "the intersection is the entire side" simply does not match up with the particular grammar that is used in the rule when it states that we must "choose an intersection . . . to be the point of origin". It is also obvious by how it is written that it is not talking about "any point along a side" since it simply would not have been written this way in that case. If the intention is to say "choose any point along the line that is shared by two adjacent squares" you simply would never write that as "choose an intersection . . . to be the point of origin". Such an interpretation is simply not the best interpretation for the rule. The best interpretation is to "choose a corner of a square" since that's where squares intersect on a grid according to the most common definition of the word "intersect".
thank you, guys, spamandtuna thanks this is what I thought, 7.5 radius 9 sqs. , I was going to correct the 5.5 which I meant 5ft plus 1/2 of the 5ft which is the 7.5 thank you for the help
That kind of the idea. If the creatures have to snap to grid, the effects should, too.
So, I’m a corner guy, not a side guy, but I’m trying to understand. If you do sides, how do you measure spheres? Cause, say a fireball starting at a corner, you go out four squares in each direction. With a side, going perpendicular is still an easy 4 squares, but what happens with the parallel directions? Are you going like 3.5 squares to each side of the origin square? Because to me, that would mean that, in practice, it’s 9 squares across instead of 8, since if 1/2 a square is covered, the creature is in the effect. It ends up make the spheres ovals and bigger than intended.
By RAW you get to pick which ever one you want. In the case of spells like Fireball I would likely pick the corner to make it easy if I am not using a template, but I pretty much always use a template so my Fireballs are spheres instead of cubes so it balances out anyway.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
That helps, thank you.
So of we’re just talking about cones here (which now that I think about it is the point of the thread) then sides can definitely make more sense.
Nonetheless, that definition for an intersection is not what the rule is talking about here and that fact is obvious when reading the additional context clues that I have pointed out twice now. When looking up the words "intersect" or "intersection" in the dictionary, there are common definitions which typically refer to a point at which things "cross over" each other, such as with an intersection of roads or streets and then usually further down there is mention of geometric / mathematical definitions of "overlap" which is closer to what you are talking about as well as more philosophical definitions such as an intersection of ideas and so on. In a vacuum it might not be easy to know which definition is meant, but words are generally used in context and there is more than enough evidence in this case to determine the "best" interpretation for the RAW which also aligns with the obvious RAI which is talking about the corners of the squares in this case.
Again, the above claim that "the intersection is the entire side" simply does not match up with the particular grammar that is used in the rule when it states that we must "choose an intersection . . . to be the point of origin". It is also obvious by how it is written that it is not talking about "any point along a side" since it simply would not have been written this way in that case. If the intention is to say "choose any point along the line that is shared by two adjacent squares" you simply would never write that as "choose an intersection . . . to be the point of origin". Such an interpretation is simply not the best interpretation for the rule. The best interpretation is to "choose a corner of a square" since that's where squares intersect on a grid according to the most common definition of the word "intersect".
thank you, guys, spamandtuna thanks this is what I thought, 7.5 radius 9 sqs. , I was going to correct the 5.5 which I meant 5ft plus 1/2 of the 5ft which is the 7.5 thank you for the help
as in page 238 player's handbook with the picture of a black board. also see the other affects ( cube and cylinder)