From you, or your space. There is no 3D rules. There is still spaces above you with range though. In ToTM, reach/range is calculated from you or your space. In Grid Play, from your square.
"from you" means your height!
If you're 6' and something is 10' off the ground it is 4'... from you. Because you're 6'.
If you're only 4' tall, that same creature flying 10' off the ground is 6' away from you.
You MUST use your height if you're using 2D squares.
A flying creature 200 feet high cannot be attacked if it's out of your melee reach of 5 feet. A creature flying 5 feet high can though as it's within your reach.
It is within your reach if you are using your HEIGHT.
You must assign yourself a Z axis coordinate if you're using a 2D grid. Something flying 5' off the ground has a partially defined Z axis: 5' off the ground.
What people typically do for flying or elevated position on 2D map is assign a number or die to the miniature, representing how high it is from the ground because it is not in the space on the ground. There's only one axis needed until you must deal with different elevations, at which point you must keep track of those various positions. But all of this doesn't change how reach or range is calculated.
Yes, your reach upwards is based on your height.
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.
Due to the way distance calculations are done when using minis/tokens on a grid (like point to like), the actual delineation of your Z-axis is actually moot. You always measure from congruent points on whatever you use to represent a game entity; the center of one token to the center of another, the top left corner of one token to the top left corner of another, etc.
This breaks down if the tokens are different sizes. A large creature could measure 10' away from you if measuring center to center, but then either top corner would measure it at 15' away using this method.
When you project this into 3d, you get the same results regardless of if you're using 3d 5ft cubes/spheres, or 2d 'slices'
No, you don't.
The below image shows 3D cubes and works as you describe. So you're correct for using 3D cubes. But if it were 2D grid without a Z-axis, then there is no defined center point for the tokens. Nor is there defined tops either.
You can ONLY define the center points or the tops of the tokens by basing it off of their... height.
In the second image, all three tokens are 10ft above the ground, but due to the fact the point of measurement is consistent between each token pair, the definition of the z-axis is irrelevant. How 'you' is defined is moot as long as how you measure between 'you' and your target is consistent.
This image doesn't represent a 2D grid viewed from the side. It represents a 3D cube system.
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.
How does combat in the air work? Does it follow the same rules as ground combat? How would one make rolls if they are shooting from the ground to the air?
New player so any info would be a massive help
I don't think that in terms of the mechanics, there is any difference between ground and air combat. The only thing that gets wonky is range due to the extra dimension.
You could simply ignore the height coordinate (actually it's the difference between the two height coordinates) but things go awry when you have two combatants near each other in the horizontal plane but differ greatly in the vertical dimension (e.g. they're only 20 ft. apart horizontally, but 150 ft. apart vertically). The range should be closer to 150 ft. than the 20 ft. you would be using if you ignore the vertical.
My suggestion would be, trying to avoid as much math as possible at the table, to determine the difference in the two combatants heights and compare it to the horizontal distance. If the horizontal distance is equal to or greater than the height difference, just use horizontal distance. On the the other hand, if the horizontal distance is less than the height difference, use the height difference. For example, if the two combatants are 80 ft. apart horizontally, one of them is at 120 ft in height and the other is at 80 ft (the difference being 40 ft), you would use the horizontal distance of 80 ft since it is greater than (or equal to) the difference in height. If the two combatants are instead 20 ft apart horizontally but one is at 100 ft in height and the other is at 30 ft (the difference being 70 ft), you would use the difference in height or 70 ft (since 20 ft horizontally is less than 70 ft vertically).
[Technically, the worst this method would be off is when the horizontal distance and vertical difference were the same, the error being the (distance times the square root of 2) minus the distance. But as the distance difference grows (for either the horizontal or vertical) the error approaches zero. In the examples I gave above, the actual results would be a) 126.49 with the error being 6.49 ft and b) 72.8ft with the error being 2.8ft. So, to me the error is small enough (except in very extreme cases) to ignore.]
From you, or your space. There is no 3D rules. There is still spaces above you with range though. In ToTM, reach/range is calculated from you or your space. In Grid Play, from your square.
"from you" means your height!
If you're 6' and something is 10' off the ground it is 4'... from you. Because you're 6'.
If you're only 4' tall, that same creature flying 10' off the ground is 6' away from you.
You MUST use your height if you're using 2D squares.
A flying creature 200 feet high cannot be attacked if it's out of your melee reach of 5 feet. A creature flying 5 feet high can though as it's within your reach.
It is within your reach if you are using your HEIGHT.
You must assign yourself a Z axis coordinate if you're using a 2D grid. Something flying 5' off the ground has a partially defined Z axis: 5' off the ground.
What people typically do for flying or elevated position on 2D map is assign a number or die to the miniature, representing how high it is from the ground because it is not in the space on the ground. There's only one axis needed until you must deal with different elevations, at which point you must keep track of those various positions. But all of this doesn't change how reach or range is calculated.
Yes, your reach upwards is based on your height.
While jumping yes, we're talking about attacking here. Can you cite the combat rules that says what you claim in bolded part? Because the combat rules for reach don't say that.
The flying creature 5 feet high can be attack bcause it's within your 5 feet reach, regardless of your height. Wether you're 3 feet or 7 feet tall, you still have 5 feet reach, this all around you
Any creature 10 feet away from you cannot be attack because it's not within your 5 feet reach, wether it is beside you walking or above you flying. Because it is 10 feet away from you beyond your reach.
This image doesn't represent a 2D grid viewed from the side. It represents a 3D cube system.
The far left and right graphics in the bottom image represent a 3d cube system, the center graphic represents a 2D grid viewed from the side, the point being to demonstrate that as long as you have coherent and consistent frame of reference, how you represent the z-axis is moot.
From you, or your space. There is no 3D rules. There is still spaces above you with range though. In ToTM, reach/range is calculated from you or your space. In Grid Play, from your square.
"from you" means your height!
If you're 6' and something is 10' off the ground it is 4'... from you. Because you're 6'.
If you're only 4' tall, that same creature flying 10' off the ground is 6' away from you.
You MUST use your height if you're using 2D squares.
A flying creature 200 feet high cannot be attacked if it's out of your melee reach of 5 feet. A creature flying 5 feet high can though as it's within your reach.
It is within your reach if you are using your HEIGHT.
You must assign yourself a Z axis coordinate if you're using a 2D grid. Something flying 5' off the ground has a partially defined Z axis: 5' off the ground.
What people typically do for flying or elevated position on 2D map is assign a number or die to the miniature, representing how high it is from the ground because it is not in the space on the ground. There's only one axis needed until you must deal with different elevations, at which point you must keep track of those various positions. But all of this doesn't change how reach or range is calculated.
Yes, your reach upwards is based on your height.
While jumping yes, we're talking about attacking here. Can you cite the combat rules that says what you claim in bolded part? Because the combat rules for reach don't say that.
You have to define where 'you' are in the Z axis. You have to. If you're using a 2D grid you must define where you are in the Z axis. This can be a range, or a fixed point, but you have to define where you are in the up/down dimension. Otherwise it is impossible to answer the question if someone is within 5' of you. Because you haven't even defined where you are.
The flying creature 5 feet high can be attack bcause it's within your 5 feet reach, regardless of your height. Wether you're 3 feet or 7 feet tall, you still have 5 feet reach, this all around you
So, we know for sure you're not measuring from the ground level then with your 2D grid. Good, we're actually getting somewhere.
Any creature 10 feet away from you cannot be attack because it's not within your 5 feet reach, wether it is beside you walking or above you flying. Because it is 10 feet away from you beyond your reach.
Sure, sure. But you're still being nebulous about where 'you' are in the Z axis.
Lets say a creature is flying 10' off the ground, but directly above you.
Can you hit them?
If you're 6' tall, they're within 5' of you. Right? You should be able to hit them.
What if you're 4'? Now they're 6' away from you. That's more than 5' away.
What if you're 8' tall? They're only 2 feet away from your face. that's certainly within reach now right?
You have to use your character's height to determine where they are in the Z axis. Unless, of course... you use a 3D grid system of 5' cubes. Like I said in the first post I made in this topic. In that case, you're just nebulously inside your 5' cube and you treat up/down exactly the same as any other horizontal direction.
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.
This image doesn't represent a 2D grid viewed from the side. It represents a 3D cube system.
The far left and right graphics in the bottom image represent a 3d cube system, the center graphic represents a 2D grid viewed from the side, the point being to demonstrate that as long as you have coherent and consistent frame of reference, how you represent the z-axis is moot.
Your "2D Grid" had gridlines for the Z axis.
...
That means it is a 3D grid. Not a 2D grid.
...
A 2D grid doesn't have 5' delineations for the Z axis.
...
Because it is 2D.
...
If you add a grid delineation for the 3rd dimension... that is 3D.
...
Let's try an example to showcase. Look at your "2D" example again and imagine if you will that the creature on the ground level is actually huge size.
Does that help highlight the issue? The creature is something like 16+ feet tall. Yet your graphic shows it is 10' away from something 10' off the ground? How???
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.
I don't think the ellipses between each line of your post are necessary, that lends a somewhat antagonistic tone to your post, which I'm sure is not your intent.
My graphic was representing 3d space for the left and right examples, and what's referred to as 2.5d space for the center example. 2.5d space is basically 2d contiguous space with third axis as an independant height modifier. I apologise that I didn't make that clear in my diagram.
I'm not saying there isn't a z-axis, I'm saying that the tokens don't need to be projected into the z-axis for z-axis measurement to be valid as long as the frames of measurement between tokens are consistent.
For your huge creature example, as long as the point of measurement from token to token is consistent, you will get consistent results. Measuring from center to center of a flat token will give the same range as center to center from a spherical or cubic representation, or even center to center on an appropriate sized mini. The point is consistency.
However, I do see where you're coming from in terms of projecting clashing occupied spaces into 3D space. At first glance, it may seem that a creature with a 5ft elevation could enter the space of a bigger creature. However, if you're doing consistent point to point measurement, this doesn't actually matter so becomes less of an issue of "how do you do 3d combat" and more of an issue of "how do you make 3d combat realistic and immersive and minimise the abstraction".
Ultimately it comes down to table preference if you want to do one of the following, as the rules provide no specific example:
2.5d movement using flat tokens on a contiguous 2d plane with a secondary height modifier
3d cubes/spheres of area of control in true 3d space
2d area of control + creatures height to determine vertical reach in true 3d space*
* I will say that this option kinda falls apart once you realise that not all monsters have height information and how the abstraction of area of control works. I personally use options 1 or 2 depending on how I'm playing, but I always ensure that all distances are measured from the center of tokens for consistency.
When attacking, reach/range is counted from you, from the 5 feet space/square (ToTM/Grid Play) you occupy and control. If your attack has 5 feet reach, 10 is out of reach. Likewise, if your spell has 20 feet range, 25 is out of range.
Range calculation is counted from the square's surface in Grid Play, for axis. So when something is 10 feet away, its 10 feet from the square's surface.
Ranges. 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.
@Davyd graphic illustrate this very well i think. The 5 feet space/square you occupy and control in Y axis is equally transposed in Z axis without any counter indications.
I don't think the ellipses between each line of your post are necessary, that lends a somewhat antagonistic tone to your post, which I'm sure is not your intent.
It isn't, my tone in how I write is often direct and I'm garbage at formatting. But I'm not trying to be antagonistic.
My graphic was representing 3d space for the left and right examples, and what's referred to as 2.5d space for the center example. 2.5d space is basically 2d contiguous space with third axis as an independant height modifier. I apologise that I didn't make that clear in my diagram.
I'm not saying there isn't a z-axis, I'm saying that the tokens don't need to be projected into the z-axis for z-axis measurement to be valid as long as the frames of measurement between tokens are consistent.
Yes, I understand what you are saying here. I contend, however, that it is incorrect. Specifically, it is incorrect for tokens of differing sizes.
A large creature is 10' x10' while a medium is 5' x 5'. You can draw this on a grid and follow along if visual aids help. They often do. place these two figure such that one unoccupied 5' square is between them.
Then, measure from the center of the tokens. You'll find that the center of these tokens is roughly 12.5' apart from one another. But what about measurements from the corners? You'd get 10', 11.2', 15', and 15.8' depending on which matching corners you measure between.
For your huge creature example, as long as the point of measurement from token to token is consistent, you will get consistent results. Measuring from center to center of a flat token will give the same range as center to center from a spherical or cubic representation, or even center to center on an appropriate sized mini. The point is consistency.
Again, draw it out on a map and measure it with your prescribed method. You'll find that if you are using different sized tokens the method you prescribe entirely fails to provide consistent results depending on where you measure from. Corners all giving different measurements, even center to center disagreeing.
However, I do see where you're coming from in terms of projecting clashing occupied spaces into 3D space. At first glance, it may seem that a creature with a 5ft elevation could enter the space of a bigger creature. However, if you're doing consistent point to point measurement, this doesn't actually matter so becomes less of an issue of "how do you do 3d combat" and more of an issue of "how do you make 3d combat realistic and immersive and minimise the abstraction".
Ultimately it comes down to table preference if you want to do one of the following, as the rules provide no specific example:
2.5d movement using flat tokens on a contiguous 2d plane with a secondary height modifier
3d cubes/spheres of area of control in true 3d space
2d area of control + creatures height to determine vertical reach in true 3d space*
* I will say that this option kinda falls apart once you realise that not all monsters have height information and how the abstraction of area of control works. I personally use options 1 or 2 depending on how I'm playing, but I always ensure that all distances are measured from the center of tokens for consistency.
Yeah method 1 is especially interesting because it would indeed create situations where a creature flying 5' off the ground and who isn't directly atop but still adjacent to your 8' tall Goliath is somehow out of reach.
Method 2 is what I think many/most people use, it sacrifices a modicum of realism but is fast and efficient in play. It is technically speaking homebrew, though, an extremely common universally accepted one, from my experience. Nothing says you occupy a cube, it says you occupy a square. Applying square-type delineations to the Z-axis is not a hard leap for people to make just all on their own, though.
Method 3 is technically the most true to RAW, since the grid rules don't talk about how to apply themselves into the z-axis, so the z-axis by default must be adjudicated by the same method as TotM people adjudicate everything. It does require then having some idea how tall everything is and what elevation everything is at. Depending on how specific you wanna get as a DM this could come down to exact measurements or just rough guesstimates.
Method 4 would then be TotM, which, is just direct measurements and ignore grids entirely. Potentially the most realistic but also most laborious... or, conversely, the least realistic and least laborious, or anywhere in between, depending on DM adjudication style. Does he measure the fractions of inches or does he just guesstimate and roll with 'close enough' all the time. This is the default assumption of the rules, by not using the optional grid rules. But, despite that, it isn't common to play this way.
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.
Just keep track of height as your players move. If you're worried about distance calculations, use the Pythagorian Theorem – a²+b²=c², or perhaps better stated here, y²+z²=x², where the height and distance from an overhead view equal the legs of the triangle and the distance you shoot is the hypotenuse. Baldur's Gate 3 gave advantage on attacks made from the high ground kf you feel like using something like that.
Just keep track of height as your players move. If you're worried about distance calculations, use the Pythagorian Theorem – a²+b²=c², or perhaps better stated here, y²+z²=x², where the height and distance from an overhead view equal the legs of the triangle and the distance you shoot is the hypotenuse. Baldur's Gate 3 gave advantage on attacks made from the high ground kf you feel like using something like that.
Ah, problematically, in 3 dimensions that isn't the formula you'd need. You'd need d^2 = c^2 + z^2 = (x^2 + y^2) + z^2. Also, problematically, the rules don't really ask us to do these types of calculations at the table. They ask us to count squares.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"from you" means your height!
If you're 6' and something is 10' off the ground it is 4'... from you. Because you're 6'.
If you're only 4' tall, that same creature flying 10' off the ground is 6' away from you.
You MUST use your height if you're using 2D squares.
It is within your reach if you are using your HEIGHT.
You must assign yourself a Z axis coordinate if you're using a 2D grid. Something flying 5' off the ground has a partially defined Z axis: 5' off the ground.
Yes, your reach upwards is based on your height.
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.
This breaks down if the tokens are different sizes. A large creature could measure 10' away from you if measuring center to center, but then either top corner would measure it at 15' away using this method.
No, you don't.
The below image shows 3D cubes and works as you describe. So you're correct for using 3D cubes. But if it were 2D grid without a Z-axis, then there is no defined center point for the tokens. Nor is there defined tops either.
You can ONLY define the center points or the tops of the tokens by basing it off of their... height.
This image doesn't represent a 2D grid viewed from the side. It represents a 3D cube system.
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.
I don't think that in terms of the mechanics, there is any difference between ground and air combat. The only thing that gets wonky is range due to the extra dimension.
You could simply ignore the height coordinate (actually it's the difference between the two height coordinates) but things go awry when you have two combatants near each other in the horizontal plane but differ greatly in the vertical dimension (e.g. they're only 20 ft. apart horizontally, but 150 ft. apart vertically). The range should be closer to 150 ft. than the 20 ft. you would be using if you ignore the vertical.
My suggestion would be, trying to avoid as much math as possible at the table, to determine the difference in the two combatants heights and compare it to the horizontal distance. If the horizontal distance is equal to or greater than the height difference, just use horizontal distance. On the the other hand, if the horizontal distance is less than the height difference, use the height difference. For example, if the two combatants are 80 ft. apart horizontally, one of them is at 120 ft in height and the other is at 80 ft (the difference being 40 ft), you would use the horizontal distance of 80 ft since it is greater than (or equal to) the difference in height. If the two combatants are instead 20 ft apart horizontally but one is at 100 ft in height and the other is at 30 ft (the difference being 70 ft), you would use the difference in height or 70 ft (since 20 ft horizontally is less than 70 ft vertically).
[Technically, the worst this method would be off is when the horizontal distance and vertical difference were the same, the error being the (distance times the square root of 2) minus the distance. But as the distance difference grows (for either the horizontal or vertical) the error approaches zero. In the examples I gave above, the actual results would be a) 126.49 with the error being 6.49 ft and b) 72.8ft with the error being 2.8ft. So, to me the error is small enough (except in very extreme cases) to ignore.]
HTH,
Lee
While jumping yes, we're talking about attacking here. Can you cite the combat rules that says what you claim in bolded part? Because the combat rules for reach don't say that.
The flying creature 5 feet high can be attack bcause it's within your 5 feet reach, regardless of your height. Wether you're 3 feet or 7 feet tall, you still have 5 feet reach, this all around you
Any creature 10 feet away from you cannot be attack because it's not within your 5 feet reach, wether it is beside you walking or above you flying. Because it is 10 feet away from you beyond your reach.
The far left and right graphics in the bottom image represent a 3d cube system, the center graphic represents a 2D grid viewed from the side, the point being to demonstrate that as long as you have coherent and consistent frame of reference, how you represent the z-axis is moot.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
You have to define where 'you' are in the Z axis. You have to. If you're using a 2D grid you must define where you are in the Z axis. This can be a range, or a fixed point, but you have to define where you are in the up/down dimension. Otherwise it is impossible to answer the question if someone is within 5' of you. Because you haven't even defined where you are.
So, we know for sure you're not measuring from the ground level then with your 2D grid. Good, we're actually getting somewhere.
Sure, sure. But you're still being nebulous about where 'you' are in the Z axis.
Lets say a creature is flying 10' off the ground, but directly above you.
Can you hit them?
If you're 6' tall, they're within 5' of you. Right? You should be able to hit them.
What if you're 4'? Now they're 6' away from you. That's more than 5' away.
What if you're 8' tall? They're only 2 feet away from your face. that's certainly within reach now right?
You have to use your character's height to determine where they are in the Z axis. Unless, of course... you use a 3D grid system of 5' cubes. Like I said in the first post I made in this topic. In that case, you're just nebulously inside your 5' cube and you treat up/down exactly the same as any other horizontal direction.
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.
Your "2D Grid" had gridlines for the Z axis.
...
That means it is a 3D grid. Not a 2D grid.
...
A 2D grid doesn't have 5' delineations for the Z axis.
...
Because it is 2D.
...
If you add a grid delineation for the 3rd dimension... that is 3D.
...
Let's try an example to showcase. Look at your "2D" example again and imagine if you will that the creature on the ground level is actually huge size.
Does that help highlight the issue? The creature is something like 16+ feet tall. Yet your graphic shows it is 10' away from something 10' off the ground? How???
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.
I don't think the ellipses between each line of your post are necessary, that lends a somewhat antagonistic tone to your post, which I'm sure is not your intent.
My graphic was representing 3d space for the left and right examples, and what's referred to as 2.5d space for the center example. 2.5d space is basically 2d contiguous space with third axis as an independant height modifier. I apologise that I didn't make that clear in my diagram.
I'm not saying there isn't a z-axis, I'm saying that the tokens don't need to be projected into the z-axis for z-axis measurement to be valid as long as the frames of measurement between tokens are consistent.
For your huge creature example, as long as the point of measurement from token to token is consistent, you will get consistent results. Measuring from center to center of a flat token will give the same range as center to center from a spherical or cubic representation, or even center to center on an appropriate sized mini. The point is consistency.
However, I do see where you're coming from in terms of projecting clashing occupied spaces into 3D space. At first glance, it may seem that a creature with a 5ft elevation could enter the space of a bigger creature. However, if you're doing consistent point to point measurement, this doesn't actually matter so becomes less of an issue of "how do you do 3d combat" and more of an issue of "how do you make 3d combat realistic and immersive and minimise the abstraction".
Ultimately it comes down to table preference if you want to do one of the following, as the rules provide no specific example:
* I will say that this option kinda falls apart once you realise that not all monsters have height information and how the abstraction of area of control works. I personally use options 1 or 2 depending on how I'm playing, but I always ensure that all distances are measured from the center of tokens for consistency.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
When attacking, reach/range is counted from you, from the 5 feet space/square (ToTM/Grid Play) you occupy and control. If your attack has 5 feet reach, 10 is out of reach. Likewise, if your spell has 20 feet range, 25 is out of range.
Range calculation is counted from the square's surface in Grid Play, for axis. So when something is 10 feet away, its 10 feet from the square's surface.
@Davyd graphic illustrate this very well i think. The 5 feet space/square you occupy and control in Y axis is equally transposed in Z axis without any counter indications.
It isn't, my tone in how I write is often direct and I'm garbage at formatting. But I'm not trying to be antagonistic.
Yes, I understand what you are saying here. I contend, however, that it is incorrect. Specifically, it is incorrect for tokens of differing sizes.
A large creature is 10' x10' while a medium is 5' x 5'. You can draw this on a grid and follow along if visual aids help. They often do. place these two figure such that one unoccupied 5' square is between them.
Then, measure from the center of the tokens. You'll find that the center of these tokens is roughly 12.5' apart from one another. But what about measurements from the corners? You'd get 10', 11.2', 15', and 15.8' depending on which matching corners you measure between.
Again, draw it out on a map and measure it with your prescribed method. You'll find that if you are using different sized tokens the method you prescribe entirely fails to provide consistent results depending on where you measure from. Corners all giving different measurements, even center to center disagreeing.
Can't seem to get image to load so:
https://imgur.com/a/mktuf93
Yeah method 1 is especially interesting because it would indeed create situations where a creature flying 5' off the ground and who isn't directly atop but still adjacent to your 8' tall Goliath is somehow out of reach.
Method 2 is what I think many/most people use, it sacrifices a modicum of realism but is fast and efficient in play. It is technically speaking homebrew, though, an extremely common universally accepted one, from my experience. Nothing says you occupy a cube, it says you occupy a square. Applying square-type delineations to the Z-axis is not a hard leap for people to make just all on their own, though.
Method 3 is technically the most true to RAW, since the grid rules don't talk about how to apply themselves into the z-axis, so the z-axis by default must be adjudicated by the same method as TotM people adjudicate everything. It does require then having some idea how tall everything is and what elevation everything is at. Depending on how specific you wanna get as a DM this could come down to exact measurements or just rough guesstimates.
Method 4 would then be TotM, which, is just direct measurements and ignore grids entirely. Potentially the most realistic but also most laborious... or, conversely, the least realistic and least laborious, or anywhere in between, depending on DM adjudication style. Does he measure the fractions of inches or does he just guesstimate and roll with 'close enough' all the time. This is the default assumption of the rules, by not using the optional grid rules. But, despite that, it isn't common to play this way.
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.
Just keep track of height as your players move. If you're worried about distance calculations, use the Pythagorian Theorem – a²+b²=c², or perhaps better stated here, y²+z²=x², where the height and distance from an overhead view equal the legs of the triangle and the distance you shoot is the hypotenuse. Baldur's Gate 3 gave advantage on attacks made from the high ground kf you feel like using something like that.
Ah, problematically, in 3 dimensions that isn't the formula you'd need. You'd need d^2 = c^2 + z^2 = (x^2 + y^2) + z^2. Also, problematically, the rules don't really ask us to do these types of calculations at the table. They ask us to count squares.