The distance from the origin to the purple line is not the green line. The distance between a point and a line is the length of the shortest line segment connecting them. If you don’t take that definition there are an arbiyrary number of distances you could say are between the origin and the purple line.
Ah, the source of the contention is finally revealed! You're taking the width from a point along an additional line going down the middle of the cone, whereas I'm calculating it from a point along one of the edges. The PHB states state you take a point along its length, and the mathematical definition of a cone is that is length is the outer edge. (whereas the line going through the middle would be its height)
(I think we're at a point where we agree that the width is twice the radius)
Ah, and that still creates a problem. The authors are describing shapes in the world of the game and do not always use mathematical names for what they are describing. Height in rules text is usually reserved to describe distance from the ground.
Also, length is one particular name for a side of a cone but there are several, such as slant height and slant length. It seems that this may not be so uniform as you’d like.
Ah, and that still creates a problem. The authors are describing shapes in the world of the game and do not always use mathematical names for what they are describing. Height in rules text is usually reserved to describe distance from the ground.
Also, length is one particular name for a side of a cone but there are several, such as slant height and slant length. It seems that this may not be so uniform as you’d like.
Sure, but we don't need to know the height at any point. We only need to know the length (as given in the spell description) which is the dimension of the sides of the cone.
It really isn't important that it has other possible names, we care what the length is and that is always the side.
I think you guys are over-thinking this quite a lot.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I think you guys are over-thinking this quite a lot.
Hah! Quite definitely, but it's super frustrating when you know you're right about something with an unambiguous answer and you're unable to communicate it properly!
I guess the question is whether the dimension of the spell is along “the direction you choose” or the mathematical definition of a shape not described using mathematical names for its dimensions.
It’s not ambiguous though. A “60-foot cone” has a length from tip to base of 60 ft., and a diameter across the base of 60 ft. That means that at the widest part it can hit a maximum of 12 medium creatures standing shoulder to shoulder, at the tip closest to the caster it can hit 1 creature. This ain’t complicated: Caster=🔳, affected spaces=🟥
Since a cone is as wide as it is long, the number of squares that should be hit at a given distance from the caster is easily calculated, it's the distance from the caster. This means 15 ft cone hits 6 squares, 30ft hits 21, 60ft hits 78. In all cases the progression from the caster should be 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12.
The problem with square grids is that it does not accurately represent reality. It's why I prefer Hexs. They are not perfect, but at least people instinctively recognize that a partial hex is possible and accept it. All rooms can not divided up into a 5ft squares and spells do not accurately map to the grid. You either end up adding extra square feet or cutting it. You choose to increase it dramatically.
Your progression has an area that is too large. Specifically, is is an extra 150 SF (6 extra 5ft squares). That is why I did the 1,2,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,11,12 progression.
Similarly, a 15 ft cone is NOT 123, because that is a square foot of of 150 sq ft, and it should be 125 sq ft. The 30 ft is not 123456 because that is a square footage of 525 sq ft and it should be 425.
Yes, you can say screw it and just give the players much bigger areas because you choose a grid rather than a hex. Or you can play by the actual rules and accept the fact that it takes a little bit more work to make things come out right
The square footage isn't specified, what is specified is that the width is equal to the distance from the caster. Also, the progression for the 30ft cone should contain the progression for the 15ft cone and likewise for the 60ft cone.
It’s not ambiguous though. A “60-foot cone” has a length from tip to base of 60 ft., and a diameter across the base of 60 ft. That means that at the widest part it can hit a maximum of 12 medium creatures standing shoulder to shoulder, at the tip closest to the caster it can hit 1 creature. This ain’t complicated: Caster=🔳, affected spaces=🟥
So the Total Length, and the diameter of the cone’s base are always the same.
What you've drawn has a height of 60 feet, not length. The length of a cone is always the side length, which in the case of the cone you've provided is calculated as ((60^2 + 30^2)^0.5) = ~67 feet.
It’s not ambiguous though. A “60-foot cone” has a length from tip to base of 60 ft., and a diameter across the base of 60 ft. That means that at the widest part it can hit a maximum of 12 medium creatures standing shoulder to shoulder, at the tip closest to the caster it can hit 1 creature. This ain’t complicated: Caster=🔳, affected spaces=🟥
So the Total Length, and the diameter of the cone’s base are always the same.
What you've drawn has a height of 60 feet, not length. The length of a cone is always the side length, which in the case of the cone you've provided is calculated as ((60^2 + 30^2)^0.5) = ~67 feet.
The length of a cone is obviously not always the side length, because the authors of the Player’s Handbook are using the word to mean the distance from the point of origin to the width of the area of effect, which is a two-dimensional projection of a 3D cone onto the standard combat plane.
It’s not ambiguous though. A “60-foot cone” has a length from tip to base of 60 ft., and a diameter across the base of 60 ft. That means that at the widest part it can hit a maximum of 12 medium creatures standing shoulder to shoulder, at the tip closest to the caster it can hit 1 creature. This ain’t complicated: Caster=🔳, affected spaces=🟥
So the Total Length, and the diameter of the cone’s base are always the same.
What you've drawn has a height of 60 feet, not length. The length of a cone is always the side length, which in the case of the cone you've provided is calculated as ((60^2 + 30^2)^0.5) = ~67 feet.
It’s not ambiguous though. A “60-foot cone” has a length height from tip to base of 60 ft., and a diameter across the base of 60 ft. That means, when aimed horizontally, that at the widest part it can hit a maximum of 12 medium creatures standing on the ground shoulder to shoulder, at the tip closest to the caster it can hit 1 creature. This ain’t complicated: Caster=🔳, affected spaces=🟥
The length of a cone is obviously not always the side length, because the authors of the Player’s Handbook are using the word to mean the distance from the point of origin to the width of the area of effect, which is a two-dimensional projection of a 3D cone onto the standard combat plane.
That's quite a claim to make. Do you have something from the authors that confirms that 'When we said 'length' we didn't actually mean length, we meant the shortest possible distance from the origin to the width instead'?
@IamSposta
The line below the picture is now accurate, but you're still telling me the height which is completely irrelevant to constructing a D&D cone shape.
The length of a cone is obviously not always the side length, because the authors of the Player’s Handbook are using the word to mean the distance from the point of origin to the width of the area of effect, which is a two-dimensional projection of a 3D cone onto the standard combat plane.
That's quite a claim to make. Do you have something from the authors that confirms that 'When we said 'length' we didn't actually mean length, we meant the shortest possible distance from the origin to the width instead'?
🤦♂️
Rav, is that you again trolling under a different username?
The length of a cone is obviously not always the side length, because the authors of the Player’s Handbook are using the word to mean the distance from the point of origin to the width of the area of effect, which is a two-dimensional projection of a 3D cone onto the standard combat plane.
That's quite a claim to make. Do you have something from the authors that confirms that 'When we said 'length' we didn't actually mean length, we meant the shortest possible distance from the origin to the width instead'?
🤦♂️
Rav, is that you again trolling under a different username?
Could you not perhaps try to debate the argument instead of calling me a pedant and a troll?
The length of a cone is obviously not always the side length, because the authors of the Player’s Handbook are using the word to mean the distance from the point of origin to the width of the area of effect, which is a two-dimensional projection of a 3D cone onto the standard combat plane.
That's quite a claim to make. Do you have something from the authors that confirms that 'When we said 'length' we didn't actually mean length, we meant the shortest possible distance from the origin to the width instead'?
@IamSposta
The line below the picture is now accurate, but you're still telling me the height which is completely irrelevant to constructing a D&D cone shape.
WTF?!? What are you talking about?!? D&D is a plain language rules set. Most people have no idea of the technical difference between the “length” of a cone or the “height” of a cone. They didn’t use technical jargon but plain language. This isn’t a matter of geometry. It’s just a basic way of describing how many ******** you can roast with Burning Hands. This is a game, not figging calculus class.
WTF?!? What are you talking about?!? D&D is a plain language rules set. Most people have no idea of the technical difference between the “length” of a cone or the “height” of a cone. They didn’t use technical jargon but plain language. This isn’t a matter of geometry. It’s just a basic way of describing how many ******** you can roast withBurning Hands. This is a game, not figging calculus class.
I hate to bring it up again but this is not calculus, it's basic secondary school-level geometry. If you're right and 'most people' don't know what the length of a cone, radius of a sphere, height of a cylinder etc. refers to then that is horrifying.
WTF?!? What are you talking about?!? D&D is a plain language rules set. Most people have no idea of the technical difference between the “length” of a cone or the “height” of a cone. They didn’t use technical jargon but plain language. This isn’t a matter of geometry. It’s just a basic way of describing how many ******** you can roast withBurning Hands. This is a game, not figging calculus class.
I hate to bring it up again but this is not calculus, it's basic secondary school-level geometry. If you're right and 'most people' don't know what the length of a cone, radius of a sphere, height of a cylinder etc. refers to then that is horrifying.
Welcome to the world. There are people who still think the earth is flat. There are people who don’t know the difference between cavalry an Calvary. There are people who can literally not add 17+22 and get 39 without at least paper and pencil. Full grown adults who run the world cannot do 2nd grade arithmetic and you want them to do secondary school geometry?!?
The D&D game designers probably didn’t know the difference between “length” and “height” of a cone. In fact, I’m sure of it or they would have used “height” and this whole conversation would have never happened.
And even if they did know it themselves, they knew their customers wouldn’t so they just called it “length” for the masses.
From where?
The distance from the origin to the purple line is not the green line. The distance between a point and a line is the length of the shortest line segment connecting them. If you don’t take that definition there are an arbiyrary number of distances you could say are between the origin and the purple line.
Ah, the source of the contention is finally revealed! You're taking the width from a point along an additional line going down the middle of the cone, whereas I'm calculating it from a point along one of the edges. The PHB states state you take a point along its length, and the mathematical definition of a cone is that is length is the outer edge. (whereas the line going through the middle would be its height)
(I think we're at a point where we agree that the width is twice the radius)
Ah, and that still creates a problem. The authors are describing shapes in the world of the game and do not always use mathematical names for what they are describing. Height in rules text is usually reserved to describe distance from the ground.
Also, length is one particular name for a side of a cone but there are several, such as slant height and slant length. It seems that this may not be so uniform as you’d like.
Sure, but we don't need to know the height at any point. We only need to know the length (as given in the spell description) which is the dimension of the sides of the cone.
It really isn't important that it has other possible names, we care what the length is and that is always the side.
I think you guys are over-thinking this quite a lot.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Agreed.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Hah! Quite definitely, but it's super frustrating when you know you're right about something with an unambiguous answer and you're unable to communicate it properly!
I guess the question is whether the dimension of the spell is along “the direction you choose” or the mathematical definition of a shape not described using mathematical names for its dimensions.
It’s not ambiguous though. A “60-foot cone” has a length from tip to base of 60 ft., and a diameter across the base of 60 ft. That means that at the widest part it can hit a maximum of 12 medium creatures standing shoulder to shoulder, at the tip closest to the caster it can hit 1 creature. This ain’t complicated: Caster=🔳, affected spaces=🟥
🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲.
🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔳🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲.
🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🟥🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲.
🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🟥🟥🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲.
🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🟥🟥🟥🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲.
🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🟥🟥🟥🟥🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲.
🔲🔲🔲🔲🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲.
🔲🔲🔲🔲🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🔲🔲🔲🔲.
🔲🔲🔲🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🔲🔲🔲🔲.
🔲🔲🔲🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🔲🔲🔲.
🔲🔲🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🔲🔲🔲.
🔲🔲🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🔲🔲.
🔲🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🔲🔲.
🔲🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🔲.
🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲.
So the Total Length, and the diameter of the cone’s base are always the same.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The square footage isn't specified, what is specified is that the width is equal to the distance from the caster. Also, the progression for the 30ft cone should contain the progression for the 15ft cone and likewise for the 60ft cone.
What you've drawn has a height of 60 feet, not length. The length of a cone is always the side length, which in the case of the cone you've provided is calculated as ((60^2 + 30^2)^0.5) = ~67 feet.
The length of a cone is obviously not always the side length, because the authors of the Player’s Handbook are using the word to mean the distance from the point of origin to the width of the area of effect, which is a two-dimensional projection of a 3D cone onto the standard combat plane.
Okay pedant, try this one then:
Better?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That's quite a claim to make. Do you have something from the authors that confirms that 'When we said 'length' we didn't actually mean length, we meant the shortest possible distance from the origin to the width instead'?
@IamSposta
The line below the picture is now accurate, but you're still telling me the height which is completely irrelevant to constructing a D&D cone shape.
🤦♂️
Rav, is that you again trolling under a different username?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Could you not perhaps try to debate the argument instead of calling me a pedant and a troll?
WTF?!? What are you talking about?!? D&D is a plain language rules set. Most people have no idea of the technical difference between the “length” of a cone or the “height” of a cone. They didn’t use technical jargon but plain language. This isn’t a matter of geometry. It’s just a basic way of describing how many ******** you can roast with Burning Hands. This is a game, not figging calculus class.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I hate to bring it up again but this is not calculus, it's basic secondary school-level geometry. If you're right and 'most people' don't know what the length of a cone, radius of a sphere, height of a cylinder etc. refers to then that is horrifying.
Welcome to the world. There are people who still think the earth is flat. There are people who don’t know the difference between cavalry an Calvary. There are people who can literally not add 17+22 and get 39 without at least paper and pencil. Full grown adults who run the world cannot do 2nd grade arithmetic and you want them to do secondary school geometry?!?
The D&D game designers probably didn’t know the difference between “length” and “height” of a cone. In fact, I’m sure of it or they would have used “height” and this whole conversation would have never happened.
And even if they did know it themselves, they knew their customers wouldn’t so they just called it “length” for the masses.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting