Spells such as burning hands and cone of coldcover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.
that is what the area of effect rules say about those two spells. That’s it. They do NOT “specifically call out” these spells as having three dimensional areas of effect.
i don’t (entirely) disagree that cones are generally three dimensional, that’s only one of two theories. The more steady ground that I actually stake this argument on is, spell descriptions can and do operate as specific exceptions to general rules, and burning hands is one such example, having a two dimensional cone instead of a three dimensional cone by virtue of the common sense meaning of the “thin sheet of flames” wording.
Plenty of the tweets I quoted refer to a two dimensional template of a triangle as a “cone.” It really isn’t an oxymoron, especially when we again remember that we are talking about a game system concept (or, a specific exception applied to sprcific magic spell), not real world geometry.
Those tweets are describing a cone as it effects a 2-d grid. Most of the examples and explanations in 5e just ignore height. The PHB (the first book that talks about area of effects) uses a 3-d cone in its diagram to describe spells with a cone area of effect.
Okay, but the area of effect rules also specify that for all of the shapes, "A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover." And yet, spells like Meteor Swarm or fog cloud contain descriptive text which provide a more specific exception to the general rule, which changes how that particular shape is drawn. Which the only arguments I've heard so far to respond to that is, "no that's just fluff ignore it."
But Burning Handsdoesn't provide a more specific exception. I sincerely don't understand what you're missing here. If the spell text said "everyone in a 15-foot thin sheet must make a DEX saving throw," you'd have a leg to stand on. But it doesn't. It doesn't say that only creatures that actually come into contact with the thin sheet are affected. It says you do a thin sheet, and then everyone in a 15-foot cone makes a DEX save. The sheet can be a flat triangle if you want it to be, but the area of affect is not a thin sheet, and the spell text doesn't say it is. You're inventing language that doesn't exist in the description.
A Cone is absolutely without exception three-dimensional, even though the area of effect description of Cones in the spellcasting rules describes them using two-dimensional descriptors, because the common sense meaning of Cone is a three-dimensional shape.
The "thin sheet of flame" created by Burning Hands creates a fifteen foot diameter three dimensional effect, despite the common sense meaning of "thin sheet" being a flat two-dimensional plane.
I'm not missing anything, I'm just taking the position that if we're giving weight to the common sense meaning of the terms used in the general rules about spellcasting (and I agree that we should), then we should also give such weight to the common sense meaning of the terms used in the specific spell descriptions.
A Cone is absolutely without exception three-dimensional, even though the area of effect description of Cones in the spellcasting rules describes them using two-dimensional descriptors, because the common sense meaning of Cone is a three-dimensional shape.
Yes. That is not the "common-sense" meaning of cone. That is the meaning of cone. The spellcasting rules describe how to project a cone down onto a two-dimensional plane, because 99% of all D&D action takes place in a plane. If they wanted to preclude the possibility of the other 1%, they would not have used the word cone.
The "thin sheet of flame" created by Burning Hands creates a fifteen foot diameter three dimensional effect, despite the common sense meaning of "thin sheet" being a flat two-dimensional plane.
No. The spell Burning Hands creates a fifteen-foot diameter three-dimensional area of effect. It also creates a thin sheet of flame. The idea that these two things are the same thing is a fantasy you have created that is directly contradicted by the spell text, which describes them separately.
Burning Hands in 1e and 2e is described as a fan-like sheet of flames. No mention of cones.
3e turns it into a cone. No description of a sheet of flames.
So in 5e we end up with both, making the description seemingly self-contradictory. The flames spread out in a sheet but effect a cone. It must have made sense to someone.
A Cone is absolutely without exception three-dimensional, even though the area of effect description of Cones in the spellcasting rules describes them using two-dimensional descriptors, because the common sense meaning of Cone is a three-dimensional shape.
Almost. I'm not sure what you mean by "2-d descriptors." In mathematics a cone is a 3-d shape that only requires 2 measurements to describe: 1) the radius or diameter (width) of a circular base and 2) the length of the axis that runs from the center of the base to the point. And the rules set the width of the base and the length to be equal. It is still describing a 3-d object.
The "thin sheet of flame" created by Burning Hands creates a fifteen foot diameter three dimensional effect, despite the common sense meaning of "thin sheet" being a flat two-dimensional plane.
Not quite. It is not the common sense meaning of "thin sheet" that makes the area of effect a 3-d shape, it is the "15-foot cone" part of the spell description that does. The spell never says what the sheet does, but it says all creatures in the cone makes a save against the damage, so that is what we do.
Being a person who likes descriptions to match effects, I like to think of it as a sheet that moves up and down like a wave.
A Cone is absolutely without exception three-dimensional, even though the area of effect description of Cones in the spellcasting rules describes them using two-dimensional descriptors, because the common sense meaning of Cone is a three-dimensional shape.
Almost. I'm not sure what you mean by "2-d descriptors." In mathematics a cone is a 3-d shape that only requires 2 measurements to describe: 1) the radius or diameter (width) of a circular base and 2) the length of the axis that runs from the center of the base to the point. And the rules set the width of the base and the length to be equal. It is still describing a 3-d object.
The "thin sheet of flame" created by Burning Hands creates a fifteen foot diameter three dimensional effect, despite the common sense meaning of "thin sheet" being a flat two-dimensional plane.
Not quite. It is not the common sense meaning of "thin sheet" that makes the area of effect a 3-d shape, it is the "15-foot cone" part of the spell description that does. The spell never says what the sheet does, but it says all creatures in the cone makes a save against the damage, so that is what we do.
Being a person who likes descriptions to match effects, I like to think of it as a sheet that moves up and down like a wave.
Terms like "radius" and "diameter" certainly would imply a circular area at the end of the Cone. And the rules know how to use those terms, as demonstrated by Cylinder and Sphere both making use of "radius," and many spells using "diameter" when describing areas of effect for spheres. Instead, the section defining cones used "width", which you really must admit is a funny way to talk about diameter since in common English phrasing you wouldn't really use "width" to talk about vertical distance (that's height), forward to back horizontal distance (that's depth or thickness or length), so much as you would side to side horizontal distance. The fact that you could swap out all uses of the word "Cone" for "Equilateral Triangle" and it would still read perfectly coherently is at the root of why I'm saying they haven't used any descriptors which explicitly establish that it is intended to be a three-dimensional object.
I do hear what you guys are saying about the "thin sheet of flame" being in a separate sentence from that referring to a Cone. The argument being, whatever the "thin sheet of flame" language means, it is modified/superseded by the next sentence which says in no uncertain terms that it nevertheless creates a "Cone." It's a pretty good argument, except that this would mean that the "thin sheet of flame" language is not only fluff, it is fluff that is inconsistent with the mechanical effect of the spell. Scanning down the spell list I'm not seeing an example of any other spell with a similar conflict, the first sentence is almost always a contextual summary of the spell that helps you not misinterpret the effects listed afterwards; Burning Hands' first sentence (if you guys are right) does the exact opposite.
However I will say this: I haven't really found any other Cones that describe a flat area of effect, so even if Burning Hands works as I think it does, it may be the only one in its class. I wish instead of "Cone" they had written "15-foot fan" or "15-foot triangular area" or something to mark it out as separate, because every other cone I've found seems logically three-dimensional. So if we want to say "Cones are three-dimensional", I can agree that it's right enough to just let this die, begrudgingly.
It's a pretty good argument, except that this would mean that the "thin sheet of flame" language is not only fluff, it is fluff that is inconsistent with the mechanical effect of the spell.
Burning hands also describes using both hands to cast the spell, but never says in any rules terms that it does so. This is a problem with 5e. They took old descriptions of old mechanics and copy and pasted them in to a simplified rules set that doesn't make sense with that description. A lot of rule topics are just missing. There is vague or inconsistent language, there should never be vague language in rules.
They're not going to say "the radius at any point along the cone is equal to double the length at that point."
They could have, but it would be unnecessarily confusing. They also could have used the word diameter instead of width, but in mathematics diameters and radiuses aren't typically used for measuring the size of an object. Length, width, and height are. As a cone is circular and only has 2 dimensions to measure (without getting into angles and such), it only uses length and width.
Also, who ever said the thin sheet of flame had to be parallel to the ground?
For that matter who said it couldn't rotate, fold, or bend?
Or spread out from the thin sheet cast from the hand into a firestorm affecting a 15 foot cone, you know, like most explosive fires do when erupting from a narrow source?
Jaysburn, a cone has exactly the same number of dimensions to measure as a cylinder. If both are appropriately described by the length/height of their sides, and the size of their circular face, one would expect them to be more similar in terms?
DxJxC, that “two hands” thing is a pretty good point. Okay, you sold me, “thin sheet” is no more operative than “thumbs touching,” Burning Hands is just a regular old cone.
It's virtually a moot point either way. I love a good rules discussion and it's fun trying to get to the bottom of what the text really means, but bottom line - as has been stated - the vast majority of the time combat in DnD takes place on a single plane, and the rules are written with that assumption in mind.
In the rare cases where you do have creatures airborne, either via flying or because of terrain, you really should just eyeball it and say "Yeah, you blast your cone up and hit # of the Imps above you" rather than busting out rulers or counting squares.
I've found that if you play in theater of the mind you are much more likely to run into instances of airborne combat than if you play on a grid, but then it's even more moot because you estimate everything in theater of the mind, whether you're blasting things on the ground or in the air or whatever. Playing with flying creatures on a grid is a pain in the @$$ since you need to keep track of just how high every creature is.
XTGE offers optional, self-declared non-RAW, rules for single plane play, but I do not agree that the rules are written with the assumption of single plane play. If they made that assumption in writing the rules then they would have never described spell effects as having a three dimensional areas. In fact, I strongly believe the rules were written without any assumptions at all as to how combat would be played out. In fact, I believe they intentionally did not want to dictate any particular combat style and so they made no assumptions INTENTIONALLY. The rules don't care how you run combat. Minis, maps, 2D or 3D virtual spaces - it doesn't matter, the rules as written covers it all. If they assumed 2D combat - that would create a LOT of problems with other play styles - they knew that and they smartly made NO assumptions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
that is what the area of effect rules say about those two spells. That’s it. They do NOT “specifically call out” these spells as having three dimensional areas of effect.
i don’t (entirely) disagree that cones are generally three dimensional, that’s only one of two theories. The more steady ground that I actually stake this argument on is, spell descriptions can and do operate as specific exceptions to general rules, and burning hands is one such example, having a two dimensional cone instead of a three dimensional cone by virtue of the common sense meaning of the “thin sheet of flames” wording.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
"Two-dimensional cone" is an oxymoron.
Plenty of the tweets I quoted refer to a two dimensional template of a triangle as a “cone.” It really isn’t an oxymoron, especially when we again remember that we are talking about a game system concept (or, a specific exception applied to sprcific magic spell), not real world geometry.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Those tweets are describing a cone as it effects a 2-d grid. Most of the examples and explanations in 5e just ignore height. The PHB (the first book that talks about area of effects) uses a 3-d cone in its diagram to describe spells with a cone area of effect.
Okay, but the area of effect rules also specify that for all of the shapes, "A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover." And yet, spells like Meteor Swarm or fog cloud contain descriptive text which provide a more specific exception to the general rule, which changes how that particular shape is drawn. Which the only arguments I've heard so far to respond to that is, "no that's just fluff ignore it."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
But Burning Hands doesn't provide a more specific exception. I sincerely don't understand what you're missing here. If the spell text said "everyone in a 15-foot thin sheet must make a DEX saving throw," you'd have a leg to stand on. But it doesn't. It doesn't say that only creatures that actually come into contact with the thin sheet are affected. It says you do a thin sheet, and then everyone in a 15-foot cone makes a DEX save. The sheet can be a flat triangle if you want it to be, but the area of affect is not a thin sheet, and the spell text doesn't say it is. You're inventing language that doesn't exist in the description.
So am I correct that:
I'm not missing anything, I'm just taking the position that if we're giving weight to the common sense meaning of the terms used in the general rules about spellcasting (and I agree that we should), then we should also give such weight to the common sense meaning of the terms used in the specific spell descriptions.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Yes. That is not the "common-sense" meaning of cone. That is the meaning of cone. The spellcasting rules describe how to project a cone down onto a two-dimensional plane, because 99% of all D&D action takes place in a plane. If they wanted to preclude the possibility of the other 1%, they would not have used the word cone.
No. The spell Burning Hands creates a fifteen-foot diameter three-dimensional area of effect. It also creates a thin sheet of flame. The idea that these two things are the same thing is a fantasy you have created that is directly contradicted by the spell text, which describes them separately.
Burning Hands in 1e and 2e is described as a fan-like sheet of flames. No mention of cones.
3e turns it into a cone. No description of a sheet of flames.
So in 5e we end up with both, making the description seemingly self-contradictory. The flames spread out in a sheet but effect a cone. It must have made sense to someone.
I think that calling it a “fantasy” is a little over the top, but ok, positions have been well described and explored by now.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Almost. I'm not sure what you mean by "2-d descriptors." In mathematics a cone is a 3-d shape that only requires 2 measurements to describe: 1) the radius or diameter (width) of a circular base and 2) the length of the axis that runs from the center of the base to the point. And the rules set the width of the base and the length to be equal. It is still describing a 3-d object.
Not quite. It is not the common sense meaning of "thin sheet" that makes the area of effect a 3-d shape, it is the "15-foot cone" part of the spell description that does. The spell never says what the sheet does, but it says all creatures in the cone makes a save against the damage, so that is what we do.
Being a person who likes descriptions to match effects, I like to think of it as a sheet that moves up and down like a wave.
Terms like "radius" and "diameter" certainly would imply a circular area at the end of the Cone. And the rules know how to use those terms, as demonstrated by Cylinder and Sphere both making use of "radius," and many spells using "diameter" when describing areas of effect for spheres. Instead, the section defining cones used "width", which you really must admit is a funny way to talk about diameter since in common English phrasing you wouldn't really use "width" to talk about vertical distance (that's height), forward to back horizontal distance (that's depth or thickness or length), so much as you would side to side horizontal distance. The fact that you could swap out all uses of the word "Cone" for "Equilateral Triangle" and it would still read perfectly coherently is at the root of why I'm saying they haven't used any descriptors which explicitly establish that it is intended to be a three-dimensional object.
I do hear what you guys are saying about the "thin sheet of flame" being in a separate sentence from that referring to a Cone. The argument being, whatever the "thin sheet of flame" language means, it is modified/superseded by the next sentence which says in no uncertain terms that it nevertheless creates a "Cone." It's a pretty good argument, except that this would mean that the "thin sheet of flame" language is not only fluff, it is fluff that is inconsistent with the mechanical effect of the spell. Scanning down the spell list I'm not seeing an example of any other spell with a similar conflict, the first sentence is almost always a contextual summary of the spell that helps you not misinterpret the effects listed afterwards; Burning Hands' first sentence (if you guys are right) does the exact opposite.
However I will say this: I haven't really found any other Cones that describe a flat area of effect, so even if Burning Hands works as I think it does, it may be the only one in its class. I wish instead of "Cone" they had written "15-foot fan" or "15-foot triangular area" or something to mark it out as separate, because every other cone I've found seems logically three-dimensional. So if we want to say "Cones are three-dimensional", I can agree that it's right enough to just let this die, begrudgingly.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Burning hands also describes using both hands to cast the spell, but never says in any rules terms that it does so. This is a problem with 5e. They took old descriptions of old mechanics and copy and pasted them in to a simplified rules set that doesn't make sense with that description. A lot of rule topics are just missing. There is vague or inconsistent language, there should never be vague language in rules.
I forgot where I was going with that...
They're not going to say "the radius at any point along the cone is equal to double the length at that point."
They could have, but it would be unnecessarily confusing. They also could have used the word diameter instead of width, but in mathematics diameters and radiuses aren't typically used for measuring the size of an object. Length, width, and height are. As a cone is circular and only has 2 dimensions to measure (without getting into angles and such), it only uses length and width.
Meteor Swarm and Fog Cloud specify what area they cover. Burning Hands does as well; a 15 foot cone.
Also, who ever said the thin sheet of flame had to be parallel to the ground?
For that matter who said it couldn't rotate, fold, or bend?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Or spread out from the thin sheet cast from the hand into a firestorm affecting a 15 foot cone, you know, like most explosive fires do when erupting from a narrow source?
Jaysburn, a cone has exactly the same number of dimensions to measure as a cylinder. If both are appropriately described by the length/height of their sides, and the size of their circular face, one would expect them to be more similar in terms?
DxJxC, that “two hands” thing is a pretty good point. Okay, you sold me, “thin sheet” is no more operative than “thumbs touching,” Burning Hands is just a regular old cone.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It's virtually a moot point either way. I love a good rules discussion and it's fun trying to get to the bottom of what the text really means, but bottom line - as has been stated - the vast majority of the time combat in DnD takes place on a single plane, and the rules are written with that assumption in mind.In the rare cases where you do have creatures airborne, either via flying or because of terrain, you really should just eyeball it and say "Yeah, you blast your cone up and hit # of the Imps above you" rather than busting out rulers or counting squares.
I've found that if you play in theater of the mind you are much more likely to run into instances of airborne combat than if you play on a grid, but then it's even more moot because you estimate everything in theater of the mind, whether you're blasting things on the ground or in the air or whatever. Playing with flying creatures on a grid is a pain in the @$$ since you need to keep track of just how high every creature is.
XTGE offers optional, self-declared non-RAW, rules for single plane play, but I do not agree that the rules are written with the assumption of single plane play. If they made that assumption in writing the rules then they would have never described spell effects as having a three dimensional areas. In fact, I strongly believe the rules were written without any assumptions at all as to how combat would be played out. In fact, I believe they intentionally did not want to dictate any particular combat style and so they made no assumptions INTENTIONALLY. The rules don't care how you run combat. Minis, maps, 2D or 3D virtual spaces - it doesn't matter, the rules as written covers it all. If they assumed 2D combat - that would create a LOT of problems with other play styles - they knew that and they smartly made NO assumptions.