A cone's point of origin is not included in the cone's area of effect, unless you decide otherwise.
This sentence does not change anything about the positioning of the cone at all except turn on one additional square included in the effect: your square. The particular point of origin is assumed to be the same either way. This option ONLY gives the ability to hit the square you are in, so would not allow you to hit any more enemies unless that enemy was occupying your square somehow. 5' away from the point of origin is still in the next square, and it is still only 5' wide there.
As you say David42, I would not allow a player to try to use a cone to hit an enemy north and an enemy west of their character by including their own square in the cone. I would say that they hit their square, the square northwest of them - missing both enemies , and 2 beyond that (etc.).
I think that making your square part of the AOE could get more targets. Think about it. If the it is a 15 foot cone then it effects 15 feet from source. If you make your square part of the AOE then it becomes 20 from source unless you move the cone back, which makes it wider near you.
Though it should probably be possible to hit enemies North and west without hitting your square using the dice method of AOE in XGtE.
It is all ultimately up to DM, but there are no written rules that say you can't.
A cone's point of origin is not included in the cone's area of effect, unless you decide otherwise.
This sentence does not change anything about the positioning of the cone at all except turn on one additional square included in the effect: your square. The particular point of origin is assumed to be the same either way. This option ONLY gives the ability to hit the square you are in, so would not allow you to hit any more enemies unless that enemy was occupying your square somehow. 5' away from the point of origin is still in the next square, and it is still only 5' wide there.
As you say David42, I would not allow a player to try to use a cone to hit an enemy north and an enemy west of their character by including their own square in the cone. I would say that they hit their square, the square northwest of them - missing both enemies , and 2 beyond that (etc.).
I think that making your square part of the AOE could get more targets. Think about it. If the it is a 15 foot cone then it effects 15 feet from source. If you make your square part of the AOE then it becomes 20 from source unless you move the cone back, which makes it wider near you.
Though it should probably be possible to hit enemies North and west without hitting your square using the dice method of AOE in XGtE.
It is all ultimately up to DM, but there are no written rules that say you can't.
It's interesting how folks read the same words and reach diametrically opposite conclusions. :) ... just one of those agree to disagree situations.
To me, all of the examples in Xanathar's show the areas of effect extending from the square where the spell is cast. The text states that the caster is the point of origin for the spell and that the spell goes "out" from the caster. The spell text for most of the spells indicates that the effect originates from the caster's hands. For a spell to originate at a point that moves the area of effect so that the first square affected is the caster's square and then 2 or 3 squares adjacent to that as shown in the Xanathar's area of effect then the caster would need to in the square on the OTHER side of the vertex since the spell originates with the caster (the hands if you believe the flavor text). All of this, plus the examples of area of effect from Xanathar's leads me to the conclusion that you can't choose a vertex the square behind the caster as the source in order to increase the number of adjacent squares affected by the spell.
However, the response appears to be "there are no rules that say you can't" despite the ones I cited which seem to indicate you can't. I also don't see any rules that indicate that you can do it. Anyway, you choose to run it how you like at your table and I will run it how I like at mine but I still don't see how the interpretation suggested is possible based on the rules and descriptions as written. (The point of origin of the spell IS the caster ... not some arbitrary point in the square they occupy).
A cone's point of origin is not included in the cone's area of effect, unless you decide otherwise.
This sentence does not change anything about the positioning of the cone at all except turn on one additional square included in the effect: your square. The particular point of origin is assumed to be the same either way. This option ONLY gives the ability to hit the square you are in, so would not allow you to hit any more enemies unless that enemy was occupying your square somehow. 5' away from the point of origin is still in the next square, and it is still only 5' wide there.
As you say David42, I would not allow a player to try to use a cone to hit an enemy north and an enemy west of their character by including their own square in the cone. I would say that they hit their square, the square northwest of them - missing both enemies , and 2 beyond that (etc.).
I think that making your square part of the AOE could get more targets. Think about it. If the it is a 15 foot cone then it effects 15 feet from source. If you make your square part of the AOE then it becomes 20 from source unless you move the cone back, which makes it wider near you.
Though it should probably be possible to hit enemies North and west without hitting your square using the dice method of AOE in XGtE.
It is all ultimately up to DM, but there are no written rules that say you can't.
Yeah, I think we are reading the rule sentence differently. I am taking it to mean that either way, the point of origin is the same and your choice is whether that point is included in the effect (and everything else is the same). You, I think, have some other understanding of it.
However, the response appears to be "there are no rules that say you can't" despite the ones I cited which seem to indicate you can't. I also don't see any rules that indicate that you can do it. Anyway, you choose to run it how you like at your table and I will run it how I like at mine but I still don't see how the interpretation suggested is possible based on the rules and descriptions as written. (The point of origin of the spell IS the caster ... not some arbitrary point in the square they occupy).
The issue with your position here is that the caster can, at any time, be at any arbitrary point in the square they occupy, including the corner or side opposite the direction they wish the cast the cone spell in, allowing the AoE's first 5 feet of length to be the caster's square. There are no rules governing where in a square a character is; they're assumed to be constantly dancing about within it as befits the situation from moment to moment.
The only other way I can see of running the scenario is abstracting it and making the point of origin just the entire square, in which case the rules still explicitly allow it to be included (I personally would not allow this to make a 30-foot AoE 35-feet long, as DxJxC mentioned; rather the caster's square is the first 5 feet of the 30, allowing the cone to get wider sooner, relative to that square).
I think the main discussion throughout this thread is people trying to cross/combine tactical grid rules with theater of the mind. Using a tactical grid, either a square is included or not (no matter what flavor you say about positioning within). On a grid the square where the cone is 5' wide is always 5' from the point of origin, and that has to be an adjacent square according to the distance counting rules that 5e uses. This is because finding distances on a grid is done simply by counting squares, ignores positioning within those squares. The place where the cone is 5' wide is where you get 1 square's width of effect (a square adjacent to the point of origin). In theater of the mind, if you put the cone in the back corner of a square, well then there aren't squares so what are you talking about?
My thought is that "including the origin" takes the nice pictures that Chicken_Champ linked from Xanathar's and ads one more dice in the included effect under the lawn gnome.
Cones are very different whether you use templates or tokens on a grid. The two approximations in Xanathar's have vastly different angles (one close to the 53 degrees we should expect but very chunky, and one 90 degrees). The one that spans 90 degrees is already a huge approximation that shifts the effect into a wider area generally closer to the caster. If you'd like to position a template close to the caster, then I wouldn't use an angle of 90 degrees to make the template.
My thought is that "including the origin" takes the nice pictures that Chicken_Champ linked from Xanathar's and ads one more dice in the included effect under the lawn gnome.
Cones are very different whether you use templates or tokens on a grid. The two approximations in Xanathar's have vastly different angles (one close to the 53 degrees we should expect but very chunky, and one 90 degrees). The one that spans 90 degrees is already a huge approximation that shifts the effect into a wider area generally closer to the caster. If you'd like to position a template close to the caster, then I wouldn't use an angle of 90 degrees to make the template.
My thought was "including the origin" takes the diagram C_C posted from Xanathar's and moves the lawn gnome into the corner square. That way the size of the AOE stays consistent.
But yeah, 53ish° does not fit a grid very well. The diagrams vary from 45° to 90°, but try to keep the area consistent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think that making your square part of the AOE could get more targets. Think about it. If the it is a 15 foot cone then it effects 15 feet from source. If you make your square part of the AOE then it becomes 20 from source unless you move the cone back, which makes it wider near you.
Though it should probably be possible to hit enemies North and west without hitting your square using the dice method of AOE in XGtE.
It is all ultimately up to DM, but there are no written rules that say you can't.
It's interesting how folks read the same words and reach diametrically opposite conclusions. :) ... just one of those agree to disagree situations.
To me, all of the examples in Xanathar's show the areas of effect extending from the square where the spell is cast. The text states that the caster is the point of origin for the spell and that the spell goes "out" from the caster. The spell text for most of the spells indicates that the effect originates from the caster's hands. For a spell to originate at a point that moves the area of effect so that the first square affected is the caster's square and then 2 or 3 squares adjacent to that as shown in the Xanathar's area of effect then the caster would need to in the square on the OTHER side of the vertex since the spell originates with the caster (the hands if you believe the flavor text). All of this, plus the examples of area of effect from Xanathar's leads me to the conclusion that you can't choose a vertex the square behind the caster as the source in order to increase the number of adjacent squares affected by the spell.
However, the response appears to be "there are no rules that say you can't" despite the ones I cited which seem to indicate you can't. I also don't see any rules that indicate that you can do it. Anyway, you choose to run it how you like at your table and I will run it how I like at mine but I still don't see how the interpretation suggested is possible based on the rules and descriptions as written. (The point of origin of the spell IS the caster ... not some arbitrary point in the square they occupy).
Yeah, I think we are reading the rule sentence differently. I am taking it to mean that either way, the point of origin is the same and your choice is whether that point is included in the effect (and everything else is the same). You, I think, have some other understanding of it.
The issue with your position here is that the caster can, at any time, be at any arbitrary point in the square they occupy, including the corner or side opposite the direction they wish the cast the cone spell in, allowing the AoE's first 5 feet of length to be the caster's square. There are no rules governing where in a square a character is; they're assumed to be constantly dancing about within it as befits the situation from moment to moment.
The only other way I can see of running the scenario is abstracting it and making the point of origin just the entire square, in which case the rules still explicitly allow it to be included (I personally would not allow this to make a 30-foot AoE 35-feet long, as DxJxC mentioned; rather the caster's square is the first 5 feet of the 30, allowing the cone to get wider sooner, relative to that square).
I think the main discussion throughout this thread is people trying to cross/combine tactical grid rules with theater of the mind. Using a tactical grid, either a square is included or not (no matter what flavor you say about positioning within). On a grid the square where the cone is 5' wide is always 5' from the point of origin, and that has to be an adjacent square according to the distance counting rules that 5e uses. This is because finding distances on a grid is done simply by counting squares, ignores positioning within those squares. The place where the cone is 5' wide is where you get 1 square's width of effect (a square adjacent to the point of origin). In theater of the mind, if you put the cone in the back corner of a square, well then there aren't squares so what are you talking about?
My thought is that "including the origin" takes the nice pictures that Chicken_Champ linked from Xanathar's and ads one more dice in the included effect under the lawn gnome.
Cones are very different whether you use templates or tokens on a grid. The two approximations in Xanathar's have vastly different angles (one close to the 53 degrees we should expect but very chunky, and one 90 degrees). The one that spans 90 degrees is already a huge approximation that shifts the effect into a wider area generally closer to the caster. If you'd like to position a template close to the caster, then I wouldn't use an angle of 90 degrees to make the template.
My thought was "including the origin" takes the diagram C_C posted from Xanathar's and moves the lawn gnome into the corner square. That way the size of the AOE stays consistent.
But yeah, 53ish° does not fit a grid very well. The diagrams vary from 45° to 90°, but try to keep the area consistent.