Sorry if this was already answered (or obvious), I couldn't find any solutions on the forum or in the spell description. When it says "Each cube must have at least one face adjacent to the face of another cube," does that mean the entire 10' side of the cube, or can the cubes be staggered like only 5' of the cube's face?
Are you asking because you want to have the fire spread at 45° angles instead of just 90° angles? Either way, it appears that the intent of the spell is just that the fire is continuous. I would review the Areas of Effect on a Grid in Xanathar's Guide to Everything, specifically Lines section, to get further guidance.
Sorry if this was already answered (or obvious), I couldn't find any solutions on the forum or in the spell description. When it says "Each cube must have at least one face adjacent to the face of another cube," does that mean the entire 10' side of the cube, or can the cubes be staggered like only 5' of the cube's face?
Having an adjacent face means that each cube share a common side & vertex, but it does not mean the endpoints of the common side must be co-terminal--they just have to be collinear.
Sharing a 5x5 surface between cubes is sufficient for allowing the flame to spread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I tend to agree with DxJxC, and less with Sigred. The spell calls for faces to be adjacent, but the books make no distinction between what I'd call "partially adjacent" (faces sharing some area) and "fully adjacent" (faces completely overlap), so it is difficult to tell which they intend without clarification. If the effect were a number of 5' cubes, then only fully adjacent would be an option on a grid.
Sigred's definition of adjacent is the definition for adjacent angles (which is quite specific for angles), but the book uses adjacent for squares to mean sharing a side or a vertex (rather than and) when it talks of squares being generally adjacent. This is also one of a very small number of places in the rules where there is a distinction that faces have to be adjacent specifically.
Beyond that, I don't think that you can come to the conclusion that Sigred did using Sigred's definition of adjacent -- his definition says that adjacent means sharing a vertex and a side, and the vertex of a cube is its corner. So, under this definition a cube could only share an entire face with another cube and be considered adjacent (with the added stipulation from the spell that the faces also must be adjacent).
Edit: personally, I would tend to rule that partial overlap is enough (just like Sigred), but if you're going to start to get crazy with the shapes you want to try to build, you're going to have to bring some sort of visual aid.
Reading the Fire Storm rule carefully, I'd rule that partially adjacent is allowed. If they had wanted each cube to be fully adjacent, then I would have expected they'd have omitted using the 'adjacent face' terminology.
I tend to agree with DxJxC, and less with Sigred. The spell calls for faces to be adjacent, but the books make no distinction between what I'd call "partially adjacent" (faces sharing some area) and "fully adjacent" (faces completely overlap), so it is difficult to tell which they intend without clarification. If the effect were a number of 5' cubes, then only fully adjacent would be an option on a grid.
Sigred's definition of adjacent is the definition for adjacent angles (which is quite specific for angles), but the book uses adjacent for squares to mean sharing a side or a vertex (rather than and) when it talks of squares being generally adjacent. This is also one of a very small number of places in the rules where there is a distinction that faces have to be adjacent specifically.
Beyond that, I don't think that you can come to the conclusion that Sigred did using Sigred's definition of adjacent -- his definition says that adjacent means sharing a vertex and a side, and the vertex of a cube is its corner. So, under this definition a cube could only share an entire face with another cube and be considered adjacent (with the added stipulation from the spell that the faces also must be adjacent).
Edit: personally, I would tend to rule that partial overlap is enough (just like Sigred), but if you're going to start to get crazy with the shapes you want to try to build, you're going to have to bring some sort of visual aid.
I get what you're saying, and I don't think we actually disagree at all. If we were only talking about cubes that were 5x5x5, the vertex would inherently only mean a corner. We're talking about 10x10x10 cubes, and a vertex is just the point where the orthogonal vectors intersect. I.e., my assumption is that the 10x10x10 cubes are valid as long as there is--at minimum--a common 5x5 surface, so you can have one cube slightly shifted yet still flat against the other(s). I'm not advocating for connection along a 5x0 line segment like a hinge.
Put simply another way, assume there's a staircase at the end of a hallway. The steps are 10 feet wide, 10 feet deep, 5 feet tall, and the staircase itself has a 10 foot high clearance at every step. Each cube of the fire would be able to fill the entire space available for each step, and would share a common 10x5 surface. If each cube of fire had to share an entire 10x10 surface, it would be impossible for the fire to advance even though there's enough space for the volume to be a continuous extension.
Does that make more sense?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Sorry if this was already answered (or obvious), I couldn't find any solutions on the forum or in the spell description. When it says "Each cube must have at least one face adjacent to the face of another cube," does that mean the entire 10' side of the cube, or can the cubes be staggered like only 5' of the cube's face?
Are you asking because you want to have the fire spread at 45° angles instead of just 90° angles? Either way, it appears that the intent of the spell is just that the fire is continuous. I would review the Areas of Effect on a Grid in Xanathar's Guide to Everything, specifically Lines section, to get further guidance.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/xgte/dungeon-masters-tools#Spellcasting
Having an adjacent face means that each cube share a common side & vertex, but it does not mean the endpoints of the common side must be co-terminal--they just have to be collinear.
Sharing a 5x5 surface between cubes is sufficient for allowing the flame to spread.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Probably a little open to DM interpretation. I can see an argument for both.
I tend to agree with DxJxC, and less with Sigred. The spell calls for faces to be adjacent, but the books make no distinction between what I'd call "partially adjacent" (faces sharing some area) and "fully adjacent" (faces completely overlap), so it is difficult to tell which they intend without clarification. If the effect were a number of 5' cubes, then only fully adjacent would be an option on a grid.
Sigred's definition of adjacent is the definition for adjacent angles (which is quite specific for angles), but the book uses adjacent for squares to mean sharing a side or a vertex (rather than and) when it talks of squares being generally adjacent. This is also one of a very small number of places in the rules where there is a distinction that faces have to be adjacent specifically.
Beyond that, I don't think that you can come to the conclusion that Sigred did using Sigred's definition of adjacent -- his definition says that adjacent means sharing a vertex and a side, and the vertex of a cube is its corner. So, under this definition a cube could only share an entire face with another cube and be considered adjacent (with the added stipulation from the spell that the faces also must be adjacent).
Edit: personally, I would tend to rule that partial overlap is enough (just like Sigred), but if you're going to start to get crazy with the shapes you want to try to build, you're going to have to bring some sort of visual aid.
Reading the Fire Storm rule carefully, I'd rule that partially adjacent is allowed. If they had wanted each cube to be fully adjacent, then I would have expected they'd have omitted using the 'adjacent face' terminology.
I get what you're saying, and I don't think we actually disagree at all. If we were only talking about cubes that were 5x5x5, the vertex would inherently only mean a corner. We're talking about 10x10x10 cubes, and a vertex is just the point where the orthogonal vectors intersect. I.e., my assumption is that the 10x10x10 cubes are valid as long as there is--at minimum--a common 5x5 surface, so you can have one cube slightly shifted yet still flat against the other(s). I'm not advocating for connection along a 5x0 line segment like a hinge.
Put simply another way, assume there's a staircase at the end of a hallway. The steps are 10 feet wide, 10 feet deep, 5 feet tall, and the staircase itself has a 10 foot high clearance at every step. Each cube of the fire would be able to fill the entire space available for each step, and would share a common 10x5 surface. If each cube of fire had to share an entire 10x10 surface, it would be impossible for the fire to advance even though there's enough space for the volume to be a continuous extension.
Does that make more sense?
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
if theres a wall between 2 cubes, r the cubes still adjacent? Origin of a cube is any point on its face and i can see the point on my side