I'm happy with the new spells released with EGtW, but was wondering whether anybody could clarify ravenous void. The spell seems to imply that a character 119 feet away from the center of the orb would be pulled the full 119 feet, as long as the end space is unoccupied. Sound right?
The spell also states that the target must be "a point you can see within range", which isn't limited to the ground, as some spells are. So it seems like you could conjure the sphere far overhead, pull a bunch of creatures up into the air, and when the spell ends they all plummet to the ground. Follow?
In principle, a sphere of radius 120 (which includes both the 20 foot sphere, and the area of effect covering the 100 feet surrounding said sphere) will intersect with the ground, forming a circle of radius = sqrt(120^2 - X^2), where X is the distance of the center of the sphere from the ground. (That's the Pythagorean theorem folks, don't @ me.) So if you want maximum damage, you could set the sphere centered 115 feet above ground, still catch all targets in a circle on the ground of radius ~35. If they fail their saves, they take the damage, fly into the air, and when the spell ends they'd fall and take 11d6 falling damage. If you want to catch a larger area, you could lower the sphere and expand the radius according to the above formula. You'd get an additional (1/2)(120^2 - X^2)^(-1/2) foot to the circle's radius for each foot by which you drop the sphere. (That's calculus, so feel free to @ me.)
Anyway, if I haven't made a mistake, that's a pretty frightening power!
It is a 9th level spell. Let it be as OP as it wants. Bear in mind that until now the go-to level 9 damage spell could level 20,106.2 sq feet of a city from a mile away (granted this spell has an AOE of 45238.93 sq feet, but from only 1000 feet away and is a "much rarer spell").
Bear in mind that until now the go-to level 9 damage spell could level 20,106.2 sq feet of a city from a mile away (granted this spell has an AOE of 45238.93 sq feet, but from only 1000 feet away and is a "much rarer spell").
Oh, I didn't realize that was the case. I thought objects weren't destroyed unless they were in one of the spheres. Yikes.
The D&D world is a non Euclidean world. Pythagorean's Formula for calculating hypotenuses isn't how distance works in D&D.
Unless you are trying to say spheres are not round, the math tracks.
In D&D, they aren't.
Ever wonder why a sphere fills a whole 20 foot diameter square of space when referring to fireball, not ignoring space on the corners? Because circles/spheres are straight in D&D. They fill the same space as a cube would in a spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The D&D world is a non Euclidean world. Pythagorean's Formula for calculating hypotenuses isn't how distance works in D&D.
Sure, but even if we make some non-Euclidean approximation it's a powerful effect. A 30-foot radius circle is big, even without 100% accurate corners. Even if you wanted to make it a 20-foot radius, that's still a lot of potential enemies.
The D&D world is a non Euclidean world. Pythagorean's Formula for calculating hypotenuses isn't how distance works in D&D.
Unless you are trying to say spheres are not round, the math tracks.
In D&D, they aren't.
Ever wonder why a sphere fills a whole 20 foot diameter square of space when referring to fireball, not ignoring space on the corners? Because circles/spheres are straight in D&D. They fill the same space as a cube would in a spell.
Wait, huh? The PHB correctly defines all these shapes in chapter 10.
The D&D world is a non Euclidean world. Pythagorean's Formula for calculating hypotenuses isn't how distance works in D&D.
Unless you are trying to say spheres are not round, the math tracks.
In D&D, they aren't.
Ever wonder why a sphere fills a whole 20 foot diameter square of space when referring to fireball, not ignoring space on the corners? Because circles/spheres are straight in D&D. They fill the same space as a cube would in a spell.
Spheres are spheres in my games (and in AL). So in your games this spell would be able to everyone in a 240×240 square 120 feet into the air?
The D&D world is a non Euclidean world. Pythagorean's Formula for calculating hypotenuses isn't how distance works in D&D.
Sure, but even if we make some non-Euclidean approximation it's a powerful effect. A 30-foot radius circle is big, even without 100% accurate corners. Even if you wanted to make it a 20-foot radius, that's still a lot of potential enemies.
The D&D world is a non Euclidean world. Pythagorean's Formula for calculating hypotenuses isn't how distance works in D&D.
Unless you are trying to say spheres are not round, the math tracks.
In D&D, they aren't.
Ever wonder why a sphere fills a whole 20 foot diameter square of space when referring to fireball, not ignoring space on the corners? Because circles/spheres are straight in D&D. They fill the same space as a cube would in a spell.
Wait, huh? The PHB correctly defines all these shapes in chapter 10.
Look at Xanathar's Guide to Everything. The area of effect of a sphere is a cube. The area of effect of a cylinder is a rectangular prism.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The D&D world is a non Euclidean world. Pythagorean's Formula for calculating hypotenuses isn't how distance works in D&D.
Sure, but even if we make some non-Euclidean approximation it's a powerful effect. A 30-foot radius circle is big, even without 100% accurate corners. Even if you wanted to make it a 20-foot radius, that's still a lot of potential enemies.
The D&D world is a non Euclidean world. Pythagorean's Formula for calculating hypotenuses isn't how distance works in D&D.
Unless you are trying to say spheres are not round, the math tracks.
In D&D, they aren't.
Ever wonder why a sphere fills a whole 20 foot diameter square of space when referring to fireball, not ignoring space on the corners? Because circles/spheres are straight in D&D. They fill the same space as a cube would in a spell.
Wait, huh? The PHB correctly defines all these shapes in chapter 10.
Look at Xanathar's Guide to Everything. The area of effect of a sphere is a cube. The area of effect of a cylinder is a rectangular prism.
They also show using circular templates. Saying that it is one way is wrong. It is however your table decides to deal with it.
Proof that D&D is non-Euclidean, you can move diagonal when expending movement to move a 5 foot square.
Yeah, these aren't breaches of physics so much as approximations for the sake of ease. Spheres and circles exist in many forms in the realms. A sphere of annihilation is a sphere.
Proof that D&D is non-Euclidean, you can move diagonal when expending movement to move a 5 foot square.
Yeah, these aren't breaches of physics so much as approximations for the sake of ease. Spheres and circles exist in many forms in the realms. A sphere of annihilation is a sphere.
Exactly, the reason why D&D is non-Euclidean is so that you don't have to do the Pythagorean formula every time you try to move diagonally. It is for the sake of ease, a Sphere of Annihilation is a sphere, it just affects the same volume as a cube would.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Proof that D&D is non-Euclidean, you can move diagonal when expending movement to move a 5 foot square.
Yeah, these aren't breaches of physics so much as approximations for the sake of ease. Spheres and circles exist in many forms in the realms. A sphere of annihilation is a sphere.
Exactly, the reason why D&D is non-Euclidean is so that you don't have to do the Pythagorean formula every time you try to move diagonally. It is for the sake of ease, a Sphere of Annihilation is a sphere, it just affects the same volume as a cube would.
Again, not correct. The rules for playing on a grid in the first place are a variant; and in that variant rules section, it says that there are better rules in the DMG. It turns out that there are better rules in XtgE too. All of the actual (non-variant) rules imply measuring distance like normal. Let me just re-iterate something that you seem to be confused on: Space is no different in the world of D&D, it is just that sometimes we can sacrifice accuracy for speed at the table.
If you take a faulty measurement(measuring 5' for diagonal movement), all that you can claim is that your measurement is faulty (we made an approximation for speed); you can't claim a better understanding of reality (non-Euclidean D&D worlds).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi all,
I'm happy with the new spells released with EGtW, but was wondering whether anybody could clarify ravenous void. The spell seems to imply that a character 119 feet away from the center of the orb would be pulled the full 119 feet, as long as the end space is unoccupied. Sound right?
The spell also states that the target must be "a point you can see within range", which isn't limited to the ground, as some spells are. So it seems like you could conjure the sphere far overhead, pull a bunch of creatures up into the air, and when the spell ends they all plummet to the ground. Follow?
In principle, a sphere of radius 120 (which includes both the 20 foot sphere, and the area of effect covering the 100 feet surrounding said sphere) will intersect with the ground, forming a circle of radius = sqrt(120^2 - X^2), where X is the distance of the center of the sphere from the ground. (That's the Pythagorean theorem folks, don't @ me.) So if you want maximum damage, you could set the sphere centered 115 feet above ground, still catch all targets in a circle on the ground of radius ~35. If they fail their saves, they take the damage, fly into the air, and when the spell ends they'd fall and take 11d6 falling damage. If you want to catch a larger area, you could lower the sphere and expand the radius according to the above formula. You'd get an additional (1/2)(120^2 - X^2)^(-1/2) foot to the circle's radius for each foot by which you drop the sphere. (That's calculus, so feel free to @ me.)
Anyway, if I haven't made a mistake, that's a pretty frightening power!
It is a 9th level spell. Let it be as OP as it wants. Bear in mind that until now the go-to level 9 damage spell could level 20,106.2 sq feet of a city from a mile away (granted this spell has an AOE of 45238.93 sq feet, but from only 1000 feet away and is a "much rarer spell").
I totally agree. I wouldn't say it's unbalanced, but it is more powerful than the headline damage would have you think.
Oh, I didn't realize that was the case. I thought objects weren't destroyed unless they were in one of the spheres. Yikes.
The D&D world is a non Euclidean world. Pythagorean's Formula for calculating hypotenuses isn't how distance works in D&D.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Unless you are trying to say spheres are not round, the math tracks.
In D&D, they aren't.
Ever wonder why a sphere fills a whole 20 foot diameter square of space when referring to fireball, not ignoring space on the corners? Because circles/spheres are straight in D&D. They fill the same space as a cube would in a spell.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Sure, but even if we make some non-Euclidean approximation it's a powerful effect. A 30-foot radius circle is big, even without 100% accurate corners. Even if you wanted to make it a 20-foot radius, that's still a lot of potential enemies.
Wait, huh? The PHB correctly defines all these shapes in chapter 10.
Spheres are spheres in my games (and in AL). So in your games this spell would be able to everyone in a 240×240 square 120 feet into the air?
Look at Xanathar's Guide to Everything. The area of effect of a sphere is a cube. The area of effect of a cylinder is a rectangular prism.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
They also show using circular templates. Saying that it is one way is wrong. It is however your table decides to deal with it.
Proof that D&D is non-Euclidean, you can move diagonal when expending movement to move a 5 foot square.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I mean, the DMG has an optional rule that provides a better approximation.
Yeah, these aren't breaches of physics so much as approximations for the sake of ease. Spheres and circles exist in many forms in the realms. A sphere of annihilation is a sphere.
Exactly, the reason why D&D is non-Euclidean is so that you don't have to do the Pythagorean formula every time you try to move diagonally. It is for the sake of ease, a Sphere of Annihilation is a sphere, it just affects the same volume as a cube would.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Again, not correct. The rules for playing on a grid in the first place are a variant; and in that variant rules section, it says that there are better rules in the DMG. It turns out that there are better rules in XtgE too. All of the actual (non-variant) rules imply measuring distance like normal. Let me just re-iterate something that you seem to be confused on: Space is no different in the world of D&D, it is just that sometimes we can sacrifice accuracy for speed at the table.
If you take a faulty measurement(measuring 5' for diagonal movement), all that you can claim is that your measurement is faulty (we made an approximation for speed); you can't claim a better understanding of reality (non-Euclidean D&D worlds).