I don't think that we're going to agree on this either, but that's fine. As soon as you start giving those creatures neighbors, they're constrained by the spaces of those neighbors. Then the maximum distance between things is exactly the minimum distance between them, and we are functionally in a grid.
If you do decide to use a grid, then you can simply say that the creature is somewhere in its gridspace. Then we are back to our argument of style. I choose to interpret the idea that if I count 15' between two creatures, then I can't hit both with a 15' thing. This makes snap to grid and token counting extremely attractive to me.
But even using token counting, you can hit the targets 15' apart with a 15' square effect. Even tokens, which snaps to grid, can be used at angles.
I don't think that we're going to agree on this either, but that's fine. As soon as you start giving those creatures neighbors, they're constrained by the spaces of those neighbors. Then the maximum distance between things is exactly the minimum distance between them, and we are functionally in a grid.
If you do decide to use a grid, then you can simply say that the creature is somewhere in its gridspace. Then we are back to our argument of style. I choose to interpret the idea that if I count 15' between two creatures, then I can't hit both with a 15' thing. This makes snap to grid and token counting extremely attractive to me.
But even using token counting, you can hit the targets 15' apart with a 15' square effect. Even tokens, which snaps to grid, can be used at angles.
I think you misunderstood what I mean. But no, if you are using snap to grid and tokens, you really can only fill 3 squares with 3 tokens.
I would definitely never allow the use of D, but C would be acceptable on the condition that creatures in the half grids get advantage on saving throws. A chance for better pay off at higher risk.
If we follow the rules for spheres where at least half of the grid must covered to be affected, at the very least a 5 foot cube can affect two squares. Given that geometry states that a 5 foot cube has more volume than a 5 food sphere, it wouldn't make any sense it would have less coverage as stated by the sphere rule.
The other thing I see allot of people argue in this thread is that a creature can just put themselves on the other half of the square to avoid the effect. If that was true, then it would contradict the rule where spheres must cover at least half of the square to affect it. While it would be logical to say one can just put themselves in the part of the square that isn't affected, it wouldn't be logical to say that they could act normally within that confined space. Anyone who argues that a creature can move to one side of the square to avoid the attack should put themselves in a space that is 2.5 feet wide and try to act normally. If your body at any point touches the sides, you got hit by the spell. You most certainly couldn't attack anyone under those conditions given that most attacks with weapons requires you to do wide swinging motions. You could also argue that casting any spell with a somatic component would be difficult as well. The other thing that would completely destroy the idea of hiding in part of a square is that you rarely ever spend the time to specify which part of the cube a creature is in before a spell goes off (which is done for simplicity sake in 5e). If you want to say that a creature avoids the affect by moving to the other part of the square, do it through the save DC. That's what it's there for.
The problem is the abstract nature of the grid - a diagonal is equal to a straight, so this is technically true:
which makes things very odd - technically the first of these squares is in fact a circle with a radius of 5', because the edges of the square are all 5' away from the centre.
Once you realise your squares are circles, the whole premise of using a grid for exactly calculating the area of effect of an ability is not going to fly.
Personally, I'd say that if an area covers the middle point of a square on the grid, that square is affected - otherwise the person in that square has space to simply not be in the area.
Your 'also a 10' square' only covers 4 grid squares by more than half, so one could easily make a ruling using an actual rule that only 4 squares are affected. Then again, that rule is intended for circular effects because there is a default assumption in the rules about using a square grid to make a square area.
This is one of those obviousness things again, that the rules expect but rules lawyers can't interpret.
Your 'also a 10' square' only covers 4 grid squares by more than half, so one could easily make a ruling using an actual rule that only 4 squares are affected. Then again, that rule is intended for circular effects because there is a default assumption in the rules about using a square grid to make a square area.
This is one of those obviousness things again, that the rules expect but rules lawyers can't interpret.
There is also this to consider, when you get into the geometry of it:
A circle is defined as a shape where any point along its edge is the same distance from the centre. The dnd square grid fulfils this requirement!
You guys seem to be overcomplicating things. D&D was a wargame, wargamers use templates for aoe all the time. If you are under the template you make a saving throw. Templates can be placed however you want within the framework of the spell and terrain. For D&D if you feel like being partially under the template is questionable just give anyone not 100% under the template advantage on the save.
You guys seem to be overcomplicating things. D&D was a wargame, wargamers use templates for aoe all the time. If you are under the template you make a saving throw. Templates can be placed however you want within the framework of the spell and terrain. For D&D if you feel like being partially under the template is questionable just give anyone not 100% under the template advantage on the save.
Actually, the D&D rules are the equivalent of if at least HALF of you are under the template, then you make a saving throw.
I just have any square not fully within the area save at advantage and it works just fine. No extra work really. Either in, partially in, or not in. Simplified all sorts of shenanigans players might wanna do with trying to hit more enemies than normal or whatever. Adds pros and cons, tactical choices. Is easy and fast.
Seriously DMs, you have the rules authority to just hand out advantage and disadvantage whenever you think the situation calls for it. Not being entirely within the effect area is the perfect example of something that you could grant advantage for.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Actually, I don't care. Correcting or clarifying 50% is more work, less work is better.
Least work is achieved by aligning the AOE with the grid.
This discussion seems to have lost any merit of proofs or helpful suggestions. I suggest we experience reality with such a different perspective as to make further debate futile. You do you.
Your 'also a 10' square' only covers 4 grid squares by more than half, so one could easily make a ruling using an actual rule that only 4 squares are affected. Then again, that rule is intended for circular effects because there is a default assumption in the rules about using a square grid to make a square area.
This is one of those obviousness things again, that the rules expect but rules lawyers can't interpret.
This default assumption that a square area must be placed inside a square is entirely debunked by looking at cloud of daggers though. Grid rules state players move between spaces of the grid.
Page 192 PHB, Variant: Playing on a Grid: Speed. Rather than moving foot by foot, move square by square on the grid. This means you use your speed in 5-foot segments. This is particularly easy if you translate your speed into squares by dividing the speed by 5. For example, a speed of 30 feet translates into a speed of 6 squares. If you use a grid often, consider writing your speed in squares on your character sheet.
Cloud of Daggers states the area of effect is a 5ft cube centered on a point of your choice. "You fill the air with spinning daggers in a cube 5 feet on each side, centered on a point you choose within range."
The rules for placing area of effect spells on a grid state you choose a point at an intersection of spaces.
Page 251 DMG, Area of Effect: Choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow its rules as normal.
Since Cloud of Daggers is centered on its origin (it's centered on a point you choose and you choose an intersection as the rules state), it is cast only covering one quarter of 4 different squares. Which also now means if you accept that it doesn't have to snap to grid and just fill 1 square, but are still adamant that it would need to more than half cover a square to do damage, the spell literally can't do any damage when placed following grid rules. Since it can't be a reasonable conclusion that it never does damage, it must in fact hit a 2x2 set of squares.
Well, when using a grid the point of origin is placed on an intersection. So, if you have a 5 x 5 AOE that is centered on its point of origin there is no way to reach more than 4 squares.
Since 'you choose a point' can also be interpreted to mean any point in actual space then you could turn or rotate the square so it is a diamond (much like when the shreddies cereal ran an ad campaign claiming to introduce a new shreddie, when in fact it was just the same sqaure only presented as a diamond shape) and now it occupies the same square but has it's 4 points extend into the N,E,S, and W compass directions of adjoining squares (like a cross or plus sign)... and thus it would affect 5 squares for it's AoE.
It can't be interpreted that way when using grid rules because there is a clear statement that when placing area of effect spells on a grid you choose an intersection of squares as the origin point. The middle of a space is not an intersection.
Page 251 DMG, Area of Effect: Choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow its rules as normal.
Well, when using a grid the point of origin is placed on an intersection. So, if you have a 5 x 5 AOE that is centered on its point of origin there is no way to reach more than 4 squares.
What book and page # can we reference for this rule?
Since 'you choose a point' can also be interpreted to mean any point in actual space then you could turn or rotate the square so it is a diamond (much like when the shreddies cereal ran an ad campaign claiming to introduce a new shreddie, when in fact it was just the same sqaure only presented as a diamond shape) and now it occupies the same square but has it's 4 points extend into the N,E,S, and W compass directions of adjoining squares (like a cross or plus sign)... and thus it would affect 5 squares for it's AoE.
It can't be interpreted that way when using grid rules because there is a clear statement that when placing area of effect spells on a grid you choose an intersection of squares as the origin point. The middle of a space is not an intersection.
Page 251 DMG, Area of Effect: Choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow its rules as normal.
Oh, nvm. Pays to read all the replies before posting. Ha!
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Well, when using a grid the point of origin is placed on an intersection. So, if you have a 5 x 5 AOE that is centered on its point of origin there is no way to reach more than 4 squares.
I guess that's right... well, can't you have it be 2 and half feet off the ground so you get 2 layers of 4 squares? Like a 3-dimensional cube hovering off the ground so you would affect a 2 by 2 by 2 cube instead of a 2 by 2 square?
Technically speaking, the rules for playing on a grid are 2d. There aren't layers.
Once you add in height things necessarily need to be adhoc determined by the DM. A common ruling is that there is also a z axis in the grid structure, but that'd be homebrew. Even if it is common.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But even using token counting, you can hit the targets 15' apart with a 15' square effect. Even tokens, which snaps to grid, can be used at angles.
I think you misunderstood what I mean. But no, if you are using snap to grid and tokens, you really can only fill 3 squares with 3 tokens.
I would definitely never allow the use of D, but C would be acceptable on the condition that creatures in the half grids get advantage on saving throws. A chance for better pay off at higher risk.
You do realize those are examples of what a cube is yeah
If we follow the rules for spheres where at least half of the grid must covered to be affected, at the very least a 5 foot cube can affect two squares. Given that geometry states that a 5 foot cube has more volume than a 5 food sphere, it wouldn't make any sense it would have less coverage as stated by the sphere rule.
The other thing I see allot of people argue in this thread is that a creature can just put themselves on the other half of the square to avoid the effect. If that was true, then it would contradict the rule where spheres must cover at least half of the square to affect it. While it would be logical to say one can just put themselves in the part of the square that isn't affected, it wouldn't be logical to say that they could act normally within that confined space. Anyone who argues that a creature can move to one side of the square to avoid the attack should put themselves in a space that is 2.5 feet wide and try to act normally. If your body at any point touches the sides, you got hit by the spell. You most certainly couldn't attack anyone under those conditions given that most attacks with weapons requires you to do wide swinging motions. You could also argue that casting any spell with a somatic component would be difficult as well. The other thing that would completely destroy the idea of hiding in part of a square is that you rarely ever spend the time to specify which part of the cube a creature is in before a spell goes off (which is done for simplicity sake in 5e). If you want to say that a creature avoids the affect by moving to the other part of the square, do it through the save DC. That's what it's there for.
The problem is the abstract nature of the grid - a diagonal is equal to a straight, so this is technically true:
which makes things very odd - technically the first of these squares is in fact a circle with a radius of 5', because the edges of the square are all 5' away from the centre.
Once you realise your squares are circles, the whole premise of using a grid for exactly calculating the area of effect of an ability is not going to fly.
Personally, I'd say that if an area covers the middle point of a square on the grid, that square is affected - otherwise the person in that square has space to simply not be in the area.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Your 'also a 10' square' only covers 4 grid squares by more than half, so one could easily make a ruling using an actual rule that only 4 squares are affected. Then again, that rule is intended for circular effects because there is a default assumption in the rules about using a square grid to make a square area.
This is one of those obviousness things again, that the rules expect but rules lawyers can't interpret.
There is also this to consider, when you get into the geometry of it:
A circle is defined as a shape where any point along its edge is the same distance from the centre. The dnd square grid fulfils this requirement!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
The distinction, then, becomes one of classification. A spherical area has different rules written for it than a cube.
You guys seem to be overcomplicating things. D&D was a wargame, wargamers use templates for aoe all the time.
If you are under the template you make a saving throw.
Templates can be placed however you want within the framework of the spell and terrain.
For D&D if you feel like being partially under the template is questionable just give anyone not 100% under the template advantage on the save.
Actually, the D&D rules are the equivalent of if at least HALF of you are under the template, then you make a saving throw.
Actually, I don't care. Correcting or clarifying 50% is more work, less work is better.
Least work is achieved by aligning the AOE with the grid.
I just have any square not fully within the area save at advantage and it works just fine. No extra work really. Either in, partially in, or not in. Simplified all sorts of shenanigans players might wanna do with trying to hit more enemies than normal or whatever. Adds pros and cons, tactical choices. Is easy and fast.
Seriously DMs, you have the rules authority to just hand out advantage and disadvantage whenever you think the situation calls for it. Not being entirely within the effect area is the perfect example of something that you could grant advantage for.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This discussion seems to have lost any merit of proofs or helpful suggestions. I suggest we experience reality with such a different perspective as to make further debate futile. You do you.
This default assumption that a square area must be placed inside a square is entirely debunked by looking at cloud of daggers though. Grid rules state players move between spaces of the grid.
Page 192 PHB, Variant: Playing on a Grid: Speed. Rather than moving foot by foot, move square by square on the grid. This means you use your speed in 5-foot segments. This is particularly easy if you translate your speed into squares by dividing the speed by 5. For example, a speed of 30 feet translates into a speed of 6 squares. If you use a grid often, consider writing your speed in squares on your character sheet.
Cloud of Daggers states the area of effect is a 5ft cube centered on a point of your choice. "You fill the air with spinning daggers in a cube 5 feet on each side, centered on a point you choose within range."
The rules for placing area of effect spells on a grid state you choose a point at an intersection of spaces.
Page 251 DMG, Area of Effect: Choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow its rules as normal.
Since Cloud of Daggers is centered on its origin (it's centered on a point you choose and you choose an intersection as the rules state), it is cast only covering one quarter of 4 different squares. Which also now means if you accept that it doesn't have to snap to grid and just fill 1 square, but are still adamant that it would need to more than half cover a square to do damage, the spell literally can't do any damage when placed following grid rules. Since it can't be a reasonable conclusion that it never does damage, it must in fact hit a 2x2 set of squares.
Well, when using a grid the point of origin is placed on an intersection. So, if you have a 5 x 5 AOE that is centered on its point of origin there is no way to reach more than 4 squares.
It can't be interpreted that way when using grid rules because there is a clear statement that when placing area of effect spells on a grid you choose an intersection of squares as the origin point. The middle of a space is not an intersection.
Page 251 DMG, Area of Effect: Choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow its rules as normal.
What book and page # can we reference for this rule?
Oh, nvm. Pays to read all the replies before posting. Ha!
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Technically speaking, the rules for playing on a grid are 2d. There aren't layers.
Once you add in height things necessarily need to be adhoc determined by the DM. A common ruling is that there is also a z axis in the grid structure, but that'd be homebrew. Even if it is common.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.