I'm with Wolf on this. Enemies may need to occupy a 5'x5' area, but those squares don't need to snap to the grid if spells don't. And now the actual utility of using the grid at all is practically nil.
The point of the grid in the first place is to provide a shorthand for things like this. The rules make substantial sacrifices in the name of brevity and the grid is no exception to this. It's a neat exploit and may be technically RAW but it makes gameplay much more complex without any real benefit, considering both sides can do it. That kind of thing just mucks up the game and gets in the way of the fun.
It's not covering 2.5 times its area; it's covering exactly the area described by the spell. You wouldn't say Wall of Ice (a 1 foot wide line) covers 5 times its area just because any square it passes through is 5 times wider than the line.
Using tokens is slow as hell. It's way faster for me to drop a template and check which squares it overlaps.
Using tokens is slow as hell. It's way faster for me to drop a template and check which squares it overlaps.
Even better... drop a template and check which counters it overlaps. Or possibly check how much it overlaps by (the DMG rules for circles require 2.5' of overlap).
I'm with Wolf on this. Enemies may need to occupy a 5'x5' area, but those squares don't need to snap to the grid if spells don't. And now the actual utility of using the grid at all is practically nil.
How exactly do you expect a cone to snap to the grid? It's always going to have partially-filled squares so what's the rationale for declaring that some orientations and positions are legitimate and some aren't, when the core rules are grid-less and let you position it any which way?
The point of the grid in the first place is to provide a shorthand for things like this. The rules make substantial sacrifices in the name of brevity and the grid is no exception to this. It's a neat exploit and may be technically RAW but it makes gameplay much more complex without any real benefit, considering both sides can do it. That kind of thing just mucks up the game and gets in the way of the fun.
Honest question: how is this any worse than dealing with flying speeds? Allowing shapes to be rotated isn't complicated at all. There's literally nothing faster than letting the player put a template down any which way and tagging whatever it overlaps with.
As a side point, I'm not convinced that the cube spell area should actually exist in 5e. For example, based on its description Thunderwave should be a line 10' wide and 10' long. The concept of cube as an area type seems to be an artifact of 4th edition, other than spells that affect multiple cubes, which are usually intended to just affect X total area or volume with a minimum side length.
Cubic area spells go all the way back to 1e and were relatively common. What 4e added was bursts, which is a square area adjacent to the caster. Since 5e still needs cubes for other spells (e.g. Minor Illusion) and there's already a general rule for areas with Range: Self, translating bursts as Self (X foot cube) was the natural thing to do.
The problem with making it a line is that you'd lose height, and it's unconventional to have a line that's as wide as it is long.
This inspires me to create a TRON style campaign where everyone snaps to the grid.
...that counts as contributing to this discussion... point is the GM determines the particulars like this (snapping to grid or not which is totally not part of rules anyway) and should stay within those lines.
I'm gonna go have a talk with my dad about my sense of humor now
Allowing shapes to be rotated isn't complicated at all. There's literally nothing faster than letting the player put a template down any which way and tagging whatever it overlaps with.
I think the existence of this thread proves that the first sentence is wrong.
The second sentence is also wrong. It is faster to say, "Your spell covers four 5ft squares. Pick four enemies standing together."
I think the existence of this thread proves that the first sentence is wrong.
I don't think so. All of the pushback's been "I don't like that", not "that's too complicated."
The second sentence is also wrong. It is faster to say, "Your spell covers four 5ft squares. Pick four enemies standing together."
Oh sure, you can do that for the trivial case of the one shape that's already made up of smaller squares (and even then, only for small sizes), but it doesn't generalize to, say, 30 foot cones. When players stopped having to ask if this was a valid position for their spell or whether this or that square was sufficiently covered or whatever other arbitrary rule they thought they had to follow, turns went faster.
The second sentence is also wrong. It is faster to say, "Your spell covers four 5ft squares. Pick four enemies standing together."
Oh sure, you can do that for the trivial case of the one shape that's already made up of smaller squares (and even then, only for small sizes), but it doesn't generalize to, say, 30 foot cones. When players stopped having to ask if this was a valid position for their spell or whether this or that square was sufficiently covered or whatever other arbitrary rule they thought they had to follow, turns went faster.
Works fine for 30ft cones for me, you get 21 squares in a roughly triangle shape.
If you're going to say that areas of effect don't follow the grid, creatures shouldn't follow the grid, and the grid should be discarded in favor of using terrain rules like a wargame where movement and distance are expressed in inches.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
If you're going to say that areas of effect don't follow the grid, creatures shouldn't follow the grid, and the grid should be discarded in favor of using terrain rules like a wargame where movement and distance are expressed in inches.
Personally, I'm confused as to why Thunderwave or it's smaller relative Thunderclap are cubes in the first place. They should be spheres that exclude the caster from their effects. It simply doesn't make sense logically with how the spell works and how it's intended to be used for it to affect a cube shaped area. And doing so leads to exactly this kind of confusion about how you determine it's area. I'd personally replace the targeting of both spells with a circle, instead of a cube.
[Edit]
Actually.... Thunderclap doesn't even specify what kind of area it is. It just says 5 feet. What does that even mean? 5 feet from the caster? 5 feet from an intersection? 5 feet from where?
[/Edit]
I also agree with the OP that the way the rules are written for spell targeting are kinda arbitrary. I understand why circle spells target an intersection. It prevents metagame-y bizarre positioning issues -- you have a specific set of spots where you can place it relative to the things you are trying to hit with it. But it really doesn't make as much sense with a cube shaped area. The way I interpret the grid rules, creatures "snap to" whatever square they are in. In the case of a cube shaped spell, it should also snap to a set of squares, rather than an intersection. The intent, to me, is to affect a specific area that a creature either currently is occupying, or may attempt to occupy. An intersection on a grid does not belong to any of the 4 spaces it is the intersection of. So why are we targeting that area? It might make more sense if the point was the center of the cube, but it's not. The rules specifically say that the point you target for a cube is on the side of the cube (does that include the corner of the cube? Unclear.).
This potentially allows you to twist the rules to allow you to affect targets that have total cover from you, because you can see the point you are targeting and you are affecting a given area from that targeted point which just so happens to extend into the area behind total cover. Is that intended? I wouldn't think so.
In the end, though, the prize for jankiest spell targeting goes to cones. If you don't have a template to hold over the grid, well.... good luck. That's really all I can bring myself to say on the subject.
Actually.... Thunderclap doesn't even specify what kind of area it is. It just says 5 feet. What does that even mean? 5 feet from the caster? 5 feet from an intersection? 5 feet from where?
It doesn't have a shape, it hits all targets (friend or foe) within 5ft of the caster, making it effectively a sphere, but it doesn't use the rules for shapes. See also word of radiance, which has the same area, but allows you to select your targets.
Works fine for 30ft cones for me, you get 21 squares in a roughly triangle shape.
I'm sure it works, but it's not faster than just dropping a template, which is what Greenstone_Walker was trying to argue.
And to be perfectly clear, if that works for you, I don't have a problem with it. I take issue with people saying the OP was wrong (they weren't) and retroactively making up reasons why the RAW shouldn't be used when it conflicts with their expectations.
If you're going to say that areas of effect don't follow the grid, creatures shouldn't follow the grid, and the grid should be discarded in favor of using terrain rules like a wargame where movement and distance are expressed in inches.
Give me a reason why this should be the case that's not "well it works this way for apples so obviously it should work that way for oranges", "seems metagamey", or "this sucks out all the fun." Why does being able to rotate a cube 15 degrees suddenly destroy all the benefits of using a grid? It doesn't hinder your ability to move creatures and measure distances in any way.
Why is it acceptable to arrange a square this way...
...but this equally natural (slightly not RAW since the point of origin isn't on a corner) position is off-limits? Why should adding a grid stop the caster from placing a cube by its corner straight up or down?
And what makes this awkward RAW-sanctioned mess preferable to the previous example?
Why would you want to waste time at the table arguing about whether the goblin on the right is a valid target, whether there's a RAW way to include both goblins or why the cone shouldn't be centered? If that grid weren't there you'd just slide that cone over to its most natural position.
My group plays exclusively theater of the mind. We never have any of these issues. We ask “Is there any way to get more of them in the area of effect?” and the DM either says yes or no. And we don’t have to spend a fortune on minis nor do we need a battle mat taking up room on the coffee table that is better used for character sheets, dice, and pizza. 🤷♂️
I'm with Wolf on this. Enemies may need to occupy a 5'x5' area, but those squares don't need to snap to the grid if spells don't. And now the actual utility of using the grid at all is practically nil.
The point of the grid in the first place is to provide a shorthand for things like this. The rules make substantial sacrifices in the name of brevity and the grid is no exception to this. It's a neat exploit and may be technically RAW but it makes gameplay much more complex without any real benefit, considering both sides can do it. That kind of thing just mucks up the game and gets in the way of the fun.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
It's not covering 2.5 times its area; it's covering exactly the area described by the spell. You wouldn't say Wall of Ice (a 1 foot wide line) covers 5 times its area just because any square it passes through is 5 times wider than the line.
Using tokens is slow as hell. It's way faster for me to drop a template and check which squares it overlaps.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
10 = 2.5 * 4
Even better... drop a template and check which counters it overlaps. Or possibly check how much it overlaps by (the DMG rules for circles require 2.5' of overlap).
How exactly do you expect a cone to snap to the grid? It's always going to have partially-filled squares so what's the rationale for declaring that some orientations and positions are legitimate and some aren't, when the core rules are grid-less and let you position it any which way?
Honest question: how is this any worse than dealing with flying speeds? Allowing shapes to be rotated isn't complicated at all. There's literally nothing faster than letting the player put a template down any which way and tagging whatever it overlaps with.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
My typical take on it, you get X squares for a given shape, you can choose which squares as long as they roughly match the given shape.
As a side point, I'm not convinced that the cube spell area should actually exist in 5e. For example, based on its description Thunderwave should be a line 10' wide and 10' long. The concept of cube as an area type seems to be an artifact of 4th edition, other than spells that affect multiple cubes, which are usually intended to just affect X total area or volume with a minimum side length.
Cubic area spells go all the way back to 1e and were relatively common. What 4e added was bursts, which is a square area adjacent to the caster. Since 5e still needs cubes for other spells (e.g. Minor Illusion) and there's already a general rule for areas with Range: Self, translating bursts as Self (X foot cube) was the natural thing to do.
The problem with making it a line is that you'd lose height, and it's unconventional to have a line that's as wide as it is long.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
This inspires me to create a TRON style campaign where everyone snaps to the grid.
...that counts as contributing to this discussion... point is the GM determines the particulars like this (snapping to grid or not which is totally not part of rules anyway) and should stay within those lines.
I'm gonna go have a talk with my dad about my sense of humor now
I think the existence of this thread proves that the first sentence is wrong.
The second sentence is also wrong. It is faster to say, "Your spell covers four 5ft squares. Pick four enemies standing together."
I don't think so. All of the pushback's been "I don't like that", not "that's too complicated."
Oh sure, you can do that for the trivial case of the one shape that's already made up of smaller squares (and even then, only for small sizes), but it doesn't generalize to, say, 30 foot cones. When players stopped having to ask if this was a valid position for their spell or whether this or that square was sufficiently covered or whatever other arbitrary rule they thought they had to follow, turns went faster.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Works fine for 30ft cones for me, you get 21 squares in a roughly triangle shape.
If you're going to say that areas of effect don't follow the grid, creatures shouldn't follow the grid, and the grid should be discarded in favor of using terrain rules like a wargame where movement and distance are expressed in inches.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
5 feet/inch and just use templates
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Pretty much.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Well..... this thread got personal in a hurry...
Personally, I'm confused as to why Thunderwave or it's smaller relative Thunderclap are cubes in the first place. They should be spheres that exclude the caster from their effects. It simply doesn't make sense logically with how the spell works and how it's intended to be used for it to affect a cube shaped area. And doing so leads to exactly this kind of confusion about how you determine it's area. I'd personally replace the targeting of both spells with a circle, instead of a cube.
[Edit]
Actually.... Thunderclap doesn't even specify what kind of area it is. It just says 5 feet. What does that even mean? 5 feet from the caster? 5 feet from an intersection? 5 feet from where?
[/Edit]
I also agree with the OP that the way the rules are written for spell targeting are kinda arbitrary. I understand why circle spells target an intersection. It prevents metagame-y bizarre positioning issues -- you have a specific set of spots where you can place it relative to the things you are trying to hit with it. But it really doesn't make as much sense with a cube shaped area. The way I interpret the grid rules, creatures "snap to" whatever square they are in. In the case of a cube shaped spell, it should also snap to a set of squares, rather than an intersection. The intent, to me, is to affect a specific area that a creature either currently is occupying, or may attempt to occupy. An intersection on a grid does not belong to any of the 4 spaces it is the intersection of. So why are we targeting that area? It might make more sense if the point was the center of the cube, but it's not. The rules specifically say that the point you target for a cube is on the side of the cube (does that include the corner of the cube? Unclear.).
This potentially allows you to twist the rules to allow you to affect targets that have total cover from you, because you can see the point you are targeting and you are affecting a given area from that targeted point which just so happens to extend into the area behind total cover. Is that intended? I wouldn't think so.
In the end, though, the prize for jankiest spell targeting goes to cones. If you don't have a template to hold over the grid, well.... good luck. That's really all I can bring myself to say on the subject.
It doesn't have a shape, it hits all targets (friend or foe) within 5ft of the caster, making it effectively a sphere, but it doesn't use the rules for shapes. See also word of radiance, which has the same area, but allows you to select your targets.
I'm sure it works, but it's not faster than just dropping a template, which is what Greenstone_Walker was trying to argue.
And to be perfectly clear, if that works for you, I don't have a problem with it. I take issue with people saying the OP was wrong (they weren't) and retroactively making up reasons why the RAW shouldn't be used when it conflicts with their expectations.
Give me a reason why this should be the case that's not "well it works this way for apples so obviously it should work that way for oranges", "seems metagamey", or "this sucks out all the fun." Why does being able to rotate a cube 15 degrees suddenly destroy all the benefits of using a grid? It doesn't hinder your ability to move creatures and measure distances in any way.
Why is it acceptable to arrange a square this way...
...but this equally natural (slightly not RAW since the point of origin isn't on a corner) position is off-limits? Why should adding a grid stop the caster from placing a cube by its corner straight up or down?
And what makes this awkward RAW-sanctioned mess preferable to the previous example?
Why would you want to waste time at the table arguing about whether the goblin on the right is a valid target, whether there's a RAW way to include both goblins or why the cone shouldn't be centered? If that grid weren't there you'd just slide that cone over to its most natural position.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Why not just use the “Area Effects on a Grid” from XGtE in the Spellcasting section?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
My group plays exclusively theater of the mind. We never have any of these issues. We ask “Is there any way to get more of them in the area of effect?” and the DM either says yes or no. And we don’t have to spend a fortune on minis nor do we need a battle mat taking up room on the coffee table that is better used for character sheets, dice, and pizza. 🤷♂️
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting