I will point out that you don't literally need to place tokens to use the token method. You just need to be able to count.
I will also point out that the argument is moot because even though both are RAW, the DMG tells the DM that it is their "gut call" as to who is in an area of effect. You can say at your table that you want to powergame your 2.5x area of effects, pleading that it is RAW, and the DM is free to just say "sure" or "No, that is cheesy bull that doesn't belong in this game." (which the DM should do)
I will also point out that the argument is moot because even though both are RAW, the DMG tells the DM that it is their "gut call" as to who is in an area of effect.
You are once again taking that section out of context. Not only is that in a completely separate section from the grid rules, that advice is explicitly for when you're using theater of the mind.
If you’re not using miniatures or another visual aid, it can sometimes be difficult to determine who’s in an area of effect and who isn’t. The easiest way to address such uncertainty is to go with your gut and make a call.
You can say at your table that you want to powergame your 2.5x area of effects, pleading that it is RAW, and the DM is free to just say "No, that is cheesy bull that doesn't belong in this game." (which the DM should do)
You still haven't given an objective reason why including partial squares is a problem. I've given clear examples of why it's impractical to exclude them.
Look at the cone example in my previous post. By your logic that Burning Hands spell can't affect creatures immediately above the spellcaster because it's only covering 1/4 of those squares. That's obviously wrong! And once you accept that you have to include partial squares for cones and lines to work properly there's no good reason to stop players from rotating areas any which way. If the tip of a cone can hurt enemies so should the corner of a square, and if positioning a spell a certain way works in one direction it should work in all directions.
TBH, there isn't an objective reason. It is dumb as hell; it takes subjectivity to see that. It is subjectively bad that the two ways of adjudicating the areas of spells are so wildly different in terms of their representation of area.
Tokens fix the cone. You get 6 squares of effect arranged in a patter 1 adjacent to the caster, 2 beyond that, 3 beyond that. You can certainly get both enemies in the effect using the arrangements for tokens without a single partial square. Then again, tokens don't do round at all.
Let me reiterate. It is objectively bad (from a rules interpretation standpoint) to assume (without rules support) that creatures must abide the grid while areas don't. It is subjectively bad (from a game design standpoint) to have two different optional rules sets that vary wildly in their representation of number of squares that the same area can hit.
You still haven't given an objective reason why including partial squares is a problem. I've given clear examples of why it's impractical to exclude them.
Look at the cone example in my previous post. By your logic that Burning Hands spell can't affect creatures immediately above the spellcaster because it's only covering 1/4 of those squares. That's obviously wrong! And once you accept that you have to include partial squares for cones and lines to work properly there's no good reason to stop players from rotating areas any which way. If the tip of a cone can hurt enemies so should the corner of a square, and if positioning a spell a certain way works in one direction it should work in all directions.
Just an additional point though I should probably steer clear of this argument :)
There was another thread recently which discussed RAW in terms of choosing a vertex. A caster can choose a vertex "behind" the center of the hex as the casting point (as if the character were at the back edge of the square). I think the consensus was that the caster did not have to be inside the area of effect of their own spell since a caster can choose whether to be affected or not. However, choosing a vertex at the back of the square does allow the spell to affect adjacent squares with no issues.
---
Fundamentally, all grids are approximations of where creatures are located and areas of spell effects. Creatures in adjacent squares could be touching each other or as much as 10' apart. The rules in D&D are an attempt to keep it simple. They aren't complete. The rules do not say that affecting any portion of a square means the entire square is affected. (At least I couldn't find it .. there is a sage advice on the subject but honestly sage advice is a mixed bag of rulings by a very experienced DM but they aren't rules and other DMs are free to disagree with them). The sage advice compendium is different. It has been reviewed and is official clarifications of rules as intended. Anything else isn't.
The only rule that seems to exist is that circular areas of effect have to affect half the square for the spell to take effect in that square.
The bottom line is that it is up to the DM to judge. Personally, I allow spells to only affect up to the area specified in the spell description. They don't get a bonus extra area just because it is being run on a grid. Depending on circumstances and the area being used I might require the spell to affect half the square or the center of the square whatever looks reasonable. However, if I have two creatures that are 10' apart (2 squares between their squares) then a 10' square area in my game is unlikely to affect both though again depending on circumstances, I might allow a diamond layout to do so.
Tokens fix the cone. You get 6 squares of effect arranged in a patter 1 adjacent to the caster, 2 beyond that, 3 beyond that. You can certainly get both enemies in the effect using the arrangements for tokens without a single partial square.
Oh sure, the token method won't leave that awkward gap, but it mangles the shape. More importantly, saying "just go with tokens" avoids tackling the crux of the matter, which is basically "how much of a creature's space do I need to touch with an area"? That's really what we're discussing here whether you're playing on or off a grid. That becomes even clearer if we remove the grid since now you can't base your argument around how much of a square is filled.
Let me reiterate. It is objectively bad (from a rules interpretation standpoint) to assume (without rules support) that creatures must abide the grid while areas don't.
The rules do not say that affecting any portion of a square means the entire square is affected. (At least I couldn't find it .. there is a sage advice on the subject but honestly sage advice is a mixed bag of rulings by a very experienced DM but they aren't rules and other DMs are free to disagree with them).
The rules clearly assume this and it's the only sane way to run things. I'll prove it.
First the actual rules:
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively.
A creature's space and the area of the battlefield it occupies are one and the same. You can't get any more fine-grained; the game's rules don't account for its position inside that area and the creature effectively blocks off that whole area simultaneously.
Second, the only sensible way to measure distances is from the edge of one creature's space to another.
The giant is clearly within 5 feet of both the guard and the ogre even though the center of their spaces are more than 5 feet apart. Why? Because it's the edges of their spaces that count and any side or corner is valid.
The cover rules also clearly assume any part of your space is fair game.
When you're determining cover the attacker gets to pick any corner they want and if even a single corner of the target is reachable, the target doesn't have total cover. The target doesn't get a choice here. They're treated as being everywhere in that space simultaneously. The DM doesn't get to say "actually, the ogre is standing on the left half of their square."
Fourth, everyone in this thread already agrees you don't need to fully cover a creature's space. No one would try to argue that the dragon below doesn't get hurt by Thunderwave:
So why exactly is it that 1/16th of the dragon's space is enough in this case but 1/4th of a goblin's space was cheesy powergaming in my Burning Hands example? You can't reason that "it covered a whole square" if you're not using a grid. All Thunderwave asks is that the target be in the area. The dragon was in the area, so it took the damage. Contrast that with a spell like Forcecage that explicitly says the creature must be completely inside the spell's area. And contrast that yet again with spells like Lightning Bolt which can't possibly engulf even a medium creature's space because it's a flat shape.
Second, the only sensible way to measure distances is from the edge of one creature's space to another.
Welp, you just convinced me that the standard for area effects cannot be 'any part touches', because if you have two medium counters with a 5' space between them, and they are using 5' reach weapons, they are not able to attack one another; instead, their counters do in fact have to be touching. I think you can get sensible results by requiring 2.5' overlap, as attacking across a diagonal on a 5' grid is a separation of 2.1' between tokens.
I’m pretty sure RAW states that the center half of the grid square must be covered for the AoE to affect a creature that occupies that square.
Only for spheres. If you do require half the square, this has a side effect that you can fire a cone between two adjacent medium creatures, hitting neither of them (I'm not convinced that that's wrong, but I'm not convinced that it's right either).
Welp, you just convinced me that the standard for area effects cannot be 'any part touches', because if you have two medium counters with a 5' space between them, and they are using 5' reach weapons, they are not able to attack one another; instead, their counters do in fact have to be touching.
Because the 5 foot reach extends from the edge of the attacker's square out to the far edges of the adjacent squares. Think of it as an aura. If there's a 5 foot square between them, the target is just outside that radius. If you get rid of the grid rules you could leave any amount of feet in the range of 0 (inclusive) and 5 (exclusive) between both counters and still have them be within melee range of each other.
It's more accurate to say that the square counting method for playing on a grid tells you if something is within X distance rather than telling you the distance between the two things is X. If you're 2 squares away from me you're within 10 feet but the distance between us is actually just over 5 feet.
I’m pretty sure RAW states that the center half of the grid square must be covered for the AoE to affect a creature that occupies that square.
Only for spheres. If you do require half the square, this has a side effect that you can fire a cone between two adjacent medium creatures, hitting neither of them (I'm not convinced that that's wrong, but I'm not convinced that it's right either).
That’s why, on the rare occasions that we do use a grid, we use the “I’m not an idiot and can count squares without using tokens” variation of the token method:
🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲 🔲🟥🟥🟥🔲 🔲🟥🟥🔲🔲 🔲🔲🟥🔲🔲 🔲🔲🔳🔲🔲
I’m not saying that’s “The right way,” but it certainly is the simplest.
The only sane way to make a square shape on a square grid is to use the grid too, but clearly the sane way to do things isn't what we're discussing here. if you want to complain about the shape that you're left with, actually LOOK at the shapes that you end up with when you outline all the squares that are affected by the templates you keep championing. Not only are they way larger than the spell's described effect (which is just as much RAW as anything else you've brought up) but they in no way resemble the shapes you're looking at.
I accept that it is RAW that you can use templates. You are probably even right about RAW and RAI how they work (I'll concede that "space" refers to gridspaces on the grid, even thought the rules don't indicate that). It is still bad to have two different optional rules sets that vary wildly in their representation of number of squares that the same area can hit.
if you want to complain about the shape that you're left with, actually LOOK at the shapes that you end up with when you outline all the squares that are affected by the templates you keep championing.
This is a square no matter how many creatures are sticking out of it and whether you're using a grid or not. If I said it was lava or acid or a spike growth spell you wouldn't be trying to debate this, the creatures are clearly stepping on a square-shaped hazardous area and they should take damage. The outline that forms when you include the creatures is irrelevant.
Unless you can address why it's ok to target 1/16th of a huge creature but not 1/4th of a medium creature this argument has no legs to stand on.
It is still bad to have two different optional rules sets that vary wildly in their representation of number of squares that the same area can hit.
It's not bad to offer DMs options. The accurate way to run things is to use a template. The token method gives you a crude approximation. If you want accurate results, don't use the approximation.
Unless you can address why it's ok to target 1/16th of a huge creature but not 1/4th of a medium creature this argument has no legs to stand on.
There's actually an argument for that: huge creatures in fact fill a greater portion of their space than medium creatures (5e doesn't give explicit sizes, but Enlarge/Reduce does say that a level of size is x2, and the spaces 5e uses are the same as 3.5e).
I mean, the picture you show above sure looks like the creatures aren't aligned to a grid, which was my original point.
You are within RAW for all of your arguments, sure. that doesn't make it less cheesy to hit 10 squares worth of creature with 4 worth of effect, and that is enough of a reason to not allow it at my table.
To be clear, the original article was not an attempt to tell people how to play their game. Only to explain how the Rules say it works, and illustrate how some (probably many, maybe most) people don't have a full understanding of those rules. Probably because what they have in their heads when they read the rules makes more sense to them.
We already fudge area of effect shapes as it is (even when not playing on grid). We tend to think of them as 2-D and flat against the ground... but there's nothing stoping you firing a Line or a Cone up into the air at some 58 degree angle. We think of Sphere as Circles on the ground, or at most like we cast something in a Dome shape, so the widest part is at ground level... but nothing stops you from casting a 20 radius Sphere 20 feet in the air, and at ground level it only hits maybe a 10 foot radius.
As the rules are written the single only shape that has its orientation dictated is a Cylinder, in that it must extend Up or Down from the circle that is first established.
I'm not suggesting people should play with Cubes rotating all over the place on a grid. Even if it's well within the rules, and may be more fun for some. Had I been in on the design team, I certainly wouldn't have allowed for it. In fact, I'd have been really tempted to take the dozen PHB spells that include cubes, and written them to be Cone or Spheres as was appropriate.
The article was written mostly to demonstrate how the rules can get really messy while still being precise, and how people tend to interpret the rules through the filter of their own preconceptions. And how, maybe sometimes, that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Because of old adherence to rules regarding squares in older editions. They would say things like, if the area of effect is partially in a square, it affects whatever is in that square. For more wargaming purposes, this makes sense.
That is, of course, not officially part of 5e. It also makes sense in a RP way of thinking not to make it so:
Space
A creature’s space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn’t 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5-foot-wide doorway, other creatures can’t get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature’s space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there’s a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If five Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there’s little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
If you cut out a 15 foot template to use for the Thunderwave spell then how does it do more damage or hit more squares on a grid, it is precisely a 15 foot square and will only ever cover a 15 foot area no matter how you rotate it.
I don't understand how so many can argue against this or think it breaks or even just bends some rule?
If you assume that spell effects are based on the spell affecting ANY part of a square on the grid (even the smallest amount possible), then you can change the orientation or origin of the 15'x15' template overlaid on a 5' grid to affect significantly more than 9 squares. For example, offset the origin up and over by 1/2 a square. - then the 15'x15' area could overlap 16 squares on the grid rather than 9 effectively almost doubling the number of squares affected by the spell and essentially almost doubling the area of effect from a 15'x15' area to a 20'x20' area in terms of grid squares affected.
The entire argument appears to be that this is RAW and how it should be run. Personally, as DM, I don't care. It is perhaps one interpretation of RAW but the spells also specify an area of effect of 15'x15'. As a DM, I can decide that this means the spell will never affect more than 9 contiguous squares no matter how the spell is oriented on the grid. The Area of Effect of the spell is also RAW and RAW does NOT state that a spell effect must affect a square even if only a small fraction of the square is covered. RAW is completely silent on this topic.
The rules say that creatures do not take up the entire 5' square, they are not 5' wide, this is just the area over which they exert immediate control and can prevent the passage of another creature if they choose. However, another creature can also just as easily walk through a creatures square if they allow it. Characters on a grid aren't wave functions where they occupy every part of the square at once. The rules are silent on the subject of treating areas smaller than squares.
The only specific area of effect related statement is that circular areas must affect at least 1/2 of a square for an AoE to affect that square.
So, in my opinion, there isn't one RAW answer, there isn't one "correct" way to play it. If a player at my table said I get to hit 16 targets with my thunderwave because I place it at X ... I would just say no and have them choose 9 squares that in roughly the correct shape. The player doesn't get bonus Area of Effect on spells just because we choose to approximate the play area with a grid.
At the risk of openning up another can of worms; It occurs to me that many of the folks who are having trouble understanding the written rules as they pertain to Cubes... very likely also aren't applying the actual written rules to Lines. (I'm considering doing a write-up on that as well... but we'll see)
Let's be clear. The 50% rule applies ONLY to circular AoEs. This is not in debate. It reads; "If an area of effect is circular and covers at least half a square, it affects that square." If they meant it to include anything more than that they would have simply omitted the words "is circular and", they put those words there so you would understand them. I get that many people (I might even be one of them) would really like there to be a partial inclusion/exclusion rule for other shapes, but it simply is not there.
We also know that you MUST place the Point of Origin at a grid intersection. I'm thinking most people that are struggling with this think that A in the following illustration is a ligitimate placement of a Line.
Line A is not valid, that Point of Origin is clearly NOT at an intersection. However, B and C are valid Points of Origin.
Now, as we have astablished there is no 50% rule on Lines, some of you would suggest (with no rules to back them up) that other shapes are an All-or-Nothing. If it doesn't cover the whole square on a grid... it hits nothing. So B would obviously hit nothing, and C would equally hit nothing. In fact there is no version of a Line that would ever hit anything. Most Cones would hit very few creatures if they had to hit the entire square that creature took up, but at least they could hit one or two if you placed it very carefully.
Therefore, if any part of a shape hits a square that a creature takes up, it hits all creatures taking up that square. (Unless it's circular, then it must cover at least half a square to affect that square)
I will point out that you don't literally need to place tokens to use the token method. You just need to be able to count.
I will also point out that the argument is moot because even though both are RAW, the DMG tells the DM that it is their "gut call" as to who is in an area of effect. You can say at your table that you want to powergame your 2.5x area of effects, pleading that it is RAW, and the DM is free to just say "sure" or "No, that is cheesy bull that doesn't belong in this game." (which the DM should do)
You are once again taking that section out of context. Not only is that in a completely separate section from the grid rules, that advice is explicitly for when you're using theater of the mind.
Look at the cone example in my previous post. By your logic that Burning Hands spell can't affect creatures immediately above the spellcaster because it's only covering 1/4 of those squares. That's obviously wrong! And once you accept that you have to include partial squares for cones and lines to work properly there's no good reason to stop players from rotating areas any which way. If the tip of a cone can hurt enemies so should the corner of a square, and if positioning a spell a certain way works in one direction it should work in all directions.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
TBH, there isn't an objective reason. It is dumb as hell; it takes subjectivity to see that. It is subjectively bad that the two ways of adjudicating the areas of spells are so wildly different in terms of their representation of area.
Tokens fix the cone. You get 6 squares of effect arranged in a patter 1 adjacent to the caster, 2 beyond that, 3 beyond that. You can certainly get both enemies in the effect using the arrangements for tokens without a single partial square. Then again, tokens don't do round at all.
Let me reiterate. It is objectively bad (from a rules interpretation standpoint) to assume (without rules support) that creatures must abide the grid while areas don't. It is subjectively bad (from a game design standpoint) to have two different optional rules sets that vary wildly in their representation of number of squares that the same area can hit.
Just an additional point though I should probably steer clear of this argument :)
There was another thread recently which discussed RAW in terms of choosing a vertex. A caster can choose a vertex "behind" the center of the hex as the casting point (as if the character were at the back edge of the square). I think the consensus was that the caster did not have to be inside the area of effect of their own spell since a caster can choose whether to be affected or not. However, choosing a vertex at the back of the square does allow the spell to affect adjacent squares with no issues.
---
Fundamentally, all grids are approximations of where creatures are located and areas of spell effects. Creatures in adjacent squares could be touching each other or as much as 10' apart. The rules in D&D are an attempt to keep it simple. They aren't complete. The rules do not say that affecting any portion of a square means the entire square is affected. (At least I couldn't find it .. there is a sage advice on the subject but honestly sage advice is a mixed bag of rulings by a very experienced DM but they aren't rules and other DMs are free to disagree with them). The sage advice compendium is different. It has been reviewed and is official clarifications of rules as intended. Anything else isn't.
The only rule that seems to exist is that circular areas of effect have to affect half the square for the spell to take effect in that square.
The bottom line is that it is up to the DM to judge. Personally, I allow spells to only affect up to the area specified in the spell description. They don't get a bonus extra area just because it is being run on a grid. Depending on circumstances and the area being used I might require the spell to affect half the square or the center of the square whatever looks reasonable. However, if I have two creatures that are 10' apart (2 squares between their squares) then a 10' square area in my game is unlikely to affect both though again depending on circumstances, I might allow a diamond layout to do so.
Oh sure, the token method won't leave that awkward gap, but it mangles the shape. More importantly, saying "just go with tokens" avoids tackling the crux of the matter, which is basically "how much of a creature's space do I need to touch with an area"? That's really what we're discussing here whether you're playing on or off a grid. That becomes even clearer if we remove the grid since now you can't base your argument around how much of a square is filled.
The rules clearly assume this and it's the only sane way to run things. I'll prove it.
First the actual rules:
A creature's space and the area of the battlefield it occupies are one and the same. You can't get any more fine-grained; the game's rules don't account for its position inside that area and the creature effectively blocks off that whole area simultaneously.
Second, the only sensible way to measure distances is from the edge of one creature's space to another.
The giant is clearly within 5 feet of both the guard and the ogre even though the center of their spaces are more than 5 feet apart. Why? Because it's the edges of their spaces that count and any side or corner is valid.
The cover rules also clearly assume any part of your space is fair game.
When you're determining cover the attacker gets to pick any corner they want and if even a single corner of the target is reachable, the target doesn't have total cover. The target doesn't get a choice here. They're treated as being everywhere in that space simultaneously. The DM doesn't get to say "actually, the ogre is standing on the left half of their square."
Fourth, everyone in this thread already agrees you don't need to fully cover a creature's space. No one would try to argue that the dragon below doesn't get hurt by Thunderwave:
So why exactly is it that 1/16th of the dragon's space is enough in this case but 1/4th of a goblin's space was cheesy powergaming in my Burning Hands example? You can't reason that "it covered a whole square" if you're not using a grid. All Thunderwave asks is that the target be in the area. The dragon was in the area, so it took the damage. Contrast that with a spell like Forcecage that explicitly says the creature must be completely inside the spell's area. And contrast that yet again with spells like Lightning Bolt which can't possibly engulf even a medium creature's space because it's a flat shape.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Welp, you just convinced me that the standard for area effects cannot be 'any part touches', because if you have two medium counters with a 5' space between them, and they are using 5' reach weapons, they are not able to attack one another; instead, their counters do in fact have to be touching. I think you can get sensible results by requiring 2.5' overlap, as attacking across a diagonal on a 5' grid is a separation of 2.1' between tokens.
I’m pretty sure RAW states that
the centerhalf of the grid square must be covered for the AoE to affect a creature that occupies that square.Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Only for spheres. If you do require half the square, this has a side effect that you can fire a cone between two adjacent medium creatures, hitting neither of them (I'm not convinced that that's wrong, but I'm not convinced that it's right either).
Because the 5 foot reach extends from the edge of the attacker's square out to the far edges of the adjacent squares. Think of it as an aura. If there's a 5 foot square between them, the target is just outside that radius. If you get rid of the grid rules you could leave any amount of feet in the range of 0 (inclusive) and 5 (exclusive) between both counters and still have them be within melee range of each other.
It's more accurate to say that the square counting method for playing on a grid tells you if something is within X distance rather than telling you the distance between the two things is X. If you're 2 squares away from me you're within 10 feet but the distance between us is actually just over 5 feet.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
That’s why, on the rare occasions that we do use a grid, we use the “I’m not an idiot and can count squares without using tokens” variation of the token method:
🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲
🔲🟥🟥🟥🔲
🔲🟥🟥🔲🔲
🔲🔲🟥🔲🔲
🔲🔲🔳🔲🔲
I’m not saying that’s “The right way,” but it certainly is the simplest.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The only sane way to make a square shape on a square grid is to use the grid too, but clearly the sane way to do things isn't what we're discussing here. if you want to complain about the shape that you're left with, actually LOOK at the shapes that you end up with when you outline all the squares that are affected by the templates you keep championing. Not only are they way larger than the spell's described effect (which is just as much RAW as anything else you've brought up) but they in no way resemble the shapes you're looking at.
I accept that it is RAW that you can use templates. You are probably even right about RAW and RAI how they work (I'll concede that "space" refers to gridspaces on the grid, even thought the rules don't indicate that). It is still bad to have two different optional rules sets that vary wildly in their representation of number of squares that the same area can hit.
This is a square no matter how many creatures are sticking out of it and whether you're using a grid or not. If I said it was lava or acid or a spike growth spell you wouldn't be trying to debate this, the creatures are clearly stepping on a square-shaped hazardous area and they should take damage. The outline that forms when you include the creatures is irrelevant.
Unless you can address why it's ok to target 1/16th of a huge creature but not 1/4th of a medium creature this argument has no legs to stand on.
It's not bad to offer DMs options. The accurate way to run things is to use a template. The token method gives you a crude approximation. If you want accurate results, don't use the approximation.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
There's actually an argument for that: huge creatures in fact fill a greater portion of their space than medium creatures (5e doesn't give explicit sizes, but Enlarge/Reduce does say that a level of size is x2, and the spaces 5e uses are the same as 3.5e).
I mean, the picture you show above sure looks like the creatures aren't aligned to a grid, which was my original point.
You are within RAW for all of your arguments, sure. that doesn't make it less cheesy to hit 10 squares worth of creature with 4 worth of effect, and that is enough of a reason to not allow it at my table.
To be clear, the original article was not an attempt to tell people how to play their game. Only to explain how the Rules say it works, and illustrate how some (probably many, maybe most) people don't have a full understanding of those rules. Probably because what they have in their heads when they read the rules makes more sense to them.
We already fudge area of effect shapes as it is (even when not playing on grid). We tend to think of them as 2-D and flat against the ground... but there's nothing stoping you firing a Line or a Cone up into the air at some 58 degree angle. We think of Sphere as Circles on the ground, or at most like we cast something in a Dome shape, so the widest part is at ground level... but nothing stops you from casting a 20 radius Sphere 20 feet in the air, and at ground level it only hits maybe a 10 foot radius.
As the rules are written the single only shape that has its orientation dictated is a Cylinder, in that it must extend Up or Down from the circle that is first established.
I'm not suggesting people should play with Cubes rotating all over the place on a grid. Even if it's well within the rules, and may be more fun for some. Had I been in on the design team, I certainly wouldn't have allowed for it. In fact, I'd have been really tempted to take the dozen PHB spells that include cubes, and written them to be Cone or Spheres as was appropriate.
The article was written mostly to demonstrate how the rules can get really messy while still being precise, and how people tend to interpret the rules through the filter of their own preconceptions. And how, maybe sometimes, that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Because of old adherence to rules regarding squares in older editions. They would say things like, if the area of effect is partially in a square, it affects whatever is in that square. For more wargaming purposes, this makes sense.
That is, of course, not officially part of 5e. It also makes sense in a RP way of thinking not to make it so:
Space
A creature’s space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn’t 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5-foot-wide doorway, other creatures can’t get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.
A creature’s space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there’s a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.
Because larger creatures take up more space, fewer of them can surround a creature. If five Large creatures crowd around a Medium or smaller one, there’s little room for anyone else. In contrast, as many as twenty Medium creatures can surround a Gargantuan one.
Sorry I thought this was the Scanlan Shorthalt backstory thread
/backs away from the math dudes.
If you assume that spell effects are based on the spell affecting ANY part of a square on the grid (even the smallest amount possible), then you can change the orientation or origin of the 15'x15' template overlaid on a 5' grid to affect significantly more than 9 squares. For example, offset the origin up and over by 1/2 a square. - then the 15'x15' area could overlap 16 squares on the grid rather than 9 effectively almost doubling the number of squares affected by the spell and essentially almost doubling the area of effect from a 15'x15' area to a 20'x20' area in terms of grid squares affected.
The entire argument appears to be that this is RAW and how it should be run. Personally, as DM, I don't care. It is perhaps one interpretation of RAW but the spells also specify an area of effect of 15'x15'. As a DM, I can decide that this means the spell will never affect more than 9 contiguous squares no matter how the spell is oriented on the grid. The Area of Effect of the spell is also RAW and RAW does NOT state that a spell effect must affect a square even if only a small fraction of the square is covered. RAW is completely silent on this topic.
The rules say that creatures do not take up the entire 5' square, they are not 5' wide, this is just the area over which they exert immediate control and can prevent the passage of another creature if they choose. However, another creature can also just as easily walk through a creatures square if they allow it. Characters on a grid aren't wave functions where they occupy every part of the square at once. The rules are silent on the subject of treating areas smaller than squares.
The only specific area of effect related statement is that circular areas must affect at least 1/2 of a square for an AoE to affect that square.
So, in my opinion, there isn't one RAW answer, there isn't one "correct" way to play it. If a player at my table said I get to hit 16 targets with my thunderwave because I place it at X ... I would just say no and have them choose 9 squares that in roughly the correct shape. The player doesn't get bonus Area of Effect on spells just because we choose to approximate the play area with a grid.
At the risk of openning up another can of worms; It occurs to me that many of the folks who are having trouble understanding the written rules as they pertain to Cubes... very likely also aren't applying the actual written rules to Lines. (I'm considering doing a write-up on that as well... but we'll see)
Let's be clear. The 50% rule applies ONLY to circular AoEs. This is not in debate. It reads; "If an area of effect is circular and covers at least half a square, it affects that square." If they meant it to include anything more than that they would have simply omitted the words "is circular and", they put those words there so you would understand them. I get that many people (I might even be one of them) would really like there to be a partial inclusion/exclusion rule for other shapes, but it simply is not there.
We also know that you MUST place the Point of Origin at a grid intersection. I'm thinking most people that are struggling with this think that A in the following illustration is a ligitimate placement of a Line.
Line A is not valid, that Point of Origin is clearly NOT at an intersection. However, B and C are valid Points of Origin.
Now, as we have astablished there is no 50% rule on Lines, some of you would suggest (with no rules to back them up) that other shapes are an All-or-Nothing. If it doesn't cover the whole square on a grid... it hits nothing. So B would obviously hit nothing, and C would equally hit nothing. In fact there is no version of a Line that would ever hit anything. Most Cones would hit very few creatures if they had to hit the entire square that creature took up, but at least they could hit one or two if you placed it very carefully.
Therefore, if any part of a shape hits a square that a creature takes up, it hits all creatures taking up that square.
(Unless it's circular, then it must cover at least half a square to affect that square)