I think implying that the token method (which I use, and is fully rules supported) is wrong or misunderstanding the rules is a bit far-fetched. I realize that most of this is my misguided argument of template vs tokens. Both methods are equally valid and I do resent any remark saying that the token method is incorrect or subpar: it is in the same optional rules as the template method, really fast if you can count, and fits snap to grid best -- which is my preferred play style. Some people prefer counting, and some prefer pictures. Yes, you can hit way more creatures with a template than with counting squares; but I've finally realized that tradeoff is a play style question, not a rules one.
That being said, the default assumption to all of the template arguments is "AoEs don't snap to grid while creatures must" which is still problematic. Nowhere in the rules does it say that creatures snap to the grid any more than it says that the areas do. The only thing that is constrained by the grid rules is the point of origin of spells. A medium creature could stand ~17' away from X between B and C and not get hit by B or C in your diagram (obviously though, the caster has the advantage on positioning). Certainly, I agree that the rules seem to imply snap to grid for some things but they never come out and say that for either creatures or areas. In fact, I think the idea that the "If an area of effect is circular..." rule is part of the implicit snap-to-grid assumption in the using a grid rules (along with every pictured example).
First, a re-quote the entire DMG entry on Areas of Effect.
The area of effect of a spell, monster ability, or other feature must be translated onto squares or hexes to determine which potential targets are in the area and which aren't. Choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow its rules as normal. If an area of effect is circular and covers at least half a square, it affects that square.
At the opening, this was said: "The PHB gives us exactly zero information on how any Areas of Effect act with a Grid". Truth is, it actually does. It simply doesn't include the origin from an intersection and the circle 50% rule. The DMG even spells it out: "...then follow its rules as normal."
Here's the pertinent part of 'as normal': "A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover."
Let's re-examine three rules: Variant: Playing on a Grid: Entering a Square (PHB), Space (PHB), and Creature Size on Squares and Hexes (DMG).
To enter a square, you must have at least 1 square of movement left, even if the square is diagonally adjacent to the square you’re in. (The rule for diagonal movement sacrifices realism for the sake of smooth play. The Dungeon Master’s Guide provides guidance on using a more realistic approach.)
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.
A creature's size determines how much space it occupies on squares or hexes, as shown in the Creature Size and Space table. If the miniature you use for a monster takes up an amount of space different from what's on the table, that's fine, but treat the monster as its official size for all other rules. For example, you might use a miniature that has a Large base to represent a Huge giant. That giant takes up less space on the battlefield than its size suggests, but its still Huge for the purposes of rules like grappling.
These three rules mean the following:
The size of the creature determines how many squares it occupies (with the caveat of model size affecting battlefield space taken).
A creature in a square on the grid occupies the entire square/hex, excluding tiny creatures. See DMG pg 249.
Creatures snap to the grid when using models and a grid.
This means a line drawn from the origin to any other point in the area of effect that goes through a square (not on it's edge) affects a creature occupying that square/hex. The exception is circular area of effect, it is not precedence for non-circular areas. THAT IS RAW. (Note the line is interrupted by cover and interacts interestingly with the circular area of effect.) This means that using the variant grid rules can seemingly yield much better results for squares, cones, and lines. This ... phenomenon ...(gag)... only occurs because creatures do snap to a grid.
Speaking of, yes, you can cast spells not snapped to grid, RAW, because "...then follow its rules as normal." : "A spell's description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere. Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts." ... "You select a cube's point of origin, which lies anywhere on a face of the cubic effect." It does seem that RAI would have spells snap (the purpose of the rule is to smooth things out, and snapping would further that), but it doesn't say anywhere that it does. The AoE dos not snap to the grid- only the point of origin does. For proof, consider line spells. They do not only go at 90° angles.
Now, I've found only three spells that have a line AoE: Lightning Bolt, Sunbeam and Gust of Wind. All three of them include a width, incidentally 5' or 10'. Thinking about it, though, it is quite sound; without grids, you can easily hit two targets next to each other by firing a lightning bolt perpendicularly to them, if they're within 5' reach of each other. It may seem that the 5' width becomes 10', but it really isn't. Again... a 'phenomenon' only because of creatures snapping to the grid.
Gone is the standard that grease only affects 4 squares, or up to 4 medium targets. Remember, effects like from grease isn't simply physical, it is a magical effect that causes them to slip. If their occupied space so much as touched by the magic, they're... prone to fall. (okay, no more jokes) A 10' square is 14' at it's diagonal, and you can't just jump over it- because a "creature that enters the area" is subjected to it.
By the way, there are rules for squeezing. So if there is space in a square to squeeze around a spell, you can do that. Now, on the other hand...
If you play by a grid... this is worth reiterating: All the optional and variant rules are mere suggestions. The rules that players go by default are the non-variant, non-optional PHB rules and whatever the GM specifies. Even the 50% sphere-on-a-square 'rule' is nothing but an option.
Why? Because Snap-To-Grid rules like "you MUST place the Point of Origin at a grid intersection" conflicts with the PHB rules (yes, specific beats general). Why is this so relevant? Because, the GM decides the rules, by default plays by the PHB and no optional rules. DMG page 5: "The Player's Handbook contains the main rules you need to play the game... Chapter 8 presents advice... also includes options appropriate for certain play styles..." Guess where the DMG rules for Areas of Effect are? "Chapter 8: COMBAT: This section builds on the combat rules in the Player's Handbook and offers tips for keeping the game running smoothly when a fight breaks out." This is far more significant than some are suggesting in trying to invalidate others (angry finger-pointing). These optional rules further restrict the (N)PCs from the default rules.
Because of that, ALL optional rules are equally valid in terms of RAW.Insert XGE methods such as templates- which is my preferred method.
There's a lot of things that the rules don't specify, such as the orientation of spells (such as Wall of Fire). Hence, why, once again, it is important for the GM to decide some things on their own. Like the kinks in optional and variant rules. The DMG Areas of Effect rule itself even says it: "The area of effect of a spell, monster ability, or other feature must be translated onto squares or hexes to determine which potential targets are in the area and which aren't." That's not just flavor text- Xanathar's reiterates it differently: "That rule works, but it can require a fair amount of on-the-spot adjudication." AKA, using your noggin. If you figure Grease should only be able to affect 4 creatures at a time, then make it so.
To belabor the point a bit more; if a player goes and reads all the rules in the PHB and remembers them (or at least the ones that pertain to their character), they are quite justified in being upset if the GM goes and tells them that the PHB rules aren't quite completely accurate. Of course, it's almost inevitable that the GM won't adjudicate everything the way you expect, but there's a difference between springing optional rules and interpreting core rules differently.
SO, what's the take away? There is a recommended variant RAW way of going about area of effect on a grid, but the go-to optional rule itself says it requires adjudication.
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).
That's not true in general. At best this shows that if you take creatures of certain size categories and enlarge them with the spell, they fit more tightly into their combat spaces. I have a lot of problems with this argument:
It's not relevant if the spell isn't being used (and even then, it only applies to certain creature sizes. Medium to Large works just fine.)
There's already huge variability in how tightly packed a creature is into its space. A gnome dwarf and a goliath are both medium. So who's to say an enlarged dwarf is more tightly packed than a naturally Large hill giant?
It's already been established that a creature already takes up all of its space for targeting purposes so this shouldn't make a difference either way. At best, knowing the creature is unusually large for its space would be relevant for purposes of cover. Take a gelatinous cube as an example. It literally takes up 100% of its space. That makes no difference whatsoever in how you target it compared to other creatures.
Even if none of the other things I brought up were true, how would you use this? There's no rules for what fraction of its space a creature takes up before its enlarged and no rule that says you need to cover X% of a creature's space to include it in an area of effect so there's still no satisfying answer to my question.
Without invoking the concept of squares, there is no reason to say 1/16th of a creature's space is enough if it's such and such size but 1/4th of some other creature's space isn't. The core rules are grid-less.
I mean, the picture you show above sure looks like the creatures aren't aligned to a grid, which was my original point.
Because the grid rules are completely irrelevant. The heart of the problem is still "how much of a creature's space is enough to include it in an area of effect" and that's a problem that exists with or without the grid.
If you rule that a creature doesn't have to be fully included in an area of effect it's always going to be possible to have creatures sticking out of the area. Counting the outline of those creatures as part of the shape is absurd; that ancient red dragon from a few posts ago did not double Thunderwave's area. A square is a square is a square.
If you rule a creature needs to be fully included in an area of effect you've broken every line spell and now large creatures are immune to small areas altogether. You can't Burning Hands a Huge creature.
If you rule that a certain % of the creature's space needs to be covered I'd love to know how you're going to do that gridless, where you're getting that number from (certainly not the rulebooks) and why the grid rules only require being able to target one of the creature's squares rather than a fixed % of its full space.
You can keep deflecting with value judgments like "cheesy" but the fact remains that the way you assume the rules ought to work have serious problems that you refuse to address.
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.
This is still a possibility without a grid. If you had 16 medium creatures standing in a 4-by-4 formation for whatever reason and no grid to artificially skew your decisions, why on earth would you try your hardest to fit your 15 foot cube neatly to 9 of those creatures?
Again, this is not an issue with the grid rules. The core rules are gridless and dragging the grid rules into this adds needless complications and distractions. You should think about how this works without the grid and then apply that to grid gameplay.
Fine. An elf, or a dwarf, or a wolf. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ My point is there's no baseline for you to say one creature fits more tightly into its combat space than another, and that's before getting into whether they're bipedal, quadrupeds, a worm or an ooze.
Fine. An elf, or a dwarf, or a wolf. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ My point is there's no baseline for you to say one creature fits more tightly into its combat space than another, and that's before getting into whether they're bipedal, quadrupeds, a worm or an ooze.
I would imagine that an 8-foot tall, 340 pound Goliath takes up more of its 5x5 square than a 5-foot tall, 200 pound Dwarf does in its 5x5 square.
Ok, and how do you plan on using that in real gameplay, where most monster stat blocks don't provide a weight and even if they did that wouldn't be a good proxy for physical bulk since they can be made up of anything from pure air to steel and stone?
You are not the only one to notice that but that's a whole 'nother can of worms I'd rather not get into right now. Suffice to say that making goliaths Large would cause more issues than it solves and technically the rules for combat space only define areas, not volumes. Personally I treat a creature's space as a cube that uses the prescribed areas but the creature's height, since it should be easier to jump over a gnome than a Goliath and a prone creature shouldn't block off 5 feet of air.
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.
This is still a possibility without a grid. If you had 16 medium creatures standing in a 4-by-4 formation for whatever reason and no grid to artificially skew your decisions, why on earth would you try your hardest to fit your 15 foot cube neatly to 9 of those creatures?
Again, this is not an issue with the grid rules. The core rules are gridless and dragging the grid rules into this adds needless complications and distractions. You should think about how this works without the grid and then apply that to grid gameplay.
I think you've completely ignored my last response (where I've basically conceded that this is a style discussion -- which it is). I mention it because you quote my posts from a few ago rather than the most recent. But the reason that I'd say that a 15'x15' cube cannot cover 4-by-4 formation of creatures is that there are 15' between the top left and top right creatures. That is why I prefer to use snap to grid -- because I prefer a game where things separated by the dimensions of the spell cannot be both hit by that spell.
But certainly (now) I admit that you can hit them all using a template and miniatures.
I think you've completely ignored my last response (where I've basically conceded that this is a style discussion -- which it is). I mention it because you quote my posts from a few ago rather than the most recent.
Sorry, I did get distracted addressing those earlier posts and overlooked it.
But the reason that I'd say that a 15'x15' cube cannot cover 4-by-4 formation of creatures is that there are 15' between the top left and top right creatures. That is why I prefer to use snap to grid -- because I prefer a game where things separated by the dimensions of the spell cannot be both hit by that spell.
There isn't 15' between them though. This is why I was drawing a distinction between the distance between two things and being within X feet.
Anything in the squares surrounding A is within 5 feet but that doesn't mean it's 5 feet away. B is only 2.5 feet away from A. For the exact same reason, the monsters in a 4-by-4 formation are not 15 feet apart; they're within 15 feet of each other but only 10 feet apart.
This isn't aimed at you specifically but more food for thought for anyone still on the fence. I wanted to address this point more thoroughly
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.
Suppose instead of areas of effect we were talking about walls in a dungeon.
If you're using minis you wouldn't be able to place a mini in any of the highlighted squares. It just won't fit, and the creature's space would be partly inside the walls. So why shouldn't the same logic apply to areas of effect? The creature would be inside the area in any of those squares.
And yeah if you look at the space that's actually off-limits it stops resembling a cone but that's the inevitable consequence of insisting that movement should only occur 5 feet at a time in precisely 8 directions. If you ditch the grid rules for movement the area that's off limits is a perfect triangle and you get no wasted space. This isn't just an issue with area of effects, any cave-like dungeon with curved passageways and rooms is hell on a grid.
If, say the mini in the second diagram wanted to move from position C to position D, how many feet would it move? That is how I count range, and it is really how the rule in the sidebar asks you to count range between two things (it uses different words, but the same effect). I take the distance that the "Ranges" section asks you to count (using a grid) to be the distance between things on that grid.
The other thing one could do is to expand the rules on cover a bit to make them apply to area effects:
If your area effect includes at least one entire square of the target creature, the creature is fully affected.
If your area effect does not cover an entire square, but covers at least half a square, the creature has half cover (+2 to saves).
If your area effect does not cover at least half a square, but touches the creature's area, the creature has 3/4 cover (+5 to saves, successful save is no effect).
If, say the mini in the second diagram wanted to move from position C to position D, how many feet would it move?
15, but there's only 10 feet of space between them no matter how you slice it. Again, center-to-center distances are irrelevant for targeting because your reach (or the range of your abilities) starts at the edge of your space and you only need to reach the nearest part of your enemy's space.
What you really want to know is "who is inside this radius" and that's why you're told to count squares. Think about how you'd measure this out without a grid.
Anything within the red area is within 5 feet of the goblin (i.e. within its reach). If you wanted to move that goblin to the dragon's position it'd have to move roughly 15 feet, but the edge of the dragon's space is only 3 or 4 feet away from the goblin so it's fair game. You'd figure out who's inside a paladin's aura or an antimagic field the same way.
Obviously if you're playing on a grid the red area is going to overlap perfectly with all the squares adjacent to the goblin so by counting squares you can see who's inside that area.
15, but there's only 10 feet of space between them no matter how you slice it. Again, center-to-center distances are irrelevant for targeting because your reach (or the range of your abilities) starts at the edge of your space and you only need to reach the nearest part of your enemy's space.
I can't actually find anywhere where it explains what reach does off a grid. Am I missing somewhere where it actually goes into that?
Strictly logically, that seems good. But my interpretation is strictly RAW using the grid rules. The sidebar even says that the number you count is "the range on a grid between two things."
And yes, I know you would say "ignore the grid." I would still say that the distance measures the same without the grid (with at least a little RAW support) because the medium creatures take up 5'x5' and the rules (explicitly) say that only up to 8 med creatures can surround one other med creature. That to me means that in a 15' span, you can only have 3 creatures abreast.
I would still say that the distance measures the same without the grid (with at least a little RAW support) because the medium creatures take up 5'x5' and the rules (explicitly) say that only up to 8 med creatures can surround one other med creature. That to me means that in a 15' span, you can only have 3 creatures abreast.
Yes, but those 15' completely covers the spaces of those 3 creatures from outer edge to outer edge. That's the maximum distance you could measure between them, and what we're interested in is the minimum distance required to include all 3 in an effect. You only need an effect that's a bit wider than 5 feet to span the inner edges of their spaces, just like the goblin only needed about 4 feet to attack the dragon.
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.
Suppose instead of areas of effect we were talking about walls in a dungeon.
If you're using minis you wouldn't be able to place a mini in any of the highlighted squares. It just won't fit, and the creature's space would be partly inside the walls. So why shouldn't the same logic apply to areas of effect? The creature would be inside the area in any of those squares.
On this point in particular, I would absolutely allow a creature to be located in the middle row of highlighted squares, and applying the same logic, I wouldn't have them hit by the AoE (when placed as in the example). The way I personally run things, I apply something like the "50%" rule from spheres to all features, because that's what makes sense to me. Does the AoE template cover the center of a square (assuming straight lines, this is the same thing as "is 50% of the square covered"; you don't need the center to hit 50% with a curved section of a circle, but that's difficult to determine accurately, so I still use the "center" gauge for circles)? If so, the square is within the AoE. If not, it's not.
Likewise, if a wall or obstruction clips the corner of a square but doesn't cover the center, then that square is a valid location for a creature (I don't really make/use maps that exhibit this issue to any great extent, but that's how I always rule it when it pops up).
In terms of maximum targetable squares, this probably produces something generally equivalent to the token method, though as your image shows, it can produce sub-optimal results with sub-optimal template placement.
As a matter of "rules and game mechanics," I do agree that RAW suggests that if any part of a square is covered by the AoE template, the square should be affected (circles excepted). I just think that that's stupid, and what I've described above produces much more sensible results, which is why I use it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think implying that the token method (which I use, and is fully rules supported) is wrong or misunderstanding the rules is a bit far-fetched. I realize that most of this is my misguided argument of template vs tokens. Both methods are equally valid and I do resent any remark saying that the token method is incorrect or subpar: it is in the same optional rules as the template method, really fast if you can count, and fits snap to grid best -- which is my preferred play style. Some people prefer counting, and some prefer pictures. Yes, you can hit way more creatures with a template than with counting squares; but I've finally realized that tradeoff is a play style question, not a rules one.
That being said, the default assumption to all of the template arguments is "AoEs don't snap to grid while creatures must" which is still problematic. Nowhere in the rules does it say that creatures snap to the grid any more than it says that the areas do. The only thing that is constrained by the grid rules is the point of origin of spells. A medium creature could stand ~17' away from X between B and C and not get hit by B or C in your diagram (obviously though, the caster has the advantage on positioning). Certainly, I agree that the rules seem to imply snap to grid for some things but they never come out and say that for either creatures or areas. In fact, I think the idea that the "If an area of effect is circular..." rule is part of the implicit snap-to-grid assumption in the using a grid rules (along with every pictured example).
First, a re-quote the entire DMG entry on Areas of Effect.
The area of effect of a spell, monster ability, or other feature must be translated onto squares or hexes to determine which potential targets are in the area and which aren't.
Choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow its rules as normal. If an area of effect is circular and covers at least half a square, it affects that square.
At the opening, this was said: "The PHB gives us exactly zero information on how any Areas of Effect act with a Grid". Truth is, it actually does. It simply doesn't include the origin from an intersection and the circle 50% rule. The DMG even spells it out: "...then follow its rules as normal."
Here's the pertinent part of 'as normal': "A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover."
Let's re-examine three rules: Variant: Playing on a Grid: Entering a Square (PHB), Space (PHB), and Creature Size on Squares and Hexes (DMG).
To enter a square, you must have at least 1 square of movement left, even if the square is diagonally adjacent to the square you’re in. (The rule for diagonal movement sacrifices realism for the sake of smooth play. The Dungeon Master’s Guide provides guidance on using a more realistic approach.)
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.
A creature's size determines how much space it occupies on squares or hexes, as shown in the Creature Size and Space table. If the miniature you use for a monster takes up an amount of space different from what's on the table, that's fine, but treat the monster as its official size for all other rules. For example, you might use a miniature that has a Large base to represent a Huge giant. That giant takes up less space on the battlefield than its size suggests, but its still Huge for the purposes of rules like grappling.
These three rules mean the following:
This means a line drawn from the origin to any other point in the area of effect that goes through a square (not on it's edge) affects a creature occupying that square/hex. The exception is circular area of effect, it is not precedence for non-circular areas. THAT IS RAW. (Note the line is interrupted by cover and interacts interestingly with the circular area of effect.) This means that using the variant grid rules can seemingly yield much better results for squares, cones, and lines. This ... phenomenon ...(gag)... only occurs because creatures do snap to a grid.
Speaking of, yes, you can cast spells not snapped to grid, RAW, because "...then follow its rules as normal." : "A spell's description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere. Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts." ... "You select a cube's point of origin, which lies anywhere on a face of the cubic effect." It does seem that RAI would have spells snap (the purpose of the rule is to smooth things out, and snapping would further that), but it doesn't say anywhere that it does. The AoE dos not snap to the grid- only the point of origin does. For proof, consider line spells. They do not only go at 90° angles.
Now, I've found only three spells that have a line AoE: Lightning Bolt, Sunbeam and Gust of Wind. All three of them include a width, incidentally 5' or 10'. Thinking about it, though, it is quite sound; without grids, you can easily hit two targets next to each other by firing a lightning bolt perpendicularly to them, if they're within 5' reach of each other. It may seem that the 5' width becomes 10', but it really isn't. Again... a 'phenomenon' only because of creatures snapping to the grid.
Gone is the standard that grease only affects 4 squares, or up to 4 medium targets. Remember, effects like from grease isn't simply physical, it is a magical effect that causes them to slip. If their occupied space so much as touched by the magic, they're... prone to fall. (okay, no more jokes) A 10' square is 14' at it's diagonal, and you can't just jump over it- because a "creature that enters the area" is subjected to it.
By the way, there are rules for squeezing. So if there is space in a square to squeeze around a spell, you can do that. Now, on the other hand...
If you play by a grid... this is worth reiterating: All the optional and variant rules are mere suggestions. The rules that players go by default are the non-variant, non-optional PHB rules and whatever the GM specifies. Even the 50% sphere-on-a-square 'rule' is nothing but an option.
Why? Because Snap-To-Grid rules like "you MUST place the Point of Origin at a grid intersection" conflicts with the PHB rules (yes, specific beats general). Why is this so relevant? Because, the GM decides the rules, by default plays by the PHB and no optional rules. DMG page 5: "The Player's Handbook contains the main rules you need to play the game... Chapter 8 presents advice... also includes options appropriate for certain play styles..." Guess where the DMG rules for Areas of Effect are? "Chapter 8: COMBAT: This section builds on the combat rules in the Player's Handbook and offers tips for keeping the game running smoothly when a fight breaks out." This is far more significant than some are suggesting in trying to invalidate others (angry finger-pointing). These optional rules further restrict the (N)PCs from the default rules.
Because of that, ALL optional rules are equally valid in terms of RAW. Insert XGE methods such as templates- which is my preferred method.
There's a lot of things that the rules don't specify, such as the orientation of spells (such as Wall of Fire). Hence, why, once again, it is important for the GM to decide some things on their own. Like the kinks in optional and variant rules. The DMG Areas of Effect rule itself even says it: "The area of effect of a spell, monster ability, or other feature must be translated onto squares or hexes to determine which potential targets are in the area and which aren't." That's not just flavor text- Xanathar's reiterates it differently: "That rule works, but it can require a fair amount of on-the-spot adjudication." AKA, using your noggin. If you figure Grease should only be able to affect 4 creatures at a time, then make it so.
To belabor the point a bit more; if a player goes and reads all the rules in the PHB and remembers them (or at least the ones that pertain to their character), they are quite justified in being upset if the GM goes and tells them that the PHB rules aren't quite completely accurate. Of course, it's almost inevitable that the GM won't adjudicate everything the way you expect, but there's a difference between springing optional rules and interpreting core rules differently.
SO, what's the take away? There is a recommended variant RAW way of going about area of effect on a grid, but the go-to optional rule itself says it requires adjudication.
Y'all are right. Mostly.
That's not true in general. At best this shows that if you take creatures of certain size categories and enlarge them with the spell, they fit more tightly into their combat spaces. I have a lot of problems with this argument:
gnomedwarf and a goliath are both medium. So who's to say an enlarged dwarf is more tightly packed than a naturally Large hill giant?Without invoking the concept of squares, there is no reason to say 1/16th of a creature's space is enough if it's such and such size but 1/4th of some other creature's space isn't. The core rules are grid-less.
Because the grid rules are completely irrelevant. The heart of the problem is still "how much of a creature's space is enough to include it in an area of effect" and that's a problem that exists with or without the grid.
If you rule that a creature doesn't have to be fully included in an area of effect it's always going to be possible to have creatures sticking out of the area. Counting the outline of those creatures as part of the shape is absurd; that ancient red dragon from a few posts ago did not double Thunderwave's area. A square is a square is a square.
If you rule a creature needs to be fully included in an area of effect you've broken every line spell and now large creatures are immune to small areas altogether. You can't Burning Hands a Huge creature.
If you rule that a certain % of the creature's space needs to be covered I'd love to know how you're going to do that gridless, where you're getting that number from (certainly not the rulebooks) and why the grid rules only require being able to target one of the creature's squares rather than a fixed % of its full space.
You can keep deflecting with value judgments like "cheesy" but the fact remains that the way you assume the rules ought to work have serious problems that you refuse to address.
This is still a possibility without a grid. If you had 16 medium creatures standing in a 4-by-4 formation for whatever reason and no grid to artificially skew your decisions, why on earth would you try your hardest to fit your 15 foot cube neatly to 9 of those creatures?
Again, this is not an issue with the grid rules. The core rules are gridless and dragging the grid rules into this adds needless complications and distractions. You should think about how this works without the grid and then apply that to grid gameplay.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Uhh... Gnomes are Small Creatures, not Medium.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/races/gnome
For a Gnome to be Medium, it would already have to be Enlarged, and it wold be a Medium creature between 6-8 feet tall, almost as big as a Goliath.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Fine. An elf, or a dwarf, or a wolf. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ My point is there's no baseline for you to say one creature fits more tightly into its combat space than another, and that's before getting into whether they're bipedal, quadrupeds, a worm or an ooze.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I would imagine that an 8-foot tall, 340 pound Goliath takes up more of its 5x5 square than a 5-foot tall, 200 pound Dwarf does in its 5x5 square.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Ok, and how do you plan on using that in real gameplay, where most monster stat blocks don't provide a weight and even if they did that wouldn't be a good proxy for physical bulk since they can be made up of anything from pure air to steel and stone?
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I'm not the only one noticing that an 8-foot tall creature qualifies as occupying a single 5-foot cube, right?
You are not the only one to notice that but that's a whole 'nother can of worms I'd rather not get into right now. Suffice to say that making goliaths Large would cause more issues than it solves and technically the rules for combat space only define areas, not volumes. Personally I treat a creature's space as a cube that uses the prescribed areas but the creature's height, since it should be easier to jump over a gnome than a Goliath and a prone creature shouldn't block off 5 feet of air.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I think you've completely ignored my last response (where I've basically conceded that this is a style discussion -- which it is). I mention it because you quote my posts from a few ago rather than the most recent. But the reason that I'd say that a 15'x15' cube cannot cover 4-by-4 formation of creatures is that there are 15' between the top left and top right creatures. That is why I prefer to use snap to grid -- because I prefer a game where things separated by the dimensions of the spell cannot be both hit by that spell.
But certainly (now) I admit that you can hit them all using a template and miniatures.
Sorry, I did get distracted addressing those earlier posts and overlooked it.
There isn't 15' between them though. This is why I was drawing a distinction between the distance between two things and being within X feet.
Anything in the squares surrounding A is within 5 feet but that doesn't mean it's 5 feet away. B is only 2.5 feet away from A. For the exact same reason, the monsters in a 4-by-4 formation are not 15 feet apart; they're within 15 feet of each other but only 10 feet apart.
This isn't aimed at you specifically but more food for thought for anyone still on the fence. I wanted to address this point more thoroughly
Suppose instead of areas of effect we were talking about walls in a dungeon.
If you're using minis you wouldn't be able to place a mini in any of the highlighted squares. It just won't fit, and the creature's space would be partly inside the walls. So why shouldn't the same logic apply to areas of effect? The creature would be inside the area in any of those squares.
And yeah if you look at the space that's actually off-limits it stops resembling a cone but that's the inevitable consequence of insisting that movement should only occur 5 feet at a time in precisely 8 directions. If you ditch the grid rules for movement the area that's off limits is a perfect triangle and you get no wasted space. This isn't just an issue with area of effects, any cave-like dungeon with curved passageways and rooms is hell on a grid.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
If, say the mini in the second diagram wanted to move from position C to position D, how many feet would it move? That is how I count range, and it is really how the rule in the sidebar asks you to count range between two things (it uses different words, but the same effect). I take the distance that the "Ranges" section asks you to count (using a grid) to be the distance between things on that grid.
The other thing one could do is to expand the rules on cover a bit to make them apply to area effects:
15, but there's only 10 feet of space between them no matter how you slice it. Again, center-to-center distances are irrelevant for targeting because your reach (or the range of your abilities) starts at the edge of your space and you only need to reach the nearest part of your enemy's space.
What you really want to know is "who is inside this radius" and that's why you're told to count squares. Think about how you'd measure this out without a grid.
Anything within the red area is within 5 feet of the goblin (i.e. within its reach). If you wanted to move that goblin to the dragon's position it'd have to move roughly 15 feet, but the edge of the dragon's space is only 3 or 4 feet away from the goblin so it's fair game. You'd figure out who's inside a paladin's aura or an antimagic field the same way.
Obviously if you're playing on a grid the red area is going to overlap perfectly with all the squares adjacent to the goblin so by counting squares you can see who's inside that area.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I can't actually find anywhere where it explains what reach does off a grid. Am I missing somewhere where it actually goes into that?
Strictly logically, that seems good. But my interpretation is strictly RAW using the grid rules. The sidebar even says that the number you count is "the range on a grid between two things."
And yes, I know you would say "ignore the grid." I would still say that the distance measures the same without the grid (with at least a little RAW support) because the medium creatures take up 5'x5' and the rules (explicitly) say that only up to 8 med creatures can surround one other med creature. That to me means that in a 15' span, you can only have 3 creatures abreast.
No, the rules never go into that in any detail. We know that's what the game's designers intended though:
Reading between the lines a little, in combat "any part of me" would mean any part of my space.
Yes, but those 15' completely covers the spaces of those 3 creatures from outer edge to outer edge. That's the maximum distance you could measure between them, and what we're interested in is the minimum distance required to include all 3 in an effect. You only need an effect that's a bit wider than 5 feet to span the inner edges of their spaces, just like the goblin only needed about 4 feet to attack the dragon.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
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.
On this point in particular, I would absolutely allow a creature to be located in the middle row of highlighted squares, and applying the same logic, I wouldn't have them hit by the AoE (when placed as in the example). The way I personally run things, I apply something like the "50%" rule from spheres to all features, because that's what makes sense to me. Does the AoE template cover the center of a square (assuming straight lines, this is the same thing as "is 50% of the square covered"; you don't need the center to hit 50% with a curved section of a circle, but that's difficult to determine accurately, so I still use the "center" gauge for circles)? If so, the square is within the AoE. If not, it's not.
Likewise, if a wall or obstruction clips the corner of a square but doesn't cover the center, then that square is a valid location for a creature (I don't really make/use maps that exhibit this issue to any great extent, but that's how I always rule it when it pops up).
In terms of maximum targetable squares, this probably produces something generally equivalent to the token method, though as your image shows, it can produce sub-optimal results with sub-optimal template placement.
As a matter of "rules and game mechanics," I do agree that RAW suggests that if any part of a square is covered by the AoE template, the square should be affected (circles excepted). I just think that that's stupid, and what I've described above produces much more sensible results, which is why I use it.