If the player chooses to go down a line, then he has to choose what side of the line the damage affects. The other side of the line is not affected.
Now that I have not seen in any of the rules text... is there a citation you can link? I'd like to agree.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Generally in other games, you measure from center to center. You don't pick which part of your square or hex to measure from. Measuring from center to center reduces the above shenanigans.
I believe the wording of intersection means the whole side, not just part of it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
All AoEs that cover 50% or more of a square include that square in the effect, not just circles
No printed rule says exactly that.
From the DMG Using Miniatures: "If an area of effect is circular and covers at least half a square, it affects that square."
From XGtE Using a Template: "If any part of a square is under the template, that square is included in the area of effect."
From XGtE Using Tokens: "If an area’s token is in a square, that square is included in the area of effect. It’s that simple."
But, after discussing this at length in another thread, I choose to use a set of rules consistently at my table and let others use their rules as they please. It is certainly reasonable to allow any AOE that covers more than 50% of a square to include that square at your table. It is also reasonable to use the diagonal counting rules and allow round area of effects to fill a square. TotM is a reasonable way to go. Many different choices are reasonable.
Since we're quoting XGtE...
Using a Template. To use an area-of-effect template, apply it to the grid. If the terrain is flat, you can lay it on the surface; otherwise, hold the template above the surface and take note of which squares it covers or partially covers. If any part of a square is under the template, that square is included in the area of effect. If a creature’s miniature is in an affected square, that creature is in the area. Being adjacent to the edge of the template isn’t enough for a square to be included in the area of effect; the square must be entirely or partly covered by the template.
You can also use this method without a grid. If you do so, a creature is included in an area of effect if any part of the miniature’s base is overlapped by the template.
When you place a template, follow all the rules in the Player’s Handbook for placing the associated area of effect. If an area of effect, such as a cone or a line, originates from a spellcaster, the template should extend out from the caster and be positioned however the caster likes within the bounds of the rules.
Soo.. yeah, lines too.
Although, I do get what you're saying. If I'm casting a line spell that's supposed to be 5 feet wide, and I send it straight down the grid line from my corner, that's basically turning it into a line spell that's effectively 10 feet wide. Feels cheesy, but that does seem to be a valid usage. :/
I don't know if you've understood the issue that I took with your statement. The rules actually say that for circular areas, if more than half a square is covered, then that square counts in one rule. In a separate section of the rules, the rules say that if any part of a square is covered by a template it counts as in the area. You have combined those two things when you say "All AoEs that cover 50% or more of a square include that square in the effect, not just circles" and have come up with a combination that doesn't actually work from the text of those two things that you used to come up with it.
If the player chooses to go down a line, then he has to choose what side of the line the damage affects. The other side of the line is not affected.
Now that I have not seen in any of the rules text... is there a citation you can link? I'd like to agree.
Of course you have not seen that exact verbiage and you know well enough that there's nothing to cite.
My point, before I decided it wasn't worth arguing about, was that the spell specifically states the bolt is 5 feet wide. Specific rules trump general rules. The DM should be enforcing the 5 foot wide effect. Problem is, there's no hard rule to determine what is effected for a 5ft wide line...
From the DMG Using Miniatures: "If an area of effect is circular and covers at least half a square, it affects that square."
A 5 ft wide line is not circular. That rule doesn't apply.
From XGtE Using a Template: "If any part of a square is under the template, that square is included in the area of effect."
From XGtE Using Tokens: "If an area’s token is in a square, that square is included in the area of effect. It’s that simple."
Using XGtE rules above, while playing on a VTT or a battle mat with a DM that doesn't enforce snapping to grid (ie: all tokens must be centered on a grid), then specific 5ft wide rule is broken if the lightning bolt is shot down the 'line' between two creatures that partially (but not fully) occupy a square.
I realized how situational each scenario is, and decided it wasn't worth arguing about. Hence why I edited my post to delete what I wrote.
Wolf, I understand the issue, as I share your concern. My statement is a logical result of what is printed.
When a circular AoE covers 50% or more of a square, that square is affected.
Any AoE can be represented by a template (C's).
Circles & lines are contained within the set of AoEs represented by templates. All A's are C's, and all B's are C's; A's are not B's, nor are any B's A's.
When using a template, any square partially covered by the template is affected.
Partially covered equates to >0% covered
50% is >0%
Therefore, any square which is >=50% covered by any kind of AoE template is affected.
Note that it could still be said that any partially covered square, regardless of proportion or AoE shape, but that's where I start disagreeing with regard to the intent. 50% is a clear bar that can be applied to any template. I would think everyone can at least agree on that.
As for the 5' wide line AoE... the more I think about it, the more it doesn't bother me. I'm very used to not using grid intersections as origins... just squares, and more often than not originating from the caster's square... heavily influenced by isometric RPGs. Then I thought about what 5 feet means for grid combat. When there are creatures occupying adjacent squares, the idea being represented is that the creatures are within 5 feet of each other. If you're blasting a spell down the median between their positions, they're both affected.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Your statement is a misconstruction of what is printed, because you are mixing different rules presented as options (that aren't intended to be mixed) in your statement as a singular rule.
It is not a fair representation of what the rules say. If you are simply trying to state the way the books represent the rule, then what you said is wrong.
Again, the problem isn't that you could say what you wrote is technically incorrect under a certain option of the rules, it is that what you said isn't a statement of any rule or combination of rules but you presented it as such.
As for the 5' wide line AoE... the more I think about it, the more it doesn't bother me. I'm very used to not using grid intersections as origins... just squares, and more often than not originating from the caster's square... heavily influenced by isometric RPGs. Then I thought about what 5 feet means for grid combat. When there are creatures occupying adjacent squares, the idea being represented is that the creatures are within 5 feet of each other. If you're blasting a spell down the median between their positions, they're both affected.
Just an observation (COVID distancing) It is possible that when two targets are 5 feet apart, and you fire a 5 foot wide effect down the center, that neither target gets hit or by a very slim margin (inches) one gets hit and the other doesn't.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Your statement is a misconstruction of what is printed, because you are mixing different rules presented as options (that aren't intended to be mixed) in your statement as a singular rule.
It is not a fair representation of what the rules say. If you are simply trying to state the way the books represent the rule, then what you said is wrong.
Again, the problem isn't that you could say what you wrote is technically incorrect under a certain option of the rules, it is that what you said isn't a statement of any rule or combination of rules but you presented it as such.
No, It really isn't...
Circle AoEs explicitly affect squares that are at least 50% covered, right? DMG rule.
A circle AoE can be represented by a template, right? If this is the part you're stuck on, then we aren't participating in the same conversation.
Any square partially (>0%) covered by an AoE template is affected; XGtE clarification. This includes circles, so XGtE is saying any (hold on) type of AoE pattern affects every square that is partially covered.
However, that is not the point I am trying to make. What I am saying is that, without regard to the specific shape of AoE, there is never an instance in which a square that is >=50% covered would not be affected. There are no other AoE rules with a more restrictive requirement than the circle's 50%, so this is simply the overlap of certainty in outcome when it comes to AoEs that can partially cover a square. If your AoE must be grid-snapped, then it's irrelevant anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
As for the 5' wide line AoE... the more I think about it, the more it doesn't bother me. I'm very used to not using grid intersections as origins... just squares, and more often than not originating from the caster's square... heavily influenced by isometric RPGs. Then I thought about what 5 feet means for grid combat. When there are creatures occupying adjacent squares, the idea being represented is that the creatures are within 5 feet of each other. If you're blasting a spell down the median between their positions, they're both affected.
Just an observation (COVID distancing) It is possible that when two targets are 5 feet apart, and you fire a 5 foot wide effect down the center, that neither target gets hit or by a very slim margin (inches) one gets hit and the other doesn't.
Yes, and that's why my lizard-brain immediately jumped to "that would be cheesy" (to hit both) earlier. 5e has some awkward underlying assumptions about positioning within a grid.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Your statement is a misconstruction of what is printed, because you are mixing different rules presented as options (that aren't intended to be mixed) in your statement as a singular rule.
It is not a fair representation of what the rules say. If you are simply trying to state the way the books represent the rule, then what you said is wrong.
Again, the problem isn't that you could say what you wrote is technically incorrect under a certain option of the rules, it is that what you said isn't a statement of any rule or combination of rules but you presented it as such.
No, It really isn't...
Circle AoEs explicitly affect squares that are at least 50% covered, right? DMG rule.
A circle AoE can be represented by a template, right? If this is the part you're stuck on, then we aren't participating in the same conversation.
Any square partially (>0%) covered by an AoE template is affected; XGtE clarification. This includes circles, so XGtE is saying any (hold on) type of AoE pattern affects every square that is partially covered.
However, that is not the point I am trying to make. What I am saying is that, without regard to the specific shape of AoE, there is never an instance in which a square that is >=50% covered would not be affected. There are no other AoE rules with a more restrictive requirement than the circle's 50%, so this is simply the overlap of certainty in outcome when it comes to AoEs that can partially cover a square. If your AoE must be grid-snapped, then it's irrelevant anyway.
No. XGtE offers rules options. Without one of those options (which, by the way, should not be use at the same time as the other option presented in XGtE, per the text of that book: "This section offers two alternatives for determining the exact location of an area: the template method and the token method. Both of these methods assume you’re using a grid and miniatures of some sort. Because these methods can yield different results for the number of squares in a given area, it’s not recommended that they be combined at the table — choose whichever method you and your players find easier or more intuitive."), the idea that a square covered in any part by a template would not be a rule.
You can choose to use the rules presented in the PHB and DMG. In that case, only circular areas of effect are governed by the "greater than half" rule.
If you choose to use a template according to the XGtE rule option (which is at least mutually exclusive to the other option presented in that book), then no areas are governed by a rule that say anything about halves.
If you choose to use the tokens rule in XHtE, then you should not be following the template rules listed there.
If you choose to combine those rules, that is a fine house rule, but not a representation of any of the options presented in the rulebooks.
A statement being logically valid doesn't make it accurate.
Just an observation (COVID distancing) It is possible that when two targets are 5 feet apart, and you fire a 5 foot wide effect down the center, that neither target gets hit or by a very slim margin (inches) one gets hit and the other doesn't.
I like the covid reference, but unless your targets have cast duo-dimension and have turned on their side, you will hit at least one of them. This is where all this discussion would be resolved by the simple expedience of having the rule of 50% of a square being inside the area, whether it's circular or not. I know, it's not phrased that way but honestly, these are optional rules, they are poorly written and you have demonstrated it over and overm the only way out is to house-rule them if you really want something consistent.
I agree completely, just trying to forestall the player who will demand that both will be hit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Wolf, I'm not combining them. I am only pointing out that, no matter which singular rules option you are using, there is a commonality between them: if a square is >=50% covered, it's affected. If you're using the DMG rule, 50% coverage is affected. If you're using the XGtE rules, 50% coverage is affected. They all, individually, agree to that much. <50%? no commonality.
We are clearly not participating in the same discussion, so I'm gonna stop beating my head against the wall on this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Wolf, I'm not combining them. I am only pointing out that, no matter which singular rules option you are using, there is a commonality between them: if a square is >=50% covered, it's affected. If you're using the DMG rule, 50% coverage is affected. If you're using the XGtE rules, 50% coverage is affected. They all, individually, agree to that much. <50%? no commonality.
We are clearly not participating in the same discussion, so I'm gonna stop beating my head against the wall on this.
But that still isn't true. Using only the rules printed in the DMG and PHB, any area which is not circular that partially covers a square (by any fraction) is not described by rules at all. End of story.
But I do agree that we're not having the same discussion. You are trying to summarize at least 3 different options in one sentence, and I'm trying to tell you that your summary doesn't work. Not only does it not describe well at least two of the options, it is absolutely wrong for a third.
Now that I have not seen in any of the rules text... is there a citation you can link? I'd like to agree.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Generally in other games, you measure from center to center. You don't pick which part of your square or hex to measure from. Measuring from center to center reduces the above shenanigans.
I believe the wording of intersection means the whole side, not just part of it.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I don't know if you've understood the issue that I took with your statement. The rules actually say that for circular areas, if more than half a square is covered, then that square counts in one rule. In a separate section of the rules, the rules say that if any part of a square is covered by a template it counts as in the area. You have combined those two things when you say "All AoEs that cover 50% or more of a square include that square in the effect, not just circles" and have come up with a combination that doesn't actually work from the text of those two things that you used to come up with it.
Of course you have not seen that exact verbiage and you know well enough that there's nothing to cite.
My point, before I decided it wasn't worth arguing about, was that the spell specifically states the bolt is 5 feet wide. Specific rules trump general rules. The DM should be enforcing the 5 foot wide effect. Problem is, there's no hard rule to determine what is effected for a 5ft wide line...
From the DMG Using Miniatures: "If an area of effect is circular and covers at least half a square, it affects that square."
From XGtE Using a Template: "If any part of a square is under the template, that square is included in the area of effect."
From XGtE Using Tokens: "If an area’s token is in a square, that square is included in the area of effect. It’s that simple."
I realized how situational each scenario is, and decided it wasn't worth arguing about. Hence why I edited my post to delete what I wrote.
Wolf, I understand the issue, as I share your concern. My statement is a logical result of what is printed.
Note that it could still be said that any partially covered square, regardless of proportion or AoE shape, but that's where I start disagreeing with regard to the intent. 50% is a clear bar that can be applied to any template. I would think everyone can at least agree on that.
As for the 5' wide line AoE... the more I think about it, the more it doesn't bother me. I'm very used to not using grid intersections as origins... just squares, and more often than not originating from the caster's square... heavily influenced by isometric RPGs. Then I thought about what 5 feet means for grid combat. When there are creatures occupying adjacent squares, the idea being represented is that the creatures are within 5 feet of each other. If you're blasting a spell down the median between their positions, they're both affected.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Your statement is a misconstruction of what is printed, because you are mixing different rules presented as options (that aren't intended to be mixed) in your statement as a singular rule.
It is not a fair representation of what the rules say. If you are simply trying to state the way the books represent the rule, then what you said is wrong.
Again, the problem isn't that you could say what you wrote is technically incorrect under a certain option of the rules, it is that what you said isn't a statement of any rule or combination of rules but you presented it as such.
Just an observation (COVID distancing) It is possible that when two targets are 5 feet apart, and you fire a 5 foot wide effect down the center, that neither target gets hit or by a very slim margin (inches) one gets hit and the other doesn't.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
No, It really isn't...
Circle AoEs explicitly affect squares that are at least 50% covered, right? DMG rule.
A circle AoE can be represented by a template, right? If this is the part you're stuck on, then we aren't participating in the same conversation.
Any square partially (>0%) covered by an AoE template is affected; XGtE clarification. This includes circles, so XGtE is saying any (hold on) type of AoE pattern affects every square that is partially covered.
However, that is not the point I am trying to make. What I am saying is that, without regard to the specific shape of AoE, there is never an instance in which a square that is >=50% covered would not be affected. There are no other AoE rules with a more restrictive requirement than the circle's 50%, so this is simply the overlap of certainty in outcome when it comes to AoEs that can partially cover a square. If your AoE must be grid-snapped, then it's irrelevant anyway.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Yes, and that's why my lizard-brain immediately jumped to "that would be cheesy" (to hit both) earlier. 5e has some awkward underlying assumptions about positioning within a grid.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
No. XGtE offers rules options. Without one of those options (which, by the way, should not be use at the same time as the other option presented in XGtE, per the text of that book: "This section offers two alternatives for determining the exact location of an area: the template method and the token method. Both of these methods assume you’re using a grid and miniatures of some sort. Because these methods can yield different results for the number of squares in a given area, it’s not recommended that they be combined at the table — choose whichever method you and your players find easier or more intuitive."), the idea that a square covered in any part by a template would not be a rule.
A statement being logically valid doesn't make it accurate.
I agree completely, just trying to forestall the player who will demand that both will be hit.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Wolf, I'm not combining them. I am only pointing out that, no matter which singular rules option you are using, there is a commonality between them: if a square is >=50% covered, it's affected. If you're using the DMG rule, 50% coverage is affected. If you're using the XGtE rules, 50% coverage is affected. They all, individually, agree to that much. <50%? no commonality.
We are clearly not participating in the same discussion, so I'm gonna stop beating my head against the wall on this.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
But that still isn't true. Using only the rules printed in the DMG and PHB, any area which is not circular that partially covers a square (by any fraction) is not described by rules at all. End of story.
But I do agree that we're not having the same discussion. You are trying to summarize at least 3 different options in one sentence, and I'm trying to tell you that your summary doesn't work. Not only does it not describe well at least two of the options, it is absolutely wrong for a third.