It's the middle of combat. There are three of Wyvern flying 10 feet in the air out of reach of the melee fighters. One fighter is directly below the Wyverns and the other is off to the right by 5 feet. The Sorcerer of the group casts Shatter up in the air and targets the SPHERE directly on the middle Wyvern at 10 feet. The spell goes off and all the Wyverns fail their CON save, so they take full damage.
Now, this is where the discussion occurs. Since this was a sphere, with its 10 foot-radius, and since the one fighter was directly below the Wyverns she also had to make the CON save because the smallest portion of the sphere curve would have been within the area effect and taken Thunder damage because of the point of origin the spell was placed at. The question was asked if the other fighter 5 feet away from the impacted fighter should also make the CON save. I said no, because of placement, and this was a SPHERE where the character would have been outside of the curvature and not a CYLINDER to which the fighter would also be impacted and asked to make the CON save.
The explanation was accepted but with much trepidation as the players felt that's not how a SPHERE would work, even though it is being cast on an 'object' 10 feet in the air. So that got me thinking and second-guessing myself AFTER the session.
Question:
1) Did I rule the SPHERE correctly given in the air situation? I feel like I did but also feel like I made it more complicated than it needed to be.
2) Is there a better way to rule or what I should take into consideration next time, I know it will, this situation comes up?
1) This is hard to say concretely one way or the other. The PHB doesn't describe in detail how to determine which squares are in an area of effect if you are using gridded combat. Xanathar's Guide to Everything does give different ways of determining affected squares but the different approaches it spells out yield very different results. The Token method is the simplest and it essentially treats all circles/spheres as squares/cubes whos side length is twice the radius. The other method described in Xanathar's is the Template method which lines up with your approach. You use a template of the AoE and any squares are at least partially covered are considered in the effect. A sphere is particularly hard to do accurately when you need to consider all three dimensions but I would say you did a fair job.
2) As you can probably tell from my answer to your first question I would say "not really". I would say the important thing is to decide on a method for determining affected squares, make your method known to the players, and apply it consistently. In the end consistency is what matters and being transparent with your players is how they know you are being consistent.
Finally I just felt the need to point out that Shatter targets(and is centered around) a point in space, not a creature or object. So if the Sorcerer was close enough he could have targeted a point such that only the Wyvern was caught in the effect.
Affecting a large creature in the air such as flying wyvern with a sphere AoE while excluding your allies below is usually easy, you place it higher in a manner that doesn't have any effect on creatures on the ground.
At the end, the DM is the final arbitrer of what's included or not in an AoE.
Much of the rules are written from the 2D perspective, so you'll need to do some guesswork and extrapolation to start modelling 3D spell effects correctly mapped onto a 3D grid. Honestly, you're the DM so whatever you rule is the correct result.
It sounds like, from your description, you did your best to reasonably judge the area a sphere in the air would affect. That's good enough to get the job done, so it sounds like a win to me. Hard to say for sure without seeing the battlemap, of course.
So, I'll just say, it is easiest to picture the fight from the side when doing these sorts of aerial area rulings, for me anyway. Now, for area effects do you usually require the point of origin to be a grid cross-section? Like, the corner of a square? That isn't strictly required but some DMs do it for expediency. If you do, the sphere is going to affect 4 squares on the ground (2x2), then 12 squares at the next elevation (4x4 minus corners) between 5-10ft in the air, then another 12 squares (4x4 again minus corners) at 10 to 15 ft off the ground and the top will be back to 4 squares only, at to anything flying between 15 and 20ft off the ground, at (2x2).
One thing I'll point out here is that if the wyverns are indeed flying at 10ft off the ground, then as large creatures they would be occupying into the 10 to 20ft up squares. And, as such, the effect would ideally be targeted a little higher off the ground then you're placing it. Since they'd want the larger area bands, those two elevations it hits 12 squares, to match the elevation the wyverns are actually at. So, you aim to hit the 10-15 and the 15 to 20 cubes with the middle of the shatter, so the 5-10 cubs would be the ones that got the smaller 2x2 (4 cube) area and the very top of the shatter would be at the 20-25 ft elevations with the other 4 square 2x2. Which, well, would mean the shatter doesn't hit anyone on the ground even a little.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I play on a grid, so all my spheres and circles become cubes and squares (don't get me started on cones). I'm sure there's math reasons why I shouldn't do it, but, well, I was an English major, so math can suck it. I figure as long as you treat all of them the same and all the players know going in, it's just much easier and you don't have to spend time figuring out it enough of a given square is in or out of the blast radius to count.
In TotM, it's much easier for there to be curves in the world.
Thank's for the feedback everyone I greatly appreciate it. And to clear up the Sorcerer did not take into account that the fighter would get hit when he cast the spell. He knows if he would have selected a higher point of origin this would not have been an issue. So much was going on he just overlooked where the fighter was on the board. I know next time he would not make the same mistake twice.
Thank's for the feedback everyone I greatly appreciate it. And to clear up the Sorcerer did not take into account that the fighter would get hit when he cast the spell. He knows if he would have selected a higher point of origin this would not have been an issue. So much was going on he just overlooked where the fighter was on the board. I know next time he would not make the same mistake twice.
Just a quick comment. Picture the situation from the character perspective. There are three wyverns flying in the air 10' above the ground. There is a fighter from the party immediately below the wyverns just 10' away. The sorcerer CHARACTER has studied to learn the spell shatter and knows how big an area it covers. Would the CHARACTER really cast the spell centered on the wyvern when he can clearly see his friend standing just below the wyvern. If the fighter is 6' tall - the top of their head is probably about 4' from the bottom of the wyvern.
That is the scene that is being played out in the game.
The player says "I cast shatter on the wyvern"
The DM says "OK. Ooops the fighter is also in the area of effect"
The players says some appropriate epithet.
The player cast shatter when the head of their friend is within about 4-5' of the center of the shatter spell. It is totally and completely obvious to the CHARACTER that their friend is in the area of effect. The CHARACTER would never do this unless it was the only way to get all three wyverns in the AoE.
There are many times in a D&D game when the player is not picturing the scene the same way the DM is. Enforcing consequences on player actions because the DM is picturing things differently or not emphasizing aspects that should be obvious to the character can lead to upset players.
Instead of the DM saying "Gotcha hehehe" ... the DM could have pointed out to the PLAYER, the information that is so obvious to the character by saying something like "Are you sure? The fighter's head is only about 5' from the wyvern."
It isn't a technique to use all the time but when a player is about to take an action that the DM thinks really doesn't make sense in character (usually because it has significant detrimental side effects) this can often be due to the player not having the same scene pictured in their head and thus the player takes actions that the character never would.
P.S. This goes along with other examples
"You forget to say you were checking for traps. Roll a dex save to avoid the pit trap. Ooops. You take 5d6 damage falling 50' as you bounce off the walls" - this is especially effective when they have searched for traps in the last 2 corridors but just didn't mention it for this one.
"The fireball goes around corners so with your placement it engulfs 1/2 the party. <Rolls damage> 2 are now unconscious"
The party usually makes enough mistakes that a DM doesn't need to enforce the player making a mistake that the character would not. In addition, there is a very good chance that it will happen in the future if the player doesn't have great 3D visualization skills so they just target the spell on the creature they want to effect.
Thank's for the feedback everyone I greatly appreciate it. And to clear up the Sorcerer did not take into account that the fighter would get hit when he cast the spell. He knows if he would have selected a higher point of origin this would not have been an issue. So much was going on he just overlooked where the fighter was on the board. I know next time he would not make the same mistake twice.
Just a quick comment. Picture the situation from the character perspective. There are three wyverns flying in the air 10' above the ground. There is a fighter from the party immediately below the wyverns just 10' away. The sorcerer CHARACTER has studied to learn the spell shatter and knows how big an area it covers. Would the CHARACTER really cast the spell centered on the wyvern when he can clearly see his friend standing just below the wyvern. If the fighter is 6' tall - the top of their head is probably about 4' from the bottom of the wyvern.
That is the scene that is being played out in the game.
The player says "I cast shatter on the wyvern"
The DM says "OK. Ooops the fighter is also in the area of effect"
The players says some appropriate epithet.
The player cast shatter when the head of their friend is within about 4-5' of the center of the shatter spell. It is totally and completely obvious to the CHARACTER that their friend is in the area of effect. The CHARACTER would never do this unless it was the only way to get all three wyverns in the AoE.
There are many times in a D&D game when the player is not picturing the scene the same way the DM is. Enforcing consequences on player actions because the DM is picturing things differently or not emphasizing aspects that should be obvious to the character can lead to upset players.
Instead of the DM saying "Gotcha hehehe" ... the DM could have pointed out to the PLAYER, the information that is so obvious to the character by saying something like "Are you sure? The fighter's head is only about 5' from the wyvern."
It isn't a technique to use all the time but when a player is about to take an action that the DM thinks really doesn't make sense in character (usually because it has significant detrimental side effects) this can often be due to the player not having the same scene pictured in their head and thus the player takes actions that the character never would.
P.S. This goes along with other examples
"You forget to say you were checking for traps. Roll a dex save to avoid the pit trap. Ooops. You take 5d6 damage falling 50' as you bounce off the walls" - this is especially effective when they have searched for traps in the last 2 corridors but just didn't mention it for this one.
"The fireball goes around corners so with your placement it engulfs 1/2 the party. <Rolls damage> 2 are now unconscious"
The party usually makes enough mistakes that a DM doesn't need to enforce the player making a mistake that the character would not. In addition, there is a very good chance that it will happen in the future if the player doesn't have great 3D visualization skills so they just target the spell on the creature they want to effect.
Anyway, just something to consider when DMing.
Very valid points. Thanks, D. I'm usually good about giving the players a heads up BUT this time I think as well as the Sorcerer I was caught up in the moment. Yes, I could/should have warned them after the fact that I noticed the situation which was about to play out but it was a decent lesson learned for everyone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Setup:
It's the middle of combat. There are three of Wyvern flying 10 feet in the air out of reach of the melee fighters. One fighter is directly below the Wyverns and the other is off to the right by 5 feet. The Sorcerer of the group casts Shatter up in the air and targets the SPHERE directly on the middle Wyvern at 10 feet. The spell goes off and all the Wyverns fail their CON save, so they take full damage.
Now, this is where the discussion occurs. Since this was a sphere, with its 10 foot-radius, and since the one fighter was directly below the Wyverns she also had to make the CON save because the smallest portion of the sphere curve would have been within the area effect and taken Thunder damage because of the point of origin the spell was placed at. The question was asked if the other fighter 5 feet away from the impacted fighter should also make the CON save. I said no, because of placement, and this was a SPHERE where the character would have been outside of the curvature and not a CYLINDER to which the fighter would also be impacted and asked to make the CON save.
The explanation was accepted but with much trepidation as the players felt that's not how a SPHERE would work, even though it is being cast on an 'object' 10 feet in the air. So that got me thinking and second-guessing myself AFTER the session.
Question:
1) Did I rule the SPHERE correctly given in the air situation? I feel like I did but also feel like I made it more complicated than it needed to be.
2) Is there a better way to rule or what I should take into consideration next time, I know it will, this situation comes up?
1) This is hard to say concretely one way or the other. The PHB doesn't describe in detail how to determine which squares are in an area of effect if you are using gridded combat. Xanathar's Guide to Everything does give different ways of determining affected squares but the different approaches it spells out yield very different results. The Token method is the simplest and it essentially treats all circles/spheres as squares/cubes whos side length is twice the radius. The other method described in Xanathar's is the Template method which lines up with your approach. You use a template of the AoE and any squares are at least partially covered are considered in the effect. A sphere is particularly hard to do accurately when you need to consider all three dimensions but I would say you did a fair job.
2) As you can probably tell from my answer to your first question I would say "not really". I would say the important thing is to decide on a method for determining affected squares, make your method known to the players, and apply it consistently. In the end consistency is what matters and being transparent with your players is how they know you are being consistent.
Finally I just felt the need to point out that Shatter targets(and is centered around) a point in space, not a creature or object. So if the Sorcerer was close enough he could have targeted a point such that only the Wyvern was caught in the effect.
Affecting a large creature in the air such as flying wyvern with a sphere AoE while excluding your allies below is usually easy, you place it higher in a manner that doesn't have any effect on creatures on the ground.
At the end, the DM is the final arbitrer of what's included or not in an AoE.
Much of the rules are written from the 2D perspective, so you'll need to do some guesswork and extrapolation to start modelling 3D spell effects correctly mapped onto a 3D grid. Honestly, you're the DM so whatever you rule is the correct result.
It sounds like, from your description, you did your best to reasonably judge the area a sphere in the air would affect. That's good enough to get the job done, so it sounds like a win to me. Hard to say for sure without seeing the battlemap, of course.
So, I'll just say, it is easiest to picture the fight from the side when doing these sorts of aerial area rulings, for me anyway. Now, for area effects do you usually require the point of origin to be a grid cross-section? Like, the corner of a square? That isn't strictly required but some DMs do it for expediency. If you do, the sphere is going to affect 4 squares on the ground (2x2), then 12 squares at the next elevation (4x4 minus corners) between 5-10ft in the air, then another 12 squares (4x4 again minus corners) at 10 to 15 ft off the ground and the top will be back to 4 squares only, at to anything flying between 15 and 20ft off the ground, at (2x2).
One thing I'll point out here is that if the wyverns are indeed flying at 10ft off the ground, then as large creatures they would be occupying into the 10 to 20ft up squares. And, as such, the effect would ideally be targeted a little higher off the ground then you're placing it. Since they'd want the larger area bands, those two elevations it hits 12 squares, to match the elevation the wyverns are actually at. So, you aim to hit the 10-15 and the 15 to 20 cubes with the middle of the shatter, so the 5-10 cubs would be the ones that got the smaller 2x2 (4 cube) area and the very top of the shatter would be at the 20-25 ft elevations with the other 4 square 2x2. Which, well, would mean the shatter doesn't hit anyone on the ground even a little.
Edit: Looks something like: https://imgur.com/a/prKotJz
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I play on a grid, so all my spheres and circles become cubes and squares (don't get me started on cones). I'm sure there's math reasons why I shouldn't do it, but, well, I was an English major, so math can suck it. I figure as long as you treat all of them the same and all the players know going in, it's just much easier and you don't have to spend time figuring out it enough of a given square is in or out of the blast radius to count.
In TotM, it's much easier for there to be curves in the world.
Thank's for the feedback everyone I greatly appreciate it. And to clear up the Sorcerer did not take into account that the fighter would get hit when he cast the spell. He knows if he would have selected a higher point of origin this would not have been an issue. So much was going on he just overlooked where the fighter was on the board. I know next time he would not make the same mistake twice.
Just a quick comment. Picture the situation from the character perspective. There are three wyverns flying in the air 10' above the ground. There is a fighter from the party immediately below the wyverns just 10' away. The sorcerer CHARACTER has studied to learn the spell shatter and knows how big an area it covers. Would the CHARACTER really cast the spell centered on the wyvern when he can clearly see his friend standing just below the wyvern. If the fighter is 6' tall - the top of their head is probably about 4' from the bottom of the wyvern.
That is the scene that is being played out in the game.
The player says "I cast shatter on the wyvern"
The DM says "OK. Ooops the fighter is also in the area of effect"
The players says some appropriate epithet.
The player cast shatter when the head of their friend is within about 4-5' of the center of the shatter spell. It is totally and completely obvious to the CHARACTER that their friend is in the area of effect. The CHARACTER would never do this unless it was the only way to get all three wyverns in the AoE.
There are many times in a D&D game when the player is not picturing the scene the same way the DM is. Enforcing consequences on player actions because the DM is picturing things differently or not emphasizing aspects that should be obvious to the character can lead to upset players.
Instead of the DM saying "Gotcha hehehe" ... the DM could have pointed out to the PLAYER, the information that is so obvious to the character by saying something like "Are you sure? The fighter's head is only about 5' from the wyvern."
It isn't a technique to use all the time but when a player is about to take an action that the DM thinks really doesn't make sense in character (usually because it has significant detrimental side effects) this can often be due to the player not having the same scene pictured in their head and thus the player takes actions that the character never would.
P.S. This goes along with other examples
"You forget to say you were checking for traps. Roll a dex save to avoid the pit trap. Ooops. You take 5d6 damage falling 50' as you bounce off the walls" - this is especially effective when they have searched for traps in the last 2 corridors but just didn't mention it for this one.
"The fireball goes around corners so with your placement it engulfs 1/2 the party. <Rolls damage> 2 are now unconscious"
The party usually makes enough mistakes that a DM doesn't need to enforce the player making a mistake that the character would not. In addition, there is a very good chance that it will happen in the future if the player doesn't have great 3D visualization skills so they just target the spell on the creature they want to effect.
Anyway, just something to consider when DMing.
Very valid points. Thanks, D. I'm usually good about giving the players a heads up BUT this time I think as well as the Sorcerer I was caught up in the moment. Yes, I could/should have warned them after the fact that I noticed the situation which was about to play out but it was a decent lesson learned for everyone.