| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I've been playing D&D since 2e, through the life of 3.x, and have now transitioned to Pathfinder. In all that time, I have primarily DMed rather than played.
Just a few minutes ago, while reading over the PFCRB (I'm still reading it constantly to make sure I know all the tiny changes from 3.x), I came across a dilemma that had never occurred to me before in any edition. According to the rules as written, any area of effect spell is always centered upon a grid intersection rather than a square itself, while any small or medium creature (let's leave the larger ones out of this for a moment, as they present a whole new level of potential complexity) always is assumed to occupy a square rather than any intersection. What does this mean for spells which specifically says they are centered on a creature?
In looking over the Archives, it would seem that the intention is that the caster chooses from which corner of the creature's square the effect originates. After all, there is no explicit language to say otherwise, and the RAW does state that every spell with an area originates from an intersection. On the other hand, if that is the case, then the phrase, "centered on [creature]," is rather clumsy and misleading. Also, it carries with it a whole new battery of implications and ambiguities.
The first and most disturbing implication is as follows: a 10' radius effect centered on a small or medium creature always includes a single square directly adjacent to said creature which is outside the area of the effect. Look at the shape on page 215 of the Core book and think about it for a moment. If it helps, stand up and get a tape measure. Determine the area of a circle around a given point with a 10' radius. Stand anyway you like, with a foot touching that point. Now consider that if this were D&D/Pathfinder, a halfling with a dagger could get close enough to shiv you to death without ever entering into the circle you've just created, so long as he approached you from the right "angle." Now, I'm the first to admit that D&D is a game of abstractions, but 10' is a long ways when you're talking about melee combat. To have a spot within 5' of you somehow manage to fall outside the area of a 10' radius effect which is supposed to be "centered" on you seems like a pretty glaring problem from a verisimilitude or even purely gamist standpoint.
A 5' radius effect is somewhat less problematic, but still a bit weird, as it actually only affects an arc of 3 adjacent squares, since you are forced to occupy the other square included in the effect at all times. In other words, a radius effect which is centered on a creature doesn't actually affect a radius around that creature, unless said radius is at least 15'.
It's actually less problematic when you work up into larger creatures. Since the creature itself takes up so much more space, it stands to reason that a 5' or 10' radius might not be enough to cover bits of the creature's fighting space. So long as you accept that a larger creature shouldn't be entitled to a greater effect from the same spell, you can easily accept that the spell might not be enough to adequately cover the creature.
The second implication/ambiguity is more philosophically interesting than the first, in that it glaringly reintroduces a concept with which 3.5/Pathfinder thought it had managed to do away: Facing. Think about it; if you must pick a corner of your square from which the effect originates, then your position on the battlegrid has been assigned a directional orientation. Your effect on the battlefield becomes dependent upon which corner is chosen. If you placed the effect upon yourself (you "control" it, in M:tG parlance), can you change that corner while the spell persists? How about if you don't "control" the effect? If you can change the corner, and you take up more than one square, can you change the square from which the corner is selected?
If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then we must determine the action necessary to effect that change. Is it a swift action (you may elect a new corner/square once per round on your turn, giving up any other potential swift actions to do so)? Is it an immediate action (you may change the corner/square at any time, but only once per turn and you lose your swift action on the following round)? Is it a free action (you may change the corner/square any number of times but only during your own turn, and it remains in that corner until your next turn)? Is it something else? No matter what answer you choose, all creatures with any sort of radius effect centered upon themselves have effectively been made subject to rules regarding their "facing" within the combat, even if only to adjudicate the effect in question.
None of this is adequately addressed within the rules as written. I've a pretty simple solution that I'm already contemplating, but as this is the rules question forum rather than the homebrew forum, I think I'll keep it under my hat until I've heard what everyone else thinks.
Developers, I'd especially be interested to hear your thoughts, since they may include axioms or assumptions with which the game was designed, that I've not yet considered.
Anyone?
|
The second implication/ambiguity is more philosophically interesting than the first, in that it glaringly reintroduces a concept with which 3.5/Pathfinder thought it had managed to do away: Facing.
I disagree with this assessment, nothing links the intersection with the direction a creature faces.
The rest is apt, and an... unfortunate consequence of gamism, but hardly a cause for FAQ; the system works as described, even if it a bit wonky.
As far as changing the intersection of the area: if the spell allows for redirection, there's rules regarding that (a move action). If it doesn't then no worries.
Very interesting points Ederin (and I believe like WWWW that this isn't a change from 3.5).
I've always ruled "radius from creature" effects as from the edge of the creature's space, so that they *are* bigger for bigger creatures.
The second implication/ambiguity is more philosophically interesting than the first, in that it glaringly reintroduces a concept with which 3.5/Pathfinder thought it had managed to do away: Facing.I disagree with this assessment, nothing links the intersection with the direction a creature faces.
The rest is apt, and an... unfortunate consequence of gamism, but hardly a cause for FAQ; the system works as described, even if it a bit wonky.
As far as changing the intersection of the area: if the spell allows for redirection, there's rules regarding that (a move action). If it doesn't then no worries.
I didn't mean to suggest that the placement of the center of the effect actually means that the character is facing in a given direction, just that the nature of the rule grants a character an effective facing with regards to the effect. In other words, the character's effect on the battlefield changes depending upon the direction from which he is approached. Especially for those effects which protect the target or harm adjacent foes, the rules create a virtual facing, in that it is more advantageous to approach from one side than another. Which is a big part of what caused facing to be problematic in a game like D&D.
I cannot think of any spell which centers on a creature that allows for a redirection of the intersection within RAW. So if they cannot be changed once cast, then no radius effect centered upon a small or medium creature can actually affect a radius around that creature unless the area is 15' or more. The opposite corner of the creatures space from the chosen intersection is always clear (most of the adjacent space is actually clear in the case of a 5' radius).
While I can appreciate the appeal to abstraction, as I noted in my original post, I have to admit that radius effects that don't actually manage to affect a radius is a big problem. Amongst other things, it completely breaks immersion and verisimilitude, especially for new players.
Imagine, if you will, a spell that deals 1d6/CL fire damage in a 5' radius, centered on the caster (as far as I know, no such spell exists in PF, but I don't really feel like poring over the book to find a spell that illustrates my point as clearly). New Player 1 (Let's call him Newp) sees this spell and decides it would be awesome for his wizard, to punish those pesky foes who manage to get in close to him. In one of the early sessions, Newp finds himself surrounded by goblins and decides to let fly with his spell.
DM: "Okay, decide from which corner of your space the effect bursts."
Newp: "What? It's centered on me, right?"
DM: "Well, yes, except that all spell effects originate from grid intersections, so you have to select a corner, from which the effect will spread out 5' in every direction."
Newp (grasping the implications): "But wait, that means I can only actually affect 3 goblins. There are 8 surrounding me!"
DM: "Yeah, so which 3 would you like to affect?"
Newp: "But it's a 5' radius around me! Aren't all these goblins within 5' of me? It should get all of them!"
DM: "But the rules state that area effects always originate from grid intersections, so it can only affect the ones adjacent to the corner you select."
Newp: "That's STUPID! I want to pick a different spell!"
Now, obviously, since no such spell exists, it's a non-issue. But plenty of other effects do exist with similar problems. Calling it a radius effect centered on x creature is a bit of false advertising, and the ruling means that these effects don't actually do what they're supposed to do.
It worked the same way in 3.5 I believe.
I know it did. I just never noticed before, because the other way seemed so intuitive. I've been running these effects "wrong" since at least 2003. It's been even longer if 3.0 was handled the same way, but I don't have access to those books anymore.
Very interesting points Ederin (and I believe like WWWW that this isn't a change from 3.5).
I've always ruled "radius from creature" effects as from the edge of the creature's space, so that they *are* bigger for bigger creatures.
And that's a perfectly valid and intuitive way to rule, except that it creates some wonkiness when the colossal dragon throws down an antimagic field that blankets a total of 96-100 squares (depending on how you rule the corners) in dead magicky goodness, only 36 of which he actually occupies. That's 60-64 squares of dead magic for his enemies, compared to only 20-24 squares of effect for the medium sized wizard casting the same spell in the same slot. That seems like a bit too extreme a fringe benefit based upon the creature's size. It also seems like a good way to see a lot of size-increasing spells get cast on the wizard before he drops his radius effects centered upon himself.
While I can appreciate the appeal to abstraction, as I noted in my original post, I have to admit that radius effects that don't actually manage to affect a radius is a big problem. Amongst other things, it completely breaks immersion and verisimilitude, especially for new players.
You're right, every time I encounter a burst effect in the game, I have to throw down my dice in disgust because it yanks me out of the immersion. :p
The fact is, elements of the game take place on a grid. If you place bursts in the center of a square and use the 5/10/20 ft. radius as currently presented, it means you're only affecting half-squares along the edge of the effect, and you're still having problems with corners. If you change all spell effects to be 2.5 ft./7.5 ft./12.5 ft./17.5 ft. then all spell area descriptions are either really ugly ("a 7-1/2 ft. burst" looks blech on the page) or worded for people too dumb to measure in feet ("a 3x3 square centered on you").
The game is an abstraction. A human or gnome doesn't take up an entire 5 ft. square, and a 10 ft. radius burst centered on a corner isn't affecting an exact plus-shaped area on a grid. We accept these things so the wizard's turn doesn't take 5 minutes to resolve and so you're not counting 1 foot increments so the fighter's long bastard sword gets a reach bonus compared to a goblin's dagger. We have these abstractions in the game to speed up play. In the spectrum of slow-but-accurate-simulation on one side and fast-but-unrealistic-simulation on the other, D&D and games derived from it have fallen somewhere in the middle. The world doesn't end if fireballs have jagged edges, nor does the world end if a 10-ft.-radius burst centered on a creature's corner leaves an unaffected square adjacent to the creature. Especially when you admit you can't find a spell in the game where this is a problem.
Or you could just go with the simple fix: an effect that creates a 10' radius area centered on a creature creates an area 10' out from that creature in every direction (in other words, treat the creature's entire space as the origin of the effect). Auras already function this way, so it's not like it's some newfangled mechanic, and it makes sense in most cases.
Sean,
I think you underestimate how often this issue leads to disagreements and, eventually, gratuitous eye-rolling. I appreciate the conflicting concerns that you must deal with, but the current system is pretty wonky. At best, players grudgingly accept it. At worst, they demand house rules.
Keep the "feet" measurements for those that don't play on a grid square. Change the "centered" on a grid intersection to "A 5' radius spell affects all squares adjacent to the caster." Yes, figuring the corners can also be slightly wonky, but it is infinitely easier to accept than, "Yes, I know, it says 'all creatures in a 5' radius centered on the caster', but what it really means is...."
The system is adequate for AoE attack spells, since a 5' burst centered on a grid square hits all connecting four squares. But I will point out that the AoE doesn't actually cover any of the squares completely. Partial coverage in that case is translated to mean full coverage of any square that is partially in the area of effect. This is accepted without difficulty, so why not extend the principle to 5' radius centered on the caster? Since the adjacent squares are partially covered, they are treated as fully covered.
Also, If you get the chance, could you address the whole, "I'm to big to fit into my own spell effects" question? Especially in regards to Anti-Magic and Dragons.
Thanks,
J
I have to chime in to agree with the serious problems or issues that this dichotomy raises in higher-level applications of the game.
That the situation the OP imagined to illustrate the point isn't one that actually comes up in play is not just cause to dismiss the issue as something that is not a problem.
I, for one, was using a virtual tabletop program that allowed me to draw Areas centered on squares as well as intersections. I attempted that as a solution for some time, and measured the "centered on target creature" effects from the center of the target creature. I ran into problems when my players started to summon or encounter Large and Huge creatures, and the various spells started to be ... too small to be useful the way they're supposed to be, as indicated with Dragons and AoEs. I concluded that the larger creatures probably ought to have the AoE measured from the edge of their space, but that introduces imbalances in area based on the size of the target.
I recognize that the spells are supposed to be balanced, but I feel that the spells have been balanced for Medium Creatures only. Larger creatures have problems with spells that are "centered" on them.
This IS a problem that NEEDS to be addressed in some official manner. It has caused arguments and disruptions in our games aplenty.
This is also not the first time a thread like this has come up, though it is the first time I've seen a game designer address the issue, much less dismiss it out of hand.
I've got to say, I think it would be very odd to have spell effects centered on a square rather than a point. When you say a 5' radius burst, would you expect it to be 15' across?
Using that as an example, a 5' radius circle has about 75 sq. ft. of area (assuming pi=3). The current rules actually give you 100 sq.ft. of coverage. If you switched to "target square and all adjacent squares" you'd be up to a whopping 225 sq. ft. which is about triple what the spell was supposed to cover.
I guess if someone really wanted to target a square rather than an intersection of the grid, I'd be ok with letting them but then only have the spell affect squares that are at least half covered by the 5' radius circle. If you put the centre in the middle of a square, it would only affect that one square. That also feels a little funny, but it's much closer to the actual area being covered.
So if my alchemist tosses a bomb with a 5 foot radius at the Evil halfling, it doesn't just affect everyone around it, it affects the halfling and then splashes as it it had burst from a corner...?
I've got to say, I think it would be very odd to have spell effects centered on a square rather than a point. When you say a 5' radius burst, would you expect it to be 15' across?
A 5' radius burst centered on a grid intersection already affects squares that it doesn't cover completely. In fact, it doesn't cover any square completely. A 5' radius burst centered on the caster should affect all surrounding squares.
|
|
So if my alchemist tosses a bomb with a 5 foot radius at the Evil halfling, it doesn't just affect everyone around it, it affects the halfling and then splashes as it it had burst from a corner...?
This is a great point of contention regarding the alchemist (and splash weapons in general); as written splash weapons (when targeted against a specific creature) damage the creature and deal splash damage to all creatures within 5 feet of the creature—markedly different than a 5' radius spell. If you target a Medium creature with a splash weapon, you deal splash damage to eight squares; if you target a Large creature with a splash weapon, you deal splash damage to twelve squares. The larger the target, the more splash damage.
I'm of the opinion that splash weapons must also choose an intersection (even when targeting the creature); this brings the area of effect in line with spell areas. But I'll be the first to say that's now how it's written.
This is a great point of contention regarding the alchemist (and splash weapons in general); as written splash weapons (when targeted against a specific creature) damage the creature and deal splash damage to all creatures within 5 feet of the creature—markedly different than a 5' radius spell.
hmmm.. i need to talk the druid into getting a 30 foot long boa constrictor with fire resistance as an animal companion...
If you target a Medium creature with a splash weapon, you deal splash damage to eight squares; if you target a Large creature with a splash weapon, you deal splash damage to twelve squares. The larger the target, the more splash damage.
What about if i increase the blast radius to 10 feet? Are the corners cut out ? Its not going from the center of the square.
|
|
What about if i increase the blast radius to 10 feet? Are the corners cut out ? Its not going from the center of the square.
Questions for another thread since they relate to splash weapons, not spell areas.
I'm not being snarky, I really think it deserves its own thread. I'd start one, but I've already come to terms with how it works as written, despite how "wrong" I think that is. I'll certainly chime in with my opinions though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're right, every time I encounter a burst effect in the game, I have to throw down my dice in disgust because it yanks me out of the immersion. :p
Wow. Sarcasm. That's original! :-|
I have yet to throw down my dice in disgust, Mr. Reynolds. On the other hand, I chose to stick with 3.5 rather than switching over to 4e because the former made some effort at modeling a coherent reality in which things like physics matter. Pathfinder is an obvious improvement, partly because certain things work cleaner and more elegantly and the mechanics are therefore less intrusive. So, for me and much of your target audience, immersion and verisimilitude are concerns, and valid ones within reason.
The fact is, elements of the game take place on a grid. If you place bursts in the center of a square and use the 5/10/20 ft. radius as currently presented, it means you're only affecting half-squares along the edge of the effect, and you're still having problems with corners. If you change all spell effects to be 2.5 ft./7.5 ft./12.5 ft./17.5 ft. then all spell area descriptions are either really ugly ("a 7-1/2 ft. burst" looks blech on the page) or worded for people too dumb to measure in feet ("a 3x3 square centered on you").
I don't have a problem with the notion that areas of effect have corners. I understand why that happens on a game that tracks combat on a grid, and I can draw a perfect circle of the proper radius and see that the squares covered by the grid give a relatively realistic assessment of the area in question. No worries there.
And I further agree with you that adding 2.5 feet to every radius spell description is confusing and inelegant.
The game is an abstraction. A human or gnome doesn't take up an entire 5 ft. square, and a 10 ft. radius burst centered on a corner isn't affecting an exact plus-shaped area on a grid. We accept these things so the wizard's turn doesn't take 5 minutes to resolve and so you're not counting 1 foot increments so the fighter's long bastard sword gets a reach bonus compared to a goblin's dagger. We have these abstractions in the game to speed up play. In the spectrum of slow-but-accurate-simulation on one side and fast-but-unrealistic-simulation on the other, D&D and games derived from it have fallen somewhere in the middle.
Of course the game is an abstraction. Every game is an abstraction, from Monopoly to the UFC. In the Game formerly known as DnD, we accept that a radius "circle" is actually a collection of squares and that the melee reach of a bastard sword and a dagger are functionally equivalent because we want to keep the game moving without adding needless levels of complexity.
The world doesn't end if fireballs have jagged edges, nor does the world end if a 10-ft.-radius burst centered on a creature's corner leaves an unaffected square adjacent to the creature. Especially when you admit you can't find a spell in the game where this is a problem.
And here's where you lose me. Citing an unrelated abstraction is a red herring. In the first example, the abstraction generalizes the area of an effect for ease of play. In the actual example in question, however, the abstraction actively alters the effect in a manner that invites absurdity.
Finally, I never said that I could not find a spell in the game wherein this is a problem. I said that I didn't care at that moment to go searching through the books looking for a good example, so I made up a nonexistent, but plausible spell that easily could exist, and that illustrated my point clearly.
Your dismissive reply, however, has positively inspired me, Mr. Reynolds. Behold, examples!
- Antilife shell (a 6th level spell, 10' radius, centered on caster) cannot fully ward off a pack of wolves. Or any other group of living creatures. Furthermore, because the effect instantly collapses if you force it into a creature's space, it cannot even be reoriented on a succeeding round after that wolf has gotten to you (assuming such reorientation were even allowed).
- Same goes for antiplant shell and repel vermin.
- Antimagic field cannot save you from the spectres, wraiths, or shadows. Nor can it protect you from suffering sneak attack damage at the hands of the invisible rogue with a short sword. He can get adjacent to you without the field ever disrupting his invisibility, so long as he can discern where the effect sits (not easy for him, but doable).
- Magic circle against evil doesn't actually keep all summoned evil creatures at bay, so long as those creatures have manufactured weapons. Those with reach weapons can attack from all but two angles.
- Zone of silence does not buy privacy for a party of five characters, including the caster.
I have a few more from the APG, including one that really throws a curveball to the distinction between "10' radius, centered on creature" and "all squares within 10' of creature."
While this is a problem, it's one we've studiously ignored in my group. If the intention of a spell is to, say, affect each and every square around a creature, then that's what the spell does, and grid intersections can go pout in a corner.
It's not a great solution, but we manage. :)
I've also considered getting some sort of durable, clear material and cutting out actual circles with center points. I had no problem with circles in 1E. I don't see why I'd have problems with them now.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
While this is a problem, it's one we've studiously ignored in my group. If the intention of a spell is to, say, affect each and every square around a creature, then that's what the spell does, and grid intersections can go pout in a corner.
It's not a great solution, but we manage. :)
I've also considered getting some sort of durable, clear material and cutting out actual circles with center points. I had no problem with circles in 1E. I don't see why I'd have problems with them now.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
Yeah, this is pretty much where I am too. My interest in this problem is more of an academic one, to be honest. I just noticed it and was completely baffled that the rules really worked in the way that I was reading it.
Thing is, there's a reason I never noticed before through all of 3.x.
I don't use the grid or miniatures in the games I run. When positioning is important, we mark our locations with tokens right on the table. AoE and AoO have never been difficult to adjudicate, since all our tokens are of a size. I keep a tape measure handy for when something's in doubt.
But plenty of other people do use the grid, and I really do think that this is a serious issue in the rules. The fact that I have a fix for my own table is immaterial. I guess it bothers me as much as it does because A) it is new to me, B) this particular abstraction operates in a way that "forgets" it's an abstraction and creates a concrete model with no relation to the reality from which it was abstracted, and C) it encourages a level of metagaming with which I am uncomfortable.
It'll never matter at my table, but I never know when I might play at someone else's, so I'd like a clearer understanding of how this was intended to work.
While this is a problem, it's one we've studiously ignored in my group. If the intention of a spell is to, say, affect each and every square around a creature, then that's what the spell does, and grid intersections can go pout in a corner.
It's not a great solution, but we manage. :)
I've also considered getting some sort of durable, clear material and cutting out actual circles with center points. I had no problem with circles in 1E. I don't see why I'd have problems with them now.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
I confess that I have done the same thing in the past, to the point of obtaining or making transparent templates based on the actual geometry of the AoE as opposed to the abstracted geometry presented to fit easily onto a grid of squares.
That said, it's wholly up to the GM (mostly me in such situations) to say "This spell, contrary to the Rules as Written, does not need to be centered on a grid intersection and should be measured from the Creature it targets." Such a declaration is a judgment call, and given the frequency with which it can occur in higher-level play, a more formal statement of intent would be appreciated, as would a remark on the apparent absence of utility of such spells to larger (theoretically more powerful) monsters, such as Dragons, Evil Outsiders, and the like. Especially for Dragons, spells like Antimagic Field and Magic Circle against Good raise questions about their application. Especially with Magic Circle against Good, it seems counter-intuitive to think that (under RaW), Protection from Good offers better protection than the higher-level counterpart to a Huge or larger Dragon.
As for the cleric channeling question, it's a burst, so unless they have total cover from the origin point, it will affect all creatures within range.