but i think everyone can figure that one out just fine.
You would think so, but apparently, such is not the case the way people keep arguing about it in this thread.
My suggestion:
Take a deep breath, calm down, and use the diagrams, they're clearer than the text, and better show the intent of how they're supposed to work.
Back to the 15' cone.
Could someone go through the rules of area effects for me and show how each of these x's are determined?
Pretty much covered that in a previous post. Its a hold over from 3.0 and 3.5
See previous post, several back. End of Story.
Unless you are wanting to bog down your own personal game to a 30 min debate everytime an area of effect spell is cast, use the templates. They are there for a reason, are a very reasonable approximation of areas on a square grid, work well enough (they have been around for three editions now, so i would think so), and make sense in a common sense and rules intent kind of way.
I just don't get why the huge debate on your cone. If you want a cone to look all weird, not be symmetrical (which to me is not at all a cone then), go for it. But it will cause problems with spell effects if you try redesigning them on a square grid.
It's the old proverb of trying to put a square peg in a round hole.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
My suggestion:
Take a deep breath, calm down, and use the diagrams, they're clearer than the text, and better show the intent of how they're supposed to work.
Sean- we are, or at least I am, quite calm. This isn't a matter of histrionics, simply a matter of wanting to know
1) What is RAI?
2) Do you agree that the wording is either incorrect or at least misleading?
Because as I see it, the existing definition of line suggests that the line MUST enter a square (break the border) for it to affect something WITHIN that square, and firing a line effect along the intersections of squares does not break any squares, therefore never affects anything. Yes, of course we can overlook this because "that's silly" but that's not the point. All I'm trying to get at is "yeah its worded poorly and that is not the intent - we'll try to clean that up at some point" or something along those lines.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think people just get irritated that people make big long pedantic threads trying to clear up something that rarely (never?) causes a problem in the game.
Regardless of how you use it, wording, graphics, a string over the battle-mat, wire templates, duct tape and baling wire... as long as you apply it consistently it just doesn't matter.
The only time it's a 'problem' is on forum threads where people want to be pedantic or when you have a player who is trying to metagame the system to get things "just right". Neither situation generally makes people happy. Sean's suggestion of using the illustrations on the page makes it simple. Wire templates make it even simpler. If you have a player who argues with that then my suggestion is tell them to piss off because they aren't going to be much fun at the table regardless.
Is there really an issue with understanding that lines only affect one square, or are people trying to get perfect wording even though they know how it works?
Is there really an issue with understanding that lines only affect one square, or are people trying to get perfect wording even though they know how it works?
SOME people are merely pointing out poor wording with the hopes that it improves in later printings or versions of the game. I've already tried to make painfully clear that yes, of course some things are "obvious" but why in the name of all that is holy is it a crime to point out poor wording and ask that it be fixed at some point in the future?
If you don't care how something is worded in the book why buy a book full of rules? You can play cops and robbers without a book of rules, you can pretend to be an elf without a book of rules, you can do lots of things without books full of rules. However, there IS a big (BIG) book full of rules for Pathfinder. It'd be nice if the rules didn't contradict the intention. Calling out contradictions shouldn't be a crime, it should be appreciated by the designers so they can continue to perfect the system.
Otherwise just throw the book out the window and say "I don't need stupid rules to understand how sneaking works." etc.
The only time it's a 'problem' is on forum threads where people want to be pedantic or when you have a player who is trying to metagame the system to get things "just right".
I'll disagree here. Wanting a well-defined basis of the rules is not at all unreasonable. Unclear rules increase the amount of rules that a GM must adjudicate, which rarely leave all players happy. And despite the overbearing assumption to the opposite, game rules should meet a level of consensus between the players and the GM. Ultimately the GM has the final say so, but without consensus, fun for all is not guaranteed.
Truth be told, many players WANT clearly defined expectations. Attempting to exclude those players outright is kinda presumptuous.
And in my opinion, the rule could simply add "If the line of effect touches multiple squares without passing through any of them, the caster decides which side of the line the spell effect continues on. This decision applies to all squares of a similar configuration for that spellcast."
|
|
Because as I see it, the existing definition of line suggests that the line MUST enter a square (break the border) for it to affect something WITHIN that square, and firing a line effect along the intersections of squares does not break any squares, therefore never affects anything.
Then don't do that. Make sure your lines actually pass through the spaces. I posted an illustration early in the thread showing how you can make any line effect you want legally with the RAW.
Then don't do that. Make sure your lines actually pass through the spaces. I posted an illustration early in the thread showing how you can make any line effect you want legally with the RAW.
So instead of fixing the wording in a future revision so that no one has this question ever again you suggest everyone always angle their line effects by 1 degree?
|
|
Then don't do that. Make sure your lines actually pass through the spaces. I posted an illustration early in the thread showing how you can make any line effect you want legally with the RAW.So instead of fixing the wording in a future revision so that no one has this question ever again you suggest everyone always angle their line effects by 1 degree?
The current wording works. The previous version didn't.
When the developers have the time to work on issues in in-print products I would prefer they spend their time working on issues that actually affect the game, there are plenty of those. Arguing over some phraseology that might be made slightly better but is rarely if ever subject to debate at the gaming table is a waste.
Maybe a few years down the road Paizo will release PF core book 2.0. If/ when that happens this would be an excellent topic to bring up.
I had a long response composed by I'll just say in this case the RAI contradicts the RAW. This causes confusion to those who read the rules. It is my opinion that these sorts of things should be fixed at some point. Some of you disagree with fixing mistakes- that's fine. I'm just trying to add this to the pile of things I'd like to see eventually fixed.
Then don't do that. Make sure your lines actually pass through the spaces. I posted an illustration early in the thread showing how you can make any line effect you want legally with the RAW.So instead of fixing the wording in a future revision so that no one has this question ever again you suggest everyone always angle their line effects by 1 degree?The current wording works. The previous version didn't.
When the developers have the time to work on issues in in-print products I would prefer they spend their time working on issues that actually effect the game, there are plenty of those. Arguing over some phraseology that might be made slightly better but is rarely if ever subject to debate at the gaming table is a waste.
Maybe a few years down the road Paizo will release PF core book 2.0. If/ when that happens this would be an excellent topic to bring up.
Or maybe a designer can stick a flag on the post, look at all the great ideas that were offered back then, and make a decision when the time comes.
I was playing the rule incorrectly, stop.
Others were also playing rule incorrectly, stop.
The text is, as always, a little poor, and open to some alternative interpretation.
We all now know what the rules actually are, stop.
Let's move on, and thanks for the clarification!
|
|
#1 It is impossible to draw a line with no thickness.
Euclid would disagree.
Definition 2 link
I didn't say it was impossible for a line to have no thickness, I said it was impossible to draw one with no thickness.
Wake me up when my gaming group begins to argue the basics of geometry during my games. Maybe then I'll reconsider.
Does that mean you'll refrain from continuing to say how fine everything is in this thread?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wake me up when my gaming group begins to argue the basics of geometry during my games. Maybe then I'll reconsider.Does that mean you'll refrain from continuing to say how fine everything is in this thread?
Not until you tell me what it means "to roll a die".
There's no clear definition of that in the Core Rulebook. Seriously, how come people are even playing this game? The rules are so vauge, almost as if the designers want to intentionally confuse the players and cause disruption. Does "rolling" means that it has to, actually, roll? For how long? From what height is the die to be dropped? Does a die that falls down from the table count? One that rolls under my sofa?
|
|
Except the illustrations you linked were incorrect.
You drew lines that weren't exactly straight (or had a thickness) and included a few squares that shouldn't have been included.
#1 It is impossible to draw a line with no thickness.
#2 It doesn't matter.#1 that's true, but you shouldn't be including squares based on the thickness of the line that you drew... rather it should be where the line should be going through.
#2 if you're using those templates to see which squares you hit.. well then you're getting it wrong as you're hitting more squares than you should with those lines.
-James
I did it in about 2 minutes. Since it's important to you perhaps you can spend the time redrawing it with micro-thin lines and figuring out which are which.
|
|
If you say the sofa roll counts i am taking my books and going home! There is NO WAY i am crouching down under your sofa to try and see what i rolled, you have cats... CATS!!
This brings us to yet another crucially important point.
Imagine a cat snatches a die from the table. The assembled players give a gallant chase against the dastardly feline, and after suffering several points of probably nonlethal damage they liberate the shining polyhedron (unless the players are Commoners or Wizards, in which case they are screwed).
Now, if said dice was retrieved so that one could notice what number was facing up at the moment that it was freed from the cat's clutches, does that roll count? We must take into account the possibility of the cat being trained by one of the players (or DM) in order to intercept the dice which are about to land with an unfavourable result.
James Jacobs, please weigh in.
I may be going out on a limb but I say that rules text that directly contradicting the provided graphic examples is somewhat more deserving of clarification vs. a definition of rolling dice lol
In effect, I'm hitting everything in a 120ft line down 2 rows.
The rules text and the example text in the 3.5 D&D PHB differed slightly.
"A line-shaped spell affects all creatures in squares that the line passes through."
"All squares through which the line passes or touches are affected by the attack."
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/4143/confusedrt9.gif
WotC went went with the more generous interpretation when skip Williams addressed the issue in a RotGA. Also the more generous interpretation was used by the D&D Minis skirmish game.
HOWEVER this was never addressed by errata, so the SRD was always the less generous "A line-shaped spell affects all creatures in squares that the line passes through." Since Pathfinder was based off the SRD, that lack of errata means lines are only 1 square wide.
Re: 15-foot cones
"A cone-shaped spell shoots away from you in a quarter-circle in the direction you designate."
Therefore, a 15 foot cone should look like these:
(X is cone area, 0 is rest of implied circle, c is caster)
__XX______0X__
_XXXX____00XX_
00XX00__000XXX
00c.c00__00c000
_0000____0000_
__00______00__
Not this:
_XXX_
_XXX_
__X__
__c__
|
|
I did it in about 2 minutes. Since it's important to you perhaps you can spend the time redrawing it with micro-thin lines and figuring out which are which.Hey I just figured that before you refer people to something that you know is wrong that you could at least tell them. But whatever,
James
I'm waiting for your reproduction to show exactly how wrong I was... was there one extra square? Two? Three?
C'mon, this is obviously important to you. Where is your sense of precision? Do you use a compass and a high precision ruler in your games?
This is fascinating. I love these little rule glitches.
As do I. ;D
The way I handle area of effect spells...
Cones : 45 Degree angle. N feet long. Pick your direction. Don't care about squares on the grid. The spell goes off in a cone. If it hits a wall, it damages the wall, and either blows through or stops (if it can't destroy the wall). I use wire guides or else put down N foot long strips of thread to indicate the cone. If a square is only partially in the area of effect, and there's someone there, they get a bonus to saving throw between +1 and +5 (depending on how much of the square is effected).
Lines : Same as cones, but 5 foot wide line. Pick the line. Anyone partially effected get's bonus to save.
Burst : Same as cones/line. Pick the center point and drop the hoop on the board, done.
I find that premade wire forms work well, as do bits of string or piano wire bent in circles. I've also used bent wire coathangers with pits of tape to represent the 5 foot measurements (this is really good for cones and lines). Cuts down on arguments.
Is there really an issue with understanding that lines only affect one square, or are people trying to get perfect wording even though they know how it works?SOME people are merely pointing out poor wording with the hopes that it improves in later printings or versions of the game. I've already tried to make painfully clear that yes, of course some things are "obvious" but why in the name of all that is holy is it a crime to point out poor wording and ask that it be fixed at some point in the future?
If you don't care how something is worded in the book why buy a book full of rules? You can play cops and robbers without a book of rules, you can pretend to be an elf without a book of rules, you can do lots of things without books full of rules. However, there IS a big (BIG) book full of rules for Pathfinder. It'd be nice if the rules didn't contradict the intention. Calling out contradictions shouldn't be a crime, it should be appreciated by the designers so they can continue to perfect the system.
Otherwise just throw the book out the window and say "I don't need stupid rules to understand how sneaking works." etc.
I did not notice the 3.5 wording, but I do think it is better to have a diagram going in a straight line, and one with a line at an angle with an explanation. The could be done in an FAQ. He has been on the ball with the FAQ's lately so I guess that seems like a valid option.
I was under the impression that if the "insert whatever here" occupied more than 1/2 the square that it occupies then it has an effect otherwise it doesn't
|
The line spells, in my thoughts, should just say you have a source square and a target square. draw a line between them and it effects the squares that best represent that line (squares do not make good lines other than on N-E-S-W). That pick any corner nonsense messes everything up.
No spells should be effecting half a square, so that half one/half other to hit two at once will never happen.