Area damage vs size

[Charon's Little Helper]

Aelryinth wrote:

Armor taking the damage so you don't have to is not at all different mathematically then armor taking all or none of it.

It's just math. And as math, it's easier to figure fast AC hit/no-hit then Hit/no-hit, reduce x dmg/don't reduce damage.

Note that Warhammer rules DO use Armor as DR, directly offset by Str as DR punching. Mathematically, it all ends up working out the same way, so why go to the more complex system?

==Aelryinth

I disagree entirely on both counts.

Armor as DR has entirely different connotations upon a system. Multiple weaker attacks become useless and the game focuses upon fewer larger attacks.

Characters need to pick whether to focus upon being hard to hit, or ignoring that for DR.

Warhammer rules DO NOT use armor as DR. Saying that Warhammer uses armor as DR because it negates some of it is like saying Pathfinder uses armor as DR because STR makes you more accurate in melee. (Armor as DR would make no sense in Warhammer because the vast majority of attacks do only 1 wound, and that 1 wound is enough to kill most units.)

Frankly - I like the vibe of armor as DR, but slapping it onto the current Pathfinder rules leads to a hot mess. It needs to be integrated into a system from the ground up.

[N N 959]

Aelryinth wrote:

Armor taking the damage so you don't have to is not at all different mathematically then armor taking all or none of it.

It's just math. And as math, it's easier to figure fast AC hit/no-hit then Hit/no-hit, reduce x dmg/don't reduce damage.

That's actually a bit of a misrepresentation and demonstrably false. But it sounds good doesn't it? The "balance" that people refer in this game is really a context based balanced. In the context of a game where attacks can lead to secondary outcomes e.g. bleed damage, elemental damage, poison, energy drain, combat maneuvers, etc., getting hit for less damage is far more life-threatenin/debilitating than getting hit less frequently but for more damage.

For years I played a game called City of Heroes. The game used three models of defense: avoidance, resistance, healing. On paper, the choices were "balanced." But in actual game play, the archetypes which lacked avoidance, were routinely devastated when they encountered enemies that used debuffs/drains. One power tree was called Invulnerability. It was compromised of lots of resistance and some healing. Although incredibly survivable, this class faired the worse in PvP where other players frequently employed debuffs. If every time you get hit, your attacks are debuffed, then you can't kill anyone. In fact, the performance of this power tree was so bad, the devs had to give extra protection against things like slows.

Avoidance and resistance are not the same thing in the context of this game. Your assertion as such is only supported by a superficial analysis on paper, andn then only when you're looking at expected damage over time and ignore all the associated penalties of actually being hit outside of damage.

So no, making Armor into resistance instead of avoidance would make highly armored characters a LOT more vulnerable and improve the value of Dexterity as an attribute. This would be amplified if you actually allowed armors to reduce your avoidance rather than simply taking away positive modifiers. This change would result in a plethora of armor-light builds. It would help balance the benefit of DEX compared to STR.

But as CLH suggest, I would be reluctant to just use it in the current Pathfinder system. Any major change like this really needs to be done from the ground up, not shoe-horned in after the fact. Though it would be very interesting to experience.

[Shinoskay]

Im looking at shooting a troll in the face with scatter shot, its large size, itd be cool to know if im doing more damage due to its size or not.

btw, I largely agree with N N 959's earlier presentations and do find some of the counter points illogical. if a target gets hit by 2 squares of fireball damage then its like 2 creatures go hit. roll accordingly and damage.

the counter point of what if only a few of the creatures squares are in the fire, what then, doesnt sound like a logical counter for that reason. if one square of the creature is hit, one creature roll worth of damage... if 4 are hit... 4 creature roll of damage.

for a fact, larger creatures have larger hit die, either because of racial type or because of size modifier to con. They also get more strength, which is usually scary, and are usually big bad scary things in general (like dragons, giants, and as I mentioned... trolls). things like swallow whole, cmd, cmb, etc. they have massive advantages. getting to hurt them a little more just makes for good planning.

its like monster hunter, not everything is going to be equal so find a tactic that works. Sometimes the mage is going to be the powerhouse and sometimes the fighter (barbarian, ranger, whichever 'lesser class' I kid i kid, I mean, its a joke but most believe it.) is the power house....

and sometimes the rogue carries the party, that dinky 3 hits a round little suprise that comes out of no where with its crazy smoke sticks and who knows what nonesense and cheese.

and really, a rogue is going to have a hell of a lot harder time fighting a dragon then a mage or a barbarian would.... But a rogue dominates mages.

lets not try to universalize classes, they all have their niche... I say this 5 years late.

[avr]

If someone gets hit by a 1/2" bullet taking up 1/14400 of a square, do they take 1/14400 of the rolled damage? They do not. Similarly an area spell either affects the target or it doesn't, huge creatures don't run away from anyone who can cast burning hands. Effects do what they say they do, not some multiple of that.

If you're going to argue realism be warned that the hide of a troll with natural armor should be able to shrug off the nails you packed into that blunderbuss.

[MrCharisma]

Yeah there are a lot of places in this game where realism vs easy gameplay comes in, and thankfully easy gameplay got the win almost every time.

Say you missed your target with an arrow, but there's a guy behind him, what are the chances that it hit him? What do you roll for that since you wouldn't add your attack bonus (you weren't aiming for him)?

The answer is Nobody cares. You missed, realism isnt't as important as fun, it's the next player's turn, move on.

The same is true of this thread: The troll takes normal damage, realism isn't as important as fun, nobody cares, it's 5 years since this argument ended, move on.

(Sorry if that sounded harsh. I'm not trying to be mean, I can write that in a nicer way after work if you like.)

[Mark Hoover 330]

How do saves work? If a Large sized creature rolls its save vs Fireball and has no Move actions that means it saves while remaining in the same squares. If damage is assigned by square, how did it avoid some of the damage in those squares if the damage-inducing explosion fills every square?

If you shoot an arrow, do you roll one attack for all four squares the monster occupies, assigning the back 2 Cover from your arrow attack?

I feel like targeting/multiplying damage based on squares instead of creatures targeted would have weird ramifications for saving throws and ranged attacks.

[Black Onyx Salesman]

A nice sale on this indeed.

[*Khan*]

I will greater cleave while enlarged with my reach weapon then...
All those delightful adjacent squares to Cut...

No forget that. One miss and the chain stops... Whirlwind attack !!!!

[Shinoskay]

avr, again that is an illogical fallacy. a straw man probably.

no one is saying a portion of damage happens to each square, to argue that is to argue to detract or distract... whether intentional or not. it simply convolutes the conversation and is why 5 years later this is still something people feel conflicted on.

Mr Charisma, there are mechanics for that.

Mark hoover, clearly the damage would be/is tallied in total (each squares damage) and evasion is rolled normally for the tallied. easy peasy. its not nearly as complicated or awkward as you just painted it.

Khan, there is a fundamental difference between great cleave and whirlwind, I would take great cleave over whirlwind any day because of it.
Where whirlwind is, as your first sentence describes, just you sweeping out in a single intense whirl... great cleave is a momentous swing, not necessarily a chop or a swipe, with the intent of carrying through to hitting another target after.

In real life, this is like actual feinting, you feint one hand out but it has no carry through... a good fighter will be able to see that... and then the real attack usually comes with carrying through. the purpose of an attacks carry through is largely because you expect them to dodge. in real life, its almost never the first strike in a combo that hits.

we can actually translate that to game mechanics, though the concept is different because there isnt any flurry of feints when you go for a full attack, when making cleaves, vital strikes, or the such. you just put that attack in with certain intent. Each type of strike can seen to move or act in a particular way, some supporting mechanics for this is soft cover and allies. while we visually do not see them moving around in a flurry of activity and action... one can determine to not offer soft cover, to endeavor to stay out of someone's line of sight, or not.

[Rysky]

Quote:

it simply convolutes the conversation and is why 5 years later this is still something people feel conflicted on.

You disagreeing with everyone (and necroing the thread itself to do so) =/= people feel conflicted on the subject.

[avr]

That's a logical outcome of your own argument Shinoskay. If you dismiss it without addressing it then clearly you are not approaching this from the position of logical argument.

[MrCharisma]

I've done some firefighting in my time. I don't think being bigger made me take more damage from the fire. If anything I would take less damage from the fire than someone smaller since my large mass would thermally protect me. That's how physics works.

[Shinoskay]

please stop using logic fallacies and general brow beating.

this isnt about physics or real world, its about how something hits multiple squares or an area. If a target encompasses multiple squares then they are hit with multiple squares of attack.

this isnt about me disagreeing, it detracts from the conversation and insults me to suggest that. quite frankly it also pisses me off.

((If someone gets hit by a 1/2" bullet taking up 1/14400 of a square, do they take 1/14400 of the rolled damage?))
this is also not the logical outcome of my argument. damage is determined per X designation. one bullet does x damage to one target. you cant argue that down, its clear, clean, cut, done. you shoot, its hit... roll this damage.

area attacks arent just one bullet though.
the logic presented for supporting the idea of multiple squares being additive was presented with something like a wall. you have multiple squares of wall being hit in different squares, each has varied damage, you shoot a fireball and all squares add the damage. this can be argued to just be for booking but it also sets a precendence.

as argued above, 10d6 per square rolled, hitting a large multi square creature isnt a logical reach. hell, one could even translate an applied logic of swarm damage to the concept as you roll once for a mass group of creatures and add x ammount for area vulnerability indicating many parts of the whole was hit.

[Talonhawke]

I mean we already accept the fact that there is no issue from being outside the fire even though realistically someone on the exact edge would likely be burned at least a bit. And that some classes can be flying in the air with nothing around them and be at the epicenter of the fireball and take 0 damage from it somehow. But keep in mind that guy that takes up more space in your fireball is also filling more area of the fireball with their own body meaning that their are portions of them that are further from the heat than any point on a medium creatures body.

[MrCharisma]

Shinoskay wrote:

please stop using logic fallacies and general brow beating.

this isnt about physics or real world, ...

I don't understand. If it's not about the real world it's about the game. The game has pretty specific rules about how to handle this, and it doesn't involve a large creature taking 8× damage from a fireball.

This is the rules forum, so you're going to get rules answers. If you want to get a discussion on how to change this start a thread in the General Discussion or Homebrew forum.

Also, if you want a discussion you should start your own thread. Resurrecting an old thread to disagree/agree with a 5 year old post is going to get other people coming in to the middle of the conversation to agree/disagree.

My recommendation is that if you want to start a conversation about how to apply this to your games you should start a new thread, maybe with a link to this thread. State what you don't like about the current rules and why, and then state how you think it shouod be handled. Then if people disagree (and they probably will) you can ask them to be productive or leave the thread.

[blahpers]

Area abilities that affect creatures, whether fireball or bless, don't care how many square said creature occupies. They only care whether a given creature's space overlaps the spell's area. If it does overlap, that creature is subject to the spell's effect--hence the term "area of effect". If not, that creature is not affected.

Squares are only relevant inasmuch as they are the granularity used to determine overlap between creatures and the area of effect. The spell itself either affects a given creature or it does not. Just like a cleric doesn't don't quadruple-bless a friendly ogre, you don't get quadruple damage against an ogre by centering your fireball on it. It's a binary--either they're in the area or they are not.

If this isn't how you want it to work, by all means, change it, but be aware of the effect such a change will have on your game--e.g., creatures tend to increase in hit points linearly but number of squares hit by a fireball increase quadratically, meaning the really big creatures will, barring immunities, tend to be counterintuitively easier to murder with AoE spells.

[Shinoskay]

thats a fair and well balanced counter argument, talon. it both uses in game logic and blends that with physics, actually analyzing and using the apparent in game physics for a hybrid logic. Well done

Mr C, do you have a faq?

As for threading policies, it is common forum courtesy to continue a conversation in a thread that is directly relevant to one's question.

Blahpers
your explanation is sound but neglects to address my wall and damage example/argument. largely I agree with you and see that as generally the case but also see the oh so often and aptly argument flaw of phrasing.

for instance, what if im standing on the wall and use fireball, looking at what talon said... is it now a verticle nova rather that a horizontal one?
most combat really does seem to be 2d minded, and often with medium or small as the general and norm. looking at addressing the expanded logic and tactical consideration is important, particularly given how popular flight is. but then in flight its more common to have 1v1 type fights or small scale conflicts.

but I digress. this conversation is largely to address the perspective of whether the rules support aoe being able to hit a large creature with 'multiple times' via square designations. Perhaps it doesn't explicitly say it does, but I have present viable examples of where it could be arguably it does.

(and to re emphasis the appropriate counter argument) Talon has presented a viable reason why it doesnt.

[MrCharisma]

Shinoskay wrote:

Mr C, do you have a faq?

An FAQ to what?

FIREBALL wrote:

A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every CREATURE within the area.

Shinoskay wrote:

As for threading policies, it is common forum courtesy to continue a conversation in a thread that is directly relevant to one's question.

Common courtesy is also to have a really obvious statement that you're necro-ing a thread - perhaps in bigger text or in bold or both to make sure everyone can easily see where the "old" thread ends and the "new" thread begins.

I wasn't talking about common courtesy though, or even trying to tell you off about anything (sorry if it sounded like it). I was trying to help you get the best answer for your question. Reviving old threads invariably comes with a few "Necromancy is fun" posts if nothing else, so starting a new one is more likely to keep things on track. You don't have to do this by any means, but it's what I'd recommend to anyone who's looking for a productive discussion.

[Quixote]

Shinoskay wrote:

...this conversation is largely to address the perspective of whether the rules support aoe being able to hit a large creature with 'multiple times' via square designations...I have present viable examples of where it could be arguably it does.

Wait, where? I think it's pretty definitive that the rules state this is not the case.

I'm not sold on the idea that a larger creature takes more damage from an explosion or whatever. Sure, it's more surface area, but it's a smaller ratio. We measure the severity of burns by both; depth and percentage of surface area covered.

I mean...if an elephant and rider fell into lava, would the elephant's physical substance be consumed faster than the rider's, because more of it is touching the lava? I don't think so. There are so many variables beyond size; resilience...per pound, I guess? Resistance to shock, being able to minimizing damage...but still, I would hazard that, if all things are equal but size and two entities--one 200lbs, the other 10,000lbs--fell into lava together, the big one would not get burned up faster because it's bigger.

Hit points are far more complicated than a measure of how much meat you're made of. It's a pretty lovely abstraction. There's a reason I walked away from AD&D as soon as I could.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Yes, color me confused too. If

Shinoskay wrote:

...this conversation is largely to address the perspective of whether the rules support aoe being able to hit a large creature with 'multiple times' via square designations...

they clearly don't. As in the example Mr Charisma stated above for Fireball, if we're really talking about what the rules designate, they designate that individual targets, regardless of size or shape or whatever, if they be caught in the Area of Effect, take the effect of the spell in that area.

Cast Burning Hands into 3 squares at the end of the cone, up to 3 targets, one per square, are affected. A dragon breathes acid in an 80' line, any targets in that line are affected. If a Fireball fills a bunch of squares, any target or targets that fall within that area get affected.

If I occupy 1 or 4 squares, I'm still only 1 target. The spell affects targets, or individual creatures, in the Area of Effect. Therefore, I'm only affected once not multiple times by the same Fireball.

I don't see rules-specific designations to the contrary.

[Ryze Kuja]

Honestly I think the rules support the realism of a small vs. medium vs. large vs. huge+ target being hit with a fireball. Barring successful reflex saves, Small creatures will undoubtedly be entirely engulfed on all sides (with room to spare) by a fireball while a Large or Huge target might not.

[Quixote]

Yeah, it's like...you get hit by more fire, but there's more of you. So it balances out.

The Angry GM's "Hack Your Game" articles are especially useful for situations like this. Before you start changing massive elements of the game, make sure it's actually necessary. Make sure it adds to the game play.

[bbangerter]

Shinoskay wrote:

this isnt about physics or real world,

Shinoskay wrote:

its about how something hits multiple squares or an area.

I find the two statements in this single sentance to be at odds with each other.

Real world physics is what tells us that something in multiple 5'x5' cubes would take damage for each of those areas covered by the AoE.

[Claxon]

If your going to have larger creatures take damage multiple times, are you going to let small and smaller creatures take less?

Small creatures are half the size of medium, do they get to take half damage. Do tiny creatures take 1/4"?

No.

Sorry, the idea has no merit.

[LordKailas]

having larger creatures take extra damage would really screw over swarms. They already take extra damage from AoE attacks, letting them also get hit multiple times would make spells like fireball even more effective.

Instead of the large swarm taking 5d6x1.5 damage(26 avg), it now takes (5d6x1.5)x4 damage(105 avg). This seems excessive IMO. Espically when you consider a normal medium creature would take 18 dmg on average with a failed save. Even if the swarm saved for half you're looking at 52 dmg.

[Shinoskay]

Claxon wrote:

If your going to have larger creatures take damage multiple times, are you going to let small and smaller creatures take less?

Small creatures are half the size of medium, do they get to take half damage. Do tiny creatures take 1/4"?

No.

Sorry, the idea has no merit.

This is the biggest issue people cant seem to get over.

a dragon has some 200 hp. Monsterous chars, often large sized or larger, also have d12 hit dice.

Where as smaller races have smaller racial hit die.

you guys are too caught up on how this is unfair for large creatures.... its not.

[Rysky]

Except they don't since that's not how HD works.

[bbangerter]

To me its not an issue of fairness/unfairness to larger/smaller creatures. It's a matter of what the rules actually say. If they intended it to hit larger creatures multiple times thats a pretty glaring issue to not explain in detail.

When the rules say an AoE effect deals damage to each creature in the effect it means just that. Size is irrelevant. If the rules instead said a creature that occupies one or more squares in the effected area suffers damage for each of those squares, that would be a straightforward explanation of it.

But if you want to push the bigger creatures have more hp so should take more damage route - D8 typical for many medium creatures vs d12 typical for many larger creatures (which isn't actually true), you are suggesting its fair because a creature that has 50% more HP takes 400% (or even higher with huge+ creatures) more damage?

[MrCharisma]

bbangerter wrote:

To me its not an issue of fairness/unfairness to larger/smaller creatures. It's a matter of what the rules actually say.

+1

[Matthew Downie]

As I said earlier:

Matthew Downie wrote:

Sorcerer: I cast an empowered fireball at the gargantuan white dragon. With my bloodline bonus, that's 15d6+15.

GM: OK, but under my house rules you have to multiply that by the number of square you hit. So multiply those numbers by 16.
Sorcerer: 240d6 + 240?
GM: Yes. And then increase it by 50% since it's vulnerable to fire.
(later...)
Sorcerer: ...so with the +50% bonus, that's 1623 damage.

...or one could argue that since a gargantuan creature is 4 by 4 by 4, he should actually have multiplied the damage by 64, not 16.

If you can find a way to make a house rule like that without completely unbalancing the game, let us know. We'll wait.

[MrCharisma]

Matthew Downie wrote:

As I said earlier:

Matthew Downie wrote:

Sorcerer: I cast an empowered fireball at the gargantuan white dragon. With my bloodline bonus, that's 15d6+15.

GM: OK, but under my house rules you have to multiply that by the number of square you hit. So multiply those numbers by 16.
Sorcerer: 240d6 + 240?
GM: Yes. And then increase it by 50% since it's vulnerable to fire.
(later...)
Sorcerer: ...so with the +50% bonus, that's 1623 damage.

...or one could argue that since a gargantuan creature is 4 by 4 by 4, he should actually have multiplied the damage by 64, not 16.

If you can find a way to make a house rule like that without completely unbalancing the game, let us know. We'll wait.

Heh, forget your 15th level sorcerer with feats/bloodline abilities spent on upping the damage, a 5th level wizard with Burning Hands can deal ~350 damage* if the creature's big enough to take the entire cone.

That means a 5th level wizard can one-shot an Adult White Dragon (CR:10) with a 1st level spell even if the dragon makes it's save. Or you could one-shot an Ancient White Dragon (CR:15) - again, with a 1st level spell - if the dragon fails it's save.

*I was assuming the extra 50% from vulnerability to fire here, so that's factored in.

[blahpers]

Shinoskay wrote:

Claxon wrote:

If your going to have larger creatures take damage multiple times, are you going to let small and smaller creatures take less?

Small creatures are half the size of medium, do they get to take half damage. Do tiny creatures take 1/4"?

No.

Sorry, the idea has no merit.

This is the biggest issue people cant seem to get over.

a dragon has some 200 hp. Monsterous chars, often large sized or larger, also have d12 hit dice.

Where as smaller races have smaller racial hit die.

you guys are too caught up on how this is unfair for large creatures.... its not.

Just to be clear, are you now focusing on the idea that the rules ought to support your interpretation but conceding that the rules do not currently support your interpretation?

[Claxon]

Shinoskay wrote:

Claxon wrote:

If your going to have larger creatures take damage multiple times, are you going to let small and smaller creatures take less?

Small creatures are half the size of medium, do they get to take half damage. Do tiny creatures take 1/4"?

No.

Sorry, the idea has no merit.

This is the biggest issue people cant seem to get over.

a dragon has some 200 hp. Monsterous chars, often large sized or larger, also have d12 hit dice.

Where as smaller races have smaller racial hit die.

you guys are too caught up on how this is unfair for large creatures.... its not.

As already mentioned, even if you compare a d6 HD to a d12 HD, it's a 100% increase. But your suggestion would mean that a large creature would take 400% damage compared to a medium creature. Higher HD are not because creature size.

Otherwise why does a barbarian have D12 HD?

People are resistant to your idea because it's bad idea for house rule.

[KahnyaGnorc]

Shinoskay wrote:

Claxon wrote:

If your going to have larger creatures take damage multiple times, are you going to let small and smaller creatures take less?

Small creatures are half the size of medium, do they get to take half damage. Do tiny creatures take 1/4"?

No.

Sorry, the idea has no merit.

This is the biggest issue people cant seem to get over.

a dragon has some 200 hp. Monsterous chars, often large sized or larger, also have d12 hit dice.

Where as smaller races have smaller racial hit die.

you guys are too caught up on how this is unfair for large creatures.... its not.

Tiny Faerie Dragons have d12 HD. Massive giants have d8 HD. HD size is based on creature type, not size.

[VoodistMonk]

I read this from the beginning without realizing that it was a necro post.

My thoughts, for what it's worth:

1. The concept needs to be addressed in three dimensions, and therefore is woefully unbalanced. Like, comically unbalanced.

2. If this doesn't work both ways, it doesn't work at all. So smaller targets take smaller amounts of damage. Once again, it's comical to conceptualize.

3. We would have to define and agree upon the actual results of a fireball spell... does it originate as a tiny droplet of flame that then instantly expands outward to its full radius? Or is there just a flash of light and everything within its radius is suddenly on fire? And we will have to do this for every area spell. Once we have locked that all in, we can discuss whether or not the body provides cover from the effects or not... if it's propagating from a central point, it can be argued that the surface closest to the point of origin would provide cover to the surface further away... if it's just instantly everything in the radius, cover being provided is much less likely.

4a. What value does this change actually bring to the game?

4b. What does it "fix"?

4c. What possibly justifies the effort this conversion would require to implement?

5. I literally don't understand what is so lacking in the area spell department that makes anyone think that they should be more powerful. Are you serious? Doing damage to EVERYTHING isn't enough, now you want it to effect the same thing more than once at the same time? If you want to be that powerful, just say that you cast a spell and it dies... you don't have to say which spell, no need to roll dice for damage, it doesn't get a saving throw, snap your fingers and conquer the game... LAME!!!

[Warped Savant]

If someone were to implement this broken rule I can't imagine trying to do the mathematical calculations required every time a huge or larger creature is near the edge of an AoE spell.... sure, it would be easy to figure out which squares on the ground are in the area, but then you also have to figure out the higher squares and calculate which ones aren't included in the blast...
This whole idea makes my head hurt, especially when the rules are SUPER CLEAR how AoE spells work.

[Shinoskay]

bbangerter wrote:

To me its not an issue of fairness/unfairness to larger/smaller creatures. It's a matter of what the rules actually say. If they intended it to hit larger creatures multiple times thats a pretty glaring issue to not explain in detail.

A) would it REALLY be a first time? would it really?!? This is probably why the OP made the conversation in the first place.

B) thats part of the arguments presented here. I even gave supporting examples for different locations of surface area on what can be considered a single object (a wall) and comparable mechanics.

Quote:

...or one could argue that since a gargantuan creature is 4 by 4 by 4, he should actually have multiplied the damage by 64, not 16.

you guys also seem stuck on that this is an argument to multiply something. I never said that, in fact I said I feel each squares damage would be rolled individually. one square could be 5 damage and another square could be 30 damage. Which presents the most likely reason this is not something people try, or use, or wrote in the books. Who wants to roll damage 4 times? or... in your example... 64 times? its just EASIER to write it once.

but just because its how its done, or that its easier, doesnt mean there isnt precendence or room to think one COULD do it the more tedius way. I'm arguing that there is precedence... as stated above and in previous posts.

Quote:

Heh, forget your 15th level sorcerer with feats/bloodline abilities spent on upping the damage, a 5th level wizard with Burning Hands can deal ~350 damage* if the creature's big enough to take the entire cone.

Im quickly growing tired of presenting how you guys are conflating nonsensical/complacency supported and even wrong mechanics as counters as to why the idea is unbalanced.

Burning hands uses line of effect, you literally can't get a whole cone to hit all at once because line of effect would be quickly blocked for rear targets (you are jetting fire out, not generating it at each individual square). Most gm's dont use blocked line of effect because its not as simplified as just saying 'ok, everything in cone rolls for damage'. Who wants to track all that line of effect for a simple level 1 or 2 spell?

We are assuming here that this isnt a lazy gm...

Quote:

Tiny Faerie Dragons have d12 HD. Massive giants have d8 HD. HD size is based on creature type, not size.

but do tiny fearie dragons have 200 hp? Large creatures have larger hp pools, smaller creatures have smaller hp pools, this is pretty universal. this is the context of what I said and ignoring that is just convoluting the conversation.

Quote:

1. The concept needs to be addressed in three dimensions, and therefore is woefully unbalanced. Like, comically unbalanced.

2. If this doesn't work both ways, it doesn't work at all. So smaller targets take smaller amounts of damage. Once again, it's comical to conceptualize.

both of these were addressed, and therefore

Quote:

I read this from the beginning

was not done effectively. And so I am going to stop going through your post at that point.

Quote:

sure, it would be easy to figure out which squares on the ground are in the area, but then you also have to figure out the higher squares and calculate which ones aren't included in the blast...
This whole idea makes my head hurt, especially when the rules are SUPER CLEAR how AoE spells work.

this was covered earlier in my post.

[Rysky]

Yes yes it would.

I’ve seen this take raised before, but always with the awareness that it would be a house rule, not a reading on how the actual rules are in play.

You haven’t provided anything that supports your wants.

[Shinoskay]

Rysky wrote:

Yes yes it would.

tell that to half the rules questions in this forum where a common thing ive seen said over the years is how poorly written things tend to be.

but sure, say whatever you want for the sake of your argument.

Rysky wrote:

You haven’t provided anything that supports your wants.

Clearly you havent read.

the cognitive bias the lot of you are demonstrating here is really frustrating.

[Rysky]

Quote:

tell that to half the rules questions

Which have absolutely nothing to do with that you just asked, move the goal posts back.

Quote:

but sure, say whatever you want for the sake of your argument.

You’re the one sliding goalposts around while your claims don’t match up.

Quote:

Clearly you havent read.

I have. Regrettably.

Quote:

the cognitive bias the lot of you are demonstrating here is really frustrating.

It’s not bias, you’re just wrong and have nothing to back up your wants. Just because everyone disagrees with you doesn’t make you a doomed moral victor, in this instance, you’re just wrong.

[MrCharisma]

Shinoskay wrote:

B) thats part of the arguments presented here. I even gave supporting examples for different locations of surface area on what can be considered a single object (a wall) and comparable mechanics.

This is the crux of your problem.

Walls are split into sections, therefore when a fireball hits a wall it deals damage to each section of the wall separately, not the whole wall.

You've equated this to creatures having the same mechanics.

HOWEVER

When walls are hit by swords they take damage for each section separately, but when Dragons are hit by swords they do NOT take damage for each section separately.

Therefore Walls =/= Dragons.

The mechanics for damaging large objects have no bearing on the mechanics for damaging creatures, because the rules DO specify that they are different things. In fact spells like Magic Missile can't even target objects.

[Shinoskay]

Quote:

To me its not an issue of fairness/unfairness to larger/smaller creatures. It's a matter of what the rules actually say. If they intended it to hit larger creatures multiple times thats a pretty glaring issue to not explain in detail.

Quote:

A) would it REALLY be a first time? would it really?!? This is probably why the OP made the conversation in the first place.

B) thats part of the arguments presented here. I even gave supporting examples for different locations of surface area on what can be considered a single object (a wall) and comparable mechanics.

Quote:

Yes yes it would.

Quote:

tell that to half the rules questions in this forum where a common thing ive seen said over the years is how poorly written things tend to be.

but sure, say whatever you want for the sake of your argument.

Quote:

Which have absolutely nothing to do with that you just asked, move the goal posts back.

Try again.

Quote:

but sure, say whatever you want for the sake of your argument.

Quote:

You’re the one sliding goalposts around while your claims don’t match up.

thats your cognitive issue.

Quote:

Clearly you havent read.

Quote:

I have. Regrettably.

clearly not, you cant seem to follow what you are reading. there is a difference between looking at words and reading words.

Quote:

Walls are split into sections, therefore when a fireball hits a wall it deals damage to each section of the wall separately, not the whole wall.

Quote:

When walls are hit by swords they take damage for each section separately, but when Dragons are hit by swords they do NOT take damage fir each section separately.

Why do you think they do that?

Id say because its a big ol wall and trying to break through the whole wall is more bothersome then just breaking one part.

im seeing a common trend in the mindset for rule writing here "what supports the common, easy, simple way to do a thing"

A big ol wal can absolutely be equated to a big ol dragon. If it eats you, how do you get out of it? kill the whole thing or cut your way out of its stomach (something gm's often also tend to just give, per rule of cool, to the players as subsequently killing the dragon.

cutting yourself out doesnt usually actually equate to killing a creature. 40 or 50 points to cut yourself out of a 300 hp creature, it easily lives after that but then people envision its now going around missing a stomach thinking "can you live without a stomach?" and now its dead or dying.

thats not how the rules work though, its hp isnt 0... so why the hell is it dead or dying now? cause its the common perception. Doesnt mean thats how its suppose to be or even that it HAS to be like that.

[Rysky]

Missed that you kept adding to your previous post, and not even going to bother addressing this recent deluge (but PS, pretty sure BBangerter was not agreeing with you, they were pointing out that absolutely everyone playing the game and designing it would have been doing it wrong since 3.0 if your interpretation was correct. Which it's not).

But I will adress this since it amuses me.

Quote:

but do tiny fearie dragons have 200 hp? Large creatures have larger hp pools, smaller creatures have smaller hp pools, this is pretty universal.

You're still hilariously wrong here.

Larger creatures can have more HP becaue they're higher level and thus have more HD. It's not a given nor a gurantee. ANd has absolutely nothing to do with size. So until you find a rule stting that bigger creatures get more HP do to their size it'd be best to drop it, since it's just silly.

Like with Constructs, and only constructs, that explicitly have rules for getting more HP (to make up for their lack of CON). See? Explicit rule.

That does not exist for any other creature.

[Rysky]

Quote:

Why do you think they do that?

Becaue that's how the rules specifically say they function.

[MrCharisma]

Shonoskay, I've been treating this as if you actually want an answer to your question, but now - as far as I can tell - you don't.

So I'll say this instead: If you really think this is how the rules work then provide a quote of the text that says this. Include a link to the rules source you got it from.

As far as I can tell you haven't provided a single rules source to support your idea (if you have please repost it, this is a long thread and I may have missed it).

As a more general rule: If one person doesn't understand what you're talking about it may he their "cognitive issu" (whatever that means), but if EVERYBODY doesn't understand what you're talking about it's because you haven't explained it properly.

[Warped Savant]

Shinoskay wrote:

but do tiny fearie dragons have 200 hp? Large creatures have larger hp pools, smaller creatures have smaller hp pools, this is pretty universal. this is the context of what I said and ignoring that is just convoluting the conversation.

If smaller creatures have smaller HP pools let's take a look at some monsters:

Amargasaurus, huge, 9D8 hit dice, 67 hit points, CR6
Cave Giant, large, 9D8 hit dice, 67 hit points, CR6
Ambergrim, medium, 9D8 hit dice, 103 hit points, CR6
Tiyanak, small, 9D8 hit dice, 76 hit points, CR6

All different sizes, all the same hit dice, all the same CR... but the huge and large creatures have less hit points than the medium and small creatures.

[MrCharisma]

Lol ^_^

But seriously it's probably true =P

EDIT: You troll Java Man, deleting your post when I reply to it! That'll teach me to reply without quoting.