Gibbering Mouther

Elder Eye's page

4 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


james maissen wrote:

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.

Stubs McKenzie wrote:
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.

jreyst wrote:
Line Definition wrote:

...It starts from any corner of your square and extends to the limit of its range or until it strikes a barrier that blocks line of effect. A line-shaped spell affects all creatures in squares through which the line passes.

So, common sense would say that IF you want your spell to do anything useful, you would fire it off at a different intersection or corner of a square along the path you want it to take - thus giving it a 5-foot line of effect.

In that scenario, to affect the bad guy (which why else cast the spell), you'd have to hit the bystanders unless you could move to a place to avoid them before you cast the spell.

Otherwise, what is the point?

ravingdork wrote:

In v3.5, lines used to effect every square they touched. Therefore you could actually effect two rows of squares like you describe.
james maissen wrote:

I guess I'm wondering why this was made as a change, but the wording was not changed? It seems bound to confuse the majority of your players that are coming from the prior system.
james maissen wrote:

Again it's the new that doesn't feel right... maybe it'll sink in.

Plain and simple, this is WRONG.

I'm not sure where this idea that edges of squares were included in spell effects comes from.

Checked my 3.5 PHB and the rules for how spells works are EXACTLY the same - word for word, including cone, line, etc.

Checked my 3.0 PHB. Oddly enough, it is somewhat clearer.
Cone: A cone starts as a point directly away from you, and it widens out as it goes. A cone's width at a given distance from you equals that distance. Its far end is as wide as it is long.

This is clearly where your diagram also comes from. 15 ft. wide at 15 feet. Technically it would only be 10 ft. wide at 10 ft. but that would be dumb looking if you only included 2 squares then 3 at 15 ft. since one square would be offset. They probably balanced it out to be symetrical (since a cone is) and that would mean half a square on each side off the center square. Since you can't have half a square, give the caster the benefit and make it 3 wide at 10 feet. Caster wins.

There is no line type of area with 3.0
The Lightning Bolt spell itself defines its area as:
5 ft. wide to medium range (100 ft. + 10 ft./level); or 10 ft. wide to 50 ft. + 5 ft./level.

Oviously, in 3.5 and Pathfinder, the wider bolt option was taken away from the spell itself - most likely because you can emulate it with a feat (which personally, I believe should be the case).
In each of 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder, the Lightning Bolt starts at your fingertips, meaning even in the prior editions, you would have hit your allies in the scenario you quoted.

Clearly the current Pathfinder rules are based on these, and most likely a direct hold over from 3.5 since they are word for word - and 3.5 was designed to eliminate the B.S. loopholes that existed in 3.0
After all, that was the first incarnation and the rules needed updated to get certain "fixes". Unfortunately, sometimes in an effort to improve, other problems creep in - including some rules becoming less precise.

Edges of squares have NEVER been included in spell effects. The Pathfinder rules appear to be carryovers from those editions, and while I agree, they are poorly worded and could be clarified, they are pretty obvious when your read them and read the INTENT and SPIRIT of the rules, especially when there are diagrams to support them.

As a previous poster said, there are feats that allow you to break said rules in your favor. Otherwise, why would said feats exist if you could just "cheese" you way into doing whatever you wanted by reading between the lines so to speak (pun intended) with the rules and playing loose with their interpretation.