I think I'm just used to 5e cones. They could be place from facing square or at a point. And they were much easier to math out. Also the part where 2e cones are always quarter circles helps with the interpretations. I'll just have to ignore my grievences and get used to it not always making sense. That even though it's starts at a facing square, it appears to be starting at a point. Thanks
I guess one of my biggest gripes is how they go from single line start on the 15 footers to double on the 30, with no explanation on why that occurs in the CRB. Especially considering they start from a single facing side and not from a point. Of they started from a point like diagonals, I feel like it wouldn't be as confusing. I don't like the suggestions listed from both above though. I will keep them in mind when implementing them. Thanks to all involved
Am I missing something or are orthogonal cones very sloppily explained to the point that they don't make mathematical sense give their descriptions in the CRB. Coming from 5e I expected the spells descriptions for different template sizes to make mathematical and logical sense. yet for orthogonal cones, It makes no sense given the description and the template how they work or how to widen them. The 15ft cones is the only orthogonal that makes sense. Diagonal doesn't appear to have the same issues.
Rysky wrote:
For the record, I 100% agree with that interpretation. The problem arose based on how bad Aberrant and Fey blood magic effects were because they're buff effects that say you can use them on target or self, but in the case of Aberrant ,and basically the same for Fey, there just is no option to use in such a way on anyone but self. So rather than believe that Paizo simply overlooked these, they started grasping for straws to fix these half balanced effects. Also there is no line that specifically says it's always target.It would just be nice to hear that this a problem that is even being acknowledged.
Rysky wrote:
The ambiguity is the lies in that some use different wording than others some say THE target other just simply say you or A target. This has lead to a whole reddit thread where people are throughly convinced that the ones that say A target are free choice. Their logic is that the only place it says it has the be the target of the spell is in the AoE description under reading the bloodlines. Also Aberrant doesn't have an option that would allow you to share their effect with an ally as all of their abilities are offensive. Fey isn't much better either. So why even include or the target for those bloodlines. Whole thing wreaks or overlook similar to Alchemist and Wizard 1st level feat.
Quandary wrote:
My concerns are more for Blood Magic effects on options like Aberrant and Fey. Where there are little to no options to use the effects on allies even though they're written as such. Also the wording has lead many to believe that the target of your spell doesn't need to be the same as blood effect,due to weird ambiguity in the wording.
it would really be nice if a dev weighed in. theres a whole reddit thread with people insisting that you can choose targets other than spell target or self. This really one of those situations where vague wording should have been avoided. how hard would it have been to write "target of triggering spell" or list as any target with a range. sure we can kind of piece together that it should be based on spell target, but then I just seems they didn't proof read the bloodlines to makes sure they can actually be used as written. If Fey was meant to be used on allies, they left the pc no way to do, therefore it should be written to only use on self. |