1) Line of effect for AOEs is blocked by things like Wall of Force, an actual 50' high brick wall, a dungeon wall, etc, something that literally prevents movement through it.
If large creatures blocked line of effect for medium creatures, then AoEs of "60' line" would be blocked by the first person the line crosses, and cone effects would end if someone is right in front of the caster of a 60' Cone of Cold. And then it would be just as silly if the entire party just hid behind the enlarged rogue when the massive dragon unleashes it's breath weapon and be perfectly safe.
2) No. Creatures already get plenty of built in bonuses for size categories (AC, Str, Dex, stealth modifiers, reach, increased weapon damage dice, etc). Since Dex penalties are already built into the game for most large-size creatures, it means those creatures will have correspondingly lower Reflex saves. When a Fireball goes off, the creature makes the save and protects itself well enough to take less damage, or is completely unable to avoid the damage and takes all of it. Since larger creatures are more likely to fail Reflex saves due to their size penalties to Dex, the likelihood of them taking more damage from AoEs is already built into the game.
I wouldn't say you're over thinking things, but your thoughts go along lines that are already covered in the rules. I think house-ruling "basic" mechanics like Saving Throws would create alot more work and headache than you realize.
For 1), let's look up total cover:
"If you don't have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw any line from your square to your target's square without crossing a solid barrier), he is considered to have total cover from you. You can't make an attack against a target that has total cover."
The operative word here is 'solid barrier'. The word is not otherwise defined in the text, but we can infer that creatures do not constitute a 'solid barrier' (outside of just common sense) a few ways.
Firstly, we can infer that creatures are not solid barriers via the 'Aiming a spell' section, where we can find the following text:
"A line-shaped spell shoots away from you in a line in the direction you designate. 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."
If creatures blocked line of effect, a line-shaped spell would not be able to affect them by this logic. Thus creatures must not block line of effect (at least, not always).
We can also infer the same from the following text on cover:
"To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).."
The text clearly states that passing through a creature provides soft cover, and also separates creatures from squares or borders that block line of effect. Note that creatures behind other creatures DO have soft cover (+4 to AC), but this doesn't help them against spells that don't require an attack roll.
The following text in the spell (ray) section does give some provision for line of sight blocking:
"Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature at which you're aiming."
So it is within a GM's purview to allow an exceptionally large and bulky monster (say, a huge troll) to block line of sight to targets behind it. Line of sight is NOT line of effect however, so a lightning bolt (for example) would still pass through the troll's square in this case.
For 2), things are a little more complicated. I think it is assumed that most players would apply common sense to realise an area spell would still only affect a large creature once, not once per 5ft, and thus word count wasn't spent explaining this concept.
However, damaging AOE spells (in fact, damage of any variety) very explicitly target creatures or objects and not individual squares, so there is no RAW confusion regardless. The text you are seeking is actually found in spell texts rather than a general statement.
For example, lightning bolt and fireball:
"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. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure."
"You release a powerful stroke of electrical energy that deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to each creature within its area. The bolt begins at your fingertips....."
Or, for a different spin on this, blasphemy:
"Any nonevil creature within the area of a blasphemy spell suffers the following ill effects:"
Note that the target is always creatures in the area, not the area per se. As an aside, spells like blasphemy or AOE mind-affecting spells are particularly good at pointing out why spells explicitly target creatures, not squares: if they didn't, such a spell would require multiple saves just like any other AOE effect -- why would a larger creature (say, a dragon) be many orders of magnitude easier to affect with these spells (as they would have to save multiple times)?
Hope that all helps! Always been very careful when trying to pick apart Pathfinder rules text. The 3.x ruleset isn't an 'explicit', binding ruleset like, say, chess or MtG, but rather a loose, 'implicit' ruleset where the players must interpret and adapt the rules as they play. Often the text is not tightly worded, in part due to word limits but also in part because the authors expected players to apply common sense to the ruleset as a norm.
There are a few aoe spells that DO hit large creatures more that once, but they are rare.
Ice Spear is one, although not a true aoe spell. Just that each "spear" ends up effecting an area.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/i/ice-spears
Try it this angle. If aoe things aftected every square alchemists would obliterate anything of large size or bigger.
By RAW, creatures provide soft cover, not total cover, therefore they do not block burst spells. Now, if it is really something your table wants to explore, you could of course rule it otherwise. But it makes AoE effects take much longer to handle, which slows down play. If you are going to make sure to actually make it enjoyable for everyone, I see no problem with it, but if the wizard casting a fireball means everyone else has to twiddle their thumbs for 5 minutes while the effect lines are figured out, I don't agree with it.
If you ARE going to handle this all, I think the first thing to do is to break a spell's effect into a full and weak/partial effect. A square that is fully engulfed takes the full, as written, effect of the spell. A square that is partially engulfed has a weakened effect. Any soft cover provides the 'weakened' effect. Weakended effects are blocked totally by soft cover, so it'll get through the first creature, and hit the second creature weaker, and then be effectively stopped. In the case of a reflex saving throw for half type spell, then treat weak squares as if the victim had improved evasion (save for none, fail for half). Characters with improved evasion in weak squares are effectively immune. Other, non reflex save spells, you could perhaps give a +4 on saving throws. You'd have to come up on the fly with so many special cases for the various spells out there, you're looking at a lot of work. Bane for instance. It affects all enemies with fear and doubt in the radius, but it's listed as a burst effect. So do creatures that get hit with the burst shade others from it? do only enemies get hit with it, and it ignores friends? Or is it actually an aura and not a burst, and the burst wording was used simply to show the shape it should use? These are the problems you will have to decide.
Regarding the creatures providing soft cover - does this apply only if that creature fails it's saving throw? if it has dodged the effect by jumping out of the way, does that mean the effect has fully passed him by, and therefore creatures behind him do not have any cover at all? Does that mean you have to handle reflex saves in successive radii from the point of origin?
If this was a different game, that was focused only on the battlefield, this could be a lot of fun. But, it's a roleplaying game, and a storytelling game - keep that in mind before jumping into this particular rabbit hole.
Mojorat - Any AoE user would be more effective, but again, it's an area of effect, not a creatures effected.
Aoe spells are also some of the most damaging, too.
Mojorat - Any AoE user would be more effective, but again, it's an area of effect, not a creatures effected.Aoe spells are also some of the most damaging, too.
I used alchemist as an example because they have the most throw away (hah) aoe damage. Ie a wizard does it sometimes but alchemists do it /all/ the time.
Its wholey unreasonable to expect an ogre takes 20d4 from a burning hands. It doesn't work like this was never intended to. Move along.
|
If you double all the dimension of a item the volume in multiplied 8 times, the surface 4, so the transmitted energy for unit of mass is less, not more.
Now try an experiment:
- take a page from a book and put it in a fire for a few seconds: it catch fire and burn.
- take the book and put it in the fire for the same amount of time. It is scorched but it don't start to burn and it isn't destroyed.
You are using to much of a " real life" approach for yiur interpreting . The game is an abstraction not a simulation. I would suggest playing with an experienced group if possible to get a better understanding off how things work.
As an example even if you are paralyzed you get a reflex save. yes that is a rule.
Many creative thoughts are outside the rules or directly against the rules so it may take GM Fiat depending on the particular idea. If the GM is encouraging out of the box thinking then he will have to overlook the rules at times.
In effect here, you're poking at parts of the rules that were designed around balance, NOT for any sense of realism. Combat trends towards this the most. The game encourages creativity to an extent, but most of it falls under rule zero.
Area spells are by far one of the strangest items. The effects of a fireball wouldn't just completely stop at 30ft for instance. Nor would it likely only cover half that area, just because the center is at the edge of its range. These things are usually best to chalk up to "It's magic." My group realized long ago trying to apply real world physics and science just leads to headaches.
If you and your GM wish to make some of these thoughts into houserules, go for it of course. Just be aware of the repercussions. Someone posted earlier that each spell only affects a creature once. Imo that's pretty much the golden rule for area spells. Otherwise things start getting weird and the game bogs down.
I only skimmed the post until just now. I would be careful about adding realism. It can cause unforseen problems.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
volume is different than surface area. A book and a page have roughly the same surface area, depending on how thick the book is. Surface area effected determines how badly the book or page is effected. If you take a match to the book, it'll leave a burn mark, but if you toss the book in a fire, all sides will be damaged by the flame, ie more surface area effected does more damage.
Hit point are more an effect of the volume of the creature than the surface area of the creature.
Put a ant in a camp fire. It die immediately. Now step (figuratively, please don't do it really) in the same camp fire for the same time that was required to kill the ant. You wouldn't even get 3rd degree burns.
If you place the ant on a heated stone beside said camp fire it die while there is people that walk on a bed of red hot coals without suffering any serious damage.
the match was a poor example. Let's keep the fire at the same constant level of effect: it would be better to say holding the book so one corner is in the fire vs having the entire book be in the fire. I don't think anyone would argue the book being wholly in the fire would damage it more.
Putting a single page or a small pamphlet in a fire would utterly destroy it. The book would only be scorched. Probably it will be still wholly readable.
|
|
In effect here, you're poking at parts of the rules that were designed around balance, NOT for any sense of realism. Combat trends towards this the most. The game encourages creativity to an extent, but most of it falls under rule zero.
Area spells are by far one of the strangest items. The effects of a fireball wouldn't just completely stop at 30ft for instance. Nor would it likely only cover half that area, just because the center is at the edge of its range. These things are usually best to chalk up to "It's magic." My group realized long ago trying to apply real world physics and science just leads to headaches.
If you and your GM wish to make some of these thoughts into houserules, go for it of course. Just be aware of the repercussions. Someone posted earlier that each spell only affects a creature once. Imo that's pretty much the golden rule for area spells. Otherwise things start getting weird and the game bogs down.
The 1st and 2nd edition AD&D fireball had a fixed volume, not a fixed radius.
So if it was cast slightly above ground height in an open space it had approximately a 25' radius. In a building it did filled 33 10' cubes.it wasn't much used indoor.
A lighting bolt being reflected by a surface that it was unable to destroy was even more fun.