Question: If I'm running a dragon with a breath weapon, what's the size?
Lines are listed as typically "60 ft." or "30 ft." How wide is that line?
Cones are typically "30 feet" or "40 feet." Is that both length and eventual width?
Inquiring minds want to know.
I believe lines are always drawn as a two-dimensional line (from the corner of one square to a corner of another), and any squares it passes through are "hit".
For cones, it's length and end width, correct. ^_^
Lines tend to be 5 feet wide, unless otherwise specified. Cones are 90° wide. On this page, under spell areas, there are some example templates for area effects.
Lines are 5' wide. The height of the cone (in this case, 30') is also its base diameter.
Magic wrote: 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. Lines have no width.
Follow the rule above to determine which targets are affected.
(the picture examples people are referring to are showing examples of affected squares resulting from following the above procedure - they are not templates)
Byakko wrote: Magic wrote: 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. Lines have no width. Follow the rule above to determine which targets are affected. This makes it sound like a line affects two squares width, aka 10 feet of width [one on each side of the line from Corner A to Corner B]
kyrt-ryder wrote: Byakko wrote: Magic wrote: 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. Lines have no width. Follow the rule above to determine which targets are affected. This makes it sound like a line affects two squares width, aka 10 feet of width [one on each side of the line from Corner A to Corner B] Don't even think about width when working with lines:
1) Pick a corner and then pick a destination grid intersection.
2) Draw a straight line between these two points.
3) If this line crosses over a square, any creatures within it are affected.
(if the line only touches a corner or edge of a square, it doesn't count)
A 'grid intersection' IS a point is it not?
It is indeed.
Although it doesn't specifically call out that the ending point must also be a grid intersection, this can be reasonably assumed, especially when taking the measurement rules into consideration.
Byakko wrote: Don't even think about width when working with lines:
1) Pick a corner and then pick a destination grid intersection.
2) Draw a straight line between these two points.
3) If this line crosses over a square, any creatures within it are affected.
(if the line only touches a corner or edge of a square, it doesn't count)
This doesn't exactly work.
If I pick a corner, then pick a destination corner that happens to be in a perfectly straight line following the grid (no diagonals; my "line" follows perfectly down an existing grid line to the destination), then your rule that it doesn't count if it only touches an edge means that my line, which ONLY touches edges, is incapable of hurting anything, even if it passes directly between two adjacent targets.
That's not right.
I could cheat it by picking a destination intersection 1 square to the left or right, forcing this adjusted line to pass through some squares. But that's awfully metagamey.
DM_Blake wrote:
This doesn't exactly work.
If I pick a corner, then pick a destination corner that happens to be in a perfectly straight line following the grid (no diagonals; my "line" follows perfectly down an existing grid line to the destination), then your rule that it doesn't count if it only touches an edge means that my line, which ONLY touches edges, is incapable of hurting anything, even if it passes directly between two adjacent targets.
That's not right.
Congratulations, you've just chosen to waste your attack. Since the caster (or dragon or whatever is making the line attack) gets to choose the starting and ending corners, if they wish to do damage they should not pick two corners which lie along the same line of the grid. The rules could include a clause to handle this situation, but as someone once said "if you make something idiot-proof they just make a bigger idiot."
Hmmmm.
Well, it seems to me that if a lightning bolt, for example, can pass harmlessly between two adjacent characters who might even be holding hands, just because the caster (or dragon, or whatever) chose not to move his hand (or head) 6" to the right or left, and the ONLY reason is because of arbitrary lines drawn on the ground (that aren't really there for the spellcaster or dragoon or whatever to see), then that's a failure of the game mechanic, not a failure of the attacker who has definitely NOT "chosen to waste his attack."
You kinda have to want there to be a problem, though, since the number of possible angles (infinity) minus the number of non-viable angles (4) still leaves a fairly impressive number of viable angles for which the rule works just fine.
The operative word here is passes *through* a square. Not along the edge.
Yes, it is a tiny bit confusing for straight lines which are essentially 5' wide.
There are illustrations in the book you can use as templates if you have trouble digesting that.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DM_Blake wrote: Hmmmm.
Well, it seems to me that if a lightning bolt, for example, can pass harmlessly between two adjacent characters who might even be holding hands, just because the caster (or dragon, or whatever) chose not to move his hand (or head) 6" to the right or left, and the ONLY reason is because of arbitrary lines drawn on the ground (that aren't really there for the spellcaster or dragoon or whatever to see), then that's a failure of the game mechanic, not a failure of the attacker who has definitely NOT "chosen to waste his attack."
Pathfinder made the choice to get ride of the 10' foot wide line effects that 3.x gave by allowing lines to effect squares they ran along the border of. Its a design choice.
Yes if you intentionally choose to poorly aim your line, then you can get screwed and effect 0 squares. But they decided that was a better effect than having line effect twice (or 4x if you look at as cubes) as many squares when it arbitrary ran along a grid line.
Maezer wrote: Pathfinder made the choice to get ride of the 10' foot wide line effects... Dirge of the Victorious Knights disagrees.
Maezer wrote: DM_Blake wrote: Hmmmm.
Well, it seems to me that if a lightning bolt, for example, can pass harmlessly between two adjacent characters who might even be holding hands, just because the caster (or dragon, or whatever) chose not to move his hand (or head) 6" to the right or left, and the ONLY reason is because of arbitrary lines drawn on the ground (that aren't really there for the spellcaster or dragoon or whatever to see), then that's a failure of the game mechanic, not a failure of the attacker who has definitely NOT "chosen to waste his attack."
Pathfinder made the choice to get ride of the 10' foot wide line effects that 3.x gave by allowing lines to effect squares they ran along the border of. Its a design choice.
Yes if you intentionally choose to poorly aim your line, then you can get screwed and effect 0 squares. But they decided that was a better effect than having line effect twice (or 4x if you look at as cubes) as many squares when it arbitrary ran along a grid line. I've always found the use of grid Lines in spell calculation to be rather weird.
In the first campaign I played in we used grid spaces rather than lines and intersections and it felt so much more intuitive.
DM_Blake wrote: Hmmmm.
Well, it seems to me that if a lightning bolt, for example, can pass harmlessly between two adjacent characters who might even be holding hands, just because the caster (or dragon, or whatever) chose not to move his hand (or head) 6" to the right or left, and the ONLY reason is because of arbitrary lines drawn on the ground (that aren't really there for the spellcaster or dragoon or whatever to see), then that's a failure of the game mechanic, not a failure of the attacker who has definitely NOT "chosen to waste his attack."
What's more hilarious is that using the above method, you could literally shoot a lightning bolt directly at a Large or bigger creature, have it pass down his centerline (i.e., it travels along a line between squares such that on either side of it is the creature's squares), and come out the other side having done no damage.
Actually, since it's never impacting any squares, the weapon should extend to the limits of its range regardless of what's in the way, shouldn't it? It's certainly not capable of striking any barriers, given that it literally can't strike anything. Seems like that could have niche utility as a signaling device. "When you see a lightning bolt come through the ground, it means I am in the sewers below and have completed the objective".
Ah RAW.
kyrt-ryder wrote: I've always found the use of grid Lines in spell calculation to be rather weird.
In the first campaign I played in we used grid spaces rather than lines and intersections and it felt so much more intuitive.
Grid lines and vertices work pretty well for areas of effect based on a radius. Using spaces usually puts the center off kilter or widen the effect by 5'.
As far as the issue of a line going straight down a gridline - just pick one side or the other to have the effect. As long as it's not both, it works out. Simple.
Bill Dunn wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: I've always found the use of grid Lines in spell calculation to be rather weird.
In the first campaign I played in we used grid spaces rather than lines and intersections and it felt so much more intuitive.
Grid lines and vertices work pretty well for areas of effect based on a radius. Using spaces usually puts the center off kilter or widen the effect by 5'.
As far as the issue of a line going straight down a gridline - just pick one side or the other to have the effect. As long as it's not both, it works out. Simple. Which is exactly equivalent to what was suggested earlier.
If you want a line of acid that goes due east, start it at your northeast corner and end it at the southeast corner of the final square you want to affect. Easy-peasy.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
