I've been working to actually understand the rules for drawing AoE's, since I can't just "ask the GM" if I'm running LOL! And it sure looks to me like they did one of the templates wrong here, if you scroll down to find the dirty pictures. So I went to read old threads on this topic, but they're not helping. I hope someone can explain the template given for a 15-foot cone shooting straight "up" (ahead) -- without resorting to geometry! Or I'll be happy, actually, if someone can confirm my sense that they goofed.
Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don't control which creatures or objects the spell affects. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection. When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack. The only difference is that instead of counting from the center of one square to the center of the next, you count from intersection to intersection.
You can count diagonally across a square, but remember that every second diagonal counts as 2 squares of distance. If the far edge of a square is within the spell's area, anything within that square is within the spell's area. If the spell's area only touches the near edge of a square, however, anything within that square is unaffected by the spell.
With a slash representing the caster, pointing to the point of origination (pov), numbers showing where the effect falls, and blue "o"s to represent nearby uninvolved squares, this is the cone I understand:
3
2 4
1 2 3
/
Basically, the cone starts with 5-ft from the pov as 1, which can actually be drawn in any of three directions. Both 2s are straight line, and therefore another 5-ft, each leading to a 3 beyond it, also 5-ft. Or the cone could take a diagonal path through 1 & a second diagonal to the far side of "4," which therefore counts as 10-ft. In all three cases, it has reached its range of 15 feet and stops.
That was assuming the caster angled the spell to fire in the direction of 4. Now let's assume that the caster wants to fire straight ahead (up, on this grid). I'd draw the following. (Important: the slash shows the corner of origination, not the angle of the cone.)
3 3
4 2 2 4
1 1
/
It is still the case that the effect travels from a corner of the caster's square to a 1 -- but now there are two of them, both actually reflecting diagonal movement -- at 5-ft, as the first diagonal. If one continues straight up, it leads to the two 2's and 3's, all 5-ft. If instead one continues diagonally, one reaches the two 4's at 10-ft for a second diagonal. Again, end of range in all cases. This shape is, in fact, the one given for the 30-foot cone and precisely 15 feet shorter! (Forgive me if I don't type that one out! LOL)
Instead, Core gives the following cone for "straight up:"
3 3 3
2 2 2
1
?
(Minus the benefit of numbers, of course!) The thing is, I cannot figure out what the pt. of origin is nor what paths they took from 1 to the various 2s to the various 3s that would be (a) legal and (b) eliminate any other possibilities. (For instance, if 1 isn't a diagonal, there should be a 3 on each end of the row of 2s, shouldn't there? "3" means a square orthogonally adjacent to a 2.)
Help, please please please!
My guess would be that the "cone" portion of the 15 ft cone cannot exceed 3 adjacent squares, or it would no longer be a 15 ft cone.
My guess would be that the "cone" portion of the 15 ft cone cannot exceed 3 adjacent squares, or it would no longer be a 15 ft cone.
But... mine doesn't! I use 4 to distinguish a 10-ft-second-diagonal from a third 5-footer, not to put 4 squares in a single path.
EtA: Oh, you're referring to the "4 2 2 4" row of my grid. I should go to bed and get back to this in the morning...
My guess would be that the "cone" portion of the 15 ft cone cannot exceed 3 adjacent squares, or it would no longer be a 15 ft cone.
Now that I'm awake... It's an appealing theory, except that it somehow doesn't apply to a 30-ft cone. As I said, mine is the same shape as theirs for 30-ft, but 15 feet shorter. In this case, the relevant row of the 30-ft cone is 40 feet across.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you to all of you who answered my title's question, which is in fact important info. Okay, they never adjusted the shape. Theirs is legal RAW, even though it violates the "recipe" they give.
However, I still think that my shape is right, too. RAW, since it goes by the rules I cited in my spoiler. (So, Thunderrstar, I'll address your comments about whether it does in fact do so separately.)
It's certainly true that the 30-ft cone that the book pictures (& I verified by the written rules) has the same shape as my 15-ft. cone, but economies of scale. While the straight-up 30-footer contains 4 more squares than the right-angled one, that's only 16.67% more (1/6). For the 15-ft. cone, mine grows by half as much (2 squares), but in percentages it's twice as much (33.33%) more. Maybe they were in fact determined to find some shape -- any shape -- that would limit the straight-up 15-footer to 7 squares (1/6 more).
However, rules that don't get written anywhere, not even in blogs or posts by the designers, aren't RAW!!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To answer the question in the title no there are no erratum on the templates. (Errata is plural)
...
EDIT: No, I did use the singular verb. What I didn't do was use "some;" instead I said "an errata." My base conclusion that the word is being converted still stands.
Plus: AAARGH! It's "by...US who speak it." AAAAARGH!
And by the way your math is slightly off as the first diagonal only counts as 1 square. (Actually diagonal movement counts as 1,5 feet round the total down.)
In my diagram, a bold number represent (n + .5)4 3 3 3 3 4
0 2 2 2 2
0 0 1 1 0 0
0 0 X 0 0So if we go by the written rules a strait up cone would cover 10 squares as opposed to 6 squares. I think the template is as intended.
The problem with diagrams that have an X or C -- or a big red dot -- for the caster is that they don't indicate the mandated grid intersection that is the point of origin. In this case, that point is between the two 1s, on their bottom edge. So to get to the top outer corner of each 1 takes a diagonal (as you point out, really a 1.5 square move, rounded down). So I want to repeat my diagram with the extra clarification you offer (a great idea, btw), plus some periods to try to make the pointer aimed right:
3 3
4. 2 2 4
1 1
/
Again, you have to take a diagonal from the point of origin to the outside corner of both 1s, or 1.5 squares rounded down; if you take a second diagonal through the 4s, you've now gone to 3 squares (no fraction). If you head orthogonally straight up from the 1.5, however, you keep that fraction hanging (and rounded down) by the time you run out of budget.
Now do you see?
I can't type out the 30-foot cone that would be analogous to the 15-ft cone they present; I really don't have the time. But you can draw it to see. Starting with the bottom row, it too would have just one square above the big red dot, broaden out to three squares, then five, then there'd be two rows of seven, and at the top one row of three. If they'd done that, I'd have to say, "oh, the rules they present don't apply to vertical cones, just angled ones." (Basically, they'd be using two points of origin, one on each side of the caster, and insisting on having the moves be orthagonal for the first square so as to get a better cone shape.)
What frustrates me so is that they apply their own rules in the case of the 30-foot cone they give us, but not the other!
I can't type out the 30-foot cone that would be analogous to the 15-ft cone they present; I really don't have the time. But you can draw it to see. Starting with the bottom row, it too would have just one square above the big red dot, broaden out to three squares, then five, then there'd be two rows of seven, and at the top one row of three. If they'd done that, I'd have to say, "oh, the rules they present don't apply to vertical cones, just angled ones." (Basically, they'd be using two points of origin, one on each side of the caster, and insisting on having the moves be orthagonal for the first square so as to get a better cone shape.)
What frustrates me so is that they apply their own rules in the case of the 30-foot cone they give us, but not the other!
The 15' cone and one of the 30' lines have always bugged me because they blatantly don't fit within their confines.
By the way the rules are written (if you ignore the pictures) you can take the Radius and then cut it in quarters, to get the angled cone. If you draw diagonals from you point out to the distance of 20' (3 squares) and then straight out 20' you get the 20' straight cone (and it fits within the radius). The picture for the 20' and 30' cones support this, but the 15' cone doesn't.
One of the 30' lines also extends out 35' (and doesn't fit in the 30' radius picture) but somehow it is considered 30' because it is pictured.
I find it absurd that according to the pictures, I can be outside of a 30'radius burst (or "anything within 30' of a point") but if you have a spell that effects a 30' line from the same point, I would be in the area.
For my group, we have drawn up templates with a radius' of 10' to 60' and shaded them to make angled and straight cones that fit inside of those shapes to be used at our table. Not RAW according to the pictures, but RAW to the wording of how the shapes should be drawn (and at least correct according to geometry).
By the way the rules are written (if you ignore the pictures) you can take the Radius and then cut it in quarters, to get the angled cone. If you draw diagonals from you point out to the distance of 20' (3 squares) and then straight out 20' you get the 20' straight cone (and it fits within the radius). The picture for the 20' and 30' cones support this, but the 15' cone doesn't.
Sadly, this is the sort of geometry-based talk that passes me by. (I'd tell you about my math classes in high school, but I'm sure it's TMI.) The thing is, I'm a glutton for details, and counting squares out by a distinct recipe is easy to do. I started out doing it just to get a sense for the rules for when a character comes up with a 45' radius or whatever mid-game. And then I got something different, and the more I (and my husband) checked it, the more it looked like the book was wrong!
I'm grateful to hear that people who do understand geometry will nod wisely (if they actually stop to think about it) and say that my template (which doesn't especially look conical, I must say) is in fact a proper cone. At least... You can tell me!!! Is the cone that I did, middle diagram in my OP, right?
One of the 30' lines also extends out 35' (and doesn't fit in the 30' radius picture) but somehow it is considered 30' because it is pictured.
I find it absurd that according to the pictures, I can be outside of a 30'radius burst (or "anything within 30' of a point") but if you have a spell that effects a 30' line from the same point, I would be in the area.
For my group, we have drawn up templates with a radius' of 10' to 60' and shaded them to make angled and straight cones that fit inside of those shapes to be used at our table. Not RAW according to the pictures, but RAW to the wording of how the shapes should be drawn (and at least correct according to geometry).
A kindred soul! Bless you! I ended up telling my group Saturday that I had templates for radius bursts through 40', and templates for cones, and that we were using my template for a 15-ft vertical cone, NOT the one pictured in the book.
I didn't mention the line templates I had also done, and it's just as well, because I hadn't realized that one of the book's line templates was wrong, too. I had counted them all out, mind you, and drawn my own templates, extended them to 40 feet, and shaded them to break them into 15', 30', & 40' segments. But I got klutzy in counting out the squares; the blasted thing about their pictures is that they have that big red dot for the caster's square instead of a small red dot for the origin intersection. It easily introduces errors! And yes, I didn't catch the one they made, and introduced one of my own in splitting another 30' line into the part for 15'. Your method of simply comparing the lines to the radius or cone template made it soooo much easier. Bless you again, triply!
PS: I just went and looked at the pictured templates again, and have a new question. Is there any geometrical reason why exactly one of the line templates is shown w/ orthagonal left-right connectors? We have a vertical line, a line w/ blocks of 3 vertical squares, a line w/ blocks of two vertical squares and orthagonal connectors, and then a line w/ single squares arranged diagonally. W/out the connectors in the one line, it all makes so much more sense!
@the top quote, he's saying that if you make a circle you cna just cut it up into fourths.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Canthin and bitter lily, the problem you two are having is that you are counting squares using the standard method rather than the method as defined by the rules on CRB p214.
Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don’t control which creatures or objects the spell affects. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection. When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack. The only difference is that instead of counting from the center of one square to the center of the next, you count from intersection to intersection.
You can count diagonally across a square, but remember that every second diagonal counts as 2 squares of distance. If the far edge of a square is within the spell’s area, anything within that square is within the spell’s area. If the spell’s area only touches the near edge of a square, however, anything within that square is unaffected by the spell.
The bolded passages are what makes all of their spell area examples legal.
Even the 15' cone pointing 'north' is legal using those bolded passages. Link to image showing how it works
In the image, just one possible legal path, the yellow line starts at the intersection and then traces out 15' (split into two directions at the end to determine if far edges are covered).
Since the line reaches both of the far sides to the corner square it meets the second criteria, That being that the far edge(s) of the square are within the spells area.
For the same reason all of the lines are also legal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Byakko, there is no rule stating that the corners are the determining factor when deciding if the square is in the area or not.
The rule is that it is the far edge of the square, not the corners.
Second, probably to prevent strange directions, there is this text: "A cone-shaped spell shoots away from you".
While this is regularly debated many take this to be 'you cannot have it crossing back towards you (from the origination intersection) and should basically be in a line away from your square'.
A number of cone shapes that various people have tried to propose as legal don't work when looking at the 'shoots away from you' criteria.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As Thunderstar stated, the template for the 15-ft cone originates from a side rather than an intersection, as the general rule states. It's a special case among cones.
The 15-ft cone counts from edge to edge rather than from intersection to intersection, otherwise it would be congruent with the 30-ft cone save only in length, as should be all quarter circles.
Bitter Lily's cone follows the same rule as the 30-ft cones, hence it is congruent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quantum Steve,
The 15' cone counts from the intersection and then counts along the sides of the squares (or diagonally through a square in some cases).
In this image I show how you can count from the intersection.
The 5/10/15 are counting each step of the line, the white "L" is to show that that far edge is legal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quantum Steve,
The 15' cone counts from the intersection and then counts along the sides of the squares (or diagonally through a square in some cases).
In this image I show how you can count from the intersection.
The 5/10/15 are counting each step of the line, the white "L" is to show that that far edge is legal.
One thing you seem to be forgetting though, Gauss, is that you are supposed to draw from an intersection 15' to form the cone (like all the other cones). The first line that you draw along the 5 square doesn't actually cross that square anywhere so the "If the spell's area only touches the near edge of a square, however, anything within that square is unaffected by the spell." part of the rules would say that your 5 box isn't effected by the spell. If you instead cross that box with the first diagonal (and then draw another diagonal in the other direction) then you get a cone just like all the other diagrams (starting with 2 squares and then moving straight out the length of the cone and forming diagonals equal to the length of the line you draw from the intersection.
It isn't as easy to say with words what you can by just drawing it, but I don't have the capability to post a picture of the templates at work.
|
Officially, all AOE effects except bursts centered on the caster have a corner of the square as their origin. That creates the first two templates the OP posted.
However, as a holdover from 3.0, the 15 foot cone template doesn't base itself on a corner, but on the middle of the square. That creates the abberent 1/3/3 Cone template. The 1/3/3 template does feel more cone shaped than the 2/4/2 Template, and that's likely why they suggest to use it.
My advice, allow your group to use both interchangeably. Or have them choose one.
Canthin,
I am drawing the 15' exactly as the rules state.
Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don’t control which creatures or objects the spell affects.
No debate here, we both agree that we determine where it originates.
The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection.
Also no debate here.
When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin
in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack. The only difference is that instead of counting from the center of one square to the center of the next, you count from intersection to intersection.
The bolded section here radically changes how you count the distance. Some people are counting squares and not counting the lines between (or through) squares from intersection to intersection.
You can count diagonally across a square, but remember that every second diagonal counts as 2 squares of distance.
No debate here.
If the far edge of a square is within the spell’s area, anything within that square is within the spell’s area. If the spell’s area only touches the near edge of a square, however, anything within that square is unaffected by the spell.
In the diagrams I provided I showed that, using the above rules, the far edges were touched and thus are within the area of the cone.
Next, you state that the cone has a cone shape from the intersection it originates at.
A cone-shaped spell shoots away from you in a quartercircle in the direction you designate.
Shoots away from you in a quartercircle, not shoots away from the intersection in a quartercircle. A subtle but important difference. Here is the image that shows this
It starts from any corner of your square and widens out as it goes.
The north-pointing cone is still starting from the corner of your square and widening as it goes.
Ultimately, the 15' north-pointing cone example in the CRB is legal as per the rules.
Canthin,
I am drawing the 15' exactly as the rules state.
Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don’t control which creatures or objects the spell affects.No debate here, we both agree that we determine where it originates.
The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection.Also no debate here.
When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin
in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack. The only difference is that instead of counting from the center of one square to the center of the next, you count from intersection to intersection.The bolded section here radically changes how you count the distance. Some people are counting squares and not counting the lines between (or through) squares from intersection to intersection.
You can count diagonally across a square, but remember that every second diagonal counts as 2 squares of distance.No debate here.
If the far edge of a square is within the spell’s area, anything within that square is within the spell’s area. If the spell’s area only touches the near edge of a square, however, anything within that square is unaffected by the spell.In the diagrams I provided I showed that, using the above rules, the far edges were touched and thus are within the area of the cone.
Next, you state that the cone has a cone shape from the intersection it originates at.
A cone-shaped spell shoots away from you in a quartercircle in the direction you designate.Shoots away from you in a quartercircle, not shoots away from the intersection in a quartercircle. A subtle but important difference. Here is the image that shows this
It...
I agree with you up to the point where you draw it wrong :) Since it is physically impossible to fit your 15' cone into a 15' radius burst, and ALL OTHER cones follow the same "non-rollover from 3.0" rules you need to fit the cone into the rules and not try and fit the rules onto the cone that you are picturing.
Like I said, it would be super easy to show you if I could draw here, but I can't. The last image that you posted shows a blue V (or cone if you will), but the point of origin is the center of your square. If you put that V's point of origin on an intersection and then made the length of the V 15' it would not only fit in a 15' radius burst (2 squares, 4 squares, 2 squares) but if you were to draw a line from that intersection 15' outward as if you were calculating movement (just like the rule that we both agree is correct) you would shade 8 boxes total (2, 4, 2) just like the "quarter circle" that fits in the 15' radius burst.
I'm ok with considering my diagrams (all of which are consistent with the rules of Pathfinder, geometry, AND each other - something the 15' cone pictured can't say) "house rules" since I don't play PFS, I was just pointing out to the original poster that she is not crazy thinking there is something off about the 3.0 D&D diagram that was copied over from a time when the rules were completely different, yet still accepted as RAW because of the picture.
I do respect your position though, it just doesn't fit with my meticulous group. Maybe it is all the bad 3.0 memories :)
Quantum Steve,
The 15' cone counts from the intersection and then counts along the sides of the squares (or diagonally through a square in some cases).
In this image I show how you can count from the intersection.
The 5/10/15 are counting each step of the line, the white "L" is to show that that far edge is legal.
Gauss, you're only checking that all squares counted on that template are within 15' of the initial intersection, not that all squares within 15' of that intersection are counted in that template.
Since cones are symmetrical, a cone starting on that intersection a pointed strait north should be symmetrical along that axis. All the squares which could be reached by the mirror image of the lines you drew should be included in the cone. They aren't, the cone does not follow the rule. Either intentionally or otherwise.Secondly, the 30' template does not count any of the squares that could be reached only by diagonal corners as the far corner in the diagram. It is, perhaps, a valid interpretation of how the squares should be counted, but the 30' template does not follow that interpretation. So, either the 15' template is wrong (again), or they both are, which leaves no accurate template as a proper example in the CRB.
The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection....
A cone-shaped spell shoots away from you in a quartercircle in the direction you designate.Shoots away from you in a quartercircle, not shoots away from the intersection in a quartercircle. A subtle but important difference. Here is the image that shows this
So it 'originates' from the corner of a grid, but it also 'originates' from your position in the center of a square?
Look at the this post, drawn following all three possible origins {(0,0)/A,(2.5,0)/B,(2.5,2.5)/C}. What you're describing is "C".
It's obvious which ones Paizo used for their templates, however. For all of the 30' cones and for the 15' cone at an angle, they used A. For the 15' cone straight, they used B (because you get a closer shape, with less extra AoE). For none of them, from what I can tell, did they use "C".
Quantum Steve,
The 15' cone counts from the intersection and then counts along the sides of the squares (or diagonally through a square in some cases).
In this image I show how you can count from the intersection.
The 5/10/15 are counting each step of the line, the white "L" is to show that that far edge is legal.Gauss, you're only checking that all squares counted on that template are within 15' of the initial intersection, not that all squares within 15' of that intersection are counted in that template.
Since cones are symmetrical, a cone starting on that intersection a pointed strait north should be symmetrical along that axis. All the squares which could be reached by the mirror image of the lines you drew should be included in the cone. They aren't, the cone does not follow the rule. Either intentionally or otherwise.Secondly, the 30' template does not count any of the squares that could be reached only by diagonal corners as the far corner in the diagram. It is, perhaps, a valid interpretation of how the squares should be counted, but the 30' template does not follow that interpretation. So, either the 15' template is wrong (again), or they both are, which leaves no accurate template as a proper example in the CRB.
Sure you could check squares not in the diagram, but then it would fall out of the other rule covering a cone pointed away from you. Those squares are not fully inside the cone.
I am not sure I understand your point regarding the 30' template. It appears to me that all of the squares are calculated correctly.
The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection....
A cone-shaped spell shoots away from you in a quartercircle in the direction you designate.Shoots away from you in a quartercircle, not shoots away from the intersection in a quartercircle. A subtle but important difference. Here is the image that shows thisSo it 'originates' from the corner of a grid, but it also 'originates' from your position in the center of a square?
Look at the this post, drawn following all three possible origins {(0,0)/A,(2.5,0)/B,(2.5,2.5)/C}. What you're describing is "C".
It's obvious which ones Paizo used for their templates, however. For all of the 30' cones and for the 15' cone at an angle, they used A. For the 15' cone straight, they used B (because you get a closer shape, with less extra AoE). For none of them, from what I can tell, did they use "C".
There is a distinction between using the 'away from you' to determine the shape and placement of the cone versus the rules measuring the distance. One is placing a limit on the other.
To everyone, I recognize that there is some dissonance here. The dissonance is the result of the move from the 3.X way of doing area effects to the PF way and also the result of forcing a non-square area onto a square grid.
But, they are within the rules as written even if it isn't perfect.
Sure you could check squares not in the diagram, but then it would fall out of the other rule covering a cone pointed away from you. Those squares are not fully inside the cone.
I am not sure I understand your point regarding the 30' template. It appears to me that all of the squares are calculated correctly.
My point is, there are four squares missing that are within 30' of the starting intersection. You even drew the yellow and orange lines right up to the corners of one of them yet did not include it.
Also, why did you not measure the cone from the center of the caster's square as you did in this image. It would seem that there are several squares in the 30' template that are not fully inside the cone.
I do not see which four squares could be missing from the 30' cone. You mentioned the orange line but it was played out @30'. The 1/2 of the yellow line could go another 5' but that wouldn't cover another square.
Note: I just realized my green line could have gone diagonal to the opposite corner in addition to the 'split' lines I did. I should have drawn it that way for simplicity.
As for measuring from the center: I did not measure from the center of the caster's square in that image. As I explained, I measured from the intersection as the rules state.
I used the shape of a cone for the directionality rule and to show that a number of squares that 'could' be reached would be outside of that cone.
In this image the white squares are at the end of 30' lines, but are not included.
In this image you count squares at the end of similar lines.
Why count one but not the other?
In this image you draw a quarter circle centered on the caster's square to determine which squares lie outside the cone.
Why do you not use the same test for the 30' cone?
those white squares are a second diagonal and thus would need 35ft to reach.
he drew that split thing to be equivalent to a diagonal, mentions in the recent picture that the 1 time he used it there should have been a diagonal to be more clear.
can't explain anything else.
Quantum Steve,
Ahhh, I see which squares you are referencing now.
Interesting, that leads me to believe that it requires the opposite corner to be considered 'opposite edge'. In which case, there is a problem for one of the squares in the 15' cone (yellow line corner).
Like I said earlier, the rules on this have some dissonance, but in general the way they work is clear.
This is why I didn't mind 4e's rectangular spell effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not in the least bit convinced that the 15' cone pictured is canonically conical (and yes, I just had to say that). A hold-over from 3.0 -- now that makes sense to me. (I went looking through my old 3.5 Player's Handbook. No cone diagrams whatsoever. Apparently, our GM back in 3.5 days, who had upgraded from 3.0, simply told us what a cone looked like. Thanks, burkoJames & Canthin, for filling in the missing puzzle piece!)
The verification from so many of you that my template does fit the written rules, that it's not total & utter idiosyncracy, has helped a lot. And the position of Canthin's group, to essentially cut pieces out from a radius diagram, made so much sense to me that I've now got peace of mind. Sure, I can call my own template house rules. House rules picked to heed the RAW in words. If I must.
When I went looking at 3.5, I did find one template, just one. For a line diagram... that goes up diagonally in blocks of two... except that there's an orthogonal connector!!! The odd-guy out in Pathfinder's line templates, in other words. Ha! For Pathfinder, my immediate reaction is to prune the line template with the connectors to make it look like the two diagonal lines without. But instead I could add connectors to the other two, including the one that goes up by a straight 45-degree diagonal.
What have you all done? What do you recommend? (Please, please, don't recommend inconsistency. It's a waste of time...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
bitter lily the cone diagrams were in the 3.5 DMG on page 307. Neither the 15' nor the 30' cone diagrams have changed since 3.5.
Even the rules on how to count the distance haven't changed substantially.
Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don’t control which creatures or objects the spell affects. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection. When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack. The only difference is that instead of counting from the center of one square to the center of the next, you count from intersection to intersection. You can count diagonally across a square, but remember that every second diagonal counts as 2 squares of distance. If the far edge of a square is within the spell’s area, anything within that square is within the spell’s area. If the spell’s area only touches the near edge of a square, however, anything within that square is unaffected by the spell.
Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don’t control which creatures or objects the spell affects. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection. When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack. The only difference is that instead of counting from the center of one square to the center of the next, you count from intersection to intersection.
You can count diagonally across a square, but remember that every second diagonal counts as 2 squares of distance. If the far edge of a square is within the spell’s area, anything within that square is within the spell’s area. If the spell’s area only touches the near edge of a square, however, anything within that square is unaffected by the spell.
Origination point: intersection for both 3.5 and PF.
Distance: count intersection to intersection instead of square to square for both 3.5 and PF.What square is affected?: If the spell reaches the far edge for both 3.5 and PF.
As for there being a difference in the line examples? They are not strictly comparable. The PF 3rd example is a truncated version of the 3.5 example on PHB p176.
In short, nothing has changed since 3.5. Not the way the spell area is calculated, and not the provided templates for 15' and 30' cones so if they are wrong (which is still debatable) in PF then they have been wrong since 3.X.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To Gauss: In that respect, apparently the only thing that changed was that Paizo gave us different, optional, diagonal lines -- without connectors. Hmmm.
Thanks!
|
If you were to count center-to-center from caster to possible targets in distance as movement (how my players count move distance to close on an enemy), then the cones and radii would be much, much larger. As such, I'm happy for the templates. Not perfect, but it sets the rules that everyone can play by.
My personal take for multi-square creatures shooting a cone is that they can pick any intersection on the leading edge as the point of origin. The cone then looks... identical... to the... templates...
Musing musing musing
Yes, it should be legal, but only for the straight-up cone. (However one draws out the 15-ft cone for Burning Hands.) No matter how large they are, if they want a right-angled cone, it's got to start at an outside corner of their square.
To rule otherwise leads to a whole lot of trouble when one comes back to medium-sized creatures.
Unless the GM wants odd-shaped, oddly-pointed cones.
Cone areas are always a point of argument. Doesn't matter what table top game it is, the moment you try to 'square a circle' out come the protractors and hypotenuse lines.
What have you all done? What do you recommend? (Please, please, don't recommend inconsistency. It's a waste of time...)
The 15' cone is an exception to the rule. Lots of rules that are otherwise consistent have exceptions, like threatening the second diagonal with a reach weapon.
You can either use the template as presented, or houserule a template consistent with the rule. It's up to you.
I still disagree that the 15' cone is inconsistent with the written rules.
But we wont agree on that. :)
The problem is we don't know the exact application of the rules they used to arrive at the existing cones. That does leave some questions.
Using the existing rules either the 30' cone has extra squares or the 15' cone should be missing a corner square.
Lets look at it mathmatically. A 15' cone is one quarter of a circle with 30 foot diameter. The area of a circle is Pi*radius squared. 3.14*(15*15) = 706.5 square feet.
Divide by 4 for the cone area and we get 176.625. Divide by 25 (the square footage of one 5x5 square on the mat) and we get 7.065.
So we can can conclude that the area should be 7 squares on the mat.
The straight cone accomplishes that. The angled cone is 1 square short, but that is due the 3rd diagonal being 20' away.