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.
Yeah...the cones are weird.
If you put a quarter of a circle on top of the shapes with a radius equal to the cone length it would roughly match, and they've gotten rid of squares that would be mostly empty and kept squares that would be mostly full.
But it looks like they kept the shapes from PF1.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The apparent mismatch is because the particular degree of the cones isn't clearly stated, and the result of counting any square more than half covered by the actual shape of the cone as being affected is that it looks like there's two different measurements - one for diagonal orientation, and one for orthogonal orientation.
But there really is just one size, and the alteration of orientation has created a different pattern of half-or-more covered squares.
If you want to do your own thing, print circles that have a 3", 6", and 12" radii. Remember 1" correspond to 5' for Pathfinder. Then cut those circles into quarters. That's what the cone template is supposed to approximate. Unfortunately, that rounded shape doesn't align with a square grid very well, and it get's wonky.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I think I figured this out.
Start by drawing a 30ft radius burst, from a grid intersection.
Now draw diagonal lines from the center. You get four 30ft cones, but the cones have half-squares on the diagonals.
Expand the half-squares into full squares. You now have four overlapping cones, of the shape shown in the CRB.
It works the same with with 60ft cones when you slice up a 60ft radius burst.
---
It's actually the 15ft orthogonal cones that can't be overlaid on each other to generate a proper 15ft radius burst.
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
Kottin wrote: 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 The reason the 15' cone starts with 1 square is because you can either align the genuine cone shape in the center of a side of a square and have it cover the pattern show in the book (poorly recreated here for reference)
X X X
X X X
X
or you could set it on a corner like the larger cones and end up with this
X X X X
X X X X
X X
which covers 10 squares, while the diagonal orientation of the same size of cone only covers 6.
While the other sizes of cone do let the cone squeeze out a few more squares of effect if orthogonal, it's 28 squares instead of 24 at 30-feet, and 104 squares instead of 96 at 60-feet (so plus around 17% for one and around 8% for the other) which is a massive difference from letting the little cone pick up around 66% more area by turning it a particular direction.
Edited to finish since I accidentally clicked submit somehow.
That's the confusing part though. Per the rules orthogonal cones. They only set up by side. Not by corner
Kottin wrote: That's the confusing part though. Per the rules orthogonal cones. They only set up by side. Not by corner I guess there is technically some room to interpret a mismatch between the text and the provided template images.
Aiming orthogonally says "the first square of that cone must share an edge with your space" - and that holds up with all the orthogonal cones shown, but it saying "first square" could be interpreted as there being only one square next to you so there's room for confusion.
However, it's not actually saying there's only one square at the start of the cone - it's just making sure that no one tries to orient an orthogonal cone like this (- for empty squares, O for caster):
[rest of cone up here]
X X X X
- X X -
O - - -
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
After looking over everything again. I think the 15ft is the one that makes the least sense. It's the only one that can't be recreated. Thanks @Ascalaphus for pointing that out. Why aren't 15ft cones shaped more like:
-xx-
xxxx
-xx-
-o--
Kottin wrote: After looking over everything again. I think the 15ft is the one that makes the least sense. It's the only one that can't be recreated. Thanks @Ascalaphus for pointing that out. Why aren't 15ft cones shaped more like:
-xx-
xxxx
-xx-
-o--
Because it would actually be the following shape if you ruled consistently on which squares the cone is covering half or more of:
X X X X
X X X X
- X X -
- O - -
And as I mentioned earlier that makes a cone that would cover 6 squares if you aimed it diagonally cover 10 squares if you aim it orthogonal, which is way too much of a boost since that's 2/3rds larger area.
http://i.imgur.com/f9JDZ.jpg
Kottin wrote: http://i.imgur.com/f9JDZ.jpg What's the source for that?
thenobledrake wrote: Because it would actually be the following shape if you ruled consistently on which squares the cone is covering half or more of:
X X X X
X X X X
- X X -
- O - -
And as I mentioned earlier that makes a cone that would cover 6 squares if you aimed it diagonally cover 10 squares if you aim it orthogonal, which is way too much of a boost since that's 2/3rds larger area.
More like 8 squares if you aim it orthogonally from a corner. The corner squares are nowhere near half covered by a quarter-circle. Here's a picture.
The orange portion is a cone aimed diagonally (6 squares), the teal one is a cone aimed orthogonally from mid-square (7 squares), and the yellow one is an orthogonal cone aimed from a corner (8 squares). If you're going to count the corner squares on the yellow cone that are about a third covered, you should also count the third-covered squares on the orange cone, making it 10 squares to 8.
The problem with the cones in the CRB are the larger orthogonal ones, which behave as if they are aimed from a corner instead of a side. Here are a pair of 30 foot cones. Both occupy 28 squares.
Edit: Of course, the reason orthogonal cones aimed from a corner cover more squares is that by definition they cover a lot of squares half-way. For example, the yellow cone in the first picture has four half-covered squares. That's a lot of rounding in its favor. By comparison, one aimed from the center of a side is a lot more binary. The only squares that are even close to being in doubt in the pink cone in picture 2 are the outside ones on the farthest "increment" (six squares west of Nissia and two squares north or south).
Staffan Johansson wrote: The problem with the cones in the CRB are the larger orthogonal ones, which behave as if they are aimed from a corner instead of a side. Here are a pair of 30 foot cones. Both occupy 28 squares. I dont trust a mage to aim who has their hair over one of their eyes.
thenobledrake wrote: Kottin wrote: http://i.imgur.com/f9JDZ.jpg What's the source for that? Found it on the PF reddit. Having trouble finding the true source. But it's the only template diagram I've found the actually follows the written rules and makes sense shape wise. Idk why Paizo still uses the weird 15 ft cone when they could have made the whole thing simpler and more uniform. Reason I posted it, was it was the closest thing I could find to illustrate my point about how I believe 15ft cones should be
I think it dates back to the 3.0 days, I've seen it before, but I couldn't tell you where.
thenobledrake wrote: Kottin wrote: http://i.imgur.com/f9JDZ.jpg What's the source for that? Draco18s wrote: I think it dates back to the 3.0 days, I've seen it before, but I couldn't tell you where. It's from the 2003 Draconomicon.
I had considered putting "3.5" instead of "3.0" and would have hazarded a guess that it was the Draconomicon, but it was based on little more than guesswork, as I haven't cracked that one open in 10 years.
Staffan Johansson wrote: More like 8 squares if you aim it orthogonally from a corner. The corner squares are nowhere near half covered by a quarter-circle. Here's a picture. I had originally made my statement after drawing a circle in photoshop with a grid on. Looking at your image makes it seems right for it to be 8 squares, which is different than what I was seeing in photoshop when drawing - so I decided to open Foundry VTT and draw a 15-foot cone and ended up with a fun hybrid in which the tool is saying 8 squares are affected, but the cone drawing itself is visually covering more than half of the 2 squares at the side of the far end of the cone.
Incidentally, it also draws a diagonal cone in such a way that it looks like Draconomicon figure would be correct for diagonal cones and then doesn't count two of the squares that are visually more than half covered.
Showing more inconsistency in the way cone measuring rules are being interpreted.
I feel like 2E missed the opportunity to switch to hexes.
https://i.imgur.com/DdxdTW6.jpg
They work fine with orthagonal lines, once you explain how they work.
edit: Wow, that's a terrible deployment, but let's not get into that. :-)
Hexes have pros and cons, just like squares.
I happen to prefer hexes, but I find players have more difficulty keeping them straight with regards to things like which hexes a creature is or isn't occupying - and tons of people have difficulty with aligning map elements like walls of rooms to a hex grid.
So despite the difficulties that come up as a result of squares, I stick with them because they are more intuitive to most folks.
I accept anything can be different or problematic, but what is the actual mechanical issue with determining what hex a creature is in? Shove a hex base under the figure, using a multi-hex base if required.
Moppy wrote: I accept anything can be different or problematic, but what is the actual mechanical issue with determining what hex a creature is in? Shove a hex base under the figure, using a multi-hex base if required. The issue is looking at a round base like typically comes pre-attached to pre-painted minis for a larger creature sitting on a hex grid and being sure it's lined up properly and then being sure at a glance which hexes it counts as occupying and which it doesn't.
Which reminds me that I haven't checked out how Foundry VTT does with hex grids yet... so I might just go do that.
thenobledrake wrote: Staffan Johansson wrote: More like 8 squares if you aim it orthogonally from a corner. The corner squares are nowhere near half covered by a quarter-circle. Here's a picture. I had originally made my statement after drawing a circle in photoshop with a grid on. Looking at your image makes it seems right for it to be 8 squares, which is different than what I was seeing in photoshop when drawing - so I decided to open Foundry VTT and draw a 15-foot cone and ended up with a fun hybrid in which the tool is saying 8 squares are affected, but the cone drawing itself is visually covering more than half of the 2 squares at the side of the far end of the cone.
Incidentally, it also draws a diagonal cone in such a way that it looks like Draconomicon figure would be correct for diagonal cones and then doesn't count two of the squares that are visually more than half covered.
Showing more inconsistency in the way cone measuring rules are being interpreted. Hmm. Looking more closely, it seems that the images I use for cones and other AOEs in Roll20 have a small empty border around them, so the cone's visible border is slightly smaller than the actual image, which is the one that's sized to be 15 ft/3 squares big. So the cone corners, which look like they cover just under half the squares for me, are probably just over half the squares mathematically.
But that just reinforces my main point, which is that orthogonal cones should emanate from the center of one square side. If you look at the corner-emanating cone, there are four squares that are definitely covered and six that are just about half-covered. If it emanates from the center of a square side, there's no question about it, it hits seven squares. Pretty much every square either has more than 75% or less than 25% covered, so it's a really easy call to make. Plus, it looks more natural - more like you're either breathing out a cone or holding out a hand that blasts out some energy.
That said, the exact number of squares covered by a cone is usually a pretty academic issue. What is more important is "how many monsters can I hit, preferably without hitting a friend?" This would seem a more likely situation where a caster would use a cone, and there's no question that the caster can hit the two center xulgaths with a cone, but have to choose between the two peripheral ones. There's also nothing that says you need to aim the cone either orthogonally or diagonally, those are just the two easiest situations to provide diagrams for. And one of the advantages of Roll20 is that I can just aim the cone in whatever direction seems reasonable and see what happens, instead of relying on the templates from the CRB.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
