I tried looking but could not find anything definite.
When using a spell or effect with an area of cone, how high vertically can it reach?
Can a 60 foot cone be angled so as to rise to a full height of 60 feet and attack enemies that high? Or is it considered to be launched on a horizontal plane, the effect extending 30 feet up and 30 feet down at the far end of the cone?
Is there any rule or guideline that covers this situation?
3D space is 3D space, otherwise creatures with fly Speeds couldn't actually be above other creatures.
The only detail that is "odd" is that the space of a creature, which is exaggerated horizontally, is 'squished' in the vertical sense; a medium creature takes up a 5' cube, even if that creature is a 6' tall human. But from there, you use the same rules that govern the horizontal plane to expand upwards into 3D space.
It would be "ridiculous" if you could not fire a cone spell straight upwards. But it was like a cone of hailstones you would hit yourself too.
I think that if you fired it horizonally it reaches height equal to its width but as thenobledrake reminds us, grid equares aren't cubes and are squashed in 3d.
Grid squares are cubes - what is squashes is creature's space, and that's because of the grid being cubes.
In that case I need to ask where the height of a grid square is defined, because nothing I can find in the rulebook references it, or mentions anything other than squares. The aerial combat rules don't touch on it, except for recording the altitude of a model.
the height is 5 feet because it has to be, otherwise it'd be impossible to figure out how anything can move vertically because of the unmentioned conversation rate of X horizontal distance to Y vertical distance.
Moppy wrote: It would be "ridiculous" if you could not fire a cone spell straight upwards. But it was like a cone of hailstones you would hit yourself too.
I think that if you fired it horizonally it reaches height equal to its width but as thenobledrake reminds us, grid equares aren't cubes and are squashed in 3d.
I think it would depend on the nature of the spell.
For example, if it was some earth elemental spell that created spikes in front of you in a cone fashion, then it would make sense that it was grounded. A line would seem more natural if you were design that kind of spell, admittedly, but cones have nicer AoE, so I could see it happening. And the spell might be otherwise appealing, since it wouldn't face elemental immunity (since earth tends to go for physical damage)
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Moppy wrote: In that case I need to ask where the height of a grid square is defined, because nothing I can find in the rulebook references it, or mentions anything other than squares. Are you suggesting that the rule "1 side of a square = 1 unit = five feet" changes when that unit is flipped vertically? Why would a unit change if value when it is used to measure vertical distances rather than horizontal distances?
If that were the case, I'd expect an explicit rule on how the value of a distance unit changes when used in a third dimension.
Or squares can be infinitely high, and have an altitude counter.
It's functionally indentical until you shoot a fireball upwards.
I think we're agreed that you're supposed to assume a square is a 5' high cube but it doesn't need to be, and it isn't defined as such.
Moppy wrote: Or squares can be infinitely high, and have an altitude counter. When you use the Athletic Skill to make a High Jump, you can jump infinitely high?
You jump as high as is defined in the rules for the High Jump action.
Moppy wrote: You jump as high as is defined in the rules for the High Jump action. So a distance unit is 5 feet in 2 dimensions but changes to infinity in the third dimension?
I dont know what a distance unit is in 3d, it appears to be undefined in RAW. I use 5' for sanity though. Vertical stacked squares or infinte high columns with a height count in 5s, it doesn't matter, the result's the same distance in feet.
I look forward to the day that VTTs are 3D. We have the technology for it, but I don't see it happeneding for several more years.
Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote: I look forward to the day that VTTs are 3D. We have the technology for it, but I don't see it happeneding for several more years. The pressure needs to come from the tabletop side. If a major RPG made an air combat book and adventures there would be justification to modify the VTTs. The VTT exists to implement the game, and the game is 2D right now.
Will a game go to full 3D? In my opinion, almost certainly not as it wouldn't work well with miniatures. In my opinion we are waiting for a major publisher to abandon paper and design their game purposely for VTT. I can't see this happening though I think it should, but I should say that I don't know what any of the big 4 (wotc, Paizo, x-wing, warhammer) have planned. Perhaps some indie company kickstarts a successful 3d movement miniatures game and it sells well? I also think FFG has the desire and budget to make some big experiments (keyforge, etc) so maybe it's them?
Moppy wrote: ...and the game is 2D right now. No it isn't, and it hasn't been since the very first instance of the game back in the '70s. Height and flying creatures have always been a part of the game, and even the earliest of published adventure maps have changes in elevation.
The reason why VTTs are 2D at current is because it's easier, though the good ones (like Foundry) have elevation marking for tokens.
thenobledrake wrote: Moppy wrote: ...and the game is 2D right now. No it isn't, and it hasn't been since the very first instance of the game back in the '70s. Height and flying creatures have always been a part of the game, and even the earliest of published adventure maps have changes in elevation. I disagree. Surely a properly 3d game would have movement modifiers for running and shooting uphill, and would define how elevation blocked line of sight? How many squares behind a building are blocked by the shadow if you're shooting from above the building?
Moppy wrote: Will a game go to full 3D? In my opinion, almost certainly not as it wouldn't work well with miniatures. In my opinion we are waiting for a major publisher to abandon paper and design their game purposely for VTT. I can't see this happening though I think it should, but I should say that I don't know what any of the big 4 (wotc, Paizo, x-wing, warhammer) have planned. Perhaps some indie company kickstarts a successful 3d movement miniatures game and it sells well? I also think FFG has the desire and budget to make some big experiments (keyforge, etc) so maybe it's them? It makes sense that it doesn't happen. It can be pretty prohibitive given the current culture of tabletop games, at least when you are looking at something that affects your entire player base. If such a move would cut out a portion of your player base, then you are risking lower demand for your product.
Some people might lack the digital equipment to run a full VTT game. While traditional mini based games are also expensive, you can write that off since you just need one friend at the table with extra cash and a collection.
But those can be nice little shelf pieces for the guy buying them when he isn't doing a campaign. Extra digital equipment just takes up space in a closet when not in use. So it is harder to rely on a friend's equipment (especially if it has to be lent out so the table can go full online rather than lan style).
Video games get away with this because the digital equipment is a prerequisite to get into the hobby in the first place, so there is a high baseline there. But table top games can make do with far more abstract and cost efficient equipment. At the lower end of the price spectrum, there is always "just grab whatever" realm of gaming, where you use nontraditional pieces for the markers. I'm sure quiet a few out there had dramatic battles of lego adventurers facing against dreaded abominations made out of assorted colored legos, especially in our younger, more cash strapped days.
Of course, the general baseline level of digital equipment in the player base might have been raised recently. I'm sure we have all become more familiar with programs such as zoom in the last few months.
Moppy wrote: I disagree. Surely a properly 3d game would have movement modifiers for running and shooting uphill, and would define how elevation blocked line of sight? How many squares behind a building are blocked by the shadow if you're shooting from above the building? If you want to disagree with reality, that's fine.
As for defining how vertical things function... it works just like horizontal things, and doesn't need to waste words being explicit about that because there's literally no other way for it to work.
so a diagram of
- - - - - - - - M
- - - - - - X - -
0 - - - - - X - -
shows a creature (M) that is receiving cover from an obstacle (X) from the position of an attacker (O) whether it is "that creature is ahead on your left to the side of a wall" or it is "that creature is above and behind a wall straight ahead of you"
And while PF2 doesn't break down modifiers to that degree, D&D way back before Wizards of the Coast bought it from TSR gave modifiers for having higher ground than your opponent.
thenobledrake wrote: If you want to disagree with reality, that's fine. As for defining how vertical things function... it works just like horizontal things, and doesn't need to waste words being explicit about that because there's literally no other way for it to work.
so a diagram of
- - - - - - - - M
- - - - - - X - -
0 - - - - - X - -
shows a creature (M) that is receiving cover from an obstacle (X) from the position of an attacker (O) whether it is "that creature is ahead on your left to the side of a wall" or it is "that creature is above and behind a wall straight ahead of you"
Have you tried this or is this theory? I don't understand how you measure that vertically in 3 directions on a flat flip mat. Where do you hold the line-of-sight string?
Are you going to stop and draw out the map from side view, or use 3d terrain and a laser pointer or models-eye-view like Warhammer?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I've been running games "in 3D" on my table top (virtual and otherwise) for more than two decades. To measure elevation, I mark the number of feet "up" next to the token/mini (this usually takes the form of dice sitting next to a mini showing the height on an actual table, and the VTT I use has a specific built-in altitude marker for every token).
As for "line of sight string" I don't usually need to use one because I'm so used to adjudicating line of sight/cover that I feel confident in doing the work for a specific scenario in my head - and when it's complex enough that I'm not sure, I quickly lay out a "side view" by laying dice and pencils or other on-hand supplies on a grid (which actually translates well to a VTT because I can just hold a finger up in front of my screen to fill in for an obstacle just like laying a pencil on a table map).
I assume you realise this is an extension to the game rules?
Moppy wrote: I assume you realise this is an extension to the game rules? An extrapolation rather than an interpolation.
Same rules, extended upward, much like climbing & leaping already cover.
Note that adjusting for unusual situations leads to this too. And given PF2's bent toward putting rules second to common sense interpretations, I find it odd one would think there isn't a 3D aspect to a game which, as others have mentioned, started w/ one. Everything thenobledrake is saying falls into "of course" territory.
I don't consider the solution of usable quality.
Moppy wrote: I assume you realise this is an extension to the game rules? Extension in the vein of using what is there to coherently and consistently handle what (technically) isn't, yes.
Extension in the vein of "I made up rules to add [blank] to the game", no.
I've done less "extension" of the game by adjudicating 3D space than making up a single new or variant monster is.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
