In this scenario, I'm trying to get a particular square that's 60 feet away in a 60 foot line originating from me. If it were perfectly diagonal from me, the line placement would be easy to figure out, but this is where it is.
___(placeholder lines so the special characters are in the right spot)
___
___
___
Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜??
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜
All the lines in the Areas diagram use some kind of pattern that the line sticks to until the last iteration, at which point the pattern may be cut short by the distance of the line. So what pattern can I use to get to that one "??" square?
If I start one corner higher and have the line take the same shape as before, the line still doesn't quite make it.
Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛??
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
If I change the pattern to 1 down 2 across, that's an overcorrection.
Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜??
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
So the pattern used throughout the line has to be some X down Y across where X>1 and Y>1. For instance, 3 down 4 across. No examples are provided of such a pattern, so how do I create that? Like this (3rd iteration cut short after 1 square)?
Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛<-
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
Or this (3rd iteration cut short after 1 square)?
Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛<-
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
Or this (3rd iteration cut short after 1 square)?
Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛<-
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
Would a 6 down 8 across pattern like this work (2nd iteration cut short after 1 square)?
Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛<-
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
Or are the 3 down 4 across patterns more suitable as they require smaller dimensions per iteration?
Alternatively, is it not possible to draw a line to the "??" space at all since it would a require a pattern X down Y across where both X>1 and Y>1?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, short of using a line rasterization algorithm like this one, I would do one of two things.
If there is only one square that the caster is interested in, I would let the line go through that point and it would mechanically not matter what other squares it went through.
If there are multiple points (probably with different creatures in them), then I would allow any sort of repetitive pattern that makes sense.
So this is fine with me
Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛<-
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
since it is multiple repetitions of
⬛⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬛
But this one would not work
Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛<-
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
That one is a bent line, not a straight line.
|
Per the example lines given in the rules, these would be the only squares you can hit with a 60ft. line spell.
.
.
.
.
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜
⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
Now coincidentally, when you fill it in this would be what a 60ft burst looks like, which makes sense when you think about it.
If you allow the alternating repeating lines like breithauptclan mentioned, you will be able to get all the spaces, but the rules do not show that as an example, only single repeating lines like these. I assume we can extrapolate from this pattern and also do lines that are 4 long before going diagonal, or 5 long, etc.
⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛
⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the pattern is consistent, it should be fine to use. It has to start and end the same way until its reaches its max length for it to be valid; I'd just treat the patterns shown in the book as examples, meaning if you can create a line that follows a similar pattern, it works.
Of course, YMMV.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I'm playing at home and the specifics of the line that specifically really did matter, I'd get out some thread or a ruler and move it from the point of origin to the point of termination and make a judgement call from there if each square along the path is affect or not.
It I'm on VTT, it's even easier to do functionally the same thing.
If the path doesn't much matter, then the line just works. We have way more possible angles than are quickly represented in the rules and I've always operated under the assumption that the illustrated lines are examples and not an exhaustive list.
|
|
If the pattern is consistent, it should be fine to use. It has to start and end the same way until its reaches its max length for it to be valid; I'd just treat the patterns shown in the book as examples, meaning if you can create a line that follows a similar pattern, it works.
Of course, YMMV.
I'm not a fan of that, it can be easily exploited while staying within the rule. For example, would this be a straight line?
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
Of course it's not, but it keeps with the pattern of 5:1:5. That's why I always stick with the "same number" lines as much as possible, and in rare cases where the wanted target is in a "dead" zone, I'll let the player use the line tool on Foundry and just go with that.
If the pattern is consistent, it should be fine to use. It has to start and end the same way until its reaches its max length for it to be valid; I'd just treat the patterns shown in the book as examples, meaning if you can create a line that follows a similar pattern, it works.
Of course, YMMV.
I'm not a fan of that, it can be easily exploited while staying within the rule. For example, would this be a straight line?
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛Of course it's not, but it keeps with the pattern of 5:1:5. That's why I always stick with the "same number" lines as much as possible, and in rare cases where the wanted target is in a "dead" zone, I'll let the player use the line tool on Foundry and just go with that.
What if there was a restriction where if you use a pattern, it has to be the smallest pattern possible that still gets the line to its final square? Like this:
Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛
Assuming the top left square is the initial square and the bottom right square is the final one, this pattern is 4 right 1 down, with 4 iterations plus a 5th cut short since this is a 95 foot line. This results in a much neater line, and I can't think of a smaller pattern to use to accomplish this.
|
|
Well that's the pattern I was talking about, where it's the same number of squares each time. The ones suggested earlier are things like 2:1:2, which do look fine, but the rule needs refining.
For example, a 5:4:5 line looks fine as well
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛
So limiting it to something like (n):(n-1):(n) would be best imo. Otherwise we get into way more complicated mechanics than intended. Who knew lines could be so complicated?
Note that the lines in the diagram aren’t pure patterns. One of the thirty-foot lines is two-two-one.