Line spells affect a straight line extending from the caster, usually for a specified distance and width. They do not “attack” or hit, and a “miss” chance has no effect on them, regardless of whether it’s from concealment or not. Total concealment prevents line of sight, making targeted spells in most cases. However, if you can physically touch an invisible creature, that will allow you to target it.
AoE spells are 181 spells in DnD 5e, with 181 being Area of Effect (AoE) spells. A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid.
A spell does not need line of sight unless it says so. All spells require an unobstructed path from caster to target. Spells that require line of sight would suffer the same disadvantage as a melee attack roll in this situation, while AoE spells do not. Most area of effect spells will not ignore cover and some can’t be cast unless there is sufficient space.
AoE spells can affect a circle, cone, line, or even more complex shapes. The effectiveness of these spells often depends on the area of effect overlap. Line is specific: Any creature whose space the area of effect overlaps is affected.
In summary, line spells affect a straight line extending from the caster, with the effectiveness of these spells depending on the area of effect.
📹 AOE rules in Dnd 5e suck!
Thank you very much Dragon’s Bank Heist for sponsoring this video! Check it out! Link to patreon, merch shop, discord and twitter: …
What is the V component in DND?
The spell “V” requires verbal components, which are incantations that must be spoken to cast. Your turn consists of two main parts: moving and performing an action. On your turn, you can move up to your character’s speed, usually between 20 ft. and 40 ft., and break this up between actions. However, certain areas, such as a muddy swamp, treacherous staircase, or broken furniture, are considered “difficult terrain”, and your speed is halved when moving through them.
Does darkness spell block line of sight?
The darkness has the capacity to absorb all within a 15-foot radius sphere, affecting light in a manner analogous to that of an evocation spell. This phenomenon is not an illusion; it is a tangible entity that obstructs vision to the other side, effectively preventing light from traversing it.
What does AoE mean in D&D?
In the context of video games, the term “Area of Effect” (AoE) is used to describe spells or abilities that affect multiple targets within a designated area, rather than a single creature or point. Burst is a type of area-of-effect (AoE) that radiates out from a single point of origin in all directions. In contrast, cone is a type of AoE that starts at a specific point and expands out in a cone shape. The impact of these abilities may vary depending on the location of the target.
Is a catapult a ballistic weapon?
A catapult is a ballistic device invented by the Greek inventor Dionysius the Elder of Syracuse around 400 BCE. It was used to launch a projectile without the use of explosives.
Does a catapult require line of sight?
Catapult is a somatic spell that requires a Dexterity Saving Throw, which is a disadvantage for many monsters in the MM. However, it allows for fun and exciting ways to impose disadvantage on the save, such as using a loose brick or torch on a wall behind your opponent and ducking out of sight. This allows you to search the environment for fun and exciting things to yeet at your opponent, similar to a skilled billiards player.
A well-placed catapult (lvl 3) will do 5d8 (22. 5 damage avg) and is universal to the whole radius. A well-placed catapult can impose disadvantage on the save and requires subsequent checks against secondary targets. From a probability perspective, it is far more likely that ONE enemy in a line will fail a save if the checks are chained together. The more enemies in a line, the more likely SOMEONE will fail.
The biggest advantage of Catapult is that it is yeet-able as long as the target is between 1 and 5 pounds. Many spellslingers miss this advantage, but with the right skills and preparation, it can be used to create more powerful attacks. For example, a wizard with proficiency in tinker’s and smithing tools, Enlarge/Reduce, and Catapult can pull off something sinister like Lenningrad’s Shrunken Bolt.
In order to use Catapult, one must have proficiency in tinker’s and smithing tools, Enlarge/Reduce, and Catapult. By reducing the target’s weight by 1/8th, the 40-pound bolt becomes 5 pounds. On turn 1, the wizard shoots off the bolt like a whistling Yondu and land it in the enemy’s body, snapping the fins on the arrow latch open.
The arrow wound grows eight times as gnarly as the arrow wound, and even if the arrow misses, it has the potential to be used again for up to a minute. However, it is important to note that a reduced weapon would deal 1d4 less damage if the would has already landed.
Do catapults count as artillery?
Artillery, also known as “engines of war”, were mechanical systems used in ancient warfare. During medieval times, more types of artillery were developed, including the counterweight trebuchet. Traction trebuchets, used in ancient China since the 4th century, were used as anti-personnel weapons. The counterweight trebuchet, invented in the 12th century, was more powerful. Early Chinese artillery had vase-like shapes, such as the “long range awe-inspiring” cannon from 1350.
With the development of better metallurgy techniques, later cannons abandoned the vase shape, as seen in the bronze “thousand ball thunder cannon”. These small, crude weapons diffused into the Middle East and Europe in the 13th century, with limited reach.
What is a line spell 5e?
A line is a straight path that extends from its point of origin to its length and covers an area defined by its width. In fantasy gaming, magic often appears in the form of a spell. Spells are discrete magical effects that shape the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse into a specific, limited expression. Characters carefully pluck at invisible strands of raw magic, pin them in place in a specific pattern, set them vibrating in a specific way, and release them to unleash the desired effect, usually within seconds. Different character classes have unique ways of learning and preparing their spells, and monsters use spells in unique ways.
Does an eldritch blast require line of sight?
In order to cast the Eldritch Blast 5e spell, the caster must have a clear line of sight to the target. However, casting a ranged spell attack while in melee range has the effect of making the attack roll less effective. When the Hex spell is active, each Eldritch Blast attack inflicts additional necrotic damage on the target, with the damage being applied to each beam that hits the target.
Can you cast spells without line of sight?
The maintenance of concentration on a spell does not necessitate proximity to the spell’s target, unless the spell’s description or other game feature specifies otherwise. In order to achieve the desired effect, it is necessary to remain within range or in eyeshot of the spell’s target.
What is the line of effect in D&D spells?
A line of effect is a straight path that indicates what a spell can affect, and it is required for spells unless the spell description specifically states otherwise. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier, similar to line of sight for ranged weapons, and can be blocked by a solid barrier that doesn’t block sight, such as clear glass. A solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell’s line of effect.
For concentration spells, a line of effect is required to cast the spell, but it doesn’t need to be maintained to maintain concentration. However, if a concentration spell allows an action, bonus action, or reaction to effect a creature or object, any round performed must have line of effect to the target.
Auras have a different line of effect than spells. To be effected by or detect an aura, there must be a straight path to the source of the aura that isn’t blocked by 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt.
What is an AoE spell?
Area of Effect (AoE) spells are those that affect multiple targets within a predetermined radius, ranging from HoT to DD spells. In MMORPGs, the anchor target and those closest to it are most affected, with diminishing returns as the spell radiates outward. In World of Warcraft, most area spells are GTAoE or PBAoE, affecting all targets in the area. There are various types of AoE spells, including Typhoon, Cone of Cold, Dragon’s Breath, Light of Dawn, and Shockwave.
📹 Elden Ring Rune Farm HIGHEST DAMAGE AoE Weapons, Ashes of War & Spells
———————————————————————————— USEFUL LINKS Hoarfrost Stomp …
I don’t know how eaay this would be on a VTT, but at a table I got rid of the grid entirely. Generally more people like it than not, though I’ve had mixed reactions. Without a grid we do things Warhammer style. You use a ruler to measure distance for your character’s movement, and your reach is 5 feet (or whatever it might be) from the base of your model. Anything partially under a spell template is a hit. Making templates was easy. I bought translucent plastic duo-tangs from walmart and used a kids math set to make shapes.
@PackTactics Thank you for waking people up – 4e rules were great (not without the occasional rule jank ofc, but every edition has janky rules in it so that’s a mute point). Maybe I’m mistaken but I believe you mentioned you were playing a 4e campaign in one of your previous articles, if so I would love to see a article on your thoughts of 4e as a whole – and maybe a list of things u liked about 4e that you would like to see in OneDnD
I’ve been using a Hexgrid for my Spelljammer campaign, since, at the time, the square grid was being used for a dungeon in the game run by the party’s Druid on Tuesday’s. And I gotta say, it’s really made the harder Area of Effect spheres and cones WAY easier to manage in combat, and really speeds up combat when I don’t have to count out individual squares which are and aren’t affected by the Sorcerer’s cone of cold.
I always thought and will possibly always think until one dnd comes out that it MUST take also the best parts from 4e and 3.5e (1e and 2e are too old and completely different from what we have now), from 4e there are some damn good rules, the enemy division in minion, elite, or whatever helps a DM building encounters, group checks have some official rules as per how they work, martials in 4e were not so much underpowered in contrast to casters. From 3.5e there are also some neat rules about combat that could be taken.
In my personal experience, all you need is the optional rule that every second diagonal squares counts as ten feet and some templates made with that in mind and you are good to go. Be it cones, squares, cubes or spheres everything shows in a clear and unambiguous manner which area is affected. Only lines can in certain circumstances have some uncertainty, but line spells are so rarely used, at least in my campaigns, that it hardly matters. Of course playing on a virtual table top helps a lot with all of this.
Why do you need grids? Can’t you measure everything with a ruler like in a wargame? Circle is a circle, line is a line and you can pick any direction rather than just cardinals and diagonals. It is like trying to simplify everything by overcomplicating it. You need a few extra tools, but the precision and freedom that you gain from not caring about stupid grids is massive.
If you ignore geometry and say a diagonal square is the same distance as an orthogonal square, it doesn’t matter what you say the shape is. It’s literally squaring every circle, which is mathematically impossible. 3.5 counts two diagonal squares as equivalent to three orthogonal squares, which is a mostly accurate analog while still keeping the bath fairly simple.
I think this is a good idea for grid based combat in D&D, really great article! I would like to shine light on an alternative which in my experience has worked quite well: Abandon the grid, use a measuring tool and translate 1 inch to 5 ft. (could even abandon the imperial system and go with metric measurements) Using a measuring stick or something of the sort for finding distances means that any creature can move in any direction and always go exactly their movement speed, they get a perfect circle of max movement (in an open environment). Obviously this can lead to weird situations like being almost but not quite within melee range, easy answer is just have the DM decide, it’s part of the reason they’re here, but for certainty just measure from the center of one mini to the center of another, if the distance is 1 inch (5 ft.) or less, you’re in melee range. For creatures of larger size, go from the center of your mini to a bit short of half an inch into the larger creatures base. for larger on larger creatures, same idea, almost half an inch into one and almost half an inch into the other… In my personal opinion, the best part of this system is that you can just wing it! Forget measuring everything and just try to roughly visualize inch by inch a creature’s movements, decide for yourself how close is within melee range, etc. I honestly think the grid system, while not by any means bad, makes the game feel more article/board gamey, which for me at least somewhat limits the fantastical role play elements.
Using a square grid layout: Square: good 10/10 Line: iffy but not bad, over all falls under good 7/10 Cone: It’s just a few lines, but which sections are “in” or not? 3/10 Circle: No, I dont know what segments are in or not, there’s no straight lines to make it easier 0/10 every mention of circle in my games has been converted to square, and if that’s how they intended to do it in the first place they should have just done that. This does not reflect my every day views. In my normal day to day I like circles. 9/10 shape.
IDK for the game system I’m designing cones are just wider. A cone with a range of 2 would be one for the first step then add a square the the left and right for the next step. Each time as you go further out you add a square to each end. Lines are pretty simple too either it’s a cardinal direction or it goes at a 45 degree angle
Maybe it is because I started in wargaming, but I never understood the appeal of any kind of grid. We always just measured areas of effects and never bothered with proper templates. Even when we, once in a blue moon, used a grid, it was easier to just measure the area of effect, using the rules for movement, with every other square counting as 10 feet, because Pythagoras. Is this enemy within 20 feet of the point of origin? If yes then it is hit.
These seem like they’re only problems if you’re trying to conceptualise playing on a grid in your head and/or people are trying to game the system. Every VTT has convenient AoE tools and in-person you can easily bust out a piece of paper or string. 5e dedicates too little effort to crunch, sure, but I don’t think you need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Firecubes feel wrong. Fixing reality to a grid limits design space. As for all maps having grids, it makes them so much easier to reproduce. I’d want maps to be gridded even in a system that explicitly didn’t use grids. Hell, I used to play 5e on a gridded map even though we didn’t play with a grid because it makes it a hell of a lot easier to quickly visualise distances and track movement.
Mathematically, a “circle” under the infinity norm (also known as the maximum norm) in R^2 would be a square. The infinity norm calculates distance by taking the greatest difference between coordinates. This contrasts with the 2-norm, which is our regular Euclidean distance (thus would yield a regular circle if you were to take all points less than a specified distance away), and the 1-norm (also known as the Taxicab or Manhattan norm), which computes distance as the sum of the components, and thus equidistant points form a rotated square.
This is gonna be one where I full stop disagree. 4e and 5e grids make no sense and just invite cheesing by moving diagonaly. 3.5 and pathfinder (both edition) have it right: first diagonal = 5 feet, second = 10 feet. It’s not exact, but it’s close. Diagonal are SUPPPSED to be longer then the sides of the square. I welcome a little complexity for the sake of common sense.
You can actually make circles in Minecraft, granted they aren’t perfect given they are just made up of small squares. It really wouldn’t be too hard to come up with basic area of effect templates for AOE effects using the same method we see in Minecraft. The bitch to deal with would be cones, seeing as you have to account for the angle at which it is pointing and how that would affect the overall composition of squares.
Well, there is an easier fix. Sadly even I didn’t come up with the idea, it was one of my players: Just use pins and lengths of string for spheres and lines. If the string touches a creature, it gets hit. Cones are by far the worst offender, though I defaulted to: if the template touches the creature gets hit. Because at the end of the day one or two extra squares being hit doesn’t really matter. Especially since the template is the same for players and creatures. I want to play the game, not sit around and try to maximize squares hit on a grid. And yes you are absolutely right: Spheres should be squares since 5e uses the Manhattan distance. At the end of the day, only one thing matters in terms of the rules: They have to be applied consistently. When players ask me, if we can play with maximized crits, I say sure. The monsters will get maximized crits as well. Crit successes on skill checks? Sure, but the enemies get them as well. Like 99.9 percent of rule discussions can just be dealt with by saying: You know, the same rules apply to the enemies. So how is anything unfair? We are all playing by the same rules.
yeah Idunno man, this is a terrible take to me. I play D&D for versimillitude, saying an explosion occupies a cubic area just feels stupid to me. I can’t do it. Just either cut out a shape on a real map, or draw one on a VTT, and move/rotate it to where you want. If the DM thinks a creature is more than 50% covered by the effect geometry, then they get hit. That’s really all it needs to be. Hells, in my VTT campaigns I just draw standardized shapes, make them tokens, then keep them off the side of the board and give every player control of them.
The 5e PHB kinda assumes theater of the mind is how you’ll play the game with how it’s laid out. And yet it also includes a bunch of precise measurements which don’t work well with Theater of the Mind. The whole book is a contradiction, it’s like half the team wanted the game to be played with out any grids at all and the other half insisted on it being a grid based game
I’d be willing to bet that the first edition of rules for D&D were crafted around the usage of a scaled ruler. So in the case of maps, you’d use a 1:60 scale to say that a 1 cubic inch square would represent 5 ft by 5 ft of space. Alternatively, a a 30 ft diameter blast radius would be represented by circle with 6 inches of total width on a figurine space. This means you can scale combat independently of any restrictive grid rules by obeying the scaling conversions respective to the measurement parameters set by 5e.
What I usually do for circular aoe’s is cut out the whole 30 feet 15 feet whatever and just count squares. So like, if an aoe is 30 feet radius, that’s 6 squares because basic math. Anything that is within 6 squares (not diagonal) from the origin point and doesn’t have something obstructing them gets hit.
Neat article with lots of interesting ideas, but i was shaking my head in disagreement quite a bit. so thank you for that. lol A few problems with square superiority theorem: 1: those 4e rules assume you’re playing on a square grid, and that each grid is a specified size. presumably 5ft per square. These rules go out the window if you’re not playing on a grid, or are playing on a grid that is larger than 5ft squares. in either of those cases you’re forced to do math to translate the AOE’s. which is sub optimal. 2: Realism- the simple truth is that nothing in nature is square. Radiuses and cones are just more accurate. I leave it up to the players and dm whether that accuracy matters, but for my brain it is much easier to imagine myself in the world with realism, because i am visualizing the cone of cold, wall of fire, lightning bolt, and fireball. quite frankly it would break my brain to visualize these things in perfect squares. and then having to translate my mental vision to a square game board would really take me out of the fantasy and into a board game. gross. 3: Hexagons are obviously best. For calculating diagonal movements, for realism as to what a character can actually reach, for flanking/advantage clarity, for line of sight clarity, and especially, especially, especially for sailing ship movements… (seriously don’t even try doing ship to ship combat as outlined in the Pirates Compendium or Ghosts of Saltmarsh Campaigns with a square grid. it’s abysmal). Hexagons are a vast improvement.
I feel like the 5e rules were written with hexagonal grids in mind, which would make using those shapes much easier. I don’t know why they didn’t have that all just within 1 book though- Oh wait nevermind I do. Because if they put all the information you needed, plainly, in a couple of books, without filler or “immersion”, they couldn’t sell book after book of fixes and errata based on things they have no real understanding of because they FIRED the original development team for 5th Edition after shoving 90% of their changes into the Optional Rules section. I love 5e and the community as a whole but seriously what the F*CK WotC. What the actual F*CK do we gotta do to just get a remake of the core 3 with decent rules???
spell AOE’s have been screwed up since 5th edition primarily because either DM’s played earlier versions and knew what was meant or they flat out do not understand game mechanics. Take the web spell for example. it was seriously nerfed in 4e dropping from an AOE of a 20-foot radius to “Area burst 2 within 20 squares” (or a 25-square-foot area). that’s quite a nerf but at least it’s mechanically understandable. whoever wrote the 5e version messed it up entirely. 5e meant to say a 20-foot-square AOE (which is even more of a nerf), not a 20-foot cube (which implies directly it extends 20 feet up as well). seems like you are the only one to mention (generally) how messed up 5e is…
I swear to god, the problems with 5e’s AoE rules are literally just the product of pure grognardism, they’re one of many instances of throwing out anything that smacked of 4e because ‘4e bad’ even when the previous editions solutions were objectively better. 5e leaned into old-school-lite-ism to a destructive degree, assuming that the natural way to play was theatre of the mind, but presenting everything as a battlemat. It’s an uneasy halfway house were neither approach is actually leaned into. If you actually commit to build for a battlemat, then you invariably move to the 4e ‘square fireballs’ system. If you actually commit to build for theatre of the mind, then you invariably move to something like “Fireball hits 2d6+{Proficiency Bonus} targets over a ‘medium spread’ area, see page 120 for the definition of ‘medium spread’ (spoilers, it’s a fungible radius value between 15-50ft)”
I agree mostly. Other than what’s called freedom aiming. Where a lighting bolt truthfully effects…a line with a contingent of 4×2 cause it’s moving across the field grid not the square square grid. or you make it effect only a line of 2×1 or a 1×1. fire ball sake has a minor version of the same effect. where instead of aiming at “center” square you can make it aim at grid square, (the conjunction of up to 4 cubes and expand from there. It in a weird sense effects more potentially. if the 1/4th square rule is in use (which is happening anyways) I also have a way to deal with cones of just drawing a center line…then you usually have to know that the cones reach out. Turns out most comes are just expanding…by +1 on each side till it reaches it’s range limit which is basically a 45 degree cone. For my game system I legit have a rule for cones that their “expansion rates” (This is a bit more complex) mention their relative based on a line of aim. and expand as “told” example if it’s a 2×1 line I will mention the expantion rate of height and width, and the rate they expand. example. a line of 5 squares, with a expansion that only will expand on line 4 and 5 by +1 W +1 H. meaning it is a lighting bolt with a girth of 2×1, with a expansion rate starting at only square 4 and 5 boosting in W 4 H 2, then W6 H3 (height always is the upper (and the lower end of the cone and pretty on spot easy to understand but we never really see cones in proper 3rrd dimension or in use of such) I also happen to stack d6 to show some stuff or draw it’s side angle on say d20 if it needs to come up.
It’s worth noting that the squares=circles thing only works due to a conceit of 5e grid mechanics (as outlined in the roll20 5e vs Euclidean ruler options). In 5e where the transit of a square in any direction (horizontal, vertical OR diagonal) equals 5 feet then circles do in fact equal squares, however if the squares did actually represent 5×5 squares in reality, the circles = squares thing DOESN’T create exactly the same results, as the hypotenuse of the triangle created by diagonally bisecting a 5×5 square is ~7ft so 4 squares, corner to corner, is actually 28 feet which is 40% larger than indicated in the fireball spell description as opposed to 4 squares side to side.
Ehh i just use templates and rulers. No need for a silly grid when we just agree 1 inch is 5 feet. The grid is supposed to make movement and AOE simplier, it has failed. Everyone just gets handed the ruler at the start of their turn. It both acts as a handy “it’s X’s turn so shut up” signal and really isn’t complicated since the we use is one of those fancy swivel carpenter’s rulers. And to be honest grids make even less sense in online play. Most VTTs have a ruler option so as long as the DM sets the scale for the ruler correctly who the fuck needs a grid? Let the VTT tell you when you’ve run out of movement. Ya know, like every other turn based article game ever. Edit: edit, no seriously Warhammer and other war games were the origin of all of this and they have LONG AGO solved this problem with rulers and measuring tape. They haven’t bothered with grids and have no reason to do so. Just grab a measuring tape and a marker or just some tape. It takes like 3 minutes and 2 bucks.
I personally would argue that if you insist on using non-square circles on a grid, you should also use non-grid movement. Otherwise there are faster and slower paths from the center of a circle to it’s edge, which is weirder. The grid is a representation, not an exact simulation, either stick to it or replace it, but tweeking it so that you are effectively using two ways of conceptualising space at the same time overlapping will cause horrendous situations. Pythagoras is wrong in D&D 5e, and that’s ok, the game has enough math as is. Hexes however, are way better at striking a balance between easy to make rules for and intuitively realistic. A circle is a wobbly circle, and while a square is a little off it still works pretty well, and defaulting to circles makes more sense physically. The sleight differences in real distance per hex is far lower than with squares who have such an extreme case that even short distances have significant variation. I will make an exception. Squares make way more sense in a dungeon which is why D&D has used them since forever. Even D&D uses hexes when traveling through the wilderness, but since combat was originally concieved of as primarily happening in sqare rooms and coridors, squares made everything align with the environment. If you’re running a dungeon crawl, use squares. Otherwise considder hexes, or accept wonky non-eucledian movement and distance.
A related note on AOE based rules: the rules for how to handle target numbers vs strength are really stupid. Right now basically any AOE no matter the size or capability to hit has the same singular adjustment to their effect. A one time downgrade. So between a flash of fire right near you and a global scale wave of flame no difference. Even spells that go from a direct target to a one block attack. Additionally creatures that are bigger and would be affected by more than one tile of effect still only get hit once, and smaller creatures that would not be hit by the entire effect don’t get any bonus from that. Generally i switch ALL attacks/spells/anything into being a given “size of impact” and for each step larger than a single target a dice goes down one size based on the spell level standard. Generally i pair this base with all spells on “autohit” for base dice size, and if they choose a less reliable method the dice size increase. To hit, save 1/2, save or suck, adv/dis, and more all calculate in together. As such most aoe spells balance their drops in damage with worse reliability, and most attacks prefer the chance for extra damage and such. (At least in the base game) although, much like magical items, the actual balance rules of the game are more or less entirely ignored on over half of spells, items, CR, and more so… meh, its all relative. Things that restrict abilities to single target and such i generally just skip that subtext for, but you can also just say “only size 1” And yes, cones have always been strange, although at least now there is only one ° angle of them, there used to be many angles of cones, each with different rules
unless otherwise stated. ?- you are orgins of the conical area, but are not affected by its effects 1. from the origin draw a line away from you equal to the conical range. 2. at the end of the line draw two perpendicular lines, half the length of the cone range. 3. draw a line from the origin to both ends of the perpendicular lines. 4. all squares crossed by the lines or are within the triangle are considered within the area. thoughts ?
Funny enough 3rd edition was more focused on line and cone effects (even though they weren’t true cones), but gave several examples showing placement orientation and even scale. I concur 5th’s ruling is bloody frustrating trying to make everything spherical and limited to twenty feet, but 6th’s edition changes to dragonborn doesn’t inspire hope on this front either.
Fireball 20ft radius: 20*20*3,14 = 1256. Area of 1256 square feet. Fireball as ” 8 x 8 ” or 40ft by 40ft. 1600 square feet. Honestly, if anything, reduce to 35 * 35 and at least you hit 1225, which is closer, but there is a huge differences. Your square fireball has a very big flaw: From centre to the corner is NOT 20ft, it’s 30ft (or 28ft if you want to be pedantic). You could revamp almost all spells to turn into squares and solve it that way, but you want to calibrate your sizes.
One of the things I hated about 4e was how it required you to play on a grid. It broke immersion for me, and not everyone has a grid. My family never had a grid to play with and always played old D&D by using a whiteboard and measuring out length. That’s how 5e is designed now, and it makes it more accessible game design. Plus it allows for groups to use the superior hexes.
I’ve been trying to find the perfect way to combine square and hex grids. So far, what I’ve discovered is that you can turn a square grid into a hex grid by shifting every other row half a tile horizontally or every other column half a tile vertically. Thus, if you take a normal square grid and subdivide each tile into quarter tiles, then you can do hex movement by moving one full tile in one direction and then half a tile sideways. It even has both hex grid orientations. What I haven’t quite worked out is what movement costs should look like. The best I’ve come up with so far is to not have any special cost for hex movement, and instead to make diagonal movement cost 50% more than cardinal movement, and hex movement is just a combination of a half tile move cardinally and a half tile move diagonally. This isn’t a hex grid, though, but an octagonal grid.
I’ve watched this article 3 times and I don’t understand your point. It seems like you just have a problem with the wording of AoEs? Like, if Grease in 5E was worded to include Burst II within 60ft would you be okay with it? Unfortunately I haven’t played a lot of dnd so maybe I’m missing some of the nuances.
As someone who started with pathfinder, that’s one of my biggest complaints (that I’ll deal with)… Squares are squares, circles are squares, spheres are cubes, cylinders are rectangles, and cones are the most convoluted thing to figure out…. all because diagonals have the same distance as a cardinal
Though making every effect into simplified square shapes would make some things easier, this method’s downsides are easy to see as 1)it would either affect game balance by making square and round AoE effects affect the same area or you would need to rework many spells/effects 2)it would reduce the variety of AoE shapes, thus making combat less fun and less strategic 3)making cones into x by x square cubes just doesn’t make sense from a logical point of view, you are blasting from your wand/hand/mouth outwards unless you want to make them into lines which is just as bad
It’s not a mystery why the grid rules are poorly defined – they’re an optional rule. Of course, they’re optional the same way feats are optional, that is, they’re essentially the default choice of most players and groups, but still optional. That’s why AoE’s function the way they do – to accommodate as many styles of play as possible without forcing players to conform to a grid. No reason to be morally outraged about it. Play the way you want.
see where your wrong on this is the fact that depending on your play style traveling diagonally is 1.5 squares. but when 4e came out it killed that rule thus making it less of a dynamic game. also too having the different shapes represents real life. aerosol cans do not spray in a square or line they are a cone. D&D is half based on real life and half on fantasy.
Wait, wait. The rules in 5e weren’t written with grids in mind?! Did they forget 4e, 3/3.5e, AD&D 2e, AD&D 1e, Basic D&D (all versions)?! The phrase “Circles are Squares is incorrect”… a circle with a radius of 20 feet doesn’t have the same area as a square with 40 feet on a side… this is taught in geometry… and this sticking to math began in D&D (it started as an offshoot of a Strategy Game), and, if you’re correct, ended in 4th edition (with their easy to understand and use burst, wall, and blast) by violating geometry. Circle with radius of 4 =/= square with 8 on a side. Math: Pythagorean Theory Hypotenuse = Square Root of A^2 + B^2 = Square Root of 1^2 + 1^2 = Square Root of 1 + 1 = Square Root of 2 = 1.414 Squares Thus, while a square may be 5 feet by 5 feet, going across the square is in effect a distance of 7 feet. This is clearly demonstrated when one places a circle on top of a grid. The corners of the square the circle is in is not covered by the circle. Of course, the easiest thing to do is get rid of the grid entirely… and use rulers/templates instead when distance/movement is needed… “characters move 25 feet, on the battlemap, every inch is 5 feet”, thus, the character moves 5 inches on the battlemap, casts lightning bolt which is a line of 60 feet with 1 foot width… so convert feet to inches, then measure the distance the lightning bolt travels in a line then apply the affect to everything it affects… No wonky math, no violation of geometry… and is probably too close to tabletop strategy games that no one cares to do it because “this is a role playing game!
I remember reading the phb and dmg when 5e first came out and thinking they wanted us to play on a map without a grid and use rulers and templates and shit to move around. 5e is written in such a weird way that requires judgment calls no matter how you play. There just straight up isn’t a straight forward way to play the game. DND 5e aoe is barely functional imo, and it’s a testament to wotc marketing team that this game is popular at all, much less the most popular RPG by far in the market.
thing is, circles are smaller than squares. this isn’t that important at smaller radii, but once the radius starts getting larger, circles will actually not even touch the outer corners of a square with a side the same size as the circle’s diameter. Circle of Death for example will hit far fewer tiles as a circle than it would as a square. and I know you only lightly touched on it at the beginning of the article, but there are no rules against changing the orientation of your aoe. so yes, you can rotate the corners of a square to touch targets further away, or more importantly, NOT touch an ally that is a little too close to the fight.
The reason the square being treated like that is a bad idea is because its inaccurate and causes real design problems. For instance in your graphic a player could move faster by moving diagonally, multiplying their actual movement speed by roughly 1.5 as opposed to moving on any other axis This is why people prefer going off grid because a grid has limitations if you treat it as though it defines the space The grid is a guide no longer intended to base every game mechanic around. Notice how no language in the 5e rules refers to a grid, and speaks only in reference to actual distance. They often frame grids as optional. I treat it like a guide to serve as a visual indication of distance not as the end all be all You know what great rule I heard once? Having a tape measure near your battle map, and fucking measure when you want to know how far away something is. It takes two seconds and has no further implications for the game
Optional Diagonal rules is terrible. For instance, reach weapons. You have an enemy diagonal to you. 1 square in between both of you. If you try to use your 10ft reach weapon it won’t reach because they are technically 15ft away. But if you move one square up they are now in your face and you are within their 5ft reach and now you could provoke opportunity attack if you try to move after using your reach weapon. It’s an unnecessary headache. Just make circles be squares and everything is fixed.
I want to preface this by saying your game, your rules. If you like squares instead of circles all good by me, just make sure your players know how you’re ruling it beforehand to eliminate any argument at the table. That said a 20 foot radius circle isn’t a 8×8 chunk of squares. It covers 8 squares on the horizontal planes but not the vertical planes. You’re buffing the spell by ruling it this way. As long as you understand that and everyone is cool with it and it makes ruling easier for you I’m sure most players would understand and not care. I don’t agree simply because how many mages casting AoE spells do you really have in a session? Especially online every virtual tabletop you would use to play has tools to easily draw shapes, and it’s just as easy to draw a circle as a square. If you play in person than yes, it could be annoying but say you play on a grid, all you need to do is measure and cut some paper with your wizard before the session for each AoE spell. Pain in the ass I know but not that bad. Also not every session, only when he levels up or scribes new spells, which isn’t that often. IDK seems like a small problem with easy fixes that don’t involve making spells more powerful than they already are. Especially spells that are already extremely powerful like fireball.
As someone with a math background, saying circles can be represented as squares hurts. Pi does not equal 4. I like the crunchyness of objects partially within the spell effect. Can we pkease bring back fireballs that took up a certain volume, and if they were cast into a smaller space than a 20ft radius, they would depend outward?
Please stop spreading the misinformation that circles are squares in the 5e rules. A grid square represents 5 ft in that it has a 5 ft side length, not that ALL length measurements between two squares are 5 ft. The movement rules are what tell you to ignore diagonals, it has nothing to do with area of effect. It makes no sense why this would be the case if the core rules also state that a circular effect only needs to fill half of a square to include it.
Personally, I far prefer using geometrically accurate templates for my AoEs, and if I had players that were up for it I’d go fully gridless. The way I run my games is that the grid is mainly there for creatures in combat, but most world measurements use proper euclidian distances. A wall might be 7’ tall or a gap might be 12’ across, but I’ll round the movement required to scale the wall or jump the pit in combat up to the nearest 5’. It might seem like a pointless distinction at first glance, but a character with 12 strength can jump a 12’ gap without an ability check, but not a 15’ gap, even though the movement required is 15’ in both cases. I use the same method of rounding up for AoEs, as long as it’s covering a reasonable amount of a square then it’s included in the AoE since the grid is just an abstraction of where things really are.
I’m not gonna lie this article did not convince me that 4e wasn’t ‘too article game-y’. The solution to AoE spells not working on a grid is to not use a grid. Use theatre of the mind or if you want to use miniatures, just go all the way to Warhammer and use a tape measure. That way circles can be circles, squares can be squares, and players can move diagonally without causing an aneurysm.
Kobold: rags on Xanathar’s for saying to use contiguous dice to show AoEs at odd angles Also Kobold: praises 4e for saying to use contiguous squares to show AoEs at all angles Me: using 3.5 diagonals because having a cross-section of a sphere look like a circle visually makes more sense to the laymen I play with, and mentally makes more sense that you can’t use 20ft of diagonal movement to escape from a 20ft radius explosion.
Your argument only holds up IF you use battle map and grid. Things don’t explode in squares. Hex grid is actually better for battlemap. That is if you use grid in the first place. Squares are dumbest way to represent AOE. D&D is RPG first, not table top tactical game. If you want to make argument that D&D is more combat table top game, most of those don’t use grid either. Grid isn’t needed. If you use VTT, slapping a template on a grid is easy. So it is for physical map. Your whole grid argument is bad.
I know this is 9 month old. But I only recently decided to play elden ring. A friend of mine told me the bird xp farme. But I immediatly saw the mobs standing around giving +-2400xp with golden scarab I first used the ruins greatsword. Really really effective and safe to use, but it needs 2 or 3 casts if they use their shield for the red mobs. I tried starscourge sword, and Oh Lord, this is by far the best option ! It clears the whole area (- 2 or 3 mobs that stands too far) in 2 casts if you position yourself at the right spot. That’s around 20k xp per cast.
Currently farming to kill mogh, lvl 120 and i cannot stand the second phase, i cannot even dream of landing a hit, so i am just planning on killing him right before he does his nihil B.S, with mimic tear, enough points in either strenght or faith and the luckiest of runs to combine a stagger into a shackle without him activating his uno and then monkey assault him while he does his 2 swipes and nihil, hope it works cuz i spent a lot of time actually thinking it through
Where’s Gurranq’s Beast Claw? It’s kinda 360, large radius and high damage with mid FP consumption. Also, the Ultimate farming method is thus. Sacred Relic Sword + Shard of Alexander + Ritual Sword Talisman + Godfrey Icon. It will almost 1shot if not 1shot everything down the path. It makes it a 30″ run.