# Can you do a "diamond" shaped blast?



## tafkamhokie (Jun 20, 2008)

I had a situation come up in a recent game and I was not sure how to handle it.

The dragonborn cleric wanted to use his breath weapon on some orcs.  The breath weapon is a blast 3.  Normally, party positioning meant he would catch an ally in the blast.

But in the 4e spirit of "a square is a square is a square," he asked if he could have his 3x3 blast form on a diagonal.  See .pdf attachment diagram where:

A = ally
C = cleric
O = orc
hatched squares = proposed blast area

The first diagram shows a conventional blast, which would catch all four orcs, but one party member too.  The second diagram shows the blast he wanted to use...tilted 45 degrees to catch all four orcs but miss both allies.

The text of a blast attack says it fills an area adjacent to you that is a specified number of squares on a side.  But it never specifically says the area must be a square (as opposed to a diamond).

This is a case where common sense would seem to say you can't do this, but RAW says you can.

Has anyone seen anything official from WotC about this or have your own arguements why this should or should not be legal?


----------



## Andur (Jun 20, 2008)

I thought it stated on blasts that is had to share a common side with a square you are in.

Don't have books in front of me, but if that is indeed the case, then the answer would be no.


----------



## lukelightning (Jun 20, 2008)

No. For sake of speed and simplicity, you can't angle your blasts like that.

They are square, always.


----------



## Accersitus (Jun 20, 2008)

Don't think you can do that, since this would in addition to increasing 
the area of effect by 4 squares, remove some of the use for the 
epic feat spell accuracy.


----------



## nckestrel (Jun 20, 2008)

tafkamhokie said:
			
		

> I had a situation come up in a recent game and I was not sure how to handle it.
> 
> The dragonborn cleric wanted to use his breath weapon on some orcs.  The breath weapon is a blast 3.  Normally, party positioning meant he would catch an ally in the blast.
> 
> ...




Nope.  Why?  Look at your second example (the diamond) it is a 3x3 square, PLUS 4 more squares to make it a diamond.  A 3 square by 3 square area should not have a length across that is 5 squares long.  It can't partially meet the requirements and count. (IE. some lengths are 3 squares, but some are 5).

Tell him to spend more time on party cooperation and less on trying to break the rules.  Don't stand in the way of the blast.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 20, 2008)

As others have stated, you are adding area of effect and range to the power with a blast shaped like the one in the drawing. This changes the dimensions of the power so no. I wouldn't have a problem with a diagonal that was still 3 x 3 squares in area. (Oh no! cutting across a square!)


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jun 20, 2008)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> No. For sake of speed and simplicity, you can't angle your blasts like that.



Also, considering the non-euclidean geometry of 4E, the "square"-shaped blasts are actually circles. The diamond blast would look like a four-pointed star.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Mort_Q (Jun 20, 2008)

Andur said:
			
		

> I thought it stated on blasts that is had to share a common side with a square you are in.




It only needs to have a minimum of one adjacent square.

So: 
	
	



```
......
.XXX..
.XXX..
.XXX..
....C.
......
```

.... is legal too.


----------



## Andur (Jun 20, 2008)

Thanks Mort, I didn't look at the pdf (dreadful connection in this airport), and was unsure if what you cited was an example given.

Like everyone above said, i your blast 3 isn't a 3x3 square, it isn't legal.  (Mort's is a 3x3 diamond form the caster's point of view)


----------



## lukelightning (Jun 20, 2008)

Given all the slip, slide, shift, and salsa powers and effects in the game, even a small amount of coordination with your party members will allow you to get a good shot at the baddies.

Of course, those same baddies will be using _their_ powers to thwart you... but that's the fun of the game.


----------



## jaycrockett (Jun 20, 2008)

If you did want to allow cone-shaped blasts, they should encompass the same number of squares as a standard blast, in this case, 9.  So you would just need to chop the taper off that cone diagram.

Personally I'd leave it alone because a square shaped blast is alot faster to adudicate than a cone, and a cone is probably just as likely to hit party members as a square.  If you allow both then the player will be switching back and forth, trying to get the optimal coverage, and really bogging down play.  With the square, you can tell at a glace if it will work without movement.   In your example, it's clear that the dragonborn isn't on the front line so his blast isn't going to work.


----------



## LEHaskell (Jun 20, 2008)

It occurs to me that you could truncate your diamond blast at the third row.  This would: 1) preserve the 9-square area; 2) hit the areas you want; 3) simulate the cone shape people have been missing from breath weapons.

In fact, you could easily house rule that characters could choose to shape their blasts such that: blast n be either an n x n square (as currently ruled) or as a "stepped pyramid" of n levels.

....x....
...xxx...
..xxxxx..

For any blast n <6  this will have area n-squared, just like the square shape. And is still a reasonable approximation for 6 or 7.

Hmmm, as I think about it, this might be a good feat, too -- the ability to shape the blast as either of those shapes.  Dragonborn Improved Breath Control...



edited to properly define limits of analysis


----------



## erik_the_guy (Jun 20, 2008)

According to the rules: No
According to the DM: ?


----------



## Mort_Q (Jun 20, 2008)

erik_the_guy said:
			
		

> According to the rules: No
> According to the DM: ?





Well, the last part is true regardless of the answer to the first part.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 20, 2008)

Nobody has actually posted a rules quote that prevents this (so far).

So according to RAW, yes this is legal.

The number of squares is irrelevant. The shape merely has to be 3 squares on a side (which it is) and next to the caster (which it is).




Firecubes strike again!!!


----------



## Insignia (Jun 20, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Nobody has actually posted a rules quote that prevents this (so far).
> 
> So according to RAW, yes this is legal.



Unless you interpret "a 3-square-by-3-square area" as an area which is 3*3 squares.


----------



## Lucas Blackstone (Jun 20, 2008)

A 3 square by 3 square area is 9 squares. The second shape shown in the attached file above is more then the 3 square by 3 square areas shown in the PHB as the amount of area covered. This is just a misunderstanding of how the blast area works.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Jun 20, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Nobody has actually posted a rules quote that prevents this (so far).
> 
> So according to RAW, yes this is legal.
> 
> ...







Pretty funny, but I think the diagram on page 272 shows exactly what happens when you shoot a blast 3 diagonally. It looks like a 3x3 box. It doesn't look like the diagram in that PDF.

Also, the rules specify (as you pointed out) 3 squares on a side. The area filled in that diagram does not have *any* sides; or rather, it's a collection of squares forming an area with a bunch of sides, each side 1 square. 

Fails on (at least) two levels.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 20, 2008)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> Pretty funny, but I think the diagram on page 272 shows exactly what happens when you shoot a blast 3 diagonally. It looks like a 3x3 box. It doesn't look like the diagram in that PDF.
> 
> Also, the rules specify (as you pointed out) 3 squares on a side. The area filled in that diagram does not have *any* sides; or rather, it's a collection of squares forming an area with a bunch of sides, each side 1 square.
> 
> Fails on (at least) two levels.




This is 3 squares on a side, the squares just happen to be turned 45 degrees.

The attached diagram is (literally) also 3 squares by 3 squares.


Still waiting for a rules quote folks.

.
.
.
.
.

Note: I know how WotC customer service will answer this and I understand the intent, but so far, nobody has posted actual rules to deny it. It's all been opinion and narrow interpretation.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 20, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This is 3 squares on a side, the squares just happen to be turned 45 degrees.



Squares cannot be turned 45 degrees - they wouldn't be *S*quares anymore (notice the difference between squares and Squares).

In other words:
Trying to do this will create a temporary local dimensional disturbance which will suck the blaster into the far realms


----------



## Spido (Jun 20, 2008)

How's about this?  (see pdf)


----------



## tafkamhokie (Jun 20, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Note: I know how WotC customer service will answer this and I understand the intent, but so far, nobody has posted actual rules to deny it. It's all been opinion and narrow interpretation.




Probably the closest we are ever going to get to a rule quote is:



> ...blast 3, which means the power affects a 3-square by 3-square area adjacent to you.




It would be helpful if it said something like "is exactly 3 squares across in every linear direction."  Since the 3x3 diamond is 5 squares across in the middle, that would rule it out.  But it doesn't say that.  It just says an area adjacent to you that is a specified number of squares on a side.

Now you can, by pure mathematics, extrapolate that a "3-square by 3-square area" must inherently have a total area of 9 squares...and the diagonal blast has an area of 14 squares.  But that is the only pure RAW reason I can find for why it won't work.


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 20, 2008)

Wouldn't:


```
. . X . .
. X X X .
X X X X X
. X X X .
. . X . .
```

Be a 3 by 3 square??


----------



## bardolph (Jun 20, 2008)

The easiest way to make a diamond-shaped blast is to rotate the battle mat by 45 degrees.

Alternatively, you can move yourself to the corner of the battle mat.  This is probably easier than rotating the mat itself.


----------



## Lucas Blackstone (Jun 20, 2008)

Since people are twisting the intent of the blast shape, I suppose twisting has to be done a bit more to get them to see the light.

The following is the definition of side.

Side -	one of the surfaces forming the outside of or bounding a thing, or one of the lines bounding a geometric figure. 

This is the blast area of a power as defined by the PHB.

Blast: A blast fills an area adjacent to you that is a
specified number of squares on a side. For example,
the wizard power thunderwave is a blast 3, which
means the power affects a 3-square-by-3-square area
adjacent to you. The blast must be adjacent to its origin
square, which is a square in your space. The origin
square is not affected by the blast. A blast affects a
target only if the target is in the blast’s area and if there
is line of effect from the origin square to the target.

So since you can CLEARLY see one of the sides of is well over the 3 squares ( in this case) limit, it does not meet the parameters.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 20, 2008)

Lucas Blackstone said:
			
		

> Since people are twisting the intent of the blast shape, I suppose twisting has to be done a bit more to get them to see the light.
> 
> The following is the definition of side.
> 
> ...




That is not a side.

It is a diagonal. From your own definition of a side, a side is an outside boundary, not an interior one. There is no diagonal limitation in the rules (TMK).

You seem to be strongly opposed to a literal reading of the rules in this case.

"Blast: A blast fills an area adjacent to you that is a specified number of squares on a side. For example, the wizard power thunderwave is a blast 3, which means the power affects a 3-square-by-3-square area
adjacent to you."

3 square by 3 square (note: not 9 squares, 3x3). Check.

"The blast must be adjacent to its origin square, which is a square in your space."

Adjacent to origin. Check.

"The origin square is not affected by the blast."

Origin not affected. Check.

"A blast affects a target only if the target is in the blast’s area and if there is line of effect from the origin square to the target."

In area and line of effect. Check.


We are definitely twisting the intent. I agree with that statement of yours. But, we are looking at RAW here, not RAI.


----------



## Lucas Blackstone (Jun 20, 2008)

Side isn't limited to just the outside of any given geometric figure in question. There's more to the definition of side then just the outside of it. None of these sides can be longer then three squares. If it was limited to only the outside I would agree.


----------



## baberg (Jun 20, 2008)

Ok, looks like you found something for the errata.  The intent is obviously for the Blast to be a non-close Burst that must have an adjacent square to the person who originated it, but since "side" is ill-defined you could do your diamond situation just fine.


----------



## webrunner (Jun 20, 2008)

The diamond is not 3 squares to a side.

it is one square to a side and has 20 sides


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 20, 2008)

It's all new diamond shreddies!


----------



## Ziana (Jun 20, 2008)

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2008/06/alttext_0618

_Posted: 12:48 a.m. by Goku1440 I found an awesome loophole! On page 242 it says "Add oregano to taste!" It doesn't say how much oregano, or what sort of taste! You can add as much oregano as you want! I'm going to make my friends eat infinite oregano and they'll have to do it because the recipe says so!_

Anyone insisting that their diamond interpretation is valid fails basic comprehension of English.

WotC have stated that they wrote the books in colloquial English because they're rules for a game; it's not legalese to intended withstand determined rules-lawyering.

It's your game and you can do whatever you want. Insist that your blast effect extends infinitely in all directions due to Zeno's Paradox if you like, or that it can be tilted at any arbitrary angle in 4 dimensions, so intersecting only targets you declare. But for sake of simplicity and expedient gameplay, the designers reduced area attacks to straightforward squares on a battlemap. If that's too difficult to grasp then I seriously wonder what sort of enjoyment you could get out of an RPG.


----------



## Lucas Blackstone (Jun 21, 2008)

It's all good Ziana. It's not like KarinsDad doesn't know it's not intended and even really arguing that it be allowed in games. We were simply debating if it was allowed by RAW. At least I think this is the case. Sorry if I put words in your mouth KarinsDad.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 21, 2008)

Lucas Blackstone said:
			
		

> It's all good Ziana. It's not like KarinsDad doesn't know it's not intended and even really arguing that it be allowed in games. We were simply debating if it was allowed by RAW. At least I think this is the case. Sorry if I put words in your mouth KarinsDad.




Yup, it's all good.

At least you did not say that I "fail basic comprehension of English" or my "rigid, literal-mindedness is unable to grasp the intended meaning of the rules" or that you "wonder what sort of enjoyment I could get out of an RPG". 

Some people get too wrapped around the axle.


----------



## Keltheos (Jun 21, 2008)

Ziana said:
			
		

> WotC have stated that they wrote t...riting to their target audience!!  ;)  :D  :D


----------



## Chocobo (Jun 21, 2008)

The shape in question is not any sort of square.  

A square is a 4-sided shape with 90 degree angles on the corners and all sides of equal length.

The shape in question is a 20-sided shape with 90 degree angles on the corners and all sides of equal length.

4 != 20

Therefore, it is not a square.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Jun 21, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This is 3 squares on a side, the squares just happen to be turned 45 degrees.
> 
> The attached diagram is (literally) also 3 squares by 3 squares.




Nope. It doesn't have any sides; it's just a collection of individual blocks.



> Still waiting for a rules quote folks.




See the diagram on page 272, which shows what happens when you shoot a close blast 3 on the diagonal.



> so far, nobody has posted actual rules to deny it. It's all been opinion and narrow interpretation.




See the diagram on page 272, which shows what happens when you shoot a close blast 3 on the diagonal.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 21, 2008)

The game is complex enough for newcomers, and thankfully WotC with 4E are trying to appeal to a broader audience so that the game has a future. Pointless rules-lawyering and insisting that extreme interpretations are correct simply on the basis that they "aren't contrary to RAW", despite clear examples of intent in the book needlessly complicate the issue. That's the sort of obsessive behavior Wired recently lampooned, for good reason. It's the kind of thing that drives off new players; who wants to get bogged down in endless debates over trivialities? 

There's a simple and direct answer to the original poster's question, and that's all that's necessary.


----------



## TiwazTyrsfist (Jun 21, 2008)

Seriously, go look at the COMBAT CHAPTER of the freaking PHB.

Chapter 9, P. 264 - 295
In particular, p. 272, 281.

You will see demonstrations and diagrams of how you can use the blasts.  You will notice there are NO diagonal diamond shapes shown.  Only square justified/oriented to the grid lines.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 21, 2008)

TiwazTyrsfist said:
			
		

> Seriously, go look at the COMBAT CHAPTER of the freaking PHB.
> 
> Chapter 9, P. 264 - 295
> In particular, p. 272, 281.
> ...




The RAW crowd knows this.  They just don't care.  They are quite willing to ignore intent if it let's them have pedantic arguements.  

I see 4e will be no different than 3e in that regard.


----------



## Khaim (Jun 21, 2008)

Well, due to the new distance metric, the world cares about the direction of the lines on the grid. Given that, you can't just turn something 45 degrees like you can in the real world- it changes the geometry!


----------



## Torg Smith (Jun 21, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This is 3 squares on a side, the squares just happen to be turned 45 degrees.
> 
> The attached diagram is (literally) also 3 squares by 3 squares.
> 
> ...




Ok I have the rules for you.

DMG P7 in section Battle Grid it clearly says a square on the grid is 1 inch square. 

PHB page 272 in the shaded area titled Areas of Effect sub section Blast as quote:
A blast fills an area adjacent to you that is a specified number of squares on a side.

This most clearly states that the area is of squares that is 1 inch grid on your battle map. The only way you can rotate the area 45 degrees is if you cut out the 3” by 3” area of your battle map and rotate it. Otherwise you are clearly in violation of the rules as written.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 21, 2008)

Caliban said:
			
		

> The RAW crowd knows this.  They just don't care.  They are quite willing to ignore intent if it let's them have pedantic arguements.
> 
> I see 4e will be no different than 3e in that regard.




Ditto for the commentary with no intent other than to disparage others crowd.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 21, 2008)

Torg Smith said:
			
		

> This most clearly states that the area is of squares that is 1 inch grid on your battle map. The only way you can rotate the area 45 degrees is if you cut out the 3” by 3” area of your battle map and rotate it. Otherwise you are clearly in violation of the rules as written.




Clearly?

If it were clear, the discussion would not have come up.

It's amazing how some people interpret the same text in the book as one and only one valid interpretation, and other people can see multiple interpretations from the same words.


----------



## Mithreinmaethor (Jun 21, 2008)

Some say interpret others say twist.  People will go out of their way to try and interpret/twist what they read to A make things the way they want them to be or B just to cause an argument/discussion.

WOTC has taken the KISS (Keep it Simple Stupid) principle for 4th edition and people continue to try and make it much more complicated than it is.

Also refer to Ockham's Razor.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 21, 2008)

The burden is not on the authors of the D&D books to anticipate every possible absurd misreading of the rules. It is only to make a set of consistent and easily understood rules that allow players to use them as the basis for enjoyable and entertaining game sessions. Any REASONABLE person should be able to grasp how to apply the rules without much difficulty.

The rules aren't perfect and there are problems. These problem areas should be discussed so that people can get feedback on the best way to deal with them in practice. These discussions and their results can be forwarded to the authors to inform them of areas needing improvement or errata.

However, how area effect attack areas should be dealt with is not a problem. This is a straightforward section in the rules, and numerous examples have been made in this thread showing how they should be understood, and why that interpretation is reasonable.

The RPG community does not benefit from rules-lawyers who strive to pick apart even the most mundane aspect of the books to satisfy their need to generate dispute and discord. They may get their jollies from arguing about trivial things, but this only serves to paint rpg players in a bad light. It's an embarrassment and poisonous to the community. If we want to welcome new players and help them grasp the concepts of the game quickly and easily, then we should provide straightforward answers to questions.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 21, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Ditto for the commentary with no intent other than to disparage others crowd.




I see you don't disagree with my statement though.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 21, 2008)

Caliban said:
			
		

> I see you don't disagree with my statement though.




I ignored the content your statement. It had nothing to do with the rules discussion. I only commented on your intent.

Didn't you used to have me on your ignore list? Can I be back on it? I don't want to be incentivized to come up with witty comebacks when you prefer to discuss the posters as opposed to what they post. I really would prefer to discuss the topic at hand (which we are getting off of).


----------



## Lurker37 (Jun 21, 2008)

As I understand it, the diagonal version is illegal because some of the affected squares are more than 3 squares from the origin.

And I'm assuming it isn't in the RAW because no-one tried to rotate the areas in playtesting. More errata, oh joy.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 21, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I ignored the content your statement. It had nothing to do with the rules discussion. I only commented on your intent.




How can you reliably divine my intent merely from my written text?    I thought a major contention of the RAW viewpoint was that such a thing could not be done. 




> Didn't you used to have me on your ignore list? Can I be back on it? I don't want to be incentivized to come up with witty comebacks when you prefer to discuss the posters as opposed to what they post. I really would prefer to discuss the topic at hand (which we are getting off of).




*shrug*  I didn't respond to you or directly refer to you in any way in my initial post.  You are the one who chose to respond to my post with your "witty comeback".  You are the one who is now discussing the poster (rather than what was posted), which is what you are accusing me of.  Ironic, some might say. (Others might describe it otherwise, but I prefer not to dwell on such things.)

If you would prefer to discuss the topic at hand, then I cordially suggest you do so, rather than waste your time replying to me.  

Since my simple statements seem to be upsetting you on some level, I apologize for causing you distress.   (Not that I want to make any assumptions about your state of mind based on your written word, of course.  You may have been enlightened and invigorated instead of upset, in which case: kudos.)

But I don't apologize for my statements, as I believe they are accurate regarding the general "RAW" contingent, even if they may not apply to certain individuals within that august body of sophisticated and detail oriented debaters. 


With all due respect,

Caliban


----------



## Hussar (Jun 21, 2008)

How exactly can you rotate bases?

Nothing on the battlemap can be outside it's base.  You cannot take a 3x3 monster, rotate it 45 degrees and say that it reaches further than before.  A 3x3 base monster (or whatever) must always line up with the lines on the battlemap.

Why would area of effect spells be different?

Nothing in the game allows you to do this.  Yes, there may very well be no specific exact rule that disallows it, but, considering there are numerous rules that completely fail to work if you do allow it, I'm pretty sure you can disallow it even without specific text to the contrary.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 21, 2008)

Lurker37 said:
			
		

> As I understand it, the diagonal version is illegal because some of the affected squares are more than 3 squares from the origin.




I think you are thinking of a burst (for which you are correct).

We are discussing a blast (which has different rules governing its behavior).


----------



## Ahglock (Jun 21, 2008)

Mithreinmaethor said:
			
		

> Some say interpret others say twist.  People will go out of their way to try and interpret/twist what they read to A make things the way they want them to be or B just to cause an argument/discussion.
> 
> WOTC has taken the KISS (Keep it Simple Stupid) principle for 4th edition and people continue to try and make it much more complicated than it is.
> 
> Also refer to Ockham's Razor.




Actually I'd say WOTC has taken a Set your phasers to suck principle(yeah SYPTS isn't a cool acronym) with a large amount of oversimplification.  What the RAW crowd frequently are trying to do is shake a little bit of suck of there game when the simplification becomes an oversimplification.

So what does the player want to do in this situation, oh yeah use his breath weapon in a way so he does not hit the other characters.  Totally broken or cool, I'm falling on the cool side of this one.  So yeah I'd prefer a reading of the rules that allowed the cool.   In my game I'd likely require some kind of stunt check but I have no problem with the premise of trying to make a diamond shape breath weapon.  

4e D&D reminds me a lot my opinion of 4e shadowrun a huge change in the system mechanics, which has some great core ideas behind it.  And maybe in 5e they will get it right, or Advanced 4e maybe.  I'll still play and run both since I do like a lot of the core system premises, but it could be a whole heck of a lot better.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 21, 2008)

There is no discussion; there's a simple and intellectually honest reading of the rules, and there's picking a fight with people in order to satisfy one's ego.

The rules don't have to prevent this. They do not have to account for all possible twisting or misunderstanding or the rules. They merely have to show what is the correct or intended way to implement a game feature. In the case of calculating a blast area, they provide clear visual examples in addition to a straightforward definition. The burden of proof is on those who assert that their absurd twisting of the rules is in fact correct; not that the rules fail to discount it.

4E encourages the use of battle grids to provide a visual reference for combat, and make determining things like line-of-sight, and areas of spell effects easy. 

For sake of simplification, they make diagonal movement equivalent to straight movement on the grid. The PHB only refers to movement in this manner; it doesn't describe treating anything else on the battlegrid diagonally: not turning creatures or players 45º, not rotating spell areas, and certainly not arbitrarily deciding to count squares diagonally to determine an area.

A blast is, by PHB definition, a 3-square-by-3-square area. 

Is the diagonal form on the grid originally presented a 3x3 area?

1a A 3 square x 3 square area consists of 3 columns and 3 rows
1b By simple math, an area constituting 3 columns and 3 rows has 9 constituent squares. Each row consists of 3 squares, and there are 3 rows, per the definition.
1c From the figure, there is an checkerboard pattern of squares that appears to constitute 3 diagonal lines by 3 diagonal lines, *with an intervening four squares between them*. 
1d The figure encompasses more squares than allowed for per the definition.
1e The figure is not a 3 square by 3 square area.

```
. . X . .
. X o X .
X o X o X
. X o X .
. . X . .

o = intervening square.
```
2a A 3 square x 3 square area consists of 3 columns and 3 rows
2b The distance from one corner to the opposite corner must consist of 3 squares, one for each row and column. Any additional intervening squares would not be consistent with 2a.
2c The figure presented has *five squares from "corner" to "corner"*. 
2d The figure is not a 3 square by 3 square area.

```
. . 1 . .
. X 2 X .
1 2 3 4 5
. X 4 X .
. . 5 . .
```
From 1 & 2, the figure is not a 3 square by 3 square area.
From 2, this is in fact a 5 square by 5 square area, with 3 squares removed from each corner. That is not consistent with the PHB definition.

WotC provided a simplified method to deal with diagonal movement on the battlegrid, to help make the game more accessible to newcomers as part of their new design philosophy. Some may agree with this, some may not. The effects of this philosophy will be seen in years to come as the D&D community either thrives or dwindles.

One of the consequences of this particular choice is some minor mathematical incongruities, that largely pose no problem for people _who just want to play the game and have fun_. One is that it takes just as many steps to take a wide diagonal detour, as to move in a straight line on the grid. Another consequence is that this fact can be abused by those who would seek to bend the rules in ways justified nowhere in the books. Since the books are written for "players, not lawyers", WotC had to trust that its customers have some modest amount of common sense, and so will apply a little thinking in applying the rules and considering what's is or is not consistent or intended.

People who argue "the rules say nothing against it so it's legal" regarding absurd misreadings of the rules do a disservice to the player community and help ruin this game for others.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 21, 2008)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> So what does the player want to do in this situation, oh yeah use his breath weapon in a way so he does not hit the other characters.  Totally broken or cool, I'm falling on the cool side of this one.  So yeah I'd prefer a reading of the rules that allowed the cool.



By all means if the players and DM want to do something that suits them or their situation, that's entirely up to them. The first rule is having fun isn't it?

That doesn't mean one needs the official rules to "allow the cool"; they already do. *Everything is permitted*. Throw out any rules you don't like, or make up new ones. But the question here was addressing how the PHB indicates spell areas are treated; not what interesting house rules could be applied.



> In my game I'd likely require some kind of stunt check but I have no problem with the premise of trying to make a diamond shape breath weapon.



Certainly it's great for allowing for player creativity and improving the "realism" of the game. I kind of liked Spido's solution. You could even apply 50% damage to all partially filled squares. Antialiasing. 

However, I hope the players will be equally happy when the ancient black dragon decides its breath weapon can emerge at a diagonal, extending 9 squares at its farthest, instead of 5.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 21, 2008)

Ziana said:
			
		

> People who argue "the rules say nothing against it so it's legal" regarding absurd misreadings of the rules do a disservice to the player community and help ruin this game for others.




I agree with pretty much everything you've said.  

Just realize that many of the RAW crowd really aren't interested in anything other than a debate over minutae (their personal reasons for this vary - some will argue RAW in one debate, but designer intent in another).  By argueing minutae with them, you've already given them what what they want.  They'll usually ignore everything else in your post after the RAW debate, as they consider it irrelevent.

That is why (in my humble opinion) some individuals ( *DEFINITELY NOT KARINSDAD WHO IS A SCHOLAR AND A GENTLEMAN AND ALWAYS THE SOUL OF REASONED DEBATE* ) seem to get so irritated when they see a post that doesn't treat this style of debate with the respect they think it deserves - especially if you refuse to include any RAW arguements in it for them to focus on.   

They see it as a personal attack on them, since they seem to feel that is the only valid way to debate the rules, so if you disrespect that you disrespect them.  (Disclaimer: The "RAW crowd" as I call it is not a monolithic entity, individuals within it may have their own unique motivations and points of view.  They are all delicate snowflakes.  Please don't hurt me.)

So try not to take it too personally if they don't seem "get" your point of view (or seem actively hostile to it).   I used to do that and had to force myself to take an extended vacation from the boards.  

I like a good rules debate - it can enlighten and educate.  I just don't think RAW debates are good rules debates when taken to the extremes that they usually are.  I also find them extremely boring (even when I'm one of the participants), so I tend to discuss other things.  (Which probably says more about me than it does about them.)


----------



## N0Man (Jun 21, 2008)

So what's that saying?  "Make something foolproof, and someone will build a better fool?"  Sometimes a plain simple description complete with illustration just isn't enough.

The thing that baffles me is that there doesn't even seem to be anyone who seems to be unclear as to what the rules as intended are, but simply want to argue for argument's sake what some person might possibly misinterpret the rules as and how reasonable or unreasonable that misinterpretation is.  Is that accurate, or do I assume too much?

Anyway, my attachment shows what I believe is a totally analogous argument to what is being made, which I think illustrates the absurdity.


----------



## Torg Smith (Jun 21, 2008)

As I do not post much here I should say my post was more playful than serious. That is why I placed the wink at the end of it.

To throw another wrench in to the discussion is that the rules for blast are on 3 pages in the PHB.

Page 56; In the section Close subsection Close blast [number]:
A close blast power allows you to target creatures or objects within an adjacent area that is the indicated number of squares on a side. *See page 272 for how to determine the area of the blast.*

Page 271; In the shaded section Close Attack subsection Origin Square it just talks about line of effect from the origin to target.

Page 272; 
1)	In the shaded section Area of Effect subsection Blast:
A blast fills an area adjacent to you that is a specified number of squares on a side.
2)	*There is an image showing to blast areas.*

Now when I first read these things and looked at the image, I got the impression that the origin square had to be lined up with the center of the side of the blast area adjacent to the origin square. I saw this as saying there were eight adjacent squares around the origin square. If the adjacent square shared a side with the origin square you map the blast area like it is in the top part of the image. If the adjacent square was one of the corner squares you map the blast area like it is in the lower part of the image.


```
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
|     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
|     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
|     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
|     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
|     |  X  |  X  |  X  |  X  |  X  |     |
|     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
|     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
|     |  X  |  X  |  X  |  X  |  X  |     |
|     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
|     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
|     |  X  |  X  |  X  |  X  |  X  |     |
|     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
|     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
|     |  X  |  X  |  X  |  X  |  X  |     |
|     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
|     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
|     |  X  |  X  |  X  |  X  |  X  |     |
|     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
|     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
|  A  |  B  |  C  |  D  |     |     |     |
|     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
```

I should preface that while I only represent 4 positions on the code section I am referring to the relative position that is representative of all squares around the blast area.

From what I have read of the web at different sites it seems most people are reading the all (A, B, C, and D) positions are valid for the origin square. The way I first read it was that only positions A and D where valid origin squares as the image on page 272 presented it this way. Another reason for this thought was that this was to represent an effect that originated for the caster so it would make sense to put the origin square in the center of the edge of the blast area.

I have decided to do the first reading of having all (A, B, C, and D) be valid origin squares. Also that the squares have to be aligned with the battle map as I do not want to spend the additional time of trying to calculate what is inside the area if it is rotated and whether or not a creature should take partial damage as its square is not fully inside the blast area.


----------



## Dormain1 (Jun 21, 2008)

All this "discussion" is due to the 1-1 scale

if a fighter can move 3 diagonal and attack why can't a blast effect the same area, you can't have one set of rules for one and not the other

WotC were the ones to introduce the 1-1 scale, I just think it would be easier to use hexes  

sure the players may hit more enemies or they may miss their allies but then so do the monsters


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 21, 2008)

N0Man said:
			
		

> The thing that baffles me is that there doesn't even seem to be anyone who seems to be unclear as to what the rules as intended are, but simply want to argue for argument's sake what some person might possibly misinterpret the rules as and how reasonable or unreasonable that misinterpretation is.  Is that accurate, or do I assume too much?




It's called discussion for discussion sake, not argument for argument's sake (some people really get confused over that and in some cases, have for many years now).

It's how synergy of ideas are spread amongst the gaming community.

Nobody is really discussing this to convince anyone else of anything. Some of us are discussing this to get that synergy moving and to explore possibilities. Other people are meta-discussing these types of discussions (whatever floats their boat).

For example, is there an easy way to rotate the area and make the game more fun? Sure:


```
. . . . . .
. x O O x x
. . x O x .
. . B x C .
. . . A . .
```

A casts his close burst diagonally. It's just not a square. It's more like a cone. The "3x3 blast" is still 9 squares. From a plausibility standpoint, it makes more sense than the current RAW rules of square shape blasts that somehow do not actually start at an origin point and move outwards, instead are just a super simplified square plopped down on the grid.

And, such a rotation works at at all sizes. The number of squares is always the same (if the cone is on an axis). 1 long = 1, 2 long = 4, 3 long = 9, 4 long = 16, etc.

It would not have hurt WotC in any way to allow blasts like this. People who need super simple rules (which in reality, there are very few people who do) could ignore it. The rest of us could be having more fun.

Is it a reasonable "house rule"? Of course. People should not be handcuffed into the written RAW as the only way to have fun.


----------



## Torg Smith (Jun 21, 2008)

Now if you are going with the cone then you should be able to control the expansion. The following is a cone of nine squares and you could take a straight line of nine squares.

```
..x..
.xxx.
.xxx.
..x..
..x..
```


----------



## Torg Smith (Jun 21, 2008)

On a lighter side, I call this blast the help your buddies out blast. 

```
......
.xxxx.
.x..x.
.xxx..
..O...
```


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 21, 2008)

Torg Smith said:
			
		

> Now if you are going with the cone then you should be able to control the expansion. The following is a cone of nine squares and you could take a straight line of nine squares.
> 
> ```
> ..x..
> ...




Your cone is fine, but it's not simple. People would quickly get confused as to how wide it could be made, how long, etc. as they try to vary it. For example, why is the extra square at the bottom and not the top? Etc.

The advantages of the one I illustrated are that it always works the same and has the same number of squares as the norm, regardless of blast size.

The disadvantage of the one I illustrated is that it is limited to an orthogonal axis (when going diagonally, one should just use the square in the book).

There is another orthogonal / diagonal half cone that also can be used. 


```
x x x x .
x x x . . 
x x . . .
A . . . .
```

An issue of the half cone is that the number of squares vary from the norm. 1 = 2, 2 = 5, 3 = 9, 4 = 14, 5 = 19, etc. But, a player of a Wizard or Cleric probably wouldn't mind that, just to get the versatility of using a half cone. A DM might mind the 1=2 for a size 1 (course, that could be adjusted easily enough back to 1).


----------



## silentounce (Jun 21, 2008)

N0Man said:
			
		

> So what's that saying?  "Make something foolproof, and someone will build a better fool?"  Sometimes a plain simple description complete with illustration just isn't enough.
> 
> The thing that baffles me is that there doesn't even seem to be anyone who seems to be unclear as to what the rules as intended are, but simply want to argue for argument's sake what some person might possibly misinterpret the rules as and how reasonable or unreasonable that misinterpretation is.  Is that accurate, or do I assume too much?
> 
> Anyway, my attachment shows what I believe is a totally analogous argument to what is being made, which I think illustrates the absurdity.




 

Since OotS isn't upgrading to 4e would you like to start your own version for us?  I think it has great potential.  Order of the Grid, maybe?


----------



## Torg Smith (Jun 21, 2008)

KarinsDad,

Your expansion was increase one square in width each square out. My example was increase one square in width every two squares out. I added the final square out as I doubt many players would want to lose that one square of area.

Edit: A post got in before my post so I wanted to clarify my post was in response to KarinsDad.


----------



## Ahglock (Jun 21, 2008)

Ziana said:
			
		

> There is no discussion; there's a simple and intellectually honest reading of the rules, and there's picking a fight with people in order to satisfy one's ego.




The only people picking a fight here are people like you.  No one has disagreed with what the writers intended for this rule.  Some have pointed out that a literal interpretation without intent can allow this.  If you do not want to get into a RAW discussion then don't.  Insulting those who are in that discussion is picking a fight, discussing RAW isn't.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 21, 2008)

Torg Smith said:
			
		

> Your expansion was increase one square in width each square out. My example was increase one square in width every two squares out. I added the final square out as I doubt may players would want to lose that one square of area.




Your idea is fine, it's just not simple and intuitive. My model just goes up diagonal lines. Yours is more jagged and can have a corner case of different numbers of extra squares left over at the end of the cone. Let's take your example up to 4 squares:


```
.xxx.
xxxxx
.xxx.
.xxx.
..x..
..x..
```

That looks ok, but one has to remember it is 3 squares on the last line and not 5.

How about your 2 case:


```
.xx..
..x..
..x..
```

The third row has an even number of squares in it, so it is not centered.


Your model works so so. But, it might be just as confusing to some people as rounded off square area effects of 3E because it does not just move up the diagaonals. It's a step function instead.

The idea is to come up with simple areas, not non-intuitive ones. The idea behind yours is simple, but the implementation is less simple, requires people to count out squares, and it has corner cases (at the end of the cone) which are non-intuitive and different each time.

My idea was a simple up the diagonal line triangle. No special corner cases. No counting 1 1 3 3 5 5, etc. No you get two rows of a given max width for some cones, you don't for others.

Your idea is more problematic in actual use.

Note: I'm not trying to give you a hard time here. I'm just pointing out that your model is not an especially good one for gaming unless you game with math geeks such as myself.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 21, 2008)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> The only people picking a fight here are people like you.  No one has disagreed with what the writers intended for this rule.  Some have pointed out that a literal interpretation without intent can allow this.  If you do not want to get into a RAW discussion then don't.  Insulting those who are in that discussion is picking a fight, discussing RAW isn't.




Not to get off topic too much, but you won't win this one. People who want to rag on the people who discuss RAW will continue to do so and will continue to think that it is not only fine, but important for them to do so. It's almost as if they think that they are doing a gaming community service by doing so (real gamers vs. rules lawyers or some such).

They do not understand that they are the problem, not the people discussing the rules. They will probably never understand that and I do not ever recall one being smart enough to realize their mistake and apologize.

Of those 7 or so such posts so far in this thread, only one actually then went back to the actual rules discussion at hand. It's the nature of the beast. They don't like RAW discussions, so their reaction is to attack and insult the poster instead of just moving on to the next thread.

You won't change it, but thanks for giving it a shot.


----------



## Zimri (Jun 21, 2008)

*so then what I have gathered*

The new diamond shaped shreddies I see advertised are completely different from the old square shreddies that used to be sold, and aren't just a marketing ploy because squares and diamonds are completely different


----------



## rhm001 (Jun 21, 2008)

Torg Smith said:
			
		

> Now if you are going with the cone then you should be able to control the expansion. The following is a cone of nine squares and you could take a straight line of nine squares.
> 
> ```
> ..x..
> ...




I would allow players to "turn the square," but it should be the same size, and it should trade one covered square for an extra square of distance, like this:


```
.  .  .  .  .
             .  .  x  .  .
             .  x  x  x  .
             .  x  x  x  .
             .  .  x  .  .
             .  .  C  .  .
                (Caster)
```


----------



## Ahglock (Jun 21, 2008)

Zimri said:
			
		

> The new diamond shaped shreddies I see advertised are completely different from the old square shreddies that used to be sold, and aren't just a marketing ploy because squares and diamonds are completely different




Yeah totally, one is at a 45 degree angle one isn't.  And don' try to pick one up and turn it cause that would be cheatin, and you don't want to be low down dirty cheater do ya.


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 21, 2008)

Claiming that the rotated version is wrong "because it affects more than 9 squares" is stuffing words in to the rules's mouth. It says "3 squares on a side". The diagonal has 3 squares on a side.

Claiming that the diagonal has 20 sides is quite a stretch as well. Anyone proposing rotation understands that the diagonal has 4 sides and is marking squares off according to the rotated orientation and the rule that says "three squares on a side".


----------



## Ziana (Jun 21, 2008)

> Claiming that the rotated version is wrong "because it affects more than 9 squares" is stuffing words in to the rules's mouth. It says "3 squares on a side". The diagonal has 3 squares on a side.



Please see my post above. The diamond presented is not a 3 by 3 figure, it mathematically has properties that make it, by definition, not an area of 3 rows by 3 columns.

Additionally, as I previously stated, it is not the rules' or the authors' problem to attempt to address every possible demented misinterpretation. "The rules do not say you can't light the battle mat on fire and declare victory that way. It doesn't! Therefore it's legal!"

Rather, the rules describe the area a spell consists of, and provide multiple visual examples. They say what to do and how to do it. The burden is on you to show where the rules state you should count diagonally on alternating rows and create a much larger geometric figure than is described by the rules. If you're unwilling or unable to grasp the intent of the rules, then I submit that a RPG rulebook written in plain English is not for you. 

A 10x10 burst such as Maelstrom of Chaos covers an area of 100 squares, less the wizard. If you create a diamond figure of 10 parallel lines by 10 lines, and count the squares between those lines as well, what's the total area it covers?

The diamond is not a simple rotation. It's a simple consequence of the "diagonal moves take 1 square" rule that the result will be larger than a 3 by 3 square. Since that rule nowhere is said to apply to spell areas, doing so is not provided for by the rules.

You can house-rule whatever you like. But as far as I know, discussions of house-rules are supposed to take place in the house-rule forum?


----------



## Ziana (Jun 21, 2008)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> No one has disagreed with what the writers intended for this rule.



Yes, they have, starting from page one. The question was whether the diamond figure is consistent with the rules. It isn't. It is an invention that the rules do not suggest or depict. Furthermore, as I've shown, it plainly contradicts the defined area.


> Some have pointed out that a literal interpretation without intent can allow this.



The rules "allow" for anything. Set the battle mat on fire. What the rules do not do, is say that this is correct.


> If you do not want to get into a RAW discussion then don't.



Maybe those who are unable to deal with rulebooks in plain English shouldn't try to hijack every simple question about the rules, taking it off topic?

There is probably not a single rule in the book that couldn't give rise to a petulant discussion of how far it can be misinterpreted, by those who lack the ability to read in context. It's neither amusing nor interesting, and certainly doesn't help improve anyone's game experience.


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 21, 2008)

_The diamond presented is not a 3 by 3 figure, it mathematically has properties that make it, by definition, not an area of 3 rows by 3 columns._

Once again you have inserted words in to the rule's mouth.

It says 3 squares on a side. It says nothing about rows and columns.

Finally, I submit that if you are incapable of responding in a courteous (and non-snarky) manner then you might find it best to not visit this thread again.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 21, 2008)

> Once again you have inserted words in to the rule's mouth.



Not at all. The rules straightforwardly describe how to determine a blast area on the battle grid. The aim of course is to provide for a simple means to determine spell areas. 

An ideal geometric figure consists of "3 squares by 3 squares". 

How many squares across (or extending on the X axis) are there?

How many squares down (or extending on the Y axis) are there?


> Finally, I submit that if you are incapable of responding in a courteous (and non-snarky) manner



I'm not being snarky. I submit that being deliberately obtuse, distorting rules, and inventing problems where there are none indicates a complete lack of courtesy and respect for other players.


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 21, 2008)

My figure is 3 squares by 3 squares. And if things were so clear, this thread would not exist.


----------



## Torg Smith (Jun 21, 2008)

Well I have to say that the rules only state a number of squares on a side. No were in the rules do they say this number applies to any more than one side. They have simple examples that show a square effect but nothing that says more than one side has to have X number of squares.


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 21, 2008)

It does say a square, so all sides would have to have 3 squares. That's not really in question, orientation is.


----------



## Torg Smith (Jun 21, 2008)

Dracorat said:
			
		

> It does say a square, so all sides would have to have 3 squares. That's not really in question, orientation is.




Where does it say the area is a square?


----------



## Ziana (Jun 21, 2008)

Dracorat said:
			
		

> My figure is 3 squares by 3 squares.



Answer the questions.

An ideal geometric figure consists of "3 squares by 3 squares". 

How many squares across (or extending on the X axis) are there?

How many squares down (or extending on the Y axis) are there?



> And if things were so clear, this thread would not exist.



The question was answered in the first few posts. It's only rules-lawyers who as I said get some sort of satisfaction out of trolling and starting arguments over trivialities that make this continue any longer than it needed to.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Jun 21, 2008)

Dracorat said:
			
		

> It does say a square, so all sides would have to have 3 squares. That's not really in question, orientation is.




Your diamond isn't a square.  It doesn't have 4 sides, it has 20.  Count them.

Hey, if you are going to be litteral...


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 21, 2008)

I already answered the sides argument, and if we're going to be literal, it'd be 28, not 20.

As for "answer the questions" I will not as they do not apply to what the rules state. Once you can point out that the rules account for X, Y or Columns and Rows, then we will delve in to that.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 21, 2008)

Dracorat said:
			
		

> As for "answer the questions" I will not as they do not apply to what the rules state. Once you can point out that the rules account for X, Y or Columns and Rows, then we will delve in to that.



The rules provide a definition of "3 squares by 3 squares". That entails some necessary logical consequences.

Your refusal to answer just demonstrates your fundamental intellectual dishonesty and the indefensibility of your position.

Please stop wasting people's time and confusing simple issues.

If the rulebooks were written in legalese, pseudocode, or formal symbolic logic, would they be as accessible to gamers? Would they sell as well? Is it necessary for the authors to go that far in order to make the rules understood?


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 21, 2008)

Ah the snarkiness returns.

I can say the same of your insistence that the rules follow your interpretation of them.

I am wasting no one's time, TYVM.


----------



## Torg Smith (Jun 21, 2008)

Dracorat said:
			
		

> I already answered the sides argument, and if we're going to be literal, it'd be 28, not 20.
> 
> As for "answer the questions" I will not as they do not apply to what the rules state. Once you can point out that the rules account for X, Y or Columns and Rows, then we will delve in to that.




I have checked all your posts in this thread and you have not quoted one rule that says the area is a square. In several of your posts you quote the rule that brings into question the whole square concept. The rule on page 272 that states. “A blast fills an area adjacent to you that is a specified number of squares on a side.” Now they make several examples that demonstrate squares with two sides running horizontal and two sides running vertical. If you are using these examples to say that the area must be square as they do not have any non-square areas, then another person can say that the sides must be horizontal and vertical in orientation as they have no examples of diagonal sides.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 21, 2008)

> I am wasting no one's time, TYVM.



You are.

An *ideal figure* consists of "3 squares by 3 squares". I'm not talking about DnD, battle grids, or anything in the rules. I'm talking about a simple definition. It is a thing that consists of squares, and there are 3 by 3 of them.  How many squares are there in one direction? And the other? How many squares are in the first set? The second? The third? If there are any additional squares, which of the sets are they in?


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 21, 2008)

I'll draw a picture in a bit.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 21, 2008)

What is the area of a 10x10 burst? 
How many squares does it affect? 
Does the formula one uses to calculate area differ depending on the "orientation" of the burst?
If so, and one formula always covers significantly more squares than the other, why should a player ever use the lesser orientation?
If "rotating" an area space results in its total area of effect increasing significantly, is this "rotation" mathematically valid?
If a spell or effect is balanced based on one total area, and players are instead using the effect to cover more total area, is game balance preserved?


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 21, 2008)

Ziana said:
			
		

> What is the area of a 10x10 burst?




ten squares by ten squares.



> How many squares does it affect?




ten squares by ten squares.



> Does the formula one uses to calculate area differ depending on the "orientation" of the burst?




No, it is still ten squares by ten squares.



> If "rotating" an area space results in its total area of effect increasing significantly, is this "rotation" mathematically valid?




It is still ten squares by ten squares.



> If a spell or effect is balanced based on one total area, and players are instead using the effect to cover more total area, is game balance preserved?




One could ask the same of an arbitrary decision to make diagonals count as 1 instead of 1.5 but regardless, this is not germane to the issue.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 21, 2008)

Dracorat said:
			
		

> ten squares by ten squares.



Please do not continue to demonstrate your evasiveness and intellectual dishonesty. What is the number?


> No, it is still ten squares by ten squares.



Dishonest evasion.


> It is still ten squares by ten squares.



Dishonest evasion.


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 21, 2008)

None of it is dishonest evasiveness. It is me answering the question and you not liking it. You don't have to like it. That's also not required.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 21, 2008)

Ziana said:
			
		

> There is probably not a single rule in the book that couldn't give rise to a petulant discussion of how far it can be misinterpreted, by those who lack the ability to read in context. It's neither amusing nor interesting, and certainly doesn't help improve anyone's game experience.




Ziana,  while I agree with you, it really doesn't do any good to get upset with them.  All they will do is call you stupid for not appreciating their intellectual acumen in debating the subtle points of the rules (as someone has already done, I'm sure). 

Don't take it personally.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 21, 2008)

Dracorat said:
			
		

> My figure is 3 squares by 3 squares. And if things were so clear, this thread would not exist.




Only if one ignores the common usage of words and what the word 'square' means. Rules-lawyering like this is what gets people thrown out of games. The illustration on 272 shows the _only two possible interpretations_ of '3x3'. And there's 'two' of them because of the orientation of the caster.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 21, 2008)

Dracorat said:
			
		

> None of it is dishonest evasiveness. It is me answering the question and you not liking it. You don't have to like it. That's also not required.



Z: _How many squares does it affect?_
D: _ten squares by ten squares._

That's not an answer, it's evasion. It's deliberately refusing to answer because you know the answer demonstrates how faulty your reasoning is.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 21, 2008)

Caliban said:
			
		

> Ziana,  while I agree with you, it really doesn't do any good to get upset with them.  All they will do is call you stupid for not appreciating their intellectual acumen in debating the subtle points of the rules (as someone has already done, I'm sure).
> 
> Don't take it personally.



Caliban, you are right. It was my hope that I could appeal to rationality; but clearly once backed into a logical corner, they simply start playing games.


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 21, 2008)

Now we even elevate to personal attacks! My players enjoy my games very much thank you.

And part is because I don't hold them prisoner to arbitrary and needless pointlessness like "it doesn't orient east to west".


----------



## hamishspence (Jun 21, 2008)

*Logical point:*

Any diamond shape will already contain a 3 by 3 square area, plus extras. So you can point and say _that_ in the middle is a 3 by 3 square area. Anything extra does not count.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 21, 2008)

*Ziana*, and everyone else...

This is a _rules_ forum.  It is all about discussing rules, often in deep and excruciating detail.  I dare say that anyone posting in here - yourself included - is a rules lawyer by that measure.

Be that as it may, we have a policy here - Keep it Civil. That means no name calling.  Trying to slap a derisive label on someone so you can dismiss them is schoolyard stuff, and we expect better here.  

If you don't like what they have to say, you can pass on responding, or you can respond respectfully.  Don't be rude.


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 21, 2008)

hamishspence said:
			
		

> Any diamond shape will already contain a 3 by 3 square area, plus extras. So you can point and say _that_ in the middle is a 3 by 3 square area. Anything extra does not count.




A compromise I could easily see any DM willing to go with. It'd be a house rule, but makes some level of sense too. It would help satisfy those who object to the fact when oriented as such, more squares are affected than when oriented east to west.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 21, 2008)

Dracorat said:
			
		

> It would help satisfy those who object to the fact when oriented as such, more squares are affected than when oriented east to west.




Well, a blast 3 is obviously supposed to be a 9 square/maximum of 9 target attack, so adding 4 additional squares/targets is a bit much.


----------



## RefinedBean (Jun 21, 2008)

Maybe simply state (well, not so simple for non-mathematical people like me, who had to give this some heavy thought) that the boundary of a blast must be made of lines going from one adjacent point of an outer-most included square to another?  That way, when rotating it 45 degrees, the total area of the square/diamond is not using diagonals for a measure...which was, if I remember, a problem in 3.5 as well.

Or something.  I'm not really a math guy.


----------



## hamishspence (Jun 21, 2008)

*More a reason to reject player arguments*

Specifically. if someone presented me said diamond template, thats what i'd say: that there is already a 3 by 3 square in the middle of the template. Or "if there are two ways of drawing a 3 by 3 square, choose the smallest"


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 21, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Well, a blast 3 is obviously supposed to be a 9 square/maximum of 9 target attack, so adding 4 additional squares/targets is a bit much.




Usually I would agree with this line of logic but all logic was thrown out when blasts became squares anyway.

At that point, you just have the rules to go on. =/


----------



## Ziana (Jun 21, 2008)

Ouch, I got told! 

The PHB simply presents square 3x3 areas that conform to the battle grid, which is consistent with keeping the combat system relatively simple and smooth-flowing.

If you want to houserule _tilting_ that square to allow variations, it wouldn't expand the area or significantly affect its reach. You might say that any rhombus with 3 squares on a side is acceptable. So something like:

```
...XXX
..XXX.
.XXX..
O.....
```
If you're concerned about using this to overextend the range of an area effect, you could confine it to 3 squares directional from the origin, tilting only within that limit.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 21, 2008)

I should note that I have found a rules exploit which will allow me to get INFINITE OREGANOSQUARES out of the blast.  It's in the book, so we have to use it!

-O


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 21, 2008)

It does say square and squares are defined by 90 degree corners. I'm not debating that part. But being at 45 degree offsets, it's still got 90 degree corners.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 21, 2008)

Dracorat said:
			
		

> Usually I would agree with this line of logic but all logic was thrown out when blasts became squares anyway.




No, the logic is fine because combat is abstracted on a square-based grid. Using circles, diamonds, and dodecahedrons is illogical when the abstracted is based on squares.



> At that point, you just have the rules to go on. =/




The rules include diagrams. There's no 13 square blast 3 diamond diagram.


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 21, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> The rules include diagrams. There's no 13 square blast 3 diamond diagram.




Yes yes they do. But those diagrams also don't include starting a blast from one square over (standing beside but not diagonal to a corner square) neither. They are meant as example, but certainly not all-inclusive.

If someone wants to interpret that as "they must face east to west" then I won't begrudge them for doing so, but what the rules state is only 3 squares to a side. I am arguing that the sides needn't be east/west and north/south and yet they'll still fit that requirement.


----------



## RefinedBean (Jun 21, 2008)

Dracorat said:
			
		

> It does say square and squares are defined by 90 degree corners. I'm not debating that part. But being at 45 degree offsets, it's still got 90 degree corners.




The individual squares have 90 degree corners.  The angles of the turned-blast only has 90 degree corners if you measure halfway in from the outside diagonal on the corner squares, or halfway out again.

And, of course, if we do this, some poor monster that only has 1/4 of its mass in the area of effect is still attacked and will take full damage.  And if you use the latter, the attacker is being affected by his own attack.

Nasty.


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 21, 2008)

Monsters partially in areas of effect have always been subject to the full effects. I see this as no different.

The squares themselves have 90 degree corners yup. But so do square areas which include them. And the caster doesn't have to be in the area to be beside it (the other requirement - placement).


----------



## Torg Smith (Jun 21, 2008)

Dracorat said:
			
		

> It does say square and squares are defined by 90 degree corners. I'm not debating that part. But being at 45 degree offsets, it's still got 90 degree corners.




Where does it say this? Page and quote.


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 21, 2008)

Let me be absolutely clear here. I am not trying to get other people to adopt this interpretation if they don't want to, but I am pointing out that it is valid within the rules as they are written.

If you interpret their _intent_ differently, then I will be perfectly at peace with you deciding to run games that way. But the original question of "is this allowed in the rules" I state that the diagram I drew up a couple pages back would be.

It may be _uncomfortable_ to think that by using diagonals, more internal squares are affected, but the count of internal squares is not part of the rule for blasts. (It is for bursts because of their different method of measurement). 

For reasons such as this, I have given my groups the option of sticking with 3.5 measurements for things. One group chose to, one group chose not to.

And in neither are issues like this really a problem. In truth, the "danger" of including additional squares never really feels "unfair" to the players, even when monsters use it.

And until this thread, I was always under the assumption when people measured three squares on a side, they did it in any orientation they wished.

I am not here to say "I am right, you are wrong" but rather to say to the OP that using RAW, there are people (like me) who do believe it is perfectly legitimate.


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 21, 2008)

Torg Smith said:
			
		

> Where does it say this? Page and quote.




Say what? That squares have 90 degree angles? That's the definition of a square.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Jun 21, 2008)

I don't care waht folk say, removing cone-shaped effects was ***** STUPID!!!!
This kind of thing proves it, jeesh 

If square your arse is on = edge of cone , you still get hit = simple and easy to envisage!
4the d cone = more liek step pyramid = EASY!
I can live with that!!!!

*mutters in dark cyrptic verses*
_Squares, bugger it, bah, humbug, hedgehogs, 1st ed, square BLASTS?! bugger 'em, staffs with knobs on the end, too old for this, *Granny Ogg!!*!!_


----------



## Torg Smith (Jun 21, 2008)

Dracorat said:
			
		

> Let me be absolutely clear here. I am not trying to get other people to adopt this interpretation if they don't want to, but I am pointing out that it is valid within the rules as they are written.
> 
> If you interpret their _intent_ differently, then I will be perfectly at peace with you deciding to run games that way. But the original question of "is this allowed in the rules" I state that the diagram I drew up a couple pages back would be.
> 
> ...




But you have not shown the RAW that says the blast area is square. 

I assume you are using the example as the reference to the blast being square. This is just as the other people are using the example to say the sides of said square are horizontal and vertical. They show no squares rotated as they show no blasts as anything but square. There is no rule that says the area is of the shape of a square as there is no rule that says you can rotate the area of the blast. So to say the rules state that the area is square and don’t prohibit the rotation is in its self not RAW.


----------



## Branduil (Jun 21, 2008)

I found an awesome loophole! On page 242 it says "Add oregano to taste!" It doesn't say how much oregano, or what sort of taste! You can add as much oregano as you want! I'm going to make my friends eat infinite oregano and they'll have to do it because the recipe says so!


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 21, 2008)

Oh that part. Sure there is.



> A blast fills an area adjacent to you that is a specified number of squares on a side. For example, the wizard power thunderwave is a blast 3, which means the power affects a 3-square-by-3-square area adjacent to you.




I'm not sure that I am allowed to give page number as Wizards doesn't seem to like those but you'll find it on the same page as the one with the diagrams you are referring to.

Edit: To add the first part too.


----------



## Branduil (Jun 21, 2008)

A 3-by-3 square can only reasonably be interpreted as nine total squares.


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 21, 2008)

I disagree. It can be reasonably interpreted as the area that fills a shape with three squares on a side. In the case of a diagonal, that's more than 9 squares.


----------



## Torg Smith (Jun 21, 2008)

Dracorat said:
			
		

> Oh that part. Sure there is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I was correct in that you are using an example to surmise the shape is a square. That is an example only. There is no rule that says the area is a square.

If you use the example to say they show no blast as anything but a square, then other people can say that they show no other blast that has anything other than horizontal and vertical sides.


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 21, 2008)

If you wish to bind yourself to the pictures, go ahead, but you can only cast blasts two ways. In which case the pictures already contradict the text blocks.

The text blocks are the closest thing you have to a definition of what those areas are, and I completely agree the rules are lacking around this topic.

However, the text block is more liberal than the pictures are.

How liberal is exactly what this thread is about.


----------



## Branduil (Jun 21, 2008)

Dracorat said:
			
		

> I disagree. It can be reasonably interpreted as the area that fills a shape with three squares on a side. In the case of a diagonal, that's more than 9 squares.



It can be interpreted that way, but it's not reasonable, any more than feeding your friends infinite oregano is reasonable.


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 21, 2008)

I find it quite reasonable. I find the infinite oregano an invalid comparison. If this said "add squares to taste" then sure. But it doesn't.


----------



## rhm001 (Jun 21, 2008)

Dracorat said:
			
		

> Oh that part. Sure there is.




But doesn't that very definition create a problem with what some (perhaps not all) people are advocating? Some people seem to be pushing for a reading that says any square touched by the diamond is subject to the attack. Given such a reading, more than three squares will be affected in some direction.

There are other variations that would still be 3x3 (the trapezoid mentioned above), or less, but if any square touched at all is hit, the area is guaranteed to be bigger than 3x3.


----------



## Torg Smith (Jun 21, 2008)

Actually I will concede that the example does say ‘which means’ as a valid use as a rule.


----------



## Branduil (Jun 21, 2008)

If you look at a 2 by 2 blast, it looks like one really big square. Therefore, by the RAW I can use a 3x3 blast to cover 36 squares. They're just really big squares.

Filled with infinite oregano.


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 21, 2008)

To Torg: Then we agree that with two different ways of _interpreting_ what was written, we both disagree on implementation?


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 21, 2008)

rhm001 said:
			
		

> There are other variations that would still be 3x3 (the trapezoid mentioned above), or less, but if any square touched at all is hit, the area is guaranteed to be bigger than 3x3.




It's not a matter of any square touched - the earlier point about it was a tangent from the issue at hand.

Considering how it is worded, it does seem that a trapezoid would fit the bill as well.

And if someone had argued that point to me in game it would be conceded and accepted.


----------



## Torg Smith (Jun 21, 2008)

Dracorat said:
			
		

> To Torg: Then we agree that with two different ways of _interpreting_ what was written, we both disagree on implementation?




Actually I believe there is an unlimited number of ways to interpret the rules. I believe the rules are merely guidelines to run your game. I do not see a problem with the way you want to run it as you are doing the same for both the players as the monsters. I made my decision on how I was going to run it before my first post. I have never been in a rules lawyer discussion before so I thought I would try it out. It has been quite interesting. I will have to do it some more.


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 21, 2008)

=) Peace and good will to you.


----------



## Torg Smith (Jun 21, 2008)

Another point I would like to bring up with blast (this applies to burst as well) is Line of Effect. On page 273 (WotC is only concerned with future printings of the book for page numbers. Nobody does searches so by that time this thread will be forgotten.) They spend much effort saying what is not blocking Line of Effect. They say a wall will block Line of Effect.

What do you think of a small creature crouched down behind a half wall as being out of Line of Effect of the Wizards thunderwave?


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 21, 2008)

That's a completely different issue but it would negate the line of effect as long as "the other side" is relative to the origin square.


----------



## Contents May Vary (Jun 21, 2008)

In terms of whether the rules as written allow diamond shaped blast areas, I think they do not.

The actual definition in the rules is:

"A burst starts in an origin square and extends in all directions to a specified number of squares from the origin square."

If you follow these instructions, you cannot make a diamond shaped area. You will always end up filling in a regular square area.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 21, 2008)

Dracorat said:
			
		

> It may be _uncomfortable_ to think that by using diagonals, more internal squares are affected, but the count of internal squares is not part of the rule for blasts.




If a figure is X squares by X squares, then there is dimension U with parallel lines of squares that can be numbered 1, 2, and 3; and there is dimension V with parallel lines of squares that can be assigned A, B, and C. 


```
. . 3 . . .
. 2 . X . .
1 . X ? X .
. X ? X ? X
A . X ? X .
. B . X . .
. . C . . .
```
Each X corresponds to both one of three designated squares on one side, and one of three on the perpendicular side. Since the ? marks do not correspond to either of the 3 squares per side, they are not part of the defined area. Either one believes that spell effects have a patchwork result, or one has made a mistake in their method of determining an effect area.

In fact, the count of internal squares is entirely implicit in the definitions provided in the PHB. A 3 x 3 square has an area of 9 using basic mathematics. If the result of your counting differs, then the only reasonable conclusion is You're Doing It Wrong™.

As I previously showed, by definition, a figure with 3 squares on a side must logically also have 3 squares diagonal. For example, A1 to C3 consists of 3 countable squares. However, this figure:

```
. . 1 . .
. X 2 X .
1 2 3 4 5
. X 4 X .
. . 5 . .
```
Has a crosssection consisting of 5 squares, and in fact occupies an area of 5 squares by 5 squares on the board, with corners removed. If an area is 3 squares on a side, but it takes 5 squares to walk from one corner to the other, and fractional squares aren't permitted, then this area contradicts the definition provided. It isn't 3x3.

The diamond is not a 3 square by 3 square area, and is not consistent with an accurate 45º rotation of a 3x3 area rendered squarely on the battle grid.

Unless the rules explicitly state "You may determine a spell effect area by counting a number of squares diagonally, and another 3 at a right angle from the first and taking all interior squares of the figure within", then doing so is not actually part of the rules. It's a houserule which is within your rights, but not part of the _D&D 4th Edition game_ as presented to players.


> (It is for bursts because of their different method of measurement).



I take it you admit the definition of counting X squares from center in all directions is sufficiently unassailable. Due to the treatment of diagonals, the result is actually a fine approximation of a circular effect. Welcome to a non-Euclidian space.

For any spell effect, when authors or DMs are determining an appropriate level of damage, it should be possible to predict the total area that spell can act upon.

I previously asked a similar question, but did not receive a satisfactory answer: what is the maximum number of minions that can be killed by a 10x10 blast effect?



> And until this thread, I was always under the assumption when people measured three squares on a side, they did it in any orientation they wished.



A diamond figure is not 3 squares on a side. It is an expanded pattern of squares only available by counting diagonally, and results in larger horizontal and vertical dimensions than the rules provide for.



> I am not here to say "I am right, you are wrong" but rather to say to the OP that using RAW, there are people (like me) who do believe it is perfectly legitimate.



Only if you believe the rules have a burden to specifically address all possible misreadings, rather than expecting reasonable players to work from the examples provided.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with houseruling things. Use hexes, or play with alternate spell effect shapes all you like. My problem, from the beginning, has been the insistence that because the rules do not disallow a particular interpretation (which is not their burden) then that interpretation is a correct reading of the rules.


----------



## Torg Smith (Jun 21, 2008)

Contents May Vary said:
			
		

> In terms of whether the rules as written allow diamond shaped blast areas, I think they do not.
> 
> The actual definition in the rules is:
> 
> ...




That's a burst not a blast.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 21, 2008)

This thread is nuts!


----------



## Ziana (Jun 21, 2008)

Nuts are hexagonal. This thread is definitely squares.


----------



## Torg Smith (Jun 21, 2008)

Ziana said:
			
		

> I take it you admit the definition of counting X squares from center in all directions is sufficiently unassailable. Due to the treatment of diagonals, the result is actually a fine approximation of a circular effect. Welcome to a non-Euclidian space.





I do not think a burst can be used in this context as the origin square is in the middle of the burst radius. The origin square is at the location of the caster. This is adjacent to the blast area. I think the shape would be more based on the type of effect the power is. If it is a gas and there is no wind than a square would be a better shape. If it spread as it traveled then a cone would be a better representation of it. If it streamed then a line would be the best representative of it.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 21, 2008)

I'm honestly sorry but I'm not quite sure what you're saying. All of those shapes seem like appealing options for houserules, not I don't know how that bears on bursts vs blasts.


----------



## Torg Smith (Jun 21, 2008)

Ziana said:
			
		

> I'm honestly sorry but I'm not quite sure what you're saying. All of those shapes seem like appealing options for houserules, not I don't know how that bears on bursts vs blasts.




You are implying that counting X squares from center in all directions is a use for defining the area of the blast. That is the area of the burst in the sense the origin is in the center of the burst. The blast has the origin on the side at the location of the caster. I do not see how counting squares from the center of the blast has any bearing on this.

By the way, I share the same interpretation of the rules as you do as to the shape of the area as well as the area that it includes.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 21, 2008)

Torg Smith said:
			
		

> You are implying that counting X squares from center in all directions is a use for defining the area of the blast. That is the area of the burst in the sense the origin is in the center of the burst.



Yes, that's what I said. Counting from the center is for bursts. Blasts are measured on the sides, or width and height. I was responding in that section to the comment that bursts use a different method of measurement, and so necessarily conform their shape to the battlegrid. A burst of 5 squares is 5 in all directions on the grid, and will always result in a square. 

Since bursts can only be squares, and for wall spell effects, diagonals aren't permitted, I think it should be self-evident that blasts are also meant to conform to the grid, not be counted diagonally, with all the consequences that entails. 

I think a rhomboid is a great approach to houseruling interesting angles that is consistent with the expected area for effects.



> By the way, I share the same interpretation of the rules as you do as to the shape of the area as well as the area that it includes.


----------



## Insignia (Jun 21, 2008)

I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned this yet, but according to the definitions of close and area attacks on page 271, an area of effect "has a certain size". How does that work with an interpretation that involves changing the size of the area?


----------



## Torg Smith (Jun 21, 2008)

Insignia said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned this yet, but according to the definitions of close and area attacks on page 271, an area of effect "has a certain size". How does that work with an interpretation that involves changing the size of the area?




It does not really add any value. It is very vague.


----------



## silentounce (Jun 22, 2008)

I'm about to throw this for a loop.  I know dracorat will like this.  This is what the rules say, "A blast fills an area adjacent to you that is a specified number of squares on *a* side."

Bold is mine, obviously.  Notice that they say "a" side, not every side, all sides, etc.  So really, as long as one side of the area meets that specified number the rest of the sides can contain as many squares as you like.  And that's RAW.

See how ridiculous this gets?


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 22, 2008)

Since "a side" could arbitrarily be any of the sides you wouldn't want to create a shape that fails the rule on any of its sides.

I am not arguing fanaticism here. I am arguing that constraining the shape to east/west & north/south is not required.

At this point, I think my reasons are very clear, as well as my standpoint.

As I stated before, I have no desire to "convert" anyone, but rather, offer the OP a view point I believe is perfectly valid.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 22, 2008)

Dracorat said:
			
		

> Since "a side" could arbitrarily be any of the sides you wouldn't want to create a shape that fails the rule on any of its sides.
> 
> I am not arguing fanaticism here. I am arguing that constraining the shape to east/west & north/south is not required.
> 
> ...



If you can come up with a diagonal version of the blast that doesn't amount to just tacking on four squares to the horizontal one at east, west, south and north, that's reasonable. If not, what you're creating isn't a variant blast, it's explicitly an enlarged blast.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 22, 2008)

> I am arguing that constraining the shape to east/west & north/south is not required.



Rule Zero is that nothing is required. But anything to the contrary isn't mentioned, described, suggested or indicated in the rules. Additionally, it contradicts both how bursts and walls work (bursts are necessarily constrained to grid squares, and walls specifically deny diagonal hops), the visual examples provided ("How do blasts work?" "Here, let me show you them!"), as well as ignoring the deliberately simplified nature of the 4E system and how square measurements are consistently used throughout.

It's not a valid viewpoint. It's one that depends on a deliberate exploitation of the fact that the rules don't account for all possible misinterpretations or twisting. But as I keep explaining, they don't have to. The merely provide the foundation which reasonable players have to work from.

How many minions can a 10 square blast kill?


----------



## Ziana (Jun 22, 2008)

MarkB said:
			
		

> If you can come up with a diagonal version of the blast that doesn't amount to just tacking on four squares to the horizontal one at east, west, south and north, that's reasonable. If not, what you're creating isn't a variant blast, it's explicitly an enlarged blast.



This. You know, in all this, I didn't even catch that. "I'm going to arbitrarily move my blast area one square farther away and add four more squares. But I _ROTATED_ it!".


----------



## Torg Smith (Jun 22, 2008)

silentounce said:
			
		

> I'm about to throw this for a loop.  I know dracorat will like this.  This is what the rules say, "A blast fills an area adjacent to you that is a specified number of squares on *a* side."
> 
> Bold is mine, obviously.  Notice that they say "a" side, not every side, all sides, etc.  So really, as long as one side of the area meets that specified number the rest of the sides can contain as many squares as you like.  And that's RAW.
> 
> See how ridiculous this gets?




The ‘a’ side was the point I was trying to make earlier. The example on page 272 clearly states ‘The wizard power thunderwave is a blast 3, *which means* the power affects a 3-square-by-3-square area adjacent to you. The ‘which means’ is clearly a clarification of the rule as opposed to an arbitrary example. This defines the area as a square. A square has all four sides of equal length.


----------



## Zustiur (Jun 22, 2008)

I would suggest laying it out this way instead of using a diamond

```
.....
.x...
.xx..
.xxx.
.cxx.
...x.
```
The 'square' is 'turned' but does not make a diamond.
It's still 3x3, and it still only uses 9 squares.


----------



## hong (Jun 22, 2008)

I like peanut butter.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 22, 2008)

OOH!  My turn!

I'm going to start creating Walls that straddle TWO squares, since it's silly to be confined by an arbitrary grid.  I'll even start and end the wall kind of in the middle of squares, so it occupies quarter-squares on its two ends and half-squares all the way down its length!

I can more than double the spell's effectiveness!

-O


----------



## Zimri (Jun 22, 2008)

Ziana said:
			
		

> If a figure is X squares by X squares, then there is dimension U with parallel lines of squares that can be numbered 1, 2, and 3; and there is dimension V with parallel lines of squares that can be assigned A, B, and C.
> 
> 
> ```
> ...




So Ziana the new diamond shreddies take up more space than the old square shreddies is that what you're trying to make me believe ? Even the cereal company isn't trying to make me believe that.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 22, 2008)

Dear Zimri:

Take 9 shreddies, and put them together in a 3 by 3 square, with edges touching.

Now move your shreddies, so that they all only touch at the corners, and form 3 diagonal lines of 3. Do you see those gaps? Those shreddie sized gaps? Put four more shreddies in them.

Now, do you have more shreddies than you started with? Notice how the center of the shreddies is now a 3x3 square like you started with, but with 4 shreddies making points on the outside?

Is that the same as turning your original set of shreddies 45º to make a diamond? Or did you actually just expand the space they took up by adding more shreddies?


----------



## Zimri (Jun 22, 2008)

Ziana said:
			
		

> Dear Zimri:
> 
> Take 9 shreddies, and put them together in a 3 by 3 square, with edges touching.
> 
> ...




Dear Ziana take 1 shreddie that has a flat end facing you, Rotate  it so that now a corner is facing you.

Did the shreddie magically grow ?

Cut any sized square out of cardboard and try it. I bet the cardboard doesn't grow either.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 22, 2008)

Zimri said:
			
		

> Dear Ziana take 1 shreddie that has a flat end facing you, Rotate  it so that now a corner is facing you.
> 
> Did the shreddie magically grow ?




Of course not. So if someone claims they are "turning" a spell area on a board consisting of squares, is it acceptable that the result is significantly larger than the original?


----------



## Zimri (Jun 22, 2008)

Ziana said:
			
		

> Of course not. So if we turn a spell area on a board consisting of squares, is it acceptable that the result is significantly larger than the original?




if you rotate a square without changing anything else all you have done is rotate it. The lines didn't grow, the universe didn't bend or stretch.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 22, 2008)

Zimri said:
			
		

> if you rotate a square without changing anything else all you have done is rotate it. The lines didn't grow, the universe didn't bend or stretch.



Then we are forced by pure logic to necessarily conclude that a diamond figure constituting 13 squares is not a rotated form of a square constituting 9 squares.

Thank-you.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 22, 2008)

Zimri said:
			
		

> if you rotate a square without changing anything else all you have done is rotate it. The lines didn't grow, the universe didn't bend or stretch.




Diagonal movement in 4E would disagree with this assertion.

Hence, it is a fallacy.


----------



## Zimri (Jun 22, 2008)

Ziana said:
			
		

> Then we are forced by pure logic to necessarily conclude that a diamond figure constituting 13 squares is not a rotated form of a square constituting 9 squares.
> 
> Thank-you.




If you take a 3 inch by 3 inch square (which covers 9, 1 inch squares) and turn it so that a pointy end faces you rather than a flat side  you do not suddenly have that same square covering 13 1 inch squares.

Yes it may now "touch" more squares that are on a surface that is orientated differently but the raw amount that it actually covers remains the same. That it can have an effect on squares it "touches" rather than only ones it covers completely doesn't change the fact that the base unit did not suddenly grow.


----------



## Zimri (Jun 22, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Diagonal movement in 4E would disagree with this assertion.
> 
> Hence, it is a fallacy.




Okay KD  take a piece of cardboard, cut a 3 inch by 3 inch square, rotate it, if a team of scientists say that rotating it made the cardboard itself grow I'll give you a kudos.


----------



## RefinedBean (Jun 22, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I like peanut butter.




But good god, man...crunchy or creamy?!


----------



## Ziana (Jun 22, 2008)

Zimri said:
			
		

> If you take a 3 inch by 3 inch square (which covers 9, 1 inch squares) and turn it so that a pointy end faces you rather than a flat side  you do not suddenly have that same square covering 13 1 inch squares.



No, you don't. But that's not what I have been arguing against. I have been addressing the idea of counting diagonals as a valid means to "rotate" a square area, which it isn't. It results in much larger coverage.



> Yes it may now "touch" more squares that are on a surface that is orientated differently but the raw amount that it actually covers remains the same. That it can have an effect on squares it "touches" rather than only ones it covers completely doesn't change the fact that the base unit did not suddenly grow.



D&D 4E does not appear to be built to handle portions of squares or accurate distances. The combat system is extremely simplified from the old-school miniature warfare games that would rely on rulers, fractional turns, and so on. The idea is to have a system that's easier to learn and makes for faster gameplay. To that end, it's more than sufficient. As I stated quite a while ago, treating diagonals as one square for movement has some unintuitive mathematical consequences. 

If you or anyone else wants to use template overlays and deal with partial effects in edge squares, you're free to make your houserules as complex as you like. But the rulebooks we have simply don't provide for spell areas being anything other than squares which conform to the battlegrid.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 22, 2008)

So according to the RULES, the following are all legal 3x3 blasts:


```
. . . . .
. x x x .
. x x x .
. x x x .
. . . . .

. . . . .
. . x . .
. x x x .
x x x x x
. x x x .
. . x . .
. . . . .

. . . . .
x x x . .
. x x x .
. . x x x
. . . . .
```

The blast does not have to be square.

The blast area does need to be filled.

The sides of the blast have to consist of squares.

The blast has to be adjacent to the origin square.


According to designer intent, it would seem that only the first blast illustrated here is legal.


That appears to pretty much sum it up unless I am missing something. I didn't see any rules listed that contradict this, just a bunch of opinions to the contrary.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 22, 2008)

Zimri said:
			
		

> Okay KD  take a piece of cardboard, cut a 3 inch by 3 inch square, rotate it, if a team of scientists say that rotating it made the cardboard itself grow I'll give you a kudos.




I will do that after you take a string and illustrate that diagonal movement in 4E is the same distance as orthogonal movment.

Quid pro quo.

Real world physics have nothing to do with this conversation. Get used to it.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 22, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I will do that after you take a string and illustrate that diagonal movement in 4E is the same distance as orthogonal movment.
> 
> Quid pro quo.
> 
> Real world physics have nothing to do with this conversation. Get used to it.



But what about my mega-awesome-superwall?!

If this works, so does my superwall.

-O


----------



## Ziana (Jun 22, 2008)

> So according to the RULES, the following are all legal 3x3 blasts:



Where do the rules say a blast can be anything but square?

Don't tell me they don't say it _can't_; it's not the WotC authors' responsibility to account for every possible misinterpretation. Rather, they provide a straightforward definition, two similar features in the rules specifically and absolutely deny diagonal shapes (bursts cannot be diagonal due to the definition, walls _in the text_ disallow diagonal steps), and they give PICTURES of what blasts look like. "Here is a blast. Let us show you them."

Furthermore, I have repeatedly demonstrated why the diamond figure is not a 3 by 3 area. It contains squares that correspond to none of the 3 defined squares on either side. In reality, if you count across diagonally, you are encompassing a total of 5 squares, that's how you get 5 from "corner" to "corner." As others have indicated, what you  actually have is the original 3x3 square with 4 squares tacked onto the sides. That's not a rotation, it's an expansion.

The rhombus shape seems a great idea for a houserule, as it maintains the spell area.

But just for exercise:

What is the maximum number of minions that can be killed by a 10 x 10 blast?


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 22, 2008)

Ziana said:
			
		

> Where do the rules say a blast can be anything but square?




You are asking the wrong question.

The proper question is:

Where do the rules say the area of a blast must be a square shape?

I may have missed it, but I did not see such a rule.


Note: the rest of your post there is irrelevant. None of it is according to the rules. The rules do not limit a diagonal dimension of a blast area to 3, it limits the sides to 3. The rules do not limit the number of squares within the area. You are grasping at non-rules straws in a RAW discussion.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 22, 2008)

Obryn said:
			
		

> But what about my mega-awesome-superwall?!
> 
> If this works, so does my superwall.




Draw a picture. Your text was unclear.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 22, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Where do the rules say the area of a blast must be a square shape?



Where do the rules say you cannot light the battle mat on fire? Because they do not, does this mean this is "legal" in Dungeons and Dragons?

The very notion of a "blast" does not exist without the rulebooks. The D&D books are additive, bringing into existence the rules from a null state. They are not proscriptive, attempting to whittle away all potential interpretations and meanings until purity is found. Rather, sufficient information is given that any reasonable person should be able to discern how to use the rules in a practical game setting. That the rules are imperfect or incomplete is natural and to be expected. There's a trust on the part of the authors that we will be sensible and apply some common sense.

As the authors have themselves stated, the books are written for players, not lawyers. They do not constitute formal symbolic logical or machine code. 

The burden is on you to demonstrate where the rules say a blast takes shapes other than square. They helpfully provided pictures of square blasts. This might have been a hint.

Until errata or a new book comes out with helpful pictures of diamond-shaped blasts, anything else is a houserule. Use any houserules you wish, but your personal drive to deliberately misconstrue every trivial element of the rules has no bearing on what instructions the rules are actually offering.

I maintain as I did before this sort of behavior is only harmful to the rpg community at large. New players deserve simple, straightforward answers.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 22, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Note: the rest of your post there is irrelevant. None of it is according to the rules. The rules do not limit a diagonal dimension of a blast area to 3, it limits the sides to 3.



In a 3 square by 3 square figure, how can you have more squares on the diagonal than across?



> The rules do not limit the number of squares within the area. You are grasping at non-rules straws in a RAW discussion.




The diamond figure consists of the 3x3 square with additional squares added to the exterior. Where do the rules say to do this?

What is the maximum number of minions that can be killed by a 10 x 10 blast?


----------



## silentounce (Jun 22, 2008)

Ziana said:
			
		

> I maintain as I did before this sort of behavior is only harmful to the rpg community at large. New players deserve simple, straightforward answers.




So, just ignore them.  It's just like being teased as a child, the more you it effect you, the more they're just going to continue.  I'm pretty sure both sides have had their points made over and over again in this thread.  And I'm sure that all the RAW people in here know that the intent is for a blast to only effect x^2 squares in a square shape.  But the rules DO NOT say that.  So, RAW, the guys you are arguing with are right.  I'm sorry if you don't like that fact, but it's true.  Most of this thread is just argument for argument's sake, and they've won.  And until an errata comes out on this issue, which will probably never happen, no amount of typing on your account is going to change that.  Please, save yourself the headache and move on.


----------



## drachasor (Jun 22, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So according to the RULES, the following are all legal 3x3 blasts:
> 
> 
> ```
> ...




I'd say only the first follows RAW.  The 2nd is overpowered and abuses the spirit of the rules (and it is against the rules themselves).  The third, however, is the same amount of area as the first, is a more fair representation of a rotated square regarding area, and is good enough to be in line with the spirit of the rules.  Since I plan on starting a campaign, I am definitely going to to think about allowing that (but I'd probably make it so that blasts using #3 would have to touch share a side with the user's own square, not just a corner).


----------



## Ziana (Jun 22, 2008)

silentounce said:
			
		

> But the rules DO NOT say that.  So, RAW, the guys you are arguing with are right.



No, the rules don't say that a blast can be anything but square. Insisting it can be otherwise is what is ignoring the rules and making stuff up.

Page 272. Square blasts. There's no other examples. Now we know how to do blasts, according to the rules. Thanks, Wizards, for the helpful diagrams!


> And until an errata comes out on this issue, which will probably never happen



Right, there is no need for errata _because there is no error or omission_. The rules are clear. "3x3, here's pictures of two squares showing you what we mean. "


----------



## Obryn (Jun 22, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Draw a picture. Your text was unclear.



Can't draw it with text, of course.

But...

(1) A wall is so-and-so numbers of squares.
(2) If the diagonal interpretation is used, obviously the squares of an area effect do not need to line up with the squares on the combat grid.
(3) If I take an 8-square horizontal wall and straddle 2 rows on the grid with it, I can affect 16 squares with my wall.

OK.  Leave it there if it makes sense.  From there...

(4) If it's offset a bit - say a half-square to the right - it can affect even more squares, a total of 18 if I'm doing my math right.

-O


----------



## Anax (Jun 22, 2008)

If you want to get really technical about things:

1) In 4E-space, the distance metric is Delta = max(Delta_x, Delta_y).  (In Euclidean space, it's Delta = (Delta_x^2 + Delta_y^2)^0.5.  In taxi-cab space it's Delta = Delta_x + Delta_y.)

2) Although it is expressed in terms of "an n-x-n square", a 4E blast covers a circle in 4E space.  The circle has diameter n.

3) No point within the area of a circle of diameter n is further away than n from any other point within that circle.

4) Therefore the only figure that describes a circle in 4E-space is a figure that would describe a square in Euclidean space which has sides parallel to the x- and y-axes.  Specifically:


```
n=3 n=5   n=7
XXX XXXXX XXXXXXX
XXX XXXXX XXXXXXX
XXX XXXXX XXXXXXX
    XXXXX XXXXXXX
    XXXXX XXXXXXX
          XXXXXXX
          XXXXXXX
```

The following figure is not a circle (blast) of diameter 3 in 4E-space:


```
X
XX
XXX
 XX
  X
```

It covers the same area (number of squares), but the top left corner is more than 3 away from the lower right corner.  Therefore it cannot be inscribed within a circle of diameter 3.  It is not a 4E-circle.

The following figure is not a circle (blast) of diameter 3 in 4E-space:


```
X
 XXX
XXX
  X
```

It covers less squares of area than a 4E-circle would (eight instead of nine squares).  However, it still cannot be inscribed within a circle, because the top "point" is more than three squares of distance away from the bottom "point".


Because blast areas in 4E are circles under the distance metric in 4E, there is no way to "rotate" them which does not result in exactly the same figure.  They are perfect circles in 4E space and any attempt to rotate them that results in a different figure is based on translation into a different spatial measurement system--and specifically, it involves transforming the figure in a faulty way.

If you want to cover different kinds of areas, I strongly suggest that you house-rule a change in coordinate systems.  The best choice would probably be to a faux-Euclidean space in which diagonal movement costs 1.5x horizontal or vertical movement.  For simplicity, you can say it alternates between one and two times normal movement.  With that definition, the following are valid blasts (remember: the first diagonal is 1 space, the second is two, etc.  This is counting from the center for my figures):


```
n=3 n=5   n=7
XXX  XXX    XXX
XXX XXXXX  XXXXX
XXX XXXXX XXXXXXX
    XXXXX XXXXXXX
     XXX  XXXXXXX
           XXXXX
            XXX
```

Taxi-cab space is also a possibility--this is a space where you cannot move diagonally, only horizontally or vertically.  The following are circles in taxi-cab space:


```
n=3 n=5   n=7
 X    X      X
XXX  XXX    XXX
 X  XXXXX  XXXXX
     XXX  XXXXXXX
      X    XXXXX
            XXX
             X
```

Either of these geometries are much more amenable to cone-shaped areas than 4E's geometry.  I suspect that's part of why they left cones out of the system completely--they just don't make sense.


A further alternative that stays within 4E's geometry but allows for slightly more control would be to allow the shape of a blast to cover the caster's square (without actually damaging the caster):


```
OXX XXX
XXX OXX
XXX XXX
```

My opinion is that allowing these two options for the casting shape increases the flexibility of blasts, but only to a very slight degree.  The main increase in power here comes from the right figure, in which the caster can hit five adjacent enemies.  If you forbid this option, all of the other shapes (including the left variant above) only allow the caster to hit three adjacent enemies--all of the other enemies must be further away.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 22, 2008)

Wow, very nice contribution Anax.


----------



## NMcCoy (Jun 22, 2008)

Another thing to consider: as far as I can tell, a wizard with Arcane Reach can aim a blast at himself if he's willing to take the hit, thus possibly hitting a bunch of surrounding enemies. (I'm also tempted to make a paragon tier feat, Arcane Eruption (prereq: Con 15), that lets you turn an Area Burst power into a Close Burst that excludes your own square.)


----------



## Torg Smith (Jun 22, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> You are asking the wrong question.
> 
> The proper question is:
> 
> ...




I will repeat my last post.

The example on page 272 clearly states ‘The wizard power thunderwave is a blast 3, *which means* the power affects a 3-square-by-3-square area adjacent to you. The ‘which means’ is clearly a clarification of the rule as opposed to an arbitrary example. This defines the area as a square. A square has all four sides of equal length.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (Jun 22, 2008)

I see common sense is about as common here as it is elsewhere.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 22, 2008)

Anax said:
			
		

> Because blast areas in 4E are circles under the distance metric in 4E, there is no way to "rotate" them which does not result in exactly the same figure.  They are perfect circles in 4E space and any attempt to rotate them that results in a different figure is based on translation into a different spatial measurement system--and specifically, it involves transforming the figure in a faulty way.
> 
> If you want to cover different kinds of areas, I strongly suggest that you house-rule a change in coordinate systems.



 I think this is the best take-home point in the thread, and gives a nice intuition into why those shapes are "natural" to 4e.

4e blasts & bursts may not have arisen organically from 4e geometry, but they fit it perfectly.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Torg Smith (Jun 22, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> I see common sense is about as common here as it is elsewhere.




Common sense is common otherwise it would be uncommon sense or rare sense.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 22, 2008)

Anax said:
			
		

> 2) Although it is expressed in terms of "an n-x-n square", a 4E blast covers a circle in 4E space.  The circle has diameter n.




Reasonable math except for one thing.

The text explicitly defines it as an "n-square by n-square" representation, not "an n-x-n square".

This is the thing that Ziana keeps tripping over. He either does not understand this, or he is purposely being obtuse on the point. But, the text is in the PHB.



> For example, the wizard power _thunderwave_ is a blast 3, which means the power affects a *3-square by 3-square area* adjacent to you.




English 101.

"3-square by 3-square" is not the same as "3 by 3 square" no matter how much people want this to be the case.


If one asks Ziana or any of the people on the non-RAW side of this discussion to show a single rule in the PHB which states that the area of a blast must be a square shape, they cannot. They have not been able to do so for 13 pages of discussion.

They handwave it away and keep claiming it must be square. They handwave away the fact that there are no "the area must follow the orthogonal axes" rules and say it must.

There are no such rules. They have no support for their POV from a RAW perspective. They just keep shouting that they are right without any rules to support their POV. Might as well be watching WWE wrestling for the amount of rules being used by the anti-RAW side in this discussion.

<shrug>


So to the original OP, 13 pages and counting. By RAW, your shape is valid. By RAI, it is not.


----------



## Branduil (Jun 22, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> "3-square by 3-square" is not the same as "3 by 3 square" no matter how much people want this to be the case.



Er, yes it is.

And either way, they both add up to nine squares. If you use some kind of fuzzy math that results in more than nine squares being effected, you're doing it wrong.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 22, 2008)

Obryn said:
			
		

> Can't draw it with text, of course.
> 
> But...
> 
> ...




Except that "a wall *fills* continguous squares" according to the rules. The moment a square is filled, it counts as a square. If you half fill squares, you are ignoring the first sentence of a wall definition and you do not have a wall.

The blast discussion is not ignoring any of the rules.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 22, 2008)

Branduil said:
			
		

> Er, yes it is.
> 
> And either way, they both add up to nine squares. If you use some kind of fuzzy math that results in more than nine squares being effected, you're doing it wrong.




Nope. Sorry, but that is not accurate.

The rule is "A blast fills an area adjacent to you that is a specific number of squares on a side.".

This is the rule. It then goes on to give the example. The information here is that the number of squares on a side is defined, the area must be filled, and the area starts adjacent to the user. No more. No less.

As long as the area meets the criteria of this sentence (e.g. each side is n squares in length), it follows the rule.

Yes, a square area meets this criteria. Unfortunately, so does the diamond one. So does the mini-diamond one.

"3 x 3 square" states that something is square in shape.

"3-square by 3-square" states that something has sides of length 3.

Two totally different English phrases where the former one is a subset of the latter one.


This is not fuzzy math. It's not even math. It's English.


----------



## Torg Smith (Jun 22, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Reasonable math except for one thing.
> 
> The text explicitly defines it as an "n-square by n-square" representation, not "an n-x-n square".
> 
> ...




I must admit that the understanding of basic geometry is necessary to understand the example. I will demonstrate. 3-square-by-3-square area is a description of an Area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area). An area is defined for a square as side * side and in the example they refer to two sides as being necessary to define the area of the blast. The phrase 'which means' in the example states the following text is a clarification of the rules. The word by has the meaning next to. Now you can run this however you want in your game, but to say the WotC was lacking because they expected people to understand the properties of calculating an area is misplaced. I would have been disappointed if they would have wasted space telling people that you calculate an area by multiplying two sides together.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 22, 2008)

Torg Smith said:
			
		

> I will repeat my last post.
> 
> The example on page 272 clearly states ‘The wizard power thunderwave is a blast 3, *which means* the power affects a 3-square-by-3-square area adjacent to you. The ‘which means’ is clearly a clarification of the rule as opposed to an arbitrary example. This defines the area as a square. A square has all four sides of equal length.






> A blast fills an area adjacent to you that is a specific number of squares *on a side*. For example, the wizard power thunderwave is a blast 3, which means the power affects a *3-square by 3-square* area adjacent to you.




Saying that "3-square by 3-square" (especially in reference to the actual previous rule of a specific number squares on a side) means "3 x 3 square" and ONLY "3 x 3 square" does not make it true. Ask any English major.

I really do not know how to get people to understand the differences between these two English phrases if they do not understand it.

I understand that in your mind, "3-square by 3-square" means the exact same thing as "3 x 3 square". I get it.

It's not the only possibility (it's a subset of the possible 3-square by 3-square shapes, not the superset), but I understand that you firmly and honestly believe it to be the only possibility.

I do not think we can go any further here if you cannot get past this. I don't know how to make you have an epiphany and suddenly comprehend how the phrase "3-square by 3-square" is not restricted to only a "3 x 3 square".


3 squares on a side is not the same as 3 by 3 square. The former is a superset of the latter.


----------



## Torg Smith (Jun 22, 2008)

As a follow up the term Blast X is a single number that represents two sides next to each other that meets the need of calculating an area. This in its self defines a square.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 22, 2008)

Torg Smith said:
			
		

> I must admit that the understanding of basic geometry is necessary to understand the example. I will demonstrate. 3-square-by-3-square area is a description of an Area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area). An area is defined *for a square* as side * side and in the example they refer to two sides as being necessary to define the area of the blast. The phrase 'which means' in the example states the following text is a clarification of the rules. The word by has the meaning next to. Now you can run this however you want in your game, but to say the WotC was lacking because they expected people to understand the properties of calculating an area is misplaced. I would have been disappointed if they would have wasted space telling people that you calculate an area by multiplying two sides together.




Nobody said that WotC was lacking. You are making this up to support your POV.


And yup. A square is defined as you state. I do not disagree. That does not mean that other non-square shapes cannot have fixed length sides.

Your point?


----------



## Torg Smith (Jun 22, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Saying that "3-square by 3-square" (especially in reference to the actual previous rule of a specific number squares on a side) means "3 x 3 square" and ONLY "3 x 3 square" does not make it true. Ask any English major.




your quote of "3-square by 3-square" is incorrect. it is "3-square-by-3-square area"


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 22, 2008)

Torg Smith said:
			
		

> As a follow up the term Blast X is a single number that represents two sides next to each other that meets the need of calculating an area. This in its self defines a square.




You made this up too.

Totally illogical and nonsensical, but you are persistent if nothing else at making stuff up.


```
. . . . . .
. x x x . .
. . x x x .
. . . x x x
. . . . . .
```

"a single number (3) that represents two sides next to (next to does not mean perpendicular) each other that meets the need of calculating an area" which is not a square.

Your phrase here is not in the rules, but it too is not limited to a square.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 22, 2008)

Several pages ago, I gave a civility warning.  It appears to me people are starting to ignore it.

I will remind you all that there is no need to "win" this thread.  You get no prize for beating the other guy into submission.  You can run the rule in any way you want in your own game.  Thus, there is only so much need for repetition, and exactly zero need to get nasty about it.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 22, 2008)

Torg Smith said:
			
		

> your quote of "3-square by 3-square" is incorrect. it is "3-square-by-3-square area"




"3-square by 3-square area"


```
. . . . . .
. x x x . .
. . x x x .
. . . x x x
. . . . . .
```

3 squares on each side. It represents an area. Sides do not need to be perpendicular to each other in a geometric shape.


----------



## Torg Smith (Jun 22, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Several pages ago, I gave a civility warning.  It appears to me people are starting to ignore it.
> 
> I will remind you all that there is no need to "win" this thread.  You get no prize for beating the other guy into submission.  You can run the rule in any way you want in your own game.  Thus, there is only so much need for repetition, and exactly zero need to get nasty about it.




Yes, I agree with you and will post no more on this topic.


----------



## Xanaqui (Jun 22, 2008)

*This is why Pi = 2 is not a good idea*

The easiest solution is to house-rule diagonals back as they are in 3.x. Otherwise, you're stuck in a geometry that has a Pi of 2, where circles are squares, and any accurate visualization of even this trivial of a problem requires double the number of dimensions one would expect (4 in this case).

Using a crude method of estimation, I think that a diagonal "square" that's length roughly 2.12 (=3/sqrt(2)) on the right side (why? Because in that direction, sqrt(2) = 1 in the other direction. really - you need to look at this problem in 4 dimensions. Make a bunch of circles in paper, and tape them together so that each circle touches 8 others, and has no empty space between circles, and you'll quickly see what I mean as you'll run out of 3-space very quickly) would get you close to the same area as the one on the left side.

Of course, this is sort of a meaningless exercise - why? because the square you show on the left side of your example is, in fact, diagonal. Even worse, if you rotate it any number of degrees, you get exactly the same shape as the one on the left side; the one on the right is no form of rotation, of the one on the left. That's because a square is a circle. From a geometric standpoint, what you're trying to do on the right side is the same as offsetting a area effect in 3.x so that it hits different partial squares. As such, only portions of some squares are hit.

So if I were to allow offsets, I'd permit a diagonal of 2 (why? because 2 is a simpler number than 2.12), which would likely mean that 2 orcs is are fully hit, and 2 orcs are hit in half their space (perhaps give them +2 to defense and evasion?).

Now, obviously I'm ignoring RAW above. If you do permit the shape on the right, I'd consider virtually always using it - it simply hits more area. If you want an argument to disallow it, note that the shape on the right is not a square.


----------



## Xanaqui (Jun 22, 2008)

Xanaqui said:
			
		

> Now, obviously I'm ignoring RAW above. If you do permit the shape on the right, I'd consider virtually always using it - it simply hits more area. If you want an argument to disallow it, note that the shape on the right is not a square.



For those of you who like the shape on the right, note that you can get more area or volume out of it if you apply the same logic in 3-space.


----------



## Xorn (Jun 22, 2008)

"A meteor lands on your head, killing you."

"What?  I was casting thunderwave."

"Yup.  Immediate Interrupt for participating in that thread on EnWorld.  It does a million d10 + 150% of your max hit points.  You die.  Messily.  Anyone else want to argue for 14 pages on how to place a blast?"

The above is my official table rule.  We've added it to our campaign footnotes.


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 22, 2008)

KarinsDad, thank you for understanding.

I hadn't considered that the original shape I was using was the same as the unrotated with additional points on the side. Larger shapes wouldn't be, but at this size it is. Anyway, it's probably the best example I've seen that RAI is not matching RAW.

With that in mind, I'll have the players stick to the square or rhomboid variants. Those handle the majority of what we need them to do anyway.

That is, the group not using 3.5 shapes anyway.

Most of the chatter here I am no longer responding to. I believe my point has been illustrated beautifully and that most of the follow up has been a reiteration of point already discussed, so there is nothing to be had by reiterating my own points.

Again, thanks for your objectivity. (And the few other people who were able to see where I was coming from.)


----------



## Obryn (Jun 22, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Except that "a wall *fills* continguous squares" according to the rules. The moment a square is filled, it counts as a square. If you half fill squares, you are ignoring the first sentence of a wall definition and you do not have a wall.
> 
> The blast discussion is not ignoring any of the rules.



No, I'm not half-filling squares.  The BLAST DIAMOND OF FOUR EXTRA SQUARES AND DEATH can fill entire squares even when its corners are just going into spaces.  Therefore, the WALL OF AWESOME fills squares when it's halfway into spaces.

"Blast: A blast fills an area adjacent to you that is a specified number of squares on a side."

A Wall says... "A wall fills a specified number of contiguous squares within range"

My WALL OF AWESOME is still filling contiguous squares.

-O


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 22, 2008)

Dracorat said:
			
		

> KarinsDad, thank you for understanding.




No thanks needed. I enjoy discussions like these. It gives many people the opportunity to exchange ideas and delve deeper into topics than they normally would, even if we do not all agree.



			
				Dracorat said:
			
		

> I hadn't considered that the original shape I was using was the same as the unrotated with additional points on the side. Larger shapes wouldn't be, but at this size it is. Anyway, it's probably the best example I've seen that RAI is not matching RAW.




Actually, there is another type of RAI.

Rules as Interpreted.

The vast majority of arguments over issues like these are that one group of people interpret the exact same words in the book differently than another group of people. Both sides are positive that their interpretation is the stronger interpretation (or for some people in some discussions, the correct or only valid interpretation and I include myself in this group sometimes  ).

The Rules as Intended side also sometimes think that they have the Designer Moral High Ground as well, and that is true for RAI discussions. It is just not true for RAW discussions.

Designer intent has nothing to do with RAW discussions, just RAI discussions. Some people on the RAI side either forget this, or do not believe it. RAI trumps RAW in a RAW discussion is illogical, but fact to some people. RAI trumps RAW should often be strongly considered for how people play their games though. People should try to model their games off of what the rules intend (shy of house rules). But, RAI trumps RAW has no real valid weight in a RAW discussion.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 22, 2008)

Obryn said:
			
		

> No, I'm not half-filling squares.  The BLAST DIAMOND OF FOUR EXTRA SQUARES AND DEATH can fill entire squares even when its corners are just going into spaces.  Therefore, the WALL OF AWESOME fills squares when it's halfway into spaces.
> 
> "Blast: A blast fills an area adjacent to you that is a specified number of squares on a side."
> 
> ...




Sorry, I'm not understanding you. You really need to draw a picture or explain it in a way that I can understand (sorry, I'm sometimes slow on the uptake). If you use a text picture with the 
	
	



```
tags and different letters for different wall elements, you should be able to explain it.
```


----------



## Ziana (Jun 22, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> show a single rule in the PHB which states that the area of a blast must be a square shape, they cannot. They have not been able to do so for 13 pages of discussion.



Logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

Show us the rule that says a blast can be counted diagonally, or that you can take a square blast area and tack 4 extra squares on it and call it the same.

The diagrams on 272 are part of the rules. They are instructive. The rules only provide square examples of what a "blast" is. 

There are no rules that suggest that blasts can be anything else than square; ergo you are making up new rules.


----------



## Lurker Abover (Jun 22, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So according to the RULES, the following are all legal 3x3 blasts:
> 
> 
> ```
> ...




Question. Two-Part. Not arguing with you, just asking for your honest opinion. 

Part One. Suppose you were to select a hundred English-speaking adults at random from the general population. And suppose you gave each of them a sheet of graph paper with those three figures, labeled 1-3 in the order they appear here, followed by this multiple-choice question:

Which figure(s) shown here could be described as both "an area 3 squares on a side," and as "a 3-square-by-3-square area?"

a.) 1
b.) 2
c.) 3
d.) 1 and 2
e.) 1 and 3
f.) 1, 2, and 3
g.) None of the above

Roughly how many people would you expect to choose each answer, a through g?


Part Two.  Suppose you gave a different 100 people, also English-speaking adults selected at random from the general population, a blank sheet of graph paper and asked them to "draw an area three squares on a side, which means a 3-square-by-3-square area." Roughly how many of them would you expect to draw each of the three figures you've shown here?


----------



## Ziana (Jun 22, 2008)

The problem is, he thinks he's found a loophole that allows infinite oregano. It doesn't matter how obviously wrong that is on the face of it.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 22, 2008)

Xorn said:
			
		

> "A meteor lands on your head, killing you."
> 
> "What?  I was casting thunderwave."
> 
> ...



 Oh my god, you *just participated*!

"We're both doomed!", -- N


----------



## Lucas Blackstone (Jun 22, 2008)

I have several things to add or repeat.

A) First off, as I expressed along ago, I know what the writers intended, and do not believe it is anything but square shaped blasts. RAI is different then RAW though, and we are simply discussing how it is worked by the letter, and not how it is supposed to be ruled. 

B) The actual problem here is that using squares as a measurement results in different distances depending on how you orient the squares. However it is perfectly legal in D&D. This is proven because of how movement works.

               s                    
               o x x               
               o x x                 
               o x x 

               s
                o x x
                x o x
                x x o

Assuming the o's are the path of movement and s is the starting square, both of these are perfectly legal distances to move. However if you measure the distance moved on the grid, they are different amounts of movement. BOTH are three squares of movement though even though they are not the same distance. I know that makes no sense at first, but such is using diagonals and not counting them as more distance. The same applies to a blast area drawn under the same rules.

Yes, the rules leave you to believe that the blasts should be squares, but do say they HAVE to be. If you go by the diagrams provided, and say those are the only intended shapes then you would have to say there is only one wall that can ever be made because the wall diagram only shows that. There can be no other shapes.

Again, the key wording is that the parameters for a blast do not say you cannot measure the sides of the blast diagonally ( even though I believe they should say blasts can only be squares. )

KarinsDad is NOT saying it must be run this way, or that the writers intended for it to be such, simply that it is the way it is written.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 22, 2008)

Question for those arguing that diamonds should be allowed. Will you be allowing this in your games, or arguing for it if you're not the GM?


----------



## silentounce (Jun 22, 2008)

Lurker Abover said:
			
		

> Question. Two-Part. Not arguing with you, just asking for your honest opinion.
> 
> Part One. Suppose you were to select a hundred English-speaking adults at random from the general population. And suppose you gave each of them a sheet of graph paper with those three figures, labeled 1-3 in the order they appear here, followed by this multiple-choice question:
> 
> ...




So, I guess the capital of Canada really is Toronto.


----------



## Lurker Abover (Jun 22, 2008)

silentounce said:
			
		

> So, I guess the capital of Canada really is Toronto.




It's almost like you had a point to make about something I posted, but then instead, you posted this weird non-sequitur.

ETA: You know what? That's too snarky. I'll go ahead and pretend you made your argument like a grown-up and answer the same way.

First of all, I just asked a question. I ask questions, as a rule, not to score points off of people or try and trip them up, but because I want to know the answer. In this case, I'm trying to figure out if Karin's Dad actually thinks there's any difference in the degree of reasonableness of the three interpretations that he seems to be claiming are legitimate readings of the rule in question. 

This is not a factual question, like "What's the capital of Canada?" This is a question of resolving a use of language that some people seem to think is ambiguous. In such a case, I don't think it's out of line to wonder whether a reasonable person would actually find the various interpretations of the phrase in question equally valid.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 22, 2008)

He's saying that consensus doesn't matter, because a consensus can be wrong. He's ignoring the fact that WotC wrote 4e for real people not rules lawyers, and would probably consider an explanation that the vast majority of regular Joes can understand to be a good one, rather than complicate things trying to write for the small percentage of people who will derive joy in finding technical holes in an otherwise clear rule set no matter how detailed and nitpicky you get.


----------



## Branduil (Jun 22, 2008)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> He's saying that consensus doesn't matter, because a consensus can be wrong. He's ignoring the fact that WotC wrote 4e for real people not rules lawyers, and would probably consider an explanation that the vast majority of regular Joes can understand to be a good one, rather than complicate things trying to write for the small percentage of people who will derive joy in finding technical holes in an otherwise clear rule set no matter how detailed and nitpicky you get.



Infinite Oregano. Some people enjoy eating infinite oregano, and if they want to do that, they're free to do so. But I think arguing it is permitted in the rules requires an intellectually dishonest reading of the rules. It's fairly obvious what the designers intended as far as blasts go. They even included some helpful diagrams. If they intended to complicate things by allowing for rotation, they almost certainly would have included diagrams indicating so.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 22, 2008)

Lurker Abover said:
			
		

> This is not a factual question, like "What's the capital of Canada?" This is a question of resolving a use of language that some people seem to think is ambiguous.



 Descriptivist! Descriptivist! BURN THE HERETIC!

"_Prescription: FIRE!_", -- N





PS: If my players brought this theory about non-circular/square blast shapes to me, I'd say: there's exactly enough information to describe a square/circular blast, and there isn't enough information to describe any of these other shapes, so I'm going to go with what's expressly allowed rather than what might be technically not prohibited.


----------



## Branduil (Jun 22, 2008)

There's nothing in the rules that says I can't have an "I win" at-will power.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 22, 2008)

The "RAW" POV ultimately doesn't matter, and any discussion of it is for all practical purposes, worthless. What matters is how the game should actually be played. It doesn't make sense to use infinite oregano, to set the battle mat on fire just because rules don't say you can't, or to deliberately count areas in a way that the rules don't even hint at doing, and clearly has absurd mathematical consequences simply because you can't find where the rules say not to.

Gaming licenses are written in legalese, rules aren't. Expecting a rulebook under 300 pages to account for every possible unintuitive misinterpretation is utterly unreasonable.


----------



## hero4hire (Jun 22, 2008)

I cant believe this thread is going this long...


----------



## Branduil (Jun 22, 2008)

Now, an area where there is room for legitimate debate is the _height_ of a blast. That is something which, as far as I can tell, isn't addressed at all in the rules.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 22, 2008)

Branduil said:
			
		

> Infinite Oregano. Some people enjoy eating infinite oregano, and if they want to do that, they're free to do so. But I think arguing it is permitted in the rules requires an intellectually dishonest reading of the rules. It's fairly obvious what the designers intended as far as blasts go. They even included some helpful diagrams. If they intended to complicate things by allowing for rotation, they almost certainly would have included diagrams indicating so.




Agreed. I wasn't judging, just explaining.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 22, 2008)

Branduil said:
			
		

> Now, an area where there is room for legitimate debate is the _height_ of a blast. That is something which, as far as I can tell, isn't addressed at all in the rules.




Yeah, I'd love a clarification of how many squares tall a burst or blast is besides the nonsensical "just consider the creature in the square" answer that one poster got.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 23, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> there's exactly enough information to describe a square/circular blast, and there isn't enough information to describe any of these other shapes, so I'm going to go with what's expressly allowed rather than what might be technically not prohibited.




Well put. The rules don't account for every possibility. They're a set of instructions for playing the game, much like a recipe; which is why the infinite oregano joke is so apt.



			
				Branduil said:
			
		

> It's fairly obvious what the designers intended as far as blasts go. They even included some helpful diagrams. If they intended to complicate things by allowing for rotation, they almost certainly would have included diagrams indicating so.




The problem is that some assert that even if the intention and meaning of a rule can be easily understood from the book and clearly reflects the actual will of the designer, if the "Rule as Written" (cue deep, stern voice) can _possibly_ be interpreted differently, it's somehow more valid. Thankfully most players aren't Rules Lawyers and WotC hasn't felt the need to write the books in legalese.


----------



## Kraydak (Jun 23, 2008)

The RAW (diamond for more area) is clear.  The RAI being grid-aligned only, I would say, merely qualifies as extremely probable.  The most amusing thing?  They forgot to specify the *number* of sides in a blast (the Thunderwave example is merely and explicitly that, an example).  Enjoy, if your "rocks fall, everyone dies" dodging skill is high enough.


----------



## hong (Jun 23, 2008)

I like bags of rats.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 23, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I like bags of rats.



 Yet you put up rabbit-proof fences. Why do you hate fluffy floppy-eared freedom?

Feh, -- N


----------



## hong (Jun 23, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Yet you put up rabbit-proof fences. Why do you hate fluffy floppy-eared freedom?
> 
> Feh, -- N



 The rabbits eat the rats. They breed 'em tough here in the vast mountainous deserts of Austria.


----------



## Tenniel (Jun 23, 2008)

_Wouldn't:

. . X . .
. X X X .
X X X X X
. X X X .
. . X . .

Be a 3 by 3 square??_

Hee hee, that means 3 x 3=13.  

When you move, you move faster along the diagonals, so why can't blasts go further?

But, in the intersets of keeping things simple (even if there was no specific ruling in the books) I would say keep things orthogonal... unless a TPK was looming or something then player creativity would be rewarded by DM genorosity


----------



## hamishspence (Jun 24, 2008)

*3 by 3*

The tight-fisted way: say it must be 3 by 3 all ways: edge to edge, corner to corner. Thanks to 4th ed diagonal rules, this actually works.

The 13 square is 5 by 5 (corner to corner) so doen't qualify.


----------



## Branduil (Jun 24, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I like bags of rats.



What about a bag of holding full of infinite oregano-covered rats?


----------

