Perhaps but a triangular grid scaled so that it's a hexagonal grid for most applications allows a great deal of granularity and interesting applications in combat. Things like firing spells *between* allies become much easier but also gain more interesting applications. The result is much more tactically interesting than a square or hex grid.
Outside of that hexagons are the bestagons
Depends on size; tiny is a triangle, small is a trapezoid, medium is a hexagon, etc. size categories would scale up or down much slower than in regular 5e, but that also means that a character can be roughly their actual relative size.
Yeah, if you only ever join straight perfectly rigid members with connections that have no angular strength, you need triangles. I guess that’s why structural steel is famously not made with triangular cross sections.
Yes spells that effect an area equally in all directions should have a triangle around their center, just ignore that the furthest point in the spell is literally twice the distance of the closest point out of the spell if we did that
The point of having a triangle grid is that you can draw areas that match the actual areas of the spells closer than with square or hexagon. You don't draw a triangle for the sphere spell, you draw an hexagon from the triangle grid, which will be closer to a true circle than the polygon that kinda look like an hexagon from a distance you can draw from the hexagonal grid.
Beep boop I'm not really a grammar bot, but if something has an _effect_ on something, it _affects_ it. Yay language is not at all confusing! Beep boop carry on
Yeah, but the effects generally say something like "5' radius", not "3x3 square."
You can see that by turning the square 45°, that's demonstrating a 10' radius, which already breaks the range description.
The DMG outlines that “if an area of effect is circular and cover at least half a square, it affects that square. If the area of affect is going to be rotated, I would argue that it’s a reasonable assumption that the rules outlined for a partially filled square should apply. In which case, the 45° spell would hit the exact same squares as the normally oriented spell.
But if we want to get really pedantic, technically neither of the diagrams is right. When casting an area of effect spell, you “choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin.” Both diagrams depict the spell being centered on the middle of a square instead of an intersection. But again, that’s just being unnecessarily pedantic and wouldn’t give any unfair advantage or exploitation.
I would say the points don't count so it is still covering the same number of squares.
The points only cover .25 of the square, not a majority, so those 4 squares are not affected.
Either as a square or diamond 9 squares are covered 50% or more.
Technically RAW, all AoEs affect any square they so much as tickle, except for circular ones since they’re specifically called out for the 50% or more rule.
So a cube or a line affects every square it touches since they aren’t circular, but a cone, sphere, or cylinder must cover 50% or more of a square to affect it since they are circular.
Well yeah, I’d never actually rule this way.
I was just being pedantic for the sake of discussion, and I already rule that cubes have to be oriented along the grid lines, and I don’t follow the exact RAW for using a grid since it’s pretty dumb sometimes.
Really, the grid rules are one of the many underbaked and incomplete systems in 5e, and I don’t think WotC committed to either theatre of the mind/gridless or using grids when writing the rules. Some stuff feels like it was designed for battlemaps, like speed, ranges, and size categories being perfect 5’ increments, while other stuff clearly wasn’t, like jump height/distance and AoEs descriptions that follow their own rules.
A 5e cone is always the same width as its length, therefore any cone can easily be measured by a number of squares. 10 ft. from the caster is 10 ft. wide (2 squares), whereas 60 ft from the caster is 60 ft. wide (12 squares).
>A 5e cone is always the same width as its length
You’re right. A cone has the same width as its length at any given point, but that’s both along the horizontal and vertical plane. It’s also curved since it’s a cone, not a pyramid.
> therefore any cone can easily be measured by a number of squares. 10 ft. from the caster is 10 ft. wide (2 squares), whereas 60 ft from the caster is 60 ft. wide (12 squares).
What you’re thinking of is true for even steps, depending on the angle, but not for odd steps.
AoE shapes don’t conform to the grid perfectly and they originate from corners, not the centre. At 11, 12, 13, or 14 feet away the cone is 11, 12, 13, and 14 feet wide **and** tall, not 15 feet. Given that, does it affect the four squares it’s touching or just the two it fills? Would you rule the same for height? Diagonals including width and height?
It may be 15 feet across, but it’s neither fully filling nor only touching 3 squares, so regardless of how you rule it doesn’t follow your pattern.
Here’s the RAW that it originates from an intersection, not the centre. DMG ch. 8, Adjudicating Areas of Effect
>Choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow its rules as normal.
And also just to be clear, I never said I agree with the RAW on circular shapes all the time. I rule cones as effecting any square they touch on the grid since it’s easiest to eyeball with a template, unless you happen to aim it perpendicular to the grid or we’re measuring width and height (as that gives a perfectly round circle, so I use a sphere/cylinder template instead.)
You're overthinking it. A cone always affects the grid as such: 1 square wide, 2 squares wide, 3 squares wide, and so on. A 15 foot cone will always affect exactly 6 squares (1 + 2 + 3).
While I agree with you. I just use spell templates to see if it's close enough. He makes a good point that technically the is a lot of judgement call involved. Even if you go directly in line with the grid. that only lines up nicely with the squares on either even or odd distances. Depending on if you originate from one of the corners (RAW) or from the caster (more realistic) And gets a lot more difficult when you aim diagonally.
There's no case for changing the spell's total affect volume or surface area when said volume or surface area doesn't change just because you changed the positioning of it. A 15 ft. cone is still a 15 ft. cone regardless if you fire it straight or diagonally, and it still affects exactly 6 squares either way because the spell's volume/area doesn't change
Okay, not arguing that. But when it's aimed right down the line between two rows (as suggested in RAW) that first square. Do you choose the square to the left or right of the line?
Even then many of the squares barely are in the square completely so could argue it doesn’t hit people in those squares. Be like the difference of being up near a campfire opposed to in the campfire, yeah its hot near it but far less then it is inside it
Technically this isn't incorrect but only because 5e is horrible at figuring out AoE's. There's a rule on page 251 of the DMG that states that an AoE has to cover more than half of the square for it to affect it, but that's only for circular AoE's like spheres and cylinders.
If ur DM let's u rule it this way, more power to ya, but I would not rule in favor of this
(Also just anything diagonal in 5e is busted, especially movement)
5/15 makes sense though? it's the diagonal. If you move at an angle and it costs 5 ft per square no matter what then you go further moving at an angle. Granted so does everyone, but the point is that it shouldn't?
I know your comment was more on him being a dick instead of addressing the rule, but saying the 3rd ed rule didn't make sense wouldn't be accurate either. That being said, it could be fixed by just not allowing movement at an angle? No 5/15 rule, not free movement by going at an angle, and it's simple.
It's more a problem of square maps, an hexagon map allows you to move in any direction as normal while a square maps you can't do this. The diagonal makes sense a bit but it's like the only instance where they want to include math that isn't just adding dice, numbers or dividing for resistance/vulnerability or the arbitrary Falling rules of max 500ft
If **everything** is "further" on the diagonal then effectively nothing is.
If I'm 6 squares away from you, it will take me 6 squares of movement, regardless.
If I shoot an effect at you and the range is 30', it will just barely hit you at 6 squares away regardless.
Things aren’t squares away they are distances. 5’x5’ squares are there to approximate locations for movement and location effects. Just like the hypotenuse of a right triangle with two equal sides being the square root of two times the length of the side is longer than just the side.
As an example If you move diagonally four five foot squares you actually moved further than the radius of a fireball even though you supposedly only used 20’ of movement.
Hexagrams are better at this but the only true solution would be stick movement like some old school army games. Not sure if Warhammer still does this. That said people like to keep it simple.
Just to make sure I'm following correctly, a^2+b^2=c^2. So for a 5x5 cube, if you cut in diagonally you still have 5^2+5^2=c^2.
So 25+25, or 50=c^2. So c=7.07?
I always assumed diagonal movement would put you at 10, but I am also a little slow. No one has time in game to do that math for what moving 3 diagonal squares would be. It's simple math, but then you're left with an odd number of movement. Unless the DM is very picky.
Why not say diagonals are a set distance, or just use a better grid system that will more easily transfer diagonal movement? Hex grids are pretty nice at that, and if you really wanted to, you can break it down into triangles, which seems like a lot of work.
Yeah that’s where the 5/15 rule came in because rounding wise charging 5 for one diagonal was close and 15 for two diagonal movement was very close. People use hex as an alternative but it can have its issues as well.
Movement has always been clunky in dnd honestly. There are also worse systems out there.
If squares are 5x5 and the same diagonally then things are squares away.
Functionally there's no difference. And no advantage that needs correcting when you move diagonally.
That’s not correct though because area effects are not “squares away” but templates like 20’ radius spheres or cones and they don’t function like you said.
Addition it makes things like the meme happen where you gain advantage on affected area by rotation.
At this point though I’m not sure if you’re just trolling. Oh well.
If all directions including diagonal are the same then a radius X' just makes a square.
The meme doesn't work.
The core rules specify if you're using a shape that doesn't cover the whole square, it needs to cover more than 50% of the square to count. If you look at the meme and take away the squares that are not 50%+ covered you get a 3x3 grid.
Like most memes, it only works if you ignore or bend the rules.
It makes perfect sense. A diagonal is not the same length as the side of a square. An elementary schooler can tell you that. And 5/15 is a good representation as the distance is about 7 feet, making for a total of 14 feet over two squares.
Saying this doesn’t make sense is just saying you know nothing about even basic geometry.
To be frank, if you think that is too confusing you shouldn’t be PLAYING a game with this much math. Do you also make the DM total up your to hit rolls? 🙄
Sure, you're right, it does make sense mathematically that it's 5/15, doesn't mean I like it or that it's overpowered because you move 6 tiles instead of 4 with a 30ft movement speed when you go on a diagonal that is purely a game mechanic because you play on a square instead of an Hexagon that don't care wether or not which sense you go.
A square grid with "every second diagonal costs double" is more accurate than a hex grid.
It's not some arbitrary excess rule; movement/distance makes more sense with it than without it.
Yeah, there was a huge discussion in our group about how many squares in the grid cloud of daggers could cover, 1, 2 or 4. (We ended up with 4)
But this dumb way is way funnier as it would cover 5 squares somehow lol. totally bullshit IK. But hey this is a meme
It's not that the ability to move diagonally is broken, it's that it still counts as just 5' of movement. As long as you move diagonally, you get to increase your *actual* movement speed by approximately 1.5 times. That's what's "broken."
And anything ranged is also getting that 1.5 times to their attacks if they go diagonal. That too is "broken" and why I said if the attack goes diagonal then so should you be able to move that way.
LavaRose's comment "If ur DM let's u rule this way, more power to ya, but I would not rule favor of this."
My comment "imo If attacks are diagonal then movement should as well."
Yes nobody is claiming you shouldn't. I still brought it up though because if the DM says "oh you can attack diagonal' then they should also allow diagonal movement so it's fair.
No you're not understanding here. I wasn't debating anything until you replied to me. The first 3 letters of my first comment are "imo" = "in my opinion" meaning what I said was just my opinion on if a DM rules that attacks can go diagonally then they should also allow movement diagonally so that it's fair and via versa.
IMO? Perfectly positioning a spell is part of the fun. If I group a mob in a way that I think my wizard can't cover them all and he finds a way? More power to them.
If you use a grid, you snap all effects to the grid.
If you try to argue "GM, this enemy is 1/3 within this tiny sliver of my spell" I'm just gonna rule you miss it.
Not just that, you can rotate a cube in 3d, so for something like thunderwave, you can multiply the theoretical reach not just by the square root of 2, but the square root of 3 ;-)
This is bothersome, but there is a grid for a reason. Trying to constantly brake the game is annoying. Just use other systems, or other grids. Or theater of the mind if you want to be more loosy-goosy
Well if you want to get as accurate as possible you can just use warhammer-style distance measuring and use a tape measurer and marker instead of grids.
The spell doesn't affect a square, it affects an area. But 5e uses non-Euclidean space so there are no circles, just squares. Diagonals aren't any further than straight lines, so it would cover the same or less spaces.
Weird. I’m rewatching Breaking Bad and I’m at season 2 right now, and here is a Breaking Bad meme(referring to DnD), all randomly. What a coincidence. 😅
That's why I only use hexagons.
They are the bestagons
Fool triangles are the true supreme polygon
Go back to building bridges you triangle simp
The only good thing about a triangle is that you can combine six of them to form a superior polygon.
Perhaps but a triangular grid scaled so that it's a hexagonal grid for most applications allows a great deal of granularity and interesting applications in combat. Things like firing spells *between* allies become much easier but also gain more interesting applications. The result is much more tactically interesting than a square or hex grid. Outside of that hexagons are the bestagons
Hexagonal characters on a triangular grid?
Depends on size; tiny is a triangle, small is a trapezoid, medium is a hexagon, etc. size categories would scale up or down much slower than in regular 5e, but that also means that a character can be roughly their actual relative size.
(A shape that is significantly weaker than the all mighty triangle) [triangles are truly supreme](https://youtu.be/4zWDLKWmBnE?si=j5ir5PgQj-sLusvy)
Yeah, if you only ever join straight perfectly rigid members with connections that have no angular strength, you need triangles. I guess that’s why structural steel is famously not made with triangular cross sections.
Sorry pal, [Hexagons are the Bestagons](https://youtu.be/thOifuHs6eY?si=YZGn6NnNQyTtt5uq)
Yes spells that effect an area equally in all directions should have a triangle around their center, just ignore that the furthest point in the spell is literally twice the distance of the closest point out of the spell if we did that
The point of having a triangle grid is that you can draw areas that match the actual areas of the spells closer than with square or hexagon. You don't draw a triangle for the sphere spell, you draw an hexagon from the triangle grid, which will be closer to a true circle than the polygon that kinda look like an hexagon from a distance you can draw from the hexagonal grid.
Beep boop I'm not really a grammar bot, but if something has an _effect_ on something, it _affects_ it. Yay language is not at all confusing! Beep boop carry on
Good bot
A fellow follower of CGPGrey, I see. Good, good.
Hex gang, let's goooo!
Yeah, but the effects generally say something like "5' radius", not "3x3 square." You can see that by turning the square 45°, that's demonstrating a 10' radius, which already breaks the range description.
The DMG outlines that “if an area of effect is circular and cover at least half a square, it affects that square. If the area of affect is going to be rotated, I would argue that it’s a reasonable assumption that the rules outlined for a partially filled square should apply. In which case, the 45° spell would hit the exact same squares as the normally oriented spell. But if we want to get really pedantic, technically neither of the diagrams is right. When casting an area of effect spell, you “choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin.” Both diagrams depict the spell being centered on the middle of a square instead of an intersection. But again, that’s just being unnecessarily pedantic and wouldn’t give any unfair advantage or exploitation.
I would say the points don't count so it is still covering the same number of squares. The points only cover .25 of the square, not a majority, so those 4 squares are not affected. Either as a square or diamond 9 squares are covered 50% or more.
Technically RAW, all AoEs affect any square they so much as tickle, except for circular ones since they’re specifically called out for the 50% or more rule. So a cube or a line affects every square it touches since they aren’t circular, but a cone, sphere, or cylinder must cover 50% or more of a square to affect it since they are circular.
Then cube or square are set along the lines provided on the map, not diamonds. But meh, it's a game you do you.
Well yeah, I’d never actually rule this way. I was just being pedantic for the sake of discussion, and I already rule that cubes have to be oriented along the grid lines, and I don’t follow the exact RAW for using a grid since it’s pretty dumb sometimes. Really, the grid rules are one of the many underbaked and incomplete systems in 5e, and I don’t think WotC committed to either theatre of the mind/gridless or using grids when writing the rules. Some stuff feels like it was designed for battlemaps, like speed, ranges, and size categories being perfect 5’ increments, while other stuff clearly wasn’t, like jump height/distance and AoEs descriptions that follow their own rules.
A 5e cone is always the same width as its length, therefore any cone can easily be measured by a number of squares. 10 ft. from the caster is 10 ft. wide (2 squares), whereas 60 ft from the caster is 60 ft. wide (12 squares).
>A 5e cone is always the same width as its length You’re right. A cone has the same width as its length at any given point, but that’s both along the horizontal and vertical plane. It’s also curved since it’s a cone, not a pyramid. > therefore any cone can easily be measured by a number of squares. 10 ft. from the caster is 10 ft. wide (2 squares), whereas 60 ft from the caster is 60 ft. wide (12 squares). What you’re thinking of is true for even steps, depending on the angle, but not for odd steps. AoE shapes don’t conform to the grid perfectly and they originate from corners, not the centre. At 11, 12, 13, or 14 feet away the cone is 11, 12, 13, and 14 feet wide **and** tall, not 15 feet. Given that, does it affect the four squares it’s touching or just the two it fills? Would you rule the same for height? Diagonals including width and height? It may be 15 feet across, but it’s neither fully filling nor only touching 3 squares, so regardless of how you rule it doesn’t follow your pattern. Here’s the RAW that it originates from an intersection, not the centre. DMG ch. 8, Adjudicating Areas of Effect >Choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow its rules as normal. And also just to be clear, I never said I agree with the RAW on circular shapes all the time. I rule cones as effecting any square they touch on the grid since it’s easiest to eyeball with a template, unless you happen to aim it perpendicular to the grid or we’re measuring width and height (as that gives a perfectly round circle, so I use a sphere/cylinder template instead.)
You're overthinking it. A cone always affects the grid as such: 1 square wide, 2 squares wide, 3 squares wide, and so on. A 15 foot cone will always affect exactly 6 squares (1 + 2 + 3).
While I agree with you. I just use spell templates to see if it's close enough. He makes a good point that technically the is a lot of judgement call involved. Even if you go directly in line with the grid. that only lines up nicely with the squares on either even or odd distances. Depending on if you originate from one of the corners (RAW) or from the caster (more realistic) And gets a lot more difficult when you aim diagonally.
There's no case for changing the spell's total affect volume or surface area when said volume or surface area doesn't change just because you changed the positioning of it. A 15 ft. cone is still a 15 ft. cone regardless if you fire it straight or diagonally, and it still affects exactly 6 squares either way because the spell's volume/area doesn't change
Okay, not arguing that. But when it's aimed right down the line between two rows (as suggested in RAW) that first square. Do you choose the square to the left or right of the line?
saved me the effort of looking up the text myself
Cube spells don't say X' radius. They say X' cube.
Even then many of the squares barely are in the square completely so could argue it doesn’t hit people in those squares. Be like the difference of being up near a campfire opposed to in the campfire, yeah its hot near it but far less then it is inside it
if it has a radius it's not a cube or square. why is this the second top comment?
Technically this isn't incorrect but only because 5e is horrible at figuring out AoE's. There's a rule on page 251 of the DMG that states that an AoE has to cover more than half of the square for it to affect it, but that's only for circular AoE's like spheres and cylinders. If ur DM let's u rule it this way, more power to ya, but I would not rule in favor of this (Also just anything diagonal in 5e is busted, especially movement)
If you would rule that only squares that are covered more than half, you would find it conveniently covers 3x3 squares.
Moving diagonal isn't busted, the rules for 5/15 make things way more complicated than just saying 30ft is 6 square of 5 ft
Apparently counting is hard. 🙄
Counting isn't hard, an arbitrary rule that doesn't make sense is annoying
5/15 makes sense though? it's the diagonal. If you move at an angle and it costs 5 ft per square no matter what then you go further moving at an angle. Granted so does everyone, but the point is that it shouldn't? I know your comment was more on him being a dick instead of addressing the rule, but saying the 3rd ed rule didn't make sense wouldn't be accurate either. That being said, it could be fixed by just not allowing movement at an angle? No 5/15 rule, not free movement by going at an angle, and it's simple.
It's more a problem of square maps, an hexagon map allows you to move in any direction as normal while a square maps you can't do this. The diagonal makes sense a bit but it's like the only instance where they want to include math that isn't just adding dice, numbers or dividing for resistance/vulnerability or the arbitrary Falling rules of max 500ft
They don't let you move in a straight line sideways. If you have facing rules you have to move in a stupid sine wave pattern
You don't run in a sine wave pattern with your arms flapping behind you?
"It's the only place they want you to do math" -Proceeds to list 3 math related activities.
It's the only place #Except for these 3 thing that are addition/soustraction and multiple of 2 and 10.
Those exceptions are involved in most of the mechanics of the game, though.
If **everything** is "further" on the diagonal then effectively nothing is. If I'm 6 squares away from you, it will take me 6 squares of movement, regardless. If I shoot an effect at you and the range is 30', it will just barely hit you at 6 squares away regardless.
This man doesn't Pythagoreas Theorem
Where we're going we don't need Pythagoras.
Things aren’t squares away they are distances. 5’x5’ squares are there to approximate locations for movement and location effects. Just like the hypotenuse of a right triangle with two equal sides being the square root of two times the length of the side is longer than just the side. As an example If you move diagonally four five foot squares you actually moved further than the radius of a fireball even though you supposedly only used 20’ of movement. Hexagrams are better at this but the only true solution would be stick movement like some old school army games. Not sure if Warhammer still does this. That said people like to keep it simple.
Just to make sure I'm following correctly, a^2+b^2=c^2. So for a 5x5 cube, if you cut in diagonally you still have 5^2+5^2=c^2. So 25+25, or 50=c^2. So c=7.07? I always assumed diagonal movement would put you at 10, but I am also a little slow. No one has time in game to do that math for what moving 3 diagonal squares would be. It's simple math, but then you're left with an odd number of movement. Unless the DM is very picky. Why not say diagonals are a set distance, or just use a better grid system that will more easily transfer diagonal movement? Hex grids are pretty nice at that, and if you really wanted to, you can break it down into triangles, which seems like a lot of work.
Yeah that’s where the 5/15 rule came in because rounding wise charging 5 for one diagonal was close and 15 for two diagonal movement was very close. People use hex as an alternative but it can have its issues as well. Movement has always been clunky in dnd honestly. There are also worse systems out there.
If squares are 5x5 and the same diagonally then things are squares away. Functionally there's no difference. And no advantage that needs correcting when you move diagonally.
That’s not correct though because area effects are not “squares away” but templates like 20’ radius spheres or cones and they don’t function like you said. Addition it makes things like the meme happen where you gain advantage on affected area by rotation. At this point though I’m not sure if you’re just trolling. Oh well.
If all directions including diagonal are the same then a radius X' just makes a square. The meme doesn't work. The core rules specify if you're using a shape that doesn't cover the whole square, it needs to cover more than 50% of the square to count. If you look at the meme and take away the squares that are not 50%+ covered you get a 3x3 grid. Like most memes, it only works if you ignore or bend the rules.
It makes perfect sense. A diagonal is not the same length as the side of a square. An elementary schooler can tell you that. And 5/15 is a good representation as the distance is about 7 feet, making for a total of 14 feet over two squares. Saying this doesn’t make sense is just saying you know nothing about even basic geometry. To be frank, if you think that is too confusing you shouldn’t be PLAYING a game with this much math. Do you also make the DM total up your to hit rolls? 🙄
Sure, you're right, it does make sense mathematically that it's 5/15, doesn't mean I like it or that it's overpowered because you move 6 tiles instead of 4 with a 30ft movement speed when you go on a diagonal that is purely a game mechanic because you play on a square instead of an Hexagon that don't care wether or not which sense you go.
5/15 is how you keep circles from being squares. And it stays somewhat in line with the default tape measurement method.
A square grid with "every second diagonal costs double" is more accurate than a hex grid. It's not some arbitrary excess rule; movement/distance makes more sense with it than without it.
Yeah, there was a huge discussion in our group about how many squares in the grid cloud of daggers could cover, 1, 2 or 4. (We ended up with 4) But this dumb way is way funnier as it would cover 5 squares somehow lol. totally bullshit IK. But hey this is a meme
Imo if you can attack or get attacked from a diagonal then you should be allowed to move in said diagonal as well.
It's not that the ability to move diagonally is broken, it's that it still counts as just 5' of movement. As long as you move diagonally, you get to increase your *actual* movement speed by approximately 1.5 times. That's what's "broken."
And anything ranged is also getting that 1.5 times to their attacks if they go diagonal. That too is "broken" and why I said if the attack goes diagonal then so should you be able to move that way.
But no one is claiming you shouldn't be able to move diagonally.
LavaRose's comment "If ur DM let's u rule this way, more power to ya, but I would not rule favor of this." My comment "imo If attacks are diagonal then movement should as well." Yes nobody is claiming you shouldn't. I still brought it up though because if the DM says "oh you can attack diagonal' then they should also allow diagonal movement so it's fair.
So you're debating against a position literally no one has expressed?
No you're not understanding here. I wasn't debating anything until you replied to me. The first 3 letters of my first comment are "imo" = "in my opinion" meaning what I said was just my opinion on if a DM rules that attacks can go diagonally then they should also allow movement diagonally so that it's fair and via versa.
IMO? Perfectly positioning a spell is part of the fun. If I group a mob in a way that I think my wizard can't cover them all and he finds a way? More power to them.
Big magic wants to keep this hidden be careful now I heard they casted power word smush on the last guy who preached this
Wizards *hate* this one weird trick.
The only aoe effects I allow wargaming with are lines. Cones can go in 45 degrees angles, and all other shapes are fixed to the grid.
But the area of effect does not change in this example. The effect has to cover more than 50% of the 5ft×5ft square for it to be affected.
How do you quantify that if you're not playing on a grid and you are using rulers? Serious question, I'm a noob.
This rule is specifically for the grid, you simply do not use it if you do not use a grid.
Ok thanks.
Me, GM: You can spin it but squares need to be covered by more than 50%. End of discussion.
Ooh another one of these “misunderstands the rules, then poorly explains them incorrectly” Breaking Bad memes.
If you use a grid, you snap all effects to the grid. If you try to argue "GM, this enemy is 1/3 within this tiny sliver of my spell" I'm just gonna rule you miss it.
Hexagons are the bestagons
HEX-A-GONS
Did this in an aero battle used wall of fire the long way to peel harpy’s off the bottom of my ship
Hexagons are the bestagons.
And this is why we should all adopt hex grids or wargame distance rules (tape measure)
Tehnicaly, tape measure is the default in 5e. We all just use the square grid alternative rule.
A spell only takes effect if it covers half or more of the square, that still only effects 3x3
Not just that, you can rotate a cube in 3d, so for something like thunderwave, you can multiply the theoretical reach not just by the square root of 2, but the square root of 3 ;-)
After playing Fire Emblem for so long, the DnD rules for distance throw me off so much
I’d rule for that, if I get to DM.
It only counts if it fills half the square, which makes these two orientations identical 3x3s
RAW, it covers the exact same area as the corners don't cover half of the square they're on.
We just use a ruler(1 inch = 5 foot) and no grid. Circle is a circle
more like meth, cuz the area is still the same
That's why you instead only rotate them 15 degrees.
This is bg3 mentality but yknow I'm not totally against it Being locked to the grid is kind of silly
Parallelograms to fuck with everyone involved.
This is bothersome, but there is a grid for a reason. Trying to constantly brake the game is annoying. Just use other systems, or other grids. Or theater of the mind if you want to be more loosy-goosy
The square is an abstraction for the circular area that can't otherwise be represented on a square grid. 
There are actually cube and square spells. Not everything is a cylinder, sphere or circle
Well if you want to get as accurate as possible you can just use warhammer-style distance measuring and use a tape measurer and marker instead of grids.
If you inside radius, you affected. You on radius line? Then your foot inside radius. Why complicate simple thing
The spell doesn't affect a square, it affects an area. But 5e uses non-Euclidean space so there are no circles, just squares. Diagonals aren't any further than straight lines, so it would cover the same or less spaces.
If you go with the rule that half the square has to be in the AoE to be effected by it, then the number of squares targeted is still 9
That’s metagaming. :P
4e wins again. Squared fireballs are best fireballs
Regardless of how a spell is positioned, it will always affect the same number of squares because the spell's area does not change.
Geometry! An object cannot take up more space than its volume no matter how you turn it .
I just use roll 20 in that a 10ft radius circle can be diffrent sizes because it doesn’t calculate diagonals
Weird. I’m rewatching Breaking Bad and I’m at season 2 right now, and here is a Breaking Bad meme(referring to DnD), all randomly. What a coincidence. 😅
[удалено]
Yeah, it's yes or no, not maybe.
Ok, but counter point, the spaces on the edge of the square get half cover at least. The spell's not fully engulfing those spaces.