Post/Author/DateTime	Post
jarvis02 08-11-06, 02:33 PM	So I'm dming a campain and it's on a boat, but that's irrelevant for the question. My mage cast grease, which is a set area effect 10ft. He cast it on two orcs that had one 5ft. square between them. He tried to put it in the direct middle of the two orcs. By doing this, half of each of the orcs squares had been greased and he was trying to argue that they would get the full effect of the spell. So essentially he is trying to stretch 10ft. into 15ft. for the purpose of hitting enemies. I tried to say that maybe one foot would be greased or something because it already happened and I didn't want to reverse time since he killed one of them, because he failed his reflex then failed his balance and fell over the edge of the boat, so it was cool to see someone kill something with grease. I hope you guys understand what is going on here, I wish i could draw it out for you. I understand that you can sortof shape spells to not hit or hit things, but I wsould think they would have to be on an axis of the squares. His was in the middle of a horizontal line, which is not an axis. Who's wrong here?
Aracor 08-11-06, 02:56 PM	He is. If you look at the rules of targeting spells, he basically needs to choose an intersection, and then it moves out from there. So he can't use the middle of a square as the center just to spread it out more.
mvincent 08-11-06, 03:08 PM	He is. If you look at the rules of targeting spells, he basically needs to choose an intersection, and then it moves out from there. So he can't use the middle of a square as the center just to spread it out more.Agreed.
TheUnhallowed 08-11-06, 03:29 PM	.:The.Unhallowed:. Yeah, 'cuz things are actually set up on a grid, right? Sorry, but I think it should be allowed. The world is not divided into little 5ft squares. I'll admit, they wouldn't be fully affected, but that could be covered by a +2 on the save or something like that, maybe even +4. Hard rules are important for balance, yes, but they should never rule out simple common sense. .:Edit:. Or a fun game.
PhaedrusXY 08-11-06, 03:36 PM	By a strict reading of the rules, you are right because the 3.5 rules assume everyone uses grids and miniatures. However, I hate miniatures and grids, and have never played or ran a game in which they were used. To me, two orcs 5 feet apart should be easy to catch in a 10 foot wide spell. As The Unhallowed said: The world is not divided into little 5ft squares.
Cayl 08-11-06, 03:59 PM	The consequence of applying "Common sense" is that your player will never place a spell on an intersection again, and will always target the middle of a square to squeeze out that extra 5 feet in his radius. Draw out a five foot square and stand in it. Then divide it in half and see if you can't stand in a 5 x 2.5 foot section without much difficulty. If you are using grids then I'd follow the rules. If this became an argument, then I'd let the wizard cast it wherever he wanted, but the consequence would be a greatly diminished chance that it would affect either orc in any way, +4 minimum to the reflex at least, with no chance to slide off the side of the ship even if they did go prone. Able to stand up without a reflex save the next round simply by shifting where he's at inside his square.
Molitor 08-11-06, 04:14 PM	PHB page 175. Under the section of 'area'. An intersection must be targeted.
mvincent 08-11-06, 04:27 PM	Hard rules are important for balance, yes, but they should never rule out simple common sense.As evidenced by this thread, adjudicating two targets that are half-in a spell effect is far more complicated than then just having one single target all the way inside. At best you would merely roll a 50/50 chance of either one being in the effect (essentially, much the same result), but resolving this is one of the main purposes of having grids (or rules in general) in the first place... i.e. it's what they are for. Sure there are times where you need to break the rules, but this case doesn't appear to be one of them. In either case, the player here shouldn't have tried to argue that both targets were automatically fully inside the area of effect. That's seems like "munchkinism".
tarkin 08-11-06, 05:10 PM	As a general rule, I find that when someone is claiming "common sense" as their arguement then: 1) What they think is 'common sense' is (by definition of the fact that they are ARGUING with someone about it), not 'common'. 2) What they think is 'common sense' is not only wrong, but fairly obviously wrong. Why? Because if what they said was REALLY common sense, they would have a better argument than "everyone knows this". For example, if I were to say that you can't trust those catholics, they eat human flesh, some one might say that anyone with common sense knows they don't practice cannibalism. Except any real catholic priest will then educate the uniformed about the miracle of the Eucharist.
mvincent 08-11-06, 05:24 PM	As a general rule, I find that when someone is claiming "common sense" as their arguement thenThe actual quote was "simple common sense". Given the possible meanings of "simple", I decided pass on commenting on the term.
Witchblade 08-11-06, 07:32 PM	If you don't use the rules for a grid, everything goes poo. What if I want to target one orc a bit more than the other, say 3/4 of the left one's space and 1/4 of the right one's space? How about anti-magic field if someone's standing on 'half a square'? The rules say: if you're partially in it, you're fully affected. If you won't use the rules for a grid, you might as well get rid of the round-by-round system. I mean, there's no round-by-round system if real life so why would there be one in DnD? Let's just forget what rules are for. Structure? DM can handle it. Simplicity? DM can handle it. Fairness? DM can handle it. Continuity? DM can handle it.
Illuman 08-11-06, 07:46 PM	Goin' with Witchblade with this one.
mvincent 08-11-06, 08:04 PM	Let's just forget what rules are for. Structure? DM can handle it. Simplicity? DM can handle it. Fairness? DM can handle it. Continuity? DM can handle it.I've always been of the mind that rules were mainly for the player's benefit, since a DM can already do anything.
DM Zoc 08-11-06, 08:28 PM	The real question is whether those orcs were actually within 10 feet of each other or not. We have no real way of knowing, because the default rules only include in five-foot resolution. If you're not using a grid, then there's a chance that it might hit both, or neither of them. Honestly, this is a situation where it's right and justifiable (though not necessarilly by the letter of the rules) to ask whether it would be possible to hit both with the effect, and where the answer is likely to change between instances. I mean, what do you do when someone wants to walk down the middle of a ten-foot hallway?
Witchblade 08-11-06, 08:50 PM	I've always been of the mind that rules were mainly for the player's benefit, since a DM can already do anything. That part of my post was satirical. I meant the DM could handle those things, but he shouldn't. It's what the consistency of the rules are for.
DMDaddy 08-11-06, 10:12 PM	I use intersection rules. But, I also let them center it wherever they want as long as it is measured out. And, per rules: (paraphrased) any square that has grease partially going through it is considered fully greased. That is how the DMG explains mapping out terrain types like water. Any square that has part water (even a fraction) is considered slippery.
Limousine_Liberal 08-12-06, 08:18 AM	The rules on targeting AoE spells are inane, but in this case the player is trying to use an particular interpretation of the rules in an equally inane way (since it effectively gives the Grease spell a 5 foot increase in its width). Personally, I allow targeting the center of a square, but I would basically rule as follows: For either orc standing in a partially affected 5' square, there is only a 50% chance that he is standing in a segment of that square that is effected by the Grease at the moment the spell takes effect. If he is, then he might fall if he fails his saving throw. If he makes his saving throw, then he needs to make a balance check to move out of the Grease (but remaining in the partically affected square). He can do so as a free action if that balance check is successful. If he is not standing in the affected segment (either because the 50% chance went in his favor or he made his Balance check and moved out of the Grease), then he can effectively avoid the Grease without penalty even if he stays within that partially affected square, as can anyone else later entering or passing through that square. The same rule apllies to (say) Lightning Bolt you can fire it so that it "overlaps" a 10' wide line (rather than neatly filling a 5' wide line), but there is a 50% chance that any creature in such a "partially" overlapped square will avoid the effect entirely. Those are obviously house rules, but they've worked well for me.
Tsuul 08-12-06, 01:59 PM	-No one actualy takes up a 5' square. -Your player didn't take a tape measure and measure the 5' space between the orcs. -If he wants to affect one orc, he has to cover it's 5' square in grease. The other orc is far enough away to be safe. -If you try to get both orcs, then both orcs simply move to the farthest edges of their respective 5' squares and avoid the spell completely. Would your player let an airline give him one parachute to share between him and the person in the next seat? The chute should "cover" them both, right?
Dheran 08-12-06, 07:26 PM	I agree that you should follow the rules for targeting spells. But that doesn't prevent having to work out how to deal with spells centered in a square rather than an intersection. One easy example is light that a character carries around -- a torch, or a Light spell cast on a helmet crest. This is centered in the character's square, and you've got to work out what's bright and what's shadowy from that point. The Spell Areas figures on page 307 of the DMG don't cut the mustard for this and similar cases.
Minias 08-13-06, 12:57 AM	Keep in mind that an ogre with 10x10 spacing is affected by an area-effect spell even if only one of the 5x5 squares that make up the ogres space is within the spell's effect area. Therefore, I'd conclude that if any portion of the square that the orc is in is affected by the Grease spell then the orc must make a saving thow, as per the spell description. With or without the grid two medium-sized creatures that are only 5 feet apart can fit easily in the 10-radius spell ... either by choosing the appropriate intersection in which the area of effect will spread into both squares or just adjucating that it is so ... however, you might catch your allies in it if they in squares threatened by the orcs. Personally, this is way too much discussion for someone who isn't using the grid system. Just make a ruling and move on. In most cases, a kinder, gentler on-the-fly DM is going to rule favorably for the PCs. Just enjoy the game and stop nit-picking over small issues.
Pegasos989 08-13-06, 03:07 AM	With or without the grid two medium-sized creatures that are only 5 feet apart can fit easily in the 10-radius spell ... either by choosing the appropriate intersection in which the area of effect will spread into both squares or just adjucating that it is so ... however, you might catch your allies in it if they in squares threatened by the orcs. yeah, but they are not taking whole 5 feet squares they are in. if they are in the center of those, they both have extra 2,5 feet from the center, thus the distance between them is 10 feet. Now, one can say that they aren't in the centre, they are closer or further... Thus I would say that no, common sense does not say that if there are two people that are all the time more than 5 but less than 15 feet away from each other, they will both always be affected by the spell that affects 10 feet. This is why there are clear rules about the subject - to both ensure realism (atleast in this case) AND avoid this kind of arguments. I would revard the player's creativism in this case by deciding that the orcs must either squueze in their halves of square (taking standard minuses in ac, etc.) or take half of the penalties, damage, etc. in similar situations.
teclis 08-13-06, 12:12 PM	what you have to remember is that the orcs are not 5' away from each other. 2 orcs each in their own square with one 5' square between them are 10' away from each other. hence, you can't catch both with a grease spell. simple, effective, intuitive. I love 3.5 rules.
SmokeJaguar 08-13-06, 12:59 PM	If the DM puts a 5ft square between the orcs when he locates them on the grid, he is telling the players that a 10ft AoE will not effect them. It's not a matter of distance, because the 5ft square model is an abstraction. Everyone at the table needs to respect relative locations on the grid, if you use one. The players would be upset if you fireballed them when they made a point of spreading out to avoid the pyromancer's most deadly attack, right? Even if you weren't using a grid system and described the orcs as "about 10 feet apart", the players should know better than to try to hit them both with that spell, because it affects an area 'about' 10 feet wide. Ranges are calculated in increments of 5 feet, but that doesn't mean that the spell itself is exactly 10 feet wide, or that the orcs are exactly 10 feet apart. Abstraction of the rules is one of the key points that makes D20 a fun system to play. I guess what I'm saying is that if a player is asking to extend the area of a spell by 50%, you should disallow it, ragardless of whether you are using a grid or not. The reason for this is to establish a consistency with your rulings so that both the players and the DM can use tactics to win the day and not have their good planning spoiled by a rules-fudge.
Nom 08-15-06, 01:00 AM	The world is not divided into little 5ft squares.The fact is, on a 5 ft. grid the world IS divided into little 5 ft. squares. You either play with a grid and accept the effects thereof, or you play with an approximation to "real" position and accept the effects thereof. You don't play with a grid until you would get a mechanical advantage to do otherwise and then request a complete rules rewrite. Yes, standard D&D does toggle between gridded and non-gridded play. But it toggles because the story / gameplay moves into or out of tactical mode (no-one in their right mind uses a 5 ft. grid for "the journey to Lesser Yark takes 3 days"), not because you're trying to munchkin the system.
Alric 08-15-06, 01:32 AM	It says a 10 foot square. Thats pretty simple. Its not a radius spell so theres really no way you can argue for half squares.
kjenks 08-15-06, 12:19 PM	Sculpt Spell + Grease does the job, but it takes a metamagic feat and a level 2 spell slot. Tell your player about it and he can plan for the future. It's an awesome combination. Now give an NPC sorcerer the Greater Slide spell (Spell Compendium) and watch the slip-and-slide fun. (Don't give it to an NPC wizard; you don't want your PCs to have this spell on a ship-board adventure.) NPC fighter-types with Improved Bull Rush would be fun, too.
Finarin Panjoro 08-15-06, 01:22 PM	What Nom said.
tiercel 08-15-06, 05:27 PM	If a player did this in a campaign I were DMing in, I would do one of two things: 1) "Um, for combat rules to work, the world really is 5' squares. Otherwise what else do I have to fudge...?" or 2) "Well, if you really want to, I'll fudge it -- but because you are only hitting 50% of each of the orcs' squares, and I don't know *where* in the square each orc actually is, each orc gets a '50% miss chance' against being in the area of the grease spell. Fair?" I wouldn't just let grease hit both orcs and the square in between them, because that's letting it affect an area 15' across, which it doesn't do. As a spot ruling, the "50% miss chance for 50% affected squares" isn't terrible, but I wouldn't want to establish precedent of partial squares all the time -- round and cone-shaped diagrams could get tedious if you have lots of 27.532185% (or whatever) squares. Most of the time I'd just say, "look, it's an abstraction and it's a bit artificial, but so are hit points and a lot of other things -- the game has to be easily playable." For a single situation where it would make a lot of sense to try to hit both orcs, sure, fine, if the player was happy with two 50% miss chances instead of one sure inclusion, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
solbergb 08-15-06, 05:55 PM	Even if you stick to the grid, you run into this problem with larger monsters. Consider two ogres, standing right next to each other. You could target the grease under one ogre, and miss the other entirely. Or target on the grid between them, and grease half of both ogres. This is identical to the orc situation, but is not confused by doing something illegal by the RAW because the monsters are a bit bigger. How do you rule? Most DM's I've seen rule both ogres have to make save, at no penalty. They've got an easier time getting out of the grease though, as a 5' crawl will entirely free them (or standing up and balancing out will only cost 10' of movement for a non-accellerated balance, instead of 10' to get both "Squares" of them out of the grease). I find it easier to stick to the grid rules, and I'd never consider running D&D without a map any more than I'd run a superhero game without a map. Movement, flanking, combat maneuvers and spell effects are hugely influenced by exact placement and by terrain. It's far too easy to "fudge" in either direction (for or against players) without a map. There are games that work fine without a map. Feng Shui, for example (based on hong kong action movies of the 70s-90s) has a dynamic combat system that doesn't really need a map - but that is because players as well as the DM can add terrain elements on the fly ("I grab the life preserver donut thing, stick it over the head of my enemy and spin him around till he is dizzy" is a valid way to take an opponent out of a fight) and because the combat resolution is very abstract, relying on player and DM to add colorful flavor. (a bull rush, grapple, trip and disarm are all handled with the same mechanic, pretty much). A different example might be amber diceless (again, more of a participatory story than "challenge that player must overcome with teamwork and tactics and skills and feats") or most of the World of Darkness games (whose combat system was so primitive and power curve so sharp that most conflicts were resolved based only on the relative power of the individuals - terrain and tactics were irrelevant for the most part).
Mystic Theurge 08-15-06, 06:13 PM	I have a DM that runs the game on a mat that has no grid. Any area of effect spell you cast, you have to point to an area and then the effect is determined. First, the range is measured to make sure the area is within the range of the spell. Then the area is measured out from where the player pointed to. Any creature whose base is touched by the area is possibly effected (though those creatures who are just on the edge of the area may receive a bonus to save). Also, someone mentioned that lightning bolt has has a 5 foot wide area. AFAIK, this is incorrect. Lightning bolt area is a LINE and anytime that line touches a base of a creature (in a gridded or in a gridless system), that creature is in the area of effect... Essentially, you take a piece of string and stretch it our from where the effect starts to the point where it ends. Anything the string touches is effected.
Angel Black 08-15-06, 06:19 PM	The rules on targeting AoE spells are inane, but in this case the player is trying to use an particular interpretation of the rules in an equally inane way (since it effectively gives the Grease spell a 5 foot increase in its width). Personally, I allow targeting the center of a square, but I would basically rule as follows: For either orc standing in a partially affected 5' square, there is only a 50% chance that he is standing in a segment of that square that is effected by the Grease at the moment the spell takes effect. If he is, then he might fall if he fails his saving throw. If he makes his saving throw, then he needs to make a balance check to move out of the Grease (but remaining in the partically affected square). He can do so as a free action if that balance check is successful. If he is not standing in the affected segment (either because the 50% chance went in his favor or he made his Balance check and moved out of the Grease), then he can effectively avoid the Grease without penalty even if he stays within that partially affected square, as can anyone else later entering or passing through that square. The same rule apllies to (say) Lightning Bolt you can fire it so that it "overlaps" a 10' wide line (rather than neatly filling a 5' wide line), but there is a 50% chance that any creature in such a "partially" overlapped square will avoid the effect entirely. Those are obviously house rules, but they've worked well for me. I like this idea, another way to do something like this saying one target is 100% in the area of effect and the other one has a 80% chance of not being there, because he came late, he is slightly more intelligent, grease doesn't spill fast enough, and so on.
Pandaemoni 08-15-06, 06:37 PM	It says a 10 foot square. Thats pretty simple. Its not a radius spell so theres really no way you can argue for half squares. I'm not sure than "a 10 foot square" has to imply "as defined by the grid on the battlemat." I think a "10 foot square" means a square, 10 feet on each side. It's only because 3.5 assumes that 5 feet is the in-game "quantum" of movement in the D&D world, and that world is rigidly fixed on a grid that this come up. Imagine this related problem: Suppose a path is 10 feet wide and you, a medium character wants to charge "down the middle of the path." Because the rules do not allow you to argue for "half squares", you can't. You can only charge down the left hand side of the path, or the right hand side. The path has no center. While I understand that the reason for those rules is to simplify movement and combat, it is kind of a silly rule from a common sense perspective.
mvincent 08-15-06, 07:12 PM	I'm not sure than "a 10 foot square" has to imply "as defined by the grid on the battlemat."That appears to be the intent. If you are not using a grid then it doesn't matter, but if you are using the grid this should be pretty much a given (and it makes life much easier). I'd be concerned if a player of mine wanted to argue this after I explained it to them (and I would certainly never have a bad guy try this on a player).