Or for that matter a requirement for shapeable (S) spells to be contiguous.
Thanks,
James
The text itself does not specify they must be contiguous, but it's not an unreasonable conclusion to draw.
Of note is text in Complete Mage, where an example is given specifically showing the use of 4 non-contiguous cubes. However, CM is not an approved general source for LG and so some judges discount that example.
From page 14 of Complete Mage: (under "best feats for a blaster")
Sculpt Spell (Complete Arcane): This feat allows you to alter the area of any spell and even lets you create four isolated 10-foot cubes anywhere within range of your spell, giving you the rare freedom to cast area spells into melee combat without endangering party members.
-karma
In LG, Complete Mage is only a source of guidance that the GM is free to ignore and based on the standard of editing across the 3.5 splt books (especially the later ones) I'm certainly not goingto give it any weight.
However there was also a Sage response along the same lines: if anything an even less reliable reader of the rules; BUT I did think it might appear in the FAQ (it didn't afaik)
Some judges allow it, some do not.
The text itself does not specify they must be contiguous, but it's not an unreasonable conclusion to draw.
Actually, it does - area spells must pick a point of origin and you count out squares away from that origin. Regardless of shape of the area spell, which includes Shapeable. Sculpt Spell could be different, but you'd think that if they were introducing a new area category, they'd spell that out rather than name several area categories already in use and then a new one.
(S) Shapeable: If an Area or Effect entry ends with “(S),” you can shape the spell. A shaped effect or area can have no dimension smaller than 10 feet. Many effects or areas are given as cubes to make it easy to model irregular shapes. Three-dimensional volumes are most often needed to define aerial or underwater effects and areas.
People live in houses. Are we to assume I meant that all people live in all houses? Because if that's true, I'd like to stop by and take your(my) TV.
Of note is text in Complete Mage, where an example is given specifically showing the use of 4 non-contiguous cubes. However, CM is not an approved general source for LG and so some judges discount that example.
Does that mean we need 3 levels of Divine Spellcasting classes to qualify for Divine Oracle, one of the best Spy oriented arcane PrC casting classes - located in Complete Arcane? (paraphrased from the Spy section in the book) - Or should Generalists not take Limited Wish because it isn't a good spell choice for them?
No one doublechecked the validity of any of the assertions of this section. It is almost as if they were rushing the Complete books out to print, because they were worried that people might soon have reason to not buy Complete Mage and Complete Champion...
I don't discount it because it isn't approved. I discount it because the section is so riddled with stupid errors and statements that my assumption is the writer has no idea what he's talking about...
Actually, it does - area spells must pick a point of origin and you count out squares away from that origin. Regardless of shape of the area spell, which includes Shapeable. Sculpt Spell could be different, but you'd think that if they were introducing a new area category, they'd spell that out rather than name several area categories already in use and then a new one.
People live in houses. Are we to assume I meant that all people live in all houses? Because if that's true, I'd like to stop by and take your(my) TV.
Does that mean we need 3 levels of Divine Spellcasting classes to qualify for Divine Oracle, one of the best Spy oriented arcane PrC casting classes - located in Complete Arcane?
(paraphrased from the Spy section in another book) - Or should Generalists not take Limited Wish because it isn't a good spell choice for them?
No one doublechecked the validity of any of the assertions of this section. It is almost as if they were rushing the Complete books out to print, because they were worried that people might soon have reason to not buy Complete Mage and Complete Champion...
I don't discount it because it isn't approved. I discount it because the section is so riddled with stupid errors and statements that my assumption is the writer has no idea what he's talking about...
*Claps Vigorously!*
Hear hear Mummy!
This is my interpretation also. I don't need to say it now that Andy has articulated it so well.
I would just like to reiterate that the Complete Mage advice section is rather laughable as a rules or intent source. If it was the SAME author as Complete Arcane maybe; (despite the rest of the advice's failings) but from an overall perspective accepting some advice as canon means that you interpret the rest of it as factual, intent oriented and binding.
When it's clearly (as Mommy so well demonstrated) the rambling of someone who didn't think their comments through. I find the Complete Mage advice to be the ONLY pillar for non touching cubes, and the evidence the other way is stronger (See the shapaeable reference)
Oh, in case there's the possibility that the writer of that section of Complete Mage might be a good writer and some other writer is responsible for the mistakes elsewhere, he makes the following other clearly incorrect rules statements in the Blaster Section(where the note about Sculpt Spell is):
He states that Enlarge Spell doesn't work on Bursts - it doesn't work with spells with a fixed range - but there are Burst spells that do work with Enlarge Spell - Sleep as an example.
He states that Radiant Spell's only immunity is being sightless, yet SR affects it, so you can't affect creatures immune to magic such as golems.
---
I've been looking through, and I have to edit that Generalist doozy about Limited Wish - the writer advises not taking Limited Wish, because a properly prepared generalist should always have the right spell, but they should take Wish because they might not...
Actually, it does - area spells must pick a point of origin and you count out squares away from that origin. Regardless of shape of the area spell, which includes Shapeable. Sculpt Spell could be different, but you'd think that if they were introducing a new area category, they'd spell that out rather than name several area categories already in use and then a new one.
And what is the point of origin, say for a spike stones spell or other spell expressed in squares/cubes rather than a given shape? And how far away can parts of the area be from it?
I guess I'm not seeing where a point of origin would be for such spells or even if one is defined for them. For cones, cylinders, spheres and lines it's nicely defined. But I didn't think it applied to areas expressed as cubes, etc. (I admit I'm away from references right now so I could be very wrong on this matter).
I am interested in seeing what support there is for shapeable spells to have to be contiguous.
As to what 'you'd think' well I'd think that they would have, after this many years, decided to be precise in their wordings about things if they cared at all. But who knows that might already be vacuously true..
Heck if you want to do it right you could have it translate and effect the range alongside it (i.e. a 15' cone could become a 30' line or 10' burst at close range, etc).
-James
And what is the point of origin, say for a spike stones spell or other spell expressed in squares/cubes rather than a given shape? And how far away can parts of the area be from it?
I guess I'm not seeing where a point of origin would be for such spells or even if one is defined for them. For cones, cylinders, spheres and lines it's nicely defined. But I didn't think it applied to areas expressed as cubes, etc. (I admit I'm away from references right now so I could be very wrong on this matter).
Area: Some spells affect an area. Sometimes a spell description specifies a specially defined area, but usually an area falls into one of the categories defined below.
Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don’t control which creatures or objects the spell affects. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection. When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack. The only difference is that instead of counting from the center of one square to the center of the next, you count from intersection to intersection. You can count diagonally across a square, but remember that every second diagonal counts as 2 squares of distance. If the far edge of a square is within the spell’s area, anything within that square is within the spell’s area. If the spell’s area only touches the near edge of a square, however, anything within that square is unaffected by the spell.
It then goes on to list Shapeable spells as a kind of area spell. Which at no point says it does anything different. i.e. it does have a point of origin and you have to count out the distance from the point of origin in squares.
Which in the case of Shapeable spells is in the form of 10' cubes.
It then goes on to list Shapeable spells as a kind of area spell. Which at no point says it does anything different. i.e. it does have a point of origin and you have to count out the distance from the point of origin in squares.
Which in the case of Shapeable spells is in the form of 10' cubes.
Which leaves me with my questions unanswered...
If you are correct, then where is the point of origin for such spells and how is distance measured?
Is there just one point of origin, or do each 10' square get one and it is used to describe them?
If it is as you claim then the following would be a legal placement:
SSSSSS
SSSSSS
XXXXSS
XXXXSS
XXXXSS
XXXX C
Where the Xs are walls/obstacles, the Ss are the shapeable spell and the C is the caster. If one can choose the point of origin then one can make it so that all the Ss have line of effect to it even though the caster, at C, cannot see all of them (nor have line of effect to them).
This doesn't seem right to me.
Seems more reasonable for such cases, and the wording for point of origin to have each 10' cube have a point of origin which the caster needs line of effect to and from which the 10' cube must be reached (i.e. the point of origin for each 10' cube would be its center).
-James
f you are correct, then where is the point of origin for such spells and how is distance measured?
Any one grid intersection that you have line of effect to that is in range of the spell.
While that layout you propose might not seem fair to you, how is that any different than a Fireball which could have that exact same effect?
That is an issue that has nothing to do with whether or not the cubes can be non-contigous, so I don't draw the connection with that as proof for a different intent.
By the same logic should "sculpt" automatically imply that the bead breaks in four and goes and explodes in four locations, using the fireball example, instead of changing its shape from a ball? When looking at the feat that seems to be one hell of a stretch.
The only real evidence is the CM mage advice, which is clearly a flawed source. The reference to four cubes is trumped by PHB rulings on shapeable. This is why I rule against it. A lot of people who have read Sculpt in my area have NOT read the shapeable rules as well...
I was guilty of that as well; but I thought it was suss that sculpt could do that so I as a GM checked.
I would appreciate it if people who are proponents of the 4 non-contigous cubes would post thier arguements for it, especially if those arguements are rooted elsewhere than just the CM mage advice.
By the same logic should "sculpt" automatically imply that the bead breaks in four and goes and explodes in four locations, using the fireball example, instead of changing its shape from a ball? When looking at the feat that seems to be one hell of a stretch.
It makes more sense to me than the bead 'exploding' to the right making an 'L' shape, but not doing anything to the left (say picking the 'point of origin' to be part of the boundary as MWAO suggests).
It seems more reasonable that for shapeable spells that the 'point' of origin would be for each of the cubes/squares that comprise it for areas that are described as a number of cubes/squares than a non-specific grid intersection anywhere in that area.
The 'point of origin' is well-defined for cylinders, cones, spheres and the like.. why would it be otherwise here? Also done this way distance is calculated from the grid intersection in question (in forming the cube/square) rather than not used (as in MWAO's suggestion).
And while one may not have line of effect to the entire area for cylinders and other bursts, when one is choosing such an area not having line of effect there does not sit well with me. But it does bring up interesting questions if one point of origin is mandated and things are measured from there. First, how are they measured? Second, construct a contiguous area such that no one point of origin has line of effect to all of the area. Is this a legal shaped spell?
As for why I think that they need not be contiguous, I think it's just that the depth that one has to look and then read into the rules to imply otherwise says a lot for it to have been written otherwise. I simply don't think that that much thought went into writing the metamagic feat.
I also don't tend to find anything against the rules for saying that they can be separate. Meanwhile I find questionable that the rules for shapeable spells require them to be contiguous. So far it consists of requiring a 'point of origin' to exist (and be singular) for a spell with an 'other' area like spike stones and to serve no discernible purpose as proposed. That doesn't seem right to me.
-James
The 'point of origin' is well-defined for cylinders, cones, spheres and the like.. why would it be otherwise here? Also done this way distance is calculated from the grid intersection in question (in forming the cube/square) rather than not used (as in MWAO's suggestion).
Actually, it is used with a Shapeable spell - you start with the grid intersection and place 10' cubes around it in any direction. If there is a 10' cube in a spot, you can place another 10' cube next to it and go out further. That's the 'area' of the spell. Same as a Fireball - it may be a 20' radius spread, but that just means it fills up all the squares in the radius as opposed to specific squares.
As for why I think that they need not be contiguous, I think it's just that the depth that one has to look and then read into the rules to imply otherwise says a lot for it to have been written otherwise. I simply don't think that that much thought went into writing the metamagic feat.
Then the assumption should be that they meant it to be used in the exact same way Shapeable is...I have to go into depth because your interpretation of the rules is based on vague premises. The metamagic feat mentions the ability to use lines, cones, spreads, and 4 10' cubes and you're doubting whether or not they meant us to use the area rules at all for sculpt spell.
Second, construct a contiguous area such that no one point of origin has line of effect to all of the area. Is this a legal shaped spell?
Sure. Happens with Fireballs all the time...
i.e. the square might be in the area of the fireball, but because there is no line of effect, nothing happens in that square. Same goes for Shapeable spells.
So far it consists of requiring a 'point of origin' to exist (and be singular) for a spell with an 'other' area like spike stones and to serve no discernible purpose as proposed.
i.e. you don't find the possibility that the designers wanting the spells to be contiguous a possible purpose for the rules, so therefore, they can't have wanted it that way...
I hope they fix certian area spells in 4.0
(Off topic) 4E areas are:
Burst n, a square area 2n+1 squares on a side
Blast n, a square area n squares on a side with at least one square adjacent to your square
Wall n, n squares extending from a starting square, each square sharing either one or two sides with another square in the wall (i.e. a line which can turn corners, but not 'move' diagonally. A Wall 8 can create a square with a one square gap in the centre)
There is no rule requiring the squares to be contiguous or adjoining.
James has it right.
There is no rule requiring the squares to be contiguous or adjoining.
And the rule allowing it? absence of rules against is not an arguement 'for' in itself.
This is an intent issue... And do you have any intent to back up that statement?
And the rule allowing it? absence of rules against is not an arguement 'for' in itself.
This is an intent issue... And do you have any intent to back up that statement?
How is it an intent issue? It is a discussion about the RAW. The Rules as Written state, explicitly, four 10' cubes, not 4 contiguous 10' cubes, nor even 4 adjacent or touching 10' cubes.
I can understand your dislike of this, but it makes as little sense to argue intent, since the one paragraph does not offer any clue to intent, as it would be to say that the intent was never to allow someone to have a Merciful Vorpal weapon.
So, what does a Merciful Vorpal sword do to its target when the Merciful power is active, but you get a confirmed critical hit?
And the rule allowing it? absence of rules against is not an arguement 'for' in itself.
This is an intent issue... And do you have any intent to back up that statement?
Here's my argument for why the cubes need not be contiguous (and for the record, I think it's sad that they don't have to be - they should be): Rules As Written. We could argue intent until our faces turn blue, we'll still never really know the answer. The feat says, "four 10-foot cubes" and doesn't say that they have to be contiguous. To say that the feat doesn't say they *don't* have to be contiguous is, to me, a little silly; the spell also doesn't say a lot of things, like "these cubes do not have to overlap". To try to extrapolate what a spell does or doesn't do based on what's not in the spell text can lead to a lot of very questionable rules calls; rules text generally spells out limitations, not permission. Since the publication of the book, there have been at least two errata's to the book and many FAQs, and none have added the "contiguous cubes" restriction or defined a sculpted spell as "shapeable" per PHB; thus, these guidelines do not apply. Because multiple opportunities to clarify intent have arisen, and intent was never clarified, it should be assumed that the text of the feat and the intent of the feat are the same - there's no evidence to assume the contrary.
From a perspective rooted in academic debate, "text = intent" is the status quo assumption when it comes to rules; to change status quo, it must be proven that intent and text are separate. Asking us to prove that they intended to write the feat the way it was written isn't really appropriate because, on base, we need to assume that what was written *was* what was intended.
All that said: As a home game DM, that feat would be house ruled to "contiguous cubes" in about five seconds; unfortunately, that option doesn't exist in LG.
So, what does a Merciful Vorpal sword do to its target when the Merciful power is active, but you get a confirmed critical hit?
Since a Merciful weapon's effect is that its damage is coverted to nonlethal damage and a Vorpal weapon's effect is that it severs a head on a crit (no damage noted)... good night head.
Same reason that Delay Death doesn't stop Disintegrate from killing you when you hit 0 hp - you don't die from hp damage, you die from an effect of the spell.
Here's my argument for why the cubes need not be contiguous (and for the record, I think it's sad that they don't have to be - they should be): Rules As Written. We could argue intent until our faces turn blue, we'll still never really know the answer. The feat says, "four 10-foot cubes" and doesn't say that they have to be contiguous. To say that the feat doesn't say they *don't* have to be contiguous is, to me, a little silly; the spell also doesn't say a lot of things, like "these cubes do not have to overlap". To try to extrapolate what a spell does or doesn't do based on what's not in the spell text can lead to a lot of very questionable rules calls; rules text generally spells out limitations, not permission. Since the publication of the book, there have been at least two errata's to the book and many FAQs, and none have added the "contiguous cubes" restriction or defined a sculpted spell as "shapeable" per PHB; thus, these guidelines do not apply. Because multiple opportunities to clarify intent have arisen, and intent was never clarified, it should be assumed that the text of the feat and the intent of the feat are the same - there's no evidence to assume the contrary.
From a perspective rooted in academic debate, "text = intent" is the status quo assumption when it comes to rules; to change status quo, it must be proven that intent and text are separate. Asking us to prove that they intended to write the feat the way it was written isn't really appropriate because, on base, we need to assume that what was written *was* what was intended.
All that said: As a home game DM, that feat would be house ruled to "contiguous cubes" in about five seconds; unfortunately, that option doesn't exist in LG.
John; thats the best arguement for it yet. I find the CM advice to be a completely irrelevant point.
Unfortunately, RAW is something that is abused by players. I often expect more from people. If it would be ruled that way in five seconds, why do people insist on the non contigous version? Furthermore, you have to keep in mind the shapeable rules as well as the text of the feat alone.
As to the mercficul thing, John already covered that.
John; thats the best arguement for it yet. I find the CM advice to be a completely irrelevant point.
Unfortunately, RAW is something that is abused by players. I often expect more from people. If it would be ruled that way in five seconds, why do people insist on the non contigous version? Furthermore, you have to keep in mind the shapeable rules as well as the text of the feat alone.
Agreed that RAW is abused by players, but that's the way the campaign administration has decided to resolve rules issues that are not LG-specific (and I think that's a wise choice - if they didn't do that, the Circle would be arbitrating game rules all the time, and mods would never get released).
I would rule it contiguous in five seconds as a home game DM not because I think that the rules intent goes that way (I clarified above why I don't think that's the case), but for game balance reasons - I think the four 10-ft cubes is way better than a +1 level bump.
I don't think shapeable rules apply here. The description of shapeable says that spells that are shapeable are designated as such. Sculpt Spell, while it could (and by some opinions, should) add that designation to the spell or describe the cube part as shapeable, it doesn't. Sculpt Spell is also not the only feat or ability that bypasses those rules, and at least one other (the archmage's mastery of shaping) specifically references shapeable spells.
How is it an intent issue? It is a discussion about the RAW.
Intent is part of the RAW, they are not 2 separate things. If you would like, I'll find the quotes from the rules to support that statement.
Here's my argument for why the cubes need not be contiguous (and for the record, I think it's sad that they don't have to be - they should be): Rules As Written. We could argue intent until our faces turn blue, we'll still never really know the answer. The feat says, "four 10-foot cubes" and doesn't say that they have to be contiguous. To say that the feat doesn't say they *don't* have to be contiguous is, to me, a little silly; the spell also doesn't say a lot of things, like "these cubes do not have to overlap".
Except that involves deciding that the writer made an actual mistake(inventing a new area effect category and not calling it out) rather than a sin of omission(in the context of calling out 4 PHB effects, not using the proper name for one of them)
Which means you're not just deciding that intent can't be known, you're also deciding there is no intent. Which doesn't result in RAW, in my opinion.
Yeah.. except that Lightning bolt affects a whole bunch of squares -if it stopped when it hit something you might have a point.
Whirling Blades effects a whole bunch of squares yet it's not an area spell so then should they broaden the scope of area spells to include that one of course not. I'm simply saying they should either change a spell like Lightning Bolt in to a true Area Spell or make it an Effect Spell which would mean the Sculpt Spell feat would no longer apply to that spell.
If it would be ruled that way in five seconds, why do people insist on the non contigous version? Furthermore, you have to keep in mind the shapeable rules as well as the text of the feat alone.
1. In a home campaign would not hesitate to change how multiclassing works in regards to stacking BAB and Saves. A cleric1/marshal1 should not have a worse BAB than a Wizard2, nor better FORT and WILL saves than either a Cleric2 or a Marshal2. But the RAW clearly say otherwise..
2. I'm not convinced that the shapeable rules require contiguous squares. The distance is not measured from a single point of origin, rather individual cubes or squares are used. If anything each cube or square should have a point of origin from which the distance is measured (thus a 10' square could be measured by it's center grid).
To MWAO:
Going back to my original picture:
SSSSSS
SSSSSS
XXXXSS
XXXXSS
XXXX C
Where the Ss are the shapeable spell, X a barrier (blocking line of sight and effect) and C the caster.
Where is the point of origin for the spell? Now baring sculpt spell, I don't believe that we are talking 'burst' or 'spread' here... or are there such spells?
Can the point of origin for the spell be the grid intersection shared the lowest Ss and the caster's square? Even though the spell doesn't even fully encompass the point of origin (without dealing with max range issues)?
-James
To MWAO:
Going back to my original picture:
SSSSSS
SSSSSS
XXXXSS
XXXXSS
XXXX C
Where is the point of origin for the spell? Now baring sculpt spell, I don't believe that we are talking 'burst' or 'spread' here... or are there such spells?
Can the point of origin for the spell be the grid intersection shared the lowest Ss and the caster's square? Even though the spell doesn't even fully encompass the point of origin (without dealing with max range issues)?
That's not a legal intersection as you have to drop a 10' cube onto that grid intersection(and you're not hitting yourself based on your drawing).
The other problem being that you likely don't know if there's open space to have the spell in there.
SSSSSS
SSSSSS
XXXXSS
XXXXSS
XXXX C
is better expressed as:
ZZZSYY
ZZZSYY
XXXXGG
XXXXGG
XXXX C
Z = squares that the caster is uncertain that he's hit or not, just as if he threw a fireball at the grid intersection inbetween the top two Ys. Something could happen in those squares, but if there's a wall in the right place, nothing will.
Ys/Gs = the grid intersection inbetween all the Ys and the grid intersection between all the Gs are the two legal possible grid intersections for the spell that would result in that formation with all cubes used properly.
That's not a legal intersection as you have to drop a 10' cube onto that grid intersection(and you're not hitting yourself based on your drawing).
The other problem being that you likely don't know if there's open space to have the spell in there.
SSSSSS
SSSSSS
XXXXSS
XXXXSS
XXXX C
is better expressed as:
ZZZSYY
ZZZSYY
XXXXGG
XXXXGG
XXXX C
Z = squares that the caster is uncertain that he's hit or not, just as if he threw a fireball at the grid intersection inbetween the top two Ys. Something could happen in those squares, but if there's a wall in the right place, nothing will.
Ys/Gs = the grid intersection inbetween all the Ys and the grid intersection between all the Gs are the two legal possible grid intersections for the spell that would result in that formation with all cubes used properly.
Just remember to take the cosign of the square root of x, that way the factor of Y divided by Z plus G in quadrant IV, adding in the midpoint of the tangent, until you find what x is, where x=pizza for anyone who stops doing geomoetry on the board. Seriously, though, this looks like a word problem from high school.
Wes
1. no general rule in the magic section
2. many shapeable spells that lack the specific wording saying they have to be contiguous.
Which means the entry I was using as precedent when thought they had to be contiguous was suddenly ambiuous.
Is the "silent image" wording an explicit exception or is it a restating of an implied general rule? Impossible to tell.
It's similar to the thing about how ongoing spell effects work. Is entangle (redo save every round) an example of how it is supposed to work, or is it an exception?
And how objects are affected by area spells. Fireball explicitly affects objects. Fire storm explicitly does NOT affect plant "objects'. What about something like flamestrike that only affects creatures in the description?
In all such cases, the GM makes the call on what the general rule is and what the exception is. He does so based on his ideas of intent.
My current rulings on these 3?
1. silent image is an explicit exception. Shaped spells don't have to be contiguous unless the spell says they do. I consider the 4 squares in sculpt to be one of those untyped shapeable spells, even though it is not explicitly that type of area.
2. entangle is an explicit exception. Something like grease lacks the wording so it only inflicts a balance check on movement, not repeated reflex saves.
3. area spells generally affect unattended objects if they say so either in the spell text or have "object" in the spellblock. If they use the "Creatures' wording, they don't affect objects. If it doesn't say either way (uses neither creatures wording nor explicitly calls out objects) I usually default to affects objects because of the "reflex roll of 1" rule. Fireball affects objects, as does burning hands, lightning bolt, shout, cyclonic blast. flame strike though, only affects creatures.
Is the "silent image" wording an explicit exception or is it a restating of an implied general rule? Impossible to tell.
Silent Image isn't an exception - you're limited to moving the image within the size of the effect, there's no specific limit in the spell itself that prevents you from making individual cubes and moving it from cube to cube.
Admittedly, it does imply that you should only have one area to move them around in, though.
Huh, so it does. I'll have to remember that when playing Olivia in future. I always remember the balance checks on getting hit or moving, but not that one.
Sorry, I was mixing up the Evards Tentacles vs Entangle comparison, not Grease vs Entangle. The former got settled by the FAQ ruling so my opinion on that didn't matter.
Admittedly, it does imply that you should only have one area to move them around in, though.
Yup. Even in Silent Image the implication was weak, although sufficient that most folks use contiguous squares with that spell. (it also refers to "a" image, not multiple images)
I could not find a strong example of contiguous squares in the PHB, much to my surprise. This is one influence on why I changed my stance on the sculpt spell topic.
Yup. Even in Silent Image the implication was weak, although sufficient that most folks use contiguous squares with that spell. (it also refers to "a" image, not multiple images)
I could not find a strong example of contiguous squares in the PHB, much to my surprise. This is one influence on why I changed my stance on the sculpt spell topic.
That's quite possibly because the writers thought they were being clear, so they didn't have to say it anywhere in a spell. An area, in terms of geometry, typically refers to a region bounded by a closed curve. That's not absolute, but they then use the singular for shape.
A spell that has multiple areas could possibly use the singular for area(Michigan, the state, consists of how many square miles?), but you couldn't say it has only one shape.
But at least one WOTC author found it not obvious, which is a pretty good sign that if that WAS the intent, the original PHB authors failed to make the principle clear.
So now I tend to assume that specific stuff written into spells is the exception, rather than the rule. Ie I don't set precedents based on what one individual spell says, or even several says. I go with what the spell actually says and any general rules that are actually stated.
This attitude has served me well when considering such things as close wounds, nerveskitter and feather fall vs other immediate actions. (all three violate a general rule that IS explicitly stated. All three say how it goes for that spell in their spell description).
"General rules" that are not actually stated I assume are instead simply ambiguous and I look to official and unofficial sources to guess intent.
It's not the same thing at all as when you have an actual contradiction from an unofficial source. Eg.....MM says incorporeals can't be grappled, not even by each other. Libris Mortis makes up rules for incorporeal grappling. LM is not an official source for the campaign, MM is, so I ignore LM.
By contrast there is no explicitly stated rule that contradicts what the author wrote in Complete Mage. While I grant that the section gave a lot of bad advice we all know that the authors don't actually play the game as well or as often as we do
Poor gameplay on their part doesn't mean we know intent of what somebody on their writing team wrote better than they do.By contrast there is no explicitly stated rule that contradicts what the author wrote in Complete Mage. While I grant that the section gave a lot of bad advice we all know that the authors don't actually play the game as well or as often as we do
Doesn't mean they're any better either - in the exact same section about Blasters, the writer makes two clear cut rules mistakes. One which actually obliquely involves not realizing how the rules on area spells work.
I'm not entirely sure this guy would know the intent of his own rules better than us, let alone rules he had nothing to do with.
The other problem being that you likely don't know if there's open space to have the spell in there.
SSSSSS
SSSSSS
XXXXSS
XXXXSS
XXXX C
is better expressed as:
ZZZSYY
ZZZSYY
XXXXGG
XXXXGG
XXXX C
Z = squares that the caster is uncertain that he's hit or not, just as if he threw a fireball at the grid intersection inbetween the top two Ys. Something could happen in those squares, but if there's a wall in the right place, nothing will.
Ys/Gs = the grid intersection inbetween all the Ys and the grid intersection between all the Gs are the two legal possible grid intersections for the spell that would result in that formation with all cubes used properly.
I understand that in the diagram that I gave I was having the caster elect to 'place' squares in areas that he didn't have any line of effect/sight to and was unaware if it was a legal placement even. I question that he can put them there in the first place. You do agree that the point of origin cannot be there then?
But you say that the center of the G's can be a legal placement even though it has the same issues with the far 'Zs'?
Also you don't include the intersection of the Y&G center square as a legal 'point of origin'?
It seems as if you are saying that there is only one point of origin but it must define one of the squares (by being it's center). Am I correct in understanding what you are saying here?
How are the rest of the area then measured from that one point? You measure by distance and not in 10' square blocks after all. Does the lack of line of effect/sight to all of the Zs increase this distance (like it would for a fireball, etc)?
Please note for most of these spells that are defined by X size Y squares that they are not listed as bursts/spreads or the like. So if there is a single point of origin that they are measured from (your contention) then this would be needed information, would it not?
If each square has it's own point of origin (as you are requiring for one of the squares) then the remaining text about measurements make sense.
-James
Sorry, I was mixing up the Evards Tentacles vs Entangle comparison, not Grease vs Entangle. The former got settled by the FAQ ruling so my opinion on that didn't matter.
Yep just one small exhibit in the FAQ hall of stupid rulings :P
It seems as if you are saying that there is only one point of origin but it must define one of the squares (by being it's center). Am I correct in understanding what you are saying here?
How are the rest of the area then measured from that one point? You measure by distance and not in 10' square blocks after all. Does the lack of line of effect/sight to all of the Zs increase this distance (like it would for a fireball, etc)?
There is one point of origin and it must be the center of one of the 10' cubes. Every 10' cube must then touch another cube. The distance rules are for counting out how far the effect goes once you have your shape.
Doesn't mean they're any better either - in the exact same section about Blasters, the writer makes two clear cut rules mistakes. One which actually obliquely involves not realizing how the rules on area spells work.
I'm not entirely sure this guy would know the intent of his own rules better than us, let alone rules he had nothing to do with.
Well, see, the difference here is the author can either get up from his desk, walk down the hall and knock on a door and ask "Hey John! What did you mean when you said . . . ?" Alter that if he's going to his editor or someone in R&D rather than the original author of a rules source.
Now you and I have to pull out all of our books and puzzle over what is explicitly said in the text and what must be read between the lines. We can send in a question to CustServ (who have been improving over the years in their understanding of D&D), but we hardly have that access.
Now, truth be told just because a guy can contact someone in R&D and find out what Mike was intending when he wrote that splat book or the editors could catch a mistake and point out that James didn't mean that when that feat was created doesn't mean they will.
Now as for CM being 8up from the ground up because of some "bad advice," I gotta say ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!? I get that one or two bursts have ranges expressed in Close/Medium/Long type format, but AFAIK most did not and thus in general Enlarge wasn't a good choice if you were going to specialize in such spells. Kinda like taking Empower Spell and having one spell in your entire repretoire that can be affected by it.
As for Radiant Spell, I'm not familiar with it, but I'm guessing it is a metamagic feat that gives a blinding flash of light in addition to other spell effects. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but Metamagic feats don't impart SR onto a spell. The existing spell is either already SR: Yes or SR: No, then you get some funky warpage (increased effect, longer duration, greater range, etc) from the feat. As golems are "If SR: Yes, then it doesn't work" already, Radiant Spell would have no affect one way or the other on whether or not the spell would work as the spell on its own would not work on the golem.
As for any other advice from CM, I pretty much skipped it. I like Goodman Games guides on Spellcasters and Fighters better. As they focus on Core only stuff anyway, you get a pretty effective without the splat books and just get better with the right feat or spell choice from a splat book.
Well, see, the difference here is the author can either get up from his desk, walk down the hall and knock on a door and ask "Hey John! What did you mean when you said . . . ?" Alter that if he's going to his editor or someone in R&D rather than the original author of a rules source.
That clearly didn't happen here.
Now as for CM being 8up from the ground up because of some "bad advice," I gotta say ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!? I get that one or two bursts have ranges expressed in Close/Medium/Long type format, but AFAIK most did not and thus in general Enlarge wasn't a good choice if you were going to specialize in such spells. Kinda like taking Empower Spell and having one spell in your entire repretoire that can be affected by it.
The writer recommends 3 burst spells that don't have fixed range to take among the 9 choices. You're going to shoot down a feat choice, you should at least read the feat before you do that. Remember - this is a single subsection, not all of 'em.
Not to mention, Enlarge Spell isn't a bad choice for a Warmage Blaster because it opens up a lot of options with close range spells.
As for Radiant Spell, I'm not familiar with it, but I'm guessing it is a metamagic feat that gives a blinding flash of light in addition to other spell effects.
Nope. It happens to be a spell with SR: Yes. And here's what he said:
Short of being sightless, no creature can boast immunity to this spell
And it is even a Burst spell without a fixed range.
That clearly didn't happen here.
Well, I've always contended that after a certain point WoTC got complacent and stopped rigorous playtesting and editing because they felt "By now we know how to make a balanced feat/spell/PRC/etc" and just let things go by with some oversight but not quite the scrutiny we as players really wanted.
The writer recommends 3 burst spells that don't have fixed range to take among the 9 choices. You're going to shoot down a feat choice, you should at least read the feat before you do that. Remember - this is a single subsection, not all of 'em.
Not to mention, Enlarge Spell isn't a bad choice for a Warmage Blaster because it opens up a lot of options with close range spells.
Nope. It happens to be a spell with SR: Yes. And here's what he said:
And it is even a Burst spell without a fixed range.
Well as to the specifics of what he said and how it is wrong, I can't argue for or against. I did mention earlier, I pretty much skimmed over that part and moved on. I did feel your general point of "look he fsk'ed up that point there and that one there so all of it is just plain wrong, especially the part there (sculpt spell advice)."
My point was the only way you and I (and any non WoTC employee) knows what was intended with the wording of Sculpt Spell is through guess work and "massaging" the CustServ system.
The way the author knows what was intended is by calling the author of the original rule in question (or his editor or R&D or any of a number of people in the know at WoTC) and asking "hey what's up with that feat? What was intended when you (he/she/it/they) wrote it?"
Now personally, I agree that CM isn't the best source for deciding what was intended. I do rule that the squares don't have to be contiguous, even though the "cost" (+1 spell level) is too low. I figure they intended the cubes to be seperable, but fsk'ed up the balancing. But hey, these are the guys that have given us such wonderful cheese as Belts of Battle and War Weaver. And yes, my War Weaver wears a Belt of Battle and carries a Lesser Rod of culpt! :embarrass :P
That clearly didn't happen here.
Well, I've always contended that after a certain point WoTC got complacent and stopped rigorous playtesting and editing because they felt "By now we know how to make a balanced feat/spell/PRC/etc" and just let things go by with some oversight but not quite the scrutiny we as players really wanted.
The writer recommends 3 burst spells that don't have fixed range to take among the 9 choices. You're going to shoot down a feat choice, you should at least read the feat before you do that. Remember - this is a single subsection, not all of 'em.
Not to mention, Enlarge Spell isn't a bad choice for a Warmage Blaster because it opens up a lot of options with close range spells.
Nope. It happens to be a spell with SR: Yes. And here's what he said:
And it is even a Burst spell without a fixed range.
Well as to the specifics of what he said and how it is wrong, I can't argue for or against. I did mention earlier, I pretty much skimmed over that part and moved on. I did feel your general point of "look he fsk'ed up that point there and that one there so all of it is just plain wrong, especially the part there (sculpt spell advice)." In my view messing up here and there doesn't automatically mean it all MUST be wrong. It does make it more likely it is wrong.
My point was the only way you and I (and any non WoTC employee) knows what was intended with the wording of Sculpt Spell is through guess work and "massaging" the CustServ system.
The way the author knows what was intended is by calling the author of the original rule in question (or his editor or R&D or any of a number of people in the know at WoTC) and asking "hey what's up with that feat? What was intended when you (he/she/it/they) wrote it?"
Now personally, I agree that CM isn't the best source for deciding what was intended. I do rule that the squares don't have to be contiguous, even though the "cost" (+1 spell level) is too low. I figure they intended the cubes to be seperable, but fsk'ed up the balancing. But hey, these are the guys that have given us such wonderful cheese as Belts of Battle and War Weaver. And yes, my War Weaver wears a Belt of Battle and carries a Lesser Rod of Sculpt! :embarrass :P
It doesn't mean he must be wrong. It does mean we should completely ignore what he says because we have no reason to believe he's right -and most likely it's just luck if he is.
And my point was that is the logical fallacy we should avoid. Saying Sculpt Spell can not be 4 non-contiguous cubes because some guy made mistakes in his advice on what feats a boom mage should take and has negated every single other piece of advice he has ever given is a mistake. I know a few Triads and self appointed Rules Masters on these boards and elsewhere who have made mistakes on rulings. I have made quite a few myself. I've gotten some right. I don't ignore folks just because they've gotten one wrong.
Hell, I've sat down with guys who were the supreme expert on one or two narrow functions of the rules but majorly flubbed reading a simple sentence about how a magic item worked (in this case the Belt of Battle). It happens to the best of us. I don't know this author and skipped over that section of the book, but to handwave everything the author said because you can point to holes in certain areas is tarring the fellow with a mighty wide brush. Now if you can point to that individual rules interpretation and show how he disconnected with the original intent behind Sculpt Spell, I'd agree with you.
Unless it's actually during a game, i will ignore anyone who doen't have areasoned argument. This guy isn't giving any justification; just casually assuming something I don't agree with.
It would be a fallacy to deduce that the converse to what he says must be true. I'm not saying they have to be contiguous because he thinks they don't though. I'm saying I think they need to be contiguous and I don't care what he says.
Deducing that his unsupported word is worth nothing is entirely valid.
The only reason to pay any attention to it is that it happens to be in a published book and clearly that doesn't make it infallible or even remotely reliable. Anyone who demonstrates they've actually thought about this gets more weight than CM
Like you, I completely ignore anything WotC publishes giving advice on how to make effective characters anyway because it's routinely bad advice -which hardly supports the assumptino that they know and understand the rules well.
He didn't just get one wrong.
Unless it's actually during a game, i will ignore anyone who doen't have areasoned argument. This guy isn't giving any justification; just casually assuming something I don't agree with.
It would be a fallacy to deduce that the converse to what he says must be true. I'm not saying they have to be contiguous because he thinks they don't though. I'm saying I think they need to be contiguous and I don't care what he says.
Deducing that his unsupported word is worth nothing is entirely valid.
The only reason to pay any attention to it is that it happens to be in a published book and clearly that doesn't make it infallible or even remotely reliable. Anyone who demonstrates they've actually thought about this gets more weight than CM
Like you, I completely ignore anything WotC publishes giving advice on how to make effective characters anyway because it's routinely bad advice -which hardly supports the assumptino that they know and understand the rules well.
Yeah, all their example characters, Iconics and pregens just make me scratch my head and ask "WTFO?!"
After all, if I could just call up the guy who wrote the feat (whether he's still working for WoTC or not) and say "Hey Jim, what did you mean when you said . . .", I don't see how I could mess up the feat choices for a character. The Iconics don't have to be optimized, but considering the choices "average" should at least be somewhat desirable.It would be a fallacy to deduce that the converse to what he says must be true. I'm not saying they have to be contiguous because he thinks they don't though. I'm saying I think they need to be contiguous and I don't care what he says.
I'm just not seeing the requirement for contiguous squares.. even for just 'shapable' spells.
We have Andy's 'point of origin' argument, but I don't see one 'measuring' from a given square's point of origin.. at best it has a point of origin for each of the squares and the squares are determined by the choices of those points of origin. It would seem more in keeping with the standard areas and how points of origin work with them.
I'll say it again (with tongue in cheek) it would have been nice if they had come out with a book filled with all these rules ambiguities and addressed them all. Call it something like a 'rules compendium' or something.
-James
I'm just not seeing the requirement for contiguous squares.. even for just 'shapable' spells.
We have Andy's 'point of origin' argument, but I don't see one 'measuring' from a given square's point of origin.. at best it has a point of origin for each of the squares and the squares are determined by the choices of those points of origin. It would seem more in keeping with the standard areas and how points of origin work with them.
There's a single point of origin for the grid point. You measure out from that.
With a fireball, you have a 20' radius. With shapeable, you put cubes wherever you want next to other cubes. If you put 4 cubes in a row, you can measure out to 35'(because 5' go in another direction) along the path of the row. They're the same thing, just cubes don't affect everything in all directions.
Because they're cubes...
There's a single point of origin for the grid point. You measure out from that.
With a fireball, you have a 20' radius. With shapeable, you put cubes wherever you want next to other cubes. If you put 4 cubes in a row, you can measure out to 35'(because 5' go in another direction) along the path of the row. They're the same thing, just cubes don't affect everything in all directions.
Because they're cubes...
I know what you're saying.. but I just don't buy it.
Why not 'measure' with a skip then? And you can go farther out than 35' with 4 cubes (going diagonal for example). The full shape is not determined at all by a single point of origin, yet it is by having 1 for each cube.
-James
I know what you're saying.. but I just don't buy it.
Why not 'measure' with a skip then? And you can go farther out than 35' with 4 cubes (going diagonal for example). The full shape is not determined at all by a single point of origin, yet it is by having 1 for each cube.
-James
Because it says you have a shape, not shapes. Measuring with a skip means multiple shapes. In fact, Sculpt Spell says you change the area's shape - it doesn't say you get multiple shapes either. And it works normally in all respects except for its shape. Not shapes.
And in the case of 4 cubes in a row, you can go out 35'. The distance away from the point of origin that you can go is controlled by the shape of the effect; it isn't an inherent limit on the spell.
Because it says you have a shape, not shapes. Measuring with a skip means multiple shapes. In fact, Sculpt Spell says you change the area's shape - it doesn't say you get multiple shapes either. And it works normally in all respects except for its shape. Not shapes.
And in the case of 4 cubes in a row, you can go out 35'. The distance away from the point of origin that you can go is controlled by the shape of the effect; it isn't an inherent limit on the spell.
The state of Michigan in the USA has a shape. It is a discontinuous shape. It is still a defined shape.
Japan has a shape. It consists of several islands, and is, therefore, as a country, a non-contiguous shape.
Mathematically, if I remember correctly, there is a mathematical equation that can actually be used to create a non-contiguous shape. I think, if I remember correctly, that it is a parabola or hyperbola that can have an equation and values that creates a circular part that is disconnected from the rest of the area created by the equation.
The state of Michigan in the USA has a shape. It is a discontinuous shape. It is still a defined shape.
Japan has a shape. It consists of several islands, and is, therefore, as a country, a non-contiguous shape.
Mathematically, if I remember correctly, there is a mathematical equation that can actually be used to create a non-contiguous shape. I think, if I remember correctly, that it is a parabola or hyperbola that can have an equation and values that creates a circular part that is disconnected from the rest of the area created by the equation.
Wow.
has decided to move on
After the above post I agree.
The state of Michigan in the USA has a shape. It is a discontinuous shape. It is still a defined shape.
Japan has a shape. It consists of several islands, and is, therefore, as a country, a non-contiguous shape.
Mathematically, if I remember correctly, there is a mathematical equation that can actually be used to create a non-contiguous shape. I think, if I remember correctly, that it is a parabola or hyperbola that can have an equation and values that creates a circular part that is disconnected from the rest of the area created by the equation.
What makes you think that either "being a state" nor "having a mathematical equation" makes something a single shape? I'm sure I'm not the only one baffled.
What makes you think that either "being a state" nor "having a mathematical equation" makes something a single shape? I'm sure I'm not the only one baffled.
Yeah, I would have gone with the arguement the word "shape" was used because the majority of shapes available from Sculpt Spell were individual shapes and using "shapes" would have confused people into thinking they could go from a line to two 20' radius spheres or three cones or whatever. The fact Sculpt Spell does not state "or a shape made up of 4 ten foot cubes" and instead says "4 ten foot cubes" lends itself more to the view the 4 cubes don't have to be joined.
I'm also skeptical of the concept forwarded by MwaO that the four cubes emanate from a single point and not four seperate points. Firstly, it won't be the first spell which uses multiple issue points (Meteor Swarm which is a bad example merely because it is 9th level comes to mind). The concept of multiple issue points is there so not a stretch to see it with Sculpt Spell.
Second, it is difficult to express these four cubes as issuing from a single point as all of the other shapes are mentioned (cone, line, sphere and even Flame Strike's column). All of the shapes possible just can't be expressed in any meaningful way with a single issue point. After all what do you do with having one or two cubes that don't touch the ground when others do?
The only way I could see making the cubes touch is because of the argument that +1 to spell level is too low a cost for four separate cubes. But then, it won't be the first time WoTC has goofed on pricing something.
Of course, I've got to agree with MwaO and metz, at this point further argument is meaningless. Neither side in the debate will really be swayed by the other. We've played this our way for too long. If we could be convinced it would be before now. This has merit for those who have never thought of it before, but only errata from WotC will end the debate.
What makes you think that either "being a state" nor "having a mathematical equation" makes something a single shape? I'm sure I'm not the only one baffled.
From M-W O:
verb: 1: form, create; especially : to give a particular form or shape to
noun: 1 a: the visible makeup characteristic of a particular item or kind of item b (1): spatial form or contour (2): a standard or universally recognized spatial form
Does the state of Michigan have a shape?
Does a mathematical equation that defines an area define a shape?
Is a circle a shape?
How about an ellipse?
A square?
Is a parabola a shape?
Does the human body define a shape?
Is a 3D chessboard a shape, or multiple shapes? Yet the pieces of the board can be non-continuous.
So, I was just trying top point out that there are defined shapes that are not solids.
It is a shame that some people are unwilling to deal with having a large hole driven into their logical definitions. shrug.
Discount my input, since it always seems that I am looking from a different perspective than the majority do.
Also, is something that is plaid or polka dot have a shape, or do you define it some other way?
I have a shape defined as 4 10' cubes. These cubes are at the far corners of a chessboard. Is that a shape, or not?
Because it says you have a shape, not shapes. Measuring with a skip means multiple shapes. In fact, Sculpt Spell says you change the area's shape - it doesn't say you get multiple shapes either. And it works normally in all respects except for its shape. Not shapes.
So if you changed something from one cube to two spheres this wouldn't be called changing it's shape? Shape seems the generic term here.
I think it's more of a question of wanting it to be one way and then searching for reasons to support.
I also still don't like the idea of some spells being able to hit 'around corners' from their point of origin if they otherwise could not do so.
It seems much more reasonable to call the center of each cube the point of origin for it rather than say that one of those has to be the point of origin. Moreover if we made the 4 10x10 squares into 1 20x20 square if it were to have one point of origin and only one I would want a much stronger argument that the the center could NOT be that point of origin...
Finally a single point of origin just doesn't mesh with measuring distances from it with the way you describe.
But yeah, it seems that people aren't likely to change points of view. But thank you for showing me what you see as the only things to back up the case for contiguous squares.
-James
Wow.
My thoughts exactly...
My thoughts exactly...
He's strictly correct and you're both being hideously condescending here.
He's strictly correct and you're both being hideously condescending here.
Actually that is the slang term for shape.
In _English_ a shape is something that is bounded and quantified by its external boundary as well as its position and size. You are thinking qualitative noun uses of the word NOT a verb. Four non contiguos cubes are 4 shapes Four 10 foot cubes can be one shape that has a mutable outline.
So actually he is pointing a flaw in our logical arguement with arbitrary slang. There is no point in argueing becuase it has shifted away from rules arguements and intent to abstract philosophical musings on what a "shape" is and he is NOT strictly correct, but in fact strictly _incorrect_.
Is it wrong to bow out after a rules debate devolves into arbitrary discussion on the slang use of words?
Actually that is the slang term for shape.
In _English_ a shape is something that is bounded and quantified by its external boundary as well as its position and size. You are thinking qualitative noun uses of the word NOT a verb. Four non contiguos cubes are 4 shapes Four 10 foot cubes can be one shape that has a mutable outline.
So actually he is pointing a flaw in our logical arguement with arbitrary slang. There is no point in argueing becuase it has shifted away from rules arguements and intent to abstract philosophical musings on what a "shape" is and he is NOT strictly correct, but in fact strictly _incorrect_.
Is it wrong to bow out after a rules debate devolves into arbitrary discussion on the slang use of words?
No, actually, the mathematic use of shape is a more precise useage. "Shape" is a word much like "go" in english or "****" in latin in that there are a lot of definitions, and to claim that you know precisely which one is the proper one to use here is pretty arrogant. I can understand not wanting to debate that particular point, that is reasonable, but to dismiss it out of hand is as I noted, condescending.
No, actually, the mathematic use of shape is a more precise useage. "Shape" is a word much like "go" in english or "****" in latin in that there are a lot of definitions, and to claim that you know precisely which one is the proper one to use here is pretty arrogant.
Wow.
Wow.
Yep.
Actually magebeast, I am going to use the english language. Not some arbitrary mathematical slang you think applies. Shape is a very clear word by its original and primary definition and I suggest you look it up first.
I know precisely which one we are using because it is a qualitative verb. NOT an abstract philosophical colloqiual concept.
Yep.
Actually magebeast, I am going to use the english language. Not some arbitrary mathematical slang you think applies. Shape is a very clear word by its original and primary definition and I suggest you look it up first.
I know precisely which one we are using because it is a qualitative verb. NOT an abstract philosophical colloqiual concept.
Hehe, now I get to be the ahole. In mathematics, it isn't slang. It is jargon. Slang = colloquialism, ie what any ole body ends up using as a definition. Kinda like quiz. The quiz is, what is a quiz? It is a practical joke, a strange thing. It's etymology is vague at best considering how it suddenly appeared on the English landscape, but it is fairly certain it comes from quizzical and quixotic. Now it means a short and unexpected test.
The colloquial for 55 in Bedouin is "double oil drum" or just "double drum" because 55 written in Arabic is 00 or two oil drums on their sides.
Jargon is specific language used in a specific field. It isn't quite colloquialism in that it has a precisely agreed upon definition for all in that field. Much as Latin is jargon for the medical, legal and scientific communities through out the world. What habeas corpus means to a lawyer in Istanbul it means to a lawyer in Jersey or Kathmandu. The only question is if their jurisdictions give a damn about it. Iraq for the longest time didn't really have to tell folks if or where they were detaining folks.
Now, it's not like mathematicians are the most imprecise people in the world. When they have a definition for a particular chances are pretty good it was as precise as they could make it. Of course, everything for a mathematician tends to return to equations anyway, so it's all moot.
Now as I pointed out earlier, arguing intent from a mathematical standpoint isn't exactly the best way to go about it. It's not like WoTC R&D is stocked full of mathematicians. The chance they were thinking along those lines when they wrote the rules text for Sculpt Spell is next to nil. There are other better arguments on the lines of intent of the author.
Yep.
Actually magebeast, I am going to use the english language.
Ummm congratulations? I was using english too. I'm pretty sure when talking about math in another language they'll use something other than "shape" to describe it. Possibly the word for it in that language!?!?!?!?!
Hey look I can be a jerk about it too!
Actually magebeast, I am going to use the english language. Not some arbitrary mathematical slang you think applies. Shape is a very clear word by its original and primary definition and I suggest you look it up first.
I know precisely which one we are using because it is a qualitative verb. NOT an abstract philosophical colloqiual concept.
Interesting concept. Let's use English as an excuse not to use English.
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary online:
transitive verb
1: form, create; especially : to give a particular form or shape to
Sort of... self-reflexive, since it is defining shape by shape....
And yet, I have to assume that that is the verb form you are referring to, since the intransitive refers to happen, as in it came to pass or the event shaped up in such a way...
I am not going to bring up the shapes of things like polka dots, or ermine in heraldry.
So, from shape, let's look up FORM:
1 a: to give a particular shape to : shape or mold into a certain state or after a particular model b: to arrange themselves in c: to model by instruction and discipline
So, dancers form a line, but, since dancers are individuals, the line is actually a series of individual pieces rather than a continuous, solid line... But the shape is still considered a line.
Interesting concept. Let's use English as an excuse not to use English.
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary online:
That's American-English! :P
..possibly the same in this case ;)
Ummm congratulations? I was using english too. I'm pretty sure when talking about math in another language they'll use something other than "shape" to describe it. Possibly the word for it in that language!?!?!?!?!
Hey look I can be a jerk about it too!
Touché.
I could have been less pretentious about it. I apologise, I forget sometimes that I am often a crass jerk out of flippancy.
That's American-English! :P
As to the definition of shape, you are using an online compilation from American English. I am not.
Kinevon, if you are so intent on using mathematical jargon lets comment on what a billion is to Americans shall we… But I digress. The reason I reacted so strongly was:
1. The definition was wrong in the original non jargon, non classical English definition.
2. There was no rules basis for your post and thus the argument had moved from a discussion of in game effects to how things operate in the real world – as we can see, that never ends well. (I shouldn’t have done it or bitten afterwards)
Take a julia fractal generated outside the mandelbrot set. Such fractals are "disconnected" (that's the mathematical jargon for each point in the set is not connnected to any other point in the set). Each such julia set, however, when you look at it, has a certain "shape", using the english definition of the word. Does this clash with your definition of "shape", Metz?
If you'd like a program that generates julia sets, drop me a PM with your email address and I'll send you one so that you can sail on the mandelbrot lake and note what a connected julia set looks like, and see how it changes as you cross onto the shore
As to the definition of shape, you are using an online compilation from American English. I am not.
Kinevon, if you are so intent on using mathematical jargon lets comment on what a billion is to Americans shall we… But I digress. The reason I reacted so strongly was:
1. The definition was wrong in the original non jargon, non classical English definition.
2. There was no rules basis for your post and thus the argument had moved from a discussion of in game effects to how things operate in the real world – as we can see, that never ends well. (I shouldn’t have done it or bitten afterwards)
As to American English versus other brands of English, I would like to just point out to you WHERE WotC is located, and therefore point out, since the company is American, that it would, by default, be written in American English.
As to "rules basis", the whole point of this debate is that the rules basis is equivocal, so working with the definitions of the words, as likely used by the authors, is as valid as any other non-rules based argument, since the way the author(s) understand the words would be an implied part of their intent....
Such fractals are "disconnected" (that's the mathematical jargon for each point in the set is not connnected to any other point in the set).
You want the phrase 'totally disconnected' rather than 'disconnected'. There are even two senses of that phrase, but that's getting picky.
What it boils down to, is that the word 'shape' does not railroad a person into a singular enclosed connected region. Trying to reinforce your own beliefs one way or the other with 'english definitions' is always a mistake in a rules debate, but either side.
So far, beyond that, there has only been the argument for a singular 'point of origin' for the area spell. This I find flawed (as I've stated) and find inconsistent that the point of origin, even if singular, would have to be in the center of one of the 10x10 squares. It does not fit into the requirements of 'measuring from there' to any degree of reasonableness (a disconnected area would work just as well with the given interpretation). Meanwhile it does seem reasonable that 4 separate points of origin, one for each 10x10 square, would make sense (at least to me).
But other than that argument, I don't find anything that seems to show that the squares need to be contiguous. In fact, the argument given that they assumed the singular point of origin (as proposed by andy) was well known and thus a contiguous shape was implied could be used towards the horrid 'fluff' advice text from Complete Mage where the author assumed the opposite.
Is there no other support towards a contiguous shape for sculpted spells? Or is it more falling into folklore and how things 'have always been played' that crop up?
-James
Wow, fiesty here =) I have absolutely nothing to contribute to the topic at hand, but out of interest, for those with a mathematical inclination... (and stirring the pot, as always!)
Take a julia fractal generated outside the mandelbrot set. Such fractals are "disconnected" (that's the mathematical jargon for each point in the set is not connnected to any other point in the set). Each such julia set, however, when you look at it, has a certain "shape", using the english definition of the word. Does this clash with your definition of "shape", Metz?
If you'd like a program that generates julia sets, drop me a PM with your email address and I'll send you one so that you can sail on the mandelbrot lake and note what a connected julia set looks like, and see how it changes as you cross onto the shore
Yes it does. thats not a shape its a fractal :P
I would like to point out that by the definition of a fractal, it is:
(and I quote Mandelbrot here)
"a rough and fractured geometric shape"
NOT
"a geometric shape"
Just saying is all. Fractals aren't supposed to be even described in Euclidean geometry because they are too irregular.
HENCE The creation of a new word for them - they are NOT 'shapes' by the definition of the word, they are something new: Fractals.
Just to nitpick
But anyways, definitions of shapes aside, the main reason I objected is because I knew this would happen. Its nto a relevant rules arguement
Should have been like Andy and just not bitten.
Is there no other support towards a contiguous shape for sculpted spells? Or is it more falling into folklore and how things 'have always been played' that crop up?
-James
Irrelevant but interesting, I notice in 4th edition they mention when things are contigous... lol
I feel that the rules for shapeable sells in the PHB are the best evidence for contigous spells.
I especially point to the bit that mentions that some spells use cubes to allow for the construction of irregular shapes, but this does not mean independent cubes.
*reads last few posts*
I am going...to go now...and put...my privates...into a blender.
I anticipate it being less excrutiating than what I just read.
Joe
I thought I would check out this thread because it is an issue that I regularly come across at my tables.
*reads last few posts*
I am going...to go now...and put...my privates...into a blender.
I anticipate it being less excrutiating than what I just read.
Joe
Exactly, I am now officially bowing out.
Read the first page or so though, its reasonably relevant...
I feel that the rules for shapeable sells in the PHB are the best evidence for contigous spells.
I especially point to the bit that mentions that some spells use cubes to allow for the construction of irregular shapes, but this does not mean independent cubes.
It doesn't? That's what Andy and I were debating earlier in this thread. I don't see that it requires a contiguous shape.
And as to your prior post:
"a rough and fractured geometric shape"
You are then admitting that it IS a shape, just NOT a normal geometric shape? Then welcome to the darkside... ;)
-James
So the bottom line of this "discussion" appears to be:
- The rules of the feat don't specify the squares to be contiguous.
- Complete Arcane (p.12) describes the feat as such: "Sculpt Spell (Complete Arcane): This feat allows you to alter the area of any spell and even lets you create four isolated 10-foot cubes anywhere within range of your spell, giving you the rare freedom to cast area spells into melee combat without endangering party members."
- The counterpoint that "shape" of a spell is singular and therefore has to be a single, contiguous area, has been refuted (after much discussion) by one of the detractors himself (_metz_), who brought up an example of a discontinuous shape.
- The counterpoint that the PHB requires all spells to have a (singular) point of origin has been weakened by the fact that feats routinely change basic rules and the description apparently does just that.
Overall, I'd still clear it with the DM first, but it seems to be that the RAW favors the non-consecutive interpretation.