Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 RainbowRandolph Oct 09, 2014 6:53:41	Hi folks. I'm fairly geometrically, so I might be missing something simple here, but the cloud of daggers conjuration spell said it afffects a cube that is 5 feet on each side.  So is that one square on a grid? Thanks!   Steve
#2 iserith Oct 09, 2014 7:02:58	Yes, presuming the squares on your grid represent a space 5 feet on a side.
#3 paulstrait Oct 09, 2014 8:59:56	I suppose you could cast it so that it is half of two squares on a grid (or one-quarter of four squares on a grid), perhaps forcing a medium creature to be squeezing if they wanted to enter one of the two squares and avoid the daggers.  But if you are using a grid, it is probably easiest to make the caster choose a single square to fill.
#4 2Chlorobutanal Oct 09, 2014 21:05:11	In my games, the point of a grid is to simplify play by making creatures, objects, and effects conform to the grid.  Cloud of daggers would have to occupy one square on a 5' square grid (to a height of 5', if 3-D movement became an issue).  I wouldn't  cast the spell in "half of two squares," nor let a player do the same.
#5 paulstrait Oct 09, 2014 21:09:34	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #4) Nevvur	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#7 2Chlorobutanal Oct 09, 2014 21:40:28	I wouldn't consider using a table with grid measurements, but where characters do not align or conform to the demarcations, to be a "using a grid" in the PO: Combat & Tactics, 3rd Ed., or 4th Ed, meaning of the term.  I'd consider that to be a helpful visualization tool, but not "using a (combat) grid."   Here's the problem that occurs with trying to get cloud of daggers to affect more than one creature when a grid is not used:  a creature occupies the entire area of the spell (or volume of it) and takes the entire effect (damage) of the spell.  Two creatures each occupy half the area of the spell - do they both suffer 100% of the spell's effect?  Do four creatures?  Eight?   Using grid conformation makes this a relatively trivial question.  Any creature affected by the spell is entirely affected by the spell.   The reason why cloud of daggers is the same level as flaming sphere is because flaming sphere allows a saving throw for reduced damage, only damages creatures at the end of a turn instead of the beginning of turn (giving the creatures time to escape its area), is affected by gravity, and is a more commonly resisted damage type.  This is the same as why chromatic sphere "seems" to deal more damage than magic missile.  In exchange for this, flaming sphere can be repositioned and can be forced into one creature per turn.
#8 Nevvur Oct 09, 2014 21:50:20	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#9 paulstrait Oct 09, 2014 22:04:06	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #8) 2Chlorobutanal	Nevvur wrote:
#11 Nevvur Oct 09, 2014 23:16:01	I know, I have more experience in 4e than any other edition. I'm just saying it's visually the same, scaled down in size. An area effect that fills a portion of two occupied squares looks a lot like an area effect that only fills a portion of a large creature's area, so treating the effects of either situation should be consistent   The OP's question was super simple and already answered, and I assume he prefers-- in declaring himself geometrical -- snap-to-grid mechanics. When I ran 4e, so did I. You're right, it does simplify combat, but 4e combat was relatively complex.   I wrote that I use a battle mat (drawing on it is using it) and, " for me the grid is only a quick reference to distances."
#12 2Chlorobutanal Oct 09, 2014 23:44:46	The main issue would be at what point the threshold between "being affected" and "not being affected" is crossed.  If you have a discrete grid size of 5', this makes such determinations pretty simple.   If your measurements are not discrete, then there would probably need to be some extra proportional scaling involved, or the power of area spells grows with the ingenuity of the player- I.e.: if I cast a lightning bolt to "graze" 10 orcs where it would only "fully pass through" 5 of them, should all 10 orcs take the same 8d6 damage as the 5 that are totally within the area of the spell?   Should each orc take an amount of damage proportional to the amount of its space overlapping with the spell effect?  This would be more "fair," but it would also be more complicated to calculate.   A grid simplifies this by identifying every orc's space as either "in" the spell or "out" of the spell.   In the case of cloud of daggers, as a balance concern, in normal encounters (where characters do not cohabitate the same space) I would allow the spell to affect at most 1 medium creature.  A caster who wanted to affect two (or more) medium or larger creatures with one applicate of cloud of daggers would be told to pick one creature's space.  In the case of a grid, this would essentially boil down to "pick a 5' square."  An alternative method would be to allow "portions" of multiple squares and to roll a chance for, say, 2 creatures to be affected - 50% chance for each one.  However, I prefer to stick to the simpler, 1-square, 1-target model.
#13 Coredump00 Oct 09, 2014 23:44:54	I think a grid should be used to aid play, not limit it.  I would have no problem with the spell being cast between 2 squares.
(Reply to #13) 2Chlorobutanal	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #14) Coredump00	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#16 paulstrait Oct 11, 2014 15:16:01	2Chlorobutanal wrote: