AOE rules in Dnd 5e suck!

This Video is Sponsored by The Dragon's Bank Heist: 1pageadventure...
Circles are Squares short:
• Circles are Squares in...
Thank you very much Dragon's Bank Heist for sponsoring this video! Check it out!
Link to patreon, merch shop, discord and twitter:
www.patreon.co....
/ discord
/ pack_tacticss
my-store-c2bae...
Battle map and a few tokens by / lazy.sheep.adventures
My tokens by Mrakobulka: / mrako_bulka
Gator art by Drakeven: / drakeven1
Kobold reading a scroll art by Novatonix:
www.youtube.co....

[@PackTactics]

This Video is Sponsored by The Dragon's Bank Heist: 1pageadventures.com/downloads... Thank you very much Dragon's Bank Heist for sponsoring this video! Check it out!

[@1pageadventures]

Thank you so much for featuring me! I'm watching all of your videos and am proud to finally be featured in one!

[@antoniosanchez-qd4cg]

I'm surprise by the fact that is not normal for people to use the square when thinking of circles and fire ball Literally is the easy way.

[@LucanVaris]

But Kobold! *K L E I N - S H A P E D S P E L L S* >:3

[@Setiweb]

For the moondruid barbarian ruining my encounters. Hit: 1000. Thanks for the laugh!

[@sleepyspartan1367]

I'm remember you said this in another video but how do you calculate chance to hit with advantage? I ask because I'm making a cr calculator to more accurately represent monsters by including optimal circumstances, damage, hit chance, hp, etc.

[@zerdafox]

Know who else loves squares? The sponsor of todays video: Me: "Squarespace" Kobold: "The dragons bank heist" Me: "The dragons bank heist"

[@benjaminholcomb9478]

Lol

[@a_wild_Kirillian]

This is hilarious =)

[@RaethFennec]

Aaaaaaaaa! I'm not the only one who instantly thought that!

[@1pageadventures]

I agree! :D

[@Micah_4D]

Yup, hearing about Squarespace from Kobold so many times, this was my first thought. Advertising works!

[@dovahkiin_brasil]

Hexagon grid: "I don't suffer such weakness"

[@littledevilsasa9386]

Hexagon is Bestagon

[@psychohistorian4431]

#HexangonIsTheBestagon

[@evanluck1229]

Ah, fellow members of the cult

[@lukenator115]

But you're weak to squares!

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

5e isn't fully compatible with grid maps... Sadly.

[@FuelDropforthewin]

I am just sad the sponsor wasn't Squarespace, solely because it would have been a perfect transition

[@1pageadventures]

Sorry for that! :D

[@FuelDropforthewin]

@@1pageadventures It's all good. Your stuff is a better fit for the channel... just not for that specific transition. Of course if you can get on for an episode on 1 page RPGs, it will be... *chef's kiss*

[@DvirPick]

I mean, you can also say that playing on a grid is optional, so when playing on a grid you also need the optional 5-10 diagonals rule that makes spheres make more sense, makes sphere AoEs smaller than their cube counterparts, and makes flight less OP.

[@williammays779]

This is exactly what my home group did, initially, for our movement rules. We didn't even know it solved the AOE issue until we started measuring to see who would be affected by a Fire Ball.

[@MrJerks93]

Yeah. Because we play online I just toggled the Pathfinder diagonals on for movement.

[@sethb3090]

The 5-10 rule just solves so many AoE and movement issues without requiring players to know trig. I don't know why it's not the default.

[@GreyAcumen]

why would the 5-10 rule make flight less OP? Sure, someone flying can move 60ft in 3 different directions at the same time, but calculating the range needed to hit them gets all the same advantages, so everything balances out. The diagonals 5ft always is the perfect rule when you apply it properly to all other effects and don't try to do hypotenuse calculations/templates that don't mesh with that rule.

[@marmato9332]

Tell me how to apply it on AoE please, cause I can't picture it on my own honestly

[@vinzettoducama7065]

My group just defaulted to the 40K template rules since we are so familiar with them. Never seemed to be an issue for us.

[@bonzwah1]

That's cuz you're actually playing DND 5e the way it was written haha.

[@X23Natalie]

This is why Hexagons are the Bestagons. Movement and abilities appear much more natural on maps set up that way. Unfortunately I use Roll20 and tokens of large creatures don't work properly. So i don't get to use them much for games I DM.

[@marsupialmole3926]

Except for the inability to make a right-angled turn

[@Schmeethe88]

With Hexagons, you can only move laterally in 6 directions. With squares you can move in 8 because diagonals.

[@X23Natalie]

@@Schmeethe88 sure, mechanically it's more advantageous for players to be on a grid. On a hex it's more realistic.

[@jodashi200]

@@Schmeethe88 moving diagonal takes twice the amount of movement so it results in worse ratio

[@Schmeethe88]

@@cewla3348 I mean, you "can" do it that way if you want. Or you can just use the 1:2 rule. First diagonal square is 5', second is 10', third 5' etc. It's a really close approximation especially since we're already handwaving a lot. This also works for AoEs since you can use that rule when determining circle radius on a grid. A fireball using that rule comes out looking kinda circle shaped instead of just giving them several extra full squares for free.

[@godsamongmen8003]

I don't know how eaay this would be on a VTT, but at a table I got rid of the grid entirely. Generally more people like it than not, though I've had mixed reactions. Without a grid we do things Warhammer style. You use a ruler to measure distance for your character's movement, and your reach is 5 feet (or whatever it might be) from the base of your model. Anything partially under a spell template is a hit. Making templates was easy. I bought translucent plastic duo-tangs from walmart and used a kids math set to make shapes.

[@MasterVolton]

Sqrs

[@CatacombD]

I would probably be in the mixed reaction subset. I think the 5e combat rules are a little too basic to benefit from most of the advantages of gridless movement, meanwhile the downside of gridless taking longer is very much in play.

[@thundersheild926]

Generally it's super easy to do on a VTT. Most allow you to measure distance when dragging a token

[@The_mekboy_you_deserve]

I always thought and will possibly always think until one dnd comes out that it MUST take also the best parts from 4e and 3.5e (1e and 2e are too old and completely different from what we have now), from 4e there are some damn good rules, the enemy division in minion, elite, or whatever helps a DM building encounters, group checks have some official rules as per how they work, martials in 4e were not so much underpowered in contrast to casters. From 3.5e there are also some neat rules about combat that could be taken.

[@psychohistorian4431]

Pack Tactics: Something about Squares Me: ...HEXAGON is the Bestagon

[@AvangionQ]

Lines and walls suffer on hex maps ... the hexagon is bestagon rule isn't 100% true after all Show me a lightning bolt aimed 50% between two hexes and try to figure out which ones it hits Show me a one-deep wall of fire or ice and tell me which hexes it completely or partially engulfs

[@The4gotNdeath]

@PackTactics Thank you for waking people up - 4e rules were great (not without the occasional rule jank ofc, but every edition has janky rules in it so that’s a mute point). Maybe I’m mistaken but I believe you mentioned you were playing a 4e campaign in one of your previous videos, if so I would love to see a video on your thoughts of 4e as a whole - and maybe a list of things u liked about 4e that you would like to see in OneDnD

[@CatacombD]

I dislike a lot of 4e, but it certainly has some good rules that should be stolen and used imo. Minion, bloodied status, and circles are squares are the first that come to mind.

[@FallenFellFromGlory]

4e is great!

[@The4gotNdeath]

@@FallenFellFromGlory Amen

[@dextra_24703]

I would be interested in some spells that would create multiple effects or something of a bouncing line that could be interesting

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

Green Flame Blade is a good example about that since... In a 3d space... 5ft around your target is the entire 3 by 3 by 3 cube rather than a 2d horizontal sphere. For DMs who use grid maps... Round up the X ft to the 5th number if each cube represents 5 ft. And change any rule/value that is not within the 5th feet.

[@cubicengineering4715]

Melf's Minute Meteors and Meteor Swarm are examples of existing spells that create multiple spheres at once

[@chasenovak122]

I’ve been using a Hexgrid for my Spelljammer campaign, since, at the time, the square grid was being used for a dungeon in the game run by the party’s Druid on Tuesday’s. And I gotta say, it’s really made the harder Area of Effect spheres and cones WAY easier to manage in combat, and really speeds up combat when I don’t have to count out individual squares which are and aren’t affected by the Sorcerer’s cone of cold.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

I just directly do the measurement from (example) "8 ft linear range" then round up to 5ths. Since each cube/square is 5 ft each. 5e sucks with grid maps!!! I do the same thing with Jumping Rules on grid maps and improve the falling rules because 5e isn't compatible.

[@mtfoxtrot5296]

I started using Hex maps and it made a world of difference in my games as well. It's mildly annoying to snap tokens to maps obviously designed with squares in mind, but it's a minor inconvenience for a huge gameplay boost. I've come up with a rule that if the center of a hex is within an AOE, then the creature occupying the hex is hit. If the AOE is in the hex but doesn't overlap the centermost point of that hex, then any creatures within are fine. Annoying to do in person, but extremely easy in any VTT application.

[@bandi642]

hexagons are the bestagons

[@EmeralBookwise]

I love hex grids. I know some people hate them because they don't understand how to draw walls on them, but as long as you make sure to never cut a hex exactly in half they work just fine.

[@dextra_24703]

one thing i never understand is why its hard for people to just take out the corners from a square to make a circle

[@watchstuffalot_4779]

All these squares make a circle. All these squares make a circle.

[@PackTactics]

Why even bother taking that extra step?

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

For simplicity sakes... No one wants to do algebra in DnD, so the entire cube is a hit for a circular AOE that enters 1/4th or more of the cube's area. (Ironic... Since grids use a basic level of algebra for shapes.)

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

@@morgothable This isn't chess... So.. As a DM because 5e has no DMG/PHB rules about it... You may Move diagonally but do expect the aoe to hit all cubes/hex blocks on the battle map within it's area. Excluding the "exemption rules" for aoe like cutting corners and filling up less than 1/4th of one cube/hex block area etc.

[@jeancanestri5572]

use hexagons

[@joshhoey]

"A blast is an area adjacent to you. Think Thunderwave! A burst is an area surrounding you. Think of how you thought Thunderwave worked when you first read it. 😭"

[@BubblegumTrollKing]

I have never had issues with cones or spheres. I just have cutouts for OTB and even more convenient is online where I can just draw a line and the area automatically forms around it. Super easy to eyeball and even faster than counting squares. I really don't like the thought of using squares.

[@CatacombD]

I've always thought that if a person is okay with diagonal movement being equal to cardinal movement, then they should be okay with squares being circles. I mean, circles would literally be the same as squares in such a universe. They're both basic conceits to "fix" the same problem.

[@orelyosif5852]

"Circles are squares" actually makes a lot of sense if you center Fireball on an angle, and not in the middle of a square. Never thought of it

[@renatocorvaro6924]

Eh, I just use 3.5's AOE rules. But I also just play 3.5 whenever the option is available.

[@i010001]

good taste

[@masterfreeman117]

In my personal experience, all you need is the optional rule that every second diagonal squares counts as ten feet and some templates made with that in mind and you are good to go. Be it cones, squares, cubes or spheres everything shows in a clear and unambiguous manner which area is affected. Only lines can in certain circumstances have some uncertainty, but line spells are so rarely used, at least in my campaigns, that it hardly matters. Of course playing on a virtual table top helps a lot with all of this.

[@kevinlinsley9594]

Diagonal rules is terrible. For instance, reach weapons. You have an enemy diagonal to you. 1 square in between both of you. If you try to use your 10ft reach weapon it won't reach because they are technically 15ft away. But if you move one square up they are now in your face and you are within their 5ft reach and now you could provoke opportunity attack if you try to move after using your reach weapon. It's an unnecessary headache. Just make circles be squares and everything is fixed.

[@masterfreeman117]

@@kevinlinsley9594 In the scenario you describe you could also just move 5 feet vertically or horizontally to attack from 10 feet away. The diagonal rule does not perfectly reflect reality, but it is still a lot better than the default in my experience. One can also play without a grid, but that provides its own challenges. Whenever I played on a map with no grid people starting haggling for every pixel to get more movement and range.

[@CatacombD]

@@masterfreeman117 But what if it's not your turn? For example, it would allow a person to bypass polearm mastery + sentinel setups. If the enemies run at you diagonally, they won't provoke the aoo until they are already in melee with you.

[@thundersheild926]

@@CatacombD I would then question why my DM is running enemies in such a metagamey way. The grid is there to simplify combat, and the characters shouldn't be aware of its existence. In general, I'd say intercept a little further away and you have no issue. Though I'd also let someone with reach attack from two diagonal squares anyway.

[@CatacombD]

@@thundersheild926 It's not metagamey at all; anytime an enemy approaches from a diagonal, this issue would crop up. In order to avoid it, you'd have to metagame to make sure that no monster ever approached the PC diagonally. If you're going to allow 10 ft reach weapons to reach 15 ft diagonally, then you're already halfway there to just using circles are squares. Why not go the rest of the way, and end up with an easy and consistent system, instead of having a clunky exception in order to prevent the simulation from breaking? If that's what your table likes, then go for it, but personally I think it's a minor simplification that makes the game run a lot better.

[@remyb6854]

AOE rules get largely fixed in 5e by just making a rule that any creature whose space isn't fully in the aoe gets advantage on their saves.

[@kirbyapollo389]

And even on that, I am pretty sure those come in the form of the cover rules, meaning this video is basically rage bait

[@cmccbuilds8229]

Use the optional rule that diagonal movement takes 1.5x straight movement. 2 squares is 15 feet. Then you can still have the variety that lines, spheres, and squares provide. Variety is nice. Even if it’s moderately more complex.

[@Hazel-xl8in]

cool! i unfortunately hate that so i will not be using it

[@benjaminholcomb9478]

@@Hazel-xl8in "Local Area Woman Has Strong Opinion About Diagonal Movement, Shares Them Respectfully"

[@NotRealAkira]

Think the main problem with this one is that you can't really turn it on in virtual tabletops and can cause turns to take longer because instead of a simple square AoE, people will have to take time figuring out where things are going to go

[@kevinlinsley9594]

Diagonal rules is terrible. For instance, reach weapons. You have an enemy diagonal to you. 1 square in between both of you. If you try to use your 10ft reach weapon it won't reach because they are technically 15ft away. But if you move one square up they are now in your face and you are within their 5ft reach and now you could provoke opportunity attack if you try to move after using your reach weapon. It's an unnecessary headache. Just make circles be squares and everything is fixed.

[@NotRealAkira]

@@kevinlinsley9594 I honestly agree, I don't like the diagonal rule either.

[@Greywander87]

I've been trying to find the perfect way to combine square and hex grids. So far, what I've discovered is that you can turn a square grid into a hex grid by shifting every other row half a tile horizontally or every other column half a tile vertically. Thus, if you take a normal square grid and subdivide each tile into quarter tiles, then you can do hex movement by moving one full tile in one direction and then half a tile sideways. It even has both hex grid orientations. What I haven't quite worked out is what movement costs should look like. The best I've come up with so far is to not have any special cost for hex movement, and instead to make diagonal movement cost 50% more than cardinal movement, and hex movement is just a combination of a half tile move cardinally and a half tile move diagonally. This isn't a hex grid, though, but an octagonal grid.

[@Spiderslay3r]

Counterpoint: Spheres, cones, and lines are peak high magic wizardry and I would miss them greatly, neither I nor my tables have ever struggled with them. Purchase a ruler, play a single wargame. You'll figure it out, I believe in you.

[@delroland]

hot take: we should go back to 3E movement to eliminate the "15 ft move to get out of a 20 ft cloud" thing

[@norandomnumbers]

Playing on a grid is an optional rule... We don't use grids in any of the games I run.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

The book is an optional rule. It's all DM Fiat. lol

[@matthewbutner8696]

“The memes told me.” Had me laughing so hard 😂

[@nathanlee2942]

OH MY GOD an editor version for adventures is such a good idea. At least on the consumer side.

[@1pageadventures]

Yes totally, that's what I've always wanted from an adventure book, so I put it in. :D

[@Thermolight]

I think this is a good idea for grid based combat in D&D, really great video! I would like to shine light on an alternative which in my experience has worked quite well: Abandon the grid, use a measuring tool and translate 1 inch to 5 ft. (could even abandon the imperial system and go with metric measurements) Using a measuring stick or something of the sort for finding distances means that any creature can move in any direction and always go exactly their movement speed, they get a perfect circle of max movement (in an open environment). Obviously this can lead to weird situations like being almost but not quite within melee range, easy answer is just have the DM decide, it's part of the reason they're here, but for certainty just measure from the center of one mini to the center of another, if the distance is 1 inch (5 ft.) or less, you're in melee range. For creatures of larger size, go from the center of your mini to a bit short of half an inch into the larger creatures base. for larger on larger creatures, same idea, almost half an inch into one and almost half an inch into the other... In my personal opinion, the best part of this system is that you can just wing it! Forget measuring everything and just try to roughly visualize inch by inch a creature's movements, decide for yourself how close is within melee range, etc. I honestly think the grid system, while not by any means bad, makes the game feel more video/board gamey, which for me at least somewhat limits the fantastical role play elements. I get that combat needs clear rules to avoid slowing to a crawl or stopping outright, but overcomplicating those rules creates the same problem. The grid itself has slowed down my games so many times trying to figure out how AOEs work back when my group had just started playing. Refining AOEs is a good solution, but my solution was to redefine the board itself. Nothing else in the game runs on a grid; a good part is no part, it is better to eliminate the need itself than to optimize the means of fulfilling it. The grid is more popular but many digital tools can already work without the grid, so resources are plentiful if you're willing to look. ... Thank you for coming to my ted talk....

[@CatacombD]

To me, once you resort to, "Just wing it," why even bother with the minis at all. You don't have to use minis, after all; Theater of the mind is a valid way to play. Personally, I like a grid, because it lets people plan out their turns in advance without having to constantly measure and double check with the dm. It keeps the tactical side of combat intact, without making it overly fiddly.

[@Thermolight]

@@CatacombD Very valid points, I think every group should do what works best for them. For clarity, I didn't mean to resort to winging it, I meant there's no harm in just doing it your own way. Your players have a movement limit every turn, if that limit puts them barely not close enough, what's the harm in allowing them those few extra feet this turn? If it's just a bit too far for that then maybe the player could make an athletics check to get 5-10 extra feet of movement this turn with the DC going up the farther they want to push themselves. Minis are visual representations to help visualizing the battlefield. Theatre of the mind is great but in combat, with very carefully ruled abilities, it can get confusing. Personally I just find the grid is a bit too far in the other direction, it goes beyond a visualization tool and becomes a tactical board game where dropping the fantastical role play nature of the game in favor of tactical thought processing is superior. I want a blend of both, combat should be tactical, but I don't want to lose sight of the story my players are writing. There's no right or wrong answer, Every system has its flaws and its own ways of addressing those flaws, it's just down to the way you want to play. When I play I like the grandiose fantasy legend that my players are writing in my world. To that end, open movement is just that little bit better for my group. Also the 5-10 diagonal movement on a grid is pretty similar anyways, it just keeps the grid around... Best of both worlds?

[@sjhsoccer]

One of the things I hated about 4e was how it required you to play on a grid. It broke immersion for me, and not everyone has a grid. My family never had a grid to play with and always played old D&D by using a whiteboard and measuring out length. That's how 5e is designed now, and it makes it more accessible game design. Plus it allows for groups to use the superior hexes.

[@theuncalledfor]

Or you could just draw a grid. I mean I like the measuring idea, that sounds rad as hell, but if you _want_ a grid you can just _make_ one with ease.

[@sjhsoccer]

I've tried to draw grids, and they are technically functional, but they're a pain in the ass and hard to do poorly. My best method is to use wet erase marker to draw the grid and dry erase marker to draw the maps, but even then you find yourself having to redraw bits that still get erased and it still will never be perfect because of human error. Plus, forcing a square grid setup still doesn't account for people that play with hexes

[@brunomattos]

Agreed.

[@JM-mh1pp]

@@sjhsoccer guys... battlemaps are cheap...just saying

[@ryanharo9552]

I mean, nothing against you or anything, but when I was in high school and couldn't get a proper battle map I used graph paper. Granted, we also didn't have minis so we just wrote an initial to signify what character was in what square and erased it to move but still. Game said use a grid, so I found a grid.

[@CleverJester95]

Ive only played 5e, but it did end up homebrewing a similar method of using squares for circular AOE, I just added advantage to the corners to make it feel more circle

[@nickraney1763]

I just play on hexes lol. I can see this being a big problem for people running modules or who can't make their own maps

[@AvangionQ]

Lines and walls suffer on hex maps ... the hexagon is bestagon rule isn't 100% true after all Show me a lightning bolt aimed 50% between two hexes and try to figure out which ones it hits Show me a one-deep wall of fire or ice and tell me which hexes it completely or partially engulfs

[@Hazel-xl8in]

what happens if you have to fight someone inside a dungeon, where the walls and corners are at 90° angles?

[@alexandarium3087]

What I usually do for circular aoe's is cut out the whole 30 feet 15 feet whatever and just count squares. So like, if an aoe is 30 feet radius, that's 6 squares because basic math. Anything that is within 6 squares (not diagonal) from the origin point and doesn't have something obstructing them gets hit.

[@alexandarium3087]

If course this doesn't work on cones. My solution for people who use cones is to just snap their spine and then continue on with the session because I don't want to deal with cones.

[@pandapruitt2542]

Yeah even the 4th edition ones look bad, hexagon seriously just seems better for this. Yes it has its issues (like walls) but you could just have a wall not fill a whole space if it would only take the small corner of it

[@Telhias]

Why do you need grids? Can't you measure everything with a ruler like in a wargame? Circle is a circle, line is a line and you can pick any direction rather than just cardinals and diagonals. It is like trying to simplify everything by overcomplicating it. You need a few extra tools, but the precision and freedom that you gain from not caring about stupid grids is massive.

[@JacobOphir]

The best thing about D&D is we don’t have to wait for wizards of the Coast to do it. We can just do it ourselves in each of our games we take the initiative, now roll for effect.

[@miguelsuarez-solis5027]

Not everyone plays on a grid. I don't. Get rid of the grids and bust out your ruler. Circles aren't squares as the corners won't hit

[@theuncalledfor]

Do away with the square grid! Make it a hex grid! That way those shapes are all easier!

[@tobiloge]

we'll in 3.5, if u want to move diagonal u had to take every 2nd sqaure to count as two, just like the optional move rules in the dm-guide. With the optional setting Circle can be circles and have the effect they shoud have.

[@SleepySlann]

Maybe it is because I started in wargaming, but I never understood the appeal of any kind of grid. We always just measured areas of effects and never bothered with proper templates. Even when we, once in a blue moon, used a grid, it was easier to just measure the area of effect, using the rules for movement, with every other square counting as 10 feet, because Pythagoras. Is this enemy within 20 feet of the point of origin? If yes then it is hit.

[@gelbadayah.sneach579]

I've actually played 4e and there were some really good additions to that edition: bloodied status and healing surge values as examples.

[@TheBSharp]

4e gets a lot more hate than it deserves. I play with lots of 4e concepts in my game. My favorite being powering up boss creatures one they hit bloodied.

[@gelbadayah.sneach579]

@@TheBSharp I LOVE multi-phase combats!

[@CatacombD]

@@TheBSharp 4e has a lot of good ideas, and 4e has a lot of awful ideas. The nice thing is that we can steal all the good stuff from 4e for our homebrews, without having to put up with the crappy parts.

[@JM-mh1pp]

4e is great if you make some fun excel spreadsheets to keep track of all the auras, special effects, stacking and non stacking spells etc. I swear to god if someone made a companion app for 4e it would just decimate 5e

[@25usd94]

But kobold

[@MinoMadness]

Circles are not squares. Making it a square gives it additional area of effect that it should not have.

[@ellysemilton1309]

Which is fine if you also don't consider moving diagonally to be 5 feet per square. Which would give it a lesser area of effect as moving 15 feet diagonally would put you outside a 20 foot radius AoE.

[@harrysarso]

unless otherwise stated. ?- you are orgins of the conical area, but are not affected by its effects 1. from the origin draw a line away from you equal to the conical range. 2. at the end of the line draw two perpendicular lines, half the length of the cone range. 3. draw a line from the origin to both ends of the perpendicular lines. 4. all squares crossed by the lines or are within the triangle are considered within the area. thoughts ?

[@himajinga]

It's worth noting that the squares=circles thing only works due to a conceit of 5e grid mechanics (as outlined in the roll20 5e vs Euclidean ruler options). In 5e where the transit of a square in any direction (horizontal, vertical OR diagonal) equals 5 feet then circles do in fact equal squares, however if the squares did actually represent 5x5 squares in reality, the circles = squares thing DOESN'T create exactly the same results, as the hypotenuse of the triangle created by diagonally bisecting a 5x5 square is ~7ft so 4 squares, corner to corner, is actually 28 feet which is 40% larger than indicated in the fireball spell description as opposed to 4 squares side to side.

[@tomraineofmagigor3499]

IDK for the game system I'm designing cones are just wider. A cone with a range of 2 would be one for the first step then add a square the the left and right for the next step. Each time as you go further out you add a square to each end. Lines are pretty simple too either it's a cardinal direction or it goes at a 45 degree angle

[@dragonboyjgh]

If you want to convert 5e to 4e sizes, Lines are Walls, and Cones are Close Blasts.

[@CatacombD]

As the person who always has to figure out what a cone actually covers for the group, I support these changes.

[@dragonboyjgh]

@@CatacombD I'm honestly surprised that there's still not a single VTT that has a proper gridded cone/line tool.

[@KiithnarasAshaa]

Rebuttal: Hexagons are the best-agons.

[@Magus_Union]

I'd be willing to bet that the first edition of rules for D&D were crafted around the usage of a scaled ruler. So in the case of maps, you'd use a 1:60 scale to say that a 1 cubic inch square would represent 5 ft by 5 ft of space. Alternatively, a a 30 ft diameter blast radius would be represented by circle with 6 inches of total width on a figurine space. This means you can scale combat independently of any restrictive grid rules by obeying the scaling conversions respective to the measurement parameters set by 5e.

[@JM-mh1pp]

And you would win that bet considering that at the beginning d&d was based on wargames of the time

[@normalhuman1825]

Pack you had a square on your screen but you didn’t line it up with the grid background you have, and my soul is burning

[@jamcdonald120]

whats hard about lines? you just grab a $1 ruler, put the round bit arround the casters head, and point it in the direction. Any creature hit by the ruler is hit by the spell.

[@notoriouswhitemoth]

If you ignore geometry and say a diagonal square is the same distance as an orthogonal square, it doesn't matter what you say the shape is. It's literally squaring every circle, which is mathematically impossible. 3.5 counts two diagonal squares as equivalent to three orthogonal squares, which is a mostly accurate analog while still keeping the bath fairly simple.

[@Joey-666]

I play theater of mind and I use the DMG rules for area of effects.... It's been fun and easy!!

[@bonzwah1]

In my experience, many players hate the dmg aoe threatre rules because target selection is completely independent of the work that everyone has done jointly constructing narrative imagery.

[@Kingdomkey123678]

The 5e PHB kinda assumes theater of the mind is how you’ll play the game with how it’s laid out. And yet it also includes a bunch of precise measurements which don’t work well with Theater of the Mind. The whole book is a contradiction, it’s like half the team wanted the game to be played with out any grids at all and the other half insisted on it being a grid based game

[@Shashu_the_little_Voidling]

Only matters if you play on a grid and care about exact maths and mechanics, cones and circles look a lot more realistic/visually pleasing in the mind's eye.

[@allenfogarty2384]

The tool you are looking for is called a template... they work well.

[@Shivan_16]

I know people rag on 4th edition but it holds a special place in my heart!

[@rougenarwhal8378]

as a hippie, I doth protest your love of squares

[@Snipfragueur]

I do not get it, what's hard about just using circular templates of different sizes...? That's how it works in Warhammer for example, why would not it work here ?

[@doptimusdx743]

I have never seen thunderwave not be a point of confusion

[@mofire5674]

It's great that 4e is such a well designed and worded system these sorts of confusions rarely happen. The game actually makes sense lmfao.

[@krow1551]

I really thought you were gonna get an ad from Square space. Must be cool getting ads for actual tabletop related stuff!

[@azrik6084]

This is one of the reasons I like playing on roll20. I use the smart aoe api. Makes it super easy to figure out how many people are dead from the dragons breath weapon...

[@sebastienlecmpte3419]

This is gonna be one where I full stop disagree. 4e and 5e grids make no sense and just invite cheesing by moving diagonaly. 3.5 and pathfinder (both edition) have it right: first diagonal = 5 feet, second = 10 feet. It's not exact, but it's close. Diagonal are SUPPPSED to be longer then the sides of the square. I welcome a little complexity for the sake of common sense.

[@edwardg8912]

Kobold seems to hate time wasting, except when casting conjure animals. So, when time is wasted in pursuing of character optimization, it’s fine.

[@JakeValorOfArms]

I agree mostly. Other than what's called freedom aiming. Where a lighting bolt truthfully effects...a line with a contingent of 4x2 cause it's moving across the field grid not the square square grid. or you make it effect only a line of 2x1 or a 1x1. fire ball sake has a minor version of the same effect. where instead of aiming at "center" square you can make it aim at grid square, (the conjunction of up to 4 cubes and expand from there. It in a weird sense effects more potentially. if the 1/4th square rule is in use (which is happening anyways) I also have a way to deal with cones of just drawing a center line...then you usually have to know that the cones reach out. Turns out most comes are just expanding...by +1 on each side till it reaches it's range limit which is basically a 45 degree cone. For my game system I legit have a rule for cones that their "expansion rates" (This is a bit more complex) mention their relative based on a line of aim. and expand as "told" example if it's a 2x1 line I will mention the expantion rate of height and width, and the rate they expand. example. a line of 5 squares, with a expansion that only will expand on line 4 and 5 by +1 W +1 H. meaning it is a lighting bolt with a girth of 2x1, with a expansion rate starting at only square 4 and 5 boosting in W 4 H 2, then W6 H3 (height always is the upper (and the lower end of the cone and pretty on spot easy to understand but we never really see cones in proper 3rrd dimension or in use of such) I also happen to stack d6 to show some stuff or draw it's side angle on say d20 if it needs to come up. I agree with you. There is simpler ways to do this explain and consolidate it. but 4e and 5e didn't really don't anything quite...different. Just both explained their rules weirdly differently. The real truth is...I want to get into "hexagonal" type mapping sometimes. but it really warps perceptions. And I also have to tell players allot..."You are not a big fat square" That is not correct...there is allot of thumb work and guessing of approxies and chances... It's just relatively hard for most to see a space...without suddenly thinking the grid is more important than everything when it's just a "measure line" to help approximate thing. No we don't like characters fleeting between the grid....we don't let that. But we assume they somewhat already doing that for measure reasons to get a target zone. While maps shoudn't make hallways too fat...either most halls are NOT 5ft by 5ft more akin to 3ft by 7ft. Unless it's a traffic space which case...it's a 6ft by 7ft. us humans only occupy generally a 1.5-2ft width. So that's really how compact we are. The Grids don't stem imagination to how "compact" things are. But I digress it's up to us GMs to know these things and help out as things come up to keep some consistency.

[@sebasfealunn4408]

Hot take from very fresh DM - squares are just to show how much space on a map is 5 ft. For diagonal movement or distance from origin of spell use ruler

[@TonkarzOfSolSystem]

If 4e doesn't have cones and circles in its AOE rules then they are not good AOE rules.

[@MatthewDragonHammer]

… or just use templates. Works great for both in-person play & online, especially since most VTT’s have an abundance of tools for exactly this.

[@cuross01]

All these circles make a square. All these circles make a square. All these circles make a square. Tasha! I need you to tell me that I can leave the battlemat if I want to!

[@davidholmes3728]

3.5 had rules that worked pretty well

[@nightdweller2902]

You can actually make circles in Minecraft, granted they aren't perfect given they are just made up of small squares. It really wouldn't be too hard to come up with basic area of effect templates for AOE effects using the same method we see in Minecraft. The bitch to deal with would be cones, seeing as you have to account for the angle at which it is pointing and how that would affect the overall composition of squares.

[@AceWolf456]

Using a square grid layout: Square: good 10/10 Line: iffy but not bad, over all falls under good 7/10 Cone: It's just a few lines, but which sections are "in" or not? 3/10 Circle: No, I dont know what segments are in or not, there's no straight lines to make it easier 0/10 every mention of circle in my games has been converted to square, and if that's how they intended to do it in the first place they should have just done that. This does not reflect my every day views. In my normal day to day I like circles. 9/10 shape.

[@ST9876543]

Imagine just playing on a hexagonal grid. makes spheres easy

[@GameonHead]

Mathematically, a "circle" under the infinity norm (also known as the maximum norm) in R^2 would be a square. The infinity norm calculates distance by taking the greatest difference between coordinates. This contrasts with the 2-norm, which is our regular Euclidean distance (thus would yield a regular circle if you were to take all points less than a specified distance away), and the 1-norm (also known as the Taxicab or Manhattan norm), which computes distance as the sum of the components, and thus equidistant points form a rotated square.

[@teppotulppu2091]

and all of this would simply be fixed by playing on a grid of hexagons

[@wesleyjudson599]

I actually run with the optional diagonal rules, where every two squares is 15 feet. But I only do so when there are maps. What this means is that when there are maps, I use the rules that make circles into circles, and difficult to calculate. When there aren't maps, and its theater of the mind, circles become squares. The reason is somewhat simple; if it's obvious to the player whether their spell or other area of effect will hit the target, then I'm not representing the feeling of being in combat, needing to make split second decisions, correctly. You could argue for a timer on turns instead, but my various discussions with my players has made it pretty clear to me that players don't like timers during their turns, most of the time. In particular, I play online with a player who is blind, so this works more naturally than making the map clear, and the turns faster, since the map doesn't help the blind player anyways. You might want your cake and eat it however; why not let it be clear to the players where their spells hit, and give them time to consider their actions during combat? The answer is simple; I prefer games that are based on where the dice roll and imaginative player decisions, not based on cooperative storytelling. I make some concessions, as I prefer to meet players where they want to play the game. But this is an easy method that most players don't even consider, and I can be lenient on a case-by-case basis.

[@aurtosebaelheim5942]

These seem like they're only problems if you're trying to conceptualise playing on a grid in your head and/or people are trying to game the system. Every VTT has convenient AoE tools and in-person you can easily bust out a piece of paper or string. 5e dedicates too little effort to crunch, sure, but I don't think you need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Firecubes feel wrong. Fixing reality to a grid limits design space. As for all maps having grids, it makes them so much easier to reproduce. I'd want maps to be gridded even in a system that explicitly didn't use grids. Hell, I used to play 5e on a gridded map even though we didn't play with a grid because it makes it a hell of a lot easier to quickly visualise distances and track movement.

[@Darasilverdragon]

yeah Idunno man, this is a terrible take to me. I play D&D for versimillitude, saying an explosion occupies a cubic area just feels stupid to me. I can't do it. Just either cut out a shape on a real map, or draw one on a VTT, and move/rotate it to where you want. If the DM thinks a creature is more than 50% covered by the effect geometry, then they get hit. That's really all it needs to be. Hells, in my VTT campaigns I just draw standardized shapes, make them tokens, then keep them off the side of the board and give every player control of them.

[@colinrobertson7580]

Why not make a circle out of squares like in pathfinder? Everything is made of squares even cones.

[@cardsandcrusades]

It is worth observing that I use hexes, but this does'nt significantly change the points made it just makes my table have a more rounded effect.

[@KiranasOfRizon]

Some of us do not play with grids and we do not appreciate "square" as a unit of measurement. Squares are for maps, so you don't need a ruler to measure things, but I will still do all internal calculations in terms of feet.

[@apslakt1]

Best intro I've ever seen

[@yallajalla2068]

Ngl I've always played online and the cones and circles always showed for us. So I completely forgot how rough this can be irl

[@FarothFuin]

I did chooee to use cubes/squares, since on vtt like roll20 5e we use the 5ft diagonal for easy count, so a fireball is a cube

[@cpt.buckpyrax9510]

"How do all these squares make a circle?!"

[@seanrosetta3079]

I like just using measurements and math, without being tied to a grid, but to each their own.

[@aralornwolf3140]

Wait, wait. The rules in 5e _weren't_ written with grids in mind?! Did they forget 4e, 3/3.5e, AD&D 2e, AD&D 1e, Basic D&D (all versions)?! The phrase "Circles are Squares is incorrect"... a circle with a radius of 20 feet doesn't have the same area as a square with 40 feet on a side... this is taught in geometry... and this sticking to math began in D&D (it started as an offshoot of a Strategy Game), and, if you're correct, ended in 4th edition (with their easy to understand and use burst, wall, and blast) by violating geometry. Circle with radius of 4 =/= square with 8 on a side. Math: Pythagorean Theory Hypotenuse = Square Root of A^2 + B^2 = Square Root of 1^2 + 1^2 = Square Root of 1 + 1 = Square Root of 2 = 1.414 Squares Thus, while a square may be 5 feet by 5 feet, going across the square is in effect a distance of 7 feet. This is clearly demonstrated when one places a circle on top of a grid. The corners of the square the circle is in is not covered by the circle. Of course, the easiest thing to do is get rid of the grid entirely... and use rulers/templates instead when distance/movement is needed... "characters move 25 feet, on the battlemap, every inch is 5 feet", thus, the character moves 5 inches on the battlemap, casts lightning bolt which is a line of 60 feet with 1 foot width... so convert feet to inches, then measure the distance the lightning bolt travels in a line then apply the affect to everything it affects... No wonky math, no violation of geometry... and is probably too close to tabletop strategy games that no one cares to do it because "this is a role playing game!" With Illwinter's Floorplan Generator, I am able to create nearly any battlemap with a grid on it. With a bit of time, I can cover up the grids with ink/marker/paint... and play as though the game is a typical table top strategy game. :D (Yeah... I bought it a while back, I also bought another program nearly 20 years ago which allows me to make 3-d terrain/dungeons for my players to get lost in).

[@o_braxos]

using circles and cones only works when playing digitally in like roll20, where you can see the circle clearly, nobody calculates circles irl

[@kingzut]

but the square fireball covers 12 more grid spaces than the "circle" fire ball will

[@TheMightyBattleSquid]

"You know who else likes squares? Our sponsor-" Me: Square Space? "Dragon's Bankheist!" Me: ... Come again?

[@gabrielamaral978]

Nah, i will keep my spheres. Squares everywhere is just to ugly.

[@enoraltheoutcast]

So that rogue subclass essentially gets infinite Nozlur's pigments (i think I spelled the name right, but correct me if I didn't)

[@backonlazer791]

All these squares make a circle.

[@williamdahl1842]

All these squares make a circle. All these squares make a circle. All these squares make a circle. All these squares make a circle. All these squares make a circle.

[@ConnorSinclairCavin]

A related note on AOE based rules: the rules for how to handle target numbers vs strength are really stupid. Right now basically any AOE no matter the size or capability to hit has the same singular adjustment to their effect. A one time downgrade. So between a flash of fire right near you and a global scale wave of flame no difference. Even spells that go from a direct target to a one block attack. Additionally creatures that are bigger and would be affected by more than one tile of effect still only get hit once, and smaller creatures that would not be hit by the entire effect don’t get any bonus from that. Generally i switch ALL attacks/spells/anything into being a given “size of impact” and for each step larger than a single target a dice goes down one size based on the spell level standard. Generally i pair this base with all spells on “autohit” for base dice size, and if they choose a less reliable method the dice size increase. To hit, save 1/2, save or suck, adv/dis, and more all calculate in together. As such most aoe spells balance their drops in damage with worse reliability, and most attacks prefer the chance for extra damage and such. (At least in the base game) although, much like magical items, the actual balance rules of the game are more or less entirely ignored on over half of spells, items, CR, and more so… meh, its all relative. Things that restrict abilities to single target and such i generally just skip that subtext for, but you can also just say “only size 1” And yes, cones have always been strange, although at least now there is only one ° angle of them, there used to be many angles of cones, each with different rules

[@wdyd_masterattwitch4956]

I know it's a lot, but could you do a video on metamagic. I think you can do a lot of different things with it and that it's pretty fun.

[@sethcaplan859]

reject squares, embrace the bestigon.

[@occultnightingale1106]

All these squares make a circle. All these squares make a circle. All these squares make a circle. All these squares make a circle. ... All these squares make a circle...

[@thereaIitsybitsyspider]

Diagonals on square grids in 5e give me headaches. It is neither 5 feet nor 10 feet.

[@WikiSnapper]

It will be easier in One D&D, because it will be done by the computer. Also you won't be able to use your modules in One D&D because WotC can't make money on your modules.

[@davidholmes3728]

Grids are variant rules technically