Twilight Jack
2010-10-01, 05:39 PM
Crossposted over at Paizo's board, but with no response as of yet. I thought I'd see what the Playground thought.
I've been playing D&D since 2e, through the life of 3.x, and have now transitioned to Pathfinder. In all that time, I have primarily DMed rather than played.
Just a few minutes ago, while reading over the PFCRB (I'm still reading it constantly to make sure I know all the tiny changes from 3.x), I came across a dilemma that had never occurred to me before in any edition. According to the rules as written, any area of effect spell is always centered upon a grid intersection rather than a square itself, while any small or medium creature (let's leave the larger ones out of this for a moment, as they present a whole new level of potential complexity) always is assumed to occupy a square rather than any intersection. What does this mean for spells which specifically says they are centered on a creature?
In looking over the Archives (at Paizo), it would seem that the intention is that the caster chooses from which corner of the creature's square the effect originates. After all, there is no explicit language to say otherwise, and the RAW does state that every spell with an area originates from an intersection. On the other hand, if that is the case, then the phrase, "centered on [creature]," is rather clumsy and misleading. Also, it carries with it a whole new battery of implications and ambiguities.
The first and most disturbing implication is as follows: a 10' radius effect centered on a small or medium creature always includes a single square directly adjacent to said creature which is outside the area of the effect. Look at the shape on page 215 of the Core book and think about it for a moment. If it helps, stand up and get a tape measure. Determine the area of a circle around a given point with a 10' radius. Stand anyway you like, with a foot touching that point. Now consider that if this were D&D/Pathfinder, a halfling with a dagger could get close enough to shiv you to death without ever entering into the circle you've just created, so long as he approached you from the right "angle." Now, I'm the first to admit that D&D is a game of abstractions, but 10' is a long ways when you're talking about melee combat. To have a spot within 5' of you somehow manage to fall outside the area of a 10' radius effect which is supposed to be "centered" on you seems like a pretty glaring problem from a verisimilitude or even purely gamist standpoint.
A 5' radius effect is somewhat less problematic, but still a bit weird, as it actually only affects an arc of 3 adjacent squares, since you are forced to occupy the other square included in the effect at all times. In other words, a radius effect which is centered on a creature doesn't actually affect a radius around that creature, unless said radius is at least 15'.
It's actually less problematic when you work up into larger creatures. Since the creature itself takes up so much more space, it stands to reason that a 5' or 10' radius might not be enough to cover bits of the creature's fighting space. So long as you accept that a larger creature shouldn't be entitled to a greater effect from the same spell, you can easily accept that the spell might not be enough to adequately cover the creature.
The second implication/ambiguity is more philosophically interesting than the first, in that it glaringly reintroduces a concept with which 3.5/Pathfinder thought it had managed to do away: Facing. Think about it; if you must pick a corner of your square from which the effect originates, then your position on the battlegrid has been assigned a directional orientation. Your effect on the battlefield becomes dependent upon which corner is chosen. If you placed the effect upon yourself (you "control" it, in M:tG parlance), can you change that corner while the spell persists? How about if you don't "control" the effect? If you can change the corner, and you take up more than one square, can you change the square from which the corner is selected?
If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then we must determine the action necessary to effect that change. Is it a swift action (you may elect a new corner/square once per round on your turn, giving up any other potential swift actions to do so)? Is it an immediate action (you may change the corner/square at any time, but only once per turn and you lose your swift action on the following round)? Is it a free action (you may change the corner/square any number of times but only during your own turn, and it remains in that corner until your next turn)? Is it something else? No matter what answer you choose, all creatures with any sort of radius effect centered upon themselves have effectively been made subject to rules regarding their "facing" within the combat, even if only to adjudicate the effect in question.
None of this is adequately addressed within the rules as written. I've a pretty simple solution that I'm already contemplating, but as this is the rules question forum rather than the homebrew forum, I think I'll keep it under my hat until I've heard what everyone else thinks.
I've been playing D&D since 2e, through the life of 3.x, and have now transitioned to Pathfinder. In all that time, I have primarily DMed rather than played.
Just a few minutes ago, while reading over the PFCRB (I'm still reading it constantly to make sure I know all the tiny changes from 3.x), I came across a dilemma that had never occurred to me before in any edition. According to the rules as written, any area of effect spell is always centered upon a grid intersection rather than a square itself, while any small or medium creature (let's leave the larger ones out of this for a moment, as they present a whole new level of potential complexity) always is assumed to occupy a square rather than any intersection. What does this mean for spells which specifically says they are centered on a creature?
In looking over the Archives (at Paizo), it would seem that the intention is that the caster chooses from which corner of the creature's square the effect originates. After all, there is no explicit language to say otherwise, and the RAW does state that every spell with an area originates from an intersection. On the other hand, if that is the case, then the phrase, "centered on [creature]," is rather clumsy and misleading. Also, it carries with it a whole new battery of implications and ambiguities.
The first and most disturbing implication is as follows: a 10' radius effect centered on a small or medium creature always includes a single square directly adjacent to said creature which is outside the area of the effect. Look at the shape on page 215 of the Core book and think about it for a moment. If it helps, stand up and get a tape measure. Determine the area of a circle around a given point with a 10' radius. Stand anyway you like, with a foot touching that point. Now consider that if this were D&D/Pathfinder, a halfling with a dagger could get close enough to shiv you to death without ever entering into the circle you've just created, so long as he approached you from the right "angle." Now, I'm the first to admit that D&D is a game of abstractions, but 10' is a long ways when you're talking about melee combat. To have a spot within 5' of you somehow manage to fall outside the area of a 10' radius effect which is supposed to be "centered" on you seems like a pretty glaring problem from a verisimilitude or even purely gamist standpoint.
A 5' radius effect is somewhat less problematic, but still a bit weird, as it actually only affects an arc of 3 adjacent squares, since you are forced to occupy the other square included in the effect at all times. In other words, a radius effect which is centered on a creature doesn't actually affect a radius around that creature, unless said radius is at least 15'.
It's actually less problematic when you work up into larger creatures. Since the creature itself takes up so much more space, it stands to reason that a 5' or 10' radius might not be enough to cover bits of the creature's fighting space. So long as you accept that a larger creature shouldn't be entitled to a greater effect from the same spell, you can easily accept that the spell might not be enough to adequately cover the creature.
The second implication/ambiguity is more philosophically interesting than the first, in that it glaringly reintroduces a concept with which 3.5/Pathfinder thought it had managed to do away: Facing. Think about it; if you must pick a corner of your square from which the effect originates, then your position on the battlegrid has been assigned a directional orientation. Your effect on the battlefield becomes dependent upon which corner is chosen. If you placed the effect upon yourself (you "control" it, in M:tG parlance), can you change that corner while the spell persists? How about if you don't "control" the effect? If you can change the corner, and you take up more than one square, can you change the square from which the corner is selected?
If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then we must determine the action necessary to effect that change. Is it a swift action (you may elect a new corner/square once per round on your turn, giving up any other potential swift actions to do so)? Is it an immediate action (you may change the corner/square at any time, but only once per turn and you lose your swift action on the following round)? Is it a free action (you may change the corner/square any number of times but only during your own turn, and it remains in that corner until your next turn)? Is it something else? No matter what answer you choose, all creatures with any sort of radius effect centered upon themselves have effectively been made subject to rules regarding their "facing" within the combat, even if only to adjudicate the effect in question.
None of this is adequately addressed within the rules as written. I've a pretty simple solution that I'm already contemplating, but as this is the rules question forum rather than the homebrew forum, I think I'll keep it under my hat until I've heard what everyone else thinks.