Create Bonfire + Repelling Blast

[Greywander]

Has anyone used these together before? Create Bonfire seems like an underappreciated spell, and concentration does hold it back, but since warlocks only get a few spell slots they might not be concentrating on anything else anyways. Hex might be better, depending on the situation, but Create Bonfire is a nice backup option, at least.

Also, Create Bonfire can be spammed like a mini-Fireball, putting Acid Splash to shame. Remember, it fills a 5 foot cube, it's not some dinky campfire, it's a roaring inferno. You can easily hit four creatures standing in a 2x2 formation. If you can hit two or more targets, its damage can rival EB, making it less of a waste of an action on the first round of combat.

I feel like this gets better if you have other party members that can move enemies around, like a grappler, or someone with Shield Master. Also better if you're more mobile (e.g. an aarakocra), so you can position yourself just right to blast them back into the fire.

One thing I hate about this is that I feel like the Celestial patron should be able to do this better, since they get a bonus to fire damage, but it's only once per spell, and only on one target. That's fine for Sacred Flame or Fire Bolt, but it feels so lackluster for (a) AoE spells, or (b) long duration spells, and Create Bonfire is both. This is particularly baffling since things like Flaming Sphere are on the Celestial's expanded spell list.

[LudicSavant]

Has anyone used these together before? Yes. It's great.


I feel like this gets better if you have other party members that can move enemies around, like a grappler

It does indeed. If I ever hear someone say they're making a grappler, and I'm making a caster, Create Bonfire jumps right to the top of my priority cantrip picks.


Create Bonfire seems like an underappreciated spell
Yeah, it's definitely underappreciated. It's really good with proper strategy and teamwork.

I've definitely had instances of going to a new group and using a solid Create Bonfire strategy and seriously having people go "OH MY GOD, HOW HAVE WE NOT BEEN USING THIS BEFORE!? WE SHOULD ALWAYS BE DOING THIS."


Also, Create Bonfire can be spammed like a mini-Fireball, putting Acid Splash to shame. Remember, it fills a 5 foot cube, it's not some dinky campfire, it's a roaring inferno. You can easily hit four creatures standing in a 2x2 formation. If you can hit two or more targets, its damage can rival EB, making it less of a waste of an action on the first round of combat.

Yep.

Another fun bit is that it'll ignite oil. You can totally do things like have your familiar or unseen servant drop an oil square, then light the area with Create Bonfire, and that grappler will trigger both the bonfire and the oil square while they're dragging people around.

[Segev]

I'm not sure you're allowed to place it such that it hits more than one five foot square.

Otherwise, sounds like good uses for it!

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I think Create Bonfire is great. It combines great with shoves, including racial bonus shoves, with the opportunity attacks granted by Polearm Master and with just generally standing in your enemy's way. And well placed, in those situations where it applies, the fire will keep being of value for several turns, while you're free to do anything that doesn't require concentration.

I'm just not sure if the "hits 4 creatures" interpretation is RAI. A 5ft cube sounds like it means "one square on one floor level", not "it takes up one quarter of 4 different squares so all four creatures count as being in the fire's space".

(Just in case my disconnect happens somewhere other then where I think it happens: a cube is defined by the lengths of it's side, not by a radius. "You select a cube's point of origin, which lies anywhere on a face of the cubic effect. The cube's size is expressed as the length of each side.")

[LudicSavant]

I'm not sure you're allowed to place it such that it hits more than one five foot square.

You are. There's even a whole section in the Sage Advice Compendium on it.

[Segev]

You are. There's even a whole section in the Sage Advice Compendium on it.

Is there a link to that? I'm curious to read it, because this isn't something I've heard before.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

You are. There's even a whole section in the Sage Advice Compendium on it.

Oh, you're right.

"Using 5-foot squares, does cloud of daggers affect a single square? Cloud of daggers (5 ft. cube) can affect more than one square on a grid, unless the DM says effects snap to the grid. There are many ways to position that cube."

Link (PDF alert) (https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf) (search for "cube")

On the one hand, it's nice that you don't need a hallway exactly one square wide to make use of the spell. On the other hand, this might also mean that enemies can sneak past the bonfire or something. After all, there is open space in the tile, and the bonfire is not an active enemy combatant.

[heavyfuel]

If a player tried to pull the 5ft square hitting 4 squares thing, I'd allow it, but I'd also give every creature advantage on the save and resistance to the damage.

Clearly, if you are playing with a square grid, you can't choose to create a 5ft square AoE in the intersection of the squares, because that's what a 10ft square is. Well, apparently Sage Advice says I'm wrong. Way to make spellcasters even more powerful, I guess.

In theater of the mind, it's more likely to work, but the DM is also likely to not give you exact and precise description of where enemies are, because if you want exact and precise descriptions, that's when you bring out the square grid.

[LudicSavant]

Oh, you're right.

"Using 5-foot squares, does cloud of daggers affect a single square? Cloud of daggers (5 ft. cube) can affect more than one square on a grid, unless the DM says effects snap to the grid. There are many ways to position that cube."

Link (PDF alert) (https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf) (search for "cube")

Yep.

Basically, the way it works is that the left picture is the correct area for lines, cones, and cubes, not the right. (Source of picture: Sage Advice)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrtCV8lWgAQc3cf?format=jpg&name=small

The "50% coverage" rule is explicitly only for circles/spheres. This is covered in the the DMG, reiterated in Xanathar's Guide, and reiterated again in Sage Advice.

People incorrectly assuming the circle rule applies to other things makes the game less balanced -- e.g. everyone is even more likely to use Fireball and Shatter and less likely to use Lightning Bolt or Cloud of Daggers or Burning Hands or whatever.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

So wait, if we turn the cube 45 degrees we can hit at least 5 tiles and block a hallway 3 tiles wide.
The central tile will contain about 80% of the fire, but it still touches the others.

[LudicSavant]

This rule is why the "theater of the mind" rules in the DMG (pg249) say a 5 foot cube hits the same number of creatures as a 10' diameter sphere.

It's not a mistake. They took it into account for both the theater of the mind and playing on a grid rules.

[Edea]

"Touched" is also a hell of a lot easier to adjudicate than "alright, who here wants to integrate the area of the polyhedron this spell area's making with the gridlines to see if it hits the 50% mark...yeah we gotta do it for all of the edge boxes..."

[Segev]

Oh, you're right.

"Using 5-foot squares, does cloud of daggers affect a single square? Cloud of daggers (5 ft. cube) can affect more than one square on a grid, unless the DM says effects snap to the grid. There are many ways to position that cube."

Link (PDF alert) (https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf) (search for "cube")

On the one hand, it's nice that you don't need a hallway exactly one square wide to make use of the spell. On the other hand, this might also mean that enemies can sneak past the bonfire or something. After all, there is open space in the tile, and the bonfire is not an active enemy combatant.


If a player tried to pull the 5ft square hitting 4 squares thing, I'd allow it, but I'd also give every creature advantage on the save and resistance to the damage.

Clearly, if you are playing with a square grid, you can't choose to create a 5ft square AoE in the intersection of the squares, because that's what a 10ft square is. Well, apparently Sage Advice says I'm wrong. Way to make spellcasters even more powerful, I guess.

In theater of the mind, it's more likely to work, but the DM is also likely to not give you exact and precise description of where enemies are, because if you want exact and precise descriptions, that's when you bring out the square grid.
Huh.

Does this mean a creature can stand on a corner of a square?

Though if they took it into account when they wrote the rules initially, that sounds like they always intended a 5 ft. cube to be really a 2x2 of five foot squares on the grid, in terms of damage dealing. That's...weird. But good to konw.

[cutlery]

It's not a mistake. They took it into account for both the theater of the mind and playing on a grid rules.

They omitted specific detail for non-spherical AoEs in that section, though, which could be easily interpreted to mean that only spheres affect a square with 50% coverage.

A couple more sentences here about how non-spherical spells interact with grids would have been helpful.

Instead, grid play is essentially all optional rule territory and a 45 degree turned square either makes a cross or does nothing and it varies from table to table.


They should have added a few sentences rather than have people dig through the spells and hermeneutically interpret the AOE coverage. A cone can cover 10% of a square; and I play at many tables where that doesn't affect the creature in that square.

[Greywander]

Perhaps this is why it's underappreciated. Yes, if you have a 10 foot wide hallway, you can place the bonfire in the middle of the hallway. Enemies can squeeze past, but do so at half speed. If you push them backwards into the fire, they're no longer squeezing, so they would need to pass a save or take damage.

Again, it's a roaring fire that is 5x5x5 feet. It's huge. If you placed it directly on top of someone, they would be fully engulfed (except maybe their head, if they're tall). You don't need to fully engulf someone to burn them badly. If you placed it on a corner between four enemies, each one would likely have an arm and/or leg that was engulfed, maybe even parts of their torso as well. Not just near the fire, but in the fire. Realistically, it wouldn't be as bad as being fully engulfed, but you're still going to get burned very badly if you don't jump out of the way. We're basically talking the difference between the Two-Face look vs. the Deadpool look; both are enough to kill you if you get burned badly enough.

[heavyfuel]

Does this mean a creature can stand on a corner of a square?

Though if they took it into account when they wrote the rules initially, that sounds like they always intended a 5 ft. cube to be really a 2x2 of five foot squares on the grid, in terms of damage dealing. That's...weird. But good to konw.

For me, the answer is always a resounding "yes*"

*Yes, you can be in a particular corner, but usually only if you're forced to due to being squeezed or balancing on a ledge or whatever. This usually implies you'll be penalized (usually just "enemies get advantage against you and you have disadvantage on dex saves") but I can see situations where it benefits you (you might get a cover bonus to AC if you're squeezing through two tight walls)

As for the second part of your post, I guess Crawford thought that, but I don't think it was a universal assumption among designers. Had it been, it would probably say so in the Aiming a Spell (or whatever it's called) section instead of in the Sage Compendium.

[Man_Over_Game]

Anyone else just feel angry after reading this thread?





WHY. WHY DID YOU THINK THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA.

[Segev]

Anyone else just feel angry after reading this thread?





WHY. WHY DID YOU THINK THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA.

I think you'll need to be more specific. There are a lot of controversial elements in this thread that I could guess somebody might be mad at.

[Crucius]

Anyone else just feel angry after reading this thread?





WHY. WHY DID YOU THINK THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA.

Big same.

I see the sage advice. I see it. It's there. And I'm just not agreeing with it this time.

[Greywander]

I don't think you're fully grasping just how big this bonfire is. It would probably span the entirety of my desk. It could easily burn two people standing 5 feet apart.

[Segev]

I don't think you're fully grasping just how big this bonfire is. It would probably span the entirety of my desk. It could easily burn two people standing 5 feet apart.

I just wish the rules in the books had made this clear. Because I see "five foot cube" and recognize that a medium creature occupies a five foot cube and assume it's a single-target spell. ^^;

I don't mind it being more powerful than that; the Concentration makes bonfire pretty weak as a single-target spell. But I do wish that the rules spelled it out more clearly.

[Crucius]

I'm curious, so let's do a little experiment:

Please tell me if you think that a 5-foot cube should affect 4 squares, ignoring sage advice for now, and please note if you identify predominantly as a player or a DM.

I'll start: It should not affect 4 squares. DM.

[Segev]

I'm curious, so let's do a little experiment:

Please tell me if you think that a 5-foot cube should affect 4 squares, ignoring sage advice for now, and please note if you are predominantly a player or a DM.

I'll start: It should not affect 4 squares. DM.

Assuming we're ignoring whether I think "5-foot cube" is a good descriptor for it, but instead are asking about bonfire in particular, I am leaning towards "should." And I primarily DM 5e; I have little chance to play it. :(

I base this on looking at bonfire repeatedly, thinking it looks cool, and then thinking that the Concentration means it actually can't be cast while maintaining another spell, making it not actually as useful as a damage-dealing cantrip as I would think. With it actually affecting up to 4 creatures, it suddenly becomes worth the probability that you're not using it when you've got any buff or debuff spell up at all.

[Greywander]

I just wish the rules in the books had made this clear. Because I see "five foot cube" and recognize that a medium creature occupies a five foot cube and assume it's a single-target spell. ^^;
I hear you on this. I think most people thought this initially. I can only imagine the argument that must have ensued the first time someone tried to position the bonfire between squares.

But yeah, concentration is what balances it against Acid Splash. Create Bonfire is more potent, but obviously prevents you from concentrating on another spell, while Acid Splash does not. If Create Bonfire were strictly single target, it wouldn't be a very good spell. Even knocking people into it, you'd have to be much more precise in how you position them. By being a bit more generous in terms of positioning and how wide of an area the bonfire can interact with, it makes it easier to get multiple enemies into the same bonfire, or at least to knock them in without needing to line it up exactly.

[MaxWilson]

In the spirit of illustrating just how goofball the "any square it touches" method is, here's a corrected version contrasting the area of "any square it touches" with the 50% rule.

https://i.postimg.cc/Y0rk81hR/Squares.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

You'll note that the 50% rule is roughly area-preserving, while the "any square it touches" method is up to 3.5x bigger (!!!) than the actual AoE. It's probably possible to find orientations that make it even more absurdly-large.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that you as a DM have to play snap-to-grid. I can certainly imagine scenarios where you might have e.g. a 6'-wide corridor blocked by a 5'-wide fire in the exact center of it, with it requiring some kind of Acrobatics check for even skinny creatures to get through the 6" gap on each side without getting burned. But the idea that a 5' x 5' spell area ought to affect a 15' x 15' grid just by virtue of touching the corners of the various squares is unphysical and will lead to a bad game experience, especially if it's the DM doing this to the players. (Players are somewhat more likely to overlook nonsense that works in their favor, although even then some of them will object.)

The conversation you don't want is:

DM: Okay, you take 2d8 fire damage from the fire.
Player: What? But I'm clearly not in the fire. You said the corridor was 15' wide, and I'm going to the left of it. Are you modelling convection or something? Does the fire give off heat in an area?
DM: No, the fire only causes damage to things inside of its area, just like most D&D fire, but I read online in the Sage Advice Compendium that as long as the spell area touches a square you're in, that it should count as part of that area. It's touching the edge of your square, maybe even inside it by a centimeter or so, so you take the damage.
Player: But why am I in the fire? It's clearly not big enough to fill a whole 15' corridor, so there's a 5' gap, which is more than big enough for a human to walk through.
DM: That's what Sage Advice says.

Any time you have to blame Sage Advice for a nonsensical ruling instead of being able to defend it in your own words, it's a sign that you shouldn't have listened to Sage Advice in the first place.

[LudicSavant]

I am leaning towards "should." And I primarily DM 5e; I have little chance to play it. :(

Also "Should." Also primarily a DM (though in my case, out of preference rather than need; I get invited to more games than I actually have time to participate in. So I guess I DM a lot, and play a lot).

Like Edea said, it would suck to have to adjudicate 50% rule on cones. Which is why you're not supposed to. And like others have said, Create Bonfire's limiting factor is Concentration. It's basically like a cantrip version of Cloud of Daggers, like Fire Bolt is a cantrip version of Scorching Ray.

My experience is that usually the people who have confusion about the rule are the ones who basically approach learning a new edition as 'the rules are basically the old edition, except where explicitly noted, and I basically just skip to the juicy bits and reference the books as needed.' Or people who learned the game from those people. Basically, they come in with a lot of expectations beyond what the book actually says, and sometimes don't quite recall whether they got something from the book, or those expectations.

By contrast, "I just read the book, as it is" folks rarely seem to have this problem, in my experience.

Likewise, the backlash always seems to be from things deviating from expectations, rather than any actual problems created in play. It's 'zomg I thought it worked differently' usually followed by 'huh, this actually feels better to play with now that I've actually tried it.' In my experience, anywho. YMMV.

All of that said, I absolutely do think they should have included a diagram rather like the one above in the DMG. It would have been so simple to do. A diagram is worth 1000 words and would have removed all ambiguity.


In the spirit of illustrating just how goofball the "any square it touches" method is, here's a corrected version contrasting the area of "any square it touches"

The rule is actually 'covers some of the square' rather than 'touches the square.' Despite what that guy wrote on the diagram.

[Segev]

While I don’t disagree that “touch” is a bad term for what’s described, it’s clear they mean “includes any part in” from their illustrations. “Fill to the border of” seems not to count. Which is why you have to place the five foot cube on a corner to hit four squares, rather than placing a five food cube in a square to hit nine.

[Greywander]

Now I'm curious: if you were using a hex grid instead of a rectangular grid, how many targets could you hit? I feel like the max would be three, again, by placing it at the corner between three hexes, but at the same time I can't help but feel like there might be other ways to position the bonfire to at least hit four hexes, just like you can hit four squares. Maybe by placing it on the border between two hexes, where it will leak into the two hexed in line with the border (i.e. the two hexes that are both adjacent to the two hexes whose border you've placed the bonfire on)?

[Segev]

Now I'm curious: if you were using a hex grid instead of a rectangular grid, how many targets could you hit? I feel like the max would be three, again, by placing it at the corner between three hexes, but at the same time I can't help but feel like there might be other ways to position the bonfire to at least hit four hexes, just like you can hit four squares. Maybe by placing it on the border between two hexes, where it will leak into the two hexed in line with the border (i.e. the two hexes that are both adjacent to the two hexes whose border you've placed the bonfire on)?
That sounds reasonable. If you thing hitting give in a plus shape is okay, fine hexes in an x-shape should work, too.

[heavyfuel]

I'm curious, so let's do a little experiment:

Please tell me if you think that a 5-foot cube should affect 4 squares, ignoring sage advice for now, and please note if you identify predominantly as a player or a DM.

I'll start: It should not affect 4 squares. DM.

Shouldn't. DM.

And I'm 100% that if I pulled that "4 square" thing on my players, I'd been in for an earful from at least half of them.

[MaxWilson]

I'm curious, so let's do a little experiment:

Please tell me if you think that a 5-foot cube should affect 4 squares, ignoring sage advice for now, and please note if you identify predominantly as a player or a DM.

I'll start: It should not affect 4 squares. DM.

Shouldn't affect 4 squares the same way as 1 square, but that's not necessarily the same as shouldn't affect them. (E.g. tiny creatures can avoid the flames entirely, big creatures like a kraken might still get burned.) DM judgment on how much individual creatures are affected, but my rough rule of thumb is going to be "if your center of mass is in a spell's AoE, that spell affects you."

(Yes, I realize that that makes truly humongous creatures, bigger than mountains, very difficult to affect with magic because you just don't have the range to reach their center of mass with True Polymorph/whatnot. That's deliberate on my part, a nice fringe benefit from simplifying spell AoEs.)

I mostly DM.


The rule is actually 'covers some of the square' rather than 'touches the square.' Despite what that guy wrote on the diagram.

Okay. In this specific case it doesn't make a difference to how many squares are affected--shifting and vertically tilting the cone slightly is still enough to cover "some of the square" in all of the illustrated areas, as well as the 5'-wide bonfire in the 15'-wide corridor. It's just tilted by an inch or so, and offset by a half-inch.


Like Edea said, it would suck to have to adjudicate 50% rule on cones. Which is why you're not supposed to.

Cones are easier to 50% than circles and spheres because their edges are at least linear. I can't take seriously the idea that the designers designed the 50% rule exclusively and specifically for circular areas because they thought computing 50% area on cubes, cones, and polygons was harder than for circles.

[Satori01]

It takes a bit of work, but Snare and Create Bonfire is a very nice combo, especially for the Alchemist, Artificer.

Once the damage on Create Bonfire starts increasing it overtakes Flaming Sphere.
FS' Bonus Action attack is better than CB, but CB triggers when a creature enters or ends it's turn in the AoE, which is better then FS.

[heavyfuel]

Shouldn't affect 4 squares the same way as 1 square, but that's not necessarily the same as shouldn't affect them.

If we're qualifying our shoulds and shouldn'ts, then I agree with you.

As I mentioned before, I'd give advantage and resistance to anyone in the AoE. You can still get burned, but you won't get burned nearly as severely as someone who's in the very middle of the bonfire.

[Blood of Gaea]

I'm curious, so let's do a little experiment:

Please tell me if you think that a 5-foot cube should affect 4 squares, ignoring sage advice for now, and please note if you identify predominantly as a player or a DM.

I'll start: It should not affect 4 squares. DM.

It seems like a fair tradeoff for being a concentration cantrip. Note the difference between Light and Dancing Light. Dancing Light is pretty easily the more useful effect, but people don't take it all that often, because Concentration is a precious resource.

[Greywander]

I love how people who have apparently never heard of this before are so vehemently against it. God forbid we have fun in a game, right?

Here's a list of reasons why you should allow Create Bonfire to hit four squares:

As has already been mentioned, the spell uses concentration. This makes it unusable while many of your best leveled spells are up. Compare Acid Splash, which hits a smaller area but doesn't require concentration.
It doesn't completely block off a 10 foot wide hallway. Medium or small creatures can squeeze past at half speed, tiny creatures can just walk around.
Hitting more than one enemy requires them to be standing very close to each other. Very close. How often do you see four enemies standing in a 2x2 area?
It's fire damage. Is this spell giving you trouble? Throw some fire resistant or immune enemies at the party for a change of pace. Not all the time, just occasionally.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. NPC spellcasters can use Create Bonfire, too.

Or, here's another metric you can use: If everyone takes it, it's overpowered. If no one takes it, it's underpowered. If some people take it and others don't, then it's "balanced" (enough so, at least). Does everyone take Create Bonfire? No. Does no one take Create Bonfire? No. So some people take it and others don't, therefore, balanced.

Kneejerk reactions don't make for good rulings. It's okay for PCs to be powerful. Nerfing a player's abilities is generally the opposite of fun. Sometimes it is necessary, but the nerf bat should be used sparingly.

[heavyfuel]

Kneejerk reactions don't make for good rulings. It's okay for PCs to be powerful. Nerfing a player's abilities is generally the opposite of fun. Sometimes it is necessary, but the nerf bat should be used sparingly.

It's not a kneejerk reaction to Create Bonfire, specifically. It's about the precedent it sets. That precedent being that you can rotate any aoe spell a few degrees or move it slightly to the left and gain a potential advantage because of it.

I couldn't give two craps about Create Bonfire. But I'm definitely not allowing this for free, especially if it means I have to start calculating the hypotenuse to know just how many feets the diagonal of squares have.

[Greywander]

But I'm definitely not allowing this for free, especially if it means I have to start calculating the hypotenuse to know just how many feets the diagonal of squares have.
Funny you should mention that, because I was just thinking I'd heard something along these lines about using an illusion spell (Minor Illusion?) to create something 7 feet long by placing it along the diagonal of the 5 foot cube. Hey, the rule is that it has to fit inside a 5 foot cube, and you can fit things longer than 5 feet by putting them diagonal.

Honestly, I wouldn't bother getting exact calculations. As long as it's plausible, you don't have to measure it out exactly. What's wrong with letting the players have fun and use their abilities creatively?

[MaxWilson]

Funny you should mention that, because I was just thinking I'd heard something along these lines about using an illusion spell (Minor Illusion?) to create something 7 feet long by placing it along the diagonal of the 5 foot cube. Hey, the rule is that it has to fit inside a 5 foot cube, and you can fit things longer than 5 feet by putting them diagonal.

Honestly, I wouldn't bother getting exact calculations. As long as it's plausible, you don't have to measure it out exactly. What's wrong with letting the players have fun and use their abilities creatively?

Nothing is wrong with not measuring things out exactly and letting players be creative, but if you're already doing that you don't need the DMG/Sage Advice grid-placement rules in the first place.

[sandmote]

I've had a similar response to Segev, although bizarrely I grasped the rule as it applies to illusions spells. I think it has something to do with illusions not necessarily filling their entire space, while I expect a consistent effect from a damage spell. Deadpool and Two-Face both have lethal scarring, but I expect the attack leading to Two-Face is easier to avoid in the first place.

That said, I don't think bonfire fills up the entirely of the cube based on the mechanics; you don't take half damage from avoiding it.


My experience is that usually the people who have confusion about the rule are the ones who basically approach learning a new edition as 'the rules are basically the old edition, except where explicitly noted, and I basically just skip to the juicy bits and reference the books as needed.' Or people who learned the game from those people. Basically, they come in with a lot of expectations beyond what the book actually says, and sometimes don't quite recall whether they got something from the book, or those expectations.

By contrast, "I just read the book, as it is" folks rarely seem to have this problem, in my experience.

Likewise, the backlash always seems to be from things deviating from expectations, rather than any actual problems created in play. It's 'zomg I thought it worked differently' usually followed by 'huh, this actually feels better to play with now that I've actually tried it.' In my experience, anywho. YMMV.

All of that said, I absolutely do think they should have included a diagram rather like the one above in the DMG. It would have been so simple to do. A diagram is worth 1000 words and would have removed all ambiguity. I'm in the latter camp, but I missed this as well. Agree a diagram would have been helpful.

This actually answers a big question I've had about the 3rd level AoE spells, because of how much larger Fireball's square footage is than the other options. With this basically doubling the area of Lightning Bolt and Tidal Wave and giving a large increase to Erupting Earth Fireball stops being the obvious choice. Even with the listed reduction for spheres it seemed a bit massive.

For the question, Absolutely Should, and DM.

[Hellpyre]

As a DM, I'd say shouldn't, because a medium creature filling a 5-foot square is already an abstraction, as is a combat grid in general. Layering those abstractions and then using the result with non-abstracted geometry to get more bang for your spell seems silly to me.

And I've done two-foot hexes before. I know a thing or two about silly when it comes to modelling space in D&D :P

[Segev]

As a DM, I'd say shouldn't, because a medium creature filling a 5-foot square is already an abstraction, as is a combat grid in general. Layering those abstractions and then using the result with non-abstracted geometry to get more bang for your spell seems silly to me.

And I've done two-foot hexes before. I know a thing or two about silly when it comes to modelling space in D&D :P

The abstraction is exactly why a five foot cube placed on the grid corner makes sense, though. The question arises where the targets are in their own spaces. But they do get a dexterity save to negate damage, which only makes proper sense if there’s space to dodge to. If it’s in their square rather than on its corner, there’d be no such place. So the Dex save represents them scrambling to the 3/4 of their square it’s not in.

[Mr Adventurer]

Bonfire specifically states that the bonfire fills a 5' cube and that creatures must be in its space to take damage. Hypothesising about how hot a real 5' fire would be is off the mark.

To affect 4 creatures in a 2×2 arrangement, you place the bonfire presumably in the middle, where one quarter of it intersects with one quarter of each creatures' space.

I play and DM. I wouldn't expect this to work as a player. As a DM I assume you simply pick a square for it to affect. If a player agitated otherwise, I'd give advantage on the save.

I'll be honest though: I actually just use 3.5 edition spell areas for grid play.

Edit:


The abstraction is exactly why a five foot cube placed on the grid corner makes sense, though. The question arises where the targets are in their own spaces. But they do get a dexterity save to negate damage, which only makes proper sense if there’s space to dodge to. If it’s in their square rather than on its corner, there’d be no such place. So the Dex save represents them scrambling to the 3/4 of their square it’s not in.

You get a save no matter how much of your space is covered by an area effect.

[Waazraath]

Big same.

I see the sage advice. I see it. It's there. And I'm just not agreeing with it this time.

Amen. I now understand a bit better why people were so enthusiastic about Create Bonfire in an earlier thread.

But seriously, dang this, dang this all to heck. If you seriously use the spell like this, it throws all resemblance of cantrip balance out of the window. Acid splash does only 1d6 cause it might be used on 2 (two!) adjecent creatures. But with this rule, create bonfire would be able to deal 1d8 damage to 4 (four!) creatures. I don't care how big the fire is, that is bloody stupid from a balance point of view.

And yeah, if it's in the rules, then so be it, but not a chance in hell that I allow this at my tables, or will every use this as a player. I'd rather duel wield lances or use a quarterstaf / shield / PAM build.

edit for clarification: MaxWilson, I think this means it should not be able to target 4 squares (or 3, 2, or 5).

[Damon_Tor]

90% DM here.

If spell effects don't "snap" to the grid, then neither do creature positions, and the grid is effectively null. Then I bring out my templates and ruler. My players know I am not bluffing, they back down on their Bonfire plan, and we get on with the game like sane people.

Bonfire can still be used to harm multiple creatures in a turn via forced movement and chokepoints and such. It's still a pretty good cantrip.

[Blood of Gaea]

90% DM here.

If spell effects don't "snap" to the grid, then neither do creature positions, and the grid is effectively null. Then I bring out my templates and ruler. My players know I am not bluffing, they back down on their Bonfire plan, and we get on with the game like sane people.

Bonfire can still be used to harm multiple creatures in a turn via forced movement and chokepoints and such. It's still a pretty good cantrip.
Huh, maybe part of the reason I don't find the 5 foot AoE weird to be used as multi-target is because my group already goes by template and ruler instead of grid.

[Mr Adventurer]

I've gone gridless on battlemaps in the past - virtual gaming can actually enable it (I used Roll20 and turned the grid off). It was an interesting experience, and I'd try it again, but the grid was simpler.

[Fnissalot]

90% DM here.

If spell effects don't "snap" to the grid, then neither do creature positions, and the grid is effectively null. Then I bring out my templates and ruler. My players know I am not bluffing, they back down on their Bonfire plan, and we get on with the game like sane people.

Bonfire can still be used to harm multiple creatures in a turn via forced movement and chokepoints and such. It's still a pretty good cantrip.

60% DM 40% player I guess?

I don't think spells should snap to the grid. That said, I wouldn't allow a player try to measure up the position with a template before choosing where it hits. First choose the target, then check who are in range.

If you play on a grid, you do so to simplify where you can move and where you cannot move. A flaming sphere blocks a 5ft square and is locked to it if you play on a grid, create bonfire doesn't say that it does. The bad thing with create bonfire, is that it is a concentration spell and most concentration spells are more effective than it, and as most casters are rather limited in their spell slots, it is debatable if it is worth it to have 2 damage-dealing cantrips.

The rules for playing on a grid gives no ruling about it snapping spells to it, just that movement does. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#VARIANTPLAYINGONAGRID By RAW variant rules, movement should follow it, AoEs shouldnt. Edit: (movement and collision would be a lot harder to deal with if characters are not locked to the grid, and I don't want my rpg fights to turn into people debating differences in position in millimeter. Grids for movements makes it easy, so does templates for AoEs. )

Templates are really good and easy ways to figure out AoEs, they even mention them in the DMG. Without them, cones need to be locked to 45 degrees angles of casting as well since otherwise you would need references for all weird edgecases.

[smp4life]

Shouldn't. DM.

And I'm 100% that if I pulled that "4 square" thing on my players, I'd been in for an earful from at least half of them.

Its best to have effects 'snap' to the grid, even in theatre of the mind. Its all good when the pcs wanna cheese create bonfire but start having enemies use the tactic on the players and watch the salt levels rise fast.

[Segev]

Its best to have effects 'snap' to the grid, even in theatre of the mind. Its all good when the pcs wanna cheese create bonfire but start having enemies use the tactic on the players and watch the salt levels rise fast.

I wouldn't call it cheese if it's what the designers intended. However, let's examine this from as many sources as possible.


You select a cube's point of origin, which lies anywhere on a face of the cube effect. The cube's size is expressed as the length of each side.

A cube's point of origin is not included in the cube's area of effect, unless you decide otherwise.


To use the [Targets in Area of Effect] table, imagine which combatants are near one another, and let the table guide you in determining the number of those combatants that are caught in an area of effect. Add or subtract targets based on how bunched up the potential targets are. Consider rolling 1d3 to determine how many to add or subtract

Cube or square: size / 5 (round up)I note that a 5-ft. cube, divided by 5, affects one target. By the above rules, that's anywhere from 1 to 4 targets, based on how grouped up they are. (I assume the caster isn't dumb enough to place it to catch 0 targets, no matter how loosely-spaced they are, but if they're densely packed, the 1d3 extra targets would yield between 2 and 4 total targets.)

Choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow its rules as normal. If an area of effect is circular and covers at least half a square, it affects that square.Using this rule is interesting. You can place the square so its point of origin is at the "intersection" of any squares, and presumably orient it any way you like. Remember that the point of origin for a cube AoE is "anywhere on its face," so you're placing one face of it so it crosses any intersection of squares. I think the maximum number of squares you can make it thus intersect is, in fact, 5, with the choice of point of origin being a corner between four squares and the cube oriented diagonally, getting AoE into a + shape of five squares. You definitely can place the cube so that it's centered on a corner between four squares with this method; you place the point of origin at the center of one cube's face and at the center of an edge connecting two squares, and make the face of the cube perpendicular to the edge where the point of origin is.

In fact, the wording about including the point of origin or not yields either 2 or 4 squares that are targeted, depending what you choose, just as if you'd positioned it either centered on a corner or centered on an edge's center. (You can, absolutely, also target exactly 1 square with it, making the point of origin be in the center of both the edge between two squares and the center of the cube's face, and aligning the face with the edge.)

Then, if we look in Xanathar's Guide to Everything, it offers two more methods of adjudicating AoEs: Templates and Tokens.


If the terrain is flat, you can lay [the template] on the surface; otherwise, hold the template above the surface and take note of which squares it covers or partially covers. If any part of a square is under the template, that square is included in the area of effect. If a creature's miniature is in an affected square, that creature is in the area. Being adjacent to the edge of the template isn't enough for a square to be included in the area of effect; the square must be entirely or partly covered by the template.

You can also use this method without a grid. If you do so, a creature is included in an area of effect if any part of the minature's base is overlapped by the template.
It's clear that, by this method, you can place the one-square-big template of a 5-ft. square however you like, as it's nearly impossible on a grid to not have one of its faces intersect an edge or corner of a square on the grid. And it says nothing about orientation, so you can hover it however is most advantageous, getting anywhere from 1 to 5 squares under it. (Actually, it'd be pretty difficult to get exactly 3. Not impossible, but tricky placement.)


Every 5-foot square of an area of effect becomes a die or other token that you place on the grid. Each token goes inside a square, not at an intersection of lines. If an area's token is in a square, that square is included in the area of effect. It's that simple.This one is the only method that absolutely limits a 5-foot cube to a single 5-foot square. It also is weirdly defined by the diagrams provided, for instance giving double-wide and single-wide "lines" as examples with no explanation as to why you'd use the double-wide by the rules, or, if it's an option, why you'd use the single-wide. It also doesn't tell you very well how to determine how many squares are included. The table from the DMG for estimating numbers of critters in an AoE isn't helpful, here, as it is assuming a less-than-densely-packed formation, with adding 1d3 to it if they're packed densely. Squares are packed more densely than that estimation under most circumstances.

In all, from the most basic all the way up to the template method, they agree that a 5-foot square can theoretically target more than one creature, based on the rules for placement and adjudicating what squares are covered. While using roll20, I have been using the template method without having even read it from XGtE, though I have been more cagey about edge cases and will likely just be more generous with the AoEs in the future and count even partial coverage as being in it. (I'm thinking of my players' spherical spells right now.)

It's worth discussing flaming sphere, here, too. It specifies that "a five-foot diameter sphere of fire appears in an unoccupied space of your choice within range," which is distinctly different from how sphere AoEs are described (always defined by their radius, not their diameter), and with specific targeting instructions that differ from the PHB's instructions for points of origin. This suggests that the flaming sphere's effect behaves more like a Medium-sized creature than like an AoE. It's also noteworthy that being adjacent to it causes damage, not just being in its space, so it's affected area is a 15-foot cube that has specific placement instructions (must be centered in a 3x3 grid oriented along the grid directions).

Create bonfire doesn't have any such specific or different instructions. It just says "the magic bonfire fills a 5-foot cube." Which defaults us back to the AoE rules discussed above.

I definitely see why people think that hitting more than one 5-foot square on the grid with a 5-foot cube is "cheese." It seems counterintuitive. But only one of several suggested adjudication methods - and that one the last one in an optional book - agrees with that restriction. The others all align to allow multiple creatures to be hit by it if sufficiently-densely packed. In fact, the most "basic" Theater of the Mind one allows for between 1 and 4 creatures to be hit by it, which is exactly what you'd expect if you placed the cube centered on the corner between four squares. The template version allows for up to 5, if placed just right. And the template version is the one that I think is the most straight-forward for any effect that isn't a square, and thus, for consistency, should probably be used for all of them if you're going to use it at all.

To sum up: I understand why it sounds like cheese; my intuitive understanding of it was similar. But looking at the actual RAW and all suggested methods of adjudicating cube-shaped AoEs, I actually think it's both RAW and RAI that a 5-foot cube might target multiple creatures that are sufficiently close together.

[Waazraath]

To sum up: I understand why it sounds like cheese; my intuitive understanding of it was similar. But looking at the actual RAW and all suggested methods of adjudicating cube-shaped AoEs, I actually think it's both RAW and RAI that a 5-foot cube might target multiple creatures that are sufficiently close together.

To start: nice work searching the rules!

But: how do you align this with the total disbalance against other cantrips, if one would rule in this way? Cause with that in mind, it seems a pretty obvious mess-up on the designers side to me. The fact that 2 methods possible from the same book give opposite conclusions reinforces that line of thought.

[Segev]

To start: nice work searching the rules!

But: how do you align this with the total disbalance against other cantrips, if one would rule in this way? Cause with that in mind, it seems a pretty obvious mess-up on the designers side to me. The fact that 2 methods possible from the same book give opposite conclusions reinforces that line of thought.

Could you give examples of what you mean by "total disbalances against other cantrips," please? I could start guessing, but I don't want to be arguing against a straw man of my own construction in place of what you're actually getting at.

As to two methods from the same book yielding different results, I have two points of response:

The template method actually can target exactly one square with a five-foot cube. It's just rare that the targeting player would want to. But if he wants that kind of precision, nothing prevents aligning the template exactly inside a single grid-square.
Before the two methods are discussed, XGtE has this to say: "This section offers two alternatives for determining the exact location of an area: the template method and the token method. Both of these methods assume you're using a grid and miniatures of some sort. Because these methods can yield different results for the number of squares in a given area, it's no recommended that they be combined at the table - choose whichever method you and your players find easier or more intuitive.

So the reason they have different results is because they're different, and the book acknowledges they won't have the same results.

Since, of all the methods suggested for resolving AoEs, each of which acknowledges it will yield different results from the others, only one limits a 5-foot cube to a single 5-foot grid square (and the default Theater of the Mind rules for D&D 5e don't have grid squares at all, and include rules for between 1 and 4 creatures to be caught in a five-foot cube effect), I think it's the odd one out that is least likely to represent RAI.

[Waazraath]

Could you give examples of what you mean by "total disbalances against other cantrips," please? I could start guessing, but I don't want to be arguing against a straw man of my own construction in place of what you're actually getting at.


In my earlier post I gave the example of Acid splash. It is the only (other) ranged cantrip that can target more than 1 creatrue, that is, 2, if they within 5 ft. It does 1d6 damage, my interpretation there is: it only does 1d6 damage because it can target another creature. All other cantrips do 1d8, 1d10, or in one case a situational 1d12, sometimes with rider effects. The only cantrips that also can target more creatures at the same time do 1d6 (sword burst and thunderclap) are no ranged attacks, but bursts with self as the centre - so both situational (no allies can be present) and the caster has to enter melee range.

What create bonfire does, compared to these other spells:
- can multi-target creatures with a d8 instead of a d6
- can do it at range (so at a safe distance), while targeting more than 2 creatures which is better than Acid Splash
- is in addition a spell with a duration, and not instantaneous, so it can be used to block choke points etc. as well
- and can be used out of combat as utility in several ways.

This is simply unreasonable imo. The fact that up to this interpretation of bonfire the highest ranged cantrip damage is 2d6, and it increases to 4d8, that alone makes it rather likely for me that it is not RAI but designer oversight.

[Segev]

In my earlier post I gave the example of Acid splash. It is the only (other) ranged cantrip that can target more than 1 creatrue, that is, 2, if they within 5 ft. It does 1d6 damage, my interpretation there is: it only does 1d6 damage because it can target another creature. All other cantrips do 1d8, 1d10, or in one case a situational 1d12, sometimes with rider effects. The only cantrips that also can target more creatures at the same time do 1d6 (sword burst and thunderclap) are no ranged attacks, but bursts with self as the centre - so both situational (no allies can be present) and the caster has to enter melee range.

What create bonfire does, compared to these other spells:
- can multi-target creatures with a d8 instead of a d6
- can do it at range (so at a safe distance), while targeting more than 2 creatures which is better than Acid Splash
- is in addition a spell with a duration, and not instantaneous, so it can be used to block choke points etc. as well
- and can be used out of combat as utility in several ways.

This is simply unreasonable imo. The fact that up to this interpretation of bonfire the highest ranged cantrip damage is 2d6, and it increases to 4d8, that alone makes it rather likely for me that it is not RAI but designer oversight.

The non-ranged multi-target spells hit more people than acid splash. In addition, thunderclap is a rarely-called-upon save, and sword burst is a hard-to-resist damage type. So those are trading more targets and either better damage types or save choices for range, compared to acid splash.

Create bonfire is trading Concentration for the extra targets, compared to acid splash, and is trading Concentration for the range, compared to the other two. It also has fewer targets possible than the melee-range ones, which can hit up to 8 creatures. It's unlikely, granted, but hitting 4 is unlikely with create bonfire, too.

Now, you bring up setting up a choke point, and that's a good point to mention, but again, it takes your Concentration to maintain.

I have always sidelined the spell in my final picks in any build, despite really liking it, because Concentration is that big of a deal to have consumed. If create bonfire is your only damage cantrip, you literally can't use your basic free damage spam while maintaining any other Concentration spell. No create bonfire while flying, or maintaining a Tasha's hideous laughter, or even while invisible (which would be pretty awesome, otherwise, since you're not attacking with it so it arguably wouldn't break the invisibility effect).

Adding more targets and making it able to choke more than a single-square-wide hall changes this significantly, but the Concentration cost is still a pain. You still essentially need a second damage cantrip unless you're a weapon-using class that can get serious ranged damage out of your weapons, unless you have no other use for your Concentration.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

So wait, if we turn the cube 45 degrees we can hit at least 5 tiles and block a hallway 3 tiles wide.
The central tile will contain about 80% of the fire, but it still touches the others.

I was so proud when a new player did it with her faerie fire when a few sessions before she put half the party to sleep with the sleep spell(she rolled extremely high).

And If I remember the AOE rules currently you should use the intersection of squares and not the middle of them for AoE.

[Fnissalot]

Thunderclap, word of radiance etc. can hit even more if you are large or bigger.

Also, if a 5ft cube could only hit 1 square or one target, why describe it as an AoE and not say that it targets a point. It makes no sense to have 1 square AoEs when the system allows for targeting points.

A single target bonfire should be written :
"Conjuration cantrip

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute

You create a bonfire in a space on ground that you can see within range. Any creature in the bonfire’s space when you cast the spell must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d8 fire damage. A creature must also make the saving throw when it enters the bonfire’s space for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there.

At Higher Levels. The spell’s damage increases by 1d8 when you reach 5th level (2d8), 11th level (3d8), and 17th level (4d8)."

[Segev]

And If I remember the AOE rules currently you should use the intersection of squares and not the middle of them for AoE.

You put the point of origin at "the intersection of squares," yes. Which, as far as I can tell, can be an edge or corner.

Now, for a cube-shaped AoE, the point of origin is on one of the faces of the cube. Which makes it a little weirder, but works for placing the template in the ways discussed, anyway.

[MaxWilson]

The abstraction is exactly why a five foot cube placed on the grid corner makes sense, though. The question arises where the targets are in their own spaces. But they do get a dexterity save to negate damage, which only makes proper sense if there’s space to dodge to. If it’s in their square rather than on its corner, there’d be no such place. So the Dex save represents them scrambling to the 3/4 of their square it’s not in.

If this argument were true, there would be no Dex save if it was placed directly on your square, filling the whole area. And yet...


Huh, maybe part of the reason I don't find the 5 foot AoE weird to be used as multi-target is because my group already goes by template and ruler instead of grid.

When I use a grid it is simply a convenient proxy for templates and rulers (or TotM), that happens to have pre-measured distances for convenience. I try to make sure reality works consistently no matter how you measure it.



I note that a 5-ft. cube, divided by 5, affects one target. By the above rules, that's anywhere from 1 to 4 targets, based on how grouped up they are.

By those rules it's 5/5 = 1 target, with a note to the DM to "consider" adding or subtracting 1d3. Technically that means from -2 to 4 targets, but only if the DM decides that adding or subtracting is appropriate, and in this case why would they? Negative numbers are clearly nonsense, and a larger number than can fit into the area is at least controversial (witness: this thread). I don't think you can point to this "add or subtract 1d3" clause (paraphrased) as evidence that 5' cube spells are intended to affect 4 Medium-sized creatures.



Since, of all the methods suggested for resolving AoEs, each of which acknowledges it will yield different results from the others, only one limits a 5-foot cube to a single 5-foot grid square (and the default Theater of the Mind rules for D&D 5e don't have grid squares at all, and include rules for between 1 and 4 creatures to be caught in a five-foot cube effect), I think it's the odd one out that is least likely to represent RAI.

You mean -2 to 4 creatures, right?

4 Tiny creatures might make sense. I'd allow the +d3 roll against tightly-packed velociraptors. I'd never use the -d3 roll for a 5' cube although I would for a 60' cube like Slow: 6 - d3 seems reasonable.

[Segev]

If this argument were true, there would be no Dex save if it was placed directly on your square, filling the whole area. And yet...Granted. I dropped that line of thought.


When I use a grid it is simply a convenient proxy for templates and rules (or TotM), that happens to have pre-measured distances for convenience. I try to make sure reality works consistently no matter how you measure it.A valid goal. The token method of AoEs even agrees with you, though it is the only one that does in this case.


By those rules it's 5/5 = 1 target, with a note to the DM to "consider" adding or subtracting 1d3. Technically that means from -2 to 4 targets.
I went on to qualify that by saying that I was pretty sure the player isn't dumb enough to target 0 creatures with it. I am not going to discuss the nonphysical negative numbers of creatures being targeted. :smalltongue:

I stand by "between 1 and 4" based on the fully-qualified statement I wrote out explaining it.

[MaxWilson]

Granted. I dropped that line of thought.

A valid goal. The token method of AoEs even agrees with you, though it is the only one that does in this case.

I went on to qualify that by saying that I was pretty sure the player isn't dumb enough to target 0 creatures with it. I am not going to discuss the nonphysical negative numbers of creatures being targeted. :smalltongue:

I stand by "between 1 and 4" based on the fully-qualified statement I wrote out explaining it.

Noted. You definitely have a right to run your game the way you like.

[Segev]

Noted. You definitely have a right to run your game the way you like.

As do you. I am simply arguing that both RAW and RAI seem to actually be that create bonfire, due to using "five foot cube" rather than "a space," should target potentially multiple creatures, and probably "between 1 and 4."

I'm inclined to use the template method, because it's how I was already doing things like fireball.

[MaxWilson]

As do you. I am simply arguing that both RAW and RAI seem to actually be that create bonfire, due to using "five foot cube" rather than "a space," should target potentially multiple creatures, and probably "between 1 and 4."

I'm inclined to use the template method, because it's how I was already doing things like fireball.

Understood, and while I don't find your argument convincing (for reasons noted above) I respect that your mind has not been changed by hearing my perspective and is not likely to change.

(I don't know if you saw it earlier, but one situation where I would consider 1+d3 appropriate for Create Bonfire is if you cast it on a densely-packed horde of velociraptors or other Tiny creatures. Maybe even against a crowd of Medium humans packed tightly in an elevator--but not against Medium humans spread 5' apart in combat formation.)

Good gaming to you, no matter how you rule AoEs.

[LudicSavant]

I wouldn't call it cheese if it's what the designers intended. However, let's examine this from as many sources as possible.




I note that a 5-ft. cube, divided by 5, affects one target. By the above rules, that's anywhere from 1 to 4 targets, based on how grouped up they are. (I assume the caster isn't dumb enough to place it to catch 0 targets, no matter how loosely-spaced they are, but if they're densely packed, the 1d3 extra targets would yield between 2 and 4 total targets.)
Using this rule is interesting. You can place the square so its point of origin is at the "intersection" of any squares, and presumably orient it any way you like. Remember that the point of origin for a cube AoE is "anywhere on its face," so you're placing one face of it so it crosses any intersection of squares. I think the maximum number of squares you can make it thus intersect is, in fact, 5, with the choice of point of origin being a corner between four squares and the cube oriented diagonally, getting AoE into a + shape of five squares. You definitely can place the cube so that it's centered on a corner between four squares with this method; you place the point of origin at the center of one cube's face and at the center of an edge connecting two squares, and make the face of the cube perpendicular to the edge where the point of origin is.

In fact, the wording about including the point of origin or not yields either 2 or 4 squares that are targeted, depending what you choose, just as if you'd positioned it either centered on a corner or centered on an edge's center. (You can, absolutely, also target exactly 1 square with it, making the point of origin be in the center of both the edge between two squares and the center of the cube's face, and aligning the face with the edge.)

Then, if we look in Xanathar's Guide to Everything, it offers two more methods of adjudicating AoEs: Templates and Tokens.


It's clear that, by this method, you can place the one-square-big template of a 5-ft. square however you like, as it's nearly impossible on a grid to not have one of its faces intersect an edge or corner of a square on the grid. And it says nothing about orientation, so you can hover it however is most advantageous, getting anywhere from 1 to 5 squares under it. (Actually, it'd be pretty difficult to get exactly 3. Not impossible, but tricky placement.)

This one is the only method that absolutely limits a 5-foot cube to a single 5-foot square. It also is weirdly defined by the diagrams provided, for instance giving double-wide and single-wide "lines" as examples with no explanation as to why you'd use the double-wide by the rules, or, if it's an option, why you'd use the single-wide. It also doesn't tell you very well how to determine how many squares are included. The table from the DMG for estimating numbers of critters in an AoE isn't helpful, here, as it is assuming a less-than-densely-packed formation, with adding 1d3 to it if they're packed densely. Squares are packed more densely than that estimation under most circumstances.

In all, from the most basic all the way up to the template method, they agree that a 5-foot square can theoretically target more than one creature, based on the rules for placement and adjudicating what squares are covered. While using roll20, I have been using the template method without having even read it from XGtE, though I have been more cagey about edge cases and will likely just be more generous with the AoEs in the future and count even partial coverage as being in it. (I'm thinking of my players' spherical spells right now.)

It's worth discussing flaming sphere, here, too. It specifies that "a five-foot diameter sphere of fire appears in an unoccupied space of your choice within range," which is distinctly different from how sphere AoEs are described (always defined by their radius, not their diameter), and with specific targeting instructions that differ from the PHB's instructions for points of origin. This suggests that the flaming sphere's effect behaves more like a Medium-sized creature than like an AoE. It's also noteworthy that being adjacent to it causes damage, not just being in its space, so it's affected area is a 15-foot cube that has specific placement instructions (must be centered in a 3x3 grid oriented along the grid directions).

Create bonfire doesn't have any such specific or different instructions. It just says "the magic bonfire fills a 5-foot cube." Which defaults us back to the AoE rules discussed above.

I definitely see why people think that hitting more than one 5-foot square on the grid with a 5-foot cube is "cheese." It seems counterintuitive. But only one of several suggested adjudication methods - and that one the last one in an optional book - agrees with that restriction. The others all align to allow multiple creatures to be hit by it if sufficiently-densely packed. In fact, the most "basic" Theater of the Mind one allows for between 1 and 4 creatures to be hit by it, which is exactly what you'd expect if you placed the cube centered on the corner between four squares. The template version allows for up to 5, if placed just right. And the template version is the one that I think is the most straight-forward for any effect that isn't a square, and thus, for consistency, should probably be used for all of them if you're going to use it at all.

To sum up: I understand why it sounds like cheese; my intuitive understanding of it was similar. But looking at the actual RAW and all suggested methods of adjudicating cube-shaped AoEs, I actually think it's both RAW and RAI that a 5-foot cube might target multiple creatures that are sufficiently close together.

Kudos to you for thoroughly checking through the book when something doesn't match your intuitions. Just wanted to say that. https://forums.giantitp.com/images/sand/icons/icon_thumbsup.png

[Aimeryan]

Great post Segev; I agree with almost all of it.

The one thing I am less certain on is whether an edge between two squares would be classed as an intersection or not. In any case, it does not affect a cube in the case of 4 squares; just put the origin as the centre of the bottom face of the cube.

It does affect whether you could affect 8 squares, however; an edge-as-valid would allow you to put that bottom face halfway vertically up a layer, thus being 4 squares on the bottom and another 4 squares above. Create Bonfire requires that it be placed on the 'ground' (some interpretation here is needed), however, there is nothing stopping there being a platform (think medal-award podium in sports) that would elevate it. Can't really ever see something like this being useful, though (unless... you can jump over Create Bonfire?).

[Segev]

The one thing I am less certain on is whether an edge between two squares would be classed as an intersection or not. In any case, it does not affect a cube in the case of 4 squares; just put the origin as the centre of the bottom face of the cube.I could potentially see somebody claiming "intersection" has to be a corner, but there's no definition by which that's so. I don't know what the RAI was, though. Very good catch on placing the origin as the bottom face's center, though. I should've thought of that.


It does affect whether you could affect 8 squares, however; an edge-as-valid would allow you to put that bottom face halfway vertically up a layer, thus being 4 squares on the bottom and another 4 squares above. Create Bonfire requires that it be placed on the 'ground' (some interpretation here is needed), however, there is nothing stopping there being a platform (think medal-award podium in sports) that would elevate it. Can't really ever see something like this being useful, though (unless... you can jump over Create Bonfire?).This is less likely to be critical simply because it really only matters if people are stacked on top of each other somehow, which is...rare and awkward, to say the least.

[jh12]

Then, if we look in Xanathar's Guide to Everything, it offers two more methods of adjudicating AoEs: Templates and Tokens.

Xanther's also mentions snap-to-grid as a possibility.

EDIT: Upon further review, I might be wrong about this. I would have sworn it did, but now I can't find it.

[Segev]

Xanther's also mentions snap-to-grid as a possibility.

Tokens more or less is snap-to-grid, right?

[jh12]

Tokens more or less is snap-to-grid, right?

I think it is essentially the same for squares, but not for circles. Tokens turns circles into squares rather than worrying about whether it fills half a square.

[Segev]

I think it is essentially the same for squares, but not for circles. Tokens turns circles into squares rather than worrying about whether it fills half a square.

Huh. How does "snap-to-grid" work for circles?

[heavyfuel]

Huh. How does "snap-to-grid" work for circles?

I think the smallest circle is a 5ft radius, which means the center of the circle must be in an intersection. That is, the edge touches the grid

[jh12]

The "50% coverage" rule is explicitly only for circles/spheres. This is covered in the the DMG, reiterated in Xanathar's Guide, and reiterated again in Sage Advice.

I would assume like this.

[Composer99]

Dunno if anyone's raised the point, but supposing you were playing gridless, using rulers to measure distance (say 1 inch = 5 feet) and area templates, there'd be no question you could catch multiple creatures in the area if they were bunched up enough.

[jh12]

Dunno if anyone's raised the point, but supposing you were playing gridless, using rulers to measure distance (say 1 inch = 5 feet) and area templates, there'd be no question you could catch multiple creatures in the area if they were bunched up enough.

That makes perfect sense. I just don't like using a grid to force people to stand 5 feet on center (why are they in parade formation?) then letting a 5x5 box affect everyone in a 100 square foot area instead of just a 25 square foot area.

[Laserlight]

I'd say it's intended to target one square's worth of swarms or something of that sort. If someone wanted to rotate the Bonfire's square so it impinged on several character squares, I'd be inclined to rotate the map grid right back at em.


YMMV.

[Segev]

I'd say it's intended to target one square's worth of swarms or something of that sort. If someone wanted to rotate the Bonfire's square so it impinged on several character squares, I'd be inclined to rotate the map grid right back at em.


YMMV.

Swarms are already targeted as single creatures.

[sandmote]

That makes perfect sense. I just don't like using a grid to force people to stand 5 feet on center (why are they in parade formation?) then letting a 5x5 box affect everyone in a 100 square foot area instead of just a 25 square foot area. This definitely feels weird. However, I find it similarly weird the 5x5 box of fire touches you and doesn't hurt. So it is still affecting everyone in a 25 square foot area, it's just that this includes people only partially inside the area.

Okay, for a general rule though, I'd look at some other spells:

Max area for Tidal Wave: 6 squares without this rule vs 12 squares with it.
Max area of Erupting Earth: 16 squares without this rule or 25 squares with it.
Max area for Lightning Bolt: 10 squares without this rule or 20 squares with it.
Max area for Fireball: 44 I think, if we're counting by half the volume of each 5 foot space.

While enemies are extremely unlikely to be bunched up one square each, this does make fireball less ridiculous. It has the worst damage type, so it being bigger is fine, but now it isn't hitting quite as disproportionate an area.

[Segev]

This definitely feels weird. However, I find it similarly weird the 5x5 box of fire touches you and doesn't hurt. So it is still affecting everyone in a 25 square foot area, it's just that this includes people only partially inside the area.

Okay, for a general rule though, I'd look at some other spells:

Max area for Tidal Wave: 6 squares without this rule vs 12 squares with it.
Max area of Erupting Earth: 16 squares without this rule or 25 squares with it.
Max area for Lightning Bolt: 10 squares without this rule or 20 squares with it.
Max area for Fireball: 44 I think, if we're counting by half the volume of each 5 foot space.

While enemies are extremely unlikely to be bunched up one square each, this does make fireball less ridiculous. It has the worst damage type, so it being bigger is fine, but now it isn't hitting quite as disproportionate an area.

On lightning bolt doubling its coverage, it's worth noting that the Xanathar's Guide tokens method shows both single-wide and double-wide line effects, with no explanation given. Perhaps this is the explanation that's missing.

[Blood of Gaea]

The fact that you can choose to make it target more or less squares also offers potential tactical options, for when you want to toast the enemy, but not your buddy.

[Mr Adventurer]

This definitely feels weird. However, I find it similarly weird the 5x5 box of fire touches you and doesn't hurt.

Creatures don't fill their space.

[Segev]

Creatures don't fill their space.

But they do occupy it.

A circle-edge that half fills the square is considered enough to target the occupant. This is indisputable. Even though a gnome might be in the furthest corner of the square from the circle-edge with plenty of room to spare.

Cones and squares/cubes and lines seem to be even more generous to the caster, covering all squares that have any portion fall into the area. (And, with templates, I believe it said circles expand to any coverage counting, too, though I’m AFB and may be misremembering right now.)

I’m unsure what the writers of Create Bonfire thought it’s given AoE allowed. However, of all the suggested methods of adjudicating how many targets get hit, only “tokens” yields a “snap to grid, single target only” result. Gridless ruler-measurement yields the possibility of multiple targets, quite obviously, as does template with or without grid. Even theater of the mind has rules that clearly allow for up to four targets if they’re grouped closely enough (and on a grid, a 2x2 square with four people in it is as tightly-grouped as you can get).

While it’s not out of reason to rule that Create Bonfire can’t hit more than one target (barring targets literally sharing a space), it seems in line with the rules and intent that it could hit more. Especially with the Concentration requirement that makes it so that you can’t rely on it as your spam damage-dealer.

[Vegan Squirrel]

I'm curious, so let's do a little experiment:

Please tell me if you think that a 5-foot cube should affect 4 squares, ignoring sage advice for now, and please note if you identify predominantly as a player or a DM.

I'll start: It should not affect 4 squares. DM.

Primarily a DM: should. Although, in practice, 4 squares is a bit of a stretch.

I prefer playing theater of the mind, but when we do use a grid, I view it as primarily a visual aid, not a constraint on what's possible in the game world. So I would let a caster place their 5-foot cube without snapping to the grid lines, but I also wouldn't assume the creatures are all standing closer to the center corner than the outer corners (unless they were described as huddling with their backs together or something). I also tend to err on the side of the players when it comes to judgment calls. So I think my honest reaction would be to let a PC caster hit 3 targets, or to let an NPC caster hit at most 2 PCs. I also like the idea of giving advantage on the save to the 2nd PC target, if they have more maneuvering room.

I'm also a big fan of 5th edition's philosophy of DM rulings over RAW—let each table adjust these kinds of rules to the table's best satisfaction.

[Mr Adventurer]

But they do occupy it.


Yes, and? My post was specifically replying to the idea of the bonfire "touching" someone. That was a misguided appeal to realism. I'm not arguing your rules-based points.

[x3n0n]

I'm curious, so let's do a little experiment:

Please tell me if you think that a 5-foot cube should affect 4 squares, ignoring sage advice for now, and please note if you identify predominantly as a player or a DM.

I'll start: It should not affect 4 squares. DM.

Half-time DM/player opinions:

Should affect 2 non-diagonal adjacent squares. (Place on the midpoint between those two squares, rotate 45°.)

Can mostly block a 10' hallway (would allow Small to squeeze and avoid).

Case-by-case basis for a diagonal (or 4 squares), leaning toward no.

Concentration and limit to non-diagonal are enough to be a relevant nerf vs Acid Splash.

[Segev]

Yes, and? My post was specifically replying to the idea of the bonfire "touching" someone. That was a misguided appeal to realism. I'm not arguing your rules-based points.

Fair enough. The appeal to realism argument could extend to convection, at that point, with the idea being that, if you do choose to place it solely in one five ft. square, creatures in adjacent squares can hedge to the far side of their squares enough to avoid the damage from convection, but if you place it such that it's partially in multiple squares, they can't quite get far enough away.

Really, though, the realism argument should only be made as a fluffing of the mechanics, here, I think. The question is one of balance rather than one of verisimilitude. I think we can all figure out reasonable ways to envision verisimilitude.

On only allowing it to hit four creatures bunched up in a 2x2 grid if they're described as being "back-to-back," it's worth noting that the expected targeting of creatures grouped up together to be 1+1d3 for a five-foot cube. Now, as a DM, you could argue that they're not "bunched up" if they're not shoulder-to-shoulder/back-to-back, but I will argue that such a ruling essentially negates anything being bunched together, and would result in the numbers estimated for the AoEs in the DMG in the table for theater of the mind being woefully under-estimating numbers hit with any template or even ruler-and-string method of measurement. Heck, even the token method would hit far more than that table would, if they're arranged in every grid square in the AoE. The table is clearly assuming that even "closely bunched" creatures are unevenly spaced and not occupying an average density of one creature per five foot square.

If we take a five foot cube in a standard combat and assume that it always targets four squares on the grid, it still is likely to hit fewer than four creatures. How often are four creatures really bunched up in a 2x2 space?

[Vegan Squirrel]

On only allowing it to hit four creatures bunched up in a 2x2 grid if they're described as being "back-to-back," it's worth noting that the expected targeting of creatures grouped up together to be 1+1d3 for a five-foot cube. Now, as a DM, you could argue that they're not "bunched up" if they're not shoulder-to-shoulder/back-to-back, but I will argue that such a ruling essentially negates anything being bunched together, and would result in the numbers estimated for the AoEs in the DMG in the table for theater of the mind being woefully under-estimating numbers hit with any template or even ruler-and-string method of measurement. Heck, even the token method would hit far more than that table would, if they're arranged in every grid square in the AoE. The table is clearly assuming that even "closely bunched" creatures are unevenly spaced and not occupying an average density of one creature per five foot square.

If we take a five foot cube in a standard combat and assume that it always targets four squares on the grid, it still is likely to hit fewer than four creatures. How often are four creatures really bunched up in a 2x2 space?

When I mentioned the "back-to-back" comment, I was specifically talking about using a grid and my likely in-the-moment decision-making as a DM. As far as analyzing the rules as the books give (and suggest) them, I think you've been dead-on with your analysis. Also, I realize most of your comments were not directed towards me, but since I brought up the "back-to-back" bit most recently, I felt like I should respond.

As for "bunching up," a few things spring to mind in response to your comments here. Firstly, I don't think the advice on bunching up applies when a grid is in use, since its primary purpose is when you don't know the exact positions of the enemies. You seem to agree with that, but I just wanted to be clear. Secondly, most areas of effect will be considerably larger than a 5-foot cube, so I think it's understandable if the 1d3 rule of thumb were to be slightly less applicable on the extreme end of the scale. Similarly, you might be inclined to roll 1d6 or more for a very large area of effect, since it would be easier to bunch more creatures into such an area if they're truly bunched together, but just giving a flat 1d3 as the rule of thumb is a good, simpler rule for advising DMs. And in my example, I suggested I would probably let a PC target 3 creatures in an ad-hoc ruling, which lines up with the average result of 1+1d3.

Also, I just went and reread the Create bonfire spell text, and it interestingly does use the terminology of targeting creatures "in the bonfire's space." I think that wording strengthens the argument that the spell writer intended the spell to take up exactly one five-foot space, like a medium creature (compare with Fireball: "in a 20-foot radius sphere," Grease: "standing in its area," Lightning bolt: "in the line"). However, if that was the writer's intent, they were not fully cognizant of the rules for placing an area of effect, or they would have used a wording such as in Flaming sphere ("A 5-foot diameter sphere of fire appears in an unoccupied space...").

[Greywander]

If we take a five foot cube in a standard combat and assume that it always targets four squares on the grid, it still is likely to hit fewer than four creatures. How often are four creatures really bunched up in a 2x2 space?
This, right here. I think people are scared away by the mere potential to hit four creatures, but the reality is that you'll only rarely see creatures standing in a 2x2 formation. And, once you cast this spell, they're likely to avoid grouping up for the rest of the fight. Even hitting two creatures consistently is going to be a problem, otherwise Acid Splash would be more highly valued. When it comes down to it, Create Bonfire is good in the right situations, but you still won't be casting it most of the time because either (a) you're concentrating on another spell, or (b) the enemies aren't standing close enough together. It's also still fire damage, so DMs have plenty of options for fire resistant or immune enemies.

If Create Bonfire only affects a 1x1 area, then it's pretty lackluster. Hardly worth taking unless you have some way of pushing people back into it (e.g. Repelling Blast). Making it affect a 2x2 area makes it much better. But you'll still use other damage cantrips. If you can only hit one enemy, then Fire Bolt does more damage, while other spells such as Chill Touch or Frostbite have riders. Concentration also really limits when you can use it. It makes Create Bonfire a good spell, but not so good that you'd never take or cast another damage cantrip. And if you rely on concentration spells a lot, it might not even be worth taking Create Bonfire in the first place.

Anyway, this thread has kind of gotten off topic. But from what I gather, Create Bonfire + Repelling Blast is, indeed, an effective and fun combo, particularly with party members who can also use the bonfire, e.g. grapplers.

[Segev]

Also, I just went and reread the Create bonfire spell text, and it interestingly does use the terminology of targeting creatures "in the bonfire's space." I think that wording strengthens the argument that the spell writer intended the spell to take up exactly one five-foot space, like a medium creature (compare with Fireball: "in a 20-foot radius sphere," Grease: "standing in its area," Lightning bolt: "in the line"). However, if that was the writer's intent, they were not fully cognizant of the rules for placing an area of effect, or they would have used a wording such as in Flaming sphere ("A 5-foot diameter sphere of fire appears in an unoccupied space...").

Yeah, that's the trouble with somewhat counter-intuitive core mechanics: you can never be sure if the writer of the specific thing you're looking at was aware of what they were writing, or if they thought they were saying something different than they were. RAI of the Core Rules seems to be that a 5-foot cube should be able to target multiple Medium creatures if they're all adjacent to each other. RAI of the spell-writer of create bonfire is harder to judge. Especially since there are also editors and line editors through whom it went; did they miss something, or did they agree with the core rule interpretation?

While I have been making a mostly-RAW and somewhat-RAI analysis up to now, my final determination as a DM would be to go with the permissive template-placement method (up to 5, if they're in a +) because it's actually rarer than one might think to have creatures arranged so conveniently, and it makes it actually worth having a second damage-dealing cantrip.

As I've mentioned before, the Concentration on create bonfire has a major problem in that it essentially makes you NEED another damage cantrip, because the purpose of a damage cantrip is to have a reliable spell damage source when you are out of or don't want to spend spell slots.

Well, you could use a crossbow, I guess, but it'll be unlikely that you'll be as accurate or do as much damage as with a spell attack.

[clash]

I dont know if this has been brought up, but to everyone argueing as to whether or not it should affect 4 squares by the same reading you can also turn it 45 degrees to instead have it affect 5 squares in a15ft x 15ft cross shape as the 4 corners of the bonfire area will each overlap a separate square on the grid. This has the benefit of affecting up to 4 non adjacent creatures. Or up to 5 adjacent ones

Personally, I find this even more ridiculous of a way to rule but as a player if my DM were allowing these rules to work as written why not go for broke.

My argument against it is that if spell affects are not restrained by squares on the grid, why should pcs be. And if pc's are not restricted then they could be half on one square and half on another such that they dont overlap the same half of the square as the bonfire, and at that point grid based combat becomes nonsensical.

[Vegan Squirrel]

My argument against it is that if spell affects are not restrained by squares on the grid, why should pcs be. And if pc's are not restricted then they could be half on one square and half on another such that they dont overlap the same half of the square as the bonfire, and at that point grid based combat becomes nonsensical.

While I can agree that the rules indicate character should occupy specific squares, I don't think the grid is nonsensical in the slightest if PCs are allowed to stand between squares. It basically builds a ruler into the map so it's easy to see how far apart things are and it lets you draw rooms, walls, and obstacles to scale to better visualize the scene. It's useful for reference, kind of like yard lines or social distance marks every 6 feet on the floor in stores—you don't have to stand on them for them to help you visualize distance.

This is also a case where I think there's a difference between a physical battle mat and a gridded digital map. I imagine it's simpler to just snap everything to the grid on a virtual tabletop, but on a real one I'd rather allow for situational flexibility (even if, in practice, we just assume everyone's centered in a square most of the time).

[Greywander]

My argument against it is that if spell affects are not restrained by squares on the grid, why should pcs be.
Under what circumstances would you not want your PC to snap to the grid? Such a situation might come up, but only rarely. I just don't see this being useful on a regular basis, but also have no problem allowing it if it's actually going to make a difference. The same is true for AoE effects, except that it might be useful more regularly to not snap them to the grid.

But I can see certain ridiculous arising from this, e.g. "I stand six feet way from my party member, so that we can't get caught in AoE effects as easily." At which point you might as well not even use the grid. Maybe the solution here is to still treat the creature as standing in one specific space, even if they're "off-grid", and use that for the purposed of AoE. So sure, you might be 6 feet away, but you're still mostly in the space that is only 5 feet away, and are therefore in range of the AoE. You can still use the "squeeze into a smaller space" rules to move around an AoE that is partially in your space, but that has other mechanical consequences.

As for rotating the bonfire 45 degrees to affect a 5 square cross shape, I don't know about that. While the rules do seem to say that any coverage means that the space in affected, I feel like the images also show some spaces that only have a tiny amount of coverage (<5%) and it doesn't show that space as being affected by the AoE. It seems like there is a line somewhere, but I'm not sure what it is. 1% coverage doesn't seem like it would be enough, but 25% does. What about 10%? 5%? Etc.

[Segev]

I mentioned the + shape of five squares in my discussion; it does seem to be RAW.

As to grid-snapping for PCs but not templates, that also seems to be intent. In fact, the intent is not to use grid or even a map at all, by default. But they provide rules and suggestions for how to do so. If you want to use ruler-and-string to move freeform across the map, more power to you. You'll find that the placement of the 5-ft. cube naturally invites catching multiple creatures in it if they're close enough together. The rules for this, in fact, say that any creature whose "base" falls under the template is caught in the AoE.

[Fnissalot]

Just to add fuel to the fire (pun inteded) and sorry for the bad picture, but just figured out that you can hit 6 squares with it legally if it is not snapping.

https://i.imgur.com/FOvuCCt.png

The + is barely legal since according to the DMG and Xanathars, the origin of the spell must be an intersection of squares. You cannot just place it in a square and turn it 45 degrees since it will then not touch an intersection. This placement is required and it is touching all 5 squares but just barley. You could even move it slightly down to the left to cover some of the square it is touching as well to get it to hit 6 squares that way as well.

https://i.imgur.com/Buq1qN8.png

I am not sure I think it is broken since the opportunity cost of it requiring concentration is still high. But I would probably, inspired by what people written here, give advantage on the save if less than 25% of the square is hit. So you you can hit four with it normally, or both gets advantage if you would try to hit two creatures that are a knight's move (2 up one to the side) away from each other.

Edit:
I just realised, one of the token cones in Xanathars is asymmetric and therefor not at a perfect right angle but instead like a few degrees off, which is kind of odd?

[Segev]

Just to add fuel to the fire (pun inteded) and sorry for the bad picture, but just figured out that you can hit 6 squares with it legally if it is not snapping.

https://i.imgur.com/FOvuCCt.png

The + is barely legal since according to the DMG and Xanathars, the origin of the spell must be an intersection of squares. You cannot just place it in a square and turn it 45 degrees since it will then not touch an intersection. This placement is required and it is touching all 5 squares but just barley. You could even move it slightly down to the left to cover some of the square it is touching as well to get it to hit 6 squares that way as well.

https://i.imgur.com/Buq1qN8.png

I am not sure I think it is broken since the opportunity cost of it requiring concentration is still high. But I would probably, inspired by what people written here, give advantage on the save if less than 25% of the square is hit. So you you can hit four with it normally, or both gets advantage if you would try to hit two creatures that are a knight's move (2 up one to the side) away from each other.

Edit:
I just realised, one of the token cones in Xanathars is asymmetric and therefor not at a perfect right angle but instead like a few degrees off, which is kind of odd?
Both of those look technically-legal to me. Remember that the origin is anywhere on one of the faces of the cube, so as long as a face crosses an intersection somewhere, it's legal.

That said, I might personally rule that if it's so smidgen-in the square in question that it couldn't cover a figure's base, it doesn't count. Not sure on that, but I might. Not saying that's RAW and not arguing RAI, just going with my own gut on "that's where I think I draw the line."

[LudicSavant]

Both of those look technically-legal to me. Remember that the origin is anywhere on one of the faces of the cube, so as long as a face crosses an intersection somewhere, it's legal.

That said, I might personally rule that if it's so smidgen-in the square in question that it couldn't cover a figure's base, it doesn't count. Not sure on that, but I might. Not saying that's RAW and not arguing RAI, just going with my own gut on "that's where I think I draw the line."

The six-square one isn't crossing an intersection, though, right?

[Valmark]

The six-square one isn't crossing an intersection, though, right?

I'm seeing it covering two intersections?

[Aimeryan]

I'm seeing it covering two intersections?

Two +, or 7 ---, yeah.

An intersection is usually a point where two things cross, which would lead you to think it would be the former; the point where two lines of the grid cross. However, the actual text is as follows:


Choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow its rules as normal.

The choice of intersection is not that of grid lines, but of squares (or hexes). Another meaning for intersect is as follows:


to pierce or divide by passing through or across (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intersect)

Hence, the edges of the squares do intersect the squares, and therefore would seem to count as an intersection of squares.

Edit: Uh.. couldn't count the lines, tis 7, not 5.

[Segev]

The six-square one isn't crossing an intersection, though, right?


I'm seeing it covering two intersections?


Two +, or 5 ---, yeah.
Right, the definition of "intersection" could be debated, here, but to clarify why I think it's pointlessly restrictive to hold it to "a corner," if they wanted it to be a corner, they could have said so. "Intersection" means "anywhere at least two touch each other." Well, by elimination, since the alternative definition (from set theory) would be "where they overlap," and they definitionally do not overlap on a grid at all.

Anyway, as an illustration, let's say you have a hallway 3 ft. wide and 50 ft. long. It's placed on the grid of the overall map such that the corners of all the squares making up the hallway lie a foot inside the wall. Does it make sense to say you can't target any point of origin in that hallway according to grid-placement rules? No, of course not; you can place a point of origin at the intersection between two of the grid-squares, even though that's a horizontal line, not a corner.

[MinotaurWarrior]

ToTM it can hit four medium creatures bunched as close as they can get (assuming there is some sort of 0 dimensional point at the center of every being that counts as "them") and squares are an optional rule. IMO, same as how even with hexes only four attackers can melee attack one medium creature, even in squares a 5' cube should only be able to hit four medium creatures.

Regardless, these are all optional rules, and the baseline is either 4 or "less than four with the precise number depending on body geometry"

[Aimeryan]

Right, the definition of "intersection" could be debated, here, but to clarify why I think it's pointlessly restrictive to hold it to "a corner," if they wanted it to be a corner, they could have said so. "Intersection" means "anywhere at least two touch each other." Well, by elimination, since the alternative definition (from set theory) would be "where they overlap," and they definitionally do not overlap on a grid at all.

Anyway, as an illustration, let's say you have a hallway 3 ft. wide and 50 ft. long. It's placed on the grid of the overall map such that the corners of all the squares making up the hallway lie a foot inside the wall. Does it make sense to say you can't target any point of origin in that hallway according to grid-placement rules? No, of course not; you can place a point of origin at the intersection between two of the grid-squares, even though that's a horizontal line, not a corner.

Indeed. The follow through to this is that, with the combination of being able to place the origin at any point on any one of the faces of the cube, you can place the cube however you like - it will always touch an intersection somewhere.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm curious, so let's do a little experiment:

Please tell me if you think that a 5-foot cube should affect 4 squares, ignoring sage advice for now, and please note if you identify predominantly as a player or a DM.

I'll start: It should not affect 4 squares. DM.

I'm fine with it hitting multiple squares. DM. It's how I've always read it, after all.

[Edea]

You select a cube's point of origin, which lies anywhere on a face of the cubic effect. The cube's size is expressed as the length of each side.

OK, now THAT I don't like. This has nothing to do with the "touch = affected" rule; this is a fundamental flaw of the cube area-type, specifically.

I would force the PoO to be at the center of one of the faces, and it IS in the AoE.

I don't mind rotating the cube at all, but FFS lock the center of it to the damn grid. Don't abstract a spell's PoO that much if you're going to turn around and force creatures/objects to occupy discrete spaces.

[Segev]

OK, now THAT I don't like. This has nothing to do with the "touch = affected" rule; this is a fundamental flaw of the cube area-type, specifically.

I would force the PoO to be at the center of one of the faces, and it IS in the AoE.

I don't mind rotating the cube at all, but FFS lock the center of it to the damn grid. Don't abstract a spell's PoO that much if you're going to turn around and force creatures/objects to occupy discrete spaces.

Really, allowing creatures to not occupy discrete spaces wouldn't change much wrt templates that aren't so restricted. Though I would limit the "if any of the square is covered" to it being enough of the square that I could reasonably see the base of the figure being touched/partially covered. Hence why the one that barely gets a smidgen of a corner of 4 spaces (to make a "2x3" of 6 squares) wouldn't really fly with me, as my personal ruling. (I am not disputing RAW or RAI here; that's just where I draw the line. I'm okay-ish with the + shape, but might change my mind if I ever saw it as making no sense.)

[Chugger]

If you're planning on doing a grapple it and drag it someplace to damage it build or combo - consider Spike Growth, the druid spell (maybe rangers get it too). There is some serious potential abuse here if we use a Tabaxi or try other cheese. I'm not sure I'd inflict this on a DM, as a player.

[Fnissalot]

Two +, or 7 ---, yeah.

An intersection is usually a point where two things cross, which would lead you to think it would be the former; the point where two lines of the grid cross. However, the actual text is as follows:



The choice of intersection is not that of grid lines, but of squares (or hexes). Another meaning for intersect is as follows:



Hence, the edges of the squares do intersect the squares, and therefore would seem to count as an intersection of squares.

Edit: Uh.. couldn't count the lines, tis 7, not 5.


Right, the definition of "intersection" could be debated, here, but to clarify why I think it's pointlessly restrictive to hold it to "a corner," if they wanted it to be a corner, they could have said so. "Intersection" means "anywhere at least two touch each other." Well, by elimination, since the alternative definition (from set theory) would be "where they overlap," and they definitionally do not overlap on a grid at all.

Anyway, as an illustration, let's say you have a hallway 3 ft. wide and 50 ft. long. It's placed on the grid of the overall map such that the corners of all the squares making up the hallway lie a foot inside the wall. Does it make sense to say you can't target any point of origin in that hallway according to grid-placement rules? No, of course not; you can place a point of origin at the intersection between two of the grid-squares, even though that's a horizontal line, not a corner.



Oh, I always assumed the intersection meant the + not the ---. Interesting... Technically, the squares never intersect while the lines do, but I am not sure what they actually meant with it anymore.

[Segev]

Oh, I always assumed the intersection meant the + not the ---. Interesting... Technically, the squares never intersect while the lines do, but I am not sure what they actually meant with it anymore.

Interestingly, if you do interpret the “intersection of squares” as being the corner only, it’s impossible to place the cube such that it fills only one square. The point of origin of a cube is anywhere on one of its faces. The edges and corners are the only places on the cube the point cannot be. (Well, and the interior. Can’t originate from within itself.)

If you must place the cube’s point of origin on a corner or squares, it must pass one face through that corner.

[Mr Adventurer]

Interestingly, if you do interpret the “intersection of squares” as being the corner only, it’s impossible to place the cube such that it fills only one square. The point of origin of a cube is anywhere on one of its faces. The edges and corners are the only places on the cube the point cannot be. (Well, and the interior. Can’t originate from within itself.)

If you must place the cube’s point of origin on a corner or squares, it must pass one face through that corner.

Edges and corners of a face are part of that face.

Surely a point in the cornermost part of a face is also in the cornermost part of the other faces of that corner of the cube. 2d planes for a 3d shape and all that. Likewise that point can be placed on a cross-intersection and then fill one square.

Co-ordinates 0,0,0 , I conceive.

[Fnissalot]

Edges and corners of a face are part of that face.

Surely a point in the cornermost part of a face is also in the cornermost part of the other faces of that corner of the cube. 2d planes for a 3d shape and all that. Likewise that point can be placed on a cross-intersection and then fill one square.

Co-ordinates 0,0,0 , I conceive.

Yeah I agree. A 0,0,0 position would result in it only covering one square.

[Aimeryan]

Curious; would a cylinder of 5ft radius have worked out better here? The half-or-more of a square rule for circles would be in play and it would naturally cover 4 squares if the origin was placed at the corner of a square.

Trying to think of any cases it would work out to cover more than four squares.

[Segev]

Curious; would a cylinder of 5ft radius have worked out better here? The half-or-more of a square rule for circles would be in play and it would naturally cover 4 squares if the origin was placed at the corner of a square.

Trying to think of any cases it would work out to cover more than four squares.

The area covered by a 5-ft. radius circle is 79.54 ft. squared. The area of a single five-foot square is 25 feet squared, meaning you need 12.5 feet squared covered by a circle to be "in." Without considering geometry, there are 6.28 (round down to 6) half-5-ft-squares that can be made from 79.54 ft. squared.

So, if you can get more than 4 squares, it would be by centering the cylinder halfway between two corners on an edge of a square. But I suspect that still fails, geometrically, because that would put the furthest point from the center of the two squares in the middle at halfway into the outer squares along the line, and since it would curve inwards from there, it would definitely be less than half the square.

[Aimeryan]

The area covered by a 5-ft. radius circle is 79.54 ft. squared. The area of a single five-foot square is 25 feet squared, meaning you need 12.5 feet squared covered by a circle to be "in." Without considering geometry, there are 6.28 (round down to 6) half-5-ft-squares that can be made from 79.54 ft. squared.

So, if you can get more than 4 squares, it would be by centering the cylinder halfway between two corners on an edge of a square. But I suspect that still fails, geometrically, because that would put the furthest point from the center of the two squares in the middle at halfway into the outer squares along the line, and since it would curve inwards from there, it would definitely be less than half the square.

That was the only case I could think of, as well. I checked out all possibilities physically - you can only travel the middle of the cylinder around the sides and corners of the square, so it becomes pretty simple. The corners get you four squares at least half covered, moving away towards the centre of a side and you are only able to cover two squares by at least half.

It really boggles me that they didn't just use a cylinder if they wanted at maximum four, with the possibility of two. Maybe they really wanted you to be able to cover only one space if you desired? I would also naturally prefer a cylinder for a bonfire due to being able to have a different height - 10ft would protect against spiders on the ceiling in most hallways, heh.

[MinotaurWarrior]

That was the only case I could think of, as well. I checked out all possibilities physically - you can only travel the middle of the cylinder around the sides and corners of the square, so it becomes pretty simple. The corners get you four squares at least half covered, moving away towards the centre of a side and you are only able to cover two squares by at least half.

It really boggles me that they didn't just use a cylinder if they wanted at maximum four, with the possibility of two. Maybe they really wanted you to be able to cover only one space if you desired? I would also naturally prefer a cylinder for a bonfire due to being able to have a different height - 10ft would protect against spiders on the ceiling in most hallways, heh.

The problem only comes up when playing on squares, and the developers heavily prioritized ToTM in the DnDNext playtest after early feedback pushed them in that direction. They also tended to disregard any feedback they felt was based on not having actually read the rules.

In general I think they could have done with a page of templates in the PHB, since we already have art that is so close (do we really need a picture reminding us of what a sphere is?) but oh well.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Anyone else just feel angry after reading this thread?





WHY. WHY DID YOU THINK THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA.

Sort of, but i only read threads like this to know ahead of time different ways people will try to "RAW gatcha" you. As unfair as it may sound, i generally come down hard on any "strategy" that requires the players "look dumb" to do "better", and do the opposite for whatever looks cool.

[Vogie]

Mostly DM here - I'd be okay with someone putting it in the middle of a 10 ft hallway, but using esoteric math to have a 5 ft square hit 4-6 squares is just ridiculous... and some of my players have math degrees, so that's an important distinction I'm glad I've never had to make.

In reality, I've never seen someone use it for more than a single-space flames. Flaming out a door, setting fire to hay/oil/grease/etc, or forcing a large or larger creature to move or take damage. In real games, players have broken up a group of targets by throwing a Bonfire on one of them, or blocked a retreat.

I don't want them to feel like everything is literal 5 ft cubes - I wouldn't allow a player to use mold earth to move a 5 ft literal cube of earth, Minecraft-style, then hop in the hole and say they have full cover if they're under 10 ft tall.

As a DM, I make sure creatures react appropriately to the fire, though. If half the hallway bursts into flames, the NPCs won't immediately use their math skills to skirt around it - they'll act like the hallway burst into flame. If the bonfire is in a field, they're not going to get near it unless they absolutely have to, either.

[Segev]

That was the only case I could think of, as well. I checked out all possibilities physically - you can only travel the middle of the cylinder around the sides and corners of the square, so it becomes pretty simple. The corners get you four squares at least half covered, moving away towards the centre of a side and you are only able to cover two squares by at least half.

It really boggles me that they didn't just use a cylinder if they wanted at maximum four, with the possibility of two. Maybe they really wanted you to be able to cover only one space if you desired? I would also naturally prefer a cylinder for a bonfire due to being able to have a different height - 10ft would protect against spiders on the ceiling in most hallways, heh.I think the part I bolded is the most likely reason for a five-foot cube, yes. The second most-likely being the author botching his "understand the rules" roll when he wrote it, and actually intending it to hit only one creature because he thought it would have to be inside only one square.


Sort of, but i only read threads like this to know ahead of time different ways people will try to "RAW gatcha" you. As unfair as it may sound, i generally come down hard on any "strategy" that requires the players "look dumb" to do "better", and do the opposite for whatever looks cool.I actually don't think this is going to "gotcha" you. I hope the discussion here has ameleorated your rage. Did you have any opinion on the analysis of the rules (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24712486&postcount=49) given earlier? (Sorry for the self-promotion, but I think the rules are pretty interesting in their own right, and point out a number of options on how to interpret it, most of which are largely cross-consistent.)

[Mr Adventurer]

FWIW, I don't think your interpretation of 'intersection' is what was intended, regardless of the dictionary definition. I recognise the RAW don't seem to have content that supports me though.

Experiment: using your definition of intersection, can you show me how you would place a 5' square so that no point of origin touches an intersection? I don't think it's possible, which raises the question of why they wrote that it must happen.

[Segev]

FWIW, I don't think your interpretation of 'intersection' is what was intended, regardless of the dictionary definition. I recognise the RAW don't seem to have content that supports me though.

Experiment: using your definition of intersection, can you show me how you would place a 5' square so that no point of origin touches an intersection? I don't think it's possible, which raises the question of why they wrote that it must happen.

The experiment sounds good until you remember that the rules on placing the point of origin are universal for all the AoE shapes, and the rules for where the point of origin of a cube is are what make the grid "place it anywhere." Really, the rule about putting the point of origin on an intersection is largely needless, since the various resolution methods can resolve with the template or tokens or imagined placement being anywhere. But they gave us the placement rules, which tell us, for example, that a fireball must be centered on a line or corner of the grid, and cannot be centered in the middle of a square.