DnD One should change all AOEs - opinion

[da newt]

With the next iteration of the game WotC have a chance to fix one of the glaring issues plaguing combat on a grid system - geometry, specifically the fact that circles / columns / spheres don't conform to the grid. Now is their chance to eliminate all 'radius' based AoEs and make everything a square / cube. The simplification would be marvelous and so easy to accomplish.

Thoughts? Do y'all think it's worth bringing to them, or will all the grey beards insist that it's always been that way so it must continue?

[stoutstien]

Soooo PF2? Again.

[KorvinStarmast]

With the next iteration of the game WotC have a chance to fix one of the glaring issues plaguing combat on a grid system - geometry, specifically the fact that circles / columns / spheres don't conform to the grid. Now is their chance to eliminate all 'radius' based AoEs and make everything a square / cube. The simplification would be marvelous and so easy to accomplish. Please don't make the game grid-bound. That's my input.

[Amnestic]

This was how it worked in 4e iirc? And people kicked off about it, of course, though maybe that was because it counted squares rather than feet.

Gotta say I'm pretty ambivalent on it. Wouldn't hate it if they went back to measuring areas in grid-appropriate ways, but it's 'fine' as is at the moment.

If they are going to pretend that theatre of the mind is the primary way this game is played though they should probably do more to support that though.

[Psyren]

I like spheres/domes/cyliners/cones :smallfrown:

[Sparky McDibben]

I'd prefer if my fireball expanded in a circle, not in a set of grid squares.

[KorvinStarmast]

I like spheres/domes/cyliners/cones :smallfrown:

I'd prefer if my fireball expanded in a circle, not in a set of grid squares.These are also how I feel, I was perhaps too terse in my initial response.

[stoutstien]

I've never actually liked square grids. I know that they're traditional in this style game and people like them because they're simple but I think they end up causing way more problems then they solve.

*I've been experimenting with a triangle grid. Not only can you make effects that are cubes you can also very easily fit circles and spheres onto it. Instead of having everybody locked into a grid they are relatively going to be located at the intersections. Best part is you can modify hex grids to work with little effort.*

[LudicSavant]

With the next iteration of the game WotC have a chance to fix one of the glaring issues plaguing combat on a grid system - geometry, specifically the fact that circles / columns / spheres don't conform to the grid. Now is their chance to eliminate all 'radius' based AoEs and make everything a square / cube. The simplification would be marvelous and so easy to accomplish.

Thoughts? Do y'all think it's worth bringing to them, or will all the grey beards insist that it's always been that way so it must continue?

It's rather against the philosophy that built 5e in the first place -- to try to make it very compatible with a wide array of playstyles, whether that's a grid, measuring distances like a wargame, theater of the mind, or whatever you like. Heck, the default rule in 5e is still playing without a grid ('theater of the mind').

Then again, WotC does seem to be forgetting about this mindset with some of One D&D's rules (even if they might be doing it by accident, which is worrying). For example, all the skill features that trigger 'on a failure' only work neatly if you're using binary pass/fail skill checks, as opposed to some of the other options in the DMG.

Even aside from that, though, I'm not a big fan of cubed explosions. It sort of signals 'this is more about being a wargame than being an immersive world.'

[Willie the Duck]

Thoughts? Do y'all think it's worth bringing to them, or will all the grey beards insist that it's always been that way so it must continue?
It hasn't always been that way it is now. 4e had square fireballs specifically to make this so. 3e had templates in the book to turn specific radii into 'pixelated' circles. Basic-classic and AD&D certainly had specific radii that only matched grids if the DM forced it, but it also had effects that don't show up in 5e like fireballs in constrained spaces expanding out*, potentially catching the PCs in its' effect even if they weren't in the supposed blast radius.
*"The burst of the fireball does not expend a considerable amount of pressure, and the burst will generally conform to the shape of the area in which it occurs, thus covering an area equal to its normal spherical volume. [The area which is covered by the fireball is a total volume of roughly 33,000 cubic feet (or yards)]."

Honestly, they seem to be going back and forth and all around in an effort to make this most convenient for the game, with various ideas on what that is. Just giving a radius and letting the DM decide edge cases is a most convenient option, with the ongoing issue that people who chafe under the overall 5e mantra of DM adjudication over hard and fast rules will chafe under this one as well. 4e's method was similarly about as convenient as can be, but drove geometry purists or anyone who disliked gamist > sim/verisimilitude conventions up the wall. 3e was a compromise between gamist convenience and verisimilitude, but like much of 3e sacrificed ease of use*.
*envisioning/putting down a template onto a battlemat is not, by itself, overly burdensome, but neither was adding up each individual source of AC to determine if it counted against a brilliant energy weapon touch-attack while flat-footed, it was the totality of these issues that made the game less welcoming to newbies/beer&pretzel gamers.

In my opinion -- Fundamentally, any given method, used consistently, works pretty much as well as any other. If you would have been able to catch one more enemy in your AoE with another method, next time you'll be glad you are using that other method because this time you would catch an ally in your AoE because of it. With regards to verisimilitude, all of them are arguing over the edges (heh) of the big issue that every character being in a specific location (effectively frozen) during a given initiative count when it isn't their turn and another character is considering using an AoE on them is an abstraction used for game convenience*.
*One I think work altogether too well to scrap for massive increase in game complexity and unclear gains in anything else.

My proposal -- keep the system as-is, with the 3e (and maybe 4e as well) templates included in an appendix marked as optional ideas for those who dislike the default.

[Zhorn]

I like spheres/domes/cyliners/cones :smallfrown:

I'd prefer if my fireball expanded in a circle, not in a set of grid squares.

These are also how I feel, I was perhaps too terse in my initial response.
Seconded Thirded Fourthed Agreed


Best part is you can modify hex grids to work with little effort.*
Hexagons are indeed bestagons

[Yakk]

I've never actually liked square grids. I know that they're traditional in this style game and people like them because they're simple but I think they end up causing way more problems then they solve.

*I've been experimenting with a triangle grid. Not only can you make effects that are cubes you can also very easily fit circles and spheres onto it. Instead of having everybody locked into a grid they are relatively going to be located at the intersections. Best part is you can modify hex grids to work with little effort.*
So, a hex grid is just 6 triangles glued together.

If you take a hex grid, and allow pieces to be on vertices *or* hex faces, then you get a "hidden" triangle grid.

[stoutstien]

So, a hex grid is just 6 triangles glued together.

If you take a hex grid, and allow pieces to be on vertices *or* hex faces, then you get a "hidden" triangle grid.

Yep. It fixes a lot of the issues I run into overlaying maps and reach/movement.

[Segev]

Go to the true wargamer's way, and eliminate grids! Just use rulers! >_> <_<

More seriously, while that's actually a perfectly valid way to play the game, grids work fine, too. I think the 5e recommended way of handling circles in grids is still to just treat them as squares, though I could be wrong. I'm a fan of, even when using ruler methods, using grids as shortcuts for most of it, and pulling out the ruler and templates primarily for long distances over non-cardinal/semi-cardinal angles or for circles and cones, then eyeballing whether somebody is in the template or not. (Half the base under is a good metric; you can also get fancy and offer cover-type bonuses to saving throws for being half or 3/4 out of the area.)

But grids are good enough, even if your cones and circles are square-ish.

But also, rulers are a perfectly good way to play without grids. One inch is 5 feet. Have fun!

(As a side note, using rulers and no grids, this makes 5 foot and 10 foot reach somewhat more flexible, and also can make granularity down to 1 foot of movement more important. A customized inch-ruler that divides into fifths may be useful if you really want precision, and depending on your table, could be fun to play with.)

[Yakk]

Yep. It fixes a lot of the issues I run into overlaying maps and reach/movement.

Thinking -- make each hex 2 yards. So moving from hex to vertex is 1 yard.

Light weapons have a reach of 1 yard or 1/2 hexes.
Normal weapons have a reach of 2 yards or 1 hexes.
Heavy weapons have a reach of 3 yards or 1.5 hexes.
Reach weapons have a reach of 4 yards or 2 hexes.

(a yard is 3 feet or about a meter. PCs typically have a speed of 10 yards or 5 hexes (you could make this 6 hexes, so your speed in terms of squares/hexes stays the same, without much harm). Class features that add +5x movement can add +x hexes of movement (2x yards) and it shouldn't cause a problem -- +10' speed that monks and barbarians get make them move 14 yards or 7 hexes.)

[Person_Man]

Some portion of players play the game in the “Theatre of the Mind” without any miniatures or maps, particularly during the pandemic over Zoom or whatever. These players generally prefer rules in natural language, described with a high degree of verisimilitude. These are many of the same players who didn’t like 4E. And when WotC made 5E, they specifically avoided including many of the more crunchy/gamey rules, to cater to this fan base. (For example, dramatically simplifying Opportunity Attacks).

[Reynaert]

So, a hex grid is just 6 triangles glued together.

If you take a hex grid, and allow pieces to be on vertices *or* hex faces, then you get a "hidden" triangle grid.

I assume that on that "hidden" triangle grid, the pieces always go on vertices and move along edges?

That's just a hex grid in disguise.

[stoutstien]

Thinking -- make each hex 2 yards. So moving from hex to vertex is 1 yard.

Light weapons have a reach of 1 yard or 1/2 hexes.
Normal weapons have a reach of 2 yards or 1 hexes.
Heavy weapons have a reach of 3 yards or 1.5 hexes.
Reach weapons have a reach of 4 yards or 2 hexes.

(a yard is 3 feet or about a meter. PCs typically have a speed of 10 yards or 5 hexes (you could make this 6 hexes, so your speed in terms of squares/hexes stays the same, without much harm). Class features that add +5x movement can add +x hexes of movement (2x yards) and it shouldn't cause a problem -- +10' speed that monks and barbarians get make them move 14 yards or 7 hexes.)

Yep in a nutshell though I went for a smaller scale to make fighting more dynamic and movement/reach more valuable.
I have a pretty relaxed relationship with the grid unless it's important then it's probably a question of feet and seconds.

[Yakk]

I assume that on that "hidden" triangle grid, the pieces always go on vertices and move along edges?

That's just a hex grid in disguise.

No, you can be either on the hex face OR on the vertex.

Moving from a hex face to a vertex is 0.5 hex or 1 yard of movement. Moving to another hex face is 1 hex or 2 yards of movement.

Moving to another vertex of the same hex is 1-2 yards of movement (1 if it is adjacent to you, 2 otherwise).

The goal is:
1. If you ignore the vertexes, it acts like a hex grid.
2. Being on vertex is a half-hex-move away from its center.
3. It handles narrow corridors a bit better, as you can move in a strait line along every compass direction.



. .

. .

. .

That is a hex. Legal spots are any of the corners AND


. .

. X .

. .

the middle.

I consider the "middle" to be the real spot you can be in, the vertexes are fine-grained details. In the above example, I added sub-hex ranges to weapons; light weapon users have to snuggle up to their targets a bit closer. But you can just ignore that really.

if you add imaginary lines from the center of the hex to each corner, you'll see this is actually a triangle grid. Moving from one hex to another is 2 triangle sides (center -> vertex -> center).

In a narrow corridor, probably let someone be on an edge as well as a vertex.

[animorte]

Hexagons are indeed bestagons
Yestagon.

you can move in a strait line along every compass direction.
This is the precise reason I prefer hex.

[stoutstien]

I doubt anyone is seriously going to apply an isometric grid to a tabletop RPG it was just something I played with while trying to get overlapping circles onto a table without actually drawing a bunch of overlapping circles. I am also a sucker for cone effect so of course triangles work

[Psyren]

Hexagons are indeed bestagons


Yestagon.

This is the precise reason I prefer hex.

Wow, you know, it's great to see you being such good sports about this! (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0175.html)

[Pex]

Some portion of players play the game in the “Theatre of the Mind” without any miniatures or maps, particularly during the pandemic over Zoom or whatever. These players generally prefer rules in natural language, described with a high degree of verisimilitude. These are many of the same players who didn’t like 4E. And when WotC made 5E, they specifically avoided including many of the more crunchy/gamey rules, to cater to this fan base. (For example, dramatically simplifying Opportunity Attacks).

Including of this to talk of squares and hexes is too gamey. The rules and math matter, but when you delve too much into jargon you lose the aesthetic. It's part of why I'm not a fan of Pathfinder 2E magic. You aren't Slowed. You suffer Slow[1] or Slow[2]. Conditions are given grades of effect which you look up on a table they only need to print once. (I know what I wrote. Tables aren't the solution for everything.) Fireball 20 ft radius sounds better than Fireball 4 squares cubed.

[EggKookoo]

For a long time now I just use lengths of string scaled to 15 feet, 30 feet, 60 feet, etc. for ranges and distances. It's visual, angle-agnostic, and simple.

[Asmotherion]

Spheres and Radiuses are just fine as they are IMO, never been a problem in my games.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Telok]

I want real cones & lines again, not the crap that keeps getting shoveled out of the stable to make it fit grids.

[stoutstien]

Including of this to talk of squares and hexes is too gamey. The rules and math matter, but when you delve too much into jargon you lose the aesthetic. It's part of why I'm not a fan of Pathfinder 2E magic. You aren't Slowed. You suffer Slow[1] or Slow[2]. Conditions are given grades of effect which you look up on a table they only need to print once. (I know what I wrote. Tables aren't the solution for everything.) Fireball 20 ft radius sounds better than Fireball 4 squares cubed.

Some people just aren't good at visualizing spatial mechanics without some form of representation. I am horrible dyslexia which means I'm naturally looking at stuff in a three-dimensional planes where my wife has a hard time playing if there isn't a grid. You kind of have to find that happy medium for your players

[Jervis]

With the next iteration of the game WotC have a chance to fix one of the glaring issues plaguing combat on a grid system - geometry, specifically the fact that circles / columns / spheres don't conform to the grid. Now is their chance to eliminate all 'radius' based AoEs and make everything a square / cube. The simplification would be marvelous and so easy to accomplish.

Thoughts? Do y'all think it's worth bringing to them, or will all the grey beards insist that it's always been that way so it must continue?

4E did it. That should tell you why they wont

[Jervis]

Wow, you know, it's great to see you being such good sports about this! (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0175.html)

Hexes are the superior method of measurement, just never walk to the left

[Oramac]

I like spheres/domes/cyliners/cones :smallfrown:


I'd prefer if my fireball expanded in a circle, not in a set of grid squares.

Same here.

[Postmodernist]

Some portion of players play the game in the “Theatre of the Mind” without any miniatures or maps, particularly during the pandemic over Zoom or whatever. These players generally prefer rules in natural language, described with a high degree of verisimilitude. These are many of the same players who didn’t like 4E. And when WotC made 5E, they specifically avoided including many of the more crunchy/gamey rules, to cater to this fan base. (For example, dramatically simplifying Opportunity Attacks).

This. I was a big 3.5 player, but the crunch often came to be too much and often got in the way of the role playing. 4E felt more like a tactical miniatures game than an RPG. 5E feels like a good balance, but I'm not against streamlining when One arrives.

[Reynaert]

No, you can be either on the hex face OR on the vertex.

Moving from a hex face to a vertex is 0.5 hex or 1 yard of movement. Moving to another hex face is 1 hex or 2 yards of movement.

Moving to another vertex of the same hex is 1-2 yards of movement (1 if it is adjacent to you, 2 otherwise).

The goal is:
1. If you ignore the vertexes, it acts like a hex grid.
2. Being on vertex is a half-hex-move away from its center.
3. It handles narrow corridors a bit better, as you can move in a strait line along every compass direction.



. .

. .

. .

That is a hex. Legal spots are any of the corners AND


. .

. X .

. .

the middle.

I consider the "middle" to be the real spot you can be in, the vertexes are fine-grained details. In the above example, I added sub-hex ranges to weapons; light weapon users have to snuggle up to their targets a bit closer. But you can just ignore that really.

if you add imaginary lines from the center of the hex to each corner, you'll see this is actually a triangle grid. Moving from one hex to another is 2 triangle sides (center -> vertex -> center).

In a narrow corridor, probably let someone be on an edge as well as a vertex.

Yes, I understood that the first time. And that is, like I said, just a hex grid in disguise.

To see what I mean, take your hex grid with vertices and centers:

This is a hex. Legal spot is in the middle and the corners


. .

. X .

. .

Let's expand that grid a bit so we have more hexes in it:


. . . .

. X . . X .

. . X . .

. X . . X .

. . X . .

. X . . X .

. . X . .

. .

Let's mark each corner with an X because you're allowed to stand there as well:


X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X


And then, draw a border line between each pair of Xes:


X | X X | X
\ / \ / \ / \ /
X | X | X | X | X | X
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \
X | X | X | X | X
\ / \ / \ / \ / \ /
X | X | X | X | X | X
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \
X | X | X | X | X
\ / \ / \ / \ / \ /
X | X | X | X | X | X
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \
X | X | X | X | X
/ \ / \
X | X


And finally, remove the Xes:



| |
\ / \ / \ / \ /
| | | | |
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \
| | | |
\ / \ / \ / \ / \ /
| | | | |
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \
| | | |
\ / \ / \ / \ / \ /
| | | | |
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \
| | | |
/ \ / \
|


Et voila! A hex grid.

NB: Or, instead of drawing borders between Xes, you draw connecting lines:



X - X X - X
/ \ / \ / \ / \
X - X - X - X - X - X
\ / \ / \ / \ / \ /
X - X - X - X - X
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \
X - X - X - X - X - X
\ / \ / \ / \ / \ /
X - X - X - X - X
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \
X - X - X - X - X - X
\ / \ / \ / \ / \ /
X - X - X - X - X
\ / \ /
X - X


Look, there's your hidden triangle grid, drawn out.

TL;DR: If you take a hex grid and instead of borders, you draw the connection lines (i.e. the lines you can follow when moving), you get a triangle grid!
That is, a triangle grid where you move on vertices is exactly the same as a hex grid where you move on spaces. Aint maths grand!

[Kane0]

No thanks, i use a hex grid

[Jervis]

If we’re being honest the real Chad option is gridless, all mentions of feat are replaced with inches on the battle map

[Segev]

If we’re being honest the real Chad option is gridless, all mentions of feat are replaced with inches on the battle map

Technically, you probably want every inch to be five feet, but yes. This would be the best way to eliminate all problems with a grid fitting spacing of things. It also is... harder than grids to work with, but possibly not as hard as people think.

[Yakk]

TL;DR: If you take a hex grid and instead of borders, you draw the connection lines (i.e. the lines you can follow when moving), you get a triangle grid!
That is, a triangle grid where you move on vertices is exactly the same as a hex grid where you move on spaces. Aint maths grand!
Oh, its the dual. Makes sense.

[Jervis]

Technically, you probably want every inch to be five feet, but yes. This would be the best way to eliminate all problems with a grid fitting spacing of things. It also is... harder than grids to work with, but possibly not as hard as people think.

Memes aside it’s much easier digitally than in person.

[Segev]

Memes aside it’s much easier digitally than in person.

I... actually doubt that. I am sure the tool is a little easier to use, but the setup and the checking probably take about the same time.

I can see advantages to both, but I just don't see it being that much harder in person, unless you just can't reach. And that's still analogous to having to scroll around and mess with which tool is active at any point in your tabletop program.

[Composer99]

So, frankly, I don't see the problem with converting areas of effect to squares, either formally or informally - the latter being, in effect, what creature sizes imply for the space a creature occupies. For instance, a Large creature takes up the same space as a 5-foot-radius circle. That is, because of how the game abstracts the space creatures occupy, 5e already does with creature sizes what da newt wants it to do with spell areas.

However, I don't think this ought to be the default method. Because D&D is the biggest deal on the market, it simply has to cater to a wide variety of playing styles - da newt and KorvinStormast alike. To my mind, it would be better the game's approach is something like is already in the DMG - maybe fleshed out a little more. (I don't want to look through the books but I think there's stuff in Xanathar's that could be added to the 2024 DMG, perhaps?)

So, in my opinion, the DMG should discuss playing combat:
- in theatre of the mind
- with a square grid (using either conventional or squared areas)
- with a hex grid
- with physically measuring distances as described by Segev (*)
- maaayybe with some other options (or at least mention their existence)

while being agnostic as to which method any given table is going to use. Each of these four major options, if not necessarily any others, should at least have some concrete suggestions on how to make things work quickly and smoothly in gameplay.

Of course, the PHB has to have some sort of explicit or implied default; since I suspect the two most common approaches are theatre-of-the-mind and square grid, I'm inclined to say the way the 2014 PHB does it is more or less fine.

(*) Takes me back to my days of playing Warhammer as a pre-teen!

[Pex]

It would be fine to have a picture template page to show what the various circles, cones, and lines would look like on a grid map. Do it for square grids and hex grids. It's been done before.

[greenstone]

I would like to see consistency. If fireballs are circles then so should be throwing things and walking.

[Sigreid]

If their virtual table top they're talking up can't handle drawing a circle or even sphere on the map (since it's supposed to be 3d) it'll be pretty lame.

[PhantomSoul]

I would like to see consistency. If fireballs are circles then so should be throwing things and walking.

I think when a circle walks it's called rolling

[Witty Username]

Technically, you probably want every inch to be five feet, but yes. This would be the best way to eliminate all problems with a grid fitting spacing of things. It also is... harder than grids to work with, but possibly not as hard as people think.
You just need measuring tape and a table don't you, maybe some manipulatives for terrain?

I have personally been drifting in and out of theater of the mind. And practicing freehanding terrain, mostly with wooden cubes and jenga blocks.

[Keravath]

I would not like the idea of modifying spell area of effect to match a grid since there are lots of folks who play theater of the mind, others use a map without a grid, some who play on square grids and others who use hexes. Forcing the game mechanic to pick one representation would impact everyone who doesn't use that method.

In addition, from the point of view of immersion and verisimilitude, a cubic fireball makes far less sense to me than a sphere though either could be justified on the basis of "magic", fireball is usually depicted as exploding from a point rather than suddenly filling a volume with fire.

Finally, if it is a problem at your table then you can just use a rule that converts every radius effect into a square area (see Xanathar's for Area of Effect on a grid using the Token method if you need rules for it) . e.g. 15' radius becomes a 6x6 or 7x7 square grid for example depending on where the spell is centered - in the 7x7 case only half or quarter squares would be affected in the outermost ring so the corner squares in the outer ring would end up excluded.

P.S. This kind of change would be exactly why I'd avoid One D&D if they decided to go that way with it.

[Psyren]

You don't have to map all AoE to a grid, but "here's what {area} looks like on a 5ft-square grid" is reasonable.

That doesn't have to be in the books though, they can just publish templates and the like online. That would make it official without appearing to recommend one style over the other the way they did in prior editions.

[animorte]

If they are in fact working on VTT via DnDBeyond, I wonder how that will account for the AoEs. Will they decide on one path to take or offer various options (which will require different coding and visuals)?

They will need to take into account squares vs hex and map each spell accordingly, I would think. If they choose one template specifically (easier for coding), that might resemble them making a decision on what we should use. Alternatively, if they choose multiples variations that we can choose between based on preference, that will prove that we do have a choice and they aren’t trying to set a standard.

We all know how everybody has a different perception on these matters. And whatever they do stink doesn’t dictate each table’s individual preferences.