Areas of effect - are they still rediculous by RAW?

[bbrown12]

Hi,

I stopped playing for a few years. After being back to D&D, I realized that there are some new rules concerning areas spell effect. And I was surprised that they still seem to be "broken" when using templates.


DMG, 251: "If an area of effect is circular and covers at least half a square, it affects that square."


XGtE, 85: If any part of a square is under the template, that square is included in the area of effect.

Both rules go into the same direction. The problem seems that escpecially if you position Lines and Cones in a slope way, they affect more fields than they are intended to. The following image shows of a 20 foot line:

How it should look like in my opinion (20 foot line = 4 fields):
https://i.ibb.co/tc5VRPb/Linien.jpg


How it looks like, if you let any field count that is partly covered:
https://i.ibb.co/vzntBc8/Anhang-2-S1.jpg


If cast straight, a 20 foot line covers exactly four fields (or three diagonal fields). But if cast slope, it covers up to 11 fields. That seems rediculous. The same problem also occurs to all the other shapes. I found it most reasonable to apply the "at least half a square"-rule for circular areas (DMG, 251) to any shape. That would somehow solve the problem and lead to the intended amount of affected squares.

I hope I didn't miss something or screwed it up. But I just couldn't believe the rules are still the same and XGtE didn't fix that. So, please tell me, I am wrong!

Would be glad about answers!

Best wishes!

[KorvinStarmast]

Try playing without being grid-focused.

I and a few DMs I have played with will sometimes offer advantage on a saving throw when the PC is at the end/edge of an AoE, particularly if they had been moving on their turn. Note that in the rules, the DM can at any time decide that a situation offers advantage or disadvantage beyond what the default mechanical sources of adv/disad provide.

Rather than agonizing over shapes on a grid, use the tools already at hand. Discuss with your fellow players at the table and see what they think.

[Leon]

Discuss with your fellow players at the table and see what they think.

Talking, its a super power.

[Whoracle]

Also, those example templates are not lines. If you use a line (or reasonable approximation, ie 1 pixel wide), at least your specific problem goes away.

[bbrown12]

Try playing without being grid-focused.

I and a few DMs I have played with will sometimes offer advantage on a saving throw when the PC is at the end/edge of an AoE, particularly if they had been moving on their turn. Note that in the rules, the DM can at any time decide that a situation offers advantage or disadvantage beyond what the default mechanical sources of adv/disad provide.

Rather than agonizing over shapes on a grid, use the tools already at hand. Discuss with your fellow players at the table and see what they think.
Thanks for your tips. But actually that's not what I am searching for. We like playing on a grid. And we like sticking to the RAW as much as possible.


Also, those example templates are not lines. If you use a line (or reasonable approximation, ie 1 pixel wide), at least your specific problem goes away.
Lines in D&D 5E are typically 5-10 feet wide. My examples are correct. Your suggestion might solve the problem, but unfortunately it's not covered by the RAW though.

[KorvinStarmast]

Thanks for your tips. But actually that's not what I am searching for. We like playing on a grid. And we like sticking to the RAW as much as possible. The DM applying rulings is RAW. That you do not find my suggestion suitable to your grid bound play is accepted.
Best of luck and have fun. :smallsmile:

[Whoracle]

Lines in D&D 5E are typically 5-10 feet wide. My examples are correct. Your suggestion might solve the problem, but unfortunately it's not covered by the RAW though.

Where does it say that? DMG p. 251 says translate onto squares or hexes. Not that I'd put it past WotC to not distinguish between a column and a line, but I can't find it.

[bbrown12]

Where does it say that? DMG p. 251 says translate onto squares or hexes. Not that I'd put it past WotC to not distinguish between a column and a line, but I can't find it.
It's included in the spell description.

For example:
"A line of strong wind 60 feet long and 10 feet wide blasts from you in a direction you choose for the spell's duration." (Gust of Wind, PHB, p. 248)
"A stroke of lightning forming a line 100 feet long and 5 feet wide blasts out from you in a direction you choose." (Lightning Bolt, PHB, p. 255)

[Whoracle]

It's included in the spell description.

For example:
"A line of strong wind 60 feet long and 10 feet wide blasts from you in a direction you choose for the spell's duration." (Gust of Wind, PHB, p. 248)

WotC does WotC things. I retract my previous statement and say that WotC should learn geometry.

[da newt]

IMO this is also just as much an issue with the cone and sphere/cylinder/circle when used with a square grid. As others have pointed out, a simple discussion between DM and Players can easy lead to a friendly compromise / agreed upon resolution of which grid spaces are under the influence of the AoE in question, but having to interpret every single AoE is a drag. (How many grid squares does the Paladin's 10' aura cover? Do you measure from the center of their grid or a grid intersection point as per DMG - and then which one, or from the outside edge of the occupied space?? Do you go w/ PHB 1/2 grid or XGtE if it clips a corner that's good enough? These can change the 10' AoE from covering 9 squares to 25 squares.)

I wish all spells had a defined AoE that fit a grid - I'd be just fine with defining AoEs to match a grid specifically in the next gen DnD (or even make them all rectangles) but this is not a popular notion with folks who like the aesthetic of a round fire ball or those who don't use a square grid. I don't really care what the rule is, but I'd rather have a rule than have to rely on a ruling adjudication based on the DM's beliefs every time.

I've been messing with a hexagonal grid recently to try to find a 'better' fit - I think it might hit that Goldilocks solution for me ...

[OldTrees1]

Hi,

I stopped playing for a few years. After being back to D&D, I realized that there are some new rules concerning areas spell effect. And I was surprised that they still seem to be "broken" when using templates.

I hope I didn't miss something or screwed it up. But I just couldn't believe the rules are still the same and XGtE didn't fix that. So, please tell me, I am wrong!



Thanks for your tips. But actually that's not what I am searching for. We like playing on a grid. And we like sticking to the RAW as much as possible.

The DMG specifies how to handle partial squares for some cases. It does not rule on any other cases. It expects the DM to rule on cases like angled lines.

Following RAW, your GM could ignore the rule in XGtE, and use their ruling from the precedent set in the DMG. The outcome is:
https://i.ibb.co/tc5VRPb/Linien.jpg

[bbrown12]

The DMG specifies how to handle partial squares for some cases. It does not rule on any other cases. It expects the DM to rule on cases like angled lines.

Following RAW, your GM could ignore the rule in XGtE, and use their ruling from the precedent set in the DMG. The outcome is:
https://i.ibb.co/tc5VRPb/Linien.jpg
Yeah, that's actually what I am proclaiming. If you use the rule of the DMG which states that "at least 50% of the field has to be affected" for any other shape as well (square, cone, line), you are just fine. I had a huge discussion on that a few years ago on Enworld including maths etc. When I saw that XGtE had another rule I was happy at first. After realizing that they made the same mistake again, I just couldn't believe it and therefore wanted to ask you guys, if I just had missed something (maybe in another book or so). But it seems that WotC just screwed it.


I don't really care what the rule is, but I'd rather have a rule than have to rely on a ruling adjudication based on the DM's beliefs every time.
Exactly this. As I said, we took the rule for circular shapes (aka "the 50% rule") and used it for other forms as well. Talking to the DM and adjusting is okay. But you don't want that on any second spell cast.

[LudicSavant]

Hi,

I stopped playing for a few years. After being back to D&D, I realized that there are some new rules concerning areas spell effect. And I was surprised that they still seem to be "broken" when using templates.





Both rules go into the same direction. The problem seems that escpecially if you position Lines and Cones in a slope way, they affect more fields than they are intended to. The following image shows of a 20 foot line:

How it should look like in my opinion (20 foot line = 4 fields):
https://i.ibb.co/tc5VRPb/Linien.jpg


How it looks like, if you let any field count that is partly covered:
https://i.ibb.co/vzntBc8/Anhang-2-S1.jpg


If cast straight, a 20 foot line covers exactly four fields (or three diagonal fields). But if cast slope, it covers up to 11 fields. That seems rediculous. The same problem also occurs to all the other shapes. I found it most reasonable to apply the "at least half a square"-rule for circular areas (DMG, 251) to any shape. That would somehow solve the problem and lead to the intended amount of affected squares.

I hope I didn't miss something or screwed it up. But I just couldn't believe the rules are still the same and XGtE didn't fix that. So, please tell me, I am wrong!

Would be glad about answers!

Best wishes!

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/834358053746769940/1035602018091409488/unknown.png

The way it's supposed to work, according to the designers, is that the "half a square" rule for circular areas indeed only applies to circles (and spheres), while lines, cones, cubes, and the like affect any square they're covering any part of, period. If that rule was supposed to apply to something other than circular effects, it would have said so.

People getting this wrong and thinking that the 'half a square' rule applies to all AoEs instead of just spheres is why you'll sometimes see people writing 'guides' that rate basically every AoE that isn't a sphere as terrible. Lightning Bolt is not intended to be needle thin, Cloud of Daggers is not intended to only ever be limited to affecting a single square (they even say so in the official advice compendium), etc. If you houserule to make non-circular spells follow the "half-square coverage' rule, all you're really going to accomplish is seeing people default to options like Fireball or Shatter even more often, since you inadvertently nerfed their competition.


The problem seems that escpecially if you position Lines and Cones in a slope way, they affect more fields than they are intended to.

It's the other way around: Doing it the way presented in your first picture results in non-circular AoEs covering less than the devs have repeatedly said they intended.

[Segev]

Lines and cones are already pretty limited in their applicability. Allowing them to cover more space isn't a bad thing. As for lines getting "weird" in that you can angle a line to affect double the number of spaces, remember that the space-covering isn't optional once you choose the endpoint, so you might want the narrower line if, say, you have allies in the path of the broader one.

Also, the RAW do not call for grids by default. Grids are entirely an optional rule, and while you can apply the RAW-of-grids once you apply the optional-rule-of-grids, you should be cognizant of the fact that you're already into technically optional rules, so any house rulings you make are fine as long as it makes your game better.

I have lately been wondering how much worse it would make the gaming experience to add the extra step of pulling out a ruler or pre-measured string to do pathing and positioning, and either ditch the grid entirely (going pure old-school wargaming mode) or using the grid just as some extra bit of visual guidelines.

[KorvinStarmast]

Also, the RAW do not call for grids by default. Grids are entirely an optional rule, and while you can apply the RAW-of-grids once you apply the optional-rule-of-grids, you should be cognizant of the fact that you're already into technically optional rules, so any house rulings you make are fine as long as it makes your game better. True enough.

I have lately been wondering how much worse it would make the gaming experience to add the extra step of pulling out a ruler or pre-measured string to do pathing and positioning, and either ditch the grid entirely (going pure old-school wargaming mode) or using the grid just as some extra bit of visual guidelines. In AD&D that is what we did, generally. Grids were an exception, not a rule, and yes, a bit of visual guidelines was a part of why we used a battle mat.

[arisroot]

Agree with the sentiment that cones and lines are limited anyway, and generally those spells are weaker than their sphere/box counterparts even if you account for the larger AoE.

Also, more often than not cones and lines are used to try to avoid party members on the battlefield, so the more generous rule is not always a positive.

Just my 2c.

[No brains]

You can avoid this 'glitch' by having spells appear at grid intersections and then go their dimensions away from that line. Figure B could be hitting all 8 of those squares.

Also never forget that you can include the point of origin in an AoE if you want to. Useful if you need to burn a swarm off of you, or if you want to try to rocket jump with Thunderwave.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Personally, I prefer to use whichever variant is either
a) easier
b) or more generous to the one producing the effect (PC or NPC). Whether that's "get more enemies in it" or "avoid allies better".

[Kane0]

Seconding hexes as one way to make things just a little smoother

[Tanarii]

I have lately been wondering how much worse it would make the gaming experience to add the extra step of pulling out a ruler or pre-measured string to do pathing and positioning, and either ditch the grid entirely (going pure old-school wargaming mode) or using the grid just as some extra bit of visual guidelines.
Having played a lot of Star Wars Armada in the last few years, it's painful compared to either using a battlemat and winging AOEs, or not using a battlemat and winging movement and AOEs, or just going TotM (maybe with a whiteboard diagram of the basic situation at the beginning of combat).

[Kane0]

I will also absolutely second a whiteboard, those things are amazing especially if you grab some magnets for it

[bbrown12]

Agree with the sentiment that cones and lines are limited anyway, and generally those spells are weaker than their sphere/box counterparts even if you account for the larger AoE.

Also, more often than not cones and lines are used to try to avoid party members on the battlefield, so the more generous rule is not always a positive.

Just my 2c.
Didn't see that from this perspective so far to be honest. It's definitely a point. And I see your point.

Although, I think a convincing argument is that for example a 5 feet wide line shouldn't be 15 feet wide when transferring it to a grid. It should be more or less always be 5 feet wide. I know this is not always possible (and you could easily argue against it even when applying the "at least 50% covered rule" to other shapes as well, because a grid always has some oddity you have to accept). But having a look on the outcome of both variants, it still seems rediculous to me how shapes extend.

And saying that "cone and line spells are weaker anyway" or that "the extend of those aoe also bears the risk of hitting allies as well" is different point. In first place, this has nothing to do with the initial issue/discussion.

[Segev]

Didn't see that from this perspective so far to be honest. It's definitely a point. And I see your point.

Although, I think a convincing argument is that for example a 5 feet wide line shouldn't be 15 feet wide when transferring it to a grid. It should be more or less always be 5 feet wide. I know this is not always possible (and you could easily argue against it even when applying the "at least 50% covered rule" to other shapes as well, because a grid always has some oddity you have to accept). But having a look on the outcome of both variants, it still seems rediculous to me how shapes extend.

And saying that "cone and line spells are weaker anyway" or that "the extend of those aoe also bears the risk of hitting allies as well" is different point. In first place, this has nothing to do with the initial issue/discussion.

If you're looking at the diagonal line and seeing it as fifteen feet wide, I think you are thinking about it wrong. It is clear that the intent of a five foot wide line be that it can be sent down the middle of a double column of men and have the whole column hit, given the rules on "any portion of the square." (Incidentally, this is why you will see people argue that the five foot cube of campfire hits four squares.) This translates to hitting two figures side by side, or an effective width of two medium creatures.

The diagonal may look fifteen feet wide if you count the full perpendicular diagonal across the two square segments, but it is actually still only two medium creatures wide at its widest. And unlike the vertical line aimed down the middle of two files, the diagonal has alternating moments where it is only one figure wide.

I am on my phone, so editing this post means I cannot easily check the diagrams again, but the best way to measure is to look at how many figures are potentially covered by each orientation.

The fact that a five foot wide line hits more than one five foot square "width" seems counterintuitive, but is intended. If two people are within five feet of each other and a five foot wide line passes between them, they both will be within it.

[Lunali]

I typically play with a ruling that it affects a number of squares based on the simplest version of the layout. The caster can choose which partially covered squares get affected as long as the area remains continuous (diagonals count) and roughly meets the description of the area. So a lightning bolt hits 20 squares, one 5 ft away, one 100ft away and 18 that are in between those two.

[Segev]

I typically play with a ruling that it affects a number of squares based on the simplest version of the layout. The caster can choose which partially covered squares get affected as long as the area remains continuous (diagonals count) and roughly meets the description of the area. So a lightning bolt hits 20 squares, one 5 ft away, one 100ft away and 18 that are in between those two.

Not a bad way to run it. Works especially well for lightning bolt: evokes an image of it arcing back and forth a bit.

[LudicSavant]

If you're looking at the diagonal line and seeing it as fifteen feet wide, I think you are thinking about it wrong. It is clear that the intent of a five foot wide line be that it can be sent down the middle of a double column of men and have the whole column hit, given the rules on "any portion of the square." (Incidentally, this is why you will see people argue that the five foot cube of campfire hits four squares.) This translates to hitting two figures side by side, or an effective width of two medium creatures.

The diagonal may look fifteen feet wide if you count the full perpendicular diagonal across the two square segments, but it is actually still only two medium creatures wide at its widest. And unlike the vertical line aimed down the middle of two files, the diagonal has alternating moments where it is only one figure wide.

I am on my phone, so editing this post means I cannot easily check the diagrams again, but the best way to measure is to look at how many figures are potentially covered by each orientation.

The fact that a five foot wide line hits more than one five foot square "width" seems counterintuitive, but is intended. If two people are within five feet of each other and a five foot wide line passes between them, they both will be within it.

This. In the OP's examples, a Lightning Bolt will never hit more than 2 creatures standing side by side on a grid (perpendicular to the orientation it's fired at), and thus is never "15 feet wide." Lightning Bolt is definitely supposed to be able to be fired down a line of guys standing side by side and hit them both, and that's what it's doing in the examples.

On a grid, for all non-circular AoEs, you set the point of origin on an intersection of squares, point it in whatever direction you like, and then any square that is partly covered is affected.

The exception for circular AoEs, unsurprisingly enough, only applies to circular AoEs.

If you houserule otherwise, that's your prerogative, but all it's gonna do is nerf stuff that doesn't need to be nerfed (like Lightning Bolt) and have people using sphere spells (like Fireball) even more. Not a healthy change.

[da newt]

RAW how many medium sized creatures / grid squares does a Paladin's 10' Aura of Protection cover?

Does it's origin have to be a grid intersection?
If the 50% rule is in effect (it is a circle), and the origin point is the center of a grid square (the Paladin) then the 2nd grid away N-S-E-W is covered less than 50%, so it isn't covered, right?
Does it ignore the rules about AoEs and use some other rules (that are written somewhere)?
(2-4-4-2 = 12 or 3-3-3 = 9)

Same question for Spirit Guardians ...
(2-4-6-6-4-2 = 24 or 3-5-5-5-3 = 21)

Or do you just use the Theater of the Mind guide and use Radius/5 round up and only cover 2 w/ a 10' radius?

[Tanarii]

If It is clear that the intent of a five foot wide line be that it can be sent down the middle of a double column of men and have the whole column hit,
Sorry, are you saying this is the intent of a 5ft wide line from the PHB, or this is the intent of the Terrible Tasha grid rules?

Because it's very clear to me that the PHB intent is that a 5ft wide line is intended to hit a single column. Just as the intent of Thunderwave is it can hit 9 medium creatures, and a Paladin Aura affects two allies to their left.

Edit: Circle spells like Moonbeam are a little more questionable, when I take time to envision it. 5ft radius technically shouldn't be able to catch four medium creatures. But I'm fairly sure most people would let it.

[Segev]

Sorry, are you saying this is the intent of a 5ft wide line from the PHB, or this is the intent of the Terrible Tasha grid rules?

Because it's very clear to me that the PHB intent is that a 5ft wide line is intended to hit a single column. Just as the intent of Thunderwave is it can hit 9 medium creatures, and a Paladin Aura affects two allies to their left.

Edit: Circle spells like Moonbeam are a little more questionable, when I take time to envision it. 5ft radius technically shouldn't be able to catch four medium creatures. But I'm fairly sure most people would let it.
Five foot radius is classically what you would expect to catch four creatures standing in a square. It makes a ten foot diameter, and is classically centered on a corner of four squares. :smallconfused:

[Tanarii]

Five foot radius is classically what you would expect to catch four creatures standing in a square. It makes a ten foot diameter, and is classically centered on a corner of four squares. :smallconfused:
I'd need to model it, but it should only be able to catch 2 creatures side by side, by putting it in between them. If you tried to hit four in a square by putting it in the center, I don't think you'd not catch any of them. I could be wrong though, I'm not sure how much of the creatures controlled space you'd actually overlap.

Regardless, as the 5ft wide line should demonstrate, you definitely need more than 50% of a creatures space to be able to hit them. I'd say more like 75% should be required.

[Segev]

I'd need to model it, but it should only be able to catch 2 creatures side by side, by putting it in between them. If you tried to hit four in a square by putting it in the center, I don't think you'd not catch any of them. I could be wrong though, I'm not sure how much of the creatures controlled space you'd actually overlap.

Regardless, as the 5ft wide line should demonstrate, you definitely need more than 50% of a creatures space to be able to hit them. I'd say more like 75% should be required.

A quarter circle is definitely more than 50% of a square whose sides are equal to the radius of the circle.

[Tanarii]

A quarter circle is definitely more than 50% of a square whose sides are equal to the radius of the circle.
Okay yeah clearly I'm envisioning it wrong, because it's 78.5% of its controlled space covered. That's high enough to count a creature as targeted IMO.

In case I'm not being clear, the DMG grids optional rule of 50% is far too low.

[Gignere]

I'd need to model it, but it should only be able to catch 2 creatures side by side, by putting it in between them. If you tried to hit four in a square by putting it in the center, I don't think you'd not catch any of them. I could be wrong though, I'm not sure how much of the creatures controlled space you'd actually overlap.

Regardless, as the 5ft wide line should demonstrate, you definitely need more than 50% of a creatures space to be able to hit them. I'd say more like 75% should be required.

I think you are confusing radius with diameter. 5 ft radius can comfortably fit 4 medium creatures. It would cover just under 79% of the 100 feet square of a 4 x 4 5 ft square.

[Elves]

The DM applying rulings is RAW.
Lol 5e in a nutshell
Person brings up issue “no it’s fine the rules are bad just fix it at home”

Imagine applying this logic to literally any other product that you buy

[EggKookoo]

I have lately been wondering how much worse it would make the gaming experience to add the extra step of pulling out a ruler or pre-measured string to do pathing and positioning, and either ditch the grid entirely (going pure old-school wargaming mode) or using the grid just as some extra bit of visual guidelines.

That's how we do it. Strings originally, then I bought some premade scaled line/cone/circle shapes. Works wonders.

[da newt]

So for the DMG rule "If an area of effect is circular, and covers at least 1/2 a square, it affects that square" to apply the AoE must be "circular."

What AoE's are "circular"? In the PHB pg 204-205 it list all the different shapes of AoEs: Cone, Cube, Cylinder, Line, Sphere. It does NOT list circular as an AoE shape.

Is a sphere circular? Is a cylinder circular? Is a cone circular? They all have a radius ...

Interestingly, all the shapes described are 3 dimensional, except the line, which only has a width and a length.



What shape does a spell like Spirit Guardians have? It lists "You call forth spirits to protect you. They flit around you to a distance of 15 feet for the duration." Stinking Cloud, Fireball, and spell like that actually define the AoE as a sphere. Spirit Guardians only lists a distance from you. Is it only in 2 dimension? Must this AoE be centered on a grid intersection or is it centered in the middle of the grid space the caster occupies? If it is centered at the middle of your medium sized PC, then it covers less than 1/2 of the grid space 3 to the N-S-E-W, and therefor doesn't cover it ...

Or do you ignore the circular 50% coverage rule?
Or do you allow the point of origin to be all of the exterior edges of the space the caster occupies?
Or do you just use the XGtE method for TOKENs and make the circle into a square?
Or do you use the XGtE TEMPLATE method and any grid square partially covered by the template is affected regardless of AoE shape?

IMO: RAW is an absolute mess of contradictions that force the DM to fall back on rulings.

[Tanarii]

The distance from you should from your space. That distinguishes it from an AoE with a radius.

[da newt]

Sorry - huh? "The distance from you should from your space."

Do you mean that you believe the RAI for SG is for it NOT to be an AoE and therefore it has no origin point or radius or follow any of the AoE rules as written (50% circle etc), it just means it affects any space that is within 15' of the space the caster occupies - or in other words a 7 x 7 grid square (assuming the caster is medium, but a larger area if the caster is bigger)?

[sambojin]

For the screwy'est version of this question, read the description of Tidal Wave. Not only is it a "up to these dimensions" spell, and can run in any direction from a point 120' away (possibly in the air) as a line/ box/ blibbet of water, it then has a "lights out" radius (possibly only on the ground under it) of 30' *from the edge of the Tidal Wave, depending on what size you made it*.

Yep, grid that....

[Segev]

For the screwy'est version of this question, read the description of Tidal Wave. Not only is it a "up to these dimensions" spell, and can run in any direction from a point 120' away (possibly in the air) as a line/ box/ blibbet of water, it then has a "lights out" radius (possibly only on the ground under it) of 30' *from the edge of the Tidal Wave, depending on what size you made it*.

Yep, grid that....

Pretty sure the intent is a thirty foot long, ten foot wide line that happens to specify its height matches its width. I think the writes pictured a ten foot cube that moves along the thirty foot line, and then the spread at the end is another thirty feet in every direction, so you wind up with an 70 foot circle of extinguished flames.

What they actually wrote, however, is more of a deluge that appears ten feet in the air and crashes down uniformly on the thirdly foot line, and spreads out from that whole area, for a roughly 90 ft. x 70 ft. rounded rectangle of extinguished flames.

[sambojin]

What they actually wrote was "you can make the impact size as small as a ball-bearing if you want, or pretty big if you want that, up-to dimensions of that size. There's probably reasons you can't upcast this. You can even fire it around corners, down dungeon corridors, or over walls". Geez I wish it was upcastable.... One of the only good instant druid spells, and it lacks and can't gain damage... Bah!
(But it can turn out the lights down half a street, so there's that)

It's still pretty awesome as Air Geyser Flow, Flying Stop Now, or Solid EMP Blast, or whatever you use it for. Concentration considering.

[Segev]

What they actually wrote was "you can make the impact size as small as a ball-bearing if you want, or pretty big if you want that, up-to dimensions of that size. There's probably reasons you can't upcast this. You can even fire it around corners, down dungeon corridors, or over walls". Geez I wish it was upcastable.... One of the only good instant druid spells, and it lacks and can't gain damage... Bah!
(But it can turn out the lights down half a street, so there's that)

It's still pretty awesome as Air Geyser Flow, Flying Stop Now, or Solid EMP Blast, or whatever you use it for. Concentration considering.

You're right that it can be any AoE smaller than that. I don't see how that's a problem, in terms of mapping it out. The damage is very anemic, though, yes.

[animorte]

I’ve always assumed from a literal area standpoint that even though the line of fire technically missed, standing within a foot of it probably doesn’t feel that great either.