Create Bonfire + Repelling Blast

[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/ba...PLAYINGONAGRID 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

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.

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.