OOC Discussion 8.   Posted by GM Arkrim.Group: 0
Josep Gavinho
 Wizard 7,544, 1616 posts
 Human Wizard
 Thaumaturgical Alliance
Sat 30 Jun 2018
at 22:09
Re: OOC Discussion 8
Arkrim, you've made your call regarding the ongoing fight, and I want things to move along there, but can we talk about some of this here?

Arkrim:
1) All area effects are bound by the lines of the grid.
You cannot be 3 inches in or out or over the lines. You're on the lines and inside the squares. This ruling has been made many times and you shouldn't even be asking about it at this point.

2) You cannot customize shapes of your area effects.
Unless explicitly noted otherwise by the effect or some other feat or ability that says you can, you cannot alter the shape described in the effect. So no creating "gaps" or "holes" in walls or anything like that. It is assumed you can make areas smaller than normal, but you cannot customize the shapes. So if you normally have a 30-foot cone, you can make it a 15-foot cone instead but you cannot alter it from a cone to a blast or burst or attempt to alter it's ratio size off what the grid allows in 5-foot increments (you could not do a 7.5-foot cone or 3 inch cone but it would always be split into management whole number increments based on the grid and the base spell BOTH needed to have whole numbers on any ratio reduction). Same thing applies to walls and all area effects. You can make the wall SMALLER than the spell states, but not bigger nor can you customize its shape. It's always in 10-foot increments for walls of force AS DESCRIBED IN THE SPELL.

3) Any wall with a thickness less than this lays ON THE LINE OF THE GRID.

Any wall with a thickness equal to or greater than 2.5 feet fills the square that it's in (pick one). Also no exceptions here. Assume a wall is 1 inch thick unless exclusively noted otherwise.


I've highlighted the sections that puzzle me, could you elaborate on the following:
 - are you suggesting we can reduce the area of spells willy-nilly? Like, make a 5ft fireball for example? That's a huge change from core rules, so if it is what you mean, I suppose it should be explicitly said.

 - Wall of Force doesn't say that it needs to be in 10ft increment. You can decide that it is the rule here for balance purposes or shenanigan prevention or any other reason, but that's not how wall of force works anywhere else.

 - on the line of the grid: does that mean that we can't create a wall on a diagonal?
Jayce the Tamer
 Summoner 12,322, 748 posts
 Human Summoner
Sat 30 Jun 2018
at 22:38
Re: OOC Discussion 8
I'm awaiting the closing of Igar and Grunyar's match.
GM Arkrim
 GM, 6519 posts
 Game Master
Mon 2 Jul 2018
at 05:14
Re: OOC Discussion 8
Josep Gavinho:
Arkrim, you've made your call regarding the ongoing fight, and I want things to move along there, but can we talk about some of this here?

Arkrim:
1) All area effects are bound by the lines of the grid.
You cannot be 3 inches in or out or over the lines. You're on the lines and inside the squares. This ruling has been made many times and you shouldn't even be asking about it at this point.

2) You cannot customize shapes of your area effects.
Unless explicitly noted otherwise by the effect or some other feat or ability that says you can, you cannot alter the shape described in the effect. So no creating "gaps" or "holes" in walls or anything like that. It is assumed you can make areas smaller than normal, but you cannot customize the shapes. So if you normally have a 30-foot cone, you can make it a 15-foot cone instead but you cannot alter it from a cone to a blast or burst or attempt to alter it's ratio size off what the grid allows in 5-foot increments (you could not do a 7.5-foot cone or 3 inch cone but it would always be split into management whole number increments based on the grid and the base spell BOTH needed to have whole numbers on any ratio reduction). Same thing applies to walls and all area effects. You can make the wall SMALLER than the spell states, but not bigger nor can you customize its shape. It's always in 10-foot increments for walls of force AS DESCRIBED IN THE SPELL.

3) Any wall with a thickness less than this lays ON THE LINE OF THE GRID.

Any wall with a thickness equal to or greater than 2.5 feet fills the square that it's in (pick one). Also no exceptions here. Assume a wall is 1 inch thick unless exclusively noted otherwise.


I've highlighted the sections that puzzle me, could you elaborate on the following:
 - are you suggesting we can reduce the area of spells willy-nilly? Like, make a 5ft fireball for example? That's a huge change from core rules, so if it is what you mean, I suppose it should be explicitly said.


- Wall of Force doesn't say that it needs to be in 10ft increment. You can decide that it is the rule here for balance purposes or shenanigan prevention or any other reason, but that's not how wall of force works anywhere else.

 - on the line of the grid: does that mean that we can't create a wall on a diagonal?



1) House rules going away, but that'd be my ruling EVERY TIME I'm called in as a GM. Keep in mind, it doesn't mean "willy nilly" since you still have to follow the shape AND grid, so there are actually very few things you can do with it. Your fireball could go from 20-foot to 10-foot or even 5 foot, but not 12.53333 feet, or 19 feet 10 inches or anything silly like that. It'd still have to follow the grid and shape.

2) Actually, that's EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS IN THE DESCRIPTION. Saying otherwise is literally a blatant lie or the uttering of someone who hasn't read the spell very carefully:
quote:
wall whose area is up to one 10-ft. square/level

You don't get "10 square feet of wall per level" you get "one 10-ft. square/level". That is LITERALLY what it says RAW. I personally think the RAW is silly, but I wasn't asked for what it should be. I was asked for what it is. That's what it is.

3) Yes and no. If you create a diagonal wall that isn't thick enough to fill the squares you get to do this fun zig zag thing. Get creative, but always obey the grid.
Vry
 Sorcerer 3,172, 640 posts
 Advanced Gnome
 Shadow's Caress
Mon 2 Jul 2018
at 07:44
Re: OOC Discussion 8
I was so sure there is a metamagic feat to reduce the aoe of a spell (one of those feats you'd extremely rarely see used and so haven't seen still today), which would be strange with Arkrim's ruling, but there isn't... (Selective Spell is the closest, and it fills other purposes)
Grunyar Fangblood
 Summoner 6,282, 935 posts
 Skinwalker Summoner
Mon 2 Jul 2018
at 09:03
Re: OOC Discussion 8
In reply to Vry (msg # 980):

Don't have time to do the leg work I was thinking same thing.  Must have been in D&D 3.5 or was it a class.
Josep Gavinho
 Wizard 7,544, 1617 posts
 Human Wizard
 Thaumaturgical Alliance
Mon 2 Jul 2018
at 14:52
Re: OOC Discussion 8
Arkrim:
3) Yes and no. If you create a diagonal wall that isn't thick enough to fill the squares you get to do this fun zig zag thing. Get creative, but always obey the grid.


 Wall of Force cannot turn corners. It needs to be a flat plane.
Nothing in the rules says it needs to be a plane thatís orthogonal with true North or whatever the grid is based on, but is says it needs to be flat.
 But I suppose your ruling supersedes that.
 Rules are so far down the drain theyíre probably at sea right now ;) Letís get creative !
GM Arkrim
 GM, 6520 posts
 Game Master
Mon 2 Jul 2018
at 23:29
Re: OOC Discussion 8
In reply to Vry (msg # 980):
That's just how I'd rule it as a referee. Not all referees will be so generous since there's no RAW to give it to you unless you have a special feat or class feature or whatnot.


In reply to Josep Gavinho (msg # 982):
Yes, that's the idea. We're flushing the majority of the house rules and going back to RAW.

We will still have rulings (interpretations of the rules where they are vague) but house rules will be chucked (save for the ones necessary explicitly for the arena, such as arena immunities, non-transition outside the arena, and gridlines, for example). If you did a diagonal line it would still be "flat" RP-wise but in the game it would have to work on the grid. Remember, "straight line" as far as RAW is concerned has always included zig zagging for movement when weird angles come into play. Nothing has changed. If you've ever actually played with a grid and run at a target with anything other than a perfect line on the grid to them, then you should already know how that works. Most people figure that out early when they first learn D&D or Pathfinder. "straight line" is hardly ever TRULY straight.

This message was last edited by the GM at 23:32, Mon 02 July 2018.

Boadicea
 Fighter 9,116, 1212 posts
 Advanced Human Fighter
Mon 2 Jul 2018
at 23:58
Re: OOC Discussion 8
quote:
If you've ever actually played with a grid and run at a target with anything other than a perfect line on the grid to them, then you should already know how that works. Most people figure that out early when they first learn D&D or Pathfinder. "straight line" is hardly ever TRULY straight.



Thank you GM, I know at least one rules lawyer who in a heartbeat would question that if a "straight" wall was used in combat against him. He knows who I am talking about :).  For charges and movement I knew that but I never thought of it in that way for walls and the like.
GM Arkrim
 GM, 6521 posts
 Game Master
Tue 3 Jul 2018
at 10:59
Re: OOC Discussion 8
In reply to Boadicea (msg # 984):

A lot of people just avoid using walls in any fashion other than squares so they don't have to think about it, but it's the closest thing to match the AOE rules/restrictions/templates that they have in the existing game. When the game gives pre-designated templates for all AoEs except for 1 type (walls) the obvious reaction to that is to continue the pattern they were working off of where the missing information is. Again, that goes into making rulings where the rules themselves are vague, paradoxical, or simply non-existent.
Igar-Kruk
 Barbarimonk 1,349, 78 posts
 Gnoll Barbarian/Monk
Wed 4 Jul 2018
at 10:29
Re: OOC Discussion 8
Hey, does anybody know where the part about the 1d% for miss chance needing to be higher than the miss chance is actually written? I might need to cite sources to win an argument soon but can't find it in either the core or gm books. ^^'

This message was last edited by the player at 10:30, Wed 04 July 2018.

Josep Gavinho
 Wizard 7,544, 1619 posts
 Human Wizard
 Thaumaturgical Alliance
Wed 4 Jul 2018
at 12:28
Re: OOC Discussion 8
I think it is only inferred by the fact that itís calles a ď50% miss chanceĒ, not a ď50% hit chanceĒ.
Even if itís not RAW in core, itís certainly the rule in the Arena.
Jayce the Tamer
 Summoner 13,275, 750 posts
 Human Summoner
Thu 5 Jul 2018
at 03:14
Re: OOC Discussion 8
Yay! Our match is closed. Igar. Do you want to tango?
Igar-Kruk
 Barbarimonk 2,396, 79 posts
 Gnoll Barbarian/Monk
Thu 5 Jul 2018
at 23:02
Re: OOC Discussion 8
In reply to Jayce the Tamer (msg # 988):

Ave GM, morituri te salutant!

I mean yes.
Jayce the Tamer
 Summoner 13,275, 751 posts
 Human Summoner
Fri 6 Jul 2018
at 02:10
Re: OOC Discussion 8
In reply to Igar-Kruk (msg # 989):

Haha, I love it. You know that's a game?
Grunyar Fangblood
 Summoner 6,731, 936 posts
 Skinwalker Summoner
Fri 6 Jul 2018
at 02:22
Re: OOC Discussion 8
Man was about to post PM to change race when I noticed that I didn't have veteran status then saw this :(

quote:
Victory
Battle-scarred: Fight in 10 PvP battles.
Veteran: Fight in 25 PvP battles.
Great Old One: Fight in 50 PvP battles.


So I am only battle scarred...
Jayce the Tamer
 Summoner 13,275, 752 posts
 Human Summoner
Fri 6 Jul 2018
at 02:43
Re: OOC Discussion 8
In reply to Grunyar Fangblood (msg # 991):

Dang. Changed it up. I'm at work and on phone. Can we still use templates at battle.scarred?
GM Arkrim
 GM, 6522 posts
 Game Master
Fri 6 Jul 2018
at 03:37
Re: OOC Discussion 8
Still in process of updates.

Yes, you can still change things and use templates. Hold your summoned horses.
Jayce the Tamer
 Summoner 13,275, 753 posts
 Human Summoner
Fri 6 Jul 2018
at 16:29
Re: OOC Discussion 8
Vry or grunyar up for a quick ref?
Vry
 Sorcerer 3,172, 641 posts
 Advanced Gnome
 Shadow's Caress
Fri 6 Jul 2018
at 16:43
Re: OOC Discussion 8
In reply to Jayce the Tamer (msg # 994):

Sure
Jayce the Tamer
 Summoner 13,275, 754 posts
 Human Summoner
Fri 6 Jul 2018
at 16:59
Re: OOC Discussion 8
Igar, I'm going to use a template. Animal lord, you can take 1 cohort with NPC levels or an animal up -2 your CR. I'm going to spend a day on my build.
Igar-Kruk
 Barbarimonk 2,396, 80 posts
 Gnoll Barbarian/Monk
Fri 6 Jul 2018
at 17:18
Re: OOC Discussion 8
In reply to Jayce the Tamer (msg # 996):

Bleh, minions. ;p

Going to upgrade Igar as well. Might be a bit busy this Week-End, though.

This message was last edited by the player at 17:20, Fri 06 July 2018.

Igar-Kruk
 Barbarimonk 2,396, 81 posts
 Gnoll Barbarian/Monk
Tue 10 Jul 2018
at 12:41
Re: OOC Discussion 8
Well, I've updated my sheet.

Also, we're getting really close to the post limit.
Vry
 Sorcerer 3,172, 642 posts
 Advanced Gnome
 Shadow's Caress
Tue 10 Jul 2018
at 13:26
Re: OOC Discussion 8
In reply to Igar-Kruk (msg # 998):

Rrreeeaaaaally close!
Latro Dectus
 Antipaladin 5,031, 1754 posts
 Drow N. Antipaladin
 Shadow's Caress
Tue 10 Jul 2018
at 13:40
Re: OOC Discussion 8
So close i can feel it. Like a wall of force or something.
Vry
 Sorcerer 3,172, 643 posts
 Advanced Gnome
 Shadow's Caress
Tue 10 Jul 2018
at 13:45
Re: OOC Discussion 8
*muffled screams from the other side of the wall*