Expanded Area of Effect List

[istabosz]

I think we need to add some additional area of effects to the core rules in order to accommodate a lot of iconic spells/abilities. Here's a quick proposal for a new AoE list:

Cube: Disadvantage 1 per 5' length of side

• Note: this would replace our current square AoE, which is unclear as to the height.

Cone: Disadvantage 1 per 10' length. Cones originate at the caster and always have a width equal to their length at any give point.

5' Wide Line: Disadvantage 1 per 20' length

Shapeable Wall (such as a wall of fire): Disadvantage 1 per two 5' cubes. All cubes must have at least a touching corner.

Thoughts @brianfeister ?

[DukeAnax]

That looks oddly familiar (;

I like the cube effect as it is better for fireball type spells, especially when you want to target flying.

However there are pure ground effects like quake or quicksand that affect a wide area, but have no height. Should there be a seperate Area affect kept for those? Maybe 1 Dis per 10' length of side?.

The Line and Wall have a simmilar relation to each other as Cube and Area would.

The Cone should probably mention that it has the same width and height as it's length.

[raihje]

I like this, and I think most people were going to homebrew it similar to this anyway. The disadvantage is fairly consistent shapeable wall is a bit more disadvantageous (vs a linee anyway which is 1D/4sq) maybe make it so it's 1D/3sq for the shapeable?

[brianfeister]

Sounds good to me. My inner rules lawyer is beginning to flare up a bit as I'm starting to wonder exactly how far behind non-supernatural attack modes are falling?

Like, I can see

Physical Attacks	Supernatural Attacks
• Weapon properties • Two-Handed property is intense, only damage increasing option	• Improved potential area of effect • Flexible about targeting Toughness or Evasion ... feel like there are alot more I'm missing here

[brianfeister]

Also, 20' length on the line attack for Disadvantage 1 is OP, it should be 10' per Disadvantage 1.

[raihje]

Physical attacks from weapons are just a different stat, and occasionally easier to use certain banes depending on the weapons you picked. 2H/Dual is Adv 1 which is good stuff for melee users - helps offset the disadvantages of being within melee range of an opponent. Supernatural attacks are strongly superior atm, mainly in regards to targeting and the varied utilities those attributes bring outside of swinging something dull/sharp at something else. I'd suggest letting certain weapons do some area attacks. Like a "magnum shot" from a bow which attacks everything in a line. (piercing, line as above / 10')

[DukeAnax]

Now that I think about it, do we even need to specify a line shape? The only effect I can think of that would be line shaped are walls.

[brianfeister]

I'm a bit more confused by shapeable wall since it's typically expected as part of a self-sustaining effect so that's slightly weird since that would be a boon, similar to Retributive Barrier and banes don't have a sustain effect.

[brianfeister]

Also, I think Disadvantage 1 per 5' cube is fine for shapeable wall, since it's ultra-flexible... though that does invalidate the area X by X area attacks since you don't have any risk associated with areas and no need for the feat that allows you to exempt one square. Stilling pondering, but pretty sure I'm opposed to Shapeable Wall

[istabosz]

For line effects I was imagining things like lightning bolt, laser beams, that sort of thing. And you're right @brianfeister , it should be Disadvantage 1 per 10'. I was fiddling with several iterations and wrote the wrong one I think.

Regarding shapeable walls, I was trying to think of a way to generalize wall effects so they could be created using pre-existing banes and boons. Retributive barrier, for example, only affects a target person. But how would they create a wall of fire? Or a ring of fire?

@DukeAnax Regarding the square effect. I think if we need one it should have the same disadvantage as the cube. Mechanically speaking the two are almost always equivalent in power because combat very rarely actually takes place in three dimensions.

[brianfeister]

My thinking about the Shaepable Wall is that it should actually be Retributive Barrier and we should make all of our changes over there on that boon. I played a game where someone invoked Retributive Barrier and was sorely disappointed by it's effect. What we might do is layer extra effects on the tiers of it so that it can ultimately become impassable or maybe "uses 15' of movement to pass through one 5' cube".

There is also the other question about terrain shaping, but I would say that's a separate boon since it's Alteration-based and this is Energy/Entropy/etc.-based

[raihje]

Retributive Barrier is pretty weak. If it was any enemy entering/starting their turn in that space then it'd be a bit better, but as it is it's a 5' square (and adjacent?) that's pretty easily avoided. For shapeable wall, dis /sq and require that each square be attached to the next means it will be quickly outpaced by area or line effects in terms of disadvantage. Area attacks will be much easier to pull off than large walls. You're paying for that versatility.

[istabosz]

Maybe we need to generalize Retributive Barrier then into just Barrier. And then have a menu of shapes and effects for the caster to choose from, such as deal damage, stop movement, or apply a bane. That would allow us to create several effects, such as wall of force, ring of fire, and wall of fog. I can take a crack at drafting that if you want.

[raihje]

It shouldn't be impossible to combine effects, such as a wall of thorns ejecting poison or thorns at nearby enemies, or the intense flames preventing movement and giving burns to people nearby, just have it similar to the illusion/phantasm that it's combined power level for effects.

[brianfeister]

Proposal sounds good @istabosz

[DukeAnax]

According to the combat chapter, boons are supposed to use the same targetting mechanic as attacks and banes. Retributive Barrier is currently an exception to that.

When first reading the boon I actually missed the line for the special targetting and would have been perfectly fine to declare a 4x4 Area of Retributive Barrier with the appropriate Disadvantage.

For clarity and simplicity's sake, shouldn't we keep the targetting information from Barrier (no matter how the new version turns out) and leave that to the general rule?

It should just describe the Barrier effect itself, no matter how the Barrier is shaped.

[raihje]

I agree with @DukeAnax here. Expanding the area effects for all effects is better than giving one boon a couple extra imo.

[raihje]

@istabosz I think the following should be implemented, your post had some solid suggestions I think a lot of people would go for.

Cube, Line, Cone, and Circle should be shapes easily demonstrated. Circles for those times you're character thunderclaps or puts out some kind of shockwave ability, lines for lasers, various walls, Cone for flamethrower and color spray like effects, and Cube to clarify the current square effects as you stated above.

[brianfeister]

I think I would call Circle radius, personally and make it only target squares adjacent to a creature that you choose. Also I think Line should be clear that it doesn't have to extend or connect with the invoker so it could be a fissure of necromantic hell energy that springs opens from a crack in the earth.

My only real problem is how to calculate the disadvantage for the Radius shape I'm describing. I suppose it's OK from a balance perspective to just make it Disadvantage 3 (I think 2 would be too easy for targeting 8 squares in most situations). Being able to shapeshift / alternate form into a larger size to get extra Radius effect squares I think would be rare enough / expensive enough that Disadvantage 3 might cover it.

[DukeAnax]

@brianfeister I think the word you are looking for here is Aura, something that sticks to a target and affects the adjacent area. I'd make it Disadvanatge 3 per 5' though. Mainge it bigger at that cost seems save, because Cube is cheaper.

I'd love to put an Aura of Regenerartion on my Druid and a Warlock could throw an Aura of Permanent Damage (Pestilence) at his foes.

[istabosz]

Not a fan of the term "radius" for an area of effect, as it's a bit of a misnomer. I'd prefer Ring, as it implies circular with nothing in the middle. I think a fair penalty for it would be disadvantage 2 per 5' diameter. That's kind of hard to imagine without a visual, but it means disadvantage 2 allows you to encircle a 5'x5' area (or 1 creature); disadvantage 4 allows you to encircle a 10'x10' area (or 4 creatures); disadvantage 6 allows you to encircle a 15'x15' area (or 9 creatures); and so on.

[DukeAnax]

Ring is something else again as what we were talking about specifically had an inside.

But Ring could be jet another shape that can be placed freely. Want to stop the fleeing fugitive without killing him? Make a Ring of vines around him.

[DukeAnax]

So if I see it right we would have these 5:

Freely placed: Cube - 1 Disadvantage per 5' length of side Line - 1 Disadvantage per 10' of length at 5' width and 20' height Ring - 2 Disadvantage per 5' diameter at 5' thickness and 20' height

Originating from the caster: Cone - 1 Disadvantage per 5' of length at same width

Originating from target (which can be the caster): Aura - 3 Disadvantage per 5' of radius

To accomodate the idea of Shapeable Wall, I'd just say that the line doesn't have to be straight.

[raihje]

Aura should large be the same as Cube, just with the center square out. I think it might be reasonable to have the Aura 2D/r

[istabosz]

Yep, @DukeAnax I think that's where we're at.

The 20' height for the line seems a bit silly, now. It makes sense for walls, but not lightning bolts or laser beams. I suggest we reduce it to 10' height.

Ring has pretty clunky mechanics (which I take full responsibility for, as I wrote them). I think we can get rid of Ring if we just allow lines to be constructed contiguously. That way, you can encircle an enemy if you need to.

[DukeAnax]

True, I just drew it out and I realized that a continous ring shaped line encircling the same area would have exactly the same disadvanatage as we set for the Ring. .XX. XiiX XiiX 'XX'

@raihje the difference is that Aura would stick to the target whenn it moves, which can be a huge advanatage over Cube for sustained Boons and some persistent Banes.

Though now that I think about it, I guess there is currently no clarification of what happens to an area sustained Boon or persistent Bane when someone leaves the area. I guess ther ule would be if the bane is attached to the area it goes, if it somehow can atatch to the enemy it, stays. Like a fire ball could set either the area or the targets aflame.

[istabosz]

I'm thinking that aura is such a unique effect, in that it follows the target around, that it doesn't merit being included in the standard area effects. Casters can already create an area attack that doesn't include them by using the Area Manipulation feat.

For auras, we probably need a separate boon called Aura. Not that I want to add another boon, but it does seem like a worthwhile one.

[DukeAnax]

I'm not sure that boon is the right thing for what Aura was meant to do. For example the Idea of an Aura Barrier. You'd have a boon that has a boon that applies a bane. Even just a Heal Aura would stack two boons.

You are right that it is a unique form of targetting, though. I think Aura Caster would work better as a feat.

[brianfeister]

@istabosz as much as I hate to admit it, I'm also excited about the Aura boon since it can represent a super common and beloved effect from video games, Paladin's with a healing aura, demons with a fiery, aura, etc. I'm excited to see what you come up with

[brianfeister]

@DukeAnax I'd rather not see it as a feat, really strange mechanical break from the existing pattern where you never expend character building points just to shape an effect

[brianfeister]

@istabosz nudging you on this

[istabosz]

Just committed the new AoEs

[brianfeister]

Re-opening -- the change was not made in the SRD

[jcte02]

@brianfeister This was merged in #192. Can close issue now