Holy Avenger and SR radius

[Artoomis]

Okay, fine Aggemam.

I've given my advice. Yours may be more techniocally correct but I think mine makes more sense.

BTW - there's no such thing as "half a hex." That's just silly.

 

[AGGEMAM]

BTW - there's no such thing as "half a hex." That's just silly.

I did not write 'half a hex', I wrote 'half the hexes' meaning 3 of the adjacent hexes equally spaced around the center-hex.

 

[Artoomis]

I did not write 'half a hex', I wrote 'half the hexes' meaning 3 of the adjacent hexes equally spaced around the center-hex.

Oh. Sorry. Well choosing half the hexes makes no sense either - I understand where you are coming from there, but all the hexes are the same distance away.

Anyway - we've both presented our views - I guess it's up to Marauder to decide how he wants to play it in his game.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

No, on a hex it would also be half the adjacent hexes. (EDIT: very illogical, I know, but that just shows why I play with squares and not hexes.)

If it includes the center point, then the usual convention is to include the hex. So a 5' radius on a hex grid should definitely include all those 6 adjacent hexes. It is this simplification which is usually the main point of using a hex map.

 

[AGGEMAM]

It is this simplification which is usually the main point of using a hex map.

But does not work, since that would be a 10' radius.

EDIT: Sorry, you are right, well as I stated earlier I personally do not use hexes, so I'm not to familiar with the rules on that.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Oh. Sorry. Well choosing half the hexes makes no sense either - I understand where you are coming from there, but all the hexes are the same distance away.

Anyway - we've both presented our views - I guess it's up to Marauder to decide how he wants to play it in his game.

Sorry to you too, I was a bit hasted (he he) there, see above for more info.

 

[Gromm]

0XXX0
XXXXX
XXPXX
XXXXX
0XXX0

However if you move diagonally through this area, you still provoke an AoO from leaving the corners, although these corners themselves are not considered threatened.

Since when weren't the corners threatened?
Did I miss something in my absence?
Could you cite the ruling or rule that supports this, I've always played it the other way (illogical as it often seems), mostly because of the whole 5' stepping into reach issue.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Since when weren't the corners threatened?

The corners are 15 feet away and therefore cannot be threatened.

This follows the basic rules saying that odd numbered diagonal steps (ie, the 1st, 3rd, etc) are 5 feet each, and even numbered diagonal steps (ie, 2nd, 4th, etc) are 10 feet each.

 

[Artoomis]

A 5' radius on a grid looks like this:

0X0
XXX
0X0

I made an error earlier. Your picture should be:

XXX
XXX
XXX

Because the corners are 5-feet away from the center, just as the other squares are. Only the second diagonal is a 10-foot step.

 

[AGGEMAM]

I made an error earlier. Your picture should be:

XXX
XXX
XXX

Because the corners are 5-feet away from the center, just as the other squares are. Only the second diagonal is a 10-foot step.

Well, sort of, the problem is the grid-square issue, ie that a spell with a 5 foot radius should cover roughly the same area if cast on the center of a square or on the intersecting corners of a grid.

My version covers 5 squares, yours cover 9 squares. If you cast it on the intersecting corner, as you normally should do according to the rules, the spell covers 4 squares.

My version, well it is not really mine, is an approximation to make the life of DM easier.