is a cone of cold three dimensional?

[krupintupple]

simply put, a PC rogue was hiding in a tree and an ally - in the confusion of battle - cast a cone of cold against some nearby enemies. technically, the rogue was within the cone, except he was some 15' up.

am i to assume that the cone is a 90 degree wedge, 70 feet long, but also 70 feet high? if so, the cone just got a might bit more powerful!

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

It certainly should be 3D, so the Rogue was within the cone (but he has evasion, so who cares? ).

When I play arcanists, I actually like to use cones because combined with flying, I can use them from overhead either straight down or at a slight angle and effectively end up with (on the ground) a variable diameter blast effect, with myself able to control the diameter based on how close to the ground I am, and thus have more control in avoiding hitting allies.

 

[Kask]

is a cone of cold three dimensional?

Yes. As are the player characters...

 

[Mark Chance]

It has to be 3D. Otherwise, the spell would be called triangle of cold.

 

[krupintupple]

well, all joking asides, i was wondering the exact dimensions. i know a cone leaves whichever corner the caster desires, but since this now coorelates to a third dimension, he'd also have to pick an angle for it to exist upon?

for instance if i angled it down, it'd merely broadcast the cold in a 90 degree cone, out to 70 feet, that would primarily be shot into the ground and dig down; if i did the opposite and arced it upwards, it'd leave the ground intact and then fire upwards, correct?

 

[irdeggman]

well, all joking asides, i was wondering the exact dimensions. i know a cone leaves whichever corner the caster desires, but since this now coorelates to a third dimension, he'd also have to pick an angle for it to exist upon?

for instance if i angled it down, it'd merely broadcast the cold in a 90 degree cone, out to 70 feet, that would primarily be shot into the ground and dig down; if i did the opposite and arced it upwards, it'd leave the ground intact and then fire upwards, correct?

Like a sphere on a grid, when you draw out the cone you have the diameter of the cone at any given point. It is not a cylinder, which is what you seemed to be impying with the 70 ft long so 70 ft high reference.

 

[Kask]

if i did the opposite and arced it upwards, it'd leave the ground intact and then fire upwards, correct?

Yes. Take a sheet of paper and make a cone. Play with the orientation.

 

[Belbarid]

well, all joking asides, i was wondering the exact dimensions. i know a cone leaves whichever corner the caster desires, but since this now coorelates to a third dimension, he'd also have to pick an angle for it to exist upon?

Two answers- one from each of my personalities.

Lazy DM: Assume that the cone is perpendicular to the caster. Yes, this means that (likely) much of the cone will be wasted by going into the ground, but it's easy. From there some easy-to-Google geometry gives you the height, and whether or not said rogue is in trouble.

Bastard DM: Assume that the caster wastes as little of the cone as possible, so it is cast at an angle to keep as much of it as possible from getting blown into the ground. Rouge makes his Reflex save, takes no damage, and (if I'm playing the rogue) has a heart-to-heart talk with the caster on the virtues of watching his fields of fire.