Your rule is more intuitive and is the one we use at our table. It actually makes little difference which of the two rules we use so long as a) everyone at the table knows the rule in play, b)it applies to both PCs and monsters and c) it’s consistently applied.
Yes, people CAN squeeze into the corner of their square to avoid being in the effect. That's why they roll a saving throw to see if they can squeeze fast enough ;-)
Don't worry Ronald, I got shit for questioning the terminology of 'flat-footed' seven months ago, with one commentor lamenting 'is this really how low we've sunk?'. The alternative I suggested was 'off-guard'. I truly understand the mod's position on locking old threads, because my desire to go back and gloat would be otherwise uncontainable.
Any time I point out the High Jump rules in PF2e don't work (especially when Inventor's gadgets get involved; like, there's one-time-use rocket boots that give you a huge movement boost when you make a high jump or long jump, they don't apply to a Leap, only a High Jump or Long Jump, and you have to not crit fail the check, so the vertical jump option is completely off-limits until high levels) or Inventor's Dual-Form Weapon feat is unplayably bad (runes don't apply to the second weapon configuration and you can't put runes on the second configuration separately, leaving you at -1 to hit and minus a die of weapon damage guaranteed at the time you get the feat) or Summoner's Meld Into Eidolon gives basically no benefit and only downsides and should probably be buffed, or that the Magical Experiment background is unplayably bad (sacrifices both a skill feat _and an ability boost_ for a minor benefit, leaving you mathematically worse off than other characters, something that should never happen in PF2e; also its one ability boost is in Con so it prevents you from being able to have an 18 in your key ability score, unless you're a kineticist, which is _also_ something that should never happen in PF2e), PF2e players on Reddit react like I'm stupid or insane for daring to suggest houserules/homebrew.
@@kori228 Oh god I'm so sorry. 5e is _not_ a system that can sustain that, to say the least. It's already bad enough at delivering on class fantasies _without_ people making ridiculous gritty rulings. But also I've been there; one DM had a homebrew item enchantment system where the rule was "one enchantment per item". We had an armourer artificer (has to choose one of armour upgrade, arcane focus upgrade, or weapon upgrade because their armour is all 3 but is only one item), a monk (doesn't use armour so has to choose between armour upgrade and clothing upgrade (yes those existed, they were mainly skill boosts) and weapon upgrades affect only one of their 3 attacks), and a Pact of the Blade warlock with Armour of Shadows (my character; had to choose between arcane focus upgrade and weapon upgrade, had to persuade the DM & other players that it was even okay for me to apply an upgrade to my Pact Weapon because it can change forms and is resummoned separately each time, and had to choose between armour upgrade and clothing upgrade). Despite 3 out of 4 party members directly highlighting the failings of the DM's homebrew magic item system, he refused to change it.
i've played pathfinder for about 5 years now, we like to have fun with our rulings at my table. ex: altering kensai a bit to allow it to take a bow dual AT with eldritch archer to let my player have a fun build we all wanted to see. a bit strong, sure, but like... 1e druids are still a thing.
Among other things, just going with whatever line tool in your VTT of choice does is probably the most expedient. If it has a line tool that's slightly different but still pretty clearly a line and a player draws it and you say "actually lines are different here" you'd better have a very good reason for bothering with that. So I basically agree with you, and at a tabletop I'd just use a piece of string or whatever.
I will say that in the example in the video, with the Wizard and 3 Orcs, you CAN hit all 3 with the "thin" line from the pf2e Diagram, you would just need to take a step back away from them
@@ninja5879idk, I'm not against the thick line method at all, but there is a bit of an intuitiveness in the fact that if you plot out all the squares you can hit the 3 Orcs from you will get a line, instead of just getting a huge cone where it's possible to hit all 3. The thin line makes positioning and tactics more important at the cost of verisimilitude. It's honestly a matter of personal preference.
Another issue the "thin line" creates is with spells like Gust of wind. Cast at any sort of angle, creatures could technically move through the diagonal gap
I feel like the top-right 30' line would hit all three orcs, depending on which end you start from. Instead of 2-2-1, it'd be 1-2-2. A 2-2-2 line could do it as well, stepped back exactly one square. But the specifics of how one particular line is drawn aren't necessarily the point. I think there's a lot of merit in examining if the rules are serving the players, and Lines seem to be one spot where the specifics can lead to some awkward imersion-breaking gaps. Broadly, because we want to stick to the rules, and PF2E's rules are a lot more specific and less interpretive than other RPGs, it's important to make sure the rules are good. Even if folks disagree on any particular point, this is a discussion worth having.
3:32 With the setup you posted you can hit all three of them, as in PF2e there are lines (the top right 30ft and the third 60ft line example in the video) which could hit them, by just standing 1 square behind where your character started. Also PF2e examples try to keep the number of sqaures affected the same as with a straight line.
The foundry line is a line made with 2 squares connected via diagonal just like the line in the diagram Depending on how you look at it the starting square is just offset by 1 (being under the character instead of away from the character) But in the reference the red circle is in the corner effectively in the same spot as where your example wizard casted the spell It would make sense that you could cast the spell from any square next to the red circle like the reference picture because characters are in the middle of squares So you can choose which corner the line starts from and that would mean that the example of casting from foundry is correct Even the rules say they are just reference templates for the areas and lines so I would say anything goes as long as it follows the general logic of how the lines are drawn and offsetting the start of a line is completely fine as long as the correct area is covered (be it distance or squares)
Thanks for pointing that out! Yes, so it operates consistently with how diagonal cones can be aimed. But I think it further supports the idea that characters can be more flexible with how they aim generally (hence I think should have the option of the "thick" and "thin" line)
The "subtle" hostile tone of such reddit replies are always silly. But as for the point of your suggestion, I think a notable issue with it lies with the penultimate sentence on the line rule: »Unless a line effect says otherwise, it is 5 feet wide.« In your diagram the effect will be 10 feet wide when it crosses lanes.
Well, yes... that's the point of his argument: the rules don't really fit with the narrative quite exactly. In the narrative, it's not that the line is 10ft wide at one point, but that it's still 5ft wide but hitting and affecting the centers of each square. Without a grid, there would normally be no issue for a 5ft wide line to affect those squares.
We're talking about artificial fixes to solve the problems created by an artificial grid. We might think the grid is worth it, but ultimately it requires some kludging.
@@harrisonpayne50 Given that approach, why would anyone ever fire down a line of 5ft grid squares when it sounds like they could instead fire down the point between two grid squares and be hitting a 10ft area all the way along? (Same for why would anyone ever aim anything exactly the way the rules say you have to, rather than aiming between two squares to extend their reach.) So long as enemies must choose their position on the map to align with the requirements of a grid, the game isn't in the "without a grid" scenario.
There are 2 parts to the thick vs. thin line discussion. The first part is line spells like in the example in this video, which intuitively feels like the thick line works better as it's more forgiving. But the OTHER part of this conversation is for drawing LoS, where it's more forgiving to let players draw thin lines. You probably don't want players to have to remember 2 different ways to "draw lines" based on context, but maybe it's ok if you do. One thing I know for sure is that as someone who has played many miniature combat games on grids, it's tedious and finicky to learn each game's different method for handling lines and LoS.
i wonder if perhaps the widths of the lines _should_ be different, there, even in a "gridless" context (the usual "5 feet wide" vs. "(effectively) zero width" for a line of sight)
I've been playing PF2 since the playtest and this is the first time I realized that lines don't work the way I thought they did. You're 100% in the right here. If you can draw a line through the square, then the line can hit the square.
As someone new to pathfinder and using your videos as a guide, I'd agree. In our game on foundary we'd roll with if you can draw the shape on them without leaving the square its fair game.
For my Pathfinder group, we sort of re-framed the issue by using hex grids exclusively. This simplified bursts, cones, and a lot of lines for our table - for odd-angled lines we would use a ruler/straightedge.
I agree with your ruling here... and yeah, the subreddit is an... interesting place. There's a lot of toxic downvoting there whenever people see something they don't agree with. But curiously enough there's a lot of contradiction within that community... where I see people downvote an idea and then the same idea upvoted in the same thread, or many months later in another thread. It's a weird place.
This is actually true and I'll put it in a correction, thanks. But it does require thinking "in the grid" and I think could slow things down, which is the opposite of what defenders of it said it would accomplish.
Thanks for the video Ronald. I think you should just draw a line/use a straight edge and see what the line passes through. That seems the easiest to implement to me. I think the other interpretations are also a major nerf to lines, which are already pretty hard to make effective. I'm curious how to implement wide line effects actually.... such as Tumbling Timber (RoE page 34).
3:19 What do you mean impossible to target the orcs? If the rule is the only sideways you can go is diagonal then those orcs are perfectly easy to target as the path is up one, diagonally over to the next orc, up one, diagonally over to the next orc. The line you motion over when talking about thin lines would literally hit the orcs. Without even shortening the first increment if you were one further south.
7:23 "Lines don't curve" In a video suggesting 90 degree turns in the line. I kid. It does indeed suck on the rare occasion (not shown in the video) that you can't get everyone in the line, but it's pretty uncommon.
I'm fairly new to PF2e and one of the things I've loved about switching systems was the awesome community around the system - so I'm really surprised to see how hyperbolic and incendiary the response you got was and how many upvotes it had. My group plays on Foundry so we just use the inbuilt tools, in my opinion the basic logic of "yeah that's clearly a straight line, here let me prove it with a ruler if you don't believe me" makes way more sense than vehemently sticking to the grid.
Reddit in its own way foments rage. The people who comment on a post tend to be those who disagree. And if you oppose said comment, only those who agreed with the commenter read your retort. And it goes on. So I wouldn't read too much into it; the community overall is pretty awesome.
In your example it is actually possible to target all the 3 orcs with a "thin line", but I agree with your point nevertheless. "Draw a line that starts from an edge of the square you occupy and affect all the squares it passes through. Your line stops when it encounters anything that would stop the effect or reaches its range" is simple (it doesn't require a chart, a diagram, or a big chunk of text). Ambiguous cases are limited and easy to fix ("passing through a square means passing through the interior of the square, just the corner or just the edge doesn't count") and don't tell me you don't have any straight thing to draw a line anywhere in your home (you can do that with the edge of your character sheet if you need to). Among all the games I ran with this houserule (read: all the games of PF2 I GMed), there was exactly one time where it caused an issue. Combat with 2 PCs. One player (typical "rules lawyer" but in the bad sense) wanted to move to a specific square so that by the rules the dragon couldn't get both player with its line breath. He was pissed that I told him that this dragon doesn't live in a grid, and in the universe it lived in there is always a straight line that goes through two points.
Currently playing a Pathfinder 1e game and we have switched to using a hex grid for our combat encounters. Helps streamline character movement (no need to count every other space as extra movement) and has helped my spellcasting players visualise area spells more easily. Sure, running in a straight line gets a bit zig-zaggy at times, and I usually err in favor of the players during "can I occupy this partial hex" questions (which are rare), but I do think making the change to hexes has been beneficial to our table, and it is something I am hoping to hold onto when our current campaign ends and we switch over to 2e.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG No issues so far. I have yet to use it for the interior of a building, but we've used it for encounters in city streets, out in a nearby forest, and inside of a dungeon. We haven't had any complaints or rules questions about tracking movement, calculating distance, or figuring out spell areas yet, but we are still relatively low-level, so that could perhaps change in the future. For reference, I'm using the Chessex wet-erase friendly battle maps and drawing my own custom maps. My general rule of thumb if someone does ask to stand in a partial hex is "so long as at least half the hex is viable, there's no issue. Anything less than that, you might take circumstantial penalities" (example: getting backed into a corner and not being able to swing your weapon properly). Also, just want to say that I really appreciate your work. Been following this channel since the OGL debacle at the start of the year, and I appreciate your perspective when approaching the game. Keep it up!
@@Mad_Mulligan Yeah, I see this being problematic for building interiors unless you find out some way to consistently rule how partial hexes are handled for occupation and other effects. Essentially you are going to have walls which almost occupy half a hex because human culture lends itself so heavily to right-angled walls in buildings. On the other hand, though, this could be great for circular rooms perhaps?
@@peterd9769 As I've said, my general rule of thumb is that if at least half of the hex is viable terrain (inside the wall, or what have you), then my players can occupy it without issue. :) If it is less than half a hex, I might implement some sort of situational penalty depending on the circumstances.
What we use for our games a lot too, a hex grid just works better. Buildings aren't really a problem either. Was pretty easy to fit in. Even when I was playing other games, the hex was always superior to a square grid.
Dont sweat it man, you have done so much for spreading the gospel about PF and your takes are spot on. If you have any other "Homebrew" or devistions from the rulles as written, please share!
Someone else has probably noticed this before, but from the looks of it, the only "thick" line in the PF1e is the line with a slope of 2 (or 1/2 when rotated), the examples to either side go corner to corner like their PF2e counterparts. So it seems entirely possible to me that the line with a slope of 2 may have been a long standing typo, though I don't have much PF1e experience. I will also say that I like the thick lines from a roleplay perspective too, which is probably a weird angle to take. I know it's not good to add in physics and stuff, but with the thin lines, you can have 2 lines that are each 5 feet wide that should intersect but don't. This is especially easy to achieve with perfectly diagonal lines. This means that in theory, you could pass through a lingering effect that was a 5 foot wide line without being effected by it (without GM ruling of course). The downside of this is that if you walk perfectly along the inside a line it's up to 5 feet longer per 30 feet with a line of slope 2, or up to 10 feet longer per 30 feet with a diagonal line.
Whether the "thick line" was an uncorrected mistake is... probably pretty good odds. Paizo had a fair few issue in the PF1e that either never got officially addressed or got anti-fixed (ie when the "fix" is just as bad or worse).
Thinking from a pixelart standpoint, as long as a line is a repeating, consistent pattern, it should be valid. With a thin line, you can hit the original arrangement with a pattern of 1, 2, 1, 2, etc., moving diagonally with each increment. If he were to reposition, a 2, 2, 2 pattern would also work. I think that going diagonal shouldn't cover more spaces than a straight line, however.
For perfect unambiguity and ease of play, this is how I would handle line spells that aren't perfectly orthogonal or diagonal. (It seems convoluted written out, but I think it's intuitive in practice.): * Choose a corner of the square where the spell originates. * Choose one of the eight cardinal directions to be your line's primary direction. * Choose either cardinal direction that is clockwise or counterclockwise the primary direction; this is your line's secondary direction. * Draw a line from your chosen corner up to the spell's length, consisting of line segments of your chosen primary direction, interrupted periodically by single segments of your chosen secondary direction. The secondary segments must be spaced out evenly, and there must be more primary segments than secondary segments. * If the spell is non-solid, like Lightning Bolt or Gust of Wind, choose clockwise or counterclockwise. All potential targets directly on the line, and all targets adjacent to the line either clockwise or counterclockwise (whichever you just chose), are subject to the spell's effects. * If the spell is solid and thin, like Wall of Stone, choose clockwise or counterclockwise. Redraw the line to consist entirely of orthogonal segments, bending/stretching diagonal segments clockwise or counterclockwise (whichever you just chose). This makes it unambiguous which spaces are on either side of the wall. * If the spell is solid and at least 5 feet thick, like Wall of Thorns, draw a duplicate of the line, offset by 5 feet in any cardinal direction such that the two do not overlap. So for instance, if I wanted to Lightning Bolt the orcs in the video, you could draw it as two Northeast diagonals segments interrupted by single North segments, like so (hopefully this comes out correct): | / / | / / You could choose to originate the line from the Wizard's northwest corner to overlap all three orcs. Or you could choose to originate the line from the Wizard's northeast corner and choose counterclockwise; since every orc's square has a corner that touches the line, and they're all counterclockwise of the line, they are all subject to Lightning Bolt. Alternatively, you could make a line alternating between one Northeast segment and one North segment: | / | / | / To hit all the orcs, you could choose the Wizard's northwest corner and clockwise; or you could choose the Wizard's northeast corner and counterclockwise. There might be other legal shapes that would accomplish the intended goal, but those are the simplest examples.
100% agree. I'm partial to hexagonal grids myself, though. The only semi-legitimate criticism I see for them is that you can't easily create box-shaped rooms. The fix for this is simply to draw a wall through a line of the hexes, effectively chopping each alternating hex in half. Then you just allow creatures to occupy a half-hex as if it were a normal hex. Very simple, and the upsides are numerous. AoE, lines, movement, everything becomes soooo much more intuitive.
I agree. Although you can fit a PF2e style line through the three orcs as you have them placed. I can supply the diagram of how if you like? We play it just using a straight line drawn on the map to see who it intersects, using a 'straight edge' as you describe it.
I am pretty sure you can cast a line with your example in 2e. Going forward 2, diagonal, forward, diagonal, forward etc is the 60 ft line that is possible in 2e. This is the 2/2/2/2/2 line. You said that even though foundry allows it and that it is not how it works RAW, but if you look at RAW that is exactly how it works. It is the third example down from the 60 ft option. Even if you say your character spot is not allowed, then just move one square down in the example and you will get it, I hardly consider it "impossible". Harder to achieve? Yeah, but there is a way to make a line to hit all 3 in pathfinder 2 RAW. Doesn't help matters that you place the 3 monsters in a really weird spacing that makes it hard to line up a line. Although the 1e diagonal is bad in that it gives you more space than it should. If you count the distance the 30 ft. line actually gives 35, that means a 60 ft. line gives 70. While I am not against the "use a ruler to get a line" technique, I will say that it is not RAW and your mileage may vary depending on your table. Just because RAW is not king in 2e (Paizo says you can alter rules themselves to make the game more fun for your group), it is up to the group to decide how they handles rulings like this. If people run it with or without this method I don't care, it is up to them how they have fun. If they are able to do that? All the better. The main problem with this method is when Rules Shark will try to make a "line" when everyone knows it doesn't line up properly but they try to convince the group and it can sour the mood if they are too pushy.
I have been accidentally ruling it this way the whole time. I can't fathom depriving the wizard his lightning bolt there omg Sometimes I hate reddit's kneejerk reaction, I see it more often than I'd like You were right about flails and you are right here!
I said basically this same thing in a reply a second ago but i feel like this deserves a comment in and of itself. I'm not against the thick line method at all, but there is a bit of an intuitiveness in the fact that if you plot out all the squares where you can hit all 3 Orcs from in the given example, (yes it is possible, starting from 2 squares directly below the Lowest orc, and continuing further away following the same line pattern in reverse)you will get a line, instead of just getting a huge cone where it's possible to hit all 3. The thin line makes positioning and tactics more important at the cost of verisimilitude. It's honestly a matter of personal preference.
I'm glad you've never had to deal with the type of player that argues over things that are visually intuitive that are hard to verbalize. I will give up verisimilitude any day to have a clear rule that keeps things going when you have more argumentative people at the table. I can literally just say "This is what the rule says. Line can only be straight with diagonals at fixed intervals" and that would be the end of the conversation. At an agreeable table I think the thick line is less confusing and helps everyone have fun, but those aren't the kinds of tables I see very often.
I agree with your point in general, although I gotta mention that it IS possible to hit all 3 Orcs using thin lines! Specifically, looking at the diagram, using the second lowest thin line turned 90° left.
I agree completely, especially as my table rarely plays with a grid anyway( or any visualization) unless it's something that the DM has specifications prepared
"DF Template Enhancements" is a good module to help out with drawing shapes and selecting tokens within them. There's options to make templates more 5e-like, so a tad more generous than pf2e. It's v10 compatible at the moment.
the subreddit HATES MODIFICATIONS TO THE GAME. omg any kind of houserule idea gets attacked in the comments. i wouldn't think too much about it. sad peeps who think any minor attack on their "perfect game" is an attack on them. all games have flaws, it's fine.
Literally the best argument they could come up with was "it would cause arguments at the table" by using some weird strawman point I don't think any sane person would actually argue. Then they go and just attack @TheRulesLawyerRPG's character, instead of having a respectful disagreement. Really disappointing behavior, they literally are acting like children.
You’re right. Never realized it was a problem so I never read the rule. I’m one of those guys with a 1/2” piece of silk ribbon with lengths written on it. Has always worked great.
I can't imagine this ever even becoming a discussion at our table. We've always played on VTT so we'd just draw a straight line and if the line hit any part of the square it would hit that creature. But if we didn't play on VTT, I'm sure we'd just do the same with a ruler.
Im glad someone is talking about this. In a different light I always thought the default cones in PF2e were unbalanced between each other since anything passed 15 ft makes orthogonal cones cover more area. It's not by much but it feels weird that shooting in a direction would cover more area especially more adjacent area. Ive homebrewed an easy system for cones and lines for a while and never had problems with it since it makes more sense for everyone involved.
I agree with you. Rule of cool first. Then rule of whatever tools help you move the game along quicker, in this case, Foundry measurement templates. The last thing I want to do, is having to take the book out, find the relevant page, show it to my player (lots of wasted time) then waste some more time arguing about it. At the end consistency is key, whatever ruling you pick.
CORRECTION/CLARIFICATION: Some commenters are correct that a 'thin' line CAN cover all 3 orcs (if it's 2 squares per vertical line). So I'm incorrect there. A "thick line" could, however, cross 2 orcs who were adjacent to each other east-west, whereas a "thin line" could not. Since the grid is an abstraction, the caster would have a fair argument to say they could target both. My mistake also illustrates that the RAW way isn't immune to confusion. It's finicky, requires thinking "in the grid," referring to a diagram in the CRB and/or counting out squares! It seems to slow things down vs. just imagining a line... which is the opposite of what defenders of the rule said it would accomplish. My proposal is the caster can choose whether to use the "thin" or "thick" line, and to have a bit of flexibility with where they start their line. ADDITION: If a caster casts Wall of Stone and it is placed on a diagonal, should a foe be able to "squeeze" through the diagonal? Most GMs would (rightly) say no. But that means thinking outside the grid and in the fiction, and is inconsistent with the "thin line." So sticking to the "thin line" for lightning bolt does pose a problem of inconsistency with how most GMs would adjudicate effects that are supposed to be barriers. ----- Hi all, saw a couple comments and I wanted to let you know I'm doing fine lol! It's just cathartic, plus I thought it necessary to respond to personalistic attacks and make clear it's alright to criticize rules in PF2E. I know full well the nature of Reddit is that it's those who disagree with an OP who are more likely to speak up in the post's thread. And that thread to be honest is actually much more favorable than the old hammer-flail one. But yeah there is a certain segment there that is just "anti-TH-camr" (it's a thing I've seen on Facebook groups, too), or don't like me for whatever reason, which is the reality of putting oneself out there on the internet. Whatever. In the end, it means that a public person must put himself or herself to a higher standard on thought and conduct, and in reality the appropriate response is to take such a person's opinion more seriously instead of the snide dismissive attitude that was on display. I will continue to speak my mind when I think I'm right, even if some disagree!
You should make a headline for all this type of videos: either "Debate Lawyer" (you can skip the lawyer) or "Ranting". I have couple of debates made throught the years in PF2e rules that got me downvoted to the 7th layer of hell, but i felt they were in need for debate.
I feel like people are just talking past each other. Even in the reddit thread. (EDIT:A five foot)Wall of Stone is a good thought exercise though. I prefer the PF2e example templates, and don't think there would be a gap. In fact the thought that it could somehow is why I feel like the talking past each other is happening. The line is continuous, that isn't the issue for people who prefer the template. The question from my position is should a square that is barely touched count? If your wall of stone blocks 10% of a square would you stop a creature from standing in that square? In my mind, it would be fine. By the inverse logic, a creature shouldn't be hit by a lightning bolt if it only hits 10% of their square. Think of it as a giant bonus to their reflex save because they have so much room to maneuver.
@@JJMax7 Ah, that's a good point, too. Maybe we should just use hexes? j/k However, I think the caster has the choice of using the "thin" or "thick" line, which might help get around the conundrum. In the end, what works with the fiction? The Wall of Stone doesn't purport to be 5' thick. And I think the lightning-bolt caster having the choice to either include or not the creature you describe is okay in the fiction.
If you're playing the game on a hard grid the thick line thing is kinda squeezing out more power than intended from the line. Just from a square per square area its 7 squares as opposed to the 6 you get from a straight line of the same length which leads to a bit of kind of strange battlefield manipulation strategies to force frankly kinda immersion breaking semi-diagonal stuff. Obviously some amount of positioning and control makes sense for interesting gameplay but not like this. Second this squeezing out of more power/area on lines can become very very strong and problematic when you factor in things like Wall of Fire where your line keeps on giving. I think ultimately its not really op to allow it, but the benefits of allowing thick lines are so much better than standard lines people will try to always force a thick line which just leads to lame gameplay some table arguments here and there that aren't really worth it when we can just have consistency. Oh and if you're not a grid who cares you just draw a straight line as long as it passes through a decent amount of the mini it hits do whatever
Our house rule is that as long as it is a consistent pattern, it's fine. Even if you don't have a long enough line to repeat the pattern, it still works. 30ft lines can go right 5 squares and then diagonal down and right. Lines are already so hard to make work. Why make them hit fewer targets.
Oh yeah, I saw that thread. I'm inclined to agree with you that the thick Line "feels" better, but it would also make players spreading out to avoid enemy Line attacks a little bit harder, which is where I think a lot of the pushback you received comes from. Because when suggesting changes to rules, you always gotta keep in mind that the change is gonna affect both players AND monsters. That said, I play entirely on FoundryVTT, so my games just use the Line drawing tool in that for speed and ease. And Foundry's Line seems to emulate the old "thick" line system - probably because it's built for D&D first, and Pathfinder second.
Forget the haters :D In 3.0+ (3.5, PF1, PF2).. basically any grid based game... I've always used the same rule for lines... Pick a corner of your square, then pick the corner of any other square within range. Connect those points with a straight line. Any square the line touches, passes through, or runs adjacent to ... is considerd within the area of effect. .... yes this means that if you blast a lighting bolt in my games straight down a line on the grid it will effect both squares on each side of the line, effectively making it a 10' wide effect. A big part of the reason I'm okay with this is because in 2e AD&D and earlier a lightning bolt could be either 10' wide and 40' long or 5' wide and 80' long... so the idea of "wider" lightning bolts just feels historically correct to me.
Someone passed this to me on the PF2e Foundry community discord, so I felt like we should explain how we interpreted this as system developers. We implemented the text, which you can find on CRB 4th Edition page 457 under "Line": "A line shoots forth from you, following a straight path in a direction of your choosing. The line affects each creature whose space it overlaps. Unless a line effect says otherwise, it is 5 feet wide. For example, the lightning bolt spell’s area is a 60-foot line that’s 5 feet wide." There is nothing there that says it needs to pass through a centre or a particular number of sides like how flanking/off-guard is written. We take the diagrams as potential lines locked to particular angles. Only four angles are shown. There is nothing in the CRB that says that these are the only valid templates. In cases like this we try to go for the most permissive option that is coherent with other rules. This is why we implemented automated flanking/off-guard the way we have (where a corner and an opposing side don't provide flanking, or where there is a configuration where three huge creatures cannot flank a medium creature) - because the rules specify it, even if we disagree with it. If someone wants to show us where there is text that either says something contrary to the section from the CRB or that the diagram shows all legal configurations. Specifically the definition of areas call the ones in the figure "common", not "exhaustive". The only counterpoint is a reference to movement and areas on page 463, but there is nothing on that page that shows that what we are interpreting is incorrect - and the 5-10-5 rule more logically supports what we have proposed, since we are highlighting a "10" step as two areas, so as not to disadvantage the caster - note that we don't pick the first square as a "%" necessarily; it is done based on mathematical angles, and there is probably an angle that would allow for two "10"'s in a row if you were super precise (and you get a mathematical degeneracy at exactly 45 degrees where nothing is selected since you can't choose left or right since they are equally likely and highlighting both would definitely be incorrect)
Please don't confuse the subreddit with the Paizo community. Some forums are just different than others. Have you tried posting the exact question to the Paizo forums?
They should just get rid of downvoting. Withholding a vote is also an option, but people tend to forget that when there’s a bandwagon rolling. Of course Reddit wants topics to be as divisive as possible, as that will make their platform occupy more of your attention.
I'm with you on this, and choose to ignore it in my games as well. Overall the Pathfinder 2E community is great, but they become defensive on the rules to a cringey degree sometimes. I can't wait for some PF2E bro to prove my point on that. lol
We defer to what foundry implements to avoid time in debate: fog/vision, distance, area, etc. Less concerned about time sink rules debate regarding the nuance of the simulation, and whether foundry is even doing it exactly RAW, only that it is fair/consistent for GM/PCs.
I think this is a really reasonable way to do lines. I've always just drawn a line at my table and it's never caused any real disagreements. Sometimes there's a bit of ambiguity, but I usually just default to being generous since lines are so hard to use already on a grid system. I also think that people in TTRPG communities are sometimes too quick to defend the existing rules on shaky grounds instead of actually considering the benefits of a different ruling. Your thread about flails shows this clearly in my opinion. To be fair though, there are a lot of people who make silly or frivolous criticisms of the rules (especially for Pathfinder 2e, but I've seen this plenty for D&D as well), so that might justify a certain defensiveness.
While I ultimately don’t care about the line rules one way or the other, I still think you make good points. And the outrage to your argument was absolutely ridiculous. Game designers aren’t perfect, so to act like suggesting this rule was a mistake is something akin to heresy is absurd.
I think thick line as you did it works fine, as is the whole 'draw a line over' to see. Anything else just becomes finicky if you allow only one or the other.
7:25 "Lines don't curve." Flying Flame kineticist impulse would like a word with you. From a narrative point of view, I agree with you. From a combat-as-a-minigame point of view, where combat is treated as a board game with board game rules, I disagree to have a choice between thick and thin. Give out your table rules, then stick with it. It's the limitation of the rules, and you will have to work around those. As do your enemies. But also keep in mind the range perspective. In a 30 feet horizontal or vertical line, you are supposed to hit a maximum of 6 creatures. Moving your line diagonally with a thick line, you suddenly are able to hit more than six creatures. Given this weird theoretical enemy layout (E is enemy): E E E _ E _ E _ E _ E _ With a straight vertical line, you can hit six enemies. With a line that is shot like 5 or 10 degrees to the right, you can also hit the enemy next to the topmost enemy. This might break the intended area that you can effect, effectively making it bigger. One solution would be, you can hit up to 6 enemies, as intended, and you can make the line thicker, but at the cost of reducing its range; to limit it to 6 creatures still.
I'm all for increasing flexibility in Areas of Effect, but the thick line is just ugly, and it allows you to hit two adjacent creatures in a direction almost perpendicular to the line, which breaks my immersion. You are totally right that those 3 orcs should all be targetable by the same line, and in fact they are even with the thin line. If you showed me an example where a thick line actually makes a difference, I might be inclined to agree. My personal solution is to use thin lines, but allow half-slopes. Where a slope of 1 would be NE, NE, NE and a slope of 2 would be N, NE, N, NE, N, NE, I would also allow NE, N, NE, NE, N, NE, which would be a 1.5 slope. Similarly, you can build slopes of 2.5 and 3.5 by alternating segment lengths between 2 & 3 and 3 & 4.
Areas of effect being measured by the same rules as creature movement is the simplest and easiest way to implement them in play. Unless you have a straight edge to measure a line.
I'm probably the most rules lawyery person at the table, but when I GM I also recognize why certain rules can be a barrier to fun play. I cut or ignore non player specific rules all the time in the name of making sure the table runs smoothly. The joy of being a rules lawyer is NOT to dictate how everyone should play, it's understanding the game so that you know exactly when there is something that is unnecessary for the purposes of the game you are playing. Fortunately it's really rare that I have to do that in PF2. It's certainly more consistent than other systems, be they lite or otherwise...
On the subject of thin line versus thick line: I would make the argument that a thin line would represent more accurately the area of effect of a 5 feet large line because getting out of an area that barely touches you should be easy for an adventurer. The area where the thick line would effect 2 squares side-by-side would affect half each of those areas in the non-grid equivalent. Another point I would make is that it is simpler to have thin line areas in order to keep consistency between 45 degree lines and 20-30 degree lines. In the PF1e example here, there is kind of a switch between thick lines and thin lines between example 3 and 4. Though I've never played with it, maybe hexagon grid could help here also.
I good house rule I use.. is the merging of TAKE COVER and HIDE. If you're character is already at standard cover (50% cover) then you can use one action to HIDE, you become hidden and your cover increases to greater cover on a success (+4 AC) but this doesn't stack if your already at greater cover.
No and yes... Take Cover needs no stealth roll, but Hide does. Mechanically it works like this .. the player declares they want to HIDE then the GM makes a secret stealth roll for the player, the GM adds the current cover +2 or +4 to the outcome of that stealth check and adds the players "stealth" skill to a Hidden D20 roll .. the GM doesn't need to roll for each enemy's perception.. they just need to score against the enemies current perception. From this point an outcome is confirmed.. you the GM could say to the player "you are hidden" or "you think you are hidden" or explain which enemies see you and which don't. Depending on your style of GM. If the Enemies on their turn attempt to SEEK the player .. you still add the current cover to the stealth check. On a success the player is both in greater cover and hidden (+2 for the hide roll and +4 thereafter)
Remember that STRIDE breaks the hidden trait as well as STRIKE, but if you're hidden to the enemy that is blind to you.. you gain a free FLAT FOOTED sneak attack against that enemy. But you give up your hidden condition. Using STEP or SNEAK will not break cover.
Love the video Ron! I totally agree and I remember noticing this in the playtest. One thing though, I think you can hit all of the orcs with the 'thin line'. Using the '2 over' line pictured second from the bottom in your 2e diagram, starting from the square below the first orc, it should connect with all of them(First orc on second square of first line, second orc on first square of 2nd line, 3rd orc on 1st square of 3rd line) This is assuming you don't get interrupted by an AoO :)
Rule challenges come up every now and then, the way I always handle it is the first time it comes up I tell my players "Okay, if you want this rule to work this way, but that's how it works from now on, both for you and for enemies." Usually that makes them realize they'll get screwed over way harder then they'll benefit and they drop it, rarely do we actually have to instate a rule change. A good example is the first time I DM'd 5e I wasn't using the flanking rule, mostly because I was a little overwhelmed and just kind of forgot about it. It never came up until halfway through our second campaign when they got really good positioning against a boss and immediately asked if they were flanking. I told them we'd never used flanking, but we could start if they liked. They clearly remembered all the times they'd been surrounded or heavily outnumbered and decided it wasn't worth it.
We used to cut out templates for the various area of effects and then drop them on the map. Foundry pretty much does that for you. If you get touched by it, you get zapped. It doesn't take much contact from a lightning bolt to hurt, i don't care if that means sometimes it hits effectively a 10 foot wide section.
I've ALWAYS done it the way you do in every tabletop game going back to older d&d versions. In fact I seldom even play with an actual grid in the first place... but when I do I understand that the grid is an abstraction of real combat where people are bouncing around all over the place. Like, uh, yes, the orc CAN dodge to one side of the square to avoid the lightning bolt... that's what their reflex save represents... just as they can briefly duck or turn around to avoid full damage from the burning hands. Combat is messy and chaotic, people don't just neatly lock in-place and set up camp lol. When the wizard casts the lightning bolt, I imagine they can try to time it, aim it with a weird angle, arc it between targets etc. It's not actually this perfect 5x5x40 beam to begin with... it's a bolt of electricity.
I think handling this in a similar way to cover is a good idea. The cover rules state, if it's clear there's something in the way there's cover, if you're unsure use these rules to determine if it counts. Similarly, you could say if it clearly looks like a line, it works. If there's a dispute use the thin line template to determine it. Also i'm pretty sure the orcs could be lightning bolted if you stood two squares directly below the bottom orc. Then shoot the bolt 2 up, diagonal, 2 up, diagonal
I really haven't thought about this much. I just use the features in Foundry and haven't really come across any issues. I personally like using the grid as is because mechanically it all makes sense to have spells work that way. I just don't like changing rules based on "realism". Pathfinder 2e uses a lot of things that just don't make sense if start trying to change the rules on what is logical. It just become a slippery slope imo. The reason Foundry was working in the example is because you are pretty much aiming from the side of your character/behind. I also think that line is hitting yourself. :) Probably don't want to hit yourself with lightning bolt. Of course, if your players are fine with the rule, I do not see an issue. I am not a fan of trying to change combat mechanics to fit logic. That is why I like VTTs it is much easier to tell what you can and cannot hit. Less time to spend time debating.
Commenters like the one you pointed out here are common in a lot of online social spheres.. They have cases of 'On Paperisms'. Meaning they see something written down, be it a rule or playtest and immediately tend to think 'it wont work' because of scenarios they run purely in their heads. Human beings are complicated. Some people really do have a problem with adding 'what if' complications things they read or have going on in their daily lives. I myself sometimes start imagining the worst scenarios for simple things that come up. An example would be "Oh, I have a doctor's appointment for bloodwork results, and I bet they found something awful, it's going to go horribly, I'm probably going to have to go on a specialized diet/medication/etc". This translates over to people who will read a rule or playtest too. His arguments are based on fictional players who all seem to be aggressively looking for an edge. This isn't how most groups work. You won't have a GM looking to game the system to make sure his monsters aren't hit by a spell (Squishing into a corner of a 5' square? What.. the hell does that mean?), and you (hopefully) won't have players who equally will argue in circles about how they just hit everything with a 'trust me bro'. We have digital tools, it's easy to check the math. I personally have been using the rule you describe here for 30 years and it has caused me zero arguments, and zero problems. If the 'line' touches the model, it's hit. Simple. If you use miniatures, get a piece of string, if you use digital, draw a line. I've played with new players, and veterans. We don't.. treat each other this way. I've never tolerated a group who'd argue like the fictional one this poster has brought up. Usually if the GM says "We'll say this works, and look it up later." people are just fine with that, it keeps things moving.
I've spoken in the subreddit recently, and have only gotten a ton of hate and nastiness for ask questions of like minded people on certain variant rules. I'm worried that PF2e is gaining a cult following, and pushing away new players or more open minded players in favor of only playing the game the way that is "right". I 100% agree with you argument, and i also use straight edges at tables and I think it makes things EASIER than plotting out the area at the time of casting.
Reddit isn't everything for PF2e. I used to participate on the subreddit, but with Reddit pushing out 3rd-party apps, I've abandoned the platform altogether.
New DM in this system here, using vtt nowadays, always did lines from a point, same as you showed with the cone, if the line goes through a square, the magic hit that square
FULL agree. Having been running starfinder and playing in pathfinder, I've had experience using both 'line systems'. Alongside having to deal with strange grid movement rules in other games *cough cough* L5R 5E *cough cough* it's led me towards being much more in favor of the Pathfinder 1e way of doing things. I'm honestly not sure what's with the subreddit, but I think that in reality most of the players probably make very similar exceptions in their games even if it's not necessarily the line-grid system. As just a last note, yeesh, those guys made up an entire fictional scenario as though it were evidence against your argument. What an unsavory conversation you had to put up with.
Uhm, but the example works like a creature moves? Start at Ezran, then: north, northeast, north, northeast. All three targets are hit, the way the patter repeats makes it a straight line. foundry even shows a "thin" line hitting all three.
I have been reading up on Lightning, both the spell and the natural phenomenon.. and the game writes You release a powerful "stroke" of electrical energy... this suggests a fork of lightning that would discarge to the nearest point of conduction and on until it reaches 120 feet. So anything conductive (bodies included) would be subject to this. the lightning bolt/strike would also discarge to unprotected objects, such as (as written in the rules) "The lightning bolt sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in its path. It can melt metals with a low melting point, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, or bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the bolt may continue beyond the barrier if the spell's range permits; otherwise, it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does" So ... the lightning bolt spell is not just a 120 Foot line.. it's a thick discharge that will effect anything in that line. it could also break through basic wooden barriers.
I do preffer rules, specially CLEAR and CONCISE rules that You can throw in the face of someone that "feels" it should be another way. That´s why I dropped 5e and migrated to Pathfinder, I was sick of rules that had space for interpretation and where easily exploitable by players. So, whyle I understand your point (and in fact I myself think You are right), the fact that I had been in the position is told you in the response, makes me to stick to the diagrams in the book.
I also think there's a nuance there regarding Foundry. There's a reasonable argument that Paizo choosing one of the two rulings is for consistancy. Yes, logically, lines should be able to intersect corners, but allowing as such could on some table result in bickering over whether or not individual squares are included or not. It's an arbitrary, but overall fair, ruling on their part. But it's also entirely down to human falliability. For one, a reasonable table can ignore the rule without hassle just as you argue. Secondarily, Foundry. Digital tools can OBJECTIVELY tell the GM, when a 1-square thick line is drawn, which squares are hit! Under such circumstances, the rules can pretty much be entirely ignored! It solves the design issue that lead to one version of the rules being arbitrarily chosen in the first place! So while perhaps not 100% RAW, it's pretty much entirely permissible from a design perspective.
Great video, Ron! Ignore anyone who doesn't see value in the time and energy you put into the game and hobby. You're making money doing what's fun for you and that's much better than roofing houses in 115 degree weather. You're providing intelligent value that's instructional and analytical. It is easy for jealous people to be critical of others, yet they don't add to the conversation. One day, you'll have to check out Mongoose Traveller. It's really doing an awesome job of capturing the feel of Classic Traveller but with modern rules.
"The First Rule: The first rule of Pathfinder is that this game is YOURS. Use it to tell the stories you want to tell, be the character you want to be, and share exciting adventures with friends. If ANY other rule gets in the way of you fun, as long as your group agrees, you can ALTER or IGNORE it to fit your story. The true goal of Pathfinder is for everyone to enjoy themselves." (Pathfinder Core Rulebook p.7) Reddit commentor can take a vacation now. The integrity of the rules are safe.
My group's main house rule is Item DC using the Standard DC table instead of static DCs, and all items created using Infused Reagents using Class/Spell DC. It's an amazing change that increases QoL dramatically and yet doesn't affect balance in the slightest. ... well, except for the Toxicologist, but that subclass is an absolute pile of shyte anyway. This should be in the base game. I hope it's in the revised ruleset, but I doubt Paizo will listen to me since they didn't listen during the original playtest either. As for line attacks, I always default to D&D Minis rules. Take a long thin straightedge and line it up between any two corners, one being from the source's square. Any squares it touches get affected.
Just a note: PF1 shows that the line comes from the middle of the "front" of the character. PF2 shows it coming from a corner. There is not any wording in the ruling for PF2e that is comes from the middle of the caster's space, granted it also doesn't explicitly state otherwise. So there is room for the interpretation of the book's ruling. Golden ruling: do what's the most fun for everyone at the table.
I will agree with @bilboswaggings in that the line can hit the three orcs even following official templates and the fact that those templates are just a reference that you *can* follow rather than one you *have* to follow. But I think it's worth mentioning that the line rules text is weirdly ambiguous with regards to origin points compared to all the other areas of effect. The line rules say that a line "originates from you", not "a corner of your space", "a point on the side of your space" or even "the center of your space". The template shows the line originating from a corner, but even assuming it must therefore always originate at a corner, this does not tell us which corner - any corner, or the one nearest to the line's endpoint? In any case, I think it's fair to say that one should be flexible in determining what is affected by a line and it's not worth the time arguing over it at the table. But it's not entirely fair to say you are "ignoring a rule", since the rules are, whether on purpose or not, ambiguous on this issue and suggest flexibility ("you *can* use the templates")
Agreed. It travels in a line... Just draw a line from the starting point to the end point and if it passes through a target's or their square, the target is hit.
As an addition to your point about the PF2 line following the path a creature would take, that is true, but the average PC is not 5 feet wide, so them hitting fewer squares while walking is also intuitive within the fiction.
Assuming we are playing on a grid, I would argue based on the definitions in area that the 1e interpretation is incorrect. Area states to use the movement measure rules and that the following templates are common and can be used instead of measuring. The templates are not the only ones available. Now we can stop right here because using the movement rules the 1e line is clearly 35ft long and longer than our 30ft line spell. Now if you were to argue that it could still be a valid template if you were to remove one square from the end, I would point you to the subsection on "line" a little further on in the area section. The line subsection states "A line shoots forth from you in a straight line in a direction of your choosing" and "unless a line effect says otherwise, it is 5 feet wide." Now these two sections indicate that a line may only contain orthogonally adjacent squares on one of the grid axes for if you were allowed to have squares adjacent on both grid axes then there would be a section of the line which was either 10ft wide or a curve. The sentence "The line affects each creature whose space it overlaps," may lead one to argue that any square that a straight line touches would be considered overlapped, but as we are using a grid we still must follow the movement measurement rules per the area rules above. Therefore the pf2e templates are the accurate templates but are not the only measurements that can be used and if not using a template one may not have orthogonally adjacent squares on more than one grid axis. p.s. The solution for why no one can pass through the diagonal spaces of wall of stone is trivial based on the area rules and the spell stating "you create a 1-inch-thick wall...placing each 5 feet of the wall on the border between squares." and shall leave it up to you to derive.
I am somewhat flexible, sticking too close to the rules for rules sake can lead to unfun situations where no one is happy. I'm all for changing things up to suit your table. But on a personal level I can't concede this "thick line", shooting a line should not get 2 guys standing next to each other an otherwise equal distance from the source, which the thick line would allow. If I allowed that, I'd have to start allowing shooting the line attacks down the edge of a space to get a line 10 feet wide because that makes just as much sense. If I was GMing this situation and the player asked "can I get these 3 orcs?" I'd eyeball it, say "sure seems fine" and move on, I'm not about to get bogged down counting the exact squares and matching them with the diagram. If someone had 2 orcs 10 feet away (one directly in front and the other next to it) and asked if they could line shot them both (which the thick line would allow) I'd say no. Personally I think that allowing that would break more verisimilitude than it saves.
I think the 1e rule makes more sense, as indeed, the line touches the squares, so it should count. But on the other hand, I prefer the 2e rule because it's easier to remember. In 1e, I never bothered with diagonal lines because I could never remember how the diagonal calculation worked. In 2e, it's just a matter of increments of 1, 2, or 3. That's it. I will say though, in VTTs it's easier to implement the 1e method, as you can literally draw lines on the map and see what it touches. But in real life, I don't have the ability to visualise that line. It's much easier to me to just quickly count those increments of 2 or 3.
I’ve generally just taken the stance in my RPGs that, if it seems even remotely feasible and doesn’t obviously break a known rule or common sense, just let them do it. It’s fun for them, avoids stopping play to adjudicate, and at the end of the day the monsters are there to get walloped
I prefer your style. I believe the system can be quite "literal" sometimes, and that breaks immersion, like with the cover rules saying that if you're in cover, your enemy has cover against you too, if he has cover, the enemy could use the Take Over action in an open field and get +4 AC. Good vid, I'll use your line.
@@danimalfarm they make a "recommendation" to the GM, but the standard cover rules are quite strange. When the book says "the GM decides", they might just decide to Never follow the recommendation.
![⭐ฮิตในTikTok!! ( หมูเด้ง MooDeng ) Ver. แดนซ์โจ๊ะๆ ReMix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3krsyfWUeHU/mqdefault.jpg)
Your rule is more intuitive and is the one we use at our table.
It actually makes little difference which of the two rules we use so long as a) everyone at the table knows the rule in play, b)it applies to both PCs and monsters and c) it’s consistently applied.
Yes, people CAN squeeze into the corner of their square to avoid being in the effect. That's why they roll a saving throw to see if they can squeeze fast enough ;-)
Don't worry Ronald, I got shit for questioning the terminology of 'flat-footed' seven months ago, with one commentor lamenting 'is this really how low we've sunk?'.
The alternative I suggested was 'off-guard'.
I truly understand the mod's position on locking old threads, because my desire to go back and gloat would be otherwise uncontainable.
Well this is a hilarious comment in retrospect.
I'm from your opinion on this one. It's too restrictive.
Rules Lawyer: "It's ok to change the rules to make the game more fun."
D&D Players: "Well, duh."
PF Players: (shocked Pikachu face)
Any time I point out the High Jump rules in PF2e don't work (especially when Inventor's gadgets get involved; like, there's one-time-use rocket boots that give you a huge movement boost when you make a high jump or long jump, they don't apply to a Leap, only a High Jump or Long Jump, and you have to not crit fail the check, so the vertical jump option is completely off-limits until high levels) or Inventor's Dual-Form Weapon feat is unplayably bad (runes don't apply to the second weapon configuration and you can't put runes on the second configuration separately, leaving you at -1 to hit and minus a die of weapon damage guaranteed at the time you get the feat) or Summoner's Meld Into Eidolon gives basically no benefit and only downsides and should probably be buffed, or that the Magical Experiment background is unplayably bad (sacrifices both a skill feat _and an ability boost_ for a minor benefit, leaving you mathematically worse off than other characters, something that should never happen in PF2e; also its one ability boost is in Con so it prevents you from being able to have an 18 in your key ability score, unless you're a kineticist, which is _also_ something that should never happen in PF2e), PF2e players on Reddit react like I'm stupid or insane for daring to suggest houserules/homebrew.
tell that to my 5e DM, absolute most annoying gritty rulings
@@kori228 Oh god I'm so sorry. 5e is _not_ a system that can sustain that, to say the least. It's already bad enough at delivering on class fantasies _without_ people making ridiculous gritty rulings.
But also I've been there; one DM had a homebrew item enchantment system where the rule was "one enchantment per item". We had an armourer artificer (has to choose one of armour upgrade, arcane focus upgrade, or weapon upgrade because their armour is all 3 but is only one item), a monk (doesn't use armour so has to choose between armour upgrade and clothing upgrade (yes those existed, they were mainly skill boosts) and weapon upgrades affect only one of their 3 attacks), and a Pact of the Blade warlock with Armour of Shadows (my character; had to choose between arcane focus upgrade and weapon upgrade, had to persuade the DM & other players that it was even okay for me to apply an upgrade to my Pact Weapon because it can change forms and is resummoned separately each time, and had to choose between armour upgrade and clothing upgrade). Despite 3 out of 4 party members directly highlighting the failings of the DM's homebrew magic item system, he refused to change it.
i've played pathfinder for about 5 years now, we like to have fun with our rulings at my table. ex: altering kensai a bit to allow it to take a bow dual AT with eldritch archer to let my player have a fun build we all wanted to see. a bit strong, sure, but like... 1e druids are still a thing.
Among other things, just going with whatever line tool in your VTT of choice does is probably the most expedient. If it has a line tool that's slightly different but still pretty clearly a line and a player draws it and you say "actually lines are different here" you'd better have a very good reason for bothering with that.
So I basically agree with you, and at a tabletop I'd just use a piece of string or whatever.
That's what I would most definitely do. If you don't use a vtt, then just a straight edge would do
I will say that in the example in the video, with the Wizard and 3 Orcs, you CAN hit all 3 with the "thin" line from the pf2e Diagram, you would just need to take a step back away from them
Which further proves how stupid it is, because the angle of incidence is less optimal in that instance.
@@ninja5879idk, I'm not against the thick line method at all, but there is a bit of an intuitiveness in the fact that if you plot out all the squares you can hit the 3 Orcs from you will get a line, instead of just getting a huge cone where it's possible to hit all 3. The thin line makes positioning and tactics more important at the cost of verisimilitude. It's honestly a matter of personal preference.
This is a homebrew I've been using since I started GMing PF2E just because that's how it works on foundry and i never questioned it.
Another issue the "thin line" creates is with spells like Gust of wind. Cast at any sort of angle, creatures could technically move through the diagonal gap
I feel like the top-right 30' line would hit all three orcs, depending on which end you start from. Instead of 2-2-1, it'd be 1-2-2. A 2-2-2 line could do it as well, stepped back exactly one square. But the specifics of how one particular line is drawn aren't necessarily the point.
I think there's a lot of merit in examining if the rules are serving the players, and Lines seem to be one spot where the specifics can lead to some awkward imersion-breaking gaps. Broadly, because we want to stick to the rules, and PF2E's rules are a lot more specific and less interpretive than other RPGs, it's important to make sure the rules are good. Even if folks disagree on any particular point, this is a discussion worth having.
3:32 With the setup you posted you can hit all three of them, as in PF2e there are lines (the top right 30ft and the third 60ft line example in the video) which could hit them, by just standing 1 square behind where your character started.
Also PF2e examples try to keep the number of sqaures affected the same as with a straight line.
The foundry line is a line made with 2 squares connected via diagonal just like the line in the diagram
Depending on how you look at it the starting square is just offset by 1 (being under the character instead of away from the character)
But in the reference the red circle is in the corner effectively in the same spot as where your example wizard casted the spell
It would make sense that you could cast the spell from any square next to the red circle like the reference picture because characters are in the middle of squares
So you can choose which corner the line starts from and that would mean that the example of casting from foundry is correct
Even the rules say they are just reference templates for the areas and lines so I would say anything goes as long as it follows the general logic of how the lines are drawn and offsetting the start of a line is completely fine as long as the correct area is covered (be it distance or squares)
Thanks for pointing that out! Yes, so it operates consistently with how diagonal cones can be aimed.
But I think it further supports the idea that characters can be more flexible with how they aim generally (hence I think should have the option of the "thick" and "thin" line)
The "subtle" hostile tone of such reddit replies are always silly. But as for the point of your suggestion, I think a notable issue with it lies with the penultimate sentence on the line rule: »Unless a line effect says otherwise, it is 5 feet wide.« In your diagram the effect will be 10 feet wide when it crosses lanes.
Well, yes... that's the point of his argument: the rules don't really fit with the narrative quite exactly. In the narrative, it's not that the line is 10ft wide at one point, but that it's still 5ft wide but hitting and affecting the centers of each square. Without a grid, there would normally be no issue for a 5ft wide line to affect those squares.
We're talking about artificial fixes to solve the problems created by an artificial grid. We might think the grid is worth it, but ultimately it requires some kludging.
@@harrisonpayne50 Given that approach, why would anyone ever fire down a line of 5ft grid squares when it sounds like they could instead fire down the point between two grid squares and be hitting a 10ft area all the way along? (Same for why would anyone ever aim anything exactly the way the rules say you have to, rather than aiming between two squares to extend their reach.) So long as enemies must choose their position on the map to align with the requirements of a grid, the game isn't in the "without a grid" scenario.
There are 2 parts to the thick vs. thin line discussion. The first part is line spells like in the example in this video, which intuitively feels like the thick line works better as it's more forgiving. But the OTHER part of this conversation is for drawing LoS, where it's more forgiving to let players draw thin lines. You probably don't want players to have to remember 2 different ways to "draw lines" based on context, but maybe it's ok if you do.
One thing I know for sure is that as someone who has played many miniature combat games on grids, it's tedious and finicky to learn each game's different method for handling lines and LoS.
i wonder if perhaps the widths of the lines _should_ be different, there, even in a "gridless" context (the usual "5 feet wide" vs. "(effectively) zero width" for a line of sight)
I've been playing PF2 since the playtest and this is the first time I realized that lines don't work the way I thought they did. You're 100% in the right here. If you can draw a line through the square, then the line can hit the square.
As someone new to pathfinder and using your videos as a guide, I'd agree. In our game on foundary we'd roll with if you can draw the shape on them without leaving the square its fair game.
For my Pathfinder group, we sort of re-framed the issue by using hex grids exclusively. This simplified bursts, cones, and a lot of lines for our table - for odd-angled lines we would use a ruler/straightedge.
I agree with your ruling here... and yeah, the subreddit is an... interesting place. There's a lot of toxic downvoting there whenever people see something they don't agree with. But curiously enough there's a lot of contradiction within that community... where I see people downvote an idea and then the same idea upvoted in the same thread, or many months later in another thread. It's a weird place.
but... you can create a 'thin' line, which covered all of orcs. It's a vertical ladder whith 2 grid for step, and each orc on defferent steps
This is actually true and I'll put it in a correction, thanks. But it does require thinking "in the grid" and I think could slow things down, which is the opposite of what defenders of it said it would accomplish.
Thanks for the video Ronald. I think you should just draw a line/use a straight edge and see what the line passes through. That seems the easiest to implement to me. I think the other interpretations are also a major nerf to lines, which are already pretty hard to make effective. I'm curious how to implement wide line effects actually.... such as Tumbling Timber (RoE page 34).
The 2,2,2 version of the line in PF2e version perfectly can include all three orcs you attack.
3:19 What do you mean impossible to target the orcs? If the rule is the only sideways you can go is diagonal then those orcs are perfectly easy to target as the path is up one, diagonally over to the next orc, up one, diagonally over to the next orc. The line you motion over when talking about thin lines would literally hit the orcs. Without even shortening the first increment if you were one further south.
You're right - I put in a correction and clarification
7:23 "Lines don't curve" In a video suggesting 90 degree turns in the line.
I kid. It does indeed suck on the rare occasion (not shown in the video) that you can't get everyone in the line, but it's pretty uncommon.
I'm fairly new to PF2e and one of the things I've loved about switching systems was the awesome community around the system - so I'm really surprised to see how hyperbolic and incendiary the response you got was and how many upvotes it had.
My group plays on Foundry so we just use the inbuilt tools, in my opinion the basic logic of "yeah that's clearly a straight line, here let me prove it with a ruler if you don't believe me" makes way more sense than vehemently sticking to the grid.
Reddit in its own way foments rage. The people who comment on a post tend to be those who disagree. And if you oppose said comment, only those who agreed with the commenter read your retort. And it goes on. So I wouldn't read too much into it; the community overall is pretty awesome.
In your example it is actually possible to target all the 3 orcs with a "thin line", but I agree with your point nevertheless.
"Draw a line that starts from an edge of the square you occupy and affect all the squares it passes through. Your line stops when it encounters anything that would stop the effect or reaches its range" is simple (it doesn't require a chart, a diagram, or a big chunk of text). Ambiguous cases are limited and easy to fix ("passing through a square means passing through the interior of the square, just the corner or just the edge doesn't count") and don't tell me you don't have any straight thing to draw a line anywhere in your home (you can do that with the edge of your character sheet if you need to).
Among all the games I ran with this houserule (read: all the games of PF2 I GMed), there was exactly one time where it caused an issue. Combat with 2 PCs. One player (typical "rules lawyer" but in the bad sense) wanted to move to a specific square so that by the rules the dragon couldn't get both player with its line breath. He was pissed that I told him that this dragon doesn't live in a grid, and in the universe it lived in there is always a straight line that goes through two points.
Currently playing a Pathfinder 1e game and we have switched to using a hex grid for our combat encounters. Helps streamline character movement (no need to count every other space as extra movement) and has helped my spellcasting players visualise area spells more easily.
Sure, running in a straight line gets a bit zig-zaggy at times, and I usually err in favor of the players during "can I occupy this partial hex" questions (which are rare), but I do think making the change to hexes has been beneficial to our table, and it is something I am hoping to hold onto when our current campaign ends and we switch over to 2e.
And I assume you are using it in dungeons and buildings? And you've found that to be fine?
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG No issues so far. I have yet to use it for the interior of a building, but we've used it for encounters in city streets, out in a nearby forest, and inside of a dungeon. We haven't had any complaints or rules questions about tracking movement, calculating distance, or figuring out spell areas yet, but we are still relatively low-level, so that could perhaps change in the future.
For reference, I'm using the Chessex wet-erase friendly battle maps and drawing my own custom maps. My general rule of thumb if someone does ask to stand in a partial hex is "so long as at least half the hex is viable, there's no issue. Anything less than that, you might take circumstantial penalities" (example: getting backed into a corner and not being able to swing your weapon properly).
Also, just want to say that I really appreciate your work. Been following this channel since the OGL debacle at the start of the year, and I appreciate your perspective when approaching the game. Keep it up!
@@Mad_Mulligan Yeah, I see this being problematic for building interiors unless you find out some way to consistently rule how partial hexes are handled for occupation and other effects. Essentially you are going to have walls which almost occupy half a hex because human culture lends itself so heavily to right-angled walls in buildings. On the other hand, though, this could be great for circular rooms perhaps?
@@peterd9769 As I've said, my general rule of thumb is that if at least half of the hex is viable terrain (inside the wall, or what have you), then my players can occupy it without issue. :) If it is less than half a hex, I might implement some sort of situational penalty depending on the circumstances.
What we use for our games a lot too, a hex grid just works better. Buildings aren't really a problem either. Was pretty easy to fit in. Even when I was playing other games, the hex was always superior to a square grid.
Dont sweat it man, you have done so much for spreading the gospel about PF and your takes are spot on.
If you have any other "Homebrew" or devistions from the rulles as written, please share!
Someone else has probably noticed this before, but from the looks of it, the only "thick" line in the PF1e is the line with a slope of 2 (or 1/2 when rotated), the examples to either side go corner to corner like their PF2e counterparts. So it seems entirely possible to me that the line with a slope of 2 may have been a long standing typo, though I don't have much PF1e experience.
I will also say that I like the thick lines from a roleplay perspective too, which is probably a weird angle to take. I know it's not good to add in physics and stuff, but with the thin lines, you can have 2 lines that are each 5 feet wide that should intersect but don't. This is especially easy to achieve with perfectly diagonal lines. This means that in theory, you could pass through a lingering effect that was a 5 foot wide line without being effected by it (without GM ruling of course). The downside of this is that if you walk perfectly along the inside a line it's up to 5 feet longer per 30 feet with a line of slope 2, or up to 10 feet longer per 30 feet with a diagonal line.
Whether the "thick line" was an uncorrected mistake is... probably pretty good odds. Paizo had a fair few issue in the PF1e that either never got officially addressed or got anti-fixed (ie when the "fix" is just as bad or worse).
Thinking from a pixelart standpoint, as long as a line is a repeating, consistent pattern, it should be valid. With a thin line, you can hit the original arrangement with a pattern of 1, 2, 1, 2, etc., moving diagonally with each increment. If he were to reposition, a 2, 2, 2 pattern would also work. I think that going diagonal shouldn't cover more spaces than a straight line, however.
For perfect unambiguity and ease of play, this is how I would handle line spells that aren't perfectly orthogonal or diagonal. (It seems convoluted written out, but I think it's intuitive in practice.):
* Choose a corner of the square where the spell originates.
* Choose one of the eight cardinal directions to be your line's primary direction.
* Choose either cardinal direction that is clockwise or counterclockwise the primary direction; this is your line's secondary direction.
* Draw a line from your chosen corner up to the spell's length, consisting of line segments of your chosen primary direction, interrupted periodically by single segments of your chosen secondary direction. The secondary segments must be spaced out evenly, and there must be more primary segments than secondary segments.
* If the spell is non-solid, like Lightning Bolt or Gust of Wind, choose clockwise or counterclockwise. All potential targets directly on the line, and all targets adjacent to the line either clockwise or counterclockwise (whichever you just chose), are subject to the spell's effects.
* If the spell is solid and thin, like Wall of Stone, choose clockwise or counterclockwise. Redraw the line to consist entirely of orthogonal segments, bending/stretching diagonal segments clockwise or counterclockwise (whichever you just chose). This makes it unambiguous which spaces are on either side of the wall.
* If the spell is solid and at least 5 feet thick, like Wall of Thorns, draw a duplicate of the line, offset by 5 feet in any cardinal direction such that the two do not overlap.
So for instance, if I wanted to Lightning Bolt the orcs in the video, you could draw it as two Northeast diagonals segments interrupted by single North segments, like so (hopefully this comes out correct):
|
/
/
|
/
/
You could choose to originate the line from the Wizard's northwest corner to overlap all three orcs. Or you could choose to originate the line from the Wizard's northeast corner and choose counterclockwise; since every orc's square has a corner that touches the line, and they're all counterclockwise of the line, they are all subject to Lightning Bolt.
Alternatively, you could make a line alternating between one Northeast segment and one North segment:
|
/
|
/
|
/
To hit all the orcs, you could choose the Wizard's northwest corner and clockwise; or you could choose the Wizard's northeast corner and counterclockwise.
There might be other legal shapes that would accomplish the intended goal, but those are the simplest examples.
100% agree. I'm partial to hexagonal grids myself, though. The only semi-legitimate criticism I see for them is that you can't easily create box-shaped rooms. The fix for this is simply to draw a wall through a line of the hexes, effectively chopping each alternating hex in half. Then you just allow creatures to occupy a half-hex as if it were a normal hex. Very simple, and the upsides are numerous. AoE, lines, movement, everything becomes soooo much more intuitive.
I agree. Although you can fit a PF2e style line through the three orcs as you have them placed. I can supply the diagram of how if you like? We play it just using a straight line drawn on the map to see who it intersects, using a 'straight edge' as you describe it.
You're right - I put in a correction and clarification
I am pretty sure you can cast a line with your example in 2e.
Going forward 2, diagonal, forward, diagonal, forward etc is the 60 ft line that is possible in 2e. This is the 2/2/2/2/2 line.
You said that even though foundry allows it and that it is not how it works RAW, but if you look at RAW that is exactly how it works. It is the third example down from the 60 ft option. Even if you say your character spot is not allowed, then just move one square down in the example and you will get it, I hardly consider it "impossible". Harder to achieve? Yeah, but there is a way to make a line to hit all 3 in pathfinder 2 RAW. Doesn't help matters that you place the 3 monsters in a really weird spacing that makes it hard to line up a line.
Although the 1e diagonal is bad in that it gives you more space than it should. If you count the distance the 30 ft. line actually gives 35, that means a 60 ft. line gives 70.
While I am not against the "use a ruler to get a line" technique, I will say that it is not RAW and your mileage may vary depending on your table. Just because RAW is not king in 2e (Paizo says you can alter rules themselves to make the game more fun for your group), it is up to the group to decide how they handles rulings like this. If people run it with or without this method I don't care, it is up to them how they have fun. If they are able to do that? All the better. The main problem with this method is when Rules Shark will try to make a "line" when everyone knows it doesn't line up properly but they try to convince the group and it can sour the mood if they are too pushy.
I have been accidentally ruling it this way the whole time. I can't fathom depriving the wizard his lightning bolt there omg
Sometimes I hate reddit's kneejerk reaction, I see it more often than I'd like
You were right about flails and you are right here!
I said basically this same thing in a reply a second ago but i feel like this deserves a comment in and of itself.
I'm not against the thick line method at all, but there is a bit of an intuitiveness in the fact that if you plot out all the squares where you can hit all 3 Orcs from in the given example, (yes it is possible, starting from 2 squares directly below the Lowest orc, and continuing further away following the same line pattern in reverse)you will get a line, instead of just getting a huge cone where it's possible to hit all 3. The thin line makes positioning and tactics more important at the cost of verisimilitude. It's honestly a matter of personal preference.
I'm glad you've never had to deal with the type of player that argues over things that are visually intuitive that are hard to verbalize. I will give up verisimilitude any day to have a clear rule that keeps things going when you have more argumentative people at the table. I can literally just say "This is what the rule says. Line can only be straight with diagonals at fixed intervals" and that would be the end of the conversation. At an agreeable table I think the thick line is less confusing and helps everyone have fun, but those aren't the kinds of tables I see very often.
I agree with your point in general, although I gotta mention that it IS possible to hit all 3 Orcs using thin lines! Specifically, looking at the diagram, using the second lowest thin line turned 90° left.
You're right! I pinned a correction
I agree completely, especially as my table rarely plays with a grid anyway( or any visualization) unless it's something that the DM has specifications prepared
"DF Template Enhancements" is a good module to help out with drawing shapes and selecting tokens within them. There's options to make templates more 5e-like, so a tad more generous than pf2e. It's v10 compatible at the moment.
the subreddit HATES MODIFICATIONS TO THE GAME. omg any kind of houserule idea gets attacked in the comments. i wouldn't think too much about it. sad peeps who think any minor attack on their "perfect game" is an attack on them.
all games have flaws, it's fine.
Truly, its honestly kind of funny
Literally the best argument they could come up with was "it would cause arguments at the table" by using some weird strawman point I don't think any sane person would actually argue. Then they go and just attack @TheRulesLawyerRPG's character, instead of having a respectful disagreement. Really disappointing behavior, they literally are acting like children.
@@Kitusser It wasn't, it was just the one he decided to make a video about.
@@JJMax7 I can't view the post right now, but I don't really remember anything compelling.
You’re right. Never realized it was a problem so I never read the rule. I’m one of those guys with a 1/2” piece of silk ribbon with lengths written on it. Has always worked great.
I can't imagine this ever even becoming a discussion at our table. We've always played on VTT so we'd just draw a straight line and if the line hit any part of the square it would hit that creature. But if we didn't play on VTT, I'm sure we'd just do the same with a ruler.
Im glad someone is talking about this. In a different light I always thought the default cones in PF2e were unbalanced between each other since anything passed 15 ft makes orthogonal cones cover more area. It's not by much but it feels weird that shooting in a direction would cover more area especially more adjacent area. Ive homebrewed an easy system for cones and lines for a while and never had problems with it since it makes more sense for everyone involved.
I agree with you. Rule of cool first. Then rule of whatever tools help you move the game along quicker, in this case, Foundry measurement templates. The last thing I want to do, is having to take the book out, find the relevant page, show it to my player (lots of wasted time) then waste some more time arguing about it. At the end consistency is key, whatever ruling you pick.
CORRECTION/CLARIFICATION: Some commenters are correct that a 'thin' line CAN cover all 3 orcs (if it's 2 squares per vertical line). So I'm incorrect there. A "thick line" could, however, cross 2 orcs who were adjacent to each other east-west, whereas a "thin line" could not. Since the grid is an abstraction, the caster would have a fair argument to say they could target both. My mistake also illustrates that the RAW way isn't immune to confusion. It's finicky, requires thinking "in the grid," referring to a diagram in the CRB and/or counting out squares! It seems to slow things down vs. just imagining a line... which is the opposite of what defenders of the rule said it would accomplish. My proposal is the caster can choose whether to use the "thin" or "thick" line, and to have a bit of flexibility with where they start their line.
ADDITION: If a caster casts Wall of Stone and it is placed on a diagonal, should a foe be able to "squeeze" through the diagonal? Most GMs would (rightly) say no. But that means thinking outside the grid and in the fiction, and is inconsistent with the "thin line." So sticking to the "thin line" for lightning bolt does pose a problem of inconsistency with how most GMs would adjudicate effects that are supposed to be barriers.
-----
Hi all, saw a couple comments and I wanted to let you know I'm doing fine lol! It's just cathartic, plus I thought it necessary to respond to personalistic attacks and make clear it's alright to criticize rules in PF2E.
I know full well the nature of Reddit is that it's those who disagree with an OP who are more likely to speak up in the post's thread. And that thread to be honest is actually much more favorable than the old hammer-flail one. But yeah there is a certain segment there that is just "anti-TH-camr" (it's a thing I've seen on Facebook groups, too), or don't like me for whatever reason, which is the reality of putting oneself out there on the internet. Whatever. In the end, it means that a public person must put himself or herself to a higher standard on thought and conduct, and in reality the appropriate response is to take such a person's opinion more seriously instead of the snide dismissive attitude that was on display. I will continue to speak my mind when I think I'm right, even if some disagree!
This...this is why Hexagons are the Best grid to play on..
You should make a headline for all this type of videos: either "Debate Lawyer" (you can skip the lawyer) or "Ranting". I have couple of debates made throught the years in PF2e rules that got me downvoted to the 7th layer of hell, but i felt they were in need for debate.
@@jontheappalachian2191 Yes! They are better for outdoor encounters, but don't play well with walls
I feel like people are just talking past each other. Even in the reddit thread. (EDIT:A five foot)Wall of Stone is a good thought exercise though. I prefer the PF2e example templates, and don't think there would be a gap. In fact the thought that it could somehow is why I feel like the talking past each other is happening. The line is continuous, that isn't the issue for people who prefer the template.
The question from my position is should a square that is barely touched count? If your wall of stone blocks 10% of a square would you stop a creature from standing in that square? In my mind, it would be fine. By the inverse logic, a creature shouldn't be hit by a lightning bolt if it only hits 10% of their square. Think of it as a giant bonus to their reflex save because they have so much room to maneuver.
@@JJMax7 Ah, that's a good point, too. Maybe we should just use hexes? j/k
However, I think the caster has the choice of using the "thin" or "thick" line, which might help get around the conundrum. In the end, what works with the fiction? The Wall of Stone doesn't purport to be 5' thick. And I think the lightning-bolt caster having the choice to either include or not the creature you describe is okay in the fiction.
If you're playing the game on a hard grid the thick line thing is kinda squeezing out more power than intended from the line. Just from a square per square area its 7 squares as opposed to the 6 you get from a straight line of the same length which leads to a bit of kind of strange battlefield manipulation strategies to force frankly kinda immersion breaking semi-diagonal stuff. Obviously some amount of positioning and control makes sense for interesting gameplay but not like this. Second this squeezing out of more power/area on lines can become very very strong and problematic when you factor in things like Wall of Fire where your line keeps on giving. I think ultimately its not really op to allow it, but the benefits of allowing thick lines are so much better than standard lines people will try to always force a thick line which just leads to lame gameplay some table arguments here and there that aren't really worth it when we can just have consistency.
Oh and if you're not a grid who cares you just draw a straight line as long as it passes through a decent amount of the mini it hits do whatever
Our house rule is that as long as it is a consistent pattern, it's fine. Even if you don't have a long enough line to repeat the pattern, it still works. 30ft lines can go right 5 squares and then diagonal down and right.
Lines are already so hard to make work. Why make them hit fewer targets.
As someone that's been playing wizard since playtest I definitely prefer the thick line.
Oh yeah, I saw that thread. I'm inclined to agree with you that the thick Line "feels" better, but it would also make players spreading out to avoid enemy Line attacks a little bit harder, which is where I think a lot of the pushback you received comes from.
Because when suggesting changes to rules, you always gotta keep in mind that the change is gonna affect both players AND monsters.
That said, I play entirely on FoundryVTT, so my games just use the Line drawing tool in that for speed and ease. And Foundry's Line seems to emulate the old "thick" line system - probably because it's built for D&D first, and Pathfinder second.
Forget the haters :D
In 3.0+ (3.5, PF1, PF2).. basically any grid based game... I've always used the same rule for lines...
Pick a corner of your square, then pick the corner of any other square within range.
Connect those points with a straight line.
Any square the line touches, passes through, or runs adjacent to ... is considerd within the area of effect.
.... yes this means that if you blast a lighting bolt in my games straight down a line on the grid it will effect both squares on each side of the line, effectively making it a 10' wide effect.
A big part of the reason I'm okay with this is because in 2e AD&D and earlier a lightning bolt could be either 10' wide and 40' long or 5' wide and 80' long... so the idea of "wider" lightning bolts just feels historically correct to me.
Someone passed this to me on the PF2e Foundry community discord, so I felt like we should explain how we interpreted this as system developers. We implemented the text, which you can find on CRB 4th Edition page 457 under "Line": "A line shoots forth from you, following a straight path in a direction of your choosing. The line affects each creature whose space it overlaps. Unless a line effect says otherwise, it is 5 feet wide. For example, the lightning bolt spell’s area is a 60-foot line that’s 5 feet wide."
There is nothing there that says it needs to pass through a centre or a particular number of sides like how flanking/off-guard is written. We take the diagrams as potential lines locked to particular angles. Only four angles are shown. There is nothing in the CRB that says that these are the only valid templates. In cases like this we try to go for the most permissive option that is coherent with other rules. This is why we implemented automated flanking/off-guard the way we have (where a corner and an opposing side don't provide flanking, or where there is a configuration where three huge creatures cannot flank a medium creature) - because the rules specify it, even if we disagree with it. If someone wants to show us where there is text that either says something contrary to the section from the CRB or that the diagram shows all legal configurations. Specifically the definition of areas call the ones in the figure "common", not "exhaustive". The only counterpoint is a reference to movement and areas on page 463, but there is nothing on that page that shows that what we are interpreting is incorrect - and the 5-10-5 rule more logically supports what we have proposed, since we are highlighting a "10" step as two areas, so as not to disadvantage the caster - note that we don't pick the first square as a "%" necessarily; it is done based on mathematical angles, and there is probably an angle that would allow for two "10"'s in a row if you were super precise (and you get a mathematical degeneracy at exactly 45 degrees where nothing is selected since you can't choose left or right since they are equally likely and highlighting both would definitely be incorrect)
Please don't confuse the subreddit with the Paizo community. Some forums are just different than others. Have you tried posting the exact question to the Paizo forums?
They should just get rid of downvoting. Withholding a vote is also an option, but people tend to forget that when there’s a bandwagon rolling. Of course Reddit wants topics to be as divisive as possible, as that will make their platform occupy more of your attention.
I'm with you on this, and choose to ignore it in my games as well. Overall the Pathfinder 2E community is great, but they become defensive on the rules to a cringey degree sometimes. I can't wait for some PF2E bro to prove my point on that. lol
Can we call them "RAW Dawgs"?
@@devcrom3 110% YES hahahah
We defer to what foundry implements to avoid time in debate: fog/vision, distance, area, etc. Less concerned about time sink rules debate regarding the nuance of the simulation, and whether foundry is even doing it exactly RAW, only that it is fair/consistent for GM/PCs.
I think this is a really reasonable way to do lines. I've always just drawn a line at my table and it's never caused any real disagreements. Sometimes there's a bit of ambiguity, but I usually just default to being generous since lines are so hard to use already on a grid system.
I also think that people in TTRPG communities are sometimes too quick to defend the existing rules on shaky grounds instead of actually considering the benefits of a different ruling. Your thread about flails shows this clearly in my opinion. To be fair though, there are a lot of people who make silly or frivolous criticisms of the rules (especially for Pathfinder 2e, but I've seen this plenty for D&D as well), so that might justify a certain defensiveness.
While I ultimately don’t care about the line rules one way or the other, I still think you make good points. And the outrage to your argument was absolutely ridiculous. Game designers aren’t perfect, so to act like suggesting this rule was a mistake is something akin to heresy is absurd.
I think thick line as you did it works fine, as is the whole 'draw a line over' to see. Anything else just becomes finicky if you allow only one or the other.
7:25 "Lines don't curve."
Flying Flame kineticist impulse would like a word with you.
From a narrative point of view, I agree with you.
From a combat-as-a-minigame point of view, where combat is treated as a board game with board game rules, I disagree to have a choice between thick and thin. Give out your table rules, then stick with it. It's the limitation of the rules, and you will have to work around those. As do your enemies.
But also keep in mind the range perspective.
In a 30 feet horizontal or vertical line, you are supposed to hit a maximum of 6 creatures.
Moving your line diagonally with a thick line, you suddenly are able to hit more than six creatures.
Given this weird theoretical enemy layout (E is enemy):
E E
E _
E _
E _
E _
E _
With a straight vertical line, you can hit six enemies. With a line that is shot like 5 or 10 degrees to the right, you can also hit the enemy next to the topmost enemy.
This might break the intended area that you can effect, effectively making it bigger.
One solution would be, you can hit up to 6 enemies, as intended, and you can make the line thicker, but at the cost of reducing its range; to limit it to 6 creatures still.
I'm all for increasing flexibility in Areas of Effect, but the thick line is just ugly, and it allows you to hit two adjacent creatures in a direction almost perpendicular to the line, which breaks my immersion.
You are totally right that those 3 orcs should all be targetable by the same line, and in fact they are even with the thin line. If you showed me an example where a thick line actually makes a difference, I might be inclined to agree.
My personal solution is to use thin lines, but allow half-slopes. Where a slope of 1 would be NE, NE, NE and a slope of 2 would be N, NE, N, NE, N, NE, I would also allow NE, N, NE, NE, N, NE, which would be a 1.5 slope. Similarly, you can build slopes of 2.5 and 3.5 by alternating segment lengths between 2 & 3 and 3 & 4.
Areas of effect being measured by the same rules as creature movement is the simplest and easiest way to implement them in play.
Unless you have a straight edge to measure a line.
I'm probably the most rules lawyery person at the table, but when I GM I also recognize why certain rules can be a barrier to fun play. I cut or ignore non player specific rules all the time in the name of making sure the table runs smoothly.
The joy of being a rules lawyer is NOT to dictate how everyone should play, it's understanding the game so that you know exactly when there is something that is unnecessary for the purposes of the game you are playing.
Fortunately it's really rare that I have to do that in PF2. It's certainly more consistent than other systems, be they lite or otherwise...
Some people like discourse and to argue, hope you don’t take the negativity to heart. I like your idea, keep on keeping on!
On the subject of thin line versus thick line:
I would make the argument that a thin line would represent more accurately the area of effect of a 5 feet large line because getting out of an area that barely touches you should be easy for an adventurer. The area where the thick line would effect 2 squares side-by-side would affect half each of those areas in the non-grid equivalent.
Another point I would make is that it is simpler to have thin line areas in order to keep consistency between 45 degree lines and 20-30 degree lines. In the PF1e example here, there is kind of a switch between thick lines and thin lines between example 3 and 4.
Though I've never played with it, maybe hexagon grid could help here also.
I good house rule I use.. is the merging of TAKE COVER and HIDE. If you're character is already at standard cover (50% cover) then you can use one action to HIDE, you become hidden and your cover increases to greater cover on a success (+4 AC) but this doesn't stack if your already at greater cover.
Is greater cover tied to the Stealth roll?
No and yes... Take Cover needs no stealth roll, but Hide does. Mechanically it works like this .. the player declares they want to HIDE then the GM makes a secret stealth roll for the player, the GM adds the current cover +2 or +4 to the outcome of that stealth check and adds the players "stealth" skill to a Hidden D20 roll .. the GM doesn't need to roll for each enemy's perception.. they just need to score against the enemies current perception. From this point an outcome is confirmed.. you the GM could say to the player "you are hidden" or "you think you are hidden" or explain which enemies see you and which don't. Depending on your style of GM. If the Enemies on their turn attempt to SEEK the player .. you still add the current cover to the stealth check.
On a success the player is both in greater cover and hidden (+2 for the hide roll and +4 thereafter)
Remember that STRIDE breaks the hidden trait as well as STRIKE, but if you're hidden to the enemy that is blind to you.. you gain a free FLAT FOOTED sneak attack against that enemy. But you give up your hidden condition. Using STEP or SNEAK will not break cover.
Good Rant! Thinking practically in fiction is always preferrably to muddling around with the 5 foot grid imo👍
Love the video Ron! I totally agree and I remember noticing this in the playtest. One thing though, I think you can hit all of the orcs with the 'thin line'. Using the '2 over' line pictured second from the bottom in your 2e diagram, starting from the square below the first orc, it should connect with all of them(First orc on second square of first line, second orc on first square of 2nd line, 3rd orc on 1st square of 3rd line) This is assuming you don't get interrupted by an AoO :)
I don't know exactly how the line originate from you so maybe you have to stand another space back so my AoO comment may be false
Yeah, my pinned comment acknowledges it while clarifying my main point. And this was supposed to be the "simple" "time saving" way to do it, too!
Rule challenges come up every now and then, the way I always handle it is the first time it comes up I tell my players "Okay, if you want this rule to work this way, but that's how it works from now on, both for you and for enemies." Usually that makes them realize they'll get screwed over way harder then they'll benefit and they drop it, rarely do we actually have to instate a rule change. A good example is the first time I DM'd 5e I wasn't using the flanking rule, mostly because I was a little overwhelmed and just kind of forgot about it. It never came up until halfway through our second campaign when they got really good positioning against a boss and immediately asked if they were flanking. I told them we'd never used flanking, but we could start if they liked. They clearly remembered all the times they'd been surrounded or heavily outnumbered and decided it wasn't worth it.
We used to cut out templates for the various area of effects and then drop them on the map. Foundry pretty much does that for you. If you get touched by it, you get zapped. It doesn't take much contact from a lightning bolt to hurt, i don't care if that means sometimes it hits effectively a 10 foot wide section.
I've ALWAYS done it the way you do in every tabletop game going back to older d&d versions. In fact I seldom even play with an actual grid in the first place... but when I do I understand that the grid is an abstraction of real combat where people are bouncing around all over the place. Like, uh, yes, the orc CAN dodge to one side of the square to avoid the lightning bolt... that's what their reflex save represents... just as they can briefly duck or turn around to avoid full damage from the burning hands. Combat is messy and chaotic, people don't just neatly lock in-place and set up camp lol.
When the wizard casts the lightning bolt, I imagine they can try to time it, aim it with a weird angle, arc it between targets etc. It's not actually this perfect 5x5x40 beam to begin with... it's a bolt of electricity.
I think handling this in a similar way to cover is a good idea. The cover rules state, if it's clear there's something in the way there's cover, if you're unsure use these rules to determine if it counts. Similarly, you could say if it clearly looks like a line, it works. If there's a dispute use the thin line template to determine it.
Also i'm pretty sure the orcs could be lightning bolted if you stood two squares directly below the bottom orc. Then shoot the bolt 2 up, diagonal, 2 up, diagonal
I really haven't thought about this much. I just use the features in Foundry and haven't really come across any issues. I personally like using the grid as is because mechanically it all makes sense to have spells work that way. I just don't like changing rules based on "realism". Pathfinder 2e uses a lot of things that just don't make sense if start trying to change the rules on what is logical. It just become a slippery slope imo.
The reason Foundry was working in the example is because you are pretty much aiming from the side of your character/behind. I also think that line is hitting yourself. :) Probably don't want to hit yourself with lightning bolt.
Of course, if your players are fine with the rule, I do not see an issue. I am not a fan of trying to change combat mechanics to fit logic. That is why I like VTTs it is much easier to tell what you can and cannot hit. Less time to spend time debating.
Commenters like the one you pointed out here are common in a lot of online social spheres.. They have cases of 'On Paperisms'. Meaning they see something written down, be it a rule or playtest and immediately tend to think 'it wont work' because of scenarios they run purely in their heads. Human beings are complicated. Some people really do have a problem with adding 'what if' complications things they read or have going on in their daily lives. I myself sometimes start imagining the worst scenarios for simple things that come up. An example would be "Oh, I have a doctor's appointment for bloodwork results, and I bet they found something awful, it's going to go horribly, I'm probably going to have to go on a specialized diet/medication/etc".
This translates over to people who will read a rule or playtest too. His arguments are based on fictional players who all seem to be aggressively looking for an edge. This isn't how most groups work. You won't have a GM looking to game the system to make sure his monsters aren't hit by a spell (Squishing into a corner of a 5' square? What.. the hell does that mean?), and you (hopefully) won't have players who equally will argue in circles about how they just hit everything with a 'trust me bro'. We have digital tools, it's easy to check the math. I personally have been using the rule you describe here for 30 years and it has caused me zero arguments, and zero problems. If the 'line' touches the model, it's hit. Simple. If you use miniatures, get a piece of string, if you use digital, draw a line.
I've played with new players, and veterans. We don't.. treat each other this way. I've never tolerated a group who'd argue like the fictional one this poster has brought up. Usually if the GM says "We'll say this works, and look it up later." people are just fine with that, it keeps things moving.
I've spoken in the subreddit recently, and have only gotten a ton of hate and nastiness for ask questions of like minded people on certain variant rules. I'm worried that PF2e is gaining a cult following, and pushing away new players or more open minded players in favor of only playing the game the way that is "right". I 100% agree with you argument, and i also use straight edges at tables and I think it makes things EASIER than plotting out the area at the time of casting.
Reddit isn't everything for PF2e. I used to participate on the subreddit, but with Reddit pushing out 3rd-party apps, I've abandoned the platform altogether.
This is why I have a foot long piece of string in my dice bag. Easy way to determine line of sight or line of effect when its unclear.
People seem to always believe that rules are immutable. Your game your group your happiness.
New DM in this system here, using vtt nowadays, always did lines from a point, same as you showed with the cone, if the line goes through a square, the magic hit that square
FULL agree. Having been running starfinder and playing in pathfinder, I've had experience using both 'line systems'. Alongside having to deal with strange grid movement rules in other games *cough cough* L5R 5E *cough cough* it's led me towards being much more in favor of the Pathfinder 1e way of doing things.
I'm honestly not sure what's with the subreddit, but I think that in reality most of the players probably make very similar exceptions in their games even if it's not necessarily the line-grid system. As just a last note, yeesh, those guys made up an entire fictional scenario as though it were evidence against your argument. What an unsavory conversation you had to put up with.
Uhm, but the example works like a creature moves? Start at Ezran, then: north, northeast, north, northeast. All three targets are hit, the way the patter repeats makes it a straight line. foundry even shows a "thin" line hitting all three.
You're right - I put in a correction and clarification
I have been reading up on Lightning, both the spell and the natural phenomenon.. and the game writes You release a powerful "stroke" of electrical energy... this suggests a fork of lightning that would discarge to the nearest point of conduction and on until it reaches 120 feet. So anything conductive (bodies included) would be subject to this. the lightning bolt/strike would also discarge to unprotected objects, such as (as written in the rules)
"The lightning bolt sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in its path. It can melt metals with a low melting point, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, or bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the bolt may continue beyond the barrier if the spell's range permits; otherwise, it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does" So ... the lightning bolt spell is not just a 120 Foot line.. it's a thick discharge that will effect anything in that line. it could also break through basic wooden barriers.
I do preffer rules, specially CLEAR and CONCISE rules that You can throw in the face of someone that "feels" it should be another way.
That´s why I dropped 5e and migrated to Pathfinder, I was sick of rules that had space for interpretation and where easily exploitable by players.
So, whyle I understand your point (and in fact I myself think You are right), the fact that I had been in the position is told you in the response, makes me to stick to the diagrams in the book.
I also think there's a nuance there regarding Foundry.
There's a reasonable argument that Paizo choosing one of the two rulings is for consistancy. Yes, logically, lines should be able to intersect corners, but allowing as such could on some table result in bickering over whether or not individual squares are included or not. It's an arbitrary, but overall fair, ruling on their part.
But it's also entirely down to human falliability. For one, a reasonable table can ignore the rule without hassle just as you argue. Secondarily, Foundry. Digital tools can OBJECTIVELY tell the GM, when a 1-square thick line is drawn, which squares are hit! Under such circumstances, the rules can pretty much be entirely ignored! It solves the design issue that lead to one version of the rules being arbitrarily chosen in the first place!
So while perhaps not 100% RAW, it's pretty much entirely permissible from a design perspective.
Great video, Ron! Ignore anyone who doesn't see value in the time and energy you put into the game and hobby. You're making money doing what's fun for you and that's much better than roofing houses in 115 degree weather. You're providing intelligent value that's instructional and analytical. It is easy for jealous people to be critical of others, yet they don't add to the conversation.
One day, you'll have to check out Mongoose Traveller. It's really doing an awesome job of capturing the feel of Classic Traveller but with modern rules.
"The First Rule: The first rule of Pathfinder is that this game is YOURS. Use it to tell the stories you want to tell, be the character you want to be, and share exciting adventures with friends. If ANY other rule gets in the way of you fun, as long as your group agrees, you can ALTER or IGNORE it to fit your story. The true goal of Pathfinder is for everyone to enjoy themselves." (Pathfinder Core Rulebook p.7)
Reddit commentor can take a vacation now. The integrity of the rules are safe.
My group's main house rule is Item DC using the Standard DC table instead of static DCs, and all items created using Infused Reagents using Class/Spell DC. It's an amazing change that increases QoL dramatically and yet doesn't affect balance in the slightest. ... well, except for the Toxicologist, but that subclass is an absolute pile of shyte anyway.
This should be in the base game. I hope it's in the revised ruleset, but I doubt Paizo will listen to me since they didn't listen during the original playtest either.
As for line attacks, I always default to D&D Minis rules. Take a long thin straightedge and line it up between any two corners, one being from the source's square. Any squares it touches get affected.
Just a note: PF1 shows that the line comes from the middle of the "front" of the character. PF2 shows it coming from a corner.
There is not any wording in the ruling for PF2e that is comes from the middle of the caster's space, granted it also doesn't explicitly state otherwise. So there is room for the interpretation of the book's ruling.
Golden ruling: do what's the most fun for everyone at the table.
I will agree with @bilboswaggings in that the line can hit the three orcs even following official templates and the fact that those templates are just a reference that you *can* follow rather than one you *have* to follow.
But I think it's worth mentioning that the line rules text is weirdly ambiguous with regards to origin points compared to all the other areas of effect. The line rules say that a line "originates from you", not "a corner of your space", "a point on the side of your space" or even "the center of your space". The template shows the line originating from a corner, but even assuming it must therefore always originate at a corner, this does not tell us which corner - any corner, or the one nearest to the line's endpoint?
In any case, I think it's fair to say that one should be flexible in determining what is affected by a line and it's not worth the time arguing over it at the table. But it's not entirely fair to say you are "ignoring a rule", since the rules are, whether on purpose or not, ambiguous on this issue and suggest flexibility ("you *can* use the templates")
I just use what ever foundry suggests tbh
Agreed. It travels in a line... Just draw a line from the starting point to the end point and if it passes through a target's or their square, the target is hit.
As an addition to your point about the PF2 line following the path a creature would take, that is true, but the average PC is not 5 feet wide, so them hitting fewer squares while walking is also intuitive within the fiction.
Assuming we are playing on a grid, I would argue based on the definitions in area that the 1e interpretation is incorrect.
Area states to use the movement measure rules and that the following templates are common and can be used instead of measuring. The templates are not the only ones available. Now we can stop right here because using the movement rules the 1e line is clearly 35ft long and longer than our 30ft line spell.
Now if you were to argue that it could still be a valid template if you were to remove one square from the end, I would point you to the subsection on "line" a little further on in the area section. The line subsection states "A line shoots forth from you in a straight line in a direction of your choosing" and "unless a line effect says otherwise, it is 5 feet wide." Now these two sections indicate that a line may only contain orthogonally adjacent squares on one of the grid axes for if you were allowed to have squares adjacent on both grid axes then there would be a section of the line which was either 10ft wide or a curve.
The sentence "The line affects each creature whose space it overlaps," may lead one to argue that any square that a straight line touches would be considered overlapped, but as we are using a grid we still must follow the movement measurement rules per the area rules above.
Therefore the pf2e templates are the accurate templates but are not the only measurements that can be used and if not using a template one may not have orthogonally adjacent squares on more than one grid axis.
p.s. The solution for why no one can pass through the diagonal spaces of wall of stone is trivial based on the area rules and the spell stating "you create a 1-inch-thick wall...placing each 5 feet of the wall on the border between squares." and shall leave it up to you to derive.
I am somewhat flexible, sticking too close to the rules for rules sake can lead to unfun situations where no one is happy. I'm all for changing things up to suit your table.
But on a personal level I can't concede this "thick line", shooting a line should not get 2 guys standing next to each other an otherwise equal distance from the source, which the thick line would allow. If I allowed that, I'd have to start allowing shooting the line attacks down the edge of a space to get a line 10 feet wide because that makes just as much sense.
If I was GMing this situation and the player asked "can I get these 3 orcs?" I'd eyeball it, say "sure seems fine" and move on, I'm not about to get bogged down counting the exact squares and matching them with the diagram. If someone had 2 orcs 10 feet away (one directly in front and the other next to it) and asked if they could line shot them both (which the thick line would allow) I'd say no. Personally I think that allowing that would break more verisimilitude than it saves.
You are right again, and who disagrees is being overly zelous with the rules, again
I agree with your perspective. And I think Foundry handles the lines correctly, despite whatever the RAW argument poses. Grid thinking is too "fixed."
However, my Flails build characters ardently disagree with nerfing their CSE! lol
I think the 1e rule makes more sense, as indeed, the line touches the squares, so it should count. But on the other hand, I prefer the 2e rule because it's easier to remember. In 1e, I never bothered with diagonal lines because I could never remember how the diagonal calculation worked. In 2e, it's just a matter of increments of 1, 2, or 3. That's it.
I will say though, in VTTs it's easier to implement the 1e method, as you can literally draw lines on the map and see what it touches. But in real life, I don't have the ability to visualise that line. It's much easier to me to just quickly count those increments of 2 or 3.
That's one reason to preffer theater of the mind
I agree with the line theory. Besides the whole "go with what is fun" factor.
It was one of the reasons why our group changed to hex grid
Damn, hadent reflektera over this. Will apply your version as a "house rule" straight away
I’ve generally just taken the stance in my RPGs that, if it seems even remotely feasible and doesn’t obviously break a known rule or common sense, just let them do it. It’s fun for them, avoids stopping play to adjudicate, and at the end of the day the monsters are there to get walloped
I prefer your style. I believe the system can be quite "literal" sometimes, and that breaks immersion, like with the cover rules saying that if you're in cover, your enemy has cover against you too, if he has cover, the enemy could use the Take Over action in an open field and get +4 AC.
Good vid, I'll use your line.
The cover rules don't actually say cover is always symmetric. The first recommendation is that the GM quickly decides whether a creature has cover.
@@danimalfarm they make a "recommendation" to the GM, but the standard cover rules are quite strange. When the book says "the GM decides", they might just decide to Never follow the recommendation.