Area Effect and Wall height

[roguebfl]

The Related conversations I had with Kromm produced:

Originally Posted by roguebfl

Is +30% a fair modifier for a Shape-able enhancement on Abilities that already have Area Effects ? [esp. Control]

Originally Posted by Kromm

I'd say more like +60%, like the second level of Wall, if you can distort your area of effect to cover huge, narrow shapes or whatever. If all you want to do is choose what you affect within the normally shaped area, though, Selective Area/Selective Effect, at +20%, will do.

[vitruvian]

Originally Posted by Agent

Unfortunately, the Explosion modifier doesn't seem to indicate a further consideration of height either, nor do the rules on page 414 seem to specifically reference it. It would appear 'explosions' would follow the same default considerations as Area Effect unless I'm missing something therein or in another book.

No, because Explosion provides for what happens at each increment of distance from the explosion in all directions. There's nothing saying damage at 5 yards up is any different from damage at 5 yards over.

[Agent]

Originally Posted by Bruno

I think what you're missing is that it's not an area effect. It's a point effect, and everything refers to distance from the origin point. I'm just not sure how the area description can possibly apply to it, because otherwise it's also 2 yards maximum radius as well, as no hard radius is specified.

Hmm, quite true. Explosion doesn't have a means of increasing its effective area directly (to affect larger areas you have to increase the damage and/or take the multiple levels that divide the damage by less with distance from origin point).

Ultimately I assumed the explosion rules were referring to distance right and left since they don't specifically mention height. The assumption indeed appears erroneous in any case, which I'm glad for as at least this modifier now appeals to me when i visualize it.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Which suggest to me that the Inferno isn't an explosion. There are many things that aren't explosions, and for them using the Explosion modifier isn't appropriate.

I guess what I'm not really following is what the existance of something using Area Effect has to do with the explsions? There's nothing really "generic" about the term, after all. Outside of excitable advertisers scripts[1], we don't refer to things with a volume as being "explosions". Area Effect makes all kinds of things into volume-filling abilities (often in combination with Affects Others). Explosion makes things that go boom, which is why it's restricted to a limited range of base advantages.

[1] I'm sure I've seen "an explosion of flavor" before somewhere.

You deride the term as generic with 'outside of excitable advertisers scripts' and then identify it as 'makes things that go boom'? Area Effect then can't 'go boom', not ever?

Area Effect is desirable for certain effects, in this instance namely Innate Attacks, (supernatural or super-science, probably) if the builder wants the blast to not diminish with range. Obviously, it can also be controlled in a tight area at base.

A builder could decide to describe such an effect as appearing to behave as an explosion (perhaps even beyond my offensive generic use of the term). The effect starts at a center, concusses outwards, causes knockback, and is loud. Does that absolutely have to have the Explosion modifier? Does it have to diminish with distance, no matter the concept? Or it could be say a toxic cloud burst that blasts outward quickly, where the flesh-destroying cloud doesn't diminish with distance. It's all just description - ultimately its an area where things are damaged.

Now, the point with Inferno was intended to illustrate how undesirable a height limit can be for certain concepts. I failed at relating this correctly, for which I apologize. Kind of fumbled there. Indeed, the effect of Inferno is not really an explosion if taken at face value, though I think it could be basically if one tweaked their concept.

If we take the effect and concept of Inferno, and magnify it's area, say to 256 yards in radius, well its a big roaring eruption of flame. With the base height limit, however, the term used of the effect, 'pillar' doesn't seem to hold up. 256 yard radius, 4 yard height. 'Relatively slender in proportion to its height', anyone? Which doesn't hold up even with a few extra levels of Area Effect.

So its not a pillar anymore - that's that. But what if I want a gigantic pillar of flame?

For which we have an answer now, using another modifier similar to Wall's version, according to Kromm. Works for me. Though what if the 'reshaped' effect can't be changed? I imagine that's less than '+60%, shape it however I want case by case'.

In any case, thanks for the trouble everyone.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Agent

If we take the effect and concept of Inferno, and magnify it's area, say to 256 yards in radius, well its a big roaring eruption of flame. With the base height limit, however, the term used of the effect, 'pillar' doesn't seem to hold up. 256 yard radius, 4 yard height. 'Relatively slender in proportion to its height', anyone? Which doesn't hold up even with a few extra levels of Area Effect.

So its not a pillar anymore - that's that. But what if I want a gigantic pillar of flame?

For which we have an answer now, using another modifier similar to Wall's version, according to Kromm. Works for me. Though what if the 'reshaped' effect can't be changed? I imagine that's less than '+60%, shape it however I want case by case'.

If someone wanted different proportions to their AE, to make it narrower but taller... so long as the volume matched what you would get using the standard modifier, I would think it was not worth even an enhancement, but just a feature. Going the other way, increasing the diameter by making the height less, should be a limitation on a larger value for AE.

[Bruno]

I'm not arguing that some sort of modifier or option to adjust the height of an Area Effect effect (ow my redundancy) isn't needed and desirable, just that as per RAW, there currently isn't one, and the enhancement is specifically priced such that I don't think it's entirely a good idea to throw one in for free.[1]

EDIT:
I'd go with adding a 50%/level enhancement to the AE enhancement itself (if working with an ability that isn't already an AOE) or a 25%/level enhancement on the base ability (if working with an ability that IS already an AOE but you're comfortable with the default radius). If increasing the radius and height of an ability with default radius, add one 25% enhancement, and then go with enhancing the AE enhancement.

Each level would double height, much like the current AE enhancement doubles radius. This extends the cylinder effect that AE creates along the vertical axis.

I'm figuring an enhancement to AE because then really wide really tall effects (filling a huge volume) factor together and cost proportionately more. Pricing them independently makes me nervous.

I'll have to sit down with a calculator to figure out the real difference between this sort of cylindrical effect and a spherical one to peg the cost for a "dome height" enhancement instead of the "cylinder height" enhancement - one where the height starts at the center and diminishes towards the edges of the effect (To a minimum of the default 4 yards to cut down on "what if only my knees and lower are in the effect" questions).

[1] It's true that in many games it's not going to be a big deal, as game events tend to take place on a "virtual" two-dimensional plane - terrain levels happen commonly, but multiple characters stacked vertically happen rarely. But in those games, the lack of vertical distance on the Area isn't going to be missed either and adding it doesn't do anything game-mechanically).

Games with lots of three dimensional movement (with lots of jumpers/fliers or swimmers, for example, or zero/low G, or even brachiators/branch-runners) would make the lack of a significant third dimension very obvious, and make the difference between

[Bruno]

Some back-of-the-spreadsheet calculations suggests that the dome-on-a-cylinder model I suggested can probably be priced at +40%/doubling of height, as compared to the 50%/level for the cylinder height.

For a pure dome, that slopes down to a height of zero, 33%/level as a replacement for the 50%/level of AE would be most accurate, but I'm not sure how much most players want to deal with little trailing percentages - 35% would probably do in a pinch.

I think. I'm beginning to math myself in circles (pun not intended).

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Bruno

I'm not arguing that some sort of modifier or option to adjust the height of an Area Effect effect (ow my redundancy) isn't needed and desirable, just that as per RAW, there currently isn't one, and the enhancement is specifically priced such that I don't think it's entirely a good idea to throw one in for free.[1]
<SNIP>
[1] It's true that in many games it's not going to be a big deal, as game events tend to take place on a "virtual" two-dimensional plane - terrain levels happen commonly, but multiple characters stacked vertically happen rarely. But in those games, the lack of vertical distance on the Area isn't going to be missed either and adding it doesn't do anything game-mechanically).

Games with lots of three dimensional movement (with lots of jumpers/fliers or swimmers, for example, or zero/low G, or even brachiators/branch-runners) would make the lack of a significant third dimension very obvious, and make the difference between

Not sure where you were going in that last paragraph, but the penultimate one notes the effect that prompted me to state that changing the proportions of the cylinder [taller and narrower], but maintaining the volume should be a feature. The owning character will usually not get in-game benefit for doing so, and likely will often encounter situations where it would have been better to leave the proportions at their default, so charging them any sort of premium seems heavy-handed.

EDIT:
I'd go with adding a 50%/level enhancement to the AE enhancement itself (if working with an ability that isn't already an AOE) or a 25%/level enhancement on the base ability (if working with an ability that IS already an AOE but you're comfortable with the default radius). If increasing the radius and height of an ability with default radius, add one 25% enhancement, and then go with enhancing the AE enhancement.

This part confuses me a little, but I gather that the bottom line is a +25% enhancer to double just the height of the cylinder, which should be right, since the volume of the cylinder increases as the square of the radius, but in direct proportion to the height.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

Not sure where you were going in that last paragraph, but the penultimate one notes the effect that prompted me to state that changing the proportions of the cylinder [taller and narrower], but maintaining the volume should be a feature. The owning character will usually not get in-game benefit for doing so, and likely will often encounter situations where it would have been better to leave the proportions at their default, so charging them any sort of premium seems heavy-handed.

Where I was going, and I fault myself here for subjecting everyone to a little slice of stream-of-consciousness, is that in a game where it hardly ever matters, I wouldn't make the guy who reduces the cylinder radius to increase the height pay based on the combination of factors - I'd charge him based on the reduced radius and ignore the height. Possibly charge a perk for the "occasionally can make this useful" factor.

Assuming the r and h are fixed. If it isn't, being able to trade r for h on the fly is pretty damn handy.

I actually play in a game where the GM has declared that all fliers fly one space off the ground (so "right over your head") or right over the ground ("walking" without touching the ground) and that all vertical terrain features will increase stairstep wise (one space horizontally, one space vertically, repeat), or will be "you fall and die" precipitous drops, to eliminate just about all considerations of the third dimension. It really hurts his head, apparently. It's not exactly a flat world, but it's definitely a strangely shaped one.

He's taken it to extremes, but many games end up something like this, due to there being no personal flight devices, and precious few situations with floors or stories where people on one layer can interact with people on another layer.

This is the kind of game where I would say "oh screw it, just pay for your horizontal area and pick something sensible for the vertical." No "six light second" pillars of fire.

Otherwise, in games where there are flying PCs and NPCs engaged in 3-dimensional tactical maneuvering (superhero games, games featuring a lot of aquatic species and under-water combat, and some kinds of fantasy games) are the kinds of games where I think someone has to pay somehow for that extra dimension. Keeping the volume constant certainly works, but I think most people would be happier to be charged by R and H rather than by V and have to back-calculate. You also get shapes easier to fit into game-friendly units - circles and hexagons are a little annoying to math out.

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

This part confuses me a little, but I gather that the bottom line is a +25% enhancer to double just the height of the cylinder, which should be right, since the volume of the cylinder increases as the square of the radius, but in direct proportion to the height.

I was starting from a second order equation, but I think that's more sensible.

You could just charge by X, Y, and H instead of R and then it's linear in all three axises, but I even hate drawing elipses with the help of computer tools.

[Agent]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Otherwise, in games where there are flying PCs and NPCs engaged in 3-dimensional tactical maneuvering (superhero games, games featuring a lot of aquatic species and under-water combat, and some kinds of fantasy games) are the kinds of games where I think someone has to pay somehow for that extra dimension. Keeping the volume constant certainly works, but I think most people would be happier to be charged by R and H rather than by V and have to back-calculate. You also get shapes easier to fit into game-friendly units - circles and hexagons are a little annoying to math out.

You make an intriguing case there. Especially if one were trying to hand off a method to the players. Personally, I think I will play around with both methods before deciding one way or another what works for my purposes. Messing with V indeed doesn't terribly appeal to me, but then I haven't really dug into the idea yet, so I'll just have to see.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Bruno

I'll have to sit down with a calculator to figure out the real difference between this sort of cylindrical effect and a spherical one to peg the cost for a "dome height" enhancement instead of the "cylinder height" enhancement - one where the height starts at the center and diminishes towards the edges of the effect (To a minimum of the default 4 yards to cut down on "what if only my knees and lower are in the effect" questions).

A volumetric rule of thumb is: A cylinder, a hemisphere, and a cone of the same circular base and the same height have relative volumes of 1, 2/3, and 1/3. The same ratios hold even if the central height axis is [changed] (making the hemisphere oblate like a meat patty, or prolate like watermelon) and/or angled to one side (like the shapes were piles of deli sliced meat that was bumped into). You can stack these shapes atop their mirror images and get the same ratios under the same conditions for a cylinder, a full sphere, and a spindle (two cones base to base, like a smooth d10).

IMO, these ratios are not particularly worth different amounts of enhancements since an ability's use case will often exploit the non-zapped adjacent areas for allies or priceless Ming vases to occupy. YMMV.