Another rule to ignore in your Pathfinder games (The Rules Lawyer)

CORRECTION: 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 meant to act as barriers.

Hi all, I 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-YouTuber" (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 video drops on the day the PF2E subreddit is closed by the mods to protest Reddit's new policies, a cause I support. After today, you can view these threads:

The thread in question:   / orthogonallyadjacent_squares_in_a_line_area  

My 2021 post saying that flails and hammers needed a nerf:
  / does_the_critical_specialization_effect_for  

=============================

LIKE & SUBSCRIBE! I'm a lawyer who teaches and runs tabletop RPGs (Pathfinder, D&D, Starfinder) for kids, teens, and adults, and making videos related to TTRPGs and board games.

JOIN MY DISCORD to chat with our community and/or try the Pathfinder Beginner Box or our drop-in PF2e play system!   / discord  

SUPPORT MY PATREON for early access to many of my videos and access to exclusive content, and to support me! I do unpaid public-interest legal work and rely on the Patreon and private GMing.
  / theruleslawyer  

For PF2E actual plays, SUBSCRIBE to my other channel, "RULES LAWYER DISCORD COMMUNITY CHANNEL":
   / @theruleslawyerliveplay  

Follow me on TWITTER at:   / theruleslawyer1  

Pick up your Pathfinder 2e book on Amazon using my affiliate links below. As an Amazon Affiliate, I earn from qualifying purchases which helps me continue doing what I love!
Pathfinder 2e Core Rulebook: https://amzn.to/3BiFCSj
Pathfinder 2e Beginner Box: https://amzn.to/3eVsUBB