30' apart

[airwalkrr]

GorTex is asking this because it came up in our campaign this week. My take has normally been to assume that two small or medium sized creatures are within 30 feet of each other if there is no more than 20 feet of space between them because the squares they occupy count as 10 ft. together. I rule this way because the converse assumes that a fraction of a square (in this case a half) counts for the purposes of range, which is not the way 3e rules normally work. You can't increase the effective radius of a faerie fire spell for instance by targetting it on the center of a square. A creature has to be within an entire square worth of the effect to be affected.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You can't increase the effective radius of a faerie fire spell for instance by targetting it on the center of a square.

That's because for an Area spell, "The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection."

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

A character in an adjacent square to you is 5 feet away.

Consider the description of reach weapons, for example: Most reach double the wielder’s natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square.

A reach weapon can strike a creature ten feet away; that is to say, a creature standing such that there is one empty five foot square separating you.

Two creatures separated by one empty five foot square are two creatures ten feet apart. So two creatures separated by five empty five foot squares are two creatures thirty feet apart.

-Hyp.

 

[GorTeX]

it obviously isn't as obvious as I first thought. I've gotten 25', 30' and 35' as answers in this thread so far...

Personally, I think you should measure from center of square to center of square, but I can't find the rules for this in the books or the SRD...I know it is there, I just am failing at my search fue...

-sarcasm on--
That baston of rules clarifications, 'Rules of the game' has (in 'reading spell descriptiosn, part 5') this to say about it.
--sarcasm off--

Sometimes, you can choose targets only within some sort of limited area. The rules usually use one of two different kinds of wording to indicate that. For example, the targets entry for the animal growth spell is as follows: "Up to one animal (Gargantuan or smaller) per two levels, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart."And the targets entry for the animal shapes spell is as follows: "Up to one willing creature per level, all within 30 ft. of each other." Usually, when the rules say things in different ways, they mean different things, but not in this case. All the targets you choose must be with the specified distance of all the other targets, and any target that is more than the specified distance from even one other target can't be selected as a target. To put it another way, imagine a sphere with a diameter (not radius) equal to the specified distance. All the targets you choose must fit within that sphere

This 'ruling' makes it an area spell with a radius of 15'. (30' diameter is 15' radius).
Since you have to choose an intersection for the center of an area, there is no way you could target two creatures with 5 squares between them.

but then, why not just call it an area spell? Just because you can choose the targets in the area?

Upshot of all this is that I understand how it could be ruled that 2 creatures 30' apart by all other measurements are 35' apart for the purposes of a spell with a 'Targets within 30' of each other' type of wording. I may not agree with the interpetatin, but I can live with the ruling if that is how the DM wishes to rule it.

 

[Sithobi1]

That "rule" is patently wrong. Imagine 3 people in an equilateral triangle, each exactly 30 feet apart from each other(or as close as it is possible in th 5ft squares). None of them would be within the area of the 15ft radius spell, yet all 3 should be affected by a single Haste.

 

[sfedi]

This 'ruling' makes it an area spell with a radius of 15'. (30' diameter is 15' radius).
Since you have to choose an intersection for the center of an area, there is no way you could target two creatures with 5 squares between them.

but then, why not just call it an area spell? Just because you can choose the targets in the area?

Not only that, but you must able to target them.

A blinded spellcaster can´t target a Slow spell, yet it can target a Fireball spell (although with difficulty).

 

[frankthedm]

That "rule" is patently wrong. Imagine 3 people in an equilateral triangle, each exactly 30 feet apart from each other(or as close as it is possible in th 5ft squares). None of them would be within the area of the 15ft radius spell, yet all 3 should be affected by a single Haste.

Imagine-shmagine, here is a visual aid.

 

[TheGogmagog]

I think that they are 30' apart and therefore all affected. But if I'm not the DM I'd live with the rules of the game 'rule'.

 

[Destil]

http://www.superdan.net/spellar/spellar1.html

dcollins' excelent essay on the issue of spell-areas on a grid. The first setion isn't as revelent as 3.5 cleared up some of these issues, but the second "Group Targets (creatures within a restricted distance)" is very useful.