Another "how do you read this" thread

[HoboGod]

The other radial spells don't distinguish that only one person can take full damage and the radial spells hit all targets within radius. Chain lightning is worded differently but does the same thing without everything taking the same damage and everyone in the radius taking damage.

 

[Bacris]

Argument #2.

Say you target 5 creatures: ABCDE. The targets could form any "shape" upto a straight line provided each PAIR of targets are within x feet of each other so as long as A is within x feet of B, which is within x feet of C, etc... E would be included even though A and E are 5x feet away from each other.

Requiring all five targets to be within X of some central point is the same as making it a radius effect which IMO wasnt the intent since the radius description is commonly used for those type of spells.

This is incorrect.

The critical point of the text is this: "no two of which can be more than x ft. apart"

In your argument, targets A and E are more than x feet apart - guess what, that violates the rule. Your argument would require "any two of which", not "no two of which".

The reason it's not a radius is so you can use it with friendlies in the area without them getting hit.

 

[Bacris]

By the way, just to give you an idea of how overpowered that second interpretation would make things, consider Horrid Wilting.

Horrid Wilting
Necromancy
Level: Sor/Wiz 8, Water 8
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Targets: Living creatures, no two of which can be more than 60 ft. apart
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude half
Spell Resistance: Yes

This spell evaporates moisture from the body of each subject living creature, dealing 1d6 points of damage per caster level (maximum 20d6). This spell is especially devastating to water elementals and plant creatures, which instead take 1d8 points of damage per caster level (maximum 20d8).

You really want any creature within 1000 feet of the caster - in any direction - to take 17d6 points of damage if they're all within 60 feet of any one other creature?

That's a nearly half-mile diametere - as long as something is within 60 feet of something else.

 

[radmod]

You really want any creature within 1000 feet of the caster - in any direction - to take 17d6 points of damage if they're all within 60 feet of any one other creature?

Correction: that's 1080 feet!

This is an even better argument than debating over the wording. How many NPCs would survive if the evil Wizard walked into some village and cast this. Even if they all saved. Yikes!

 

[frankthedm]

Using "Radius" would also invoke LOS issues from the Point of Origin and issues of measuring spread/burst.

 

[Bacris]

Correction: that's 1080 feet!

This is an even better argument than debating over the wording. How many NPCs would survive if the evil Wizard walked into some village and cast this. Even if they all saved. Yikes!

Yup. My group ran into that exact situation in a game - I clarified the rule for the DM and pointed out the "no two of which" part - saved hundreds of NPC lives.

 

[jefgorbach]

Correction: that's 1080 feet!

This is an even better argument than debating over the wording. How many NPCs would survive if the evil Wizard walked into some village and cast this. Even if they all saved. Yikes!

Ok, i'll conceed your pov since it seems to be the majority although it doesn't seem to be RAW's intent for such effects.


Re: your example - All of them. so?
IRC without digging thru the books, RAW presumes the "common man" is unleveled with those extraordinary individuals (NPC+PCs) capable of Leveling representing <1% of the WORLD population with most retire/die before reaching 6th level(?) so a 17th level caster SHOULD be capable of causing massive results since encountering one is akin to having a full tactical nuke present in the community with corresponding effect.

 

[Bacris]

Again, I'm going to have to disagree.

DMG page 107 - NPC classes were designed specifically so random villagers fit into the rule mechanics - the commoner, adept, expert, and aristocrat.

Further, beasts and animals and vermin are "creatures" - so even if you don't have NPCs with levels, a dog is a creature. It's far, far too liberal of a reading of the rules, especially when "no two" is not the same as "any two of which". Also, I used 17th level for reference, but Horrid Wilting could be done at 15th level...

Edit - if you can't tell, I'm a rules lawyer... but it definitely helps when designing new rules.

 

[radmod]

Re: your example - All of them. so?

Oh, I don't have a problem with the Wiz tossing around fireballs or such to level the town. But the idea that he can kill hundreds of villagers within a 1000 ft. radius with a single spell (provided he can see them), well that's simply not cricket!

 

[DumbPaladin]

It's funny that there's actually disagreement on this. I guess it really depends on how people choose to read rules. It sounds like most of the people who responded read rules the same way I do: by being literal, and trying to apply logic to any gaps not handled by literal meaning.

"no two of which can be more than x feet apart" is actually quite clear. If there are four targets, there cannot exist a pair that are more than x feet apart, regardless of which two you choose. If target A and target D are x + 30 feet apart, they fail to meet this requirement.

I think Persiflage said it best: "I honestly don't know how you'd read it any other way than Option 1 ..."