Another "how do you read this" thread

[radmod]

I was going to make this a poll but my system fragged on me.

A spell reads:
"One creature/level, no two of which can be more than x ft. apart"

How do you read this?

Argument 1: It means what it means. Each creature must be within x ft. of every other creature. It doesn't say diameter/radius because this way you can form non-radial shapes, like squares.

Argument 2: It means each creature must be within x ft. of another creature. Like the old Chain Lightning, it can keep chaining up to it's range. Otherwise, they would have simply said "one creature/level, all within x ft. of each other."

Argument 3: Is there another argument? Beats me.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Argument 1: It means what it means. Each creature must be within x ft. of every other creature. It doesn't say diameter/radius because this way you can form non-radial shapes, like squares.

This is the correct interpretation.

 

[Water Bob]

"One creature/level, no two of which can be more than x ft. apart"

If the mage is 5 level, then up to 5 creatures can be effected. And, the creatures must be huddled together. If x = 40 feet, then find the two targeted creatures with the longest distance between them. If that distance is 40 feet, then the spell will effect all five creatures. If it's longer than 40 feet, then go to the next longest distance between two creatures and see if the spell can effect the other 4, and so on.

If there's more than 5 creatures, all within 40 feet of each other, then the GM, or the player, or a random dice roll needs to decide on which 5 of the bunch is effected.

 

[HoboGod]

Create a complete undirected weighted graph, exactly similar to a traveling sales person graph, of all creatures you're attempting to use Chain Lightning. If all edges are less than or equal to 30, you're able to cast Chain Lightning.

That's the best way of describing my interpretation of that description, however it probably doesn't make sense without some background in mathematics. In other words, I agree with Argument 1.

 

[Persiflage]

I didn't really think it admitted of any interpretation other than what it said. Choose the creatures to be affected by the spell. Are any two of them more than x feet apart from each other? If so, pick a set of targets where this is not the case.

I honestly don't know how you'd read it any other way than Option 1, other than "because you really want it to say something different"

 

[irdeggman]

I didn't really think it admitted of any interpretation other than what it said. Choose the creatures to be affected by the spell. Are any two of them more than x feet apart from each other? If so, pick a set of targets where this is not the case.

I honestly don't know how you'd read it any other way than Option 1, other than "because you really want it to say something different"

Have to agree with this one.

The text is clear even in a vague combat systme like D&D.

 

[radmod]

I didn't really think it admitted of any interpretation other than what it said. Choose the creatures to be affected by the spell. Are any two of them more than x feet apart from each other? If so, pick a set of targets where this is not the case.

I honestly don't know how you'd read it any other way than Option 1, other than "because you really want it to say something different"

You'd be surprised. I'm a lazy DM so I generally don't concern myself with spells. Instead, I require my players to know their spells. So if you tell me a spell works a certain way, I'll accept it. However, I periodically check a spell to check the players or when something sounds hinky. Fortunately, I've never had to check these spells (mostly cause the PCs targeted things in x ft. diameter). Now that I have read it I realize several players have been reading it as each target has to be within x ft. of at least one other target. I accepted it because I thought it was supposed to be like 2e chain lightning. It wasn't until last week that I read it and 4 of 5 players were doing it the wrong way.
I think you're right. It comes down to reading something and unconsciously reading it as how you want it to be.

 

[jefgorbach]

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.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Argument #2, for the same reasons explained by jef.

 

[Uder]

I'm in for argument 1, based purely on the plain-english wording.

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.

I disagree. Seems to me that when they say "no two may be more than x apart," they might actually mean what they say.

The reason they don't use radii is that for the most part (exclusively maybe?) these are targeted spells - not bursts, emanations, or spreads - so line of effect is important.