Entangle - A Little Too Strong For A 1st Level Spell?

[IcyCool]

You can target anywhere within range you can see and to which you have line of effect.

Does not a spot 30 ft in the air qualify? Can you not fireball flying creatures?

Etc.

Sweet, no longer do I have to worry about hitting my compatriot's with a fireball, I now have surgical precision!

Edit - Hmm, that doesn't quite work with Entangle though, does it. The target is "Plants in the area", right? So unless you are in a forest, you won't find many plants in the area of a 40 foot radius sphere of air.

But hey, now I can fireball a 5' square, so this conversation ain't all bad!

 

[Nail]

Yep.

I know yer tryin' t' be sarcastic, but in this case it's unwarranted. D&D has always (in 3.xe) had a spell targeting system in which the caster may chose exactly where to place the spell effect. "Surgical precision" is part-n-parcel of the 3.xe system.

Come on. Don't tell me you've never seen a Wizard place his fireball just so in order to exclude a party member from its radius? How about lining up a Wall of Fire in just the right way? Etc, etc....

That said, many people forget about the 3rd dimension when playing on a battle map.



...if you are looking for a limiting factor, remember this: Dungeons usually have low ceilings.

 

[Nail]

Edit-wars, eh?

Edit - Hmm, that doesn't quite work with Entangle though, does it. The target is "Plants in the area", right? So unless you are in a forest, you won't find many plants in the area of a 40 foot radius sphere of air.

The target of the area may be any where you like.

...but only "plants in the area" are affected.

Simple.

 

[IcyCool]

Oh, and could you point out where I might find the rules for targetting that include what you mention? Or at least the rules for determining how to calculate the reduced radius? I mean, surely this isn't a new idea. Surely the "air burst" isn't new to 3.5, is it?

 

[Nail]

Here's the question you should answer:

Can you hit a creature flying 100 feet off the ground with a fireball?

 

[IcyCool]

Here's the question you should answer:

Can you hit a creature flying 100 feet off the ground with a fireball?

I would guess so, but need to be able to point to a rule if my GM asks how I determined that I could now simply fireball a 5' square. I mean, now I don't really even need the Shape Spell feat! (unless I want to make the area swiss cheese).

 

[Slaved]

You must a grid intersection as the center of a burst. That can limit what it will effect and each dm may choose where vertical grids are, unless there is a rule for that too?

 

[frankthedm]

Oh, and could you point out where I might find the rules for targetting that include what you mention? Or at least the rules for determining how to calculate the reduced radius? I mean, surely this isn't a new idea. Surely the "air burst" isn't new to 3.5, is it?

Problem is how to calculate crossing a cube diagonally.

A radius should look the same verticle as horizontal, but those diagonalcorners leave me wondering.

 

[Nail]

I would guess so, but need to be able to point to a rule if my GM asks how I determined that I could now simply fireball a 5' square.

The rule is simple: You can target any spot (grid intersection) that you have line of sight and line of effect to. You already use this rule! All I'm saying is: There is NO requirement that the grid intersection be on the ground....in fact, such a rule would mean that you would be immune to spell targeting so long as you are flying!

Seriously. Think this through.

Here's the SRD quote:

Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don’t control which creatures or objects the spell affects. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection.

I mean, now I don't really even need the Shape Spell feat! (unless I want to make the area swiss cheese).

Shape spell feat has lots of uses. Lots. This takes nothing away from that.

 

[Nail]

A radius should look the same verticle as horizontal, but those diagonalcorners leave me wondering.

I agree, it's a bit awkward, but for ease-of-use, I'd rule the vertical cross-section looks the same as the horizontal one.