D&D 3E/3.5 Lightning Bolt 3.0/3.5 vs older editions

[frankthedm]

I play it by the book. I don't know if the SRD includes it or not, but the illustration on page 176 of the PHB says: "All squares through which the line passes or touches are affected by the attack."

It is an issue of Text vs. Example.



Skip Williams addressed the issue in a RotG article..

Originally Posted by Skip RotGA
Line: A line's point of origin is one corner of the caster's space. (If the caster's space fills more than one square, you can use the optional rule suggested for cones to select the point of origin.) The line extends from the point of origin in any direction the caster chooses and reaches as far as the spell's range (or until its line of effect is blocked). The rules regarding lines are somewhat muddled; however, a line affects anything in a square that the line passes though or touches. So, if you send a line straight down a gridline, it will affect the squares to either side of the line. Some people like to limit a line's effects to a width of 5 feet. If so, the caster chooses which side of the line gets affected when a line passes between two squares. (Choose a side when you aim the spell, and once you choose, you have to stick with that side.)

Sadly errata was never issued for the rules text of the PHB. Pathfnder went with the less generous interpretation for lines as well.

 

[Dandu]

Actually, I now remember that AoE spells are generally considered as emanating from a grid intersection so a lightning bolt fired straight ahead will affect two squares.

A line-shaped spell shoots away from you in a line in the direction you designate. It starts from any corner of your square and extends to the limit of its range or until it strikes a barrier that blocks line of effect. A line-shaped spell affects all creatures in squares that the line passes through.

 

[Jhaelen]

There was a DDM article on WotC's website explaining how lines work (as frankthedm's second image notes). DDM rules were useful in judging other tricky rules in the D&D RPG, e.g. determining cover.

 

[Greenfield]

What's interesting about the "...or squares it touches" version is that it effectively allows for either the 5 or 10 foot widths for the full length.

The illustration frankthedm provided illustrates both versions, and both tactics would work. Cast it on the long diagonal to get 5 ft width, or straight up the divider to get 10 foot width.

 

[sjmiller]

I don't see what's confusing about a line or a cone. I do see a lot of potential confusion with a 5-ft. wide ______ or a 10-ft. wide ______. Maybe it's just me.

Now, I will admit, that as a curmudgeonly old gamer, I do not always use a grid when playing. Heck, 3.0 defaults to no grid in the examples. That being the case, I created a simple template (based off the passing template for Blood Bowl) that shows a five-foot wide area of effect and a ten-foot wide area of effect. I can then use the template with or without a grid. Using the rules and examples from 3.0, if more then half the figure's base is within the area of effect, it is effected by the spell. Pretty simple.

What trouble? I'm not being snarky; I really have no idea what problem you're perceiving with a 120-ft. line.

It is the fact, as others have pointed out, that the text and examples of what a line effects do not jive with each other. Because I know it could be interpreted several different ways, I decided to go with a simple solution. It is not that people have a problem with the 120-foot part, it is that many people seem to have a problem with the line part.

 

[frankthedm]

Heck, 3.0 defaults to no grid in the examples.

Amusingly you had to carefully compare the 3.0 Burning Hands and 3.0 Fireball diagrams to figure the % someone had to be in an area to be effected.

 

[Vegepygmy]

It is the fact, as others have pointed out, that the text and examples of what a line effects do not jive with each other.

See, this confuses me, because I've pointed out that in fact, the text and the example do jive with each other. I mean, I can understand that someone might overlook the text in the illustration and thus be perplexed by the text that reads "A line-shaped spell affects all creatures in squares that the line passes through," but once such a person has been directed to the more complete text...well, there shouldn't be any remaining confusion.

Because I know it could be interpreted several different ways...

We're talking about the 3.5 text, right? What other way(s) can it be interpreted? I'm utterly lost, here.

 

[frankthedm]

See, this confuses me, because I've pointed out that in fact, the text and the example do jive with each other. I mean, I can understand that someone might overlook the text in the illustration and thus be perplexed by the text that reads "A line-shaped spell affects all creatures in squares that the line passes through," but once such a person has been directed to the more complete text...well, there shouldn't be any remaining confusion.

Because wotc failed to change the rules text, all that is left is to determine what is the primary source. Rules text or a illustration. Diagrams, wotc employees and D&D derivatives like DDM can use the more generous interpretation, but in a RAW argument it will come down to primary source.

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I just read the 3.5 SRD and compared it to my 3.0 SRD and PH. After having done so I see where WotC created more trouble then they needed to with this spell. Here is what the 3.0 SRD says:
Notice that the area is either a 5-foot wide path or a 10-foot wide path. It's not a line, cone, or anything potentially confusing. The 3.5 SRD says it is a line, and that is where the trouble begins. I think I am going to continue using my 3.0 rules on that one. Saves me a lot of hassle as a DM.

They changed the way spells like lightning bolt worked between 3.0 and 3.5e, in a similar way that they changed cones. A pointless change which reduced their interest and stripped away one of the main uses of an interesting feat (enlarge spell? increased range for +1 spell level, which increased the area affected by lines and cones).

While 3.5 had a number of good bugfixes, there were wholesale changes to spells and stuff that had *never* come up as problem areas, presumably because the new brooms wanted to make a clean sweep and put their own identity on the .5 edition.

For my money the 3.0e version was best.

Cheers

 

[Greenfield]

Some items were underrated in 3.0. Boots of Striding and Springing were so cheap that many people I knew referred to them as "Boots of Standard Equipment". There was no reason for any party with a crafter in it not to have those on everyone.

Archers were broken in 3.0 as well. Allowing magic weapons and ammunition to stack allowed for an archer to have an effective +10 weapon when every other weapon in the game topped out at +5.

WOTC never did get comfortable with the Polymorph spells. They kept rewriting them and rewording them. In 3.0 the only difference between Poly Self and Poly Other was the duration. Again, there was no reason for a party of sufficient level not to travel and work in Stone Giant or Fire Giant form 24/7. Huge stat boosts, ac bonuses, etc., pretty much for free.

As I recall, one edition (I can't remember which) made some reference to a Polymorph effect that didn't threaten the target's mind. Except that Polymorph Other no longer had that old issue about the target eventually becoming the new creature, mind and body. That problem got left behind in earlier editions.

And, of course, in 3.0 you could generate infinite wealth buying pots and busting them up to sell as iron. (An iron pot sold for less than the same weight of raw iron.) That one was just silly.

No edition is perfect. IMHO, the 3.* set came closer than many other editions.