'no two creatures more then 30' apart' simple phrase, big fight

[rvalle]

So, in last nights game a cleric casts a Greater Command spell on a group of Fire Giants. When checking the spell details it has the limit listed in the title. Upon checking the distance between two of the Giants there was exacty 30 feet of space between them (6 squares). I said this made them more then 30 feet apart and the caster disagreed saying they were 30 feet apart but not more then that.

After much talk we ruled it my way and I said I'd check into it further... and so here I am. Surely this has come up before. Was I right?

rv

 

[darthkilmor]

So, in last nights game a cleric casts a Greater Command spell on a group of Fire Giants. When checking the spell details it has the limit listed in the title. Upon checking the distance between two of the Giants there was exacty 30 feet of space between them (6 squares). I said this made them more then 30 feet apart and the caster disagreed saying they were 30 feet apart but not more then that.

After much talk we ruled it my way and I said I'd check into it further... and so here I am. Surely this has come up before. Was I right?

rv

I think you might have it slightly off.

If there is 5 feet(1 square) between two creatures, they are 5 feet apart, yes? If there were any further, they'd be More Than 5 feet apart.

If there is 30 feet(6 squares) between two creatures, they are 30 feet apart. If they were any further, then it would be more than that.

Would you rule that a spell that required the targets to be No More Than 5 feet apart mean that 1 square of space between them was more than 5 feet?

 

[rvalle]

Well, yes.

I guess what it comes down too is does the edge of a square include the whole square.

2 examples:

1. If I took a piece of string 30' long and laid it from the end of one Giant to the other, the string would end before it got to the other Giant. So, they are not within 30' of each other.

2. Someone pointed out that the range on a burning hands is 15 feet. That means it covers 3 squares, not 3 and also the 4th one because it hits the very edge of the 4th square.

I guess to me 'no more then 30 feet apart' means they have to be within 30 of each other which means that string would have to touch both of them.

Or another way to look at it, with 6 squares between them they are not within 30 feet of each other.. they are 30 feet and a few inches. Though the caster said 'there are no inches in DnD!

rv

 

[Barendd Nobeard]

The spell description says they can't be more than 30 feet apart.

If they are exactly 30 ft. apart, they can both be affected, because they are not more than 30 ft. apart.

 

[Bacris]

The fact that there were 6 EMPTY squares between means the range was actually 35'.

I'd have ruled the same way.

Just as if you have 5' reach, a creature with a 5' space between you can't be hit by your weapons.

 

[Atavar]

I think of it in terms of reach. Normally, a medium fighter with a longsword has 5 ft. reach, which means he can attack a target in a square next to his square. It does NOT mean that he can have up to one square between his square and the square he wishes to attack. In other words, the square next to your square (i.e. zero squares in between) is considered 5 ft. away, NOT 0 ft. away, IN GAME TERMS.

Take the two giants from the original example. With 6 squares between them, one giant would need a 35 ft. reach, NOT a 30 ft. reach, to attack the other giant in melee. Any spell with an area of 30 ft. diameter (I can't think of any at the moment), if centered exactly between them, would hit neither of them.

So, I agree with the original poster on this one. IN GAME TERMS, one giant is considered 35 ft. away from the other, and thus they could not both be targeted with the spell.

Later,

Atavar

 

[werk]

The spell description says they can't be more than 30 feet apart.

If they are exactly 30 ft. apart, they can both be affected, because they are not more than 30 ft. apart.

This is the way that I would rule too. They are not more than 30 feet apart, so are valid targets.

 

[frankthedm]

OP was right. An adjacent creature is 5' away. If you have one square seperating you from your target, it is 10 feet away.

 

[Artoomis]

Hmmm.....

Think of it this way. If two people occupy adjacent squares how far apart are they? Answer - 0' because they are adjacent. Following this logic, if one 5' square seperates them they are exactly 5' apart (in D&D, anyway), and thus you may have up to six squares between people for "no creature more than 60' apart."

The area of effect is effectively is a 40' circle (use the 20' radius template from the back of the DMG). If you can make everyone fit into the 20' radius template (even partially, if it happens to be a creature that takes up more than one 5' square), then the spell can affect them.

 

[Artoomis]

OP was right. An adjacent creature is 5' away. If you have one square seperating you from your target, it is 10 feet away.

I don't think so. An adjacent creature is, well..., adjacent.

The fact that it takes a 5' reach weapon to reach to the adjacent square does not make you "5' apart" from occupants of that square. It only means you can reach to squares that are in the adjacent squares.

Of course, the area of effect really should be a radius, thus eliminating any weirdness.

Adding to the oddity, though, is that sometimes some can occupy the SAME space as you do, and they would also have 0' between them, but in a different sense of not being next to each other but of occupying the same square.