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

[Artoomis]

And we are occupying the same square.

Go somewhere with floortile or mark off a 5' square on the ground. Mark a second 5' sqaure nect to that. stand in the center of one square with someone else in the center of the other square. That's the typicle distance characters have between them on the combat grid.

Also, but the two 5' squares are 0' apart. Whether or not that is the key factor here I am not certain.

 

[frankthedm]

Also, but the two 5' squares are 0' apart. Whether or not that is the key factor here I am not certain.

The occupans will have a variable amout of distance apart due to the nessaties of combat. Thus there is an approximated 5' distance apart. This same distance issue is WHY some miniatures war-game require range measurement be take from "center to center" of two given models since the characters they represent may be between 0 feet and 9 feet apart even of the states that represent them are bumping bases.

Moving Around In Squares
In general, when the characters aren’t engaged in round-by-round combat, they should be able to move anywhere and in any manner that you can imagine real people could. A 5-foot square, for instance, can hold several characters; they just can’t all fight effectively in that small space. The rules for movement are important for combat, but outside combat they can impose unnecessary hindrances on character activities.

 

[Artoomis]

The occupans will have a variable amout of distance apart due to the nessaties of combat. Thus there is an approximated 5' distance apart. This same distance issue is WHY some miniatures war-game require range measurement be take from "center to center" of two given models since the characters they represent may be between 0 feet and 9 feet apart even of the states that represent them are bumping bases.

But the range from one figure to another is NOT the same as how far apart they are. I completely agree that measuring from center to center is correct when determining range (this is very much like reach, too) - but that's NOT how far apart they are for that is not the distance BETWEEN them but is, rather, the distance form center to center - and that's perfect for calculating range in most cases.

I am not really sure that this is what they meant to do, but "distance apart" is definately NOT the same as "range."

If my range is 30', I can hit the square that is six squares away from my own (30' away), but I am actually in a square that is only 25' apart from that square (that is, there are only 5 squares between us).

 

[Atavar]

No.... think real life for a minute....

Well, this isn't real life...its a rules question on a game. Per the rules as written (and, in my opinion, per the rules as intended) the OP is correct, and to rule it the other way directly contradicts the RAW. I can definitely see the argument and logic for houseruling it the other way, though.

Just be consistent, and it's all good.

Later,

Atavar

 

[blargney the second]

You ruled correctly. To measure distance between squares, go from the center of one to the center of the other. (So if you're adjacent, there's 5' between you.)
-blarg

 

[Artoomis]

You ruled correctly. To measure distance between squares, go from the center of one to the center of the other. (So if you're adjacent, there's 5' between you.)
-blarg

Actually, this is only truly wrong answer.

How far apart are you from a 21' square creature when you are standing in one square that overlaps one of his edge squares. It's ten squares form center-to-center, but that is clearly wrong.

Just as you are clearly not more than 5' apart from an adjacent creature who takes up many squares. The question is whether you are 5' apart or 0' apart from that creature.

Now I suppose you could talk about measuring center-to-center of the closest occupied squares of two creatures, and that is, I think, one of tow possible correct answers here.

I think you can rule that two adjacent creatures are 5' apart or 0' apart and be correct for the rules as written - so just choose one approach and be consistent.

Even though not really correct as written, the ruling that two creatures adjacent to each other are 5' apart is probably more consistent with the range and reach rules, and it is probably simpler to go that route. Still, it is not really right.

 

[blargney the second]

Right, so you just said what I said, but with lots more words. (Tell me how I was wrong again?)
-blarg

 

[eamon]

No.... think real life for a minute. Stand right next to someone, holding hands. You are 0' feet apart, right? You MUST be, as you are actually touching. And yet, to move to the spot they occupy you must travel a couple of feet or so.

The distance apart you are is how far you must move to be adjacent, not how far you need to move to be in the same space.

Let's try another real-life analogy. Put two 5' long tables together (so that the result is 10' long) How far apart are they? Answer: 0' apart, though we must move one of them 5' if we want it to occupy the same space as the other.

"Apart," by definition, is the amount of space BETWEEN objects or people and has really nothing to do with the concept of reach, etc.

Even if you use this logic, the fact remains that a fire giant isn't a perfect cube, and thus that the distance between them is more than 30ft.

Further, using the "real life" meaning of between makes the math much harder - which is why the rules explicitly define how spell ranges are to be calculated, and simply use the "movement" distance.

EDIT: And consider that they use the word "apart" not "between": If you're planting 5 beanstalks 6 inches apart (and neatly in a straight line for a change), then do you mean that you leave 6 inches between the centers of each beanstalk, or that the distance between them is 6 inches? To me, apart doesn't clearly mean "between".

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I agree that the wording is ambigious, esp with arguments of how much of your square you really take up. "Within a 30 foot diameter," for instance, would be clearer wording and fit into the helpful diagrams of how to decide when something is and isn't in an area effect spell.

Curiosity - did you give the player the option of choosing a new spell when it became obvious that your interpretations differed?

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Further, using the "real life" meaning of between makes the math much harder - which is why the rules explicitly define how spell ranges are to be calculated, and simply use the "movement" distance.

Problem is, in this case it isn't a spell range, it's special language in the target section, which is phrased differently than range or spread normally is. Is "no more than 30 feet apart" synonymous with either "within a 30 foot spread" or "One 30 feet away from the other or closer"? Maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but it would make more sense, imo, for them to have just used language that was clearly defined, and not a different phrasing that night or might not mean the same thing.