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

[rvalle]

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?

No... but I did let him pick which of the 2 Giants in question he wanted to effect.

If he had pushed to cast another spell I would have let him, but he didn't ask and we just went with it effecting the 2 Giants I ruled he could get.

BTW, this is probably start to come up more as the players start to cast 'mass cure' spells and such.

 

[irdeggman]

Let's see distance measured does not count the square you are in but starts with the first adjacent one.

But the spell states 30 ft apart which would be 6 squares between - it does not state range 30 ft, which is different since the latter counts distance starting with the first adjacent square.

 

[Deset Gled]

I agree that the wording is ambigious,

I would agree that this is ambiguous if you could point out any place in the rules where the distance between/from/apart/any-other-synonym two squares is 0'. Every single example I can think of (most of which have been brought up already) refers to this distance as 5'. As far as I can tell, the rules are completely consistent.

Remember that combat squares do not exist in real life, so that argument is meaningless. If you're not playing with squares, this discussion would never be an issue, as you would be measuring distance instead of counting squares.

 

[Nail]

But the spell states 30 ft apart which would be 6 squares between - it does not state range 30 ft, which is different since the latter counts distance starting with the first adjacent square.

No. It says "One creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart"

How do you measure distance in 3.xe D&D? By counting squares. To determine the space between two creatures, start in the square of one creature and count across until you are in the area of the second creature. In the OP's case, that's 7 squares.

Reach Example: Your PC has a 5 ft reach. What squares can you reach? Start in your PC's square, and count out 1 square. End there; your reach extends one square.

Move example: Your PC has a move of 30ft. What square can you move to? Start in your PC's square, and count out 6 squares. End there; your move ends after 6 squares.

Etc.

It really is that simple.

 

[frankthedm]

I would agree that this is ambiguous if you could point out any place in the rules where the distance between/from/apart/any-other-synonym two squares is 0'. Every single example I can think of (most of which have been brought up already) refers to this distance as 5'. As far as I can tell, the rules are completely consistent.

Remember that combat squares do not exist in real life, so that argument is meaningless. If you're not playing with squares, this discussion would never be an issue, as you would be measuring distance instead of counting squares.

Then the issue comes in as do you measure Base to Base, Center to Center or Center to Base or even Base to center?

 

[irdeggman]

No. It says "One creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart"

How do you measure distance in 3.xe D&D? By counting squares. To determine the space between two creatures, start in the square of one creature and count across until you are in the area of the second creature. In the OP's case, that's 7 squares.

Reach Example: Your PC has a 5 ft reach. What squares can you reach? Start in your PC's square, and count out 1 square. End there; your reach extends one square.

Move example: Your PC has a move of 30ft. What square can you move to? Start in your PC's square, and count out 6 squares. End there; your move ends after 6 squares.

Etc.

It really is that simple.

It doesn't say it goes out to 30 ft it says the affected targets are no more than 30 ft apart.

To positively calcualte this you need to know where to start measuring.

Spell "ranges" are measured like movement but this is not a "range" it is an absolute statement.

Things that are 5 ft apart have 5 ft between them. In D&D you are considered to occupy every portion of the square that you are in, including the edges - which are usually used to measure distance but have no distance.


Akkk trying to use "logic" in explaining magic, it never works. Spell is poorly worded is the bottom line.

 

[irdeggman]

Different means of measure (as in from different places in squares):

Line of Sight (PHB pg 139)

"Two creatures can see each other if they can trace at least one straight line from any part of one creature's space to any part of the other creature's space. The line is clear if it doesn't cross or even touch squares that block line of sight."

Flanking (PHB pg 153)

"Tordek and Regdar are flanking the troll. So are Tordek and Lidda. Jozan, however, isn't flanking the troll. The line from Jozan's center doesn't pass through opposite borders of the troll's space."

Cone, cylinder, Line, or Sphere (PHB pg 175)

"A cone-shaped spell shoots away from you in a quarter-circle in the direction you designate. It starts from any corner of your square and widens out as it goes."

So there is a variation in from where things are measured (as in originate).

 

[Deset Gled]

Snip...

So there is a variation in from where things are measured (as in originate).

None of the examples you give involve any type of measurement.

 

[irdeggman]

None of the examples you give involve any type of measurement.

Correct but they do give different examples of where to use your point of origin - which is where you start counting is it not?

 

[Michael Silverbane]

To positively calcualte this you need to know where to start measuring.[

You start in the same place where you always start when measuring... Start in the square of one of the creatures. Count out until you reach the square of the other creature.

Later
silver