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

[Deset Gled]

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

No.

There is no measuring in Line of Sight. There is no measuring in flanking, except for measuring the area you threaten, which is defined elsewhere, and would not include squares simply touching the edge of an area. The measuring for area of a cone is explitily defined to not include squares only touching the edge of an area of effect.

If anything, the examples you reference support the fact that the distance from one square to another is 5', and does not include squares that touch the edges.

 

[irdeggman]

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

Alright but if you can pick any corner of the square then the square that the character is in can be counted can it not?

If you go from any point in a square to any point in another square that also give you adifferent meaning.

If you go from center to center you get yet a different meaning.

See the pattern I'm trying to point out here?

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Alright but if you can pick any corner of the square then the square that the character is in can be counted can it not?

If you go from any point in a square to any point in another square that also give you adifferent meaning.

If you go from center to center you get yet a different meaning.

See the pattern I'm trying to point out here?

Since you only count squares... No, it makes no difference...
I start in this square. I count out one... two... three.. four squares. Those characters are twenty feet apart. I start in this square. I count out one square. Those characters are five feet apart (or adjacent). When measuring distance, count squares. One square is five feet.

Later
silver

 

[Michael Silverbane]

That came out more jerky than I intended... What I mean is that D&D distances are abstracted 'to the square'. Two people don't really have to be at least five feet apart to fight effectively (not sharing the same square). An unarmed attack, or even an attack with most melee weapons is not going to be very effective if the combatants are standing five feet from one another the entire time... The square is an abstract unit of measure for D&D combat... So when dealing in D&D combat terms, there's really no reason to break any measurement down more than that.

Later
silver

 

[Hypersmurf]

See the pattern I'm trying to point out here?

Let's say we have three creatures - creature A, creature B, and creature C.

Creature A and creature B are 10 feet apart.

Creature C is 10 feet away from creature A.

Who is closer to creature A?

1. Creature B is closer.
2. Creature C is closer.
3. Neither is closer than the other - the distance is identical.
4. Not enough information to determine.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

...

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".

EXCELLENT example.

That's why one normally talks, in construction, about things like "6' apart, on center," to indicate one measures from center to center. To just say "6' apart" would have one leaving as 6' gap between.

It's ambiguous, and this there are indeed two correct answers. To avoid the ambiguity takes better language in the first place.

The most important thing is to decide which way it works and be consistent.

 

[Deset Gled]

It's ambiguous, and this there are indeed two correct answers. To avoid the ambiguity takes better language in the first place.

The most important thing is to decide which way it works and be consistent.

Luckily, the rules are completely consistent that the distance from one square to another is always counted as 5". Unless you are not using the grid system, there is no ambiguity.

 

[azhrei_fje]

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.

Heh-heh, interesting discussion.

What do you do about feats like Point Blank Shot?

You get a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at ranges of up to 30 feet.

So that means up to but not including 30 feet, right? So if two Medium-size creatures are standing such that there are 6 squares (30 feet) from the center of one creature to the center of another and they both have PBS, do they each get the +1 attack bonus?

Personally, I think the wording suggests "no", but it's a lot easier to rule "yes" and not think about it too hard.

 

[eamon]

I don't see how upto 30ft necessarily means "up to but excluding" as opposed to "up to and including".

In any case, creatures aren't zero-width; whether we include the points "exactly" 30ft away or not makes virtually no difference.

There's good precedent for counting distances in D&D just as you walk. I don't see a reason to count differently here.

There are different interpretations possible - but that doesn't mean that they're all equally good. The spell describes what is essentially a range, and ranges are calculated just as movement distances.

Ranges are calculated as movement, and in any case, precedent and simplicity suggest that all tactical distances in D&D are calculated using the same scheme as defined by the movement section. Unless there's some pressing reason to assume otherwise, being up to 30ft apart should be equivalent to being up to 30ft of movement away.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

After a first read I thought that the OP was wrong and the spell should have affected both giants. After reading some of the explanations here I definitely agree that the OP ruled correctly. Counting squares (as if you were trying to move from one square to another)makes it nice and clear for me. If you count squares they are 35ft apart, therefore not 30ft or less. Nice and easy to adjudicate.

I think some posters might be getting hung up on trying to equate the D&D rules with what it logically means in real life. That way is fraught with danger. I used to think like that and all it does is get you confused and angry as the D&D rules don't equate with real life. D&D is a game and the rules simplify a lot of things for ease of gameplay.

Olaf the Stout