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

[Hypersmurf]

Whoops: Right you are. The actual minimum radius is the square root of (15^2 + 13^2) (I'm pretty sure), so that's about 19.6 - so I guess using a 20' radius area of effect template is close enough.

The radius of the circumcircle of an equilateral triangle of side s is s/√3, which means that a 30 foot triangle fits into a 35 foot diameter circle.

And that's actually a better match for the behaviour of the spell on a battlegrid, because if we have two people 30 feet apart, each taking up a 5 foot square, then the distance from the outside edge of person A's square to the outside edge of person B's square is actually 35 feet. Although even with a 35' diameter 'circle' on the battlemat, you can still set up a triangle with creatures 6 squares apart who don't fit in the circle.

If you use a 40 foot diameter circle as you suggest, you can place two people who are 35 feet apart on the battlemat - I think it's even further from accurate than the 35 foot diameter circle.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

The radius of the circumcircle of an equilateral triangle of side s is s/√3, which means that a 30 foot triangle fits into a 35 foot diameter circle.

And that's actually a better match for the behaviour of the spell on a battlegrid, because if we have two people 30 feet apart, each taking up a 5 foot square, then the distance from the outside edge of person A's square to the outside edge of person B's square is actually 35 feet. Although even with a 35' diameter 'circle' on the battlemat, you can still set up a triangle with creatures 6 squares apart who don't fit in the circle.

If you use a 40 foot diameter circle as you suggest, you can place two people who are 35 feet apart on the battlemat - I think it's even further from accurate than the 35 foot diameter circle.

-Hyp.

Of course a 35' circle cannot be centered on the intersection of squares.

I am sure we will just continue as we have in the past - struggling with the mess of using squares and counting odd diagonals to find out if everyone is no more than 30' from any other.

 

[Nail]

You did see where I stated that after reading the RotG article I changed my mind didn't you?

Just checking.

Who me? Read?

 

[irdeggman]

Who me? Read?

yeah "Print is dead"

Bring on the DI

 

[Nail]

yeah "Print is dead"

Bring on the DI

Reading is a great skill. I hope to be able to do it someday. Until then, I'll just type.

 

[Herzog]

I wonder why nobody has included the fact that the creatures mentioned by the OP where giants, therefore Large.

That would mean that a 30' spacing between them (6 empty squares) would actually be 40' center-to-center, wouldn't it?

Which in turn begs the question: following RotG, how many empty squares may there be between two <insert size here> creatures for them to be '30 foot apart'?

Herzog

 

[Hypersmurf]

Which in turn begs the question: following RotG, how many empty squares may there be between two <insert size here> creatures for them to be '30 foot apart'?

Well, following RotG, two Medium creatures can only have 4 empty squares between them, because otherwise they don't both fit into a 30' diameter circle.

To me, that indicates that the RotG answer is wrong, but if we assume it isn't, then two Large creatures could presumably have 4 empty squares between them as well - they wouldn't fit entirely within the 30' diameter circle, but they'd fit partially within it - and a Large creature only partially within the area of a Fireball, for example, still suffers full damage.

If we assume that not only is RotG right, but when it says "fit within the circle", it means "fit completely within the circle", then the two Large creatures could only have two empty squares between them.

-Hyp.

 

[rvalle]

Wow guys. Thanks for the interesting discussion!

There are enough people here that agree with my ruling (and at least one convert ) that I feel right about how I did it and will keep that ruling going forward.


Thanks,

rv