Targets: One creature/level, no two of which can be more then 30ft. apart.

[dcollins]

I agree with Plane Sailing here.

 

[DaveStebbins]

But basically the same effect could have been achieved much more simply by saying something along the lines of "1 target per level within a 15ft radius spread" (or burst or whatever). Selectable targets within an easy template area.

I've not seen any half-way convincing arguments that the way it is currently stated makes it substantially easier to understand or adjudicate, or gives something unexpectedly extra in some way.

So I could use the widen spell feat to make it one target per level in a 30 foot radius spread? The book description makes that impossible, the new way of stating it allows it, as the widen spell feat specifically applies to burst or spread AoEs. That sounds pretty much "enexpectedly extra" in my opinion.

The current way makes sure it won't be confused with an area effect spell, which makes adjucating things like spell turning easier.

 

[Plane Sailing]

If you think Widen spell at +3 spell levels is ever worth doing, of course

To be honest, I think 'widening' of that kind of area would be an obvious thing to allow. What would make it so bad to enable one of these kinds of spell to affect targets within a wider area? Magic Missile that can target up to 5 creatures within 15ft radius as a 4th level spell? Mass owls wisdom that can target up to your level in creatures within a 30ft radius as a 9th level spell? Overpowering? I don't think so! A good spellcasting option? I don't think so!

Cheers

 

[Shadowdweller]

ALSO, a burst wouldn't be subject to Spell Turning or effects which block line of sight. And Targetting doesn't affect those the caster does not wish to affect. And saying something like "One or more targets, all of whom fit in a 15 foot radius burst," would in all probability have confused MORE people by bringing up another established game term.

 

[Thanee]

I've not seen any half-way convincing arguments that the way it is currently stated makes it substantially easier to understand or adjudicate, or gives something unexpectedly extra in some way.

Well, but it is not a spread. It is a spell with multiple targets, it has no area of effect, therefore no area is given. You would need a virtual area, I guess, but that would mean an additional entry in the targeting rules.

The existing rule is simple (to me there is no difference in the complexity of the statement) and does not need additional information, so it's actually the more simple approach.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Voodoo]

Maybe they figured (as I did) that it's completely clear and were surprised at how easily people are confused.

If so many people are confused about it how can it be 'completely clear' ?

Perhaps instead of 'no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart' it would have been better phrased 'none of which can be more than 30 ft. apart'. No references to areas to confuse the matter and no chance to fasttalk the DM.

But perhaps this wording just seems clear to me, just as the original wording does to shilsen.

 

[DaveStebbins]

To be honest, I think 'widening' of that kind of area would be an obvious thing to allow. What would make it so bad to enable one of these kinds of spell to affect targets within a wider area? Magic Missile that can target up to 5 creatures within 15ft radius as a 4th level spell? Mass owls wisdom that can target up to your level in creatures within a 30ft radius as a 9th level spell? Overpowering? I don't think so! A good spellcasting option? I don't think so!

I agree, but it IS an effect which is only possible with the reworded description, and not the original one. You asked if rewording it would make any difference and I was pointing out where it might.

ALSO, a burst wouldn't be subject to Spell Turning or effects which block line of sight. And Targetting doesn't affect those the caster does not wish to affect. And saying something like "One or more targets, all of whom fit in a 15 foot radius burst," would in all probability have confused MORE people by bringing up another established game term.

Exactly. "I turn the effect with my spell/ring, because it's targeted." "No, it affects you because it's a spread and the spell/ring doesn't turn spread effects." There's confusion possible both ways. It would have been best if they included a sentence to clarify the "no two of which" thing in the Aiming a Spell sub-section of the Magic chapter in the PHB.

 

[bfallin]

The reason it is worded no 2 can be more then 30 ft apart and not in other ways is that the caster doesnt have to be in the spell affect. So he can cast haste on the 2 fighters taht are 60 feet from him but are within 30ft of each other.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The reason it is worded no 2 can be more then 30 ft apart and not in other ways is that the caster doesnt have to be in the spell affect. So he can cast haste on the 2 fighters taht are 60 feet from him but are within 30ft of each other.

That could equally well be achieved with a range and area specification of the spell though - if haste was "1 target per level within a 15ft radius" and "Range: medium" for example.

Cheers

 

[ARandomGod]

If so many people are confused about it how can it be 'completely clear' ?

Perhaps instead of 'no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart' it would have been better phrased 'none of which can be more than 30 ft. apart'. No references to areas to confuse the matter and no chance to fasttalk the DM.

But perhaps this wording just seems clear to me, just as the original wording does to shilsen.

Yea, the original wording to me clearly states that if you have five targets, they can be standing in a straight north to south line, each one 25 feet from the previous one, and it will hit them all. No two targets are more than 30 feet apart that way. The fact that A and C are more than 30 feet apart is irrelevant, because those are not two targets. A and B are two targets, and B and C are two targets. A and C are not.