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

[Silveras]

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.

I have to side with Shilsen, here. The wording makes perfect sense to me. Not to pick on ARandomGod, but the interpretation above is just wrong. "No two of which can be more than 30 ft apart" does not mean the same thing as "each must be within 30 ft of one other"; it *does* mean "each must be within 30 ft of ALL OTHER targets".

 

[Nail]

"each must be within 30 ft of ALL OTHER targets".

The clearest abstraction yet! Good job, Silveras.

If 3.5e had a clearer tag for "selectable targets" vs. "everyone within the AoE", I'd be more tempted by Plane Sailing's burst suggestion.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The fact that A and C are more than 30 feet apart is irrelevant, because those are not two targets.

[blink]

[blink blink]

Is A one target?

Is C one target?

What's one and one?

-Hyp.

 

[Nail]

Three.

Obviously.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Three.

"... for sufficiently large values of one."

-Hyp.

 

[CronoDekar]

For me, saying "x creatures no two of which can be farther than x feet" is actually easier to work with, because it doesn't require me to start having to set a center of effect and determine the oddly shaped area of effect (supposing a square grid map -- hexes are fine, but for various reasons I rarely use them). All I have to do is take the two farthest targets, see if they are within the allowed distance, and adjust accordingly.

Granted, I can do the same with stuff like fireball, but with that there has to be no potential for unintentional hits (unlike horrid wilting, fireball can even hit enemies I can't see) or friendly fire. Plus I agree with DaveStebbins -- it also helps so I don't glance at the spell and think "area affect."

 

[Thanee]

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.

You should read that part again... makes perfect sense... almost!

Bye
Thanee

 

[The Gryphon]

The main reason why this type of spell only has targets, instead of an area of effect, is that you MUST be able to see or touch the targets. If the spell were instead a burst or spread that could effect x number of targets, you wouldn't need to be able to see the targets as both spells can take effect in areas you can't see and would work equally well if you were blind, in a lightless room, or some similar situation.

 

[ARandomGod]

I have to side with Shilsen, here. The wording makes perfect sense to me. Not to pick on ARandomGod, but the interpretation above is just wrong. "No two of which can be more than 30 ft apart" does not mean the same thing as "each must be within 30 ft of one other"; it *does* mean "each must be within 30 ft of ALL OTHER targets".

I wasn't saying that "my" interpretation was right. I'm saying that's what I read when I read that. Hence my quotation of:

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

So, no matter what the interpretation is, or which way you, or anyone else interprets it, OR which way it was meant to be, the very fact that it seemed so very completely 100% clear to me, and also apparently an equal amount of clear to other people, but in an opposite way, does support the fact that it was not clear.

 

[ARandomGod]

[blink]

[blink blink]

Is A one target?

Is C one target?

What's one and one?

-Hyp.

Yea, yea. I left it a little unclear that way almost on purpose. (In that I didn't explain which "one" targets were) The excersise in thought to interpret it should help to explain the clarity or unclarity.

OK, to clarify.

Five targets. In a straight line, north to south, each one is 25 feet from the other. Labeled A through E. The caster is level five so he could theoretically hit all of them if they are/were in proper range...

A-----B-----C-----D-----E


Caster targets A. A is hit, the magic then looks for the next target the caster has assigned, which is B. A and B are two targets, which are not more than 30 feet apart. The magic can gap up to 30 feet, and no more. This is 25, to it jumps between these two targets. The magic has now entered and damaged B, it looks for it's next target. The next target assigned is C. Now the two targets in question are B and C. The magic has erased A from it's memory. The magic can gap this 25 feet easily, it jumps.

Etc.

A and C are not two targets in this equation. It is not a radius in which up to five people are hit, it's a range, in which a series of two targets are considered. The series is as follows:

A-B
B-C
C-D
D-E

No two of those are more than 30 feet apart. It's crystal clear.

And, aside from the wording, it also makes more sense magic-energy wise. The formulae that is guiding the magic clearly cannot jump more than 30 feet, and it clearly has a set order. It would take a needlessly more complex magic fomulae to keep in it's head each target and measure the range between all of them. And why would you build this self-limitation into your spell anyway? Especially when it clearly increases the complexity and therefore level? If you wanted the effect that is "clear" to some but not the way I'm describing above, you should have built a radius burst spell that hits only X targets, not a spell with a limited programming to go from one target to the next (no two of which are 30 foot apart).

See, to me, that's as plain as anything. No two ARE 30 foot apart. A and C are not two targets in the chain, because the magic was not built that intelligently. The targeting magic doesn't even SEE target C until it's discharged completely from it's mind A, and is already on B. Sure, the formulae which gives the targeting mechanism it's instructions holds all of the targets, but it's not complex enough to BE a targeting mechanism, and really, as it's not expending any enery other than memory, it doesn't care HOW far apart your targets are. All it does is feed in the sequence. It can't detect ranged because it has no range, it's range is 0, the spell itself.


Once again, however, Silveras. You cannot in full understanding side with the fact that the wording is indeed completely clear, not while simultaniously seeing that some people thought the opposite. Sure, you can tell them they read it wrong, but the very act of telling someone they misunderstood something states additionally that the thing they misunderstood is not perfectly clear.

Edit: I'm not saying the interpretation above is correct. I'm just pointing out that it indeed does exist, and this is what it was. Other people's interpretations with a similiar effect to the one above might be slightly different, but still also exist.