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

[The Gryphon]

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.

You're twisting the words as written. It doesn't say "one target must be within x ft. of another target", which is how your interpretation works, it says "no two targets can be more than x ft. apart". There is quite a large difference in those statements.

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.

How could the formulae become more complex than what you've made it out to be. Magic in D&D in general is a tool, not some semi-sentient force.

Without twisting the words a "no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart" spell would work as follows. The spell can take effect within a roughly 20 ft. x 20 ft. cube, which you "the caster" adjudicate, just like placing a fireball. Then you "the caster" pick which of the people within that area you want as targets. How much simpler could it be!

As I've said in a previous post the spell can't be a burst or spread as those spells DO NOT need a line of sight to effect all targets (a spell with specific targets needs line of sight). If for example I cast your new area spell with x targets in a T intersection I could effect people around the corner, and of course then your spell is providing two types of aiming choice.

The only reason no two of your targets are more than 30 ft. apart, is because you're changing the definition of targets to mean a select group of targets within the whole group of targets, rather than the whole group.

This is where the misinterpretation is occuring.

 

[Thanee]

Well, "One creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart" is perfectly clear.

You have a bunch of creatures and regardless which two you pick out, they cannot be more than 30 ft. apart.

This does not have to be true for just one pair of targets, but it must be true for every possible pair of targets.

In your example (five targets, A-E), that is:

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

No such pair ("no two of which") can be more than 30 ft. apart. Not a single one.

In your example (all lined up with 25 ft. gaps between), you break the targeting restriction multiple times.

A-C, A-D, A-E, B-D, B-E, C-E all are more than 30 ft. apart, yet no two of the five targets can be, so your case is not possible.

If you read it that way, you simply read it wrong in some fashion.

"no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart" does not mean "any two of which have to be within 30 ft. of each other".

Bye
Thanee

 

[Hypersmurf]

"no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart" does not mean "any two of which have to be within 30 ft. of each other".

I'd look to Mirror Image for the wording of what he describes - "each within five feet of at least one other figment".

So for what he's trying to illustrate, I'd say 5 targets, each within twenty-five feet of at least one other target.

-Hyp.

 

[Thanee]

I just wanted to point out, that that "interpretation" is simply a "misreading".

And the misreading is exactly in that part... where "no two of which can be" is read as "any two of which have to be".

Bye
Thanee

 

[ARandomGod]

Well, "One creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart" is perfectly clear.

But you see, that's the very heart of my reply. Here you are saying that it's perfectly clear, AND that my initial reading, which I later went to great pains to illustrate, was wrong. Well, I'm not arguing that it was correct, or that you are wrong. All I'm saying is that here, here is a reading which seemed to me to be perfectly clear from the text. And it's perfectly wrong as well. The explaining it in detail was to show just how very different my reading of the text was than yours, which is all about, and only about how it's not "perfectly clear".

I even went back and added an edit, well before any of the following replies, that stated I wasn't espousing my interpretation as correct, merely stating it, esplaining what I read, which I had thought was requested earlier.

You're twisting the words as written. It doesn't say "one target must be within x ft. of another target", which is how your interpretation works, it says "no two targets can be more than x ft. apart". There is quite a large difference in those statements.

But I'm not twisting the words... I'm pointing out the essense of where I was reading the spell differently. Which has entirely to do with the concept of "two". One obviously not obvious (definition of obvious: Cannot be overlooked) interpretation is that it's as you (and others here) are espousing, which I'm not even pretending to say is incorrect and indeed have been going to some pains to point that out, is that ANY two of ALL of the targets cannot exceed that limit. Another interpretation which I know is plainly suggested, and I know this due to the fact that I know several people who have interpreted it this way, is that no two of TWO can exceed that range.

How could the formulae become more complex than what you've made it out to be. Magic in D&D in general is a tool, not some semi-sentient force.

This statement here indicates a simple lack of imagination or understanding of basic spellcraft. Of course magic is a tool, and of course it's 'semi-sentient'. If it weren't it couldn't work. It's not a "hammer" type tool. Well, in some cases it clearly IS. Fireball is quite similar to hammer. Magic missile, on the other hand, requires some higher functions in your tool. And anyone can clearly see that this also requires some higher functioning. Or else it wouldn't have complex limitations like "no two of which", a limitation that clearly has to have some factor to determine of indicate that there are indeeed more than two things which do. Otherwise it would have said ... "go to point X and explode".

Now, I can imagine two functions which can easily see the "no two of which" that is in this spell. That there are only two could be a lack of imagination on my part, so feel free and indeed encouraged to point out additional interpretations.

One is the way I stated above, that it goes to one, then leaps to the second... then from the second leaps to the third, etc. Under that program "no two of which" is clearly determined by how far the magic can jump from target to target, and the only "intelligence" that has to be programmed in is the one that keeps track of the multiple targets. (Note: It doesn't need to keep track of the first target, YOU supply that at the beginning of the spell. It "could", of course, but that would be a waste of magical energy)

The second way I can imagine is the burst with a "only hit these X" command, where it goes to point X and explodes, but only hits the targets it's told to hit within the radius of it's potential explosion. More complicated than a simple "explode there" command... but you can save some of the energy of the explosion and use that for the semi-sentient function of determining targets.

But I digress... my main and only point was simply to illustrate that, no matter what others seem to be saying, it's not "perfectly clear", insupport of Vodoo's statement previous. To be perfect in it's claritly, it could not lend itself so readily to being misread/misinterpreted in the way I did above. Which I only illustrated so thouroughly because I thought I was being asked to.

 

[Thanee]

@ARandomGod: I totally know what you meant... "perfectly clear" is only if every person who reads it understands it in the same way, basically. I guess I just disagree with that sentiment. To me it's clear as long as you come to the same conclusion without misreading it (see above for explanation on what seems to be the usual "reading error" here IMHO).

It's probably next to impossible to achieve that level of clarity when describing a somewhat complicated matter.

Just take a look at a high-end technical book (i.e. advanced math)... perfectly clear, but I'm sure many people won't understand them.

Bye
Thanee

 

[The Gryphon]

You're twisting the words as written. It doesn't say "one target must be within x ft. of another target", which is how your interpretation works, it says "no two targets can be more than x ft. apart". There is quite a large difference in those statements.

But I'm not twisting the words... I'm pointing out the essense of where I was reading the spell differently. Which has entirely to do with the concept of "two". One obviously not obvious (definition of obvious: Cannot be overlooked) interpretation is that it's as you (and others here) are espousing, which I'm not even pretending to say is incorrect and indeed have been going to some pains to point that out, is that ANY two of ALL of the targets cannot exceed that limit. Another interpretation which I know is plainly suggested, and I know this due to the fact that I know several people who have interpreted it this way, is that no two of TWO can exceed that range.

The twisting I'm referring to is that when it says "no two targets", you're redefining targets to mean the two specific targets you pick from all possible targets and no others. That to me infers a twisting of the basic text as written to something approximating "no two specific targets". I hope this clears up what I mean, as IMO you're adding the word "specific" or something similar to the text as written when formulating the interpretation you've shown.

How could the formulae become more complex than what you've made it out to be. Magic in D&D in general is a tool, not some semi-sentient force.

This statement here indicates a simple lack of imagination or understanding of basic spellcraft. Of course magic is a tool, and of course it's 'semi-sentient'. If it weren't it couldn't work. It's not a "hammer" type tool. Well, in some cases it clearly IS. Fireball is quite similar to hammer. Magic missile, on the other hand, requires some higher functions in your tool. And anyone can clearly see that this also requires some higher functioning. Or else it wouldn't have complex limitations like "no two of which", a limitation that clearly has to have some factor to determine of indicate that there are indeeed more than two things which do. Otherwise it would have said ... "go to point X and explode".

What requirement is there for magic to be semi-sentient or have higher functions? The caster provides all of the information needed, and the power harnessed for the spell imposes the limitations.

By how could the formulae become more complex I'll be a little more specific in my examples using the spells you've specified above.

Fireball is an explosion of energy directed by the caster, which has it's radius limited by the energy supplied.

The spells like magic missile which require "no two targets/of which being x ft. apart". The energy harnessed by the spell can only cover a certain amount of area before dispersing, and the caster chooses the targets within that area.

None of these effects as I've described them requires the "spell" to remember anything or have a higher funtion, it is just a tool with the power collected and directed by the caster. Even a spell like delayed blast fireball doesn't need a higher function. The caster just varies the amount of containment magic placed around the fireball effect, thus setting a "timer" by varying the amount of time before the effect breaches the containing magic.

Note all of the spells listed above have an area of effect, it's just defined differently. As I've said before spells like magic missle "no two of which" and the "no two targets" spells in effect have a radius, just like a fireball, but are not defined as a burst or spread for several reasons.

Firstly, the "no two targets/of which" type of spell requires line of sight to hit the target(s), which is not a limitation of either burst or spread spells. Example: You can fireball an invisible creature or a creature around a corner (by placing the area correctly), but not magic missile one.

Secondly, you have no control over who is effected by burst or spread spells apart from where you place the centre of the effect. Example: If you throw a fireball at a close packed group that contains some of your friends you can't avoid them, but a magic missile can target whatever creatures you want in the group without harming your friends.

 

[ARandomGod]

What requirement is there for magic to be semi-sentient or have higher functions? The caster provides all of the information needed, and the power harnessed for the spell imposes the limitations.

Oh, well no worries then. The trick would be, as a magic user, to LIE to the magic. I mean, I'm supplying all the information, and the power harnessed for the spell imposes the limitations.... the power harnessed by the spell can clearly travel up to 30 feet between targets, there can be no arguement about that.

The spells like magic missile which require "no two targets/of which being x ft. apart". The energy harnessed by the spell can only cover a certain amount of area before dispersing, and the caster chooses the targets within that area.

Well, THAT makes lots of sense, actually. But you'll note that this spell simply is not an area effect that chooses multiple targets within that area. I think I listed that as one of the easy options. But you'll not that it would also have other implications that do not apply to this spell. Instead, as written, it does indeed require the spell to figure out where all the targets are in relation to each other, not within a radius but all the targets distances from all the other targets. It's a very complex system.

None of these effects as I've described them requires the "spell" to remember anything or have a higher funtion, it is just a tool with the power collected and directed by the caster. Even a spell like delayed blast fireball doesn't need a higher function. The caster just varies the amount of containment magic placed around the fireball effect, thus setting a "timer" by varying the amount of time before the effect breaches the containing magic.

But setting a timer IS an effect of semi-sentience. On a basic level. But any programmer will tell you that all you really need is a series of ON/OFF switches to make an extremely complex fomulae. Of course the data are all provided by the caster. But it's still in the spell, it's still written.

Note all of the spells listed above have an area of effect, it's just defined differently. As I've said before spells like magic missle "no two of which" and the "no two targets" spells in effect have a radius, just like a fireball, but are not defined as a burst or spread for several reasons.

Firstly, the "no two targets/of which" type of spell requires line of sight to hit the target(s), which is not a limitation of either burst or spread spells. Example: You can fireball an invisible creature or a creature around a corner (by placing the area correctly), but not magic missile one.

Yes, the spell does indeed "in effect" have a radius. Too bad the spell writers didn't use that code, it would have been more consise. And more effective, as you could apply feats to it to increase the radius (ok, I admit that adding spell levels for only that would be ... very unlikely to be valuable, but if it were a radius it could be done).

Secondly, you have no control over who is effected by burst or spread spells apart from where you place the centre of the effect. Example: If you throw a fireball at a close packed group that contains some of your friends you can't avoid them, but a magic missile can target whatever creatures you want in the group without harming your friends.

Yes. Hence my example that magic missile has a limited programming (as a guided missile), whereas fireball is more similiar to a hammer type tool. (Well, grenade)

 

[ARandomGod]

@ARandomGod: I totally know what you meant... "perfectly clear" is only if every person who reads it understands it in the same way, basically. I guess I just disagree with that sentiment. To me it's clear as long as you come to the same conclusion without misreading it (see above for explanation on what seems to be the usual "reading error" here IMHO).

It's probably next to impossible to achieve that level of clarity when describing a somewhat complicated matter.

Just take a look at a high-end technical book (i.e. advanced math)... perfectly clear, but I'm sure many people won't understand them.

Bye
Thanee

Point taken.
^_^
I discussed this with some non-gamer (therefore theoretically semi-impartial) friends who're imaginative enough to get into such a discussion.

It was quite interesting. I started out stating that I wanted to know how they would interpret the following, and then read the rule. Then they discussed it among themselves a bit. One person couldn't really follow, so as it was explained to her (yes, they were girls... where else am I to get non gamers who *could* game intellectually?) it was clear that they had already misinterpreted the rule the way I originally did. (I didn't do anything other than read the rule as written, so as to avoid tainting any opinions). After listening to this for a minute I stopped the discussion and stated that I didn't want the rule restated in simpler terms, because I'm looking for an interpretation based on this rule as it is written. So I reread it out....

In the end everyone got (once again no coaching from me) that it wasn't a chain, but a radius type effect, although they thought it was a rather inferior one (as a real radius would be easier and more flexible). And they all came to the additional conclusion that it was clearly MEANT to mean the first way, as a chain where no pair of targets in the chain could be more than 30 feet apart, and it was poorly written so that now NO target in the group can be more than 30 feet from any other target. And then it moved on to a discussion about rules they're more familiar with (real world, no less!) and problems with legislation and the way things are worded.

I found the whole process quite informative and very interesting. It's neat to have a pool of minds capable of looking at something like that with no actual feeling about the subject matter itself. I especially liked their discussion of why they felt the rule was meant to be the chain effect, and how the wording likely was overlooked, etc.
"That's just poorly written"
"Yea, it clearly wasn't meant to have that effect or they would have..."
Etc.