Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D+1" data-source="post: 1099807" data-attributes="member: 13654">It burns them too.  Just because it refers to one creature in the description (largely as an example) shouldn't cause you to think the description is trying to exclude all other possibilities.  It's unclear but only if you're trying not to see the obvious.Line of sight (or line of effect for that matter) is not needed except to cast the spell in the first place.  After that it moves in the direction you indicate.  If you can't see where it CAN go then you simply have to guess where it's moving until such time as it exceeds your range.  You may want it to go 20' north and point in that direction, but if you can't see that it's blocked by a wall to the north then you simply don't see that it isn't going anywhere.You didn't quote the whole text, or didn't quote it accurately.  "To determine whether a target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square.  If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment."Borders and corners are part of the square, they're just used as specific parts for purposes of seeing what crosses a border or intersects a corner.  If a square provides cover/concealment then its borders and corners provide cover/concealment.No.  Shadows aren't going to provide concealment to creatures that are not actually in shadows, much less if they're standing in well-lit areas.  Yes, p.152 is written to suggest it, but be serious.  It's bad phrasing/a missstatement/an obvious error.  It's clearly not the intent because that would be clearly daft.Clearly the intent is not that all creatures should be considered to provide themselves cover and concealment.  You're correct in that if you take it absolutely literally it's whacked, and for that reason it should probably be errata'd.  However, that is so obviously not the intent if you're seriously trying to figure out what the way to handle it is you're either being obtuse or purely argumentative.You're not quoting appropriately again.  First sentence of the relevant paragraph is "Sometimes a character ends its movement while moving through a space where it's not allowed to stop."  The rule is talking about prematurely being stopped, not about the legality of stopping in the intended destination itself.  That's covered at the first full paragraph of the same page where it says, "Ending your movement: You can't end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless."In your example you would BE in a safe, legal position because your dying companion is helpless and there's no need for you to find someplace else to be.  But for the sake of completeness of argument let's suppose your companion was not dying, merely heavily wounded and you wanted to tumble in and give him a potion.  The DM who allows you to attempt to do things which by the rules you cannot do deserves the headaches he gets in trying to sort out the results.  BTW, needing to teleport through doors would hardly constitute a "legal position" now would it?No.  You determine beforehand where they intend to end their move action to prevent them from even beginning to try it, even though they ought to know darn well they aren't allowed to do it.The existing rules are sufficient because they don't allow it to happen in the first place, but it's not difficult to make a house rule to allow it if you feel it's needed in your campaign.  For example you could consider both characters entangled.1.)It should only be a problem when gamebreakingest rules lawyers are attempting to get away with something, 2.)You use common sense and have one of the two occupants pushed out of the room to available spaces and/or apply appropriate penalties to the M-size creature who suddenly (and stupidly) has turned himself into a size that doesn't fit the area he's in, 3.)the new black pudding occupies the first available legal space next to its former self, or if no such legal space is available it pushes other creatures out in order to make room with all appropriate consequences.  If they are in a small room then at least one of them is probably considered to be squeezing into the area.There may not be hard and fast rules for this sort of thing but it's not hard to adjudicate a solution either without having hard and fast rules.Not errata at least.  A little closer reading of the rules, and willingness to do what the DM is there to do - adjudicate in situations that the rules don't cover.  Absence of a rule to cover a given situation is not necessarily errata.</blockquote>

Verification