Is “all targets must be within an X-unit diameter (circle)” equivalent to “all targets must be within...
Several spells—or up-leveled versions of spells—have language such as this (charm person At Higher Levels from the Player's Handbook):
The creatures must be within 30 feet of each other when you target them.
I believe the above statement is equivalent to "The creatures must be within a 30-foot diameter (i.e. a 15-foot radius)."
When playing with such spells and using figurines and mats, I and others have sometimes started to measure distances between pairs of targets, rather than simply dropping a circle template of 30-foot diameter to see whether these can all fit inside.
Am I understanding correctly, and are the two phrases in my title exactly equivalent?
Note 1: I understand the difference between targeting an area of effect, like a circle or sphere, and targeting specific creatures within an area.
Note 2: Similar language appears in other editions, for example mass cure light wounds from Player's Handbook v3.5: "One creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart."
dnd-5e spells targeting
asked Dec 2 '18 at 20:52
Lexible
3,77232041
add a comment |
Several spells—or up-leveled versions of spells—have language such as this (charm person At Higher Levels from the Player's Handbook):
The creatures must be within 30 feet of each other when you target them.
I believe the above statement is equivalent to "The creatures must be within a 30-foot diameter (i.e. a 15-foot radius)."
When playing with such spells and using figurines and mats, I and others have sometimes started to measure distances between pairs of targets, rather than simply dropping a circle template of 30-foot diameter to see whether these can all fit inside.
Am I understanding correctly, and are the two phrases in my title exactly equivalent?
Note 1: I understand the difference between targeting an area of effect, like a circle or sphere, and targeting specific creatures within an area.
Note 2: Similar language appears in other editions, for example mass cure light wounds from Player's Handbook v3.5: "One creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart."
dnd-5e spells targeting
asked Dec 2 '18 at 20:52
Lexible
3,77232041
add a comment |
Several spells—or up-leveled versions of spells—have language such as this (charm person At Higher Levels from the Player's Handbook):
The creatures must be within 30 feet of each other when you target them.
I believe the above statement is equivalent to "The creatures must be within a 30-foot diameter (i.e. a 15-foot radius)."
When playing with such spells and using figurines and mats, I and others have sometimes started to measure distances between pairs of targets, rather than simply dropping a circle template of 30-foot diameter to see whether these can all fit inside.
Am I understanding correctly, and are the two phrases in my title exactly equivalent?
Note 1: I understand the difference between targeting an area of effect, like a circle or sphere, and targeting specific creatures within an area.
Note 2: Similar language appears in other editions, for example mass cure light wounds from Player's Handbook v3.5: "One creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart."
dnd-5e spells targeting
asked Dec 2 '18 at 20:52
Lexible
3,77232041
Several spells—or up-leveled versions of spells—have language such as this (charm person At Higher Levels from the Player's Handbook):
The creatures must be within 30 feet of each other when you target them.
I believe the above statement is equivalent to "The creatures must be within a 30-foot diameter (i.e. a 15-foot radius)."
When playing with such spells and using figurines and mats, I and others have sometimes started to measure distances between pairs of targets, rather than simply dropping a circle template of 30-foot diameter to see whether these can all fit inside.
Am I understanding correctly, and are the two phrases in my title exactly equivalent?
Note 1: I understand the difference between targeting an area of effect, like a circle or sphere, and targeting specific creatures within an area.
Note 2: Similar language appears in other editions, for example mass cure light wounds from Player's Handbook v3.5: "One creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart."
dnd-5e spells targeting
dnd-5e spells targeting
asked Dec 2 '18 at 20:52
Lexible
3,77232041
asked Dec 2 '18 at 20:52
Lexible
3,77232041
edited Dec 2 '18 at 22:06
asked Dec 2 '18 at 20:52
Lexible
3,77232041
asked Dec 2 '18 at 20:52
Lexible
3,77232041
asked Dec 2 '18 at 20:52
Lexible
3,77232041
3,77232041
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
No, "all targets within 30 feet of each other" is a more flexible criterion
We can show that the two criteria are not equivalent with a simple counterexample: suppose 3 targets are each 30 feet away from each other, such that they form an equilateral triangle with side length 30. The smallest circle that can enclose these 3 targets (known as the "circumcircle" of the triangle) has a diameter of of about 35 feet (see here; enter 30 for the edge length and press "Calculate").
However, going the other way, getting all targets inside a 35-foot circle is also not sufficient to establish that all targets are within 30 feet of each other. If two targets are at the edges exactly opposite each other, they will be 35 feet apart.
So, "all targets within X of each other" is not equivalent to "all targets within a circle of diameter X", and furthermore, there is no other diameter that you can substitute for X to make them equivalent.
Additional notes
In my answer, I have treated each target as a mathematical point with zero volume. It is fairly straightforward to extend my answer the targets with non-zero volumes, but it makes the math a bit more complicated, so I've opted to keep the idealized representation or targets as points for the sake of simplicity.
However, I should also note that my answer assumes that you are using Euclidean geometry. The Player's Handbook includes variant rules for playing on a grid, using quite non-Euclidean rules for calculating diagonal distances. As Mindwin's answer notes, these distance rules allow you to simplify the criterion of "all targets within 30 feet of each other". However, if you play on a grid with the variant diagonal rules from the Dungeon Master's Guide (putting diagonal distance at roughly 1.5x cardinal movement), or if you play using hexes instead of a square grid, this simplification no longer holds true.
answered Dec 2 '18 at 23:34
Ryan Thompson
5,79112054
add a comment |
No. But you can swap the definition with a square if you are using the grid movement rules.
As Ryan proved in his answer, given three targets they have to be in a triangle with 30 feet of edge. But in the game this triangle cannot be drawn. The diagonals count as five foot of distance the same as the straight lines, so the best representation one can make is actually a 7 x 7 spaces square.
The distance to one's own square is 0 feet. The distance to the adjacent square is 5 feet.
╔══╦══╦══╦══╦══╦══╦══╗
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╚══╩══╩══╩══╩══╩══╩══╝
It is easy to prove that all squares inside this grid are within 30 feet of each other. Any square outside this will be more than 30 feet away from the opposite corner / edge.
If each diagonal costs 1.5x the movement (alternate DMG rules) then it becomes more like a circle:
╔══╦══╦══╗
║xx║ ║xx║
╔══╬══╬══╬══╬══╗
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╔══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╗
║xx║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║xx║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║xx║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║xx║
╚══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╝
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╚══╬══╬══╬══╬══╝
║xx║ ║xx║
╚══╩══╩══╝
The cells marked with XX are actually 35 feet of each other. Four of them in opposed sides must be ignored. Thanks Ryan
answered Dec 3 '18 at 13:37
Mindwin
13.8k40139
1
I would note that using a grid is presented in the PHB as a variant rule, so I believe Euclidean geometry is the "default". I believe your answer is correct for the grid rules presented in the PHB. There is also the additional variant in the DMG that makes diagonal distance effectively equal to 1.5x cardinal distance, which I think would complicate matters. Regardless, you make a good point that I should note that my answer is assuming Euclidean geometry.
– Ryan Thompson
Dec 3 '18 at 17:00
@ryanthompson I feel like they slapped the 'variant' rule just to reinforce the notion that every rule is optional. When your own game supplements, official gameplay league and adventures all use these very 'variant' rules, they become, as Syndrome said, not a variant. However, I must add that remark. Thanks.
– Mindwin
Dec 3 '18 at 17:29
I don't think that circle-ish shape quite works for the variant diagonal. Some spaces are 35 feet apart: a combination of 2 diagonal moves (15 feet) plus 4 cardinal moves (20 feet). My guess is that with the variant diagonal rules, the answer is probably that there is no shape for which "all targets within 30 feet of each other" is equivalent to "all targets inside this shape", but that seems quite hard to prove or disprove.
– Ryan Thompson
Dec 3 '18 at 19:22
Yes, there are four cells that don't conform. I'll put an X on them.
– Mindwin
Dec 4 '18 at 11:26
That helps a bit, but there are still cases it fails to cover. It's possible to find a set of 3 squares all 30 feet from each other measuring by the variant diagonal rules that cannot be covered by this shape - essentially the same logic as my answer for Euclidean geometry. So I'm led back to my unproven conjecture that the correct shape simply does not exist in this case.
– Ryan Thompson
Dec 4 '18 at 16:34
add a comment |
In the English language, those two phrase are not the same. Mathematically too.
Take for instance the Reuleaux triangle. It would allow all targets to be within 30 ft of each other, but it does not have a uniform 30ft radius. So in terms of pure topography, there can be differences.
And for the language, "creatures must be within 30 feet of each other when you target them", I would also take the more general meaning that targets do not all have to be in the same 30ft space, but only that each target is within 30ft of another target. So you could have multiple targets in a row each spaced 30ft apart. Or four targets on the corners of a 30ft square. Mathematically, the target directly diagonal is more than 30ft, but each adjacent target is only 30ft.
There is also a piece missing, where it could be that the import factor is "when you target them". Perhaps those spells you are looking at are not instantaneous and therefore the targets can move after targeting and they only need to be in proximity at the time the spell is cast. That would also make the meanings different.
answered Dec 2 '18 at 22:00
MivaScott
4,5751734
Not quite: there are points within the circle circumscribing a Reuleaux Triangle that are (a) within X-units of one another, and (b) not within the Reuleaux Triangle.... oh wait, I see we agree with the uniform radius. I have added the word "circle" to my title to clarify.
– Lexible
Dec 2 '18 at 22:03
1
I'm not so sure this is also true, if you use the manhattan distance as d&d 5 does. At least for 3 targets I can prove it actually works
– fabian
Dec 2 '18 at 22:05
2
This is false for RAW and RAI: "I would also take the more general meaning that targets do not all have to be in the same 30ft space, but only that each target is within 30ft of another target."
– Lexible
Dec 2 '18 at 22:05
3
There is no other "general meaning" of the phrase. They must be within 30 feet of each other - a row of then separated by even 20 feet puts nonadjacent creatures up to 40 feet apart, clearly breaking the condition.
– Nij
Dec 2 '18 at 22:56
4
MivaScott the phrasing "The creatures must be within 30 feet of each other when you target them" ≠ "The creatures must be within 30 feet of at least one other targeted creature when you target them. "Each other" refers to each member of a group, not to some members of the group in common English usege.
– Lexible
Dec 2 '18 at 23:37
|
show 2 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f136663%2fis-all-targets-must-be-within-an-x-unit-diameter-circle-equivalent-to-all-t%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
No, "all targets within 30 feet of each other" is a more flexible criterion
We can show that the two criteria are not equivalent with a simple counterexample: suppose 3 targets are each 30 feet away from each other, such that they form an equilateral triangle with side length 30. The smallest circle that can enclose these 3 targets (known as the "circumcircle" of the triangle) has a diameter of of about 35 feet (see here; enter 30 for the edge length and press "Calculate").
However, going the other way, getting all targets inside a 35-foot circle is also not sufficient to establish that all targets are within 30 feet of each other. If two targets are at the edges exactly opposite each other, they will be 35 feet apart.
So, "all targets within X of each other" is not equivalent to "all targets within a circle of diameter X", and furthermore, there is no other diameter that you can substitute for X to make them equivalent.
Additional notes
In my answer, I have treated each target as a mathematical point with zero volume. It is fairly straightforward to extend my answer the targets with non-zero volumes, but it makes the math a bit more complicated, so I've opted to keep the idealized representation or targets as points for the sake of simplicity.
However, I should also note that my answer assumes that you are using Euclidean geometry. The Player's Handbook includes variant rules for playing on a grid, using quite non-Euclidean rules for calculating diagonal distances. As Mindwin's answer notes, these distance rules allow you to simplify the criterion of "all targets within 30 feet of each other". However, if you play on a grid with the variant diagonal rules from the Dungeon Master's Guide (putting diagonal distance at roughly 1.5x cardinal movement), or if you play using hexes instead of a square grid, this simplification no longer holds true.
answered Dec 2 '18 at 23:34
Ryan Thompson
5,79112054
add a comment |
No, "all targets within 30 feet of each other" is a more flexible criterion
We can show that the two criteria are not equivalent with a simple counterexample: suppose 3 targets are each 30 feet away from each other, such that they form an equilateral triangle with side length 30. The smallest circle that can enclose these 3 targets (known as the "circumcircle" of the triangle) has a diameter of of about 35 feet (see here; enter 30 for the edge length and press "Calculate").
However, going the other way, getting all targets inside a 35-foot circle is also not sufficient to establish that all targets are within 30 feet of each other. If two targets are at the edges exactly opposite each other, they will be 35 feet apart.
So, "all targets within X of each other" is not equivalent to "all targets within a circle of diameter X", and furthermore, there is no other diameter that you can substitute for X to make them equivalent.
Additional notes
In my answer, I have treated each target as a mathematical point with zero volume. It is fairly straightforward to extend my answer the targets with non-zero volumes, but it makes the math a bit more complicated, so I've opted to keep the idealized representation or targets as points for the sake of simplicity.
However, I should also note that my answer assumes that you are using Euclidean geometry. The Player's Handbook includes variant rules for playing on a grid, using quite non-Euclidean rules for calculating diagonal distances. As Mindwin's answer notes, these distance rules allow you to simplify the criterion of "all targets within 30 feet of each other". However, if you play on a grid with the variant diagonal rules from the Dungeon Master's Guide (putting diagonal distance at roughly 1.5x cardinal movement), or if you play using hexes instead of a square grid, this simplification no longer holds true.
answered Dec 2 '18 at 23:34
Ryan Thompson
5,79112054
add a comment |
No, "all targets within 30 feet of each other" is a more flexible criterion
We can show that the two criteria are not equivalent with a simple counterexample: suppose 3 targets are each 30 feet away from each other, such that they form an equilateral triangle with side length 30. The smallest circle that can enclose these 3 targets (known as the "circumcircle" of the triangle) has a diameter of of about 35 feet (see here; enter 30 for the edge length and press "Calculate").
However, going the other way, getting all targets inside a 35-foot circle is also not sufficient to establish that all targets are within 30 feet of each other. If two targets are at the edges exactly opposite each other, they will be 35 feet apart.
So, "all targets within X of each other" is not equivalent to "all targets within a circle of diameter X", and furthermore, there is no other diameter that you can substitute for X to make them equivalent.
Additional notes
In my answer, I have treated each target as a mathematical point with zero volume. It is fairly straightforward to extend my answer the targets with non-zero volumes, but it makes the math a bit more complicated, so I've opted to keep the idealized representation or targets as points for the sake of simplicity.
However, I should also note that my answer assumes that you are using Euclidean geometry. The Player's Handbook includes variant rules for playing on a grid, using quite non-Euclidean rules for calculating diagonal distances. As Mindwin's answer notes, these distance rules allow you to simplify the criterion of "all targets within 30 feet of each other". However, if you play on a grid with the variant diagonal rules from the Dungeon Master's Guide (putting diagonal distance at roughly 1.5x cardinal movement), or if you play using hexes instead of a square grid, this simplification no longer holds true.
answered Dec 2 '18 at 23:34
Ryan Thompson
5,79112054
No, "all targets within 30 feet of each other" is a more flexible criterion
We can show that the two criteria are not equivalent with a simple counterexample: suppose 3 targets are each 30 feet away from each other, such that they form an equilateral triangle with side length 30. The smallest circle that can enclose these 3 targets (known as the "circumcircle" of the triangle) has a diameter of of about 35 feet (see here; enter 30 for the edge length and press "Calculate").
However, going the other way, getting all targets inside a 35-foot circle is also not sufficient to establish that all targets are within 30 feet of each other. If two targets are at the edges exactly opposite each other, they will be 35 feet apart.
So, "all targets within X of each other" is not equivalent to "all targets within a circle of diameter X", and furthermore, there is no other diameter that you can substitute for X to make them equivalent.
Additional notes
In my answer, I have treated each target as a mathematical point with zero volume. It is fairly straightforward to extend my answer the targets with non-zero volumes, but it makes the math a bit more complicated, so I've opted to keep the idealized representation or targets as points for the sake of simplicity.
However, I should also note that my answer assumes that you are using Euclidean geometry. The Player's Handbook includes variant rules for playing on a grid, using quite non-Euclidean rules for calculating diagonal distances. As Mindwin's answer notes, these distance rules allow you to simplify the criterion of "all targets within 30 feet of each other". However, if you play on a grid with the variant diagonal rules from the Dungeon Master's Guide (putting diagonal distance at roughly 1.5x cardinal movement), or if you play using hexes instead of a square grid, this simplification no longer holds true.
answered Dec 2 '18 at 23:34
Ryan Thompson
5,79112054
edited Dec 3 '18 at 17:17
answered Dec 2 '18 at 23:34
Ryan Thompson
5,79112054
answered Dec 2 '18 at 23:34
Ryan Thompson
5,79112054
answered Dec 2 '18 at 23:34
Ryan Thompson
5,79112054
5,79112054
add a comment |
add a comment |
No. But you can swap the definition with a square if you are using the grid movement rules.
As Ryan proved in his answer, given three targets they have to be in a triangle with 30 feet of edge. But in the game this triangle cannot be drawn. The diagonals count as five foot of distance the same as the straight lines, so the best representation one can make is actually a 7 x 7 spaces square.
The distance to one's own square is 0 feet. The distance to the adjacent square is 5 feet.
╔══╦══╦══╦══╦══╦══╦══╗
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╚══╩══╩══╩══╩══╩══╩══╝
It is easy to prove that all squares inside this grid are within 30 feet of each other. Any square outside this will be more than 30 feet away from the opposite corner / edge.
If each diagonal costs 1.5x the movement (alternate DMG rules) then it becomes more like a circle:
╔══╦══╦══╗
║xx║ ║xx║
╔══╬══╬══╬══╬══╗
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╔══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╗
║xx║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║xx║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║xx║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║xx║
╚══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╝
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╚══╬══╬══╬══╬══╝
║xx║ ║xx║
╚══╩══╩══╝
The cells marked with XX are actually 35 feet of each other. Four of them in opposed sides must be ignored. Thanks Ryan
answered Dec 3 '18 at 13:37
Mindwin
13.8k40139
1
I would note that using a grid is presented in the PHB as a variant rule, so I believe Euclidean geometry is the "default". I believe your answer is correct for the grid rules presented in the PHB. There is also the additional variant in the DMG that makes diagonal distance effectively equal to 1.5x cardinal distance, which I think would complicate matters. Regardless, you make a good point that I should note that my answer is assuming Euclidean geometry.
– Ryan Thompson
Dec 3 '18 at 17:00
@ryanthompson I feel like they slapped the 'variant' rule just to reinforce the notion that every rule is optional. When your own game supplements, official gameplay league and adventures all use these very 'variant' rules, they become, as Syndrome said, not a variant. However, I must add that remark. Thanks.
– Mindwin
Dec 3 '18 at 17:29
I don't think that circle-ish shape quite works for the variant diagonal. Some spaces are 35 feet apart: a combination of 2 diagonal moves (15 feet) plus 4 cardinal moves (20 feet). My guess is that with the variant diagonal rules, the answer is probably that there is no shape for which "all targets within 30 feet of each other" is equivalent to "all targets inside this shape", but that seems quite hard to prove or disprove.
– Ryan Thompson
Dec 3 '18 at 19:22
Yes, there are four cells that don't conform. I'll put an X on them.
– Mindwin
Dec 4 '18 at 11:26
That helps a bit, but there are still cases it fails to cover. It's possible to find a set of 3 squares all 30 feet from each other measuring by the variant diagonal rules that cannot be covered by this shape - essentially the same logic as my answer for Euclidean geometry. So I'm led back to my unproven conjecture that the correct shape simply does not exist in this case.
– Ryan Thompson
Dec 4 '18 at 16:34
add a comment |
No. But you can swap the definition with a square if you are using the grid movement rules.
As Ryan proved in his answer, given three targets they have to be in a triangle with 30 feet of edge. But in the game this triangle cannot be drawn. The diagonals count as five foot of distance the same as the straight lines, so the best representation one can make is actually a 7 x 7 spaces square.
The distance to one's own square is 0 feet. The distance to the adjacent square is 5 feet.
╔══╦══╦══╦══╦══╦══╦══╗
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╚══╩══╩══╩══╩══╩══╩══╝
It is easy to prove that all squares inside this grid are within 30 feet of each other. Any square outside this will be more than 30 feet away from the opposite corner / edge.
If each diagonal costs 1.5x the movement (alternate DMG rules) then it becomes more like a circle:
╔══╦══╦══╗
║xx║ ║xx║
╔══╬══╬══╬══╬══╗
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╔══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╗
║xx║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║xx║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║xx║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║xx║
╚══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╝
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╚══╬══╬══╬══╬══╝
║xx║ ║xx║
╚══╩══╩══╝
The cells marked with XX are actually 35 feet of each other. Four of them in opposed sides must be ignored. Thanks Ryan
answered Dec 3 '18 at 13:37
Mindwin
13.8k40139
1
I would note that using a grid is presented in the PHB as a variant rule, so I believe Euclidean geometry is the "default". I believe your answer is correct for the grid rules presented in the PHB. There is also the additional variant in the DMG that makes diagonal distance effectively equal to 1.5x cardinal distance, which I think would complicate matters. Regardless, you make a good point that I should note that my answer is assuming Euclidean geometry.
– Ryan Thompson
Dec 3 '18 at 17:00
@ryanthompson I feel like they slapped the 'variant' rule just to reinforce the notion that every rule is optional. When your own game supplements, official gameplay league and adventures all use these very 'variant' rules, they become, as Syndrome said, not a variant. However, I must add that remark. Thanks.
– Mindwin
Dec 3 '18 at 17:29
I don't think that circle-ish shape quite works for the variant diagonal. Some spaces are 35 feet apart: a combination of 2 diagonal moves (15 feet) plus 4 cardinal moves (20 feet). My guess is that with the variant diagonal rules, the answer is probably that there is no shape for which "all targets within 30 feet of each other" is equivalent to "all targets inside this shape", but that seems quite hard to prove or disprove.
– Ryan Thompson
Dec 3 '18 at 19:22
Yes, there are four cells that don't conform. I'll put an X on them.
– Mindwin
Dec 4 '18 at 11:26
That helps a bit, but there are still cases it fails to cover. It's possible to find a set of 3 squares all 30 feet from each other measuring by the variant diagonal rules that cannot be covered by this shape - essentially the same logic as my answer for Euclidean geometry. So I'm led back to my unproven conjecture that the correct shape simply does not exist in this case.
– Ryan Thompson
Dec 4 '18 at 16:34
add a comment |
No. But you can swap the definition with a square if you are using the grid movement rules.
As Ryan proved in his answer, given three targets they have to be in a triangle with 30 feet of edge. But in the game this triangle cannot be drawn. The diagonals count as five foot of distance the same as the straight lines, so the best representation one can make is actually a 7 x 7 spaces square.
The distance to one's own square is 0 feet. The distance to the adjacent square is 5 feet.
╔══╦══╦══╦══╦══╦══╦══╗
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╚══╩══╩══╩══╩══╩══╩══╝
It is easy to prove that all squares inside this grid are within 30 feet of each other. Any square outside this will be more than 30 feet away from the opposite corner / edge.
If each diagonal costs 1.5x the movement (alternate DMG rules) then it becomes more like a circle:
╔══╦══╦══╗
║xx║ ║xx║
╔══╬══╬══╬══╬══╗
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╔══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╗
║xx║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║xx║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║xx║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║xx║
╚══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╝
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╚══╬══╬══╬══╬══╝
║xx║ ║xx║
╚══╩══╩══╝
The cells marked with XX are actually 35 feet of each other. Four of them in opposed sides must be ignored. Thanks Ryan
answered Dec 3 '18 at 13:37
Mindwin
13.8k40139
No. But you can swap the definition with a square if you are using the grid movement rules.
As Ryan proved in his answer, given three targets they have to be in a triangle with 30 feet of edge. But in the game this triangle cannot be drawn. The diagonals count as five foot of distance the same as the straight lines, so the best representation one can make is actually a 7 x 7 spaces square.
The distance to one's own square is 0 feet. The distance to the adjacent square is 5 feet.
╔══╦══╦══╦══╦══╦══╦══╗
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╚══╩══╩══╩══╩══╩══╩══╝
It is easy to prove that all squares inside this grid are within 30 feet of each other. Any square outside this will be more than 30 feet away from the opposite corner / edge.
If each diagonal costs 1.5x the movement (alternate DMG rules) then it becomes more like a circle:
╔══╦══╦══╗
║xx║ ║xx║
╔══╬══╬══╬══╬══╗
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╔══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╗
║xx║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║xx║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╠══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╣
║xx║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║xx║
╚══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╬══╝
║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║
╚══╬══╬══╬══╬══╝
║xx║ ║xx║
╚══╩══╩══╝
The cells marked with XX are actually 35 feet of each other. Four of them in opposed sides must be ignored. Thanks Ryan
answered Dec 3 '18 at 13:37
Mindwin
13.8k40139
edited Dec 4 '18 at 11:27
answered Dec 3 '18 at 13:37
Mindwin
13.8k40139
answered Dec 3 '18 at 13:37
Mindwin
13.8k40139
answered Dec 3 '18 at 13:37
Mindwin
13.8k40139
13.8k40139
1
I would note that using a grid is presented in the PHB as a variant rule, so I believe Euclidean geometry is the "default". I believe your answer is correct for the grid rules presented in the PHB. There is also the additional variant in the DMG that makes diagonal distance effectively equal to 1.5x cardinal distance, which I think would complicate matters. Regardless, you make a good point that I should note that my answer is assuming Euclidean geometry.
– Ryan Thompson
Dec 3 '18 at 17:00
@ryanthompson I feel like they slapped the 'variant' rule just to reinforce the notion that every rule is optional. When your own game supplements, official gameplay league and adventures all use these very 'variant' rules, they become, as Syndrome said, not a variant. However, I must add that remark. Thanks.
– Mindwin
Dec 3 '18 at 17:29
I don't think that circle-ish shape quite works for the variant diagonal. Some spaces are 35 feet apart: a combination of 2 diagonal moves (15 feet) plus 4 cardinal moves (20 feet). My guess is that with the variant diagonal rules, the answer is probably that there is no shape for which "all targets within 30 feet of each other" is equivalent to "all targets inside this shape", but that seems quite hard to prove or disprove.
– Ryan Thompson
Dec 3 '18 at 19:22
Yes, there are four cells that don't conform. I'll put an X on them.
– Mindwin
Dec 4 '18 at 11:26
That helps a bit, but there are still cases it fails to cover. It's possible to find a set of 3 squares all 30 feet from each other measuring by the variant diagonal rules that cannot be covered by this shape - essentially the same logic as my answer for Euclidean geometry. So I'm led back to my unproven conjecture that the correct shape simply does not exist in this case.
– Ryan Thompson
Dec 4 '18 at 16:34
add a comment |
1
I would note that using a grid is presented in the PHB as a variant rule, so I believe Euclidean geometry is the "default". I believe your answer is correct for the grid rules presented in the PHB. There is also the additional variant in the DMG that makes diagonal distance effectively equal to 1.5x cardinal distance, which I think would complicate matters. Regardless, you make a good point that I should note that my answer is assuming Euclidean geometry.
– Ryan Thompson
Dec 3 '18 at 17:00
@ryanthompson I feel like they slapped the 'variant' rule just to reinforce the notion that every rule is optional. When your own game supplements, official gameplay league and adventures all use these very 'variant' rules, they become, as Syndrome said, not a variant. However, I must add that remark. Thanks.
– Mindwin
Dec 3 '18 at 17:29
I don't think that circle-ish shape quite works for the variant diagonal. Some spaces are 35 feet apart: a combination of 2 diagonal moves (15 feet) plus 4 cardinal moves (20 feet). My guess is that with the variant diagonal rules, the answer is probably that there is no shape for which "all targets within 30 feet of each other" is equivalent to "all targets inside this shape", but that seems quite hard to prove or disprove.
– Ryan Thompson
Dec 3 '18 at 19:22
Yes, there are four cells that don't conform. I'll put an X on them.
– Mindwin
Dec 4 '18 at 11:26
That helps a bit, but there are still cases it fails to cover. It's possible to find a set of 3 squares all 30 feet from each other measuring by the variant diagonal rules that cannot be covered by this shape - essentially the same logic as my answer for Euclidean geometry. So I'm led back to my unproven conjecture that the correct shape simply does not exist in this case.
– Ryan Thompson
Dec 4 '18 at 16:34
1
1
I would note that using a grid is presented in the PHB as a variant rule, so I believe Euclidean geometry is the "default". I believe your answer is correct for the grid rules presented in the PHB. There is also the additional variant in the DMG that makes diagonal distance effectively equal to 1.5x cardinal distance, which I think would complicate matters. Regardless, you make a good point that I should note that my answer is assuming Euclidean geometry.
– Ryan Thompson
Dec 3 '18 at 17:00
I would note that using a grid is presented in the PHB as a variant rule, so I believe Euclidean geometry is the "default". I believe your answer is correct for the grid rules presented in the PHB. There is also the additional variant in the DMG that makes diagonal distance effectively equal to 1.5x cardinal distance, which I think would complicate matters. Regardless, you make a good point that I should note that my answer is assuming Euclidean geometry.
– Ryan Thompson
Dec 3 '18 at 17:00
@ryanthompson I feel like they slapped the 'variant' rule just to reinforce the notion that every rule is optional. When your own game supplements, official gameplay league and adventures all use these very 'variant' rules, they become, as Syndrome said, not a variant. However, I must add that remark. Thanks.
– Mindwin
Dec 3 '18 at 17:29
@ryanthompson I feel like they slapped the 'variant' rule just to reinforce the notion that every rule is optional. When your own game supplements, official gameplay league and adventures all use these very 'variant' rules, they become, as Syndrome said, not a variant. However, I must add that remark. Thanks.
– Mindwin
Dec 3 '18 at 17:29
I don't think that circle-ish shape quite works for the variant diagonal. Some spaces are 35 feet apart: a combination of 2 diagonal moves (15 feet) plus 4 cardinal moves (20 feet). My guess is that with the variant diagonal rules, the answer is probably that there is no shape for which "all targets within 30 feet of each other" is equivalent to "all targets inside this shape", but that seems quite hard to prove or disprove.
– Ryan Thompson
Dec 3 '18 at 19:22
I don't think that circle-ish shape quite works for the variant diagonal. Some spaces are 35 feet apart: a combination of 2 diagonal moves (15 feet) plus 4 cardinal moves (20 feet). My guess is that with the variant diagonal rules, the answer is probably that there is no shape for which "all targets within 30 feet of each other" is equivalent to "all targets inside this shape", but that seems quite hard to prove or disprove.
– Ryan Thompson
Dec 3 '18 at 19:22
Yes, there are four cells that don't conform. I'll put an X on them.
– Mindwin
Dec 4 '18 at 11:26
Yes, there are four cells that don't conform. I'll put an X on them.
– Mindwin
Dec 4 '18 at 11:26
That helps a bit, but there are still cases it fails to cover. It's possible to find a set of 3 squares all 30 feet from each other measuring by the variant diagonal rules that cannot be covered by this shape - essentially the same logic as my answer for Euclidean geometry. So I'm led back to my unproven conjecture that the correct shape simply does not exist in this case.
– Ryan Thompson
Dec 4 '18 at 16:34
That helps a bit, but there are still cases it fails to cover. It's possible to find a set of 3 squares all 30 feet from each other measuring by the variant diagonal rules that cannot be covered by this shape - essentially the same logic as my answer for Euclidean geometry. So I'm led back to my unproven conjecture that the correct shape simply does not exist in this case.
– Ryan Thompson
Dec 4 '18 at 16:34
add a comment |
In the English language, those two phrase are not the same. Mathematically too.
Take for instance the Reuleaux triangle. It would allow all targets to be within 30 ft of each other, but it does not have a uniform 30ft radius. So in terms of pure topography, there can be differences.
And for the language, "creatures must be within 30 feet of each other when you target them", I would also take the more general meaning that targets do not all have to be in the same 30ft space, but only that each target is within 30ft of another target. So you could have multiple targets in a row each spaced 30ft apart. Or four targets on the corners of a 30ft square. Mathematically, the target directly diagonal is more than 30ft, but each adjacent target is only 30ft.
There is also a piece missing, where it could be that the import factor is "when you target them". Perhaps those spells you are looking at are not instantaneous and therefore the targets can move after targeting and they only need to be in proximity at the time the spell is cast. That would also make the meanings different.
answered Dec 2 '18 at 22:00
MivaScott
4,5751734
Not quite: there are points within the circle circumscribing a Reuleaux Triangle that are (a) within X-units of one another, and (b) not within the Reuleaux Triangle.... oh wait, I see we agree with the uniform radius. I have added the word "circle" to my title to clarify.
– Lexible
Dec 2 '18 at 22:03
1
I'm not so sure this is also true, if you use the manhattan distance as d&d 5 does. At least for 3 targets I can prove it actually works
– fabian
Dec 2 '18 at 22:05
2
This is false for RAW and RAI: "I would also take the more general meaning that targets do not all have to be in the same 30ft space, but only that each target is within 30ft of another target."
– Lexible
Dec 2 '18 at 22:05
3
There is no other "general meaning" of the phrase. They must be within 30 feet of each other - a row of then separated by even 20 feet puts nonadjacent creatures up to 40 feet apart, clearly breaking the condition.
– Nij
Dec 2 '18 at 22:56
4
MivaScott the phrasing "The creatures must be within 30 feet of each other when you target them" ≠ "The creatures must be within 30 feet of at least one other targeted creature when you target them. "Each other" refers to each member of a group, not to some members of the group in common English usege.
– Lexible
Dec 2 '18 at 23:37
|
show 2 more comments
In the English language, those two phrase are not the same. Mathematically too.
Take for instance the Reuleaux triangle. It would allow all targets to be within 30 ft of each other, but it does not have a uniform 30ft radius. So in terms of pure topography, there can be differences.
And for the language, "creatures must be within 30 feet of each other when you target them", I would also take the more general meaning that targets do not all have to be in the same 30ft space, but only that each target is within 30ft of another target. So you could have multiple targets in a row each spaced 30ft apart. Or four targets on the corners of a 30ft square. Mathematically, the target directly diagonal is more than 30ft, but each adjacent target is only 30ft.
There is also a piece missing, where it could be that the import factor is "when you target them". Perhaps those spells you are looking at are not instantaneous and therefore the targets can move after targeting and they only need to be in proximity at the time the spell is cast. That would also make the meanings different.
answered Dec 2 '18 at 22:00
MivaScott
4,5751734
Not quite: there are points within the circle circumscribing a Reuleaux Triangle that are (a) within X-units of one another, and (b) not within the Reuleaux Triangle.... oh wait, I see we agree with the uniform radius. I have added the word "circle" to my title to clarify.
– Lexible
Dec 2 '18 at 22:03
1
I'm not so sure this is also true, if you use the manhattan distance as d&d 5 does. At least for 3 targets I can prove it actually works
– fabian
Dec 2 '18 at 22:05
2
This is false for RAW and RAI: "I would also take the more general meaning that targets do not all have to be in the same 30ft space, but only that each target is within 30ft of another target."
– Lexible
Dec 2 '18 at 22:05
3
There is no other "general meaning" of the phrase. They must be within 30 feet of each other - a row of then separated by even 20 feet puts nonadjacent creatures up to 40 feet apart, clearly breaking the condition.
– Nij
Dec 2 '18 at 22:56
4
MivaScott the phrasing "The creatures must be within 30 feet of each other when you target them" ≠ "The creatures must be within 30 feet of at least one other targeted creature when you target them. "Each other" refers to each member of a group, not to some members of the group in common English usege.
– Lexible
Dec 2 '18 at 23:37
|
show 2 more comments
In the English language, those two phrase are not the same. Mathematically too.
Take for instance the Reuleaux triangle. It would allow all targets to be within 30 ft of each other, but it does not have a uniform 30ft radius. So in terms of pure topography, there can be differences.
And for the language, "creatures must be within 30 feet of each other when you target them", I would also take the more general meaning that targets do not all have to be in the same 30ft space, but only that each target is within 30ft of another target. So you could have multiple targets in a row each spaced 30ft apart. Or four targets on the corners of a 30ft square. Mathematically, the target directly diagonal is more than 30ft, but each adjacent target is only 30ft.
There is also a piece missing, where it could be that the import factor is "when you target them". Perhaps those spells you are looking at are not instantaneous and therefore the targets can move after targeting and they only need to be in proximity at the time the spell is cast. That would also make the meanings different.
answered Dec 2 '18 at 22:00
MivaScott
4,5751734
In the English language, those two phrase are not the same. Mathematically too.
Take for instance the Reuleaux triangle. It would allow all targets to be within 30 ft of each other, but it does not have a uniform 30ft radius. So in terms of pure topography, there can be differences.
And for the language, "creatures must be within 30 feet of each other when you target them", I would also take the more general meaning that targets do not all have to be in the same 30ft space, but only that each target is within 30ft of another target. So you could have multiple targets in a row each spaced 30ft apart. Or four targets on the corners of a 30ft square. Mathematically, the target directly diagonal is more than 30ft, but each adjacent target is only 30ft.
There is also a piece missing, where it could be that the import factor is "when you target them". Perhaps those spells you are looking at are not instantaneous and therefore the targets can move after targeting and they only need to be in proximity at the time the spell is cast. That would also make the meanings different.
answered Dec 2 '18 at 22:00
MivaScott
4,5751734
answered Dec 2 '18 at 22:00
MivaScott
4,5751734
answered Dec 2 '18 at 22:00
MivaScott
4,5751734
answered Dec 2 '18 at 22:00
MivaScott
4,5751734
4,5751734
Not quite: there are points within the circle circumscribing a Reuleaux Triangle that are (a) within X-units of one another, and (b) not within the Reuleaux Triangle.... oh wait, I see we agree with the uniform radius. I have added the word "circle" to my title to clarify.
– Lexible
Dec 2 '18 at 22:03
1
I'm not so sure this is also true, if you use the manhattan distance as d&d 5 does. At least for 3 targets I can prove it actually works
– fabian
Dec 2 '18 at 22:05
2
This is false for RAW and RAI: "I would also take the more general meaning that targets do not all have to be in the same 30ft space, but only that each target is within 30ft of another target."
– Lexible
Dec 2 '18 at 22:05
3
There is no other "general meaning" of the phrase. They must be within 30 feet of each other - a row of then separated by even 20 feet puts nonadjacent creatures up to 40 feet apart, clearly breaking the condition.
– Nij
Dec 2 '18 at 22:56
4
MivaScott the phrasing "The creatures must be within 30 feet of each other when you target them" ≠ "The creatures must be within 30 feet of at least one other targeted creature when you target them. "Each other" refers to each member of a group, not to some members of the group in common English usege.
– Lexible
Dec 2 '18 at 23:37
|
show 2 more comments
Not quite: there are points within the circle circumscribing a Reuleaux Triangle that are (a) within X-units of one another, and (b) not within the Reuleaux Triangle.... oh wait, I see we agree with the uniform radius. I have added the word "circle" to my title to clarify.
– Lexible
Dec 2 '18 at 22:03
1
I'm not so sure this is also true, if you use the manhattan distance as d&d 5 does. At least for 3 targets I can prove it actually works
– fabian
Dec 2 '18 at 22:05
2
This is false for RAW and RAI: "I would also take the more general meaning that targets do not all have to be in the same 30ft space, but only that each target is within 30ft of another target."
– Lexible
Dec 2 '18 at 22:05
3
There is no other "general meaning" of the phrase. They must be within 30 feet of each other - a row of then separated by even 20 feet puts nonadjacent creatures up to 40 feet apart, clearly breaking the condition.
– Nij
Dec 2 '18 at 22:56
4
MivaScott the phrasing "The creatures must be within 30 feet of each other when you target them" ≠ "The creatures must be within 30 feet of at least one other targeted creature when you target them. "Each other" refers to each member of a group, not to some members of the group in common English usege.
– Lexible
Dec 2 '18 at 23:37
Not quite: there are points within the circle circumscribing a Reuleaux Triangle that are (a) within X-units of one another, and (b) not within the Reuleaux Triangle.... oh wait, I see we agree with the uniform radius. I have added the word "circle" to my title to clarify.
– Lexible
Dec 2 '18 at 22:03
Not quite: there are points within the circle circumscribing a Reuleaux Triangle that are (a) within X-units of one another, and (b) not within the Reuleaux Triangle.... oh wait, I see we agree with the uniform radius. I have added the word "circle" to my title to clarify.
– Lexible
Dec 2 '18 at 22:03
1
1
I'm not so sure this is also true, if you use the manhattan distance as d&d 5 does. At least for 3 targets I can prove it actually works
– fabian
Dec 2 '18 at 22:05
I'm not so sure this is also true, if you use the manhattan distance as d&d 5 does. At least for 3 targets I can prove it actually works
– fabian
Dec 2 '18 at 22:05
2
2
This is false for RAW and RAI: "I would also take the more general meaning that targets do not all have to be in the same 30ft space, but only that each target is within 30ft of another target."
– Lexible
Dec 2 '18 at 22:05
This is false for RAW and RAI: "I would also take the more general meaning that targets do not all have to be in the same 30ft space, but only that each target is within 30ft of another target."
– Lexible
Dec 2 '18 at 22:05
3
3
There is no other "general meaning" of the phrase. They must be within 30 feet of each other - a row of then separated by even 20 feet puts nonadjacent creatures up to 40 feet apart, clearly breaking the condition.
– Nij
Dec 2 '18 at 22:56
There is no other "general meaning" of the phrase. They must be within 30 feet of each other - a row of then separated by even 20 feet puts nonadjacent creatures up to 40 feet apart, clearly breaking the condition.
– Nij
Dec 2 '18 at 22:56
4
4
MivaScott the phrasing "The creatures must be within 30 feet of each other when you target them" ≠ "The creatures must be within 30 feet of at least one other targeted creature when you target them. "Each other" refers to each member of a group, not to some members of the group in common English usege.
– Lexible
Dec 2 '18 at 23:37
MivaScott the phrasing "The creatures must be within 30 feet of each other when you target them" ≠ "The creatures must be within 30 feet of at least one other targeted creature when you target them. "Each other" refers to each member of a group, not to some members of the group in common English usege.
– Lexible
Dec 2 '18 at 23:37
|
show 2 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f136663%2fis-all-targets-must-be-within-an-x-unit-diameter-circle-equivalent-to-all-t%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
