|
2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
I asked this question before but never got an official answer. The rules for Shield Other are here Shield Other. Shield Companion uses the same rules.
The pertinant part is thus:
Quote: If you and the subject of the spell move out of range of each other, the spell ends. Is the intention that the spell range between the targets is checked after BOTH caster and target have taken their turns? In other words, can one creature move out of range and maintain the spell so long as the other creature moves back into range that same round?
Thanks.
the book wrote: Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) The maximum distance the two people can be apart is consistent for the full duration of the spell.
It's a GM call; personally I'd allow both chars to take their turn before measuring again, if one delays their turn to occur right before or after the other's.
N N 959 wrote: I asked this question before but never got an official answer. The rules for Shield Other are here Shield Other. Shield Companion uses the same rules.
The pertinant part is thus:
Quote: If you and the subject of the spell move out of range of each other, the spell ends. Is the intention that the spell range between the targets is checked after BOTH caster and target have taken their turns? In other words, can one creature move out of range and maintain the spell so long as the other creature moves back into range that same round?
Thanks.
RAW if at any point during the round that range is exceeded, the spell ends. The distance is always being 'checked' in effect.
If your GM allows for the movement during the round and then checking distance, that would be a very lenient house rule.
If at any point the distance between caster and target exceeds the spell's range it is gone.
However, if you get a lesser Metamagic Rod of Reach Spell (3000gp) to increase the range from Close to Medium you can worry about it a lot less.
- Gauss
Skylancer4 wrote: RAW if at any point during the round that range is exceeded, the spell ends. The distance is always being 'checked' in effect. Actually, that's not RAW. In fact, I can't find any such statement in the PRD, if you can, please link it. Here's some RAW that is applicable:
Quote: The Combat Round
Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world; there are 10 rounds in a minute of combat. A round normally allows each character involved in a combat situation to act.
Each round's activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds in order. When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.)
So everybody acts within a six second round. Then the next six seconds increments begins. In-character, each character is technically acting at the same time. Out of character, we have to move sequentially and Init is the way we manage it. In-character, things flow continuously. OOC, they have to be broken up in manageable chunks.
The interpretation several have offered presents a nonsensical outcome out of combat. A Druid casts the spell on her Companion, then tells the animal to Heel. OOC, the druid takes a double-move then her Companion gets an action. In-character, the druid and companion move together. Under your interpretation spell, which has duration of 1 hour, would end the first time some one walked down the street and would essentially be unusable unless the druid and the animal limited themselves to as single move action every round and moved no more than 25ft.
It gets worse. Under your interpretation, nobody could ever hold hands and walk down the street at normal movement rates. Let's look at something I'll call the Bean Pole example to better illustrate the problem with your interpretation:
Two fighters with a 20' base movement have to carry a magic bean pole down a hallway during a combat. The bean pole is only 10' long so both fighters must remain adjacent to each other as they move. Under your interpretation, the fighters would be limited to 5' around...even doing nothing but moving.
That's nonsensical.
Out of combat, we recognize that creatures can move together. We recognize that we only break up the movement because that's how we manage the game. In combat, the same is true, only we break up the movement in small packets called rounds. While each character moves individually, you have to be able to look at the movement from round to round or two fighters would never be able to carry a 1 lb stick more than 5' a round.
IMO, it's a no-brainer to poll the distance between caster and target at the start of each round. Doing so allows the two fighters to carry the bean pole at normal movement rates. Sure, we might want to make sure the route both take is never more then 10', or 25' for the spell.
I hope someone official from Paizo can weigh in on this. The popular opinion results in an hour long spell, clearly meant to be cast at the start of a dungeon, which ends after the the first move action is taken.
"Shield Other
School abjuration; Level cleric 2, paladin 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, F (a pair of platinum rings worth 50 gp worn by both you and the target)
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one creature
Duration 1 hour/level (D)
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
This spell wards the subject and creates a mystic connection between you and the subject so that some of its wounds are transferred to you. The subject gains a +1 deflection bonus to AC and a +1 resistance bonus on saves. Additionally, the subject takes only half damage from all wounds and attacks (including those dealt by special abilities) that deal hit point damage. The amount of damage not taken by the warded creature is taken by you. Forms of harm that do not involve hit points, such as charm effects, temporary ability damage, level draining, and death effects, are not affected. If the subject suffers a reduction of hit points from a lowered Constitution score, the reduction is not split with you because it is not hit point damage. When the spell ends, subsequent damage is no longer divided between the subject and you, but damage already split is not reassigned to the subject.
If you and the subject of the spell move out of range of each other, the spell ends."
the last paragragh seems very clear.
Movement in combat always seems to not make sence. Not sure if there are actually rules for it but players should be able to use delay / ready to move together.
N N 959 wrote: Skylancer4 wrote: RAW if at any point during the round that range is exceeded, the spell ends. The distance is always being 'checked' in effect. Actually, that's not RAW. In fact, I can't find any such statement in the PRD, if you can, please link it. Here's some RAW that is applicable:
Quote: The Combat Round
Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world; there are 10 rounds in a minute of combat. A round normally allows each character involved in a combat situation to act.
Each round's activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds in order. When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.)
So everybody acts within a six second round. Then the next six seconds increments begins. In-character, each character is technically acting at the same time. Out of character, we have to move sequentially and Init is the way we manage it. In-character, things flow continuously. OOC, they have to be broken up in manageable chunks.
The interpretation several have offered presents a nonsensical outcome out of combat. A Druid casts the spell on her Companion, then tells the animal to Heel. OOC, the druid takes a double-move then her Companion gets an action. In-character, the druid and companion move together. Under your interpretation spell, which has duration of 1 hour, would end the first time some one walked down the street and would essentially be unusable unless the druid and the animal limited themselves to as single move action every round and moved no more than 25ft.
It gets worse. Under your interpretation, nobody could ever hold hands and walk down the street at normal movement rates. Let's look at something I'll call the Bean Pole example to better illustrate the problem with your interpretation:
Two fighters with a 20' base movement have to carry a magic bean pole... RAW, is the distance exceeded? Yes? End of spell, sorry.
I don't care if you find it 'non sensical,' it is RAW. Combat is set up in a way to be easily managed. It also makes it not make sense at times.
If you need to make sense of it, ready and held actions can accomplish close to what you need. If that isn't good enough for you and you want to be a REAL stickler, riding or piggy back riding (carrying) is a way for two creatures to move at the same time.
Skylancer4 wrote: RAW, is the distance exceeded? Yes? End of spell, sorry. That's not RAW. In fact, you haven't quoted anything from RAW in either of your posts. Here is RAW
Quote: If you and the subject of the spell move out of range of each other, the spell ends. Not the use of the word "and." Per RAW, if you move out of range and then the subject moves back in range, then the above statement is false and the spell is maintained. There is a difference between "your or the subject" versus "you and the subject."
Ignoring that distinction is what results in nonsensical outcomes.
Quote: If you need to make sense of it, ready and held actions can accomplish close to what you need. For someone who has repeatedly tried to hammer her point with statements about what is RAW, I find it ironic that your suggestion is in complete violation of RAW. No combination of Ready or Delay avoid the OOC reality that each character has to take their move action one at a time.
Quote: If that isn't good enough for you and you want to be a REAL stickler... Humorous. You're the one who is trying to use RAW as your bible, but now I'm being the "stickler" for pointing out that Ready and Delay don't work per RAW? Too funny.
N N 959, the moment someone moves out of range the spell goes away. This is an unfortunate element of the sequential nature of the turn rules. Yes, those very turn rules you have called nonsensical.
RAW, you cannot walk down the street hand in hand with someone unless you are both taking 5' steps. Is that nonsensical? Yup.
Do most people house rule this without even thinking about it? Yup!
The RAW is that you move each person in turn.
The moment a person moves out of range the spell ends.
Since, by RAW, you cannot move together you better move no more than 30' away from your buddy (at level 3).
Can you show anything in the rules that states you wait for 1 round and THEN check distances?
Note: I do use the house rule that two people who are intentionally moving together stay together even if moves are normally sequential.
- Gauss
Gauss wrote: N N 959, the moment someone moves out of range the spell goes away. This is an unfortunate element of the sequential nature of the turn rules. Personally, I house rule this at home but it is a house rule.
Can you show anything in the rules that states you wait for 1 round and THEN check distances?
- Gauss
There is no RAW that governs when spell distances are checked. Just like there is no RAW that governs two prisoners who are tied together with a 10' chain, moving across a battle field. So we have to look at the spell and the definition of combat.
1. RAW for Combat Rounds above states that "a round represents six seconds in the game world." RAW also states that when your init comes up, "that character performs his entire round's worth of actions."
Technically, everyone's actions occur simultaneously because everyone is moving within a six second time frame. My move happens in the same six seconds as your move. Ergo, if we start at the same position, follow the same path, arrive at the same position, then per RAW, we can consider both of us to have traveled that distance together.
Early D&D games actually required that all damage be applied at the end of the round. Obviously, that was more complex. SK4 is right in that in order to simplify the game, we have to suffer some incongruities. But per RAW, we can understand that two characters can be considered to travel together at more than 5' per round if connected by a short rope by recognizing how RAW works. Logistically, we have totake turns individually, RAW states those turns all happen during the same six seconds.
2. The RAW for the spell specifically says "If you AND the subject of the spell move out of range of each other..." It doesn't say if EITHER of you move out of range, nor does it say, if you "or" the subject move out of range. Giving meaning to the use of "and" says that both caster and subject get to move to maintain the spell distance.
Let's contrast that wording with Creeping Doom which states in pertinant part:
Quote: if you move more than 100 feet from any swarm, that swarm remains stationary... That spell makes it explicitly clear that as soon as the caster moves out of range.
I've tried to look through other spells, but I'm having a hard time finding spells that are based on the proximity between two subjects. The only other one I've seen for the moment is Prying Eyes which operates over 1 mile range. Not really going to come up in combat. So I think this is an almost unique problem.
3. If what we are talking about is actually RAI, then if one rule interpretation allows two tied together to move the same in-combat as out, why not go with that interpretation? Why would it make sense to choose an interpretation that allow two people tied together to move 60' out of combat, but then limit them to 10' in combat?
SK4's interpretation means that any two people tied together could never move more than 5' per round. Two tied prisoners running away at double-their move? Heck just force them into combat rounds and you catch them easy. That's not RAW and it's certainly not RAI.
RAW supports allowing two people to move together within the round. The spell explicitly uses an AND clause and not an OR clause. Common sense suggests if both players intend to move together, they can move normally without breaking the chain.
By RAW, we are not told that actions occur simultaneously within the 6-second round. That is 'fluff' that is assumed but never explicitly implied in the rules.
In fact, the very text you quoted implies that you aren't normally moving simultaneously:
The Combat Round wrote: Each round's activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds in order. When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.) They are not referring to the player stating all of the actions his character plans to take, but specifically states that the character performs all of his actions.
I'll point out one very specific reason why RAW can't function in the manner you suggest: It would allow you to take a single teamwork feat with an ally (or as an Inquisitor, by yourself) and become completely immune to all movement-triggered attacks of opportunity.
Escape Route states that when you move through a threatened square that is occupied by or adjacent to an ally with the feat, then you don't provoke for the movement, with the justification that the ally actively defends you as you pass by.
If you could move in tandem then the two characters would always move together, and would never provoke because of it.
Xaratherus wrote: By RAW, we are not told that actions occur simultaneously within the 6-second round. That is 'fluff' that is assumed but never explicitly implied in the rules. If all actions happen within a time frame, then by definition they happen simultaneously.
Quote: They are not referring to the player stating all of the actions his character plans to take, but specifically states that the character performs all of his actions. You're arguing semantics.
Quote: I'll point out one very specific reason why RAW can't function in the manner you suggest: It would allow you to take a single teamwork feat with an ally (or as an Inquisitor, by yourself) and become completely immune to all movement-triggered attacks of opportunity. Actually, you are presenting a false dichotomy. One is not dependent on the other.
I'm pointing out that RAW implicitly supports the idea that characters can move together. That two prisoners tied together can be considered to have remained together while moving a distance greater than the chain that binds them.
You're attempting to extrapolate my observation as saying that we must now consider all outcomes simultaneously. No.
I explicitly stated above, that the turn based system leads to incongruities. I don't believe that preventing two people tied together by a short rope moving more than 5' a round is one of them. More to the point, the other incongruities are intended.
N N 959 wrote: They are not referring to the player stating all of the actions his character plans to take, but specifically states that the character performs all of his actions.
You're arguing semantics.
No, I'm restating something that is very explicitly stated by RAW - that the character takes all of his actions on his initiative.
N N 959 wrote: Actually, you are presenting a false dichotomy. One is not dependent on the other.
I'm pointing out that RAW implicitly supports the idea that characters can move together. That two prisoners tied together can be considered to have remained together while moving a distance greater than the chain that binds them.
If movement occurs simultaneously, then it always does; by your argument, since the round lasts only 6 seconds, it must occur simultaneously.
In which case, assuming the two people with Escape Route follow a path that would cause them to remain adjacent and take their actions in the round in the same order, then they are constantly adjacent and therefore never trigger AoOs for their movement.
But that's not the intent of the feat. That would make it an almost 'must have'.
If it doesn't say when to check, you check at all times.
If you go lower than your constitution in negative hit points, you die. You don't die at the end of your turn. You don't die at the end of your friend's turn. You don't die at the end of your enemy's turn. You die EXACTLY when your hit points goes lower than your constitution in negative hit points.
The same logic is easily applied to the spell.
Xaratherus wrote: No, I'm restating something that is very explicitly stated by RAW - that the character takes all of his actions on his initiative. Nothing I've said, or intended to say, refutes that. Each character must take all his/her/its actions on initiative.
Quote: If movement occurs simultaneously, then it always does; by your argument, since the round lasts only 6 seconds, it must occur simultaneously. It's not my definition. It's RAW. All actions happen within the round (ignoring exceptions). If all ten people act within a six second time frame, by definition we'd say that they acted simultaneously. I didn't invent that concept or the word that describes it, so it's not "my definition."
Quote: But that's not the intent of the feat. That would make it an almost 'must have'. I don't know what the "intent" of the feat is in the context of two people who intend to move side by side. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with allowing two people to run around the battlefield, tied at the hip to benefit from this Feat, but . But I'd also subject them to area of effect spells, traps, and anything else that would result if two people are moving, one next to the other. So if a wizard had a Ready action to area blast the first one, the second one is subject to the same spell.
Must have? If I understand correctly, both characters have to have the feat for either to benefit from it? If two people want to burn a feat to avoid AoO's when moving together, I honestly don't have a problem with that. But as far as a "must have," YMMV.
Komoda wrote: The same logic is easily applied to the spell. You have a link which states what happens for death applies to spells?
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Using Reach Spell to make it long range makes all of this MUCH simpler. :P
Does reach work on a 10' chain?
N N 959 wrote: Xaratherus wrote: No, I'm restating something that is very explicitly stated by RAW - that the character takes all of his actions on his initiative. Nothing I've said, or intended to say, refutes that. Each character must take all his/her/its actions on initiative. And all of those actions are resolved on that initiative, correct?
So mechanically, which is the primary thing relevant to the original topic, that means that if person A does a double move, then at the end of his initiative, he is (up to) 60 feet from where he started.
Visually that may not be the case, but the mechanical and visual can't be aligned exactly, for numerous reasons.
An example reason: If everything is happening simultaneously, and you can take the various actions you can take in a given round in any order you choose, then you wind up with a situation where the fighter runs 30 feet past a goblin (not ending adjacent), and then the GM says, "Well, even though the Goblin is lower in initiative, since everything happens simultaneously at some point you're adjacent to him, so he takes his standard action to hit you).
N N 959, you are applying concepts which, while they may make sense, are not in the book. Nowhere does it state that all actions are simultaneous. While that may make sense to you (and others for that matter) it creates problems too.
So, you are all moving simultaneously, do you take a step, move to the next guy, he takes a step, move to the next guy, etc? There are games that work like this but D&D/PF is not one of them.
You take your turn, ALL of your turn and everyone else is stationary during that time.
Here is a comparative example:
Take turns example: I make a charge attack against Target A starting from a point 60 feet away.
Afterwards, he moves 20' to get inside the building (note: he has the same move speed).
I could not have charged him if he were inside the building.
Phased movement (what you are suggesting) example:
I make a charge against the guy, since our speeds are the same I move 5 feet, then he moves 5 feet etc.
He reaches the building before I get to him and my charge is foiled.
Is the phased movement more fluid and makes more sense? Yes.
Is it part of the rules? No.
Does Pathfinder use take turns? Yes.
In short, what you are trying to do is not part of this game except as a house rule.
In the case of the 2 people attached via a 10 foot chain they would be unable to move faster than 40 feet per round and only by using readied actions and leapfrogging. *Unless* you house rule it.
- Gauss
N N 959 wrote: Skylancer4 wrote: RAW, is the distance exceeded? Yes? End of spell, sorry. That's not RAW. In fact, you haven't quoted anything from RAW in either of your posts. Here is RAW
Quote: If you and the subject of the spell move out of range of each other, the spell ends. Not the use of the word "and." Per RAW, if you move out of range and then the subject moves back in range, then the above statement is false and the spell is maintained. There is a difference between "your or the subject" versus "you and the subject." Thanks for repeating exactly what the spells says, notice there is no 'at the beginning/ending of your turn' in there. WHEN, as in you move away and the distance is further than your spell leash allows, it ends. There is NO allowance for creatures moving and some made up buffer of time to let them get back into range. There are abilities that say, check at the beginning of the turn, this doesn't say that. There are abilities that say until the end of your turn, this doesn't say that either. RAW may be blurry to you, but hey that is up to you. It seems to be pretty well defined to the majority of the rest of us.
N N 959 wrote:
Ignoring that distinction is what results in nonsensical outcomes.
Quote: If you need to make sense of it, ready and held actions can accomplish close to what you need. For someone who has repeatedly tried to hammer her point with statements about what is RAW, I find it ironic that your suggestion is in complete violation of RAW. No combination of Ready or Delay avoid the OOC reality that each character has to take their move action one at a time.
Ironic that I'm proposing house rules to someone who is refusing to acknowledge what the words on the page are saying? Whom seems to be adding rules to make things make sense for them? Sure, I guess. I don't see the 'irony' in that. It works a certain way and you don't like it "cause it doesn't make sense," that doesn't change the way it works, and I'm trying to be helpful and give you options to make the rules make a little more sense in the situations you seem to be having issue with.
Silly Me.
N N 959 wrote:
Quote: If that isn't good enough for you and you want to be a REAL stickler... Humorous. You're the one who is trying to use RAW as your bible, but now I'm being the "stickler" for pointing out that Ready and Delay don't work per RAW? Too funny.
Again, house rules for when you don't like/don't want to use the RAW of the game. You're actually being hard headed and asking for an official response on something that works a way you don't like. Ignoring other posters who are pointing out things, like the lack of any specific time to 'check' the condition and it ends 'when' the condition are met, just because you don't want to hear it. I actually hope they put an 'Answered in Post' so we can see you come back and say "Wait how was it answered, it doesn't make sense!11!!" That will be funny. Time to read the rest of the posts, just had to respond to this first.
Xaratherus wrote: An example reason:.... I'm not sure I see where this is going.
In 1st Edition D&D, IIRC, everyone declared their actions first. Then people got to resolve them in order. If something happened and the thing you were doing was no longer feasible, then you lost your turn. At the end of the round or segment or whatever it was, all damage was applied and you had things like double-kills. That was an effing mess.
So now, for sanity's sake, we resolve things as they occur. You hit and kill someone before they move, they lose their action, when technically, they would have gotten to do something before you charged 60' across the room.
There's no way around this. More to the point, there's nothing in the rules that even says there should be away around this. But neither is there anything in the rules which explicitly states that two people tied together have to move 5' per round. Since the rules, by definition, state that all actions happen in the same round, then we can implicitly allow players to be considered to have maintained a distance as they move. Yes, inconsistencies can result, but we already had those.
Gauss wrote: In the case of the 2 people attached via a 10 foot chain they would be unable to move faster than 40 feet per round and only by using readied actions and leapfrogging. *Unless* you house rule it.
Two people connected by a 10' chain could not move more than 5' per round under popular opinion. Ready action doesn't change that, nor does Delay.
Two people chained together move 40' round if we acknowledge that since everyone moves withing the same six seconds, two people can be considered to have moved together.
Actually, they can.
The first creature is the Number (1, 2, 3) while the second creature is the Letter (A, B, C)
Starting position: 1 and A are separated by a 10' chain and are 10' apart.
First movement: 1 moves to 2 using 20' of movement and then readies an action to move when A reaches B.
Second movement: A moves to B at which point 2 moves to 3 via his readied action.
Final movement: B continues his remaining movement to C.
At no point are they farther than 10' apart. They have both traveled 40'.
1x
xx
xA
xx
2x
xx
xB
xx
3x
xx
xC
- Gauss
Gauss wrote: Actually, they can.
The first creature is the Number (1, 2, 3) while the second creature is the Letter (A, B, C)
Starting position: 1 and A are separated by a 10' chain and are 10' apart.
First movement: 1 moves to 2 using 20' of movement and then readies an action to move when A reaches B.
Second movement: A moves to B at which point 2 moves to 3 via his readied action.
Final movement: B continues his remaining movement to C.
At no point are they farther than 10' apart. They have both traveled 40'.
1x
xx
xA
xx
2x
xx
xB
xx
3x
xx
xC
- Gauss
Sorry, when I said 10' perhaps that's really a 5' chain. In other words a length of chain that requires they are adjacent to each other. I said 10' because together, two characters are 10' of space.
The point of the illustration is to show that under popular opinion they cannot move at the same rate in-combat as they can out-of-combat. No such restriction on movement is intended by the rules.
N N 959 wrote: Xaratherus wrote: An example reason:.... I'm not sure I see where this is going. I'm not certain how to explain it more clearly. What you're doing is a conflict of 'cinematics' and mechanics - resolving one action in one manner and another in a different one.
Your original argument is that because all of actions happen within 6 seconds, two people will 'move' and as long as they end the turn within the range of the spell, they are fine.
My point was that by that same concept, a Fighter who moves past a goblin - doesn't end adjacent to him, but moves past him - would be adjacent to the goblin, and so the whole 'simultaneous' thing means the goblin could attack him as he goes past - i.e., the goblin could take his standard action at the point in the round when the Fighter is adjacent. It uses the same concept as assuming that as long as two people are within range of each other at the end of a turn, the spell won't break.
And to echo Skylancer4, the RAW of the spell does not state 'at the start\end of the turn', nor is there a general rule for spells that states that, so by strict RAW you would always be checking the distance.
Skylancer4 wrote: I actually hope they put an 'Answered in Post' so we can see you come back and say "Wait how was it answered, it doesn't make sense!11!!" That will be funny. Then feel free to mark this as FAQ and maybe you'll get your wish.
Xaratherus wrote: N N 959 wrote: Xaratherus wrote: An example reason:.... I'm not sure I see where this is going. I'm not certain how to explain it more clearly.
My point was that in one example, you're 'resolving' things simultaneously because it benefits the spell, and in the other, you're not - yet in neither case does the RAW state that you do so. I'm not resolving anything simultaneously. I'm acknowledging that RAW, by definition, says all these actions occur simultaneously, so for the purposes of two people tied together, RAW implicitly allows them to have moved together.
Quote: And to echo Skylancer4, the RAW of the spell does not state 'at the start\end of the turn', I never said it did. The spell uses the AND clause which means two things have to happen. You "AND" the subject have to move.
Quote: nor is there a general rule for spells that states that, so by strict RAW you would always be checking the distance. Please show me where RAW states what you claim about checking distance.
N N 959 wrote: I'm not resolving anything simultaneously. I'm acknowledging that RAW, by definition, says all these actions occur simultaneously, so for the purposes of two people tied together, RAW implicitly allows them to have moved together. Yes you are. You are resolving the two movement actions of the people under the spell* simultaneously so that they don't wind up more than 30 feet apart during their movements.
*I'm not commenting on the whole 'chained-together' thing because to be honest, I think it's a tangential question that most likely would be a specific exception and not a generalized mechanic applicable to things like spell range"
N N 959 wrote: Please show me RAW states what you claim about checking distance. Please show me where RAW states that you only check at the end of the turn, since you made the original statement.
I would argue that because it doesn't specify, the assumption would be to check constantly; otherwise, it would say 'at the end of the turn' or 'at the beginning of the turn' , like it does for numerous other spells and affects.
Xaratherus wrote: Yes you are. You are resolving the two movement actions of the people under the spell* simultaneously so that they don't wind up more than 30 feet apart during their movements. That's not what's happening.
Quote: *I'm not commenting on the whole 'chained-together' thing because to be honest, I think it's a tangential question that most likely would be a specific exception and not a generalized mechanic applicable to things like spell range" The chain problem is not tangential, it actually addresses the EXACT same problem if you are correct. The spell distance is a nothing more than a conceptual chain. Let's shorten the chain to 5' long and then explain how, because we are now in combat, two people have their movement restricted.
Once we acknowledge that the rules allow two chained people to move at normal rates, then the spell issue becomes moot. The chain problem IS the problem.
Quote: Please show me where RAW states that you only check at the end of the turn, since you made the original statement. I never said that was RAW. I suggested that as a way to resolve the chain problem.
Quote: I would argue that because it doesn't specify, the assumption would be to check constantly; That's fine, but that's your opinion, please don't tell me it's RAW. And I would agree, but in this case, the spell specifically says when the spell is broken. "If you AND your subject move out of range." There is a substantive difference between saying AND and OR which you are ignoring. The fact that the authors included the subject's activities in the conditions for breaking the spell are meaningful. Creeping Doom ONLY identifies the caster, not the swarm.
I can fully understand the confusion and tendency for people to gloss over the use of "and" in the spell description. This is why I'm asking for clarification. Is the use of "and" specifically to allow the subject to move back into range so the spell can continue to function logically?
But if you solve the chain problem, then we don't care what the spell says...two people can maintain it by ending their turns in range.
How about staggering your movement.
P=Player, X=5 foot square, T=target of spell
P1 is where player is on turn one, T1 is where target is on turn on one, P2 is where player is on turn two, and T2 is where on turn two.
X
X
X
P1
X
X
X
X
T1
X
X
X
X
XP2
X
X
X
X
T2
In this way you can keep the spell going and stay within the turn system.
Two characters who have a 10 foot chain would have two 5ft square between them and could move past each other to move 30ft a round. I know this is a work around but it would keep the game going and everyone having fun which is the main point of playing a game. To have fun!
Instances of the word 'simultaneously' in the CRB (used 'simultan' as the search word):
CRB p38 in the Bard ability Mass Suggestion
CRB p116 in the short description of Manyshot
CRB p136 in the fluff of Two-Weapon Rend
CRB p209 in the rules for Multiple Mental Control Effects.
CRB p261 and p337, in the spells Control Weather and Scorching Ray
CRB p482 in the magic item, Ring of Shooting Stars
CRB p524 in the magic item, Necklace of Fireballs
CRB p565 in the rules for Targeted Spells
So I ask, where is the rule that this is all simultaneous?
Here is what the rules DO state:
CRB p12 wrote: Round: Combat is measured in rounds. During an individual round, all creatures have a chance to take a turn to act, in order of initiative. A round represents 6 seconds in the game world. Nothing about simultaneous actions there.
BTW, do magic and dragons exist in your game? This game is not a realistic game. Trying to make it become one is what causes this problem. It has rules, that is all. :)
- Gauss
N N 959 wrote: Komoda wrote: The same logic is easily applied to the spell. You have a link which states what happens for death applies to spells? You have a link which states it doesn't?
Komoda wrote: N N 959 wrote: Komoda wrote: The same logic is easily applied to the spell. You have a link which states what happens for death applies to spells? You have a link which states it doesn't? Yes, I already quoted the rules which govern when the spell ends. There's no reference to how Death and Dying works.
Gauss wrote: So I ask, where is the rule that this is all simultaneous? That was answered above.
N N 959,
That is not an answer to my question since that is your interpretation that all actions are simultaneous. I am asking for the rule that all actions are simultaneous.
- Gauss
Gauss wrote: N N 959,
That is not an answer to my question since that is your interpretation that all actions are simultaneous. I am asking for the rule that all actions are simultaneous.
- Gauss
It is an answer. Everything that happens inside a house, by definition happens under the roof of the house. I don't need to explicitly state that things happened under the roof for it to be true.
If multiple people take actions within the same time frame, by definition that means their actions are simultaneous within that time frame. It's not a rule, it's an objective fact.
It's a simple concept Gauss.
Except that this is a GAME and is not reality which appears to be the simple concept you are missing. Games have rules, 'simultaneous actions' is not one of the rules in Pathfinder. In fact, Pathfinder goes out of its way to avoid simultaneous actions.
At this point many people have told you that you are trying to fit into the rules a concept that does not fit into the rules. It is not written, and it is not even RAI. Feel free to houserule it to your hearts content. :)
- Gauss
Edit: *Tags Chemlak in* Enjoy!
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
*cracks knuckles*
Let's try a different tack.
Quote: Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one creature
Quote: If you and the subject of the spell move out of range of each other, the spell ends. Quote: Range
A spell's range indicates how far from you it can reach, as defined in the range entry of the spell description. A spell's range is the maximum distance from you that the spell's effect can occur, as well as the maximum distance at which you can designate the spell's point of origin.
Shield Other can't reach further than its range from the caster. At best it would not have any effect if the target creature were farther than the range from the caster. Furthermore, the spell itself says that if the caster and the target creature are out of range of each other, the spell ends (and before anyone says that the spell uses the word "move", I await with bated breath some means of leaving the range of the spell that does not involve movement). The caster is not a target of the spell. The spell is on the subject creature. If movement causes the target and the caster to be out of range of each other, the spell ends.
Chemlak wrote: Furthermore, the spell itself says that if the caster and the target creature are out of range of each other, the spell ends ***If movement causes the target and the caster to be out of range of each other, the spell ends. Actually, the spells description says neither one of those things. That's how you are reinterpreting what the spells says.
The spell specifically says "you and the subject move out of range of each other, the spell ends." If your interpretation is correct, it wouldn't need to say that. It would say something like,
"If at any time you and subject exceeds the spells range, the spell ends."
But it doesn't say that does it?
Or, it could say,
"If you or the subject move out of range of each other, the spells ends."
Doesn't say that either does it?
It could say,
"If either you or the subject move out of range, the spell ends."
Nope.
Now, maybe the authors suck at writing. Maybe the don't know the difference between the use of "and," "or," and "either." Or...maybe...just maybe, they intended for two people to be able to follow each other on the battle field and keep the spell up without doing the human slinky thing. Maybe they want the spell to work in-combat the same way it works out of combat....two people can move at their normal movement rate together so long as they remain in range after each of them as has moved. But that's just crazy talk isn't it?
And really, once the spell is cast, the GM could force the caster to move no more than 25' per round out of combat as well. Even out of combat, the GM can ask for turn by turn movements. So per your RAI, once you cast the spell, neither party can move more than the spell's range per round.
However, if we recognize that turn based movement shouldn't change the movement of two people chained together, then the spell works fine.
It is possible to move 45ft per round without getting more than 25ft away from each other. So there is no reason to slow their overland movement unless it is greater than 45ft per a round.
A double move for humans would be 60'. For a cleric with travel domain and a barbarian, it could be 80'. If they can run in a straight line, 160'.
@N N 959
"If you and the subject move out of range of each other, the spell ends."
What happens if one of you stands still and only the other one moves (out of range)? Does the spell keep working? Or does that fulfill the condition that both of you have moved out of range of each other?
The and doesn't really support your argument. If it said you or the subject moves out of range - Is it possible for one of the targets to be out of range and the other one not be out of range? No, if one target is out of range they both are - hence you and target are out of range of each other. You are reading an awful lot into the context of the sentence based on the word and to get the meaning you are proposing.
You have also stated previously that it should be checked at the end of each full round. That seems rather arbitrary to me. A more realistic use to me would be as soon as one of the people gets out of range if they are not back within range at the beginning of that next individuals turn then the spell ends.
For example:
A has init 10
B has init 5
A casts spell on B
B moves out of range of spell.
Next round A moves back into range (before B's action)
The spell should still be good for the real world simultaneous movement scenario.
N N 959 wrote:
Once we acknowledge that the rules allow two chained people to move at normal rates
The rules actually do not allow this scenario. Most (all?) GM's allow it though.
In the 5' chain example, RAW does not support them moving more than 20' per round - and that only by using Guass's example of readied actions.
A moves 5' past B, readies action to move 10' when B moves 5' past A.
B moves 5' past A, A's readied action takes him another 10', B moves another 10'
Rinse and repeat each round.
This IS what the RAW of the game will allow.
Most GM's will be more lenient in that type of particular scenario, and some would allow the same sort of thing for spell ranges. But neither of those is allowed by strict RAW.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
N N 959 wrote: I'm not resolving anything simultaneously. I'm acknowledging that RAW, by definition, says all these actions occur simultaneously If that were true, then I could attack after I'm dead on the grounds that my attack was simultaneous with my killer's attack.
Not only is this not the game system, the game does not have static 'rounds' anymore. There is no universal 'round' that would allow us to resolve everyone's actions, then apply the results of those actions when the round is complete. Such as applying damage or checking the distance between two people connected by the invisible chain which is the shield other spell.
Since 3.0 started, each person has their own personal 'round', and there is no universal beginning or ending of a 'round'. You can't check anything at the end of 'the' round because there is no such thing as 'the' round; everyone has their own round.
Quote: The spell uses the AND clause which means two things have to happen. You "AND" the subject have to move. If you interpret it that way, then the spell will keep going as one as one person doesn't move! The other could move 10 miles away, but he AND his mate didn't move. This is as absurd as the rule you are whingeing about, and trying to interpret the word 'and' in this way still doesn't result in the situation you describe.
Houserule it. RAW will never give you the result you're looking for.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Yes, it uses "and". As in " you and the subject" as opposed to "the subject and the spell's original casting location" or "the subject and the moon" or "the subject and the fighter's sword".
It's saying "if (two independently mobile objects) move out of (close range) of each other, the spell ends". The "and" is a conjunction of "you" plus "subject". It does not say "if you move and if the subject move, and end up out of...". There really is no other sensible way to read it except trying to cheese the system.
First off, I want to thank people for responding to the thread. Good faith discussion improves one's understanding of the game.
bbangerter wrote: @N N 959
"If you and the subject move out of range of each other, the spell ends."
What happens if one of you stands still and only the other one moves (out of range)? Does the spell keep working? Or does that fulfill the condition that both of you have moved out of range of each other?
I thought about that and other things mention before I started the thread. While one could try and argue that the spell literally requires that you move, RAI would say that if one person moves and the other does not, so long as the other had the chance to move (took their turn), the condition is satisfied and the spell ends. Electing not to move or failing to move back in range, for any reason, would end the spell. Same as how it would work out of combat.
Quote: You have also stated previously that it should be checked at the end of each full round. Let's keep this in context. The way I read the spell, you check after both subjects take their turn. So that isn't necessarily the end of the round. The bit about checking at the beginning or end is about how we manage something like the Bean Pole example. If we agree that two people tied together can move normally and remain tied together, when do we check that?
Quote: A more realistic use to me would be as soon as one of the people gets out of range if they are not back within range at the beginning of that next individuals turn then the spell ends. That isn't more "realistic" because the round represents simultaneous movement. Realistically, if you moved away, I would move with you I wouldn't wait till you got out of range before I started moving. The nature of the game requires that we take turns moving characters. This would be true out of combat as well. If we want to be 'realistic,' we should allow someone to move back in range on their turn within the round.
Quote: The spell should still be good for the real world simultaneous movement scenario. Actually it wouldn't. The movement within a round is, by definition, simultaneous. If B moves out of range within Round 1, nothing that happens in Round 2 is concurrent with Round 1.
Quote: N N 959 wrote:
Once we acknowledge that the rules allow two chained people to move at normal rates
The rules actually do not allow this scenario. Most (all?) GM's allow it though.
In actuality, I don't think the rules specifically address this situation. So there is no RAW that says the chain must be broken. What you and others are doing is assuming that since RAW requires we resolve all the actions on that creatures turn, we must resolve all physics and natural consequences. Certainly a reasonable assumption. Except when you realize that given that approach, any carriage with two horses can't move at all since a harness wouldn't let either animal move 5' without the other.
Quote: Most GM's will be more lenient in that type of particular scenario, and some would allow the same sort of thing for spell ranges. But neither of those is allowed by strict RAW. If RAW truly doesn't allow it, then as I said above, any two horse carriage can't move at all in combat. Even if the horses share the same init, we still have to move them one-by-one, unless one is a mount of the other (which it is not). And I have been saying IC versus OOC, but the problem arises any time the GM needs people to take turns moving...whether there is actual combat or not.
So there has to be (or needs to be) a RAW provision for things to move together in-combat or to maintain a geometric relationship. The entire caravan industry can't be dependent on a house rule :)
Malachi Silverclaw wrote: If that were true, then I could attack after I'm dead on the grounds that my attack was simultaneous with my killer's attack. First, thanks for posting.
In old school D&D, you could. As I said above, that was too messy. For simplicity, the game needs to resolve everything as it occurs, barring specific exceptions to the rule.
Quote: Not only is this not the game system, the game does not have static 'rounds' anymore. Per RAW, that's incorrect.
Quote: There is no universal 'round' that would allow us to resolve everyone's actions, then apply the results of those actions when the round is complete. Such as applying damage or checking the distance between two people connected by the invisible chain which is the shield other spell. There is a universal round, but D&D/PF no longer wait until the end to resolve the outcomes.
Quote: ...there is no universal beginning or ending of a 'round'. PRD wrote:
How Combat Works
Combat is cyclical; everybody acts in turn in a regular cycle of rounds***
The Combat Round
Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world.
Per RAW, you are incorrect. There are static rounds and they represent a fixed amount of time. What is true is that spell duration and things based on time, now go from init number to init number. Because of that, the beginning and end of rounds is less important. However, it is still extremely important in sequencing events external to combat. If we don't know what Round we are in, then we can't have the guards burst in at the start of Round 3.
I get what you're trying to say. It's similar to what Gauss was trying to point out. That is even if we do act simultaneously, the game doesn't resolve things that way so spell range restriction must be applied after each person's movement. Normally, I'd agree. Except this spell says something slightly different than other spells where that is unequivocally true.
Quote: If you interpret it that way, then the spell will keep going as one as one person doesn't move! While one could argue that in an literal sense, I believe that RAI, "move" is synonymous with "after you take your turn." I believe the intent is to allow two subjects to maintain the spell so long as the other moves back in range, within the round. I could be wrong, but the spell is written in such a way that would allow it.
Quote: The other could move 10 miles away, but he AND his mate didn't move. This is as absurd as the rule you are whingeing about, and trying to interpret the word 'and' in this way still doesn't result in the situation you describe. Incorrect. I am not trying to interpret the rule such that both subjects have to literally move. I have not suggested that interpretation, nor do I support it.
Chemlak wrote: Yes, it uses "and". As in " you and the subject" as opposed to "the subject and the spell's original casting location" or "the subject and the moon" or "the subject and the fighter's sword".
It's saying "if (two independently mobile objects) move out of (close range) of each other, the spell ends". The "and" is a conjunction of "you" plus "subject". It does not say "if you move and if the subject move, and end up out of...". There really is no other sensible way to read it except trying to cheese the system.
Let's simplify this. Essentially you believe that this statement,
"If you and the subject move out of range of each other, the spell ends.:
Is no different from any of these statements,
"If at any time, you and the subject are out of of range of each other..."
"If you or the subject move out of each other..."
I don't. From a strict language perspective, they are not the same. The question is whether they are functionally the same in the context of the game. That is not clear. I can certainly see the popular opinion is to ignore any variance in the wording and treat it like all other spells. Maybe that's correct. Yet, no other spell, that I have been able to find, uses the same language. So that gives me pause. If one is being objective about it, they would have to recognize the possibility. Let's add to that, the reality that the spell should work the same in combat as it does out of combat with respect to movement.
Aside from the spell issue is the Bean Pole example. If two people can carry a bean pole at normal speed in turn based movement, then the spell issue is moot.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
I understand what you're saying, but I rather strongly disagree with your assertions.
From a strict language perspective, as others have said, that restriction on the spell requires both the caster and the subject of the spell to move out of range. If one of them doesn't, the spell doesn't end.
Time for a reductio ad absurdum: 3rd level human cleric casts Shield Other on a 20th level human monk with the Run feat who is at a range of 30 feet at time of casting. The monk moves away for the cleric at a full speed run (450 feet). The range between them is now 480 feet. The cleric has not moved out of range of the monk, please note. Therefore the "and" does not come into play. The cleric stands still. He has not moved out of range of the monk, in fact he's not moved at all! Therefore the "and" does not come into play. The cleric and the monk have demonstrably not "move[d] out of range of each other". Therefore, despite being in flat contradiction to the range rules which say that a spell effect cannot extend beyond the spell's range, we have two characters who are 480 feet apart and a still active Shield Other. Next round, the cleric moves away from the monk, but the monk stands still. Same result. Round 3 is my favourite, though. The monk returns towards the cleric, stopping at 60 feet. the cleric moves towards the monk. Oh no! Both have moved while out of the range of the spell from each other! That satisfies the "and" condition, causing the spell to end, despite the cleric's move bringing him back into range when he's finished.
I really, really, really, REALLY can't see that scenario being an intended consequence of the text of the spell.
|
