|
We lost a player to a ruling on this spell and that drove me to look at it a bit more closely.
The player tried to use it against a Greater Shadow who stepped out of the floor and attacked. Now this debate is all academic since the player in question couldn't have used it anyways since he was flat-footed, but I am more interested in the Range and Radius of the spell.
The reason EFS didn't work for the player was the fact that it is a 5ft. radius centered on the player. This means it extends 2.5ft into adjacent squares. The GM ruled that the Shadow was already inside the sphere. This seemed reasonable to me. Thoughts? This makes the spell really ineffective against attacks from adjacent squares.
The other thing that puzzles me is that the spell says Range 5ft. Why? Since it's a radius centered on you, there shouldn't be a range. Normally a range would be how many square away a spell can affect, and I don't think they are trying to say this spell affects all squares 5ft. from you.
Typically, an effect (but not an area effect) that surrounds a player is measured in grid squares, so the sphere (which is not an area effect) would extend 5' in each direction, forming a square around the player for the purposes of tactical combat. If the shadow was already in an adjacent square, the GM was correct.
The range of the effect is a mistake, one made in many places regarding spells centered on the caster.
|
|
Typically, an effect (but not an area effect) that surrounds a player is measured in grid squares, so the sphere (which is not an area effect) would extend 5' in each direction, forming a square around the player for the purposes of tactical combat. If the shadow was already in an adjacent square, the GM was correct.
The range of the effect is a mistake, one made in many places regarding spells centered on the caster.
That seems like a 4E sort of thing, like a Burst 1. I don't know that I have seen measurement in squares anywhere. Distances always seemed exact, though in 5ft. increments to try to make things simple. Is there some ruling or text that says that if an effect reaches any part of a square it affects the whole square?
As I think about this more 3 dimensionally, the more it bothers me. Assuming the hemisphere is infinitely thin, it only exists in 26.4% of adjacent non-diagonal squares (cubes), and 3.1% in adjacent diagonal squares (cubes), assuming they are on the same plane as you. If they are up one square from you it's even less. What I am trying to say is that even though it extends into adjacent squares, it occupies very little of them.
I don't know of a ruling, unfortunately. If it were listed as "Area" instead of "Effect", it'd be simpler but weirder, as those are measured from grid intersections rather than squares. (See assorted threads on great wyrms casting antimagic field.)
I'm confident about Range being a mistake, but less so on the rest. I'm confident enough to rule that way in my own games without reservation, as otherwise things like a paladin's aura would be most irritating to deal with.
|
I hate this poorly written and ambiguous spell.
The intent of the spell is to create a bubble around the caster and the caster only presumably to protect them from collapsing rocks (half the spell carries on about environmental dangers). The range and radius of the spell, coupled with the grid combat mat, makes the Emergency Force Sphere able to encompass 4 people.
Which is correct?