|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi!
I understand there has been much discussion regarding Electric Arc's range. My understanding is that, RAW, the only requirement is for both targets to be within 30 ft. of the caster, and that's what most discussions seems to suggest.
But sometimes the rules are debated in-game, and I've had a GM outright rule out the second target within 30ft. due to the flavor text. I hate to drag a game down, so I'm more than happy to let it slide, but it would be nice if there was some official word on the ruling so we could link it when the discussion inevitably comes up. Was there any official word on it that I've missed?
Thanks!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you measure from the first target to the second target only, it allows you to hit a creature up to 60 feet away that you ordinarily could not hit.
This interpretation seems flawed, as it shouldn't matter which target is the primary and which is the secondary, as the second target takes the same damage, and nothing in the rules text says anything about the relationship between the two targets, only that "an arc of lightning leaps between them" which provides no clues as to what's going on.
It clearly doesn't need to be a target and its nearest neighbor, the lightning connecting them doesn't interact with the intervening space in any way, nor is there any other listed restrictions or alterations for choosing a second target, including words like "primary" and "secondary" targets.
Ergo the only interpretation that makes sense is that both targets be within 30 feet of the caster.
It sounds like the GM has a conceptual lock on the PF1 range concept of there being both a range and a target requirement that multiple targets all be within a certain distance of each other. Even in PF1 those were separate concepts and spell categories.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As everyone else says, the only rule is that both targets must be within 30 feet of the caster.
My guess is that, if the DM has played 3.x, they're thinking of chain lightning which explicitly said that secondary targets had to be within 30 feet of the primary. That's a different edition and a different spell, however, and has nothing to do with electric arc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As everyone else says, the only rule is that both targets must be within 30 feet of the caster.
My guess is that, if the DM has played 3.x, they're thinking of chain lightning which explicitly said that secondary targets had to be within 30 feet of the primary. That's a different edition and a different spell, however, and has nothing to do with electric arc.
That's how the PF2 Chain Lighting works too.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep I totally agree with the reasoning behind this and I also think RAW there's no requirement for the second target to be within 30ft of the first target.
But unfortunately some DMs probably, as you've pointed out, stick to the way Chain Lightning works and don't allow the second target. Just wanted to know if there was an official ruling/errata that I could link when this happens but seems like there's not. Thanks for the help though!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But unfortunately some DMs probably, as you've pointed out, stick to the way Chain Lightning works and don't allow the second target.
Doesn't the fact that it's a specific feature of Chain Lightning and not of Electric Arc suggest Electric Arc doesn't work that way?
Seems weird to suggest that because one spell has a specific feature that another, completely different spell should have the same feature even though it's never mentioned in that second spell.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "leaps from one target to another" bit should be ignored as flavor text. The spell makes explicit a range of 30 feet and allows one or two targets. It would be no different if the spell were called "Electric Fork" and described as two bolts of lightning emerging from the caster's hand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm big on fluff, so I don't enjoy ignoring the first line of the spell description explaining how the lightning travels, "An arc of lightning leaps from one target to another."
I agree, it's simple to say both targets have to be within 30' of you. However, considering that first line, this creates some counterintuitive scenarios. If one target is 30' north of you and a second is 30' south of you, this says your lightning (which can only travel 30' from you) goes 30' north then 60' south. This fits RAW. So if it can do that, why can't it go 30' north to a target and 5' north to the target behind that one?
I get that RAW appears to say no, but I'd have a hard time telling my player, they can't do that but could hit a target 60' away.
I'd rule both targets need to be within 30' of the caster and each other. It may not be RAW but it seems to fit the spirit of the spell.
|
|
I think if the first line read "leaps from one target to another within range of the first" then we could take it as additional rules text, because it used rules terminology. There's nothing wrong with treating this as literal rules text either, but there's also nothing saying the lightning can't leap 60'... By the text of the spell, it has 2 targets and its range is 30'. Range is *always* from you. There's nothing specifying that's the range of the arc itself.
If you treat it as literal rules text, do you impose the restrictions of Leap on the lightning?
I'd rule both targets need to be within 30' of the caster and each other. It may not be RAW but it seems to fit the spirit of the spell.do you also think it's in the spirit of the fireball spell to make it so you can actually only choose a point for the origin of the blast that is up to 480 feet away from the caster so that the effect itself is fully contained within the 500 foot range of the spell?
No, because fireball has a precisely defined area of effect. Electric arc, having no such precise language, is open to interpretation. Hence this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But electric arc isn't an area of effect spell. It affects targets, like magic missile. The targets have to be within range of the caster. That's it. Would you argue that a caster can't target a 2-action magic missile at one target 70 feet from him to the east and one 70 feet from him to the right because they're not within 120 feet of each other?
If they wanted to say the targets have to be within a certain range of each other, they know how to do it: it's in the chain lightning spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm big on fluff, so I don't enjoy ignoring the first line of the spell description explaining how the lightning travels, "An arc of lightning leaps from one target to another."
I agree, it's simple to say both targets have to be within 30' of you. However, considering that first line, this creates some counterintuitive scenarios. If one target is 30' north of you and a second is 30' south of you, this says your lightning (which can only travel 30' from you) goes 30' north then 60' south. This fits RAW. So if it can do that, why can't it go 30' north to a target and 5' north to the target behind that one?
I get that RAW appears to say no, but I'd have a hard time telling my player, they can't do that but could hit a target 60' away.
For the same reason that Chain Lightning can go 500 feet north, and then 30 feet south, but not 500 feet north and then 5 feet north.
Outside the Range of the Spell, the magic ceases to exist.
... a caster can't target a 2-action magic missile at one target 70 feet from him to the east and one 70 feet from him to the right because they're not within 120 feet of each other?
Ugh. That should be either east and west or left and right, not one of each. Why do I never notice these things before the edit window closes?
|
|
Also, nowhere does it say that the two targets have to be within 30' of each other. It sounds like the GM is trying to insist that range is measured twice from two different points (caster and first target).
We had somehow gotten that idea at my table and have been running Electric Arc that way. I have no idea why we thought that, but on a re-reading it seems clear that’s incorrect.
It looks less like table variation than the GM getting the rule wrong. And I say that as a GM who has been getting this rule wrong.The pfs games I have played in, the gms ruled 30 feet from caster and each other.That's just table variation, though.
I mean...GMs getting a rule wrong is one of the two main causes of table variation on rules that aren't deliberately left open-ended for GM discretion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is one cantrip I wish had the clause of hitting the closest second target with the caster choosing between options if there are multiple who are equally close.
It doesn't, but it would have been nicer thematically imo.
|
I thought I would do a little (terrible) visualization of how I have been running it at my tables, which I believe how its intended to work.
Triangle = The Caster
Squares = The targets
The space on the board has been counted to show the effect.
Anyhow, in the above both targets are within 30ft of the caster but not 30ft of each other. Since the spells fluff says that its arcs between them, but the only mechanical limitation is that they are within 30ft of you, this leads me to run it as the "connecting" arc is purely visual and designed to "Complete the circuit" of the flow without any actual mechanical effect.
For example, if there was a 3rd enemy is the course of that top arc, I would say it goes over or around them, or whatever, as they wouldn't be caught in the effect at all.