| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1paulstraitOct 12, 2014 13:43:05 | So, prismatic spray creates "eight multicolored rays of light." It then has you roll a d8 for each target within a 60-foot cone to see which ray affects it. It would seem to me, then, that it is possible for one ray to hit more than one target, and for another ray to hit no targets. Moreover, it would not be possible for one target to be hit by more than one ray (unless they roll an 8).
Am I reading this right?
[Also, not a rules issue but a matter of description: Is each ray multicolored? What color is the 8th ray? Seems to me like there are 7 rays, and a one in eight chance of being struck by two rays. They adopted this spell from 3.5, but the 3.5 description said "This spell causes seven shimmering, intertwined, multicolored beams of light to spray from your hand." I'm curious why they changed the description to 8 rays when the 8th ray isn't a ray...] |
| #2AaronOfBarbariaOct 12, 2014 14:03:49 | It is possible for anyone in the cone to be affected by any one, or two, colors of ray.
It is possible for a color of ray to not affect anyone in the cone.
The cone is formed by 8 rays that are each multicolored - see the illustration on page 267 of the Player's Handbook for an example of how the rays look. |
| #3paulstraitOct 12, 2014 14:45:14 | Thanks! Funny how I can be giving the spells such a close look and totally miss the enormous full-page illustration... |
| #4lawrencehoyOct 13, 2014 0:29:11 |
|
| (Reply to #4)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #6paulstraitOct 13, 2014 10:50:00 |
|
| #7AaronOfBarbariaOct 13, 2014 15:46:12 | The "8th ray" is identical to the other 7 in its effects - all the rays are the same, otherwise the cone wouldn't work as a cone and you would have to roll the effect of each ray and have it affect the entire set of targets within that 1/8th of the cone.
That the random effects table has 8 results and there are 8 rays is a coincidence.
Each ray, while being its own unique variety of scinitilating colors and patterns, can manage to hit every single target within the cone at such a point as to have each target all suffer the same effect - even if it is all targets suffering from the same 2 effects.
Sure, it's not the most elegantly described, nor is the description necessarily that of the intended way the spell works, but there is no actual contradiction in the description unless you read one into it. |
| #8paulstraitOct 13, 2014 15:53:47 | Eh... Seems strained. I will use the 3.5 description in my game. It doesn't change anything mechanically, and it avoids this whole "8 rays? roll a d8 to detemrine which ray? why would you assume there is any connection there? total coincidence!" line that might injure someone from rolling their eyes too hard... |
| #9lawrencehoyOct 14, 2014 0:43:30 |
|
| #10AaronOfBarbariaOct 14, 2014 4:33:52 | Lawrence, don't be rude - my reading matches the illustration that accompanies the spell, and is perfectly acceptable if a bit loose on the definitions of some words (a choice I made because of context) and doesn't ignore anything.
If you want to read it differently, that's fine by me - but you should keep in mind that there is always more than one way to interpret the English language. |
| #11lawrencehoyOct 14, 2014 23:53:03 |
|
| (Reply to #11)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #13lawrencehoyOct 15, 2014 2:15:50 |
|
| (Reply to #13)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #15lawrencehoyOct 15, 2014 2:53:27 |
|
| (Reply to #15)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #17TimboramaOct 15, 2014 5:34:45 | Yeah, I'm with Aaron here. If there are two interpretations and one matches the picture (and the effect of the spell), I'm going with the one that makes sense in that fashion.
Just because there are 7 colors listed doesn't mean the 8 colors stated are limited to those 7 o_O Or are 8 rays of non-repeating colors, for that matter...
(plus, when will this actually come up if not in a DM description, in which case you can make your own, anyway?) |
| #18Joe_the_RatOct 15, 2014 11:58:18 | Well, I thought it was obvious that the 8th ray was octarine.
I think this is a case where they got a bit too clever with their spell description / spell mechanics (8 rays! One of each color! Roll a d8 for which of the 7 colors!) and created a little logic grenade. This may predate Wizards, though.
This is one of those rare cases where replacing the fluff description with "See illustration" works better. It makes it a Most Excellent effect rather than having them taste the rainbow - and allows for people on opposite sides of the cone to suffer the same effect. Though if you prefer the solid rays, having them dance about the cone works as well. |
| #19paulstraitOct 15, 2014 13:34:52 | It doesn't 'predate Wizards' -- heck, in 3.x the description (which follows the 2e description) didn't have this issue, as I quoted above. Although really I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill -- many of the spells are awkwardly written (e.g., circle of power, which contains this line: "Additionally, when an affected creature succeeds on a saving throw made against a spell or magical effect that allows it to make a saving throw to take only half damage, it instead takes no damage if it succeeds on the saving throw."), and for something like this that concerns, as you suggest, a description that might be too clever by half, it is not exactly a big deal. I wouldn't have even brought this part up had it not been intentionally changed from the 3.x version when they imported it to make (imo) less sense (even though I will grant the argument that you can *make it* more or less make sense).
More than anything else, I just think it is sort of funny, especially since, as I discovered when Aaron pointed it out above, they considered the spell's description important enough for a full page illustration. They must have thought the way they changed the description had some added-value over the old description. Amusing. |
| #20AaronOfBarbariaOct 15, 2014 17:20:52 | I'm pretty sure the spell getting an illustration was more because of the question "which spells have awesome looking visuals?" having prismatic spray as an answer, rather than any thought that compared the new description to the older descriptions. |
| #21paulstraitOct 15, 2014 17:33:32 | That's not precisely what I meant, but yeah, point taken. |
| #22lawrencehoyOct 15, 2014 21:56:45 | I am pretty sure the artist was just taking "artistic license"; or, just reading the description in as cursury a fashion as I had, originally.
@Timborama, I don't think there is as much room for multiple interpretations on this one (a feature of 5th Edition rules that I think is one of the best things about it); as I tried to point out to Aaron, the sentance structure can't be read "out of context" (where each sentance is independant of the others). The second sentance further defines the first; specifically stating that each ray is a different color (not a mix of colors/hues).
In any case, I'm bowing out of this debate; I don't want this thread to go the "way of the Tarrasque". |
| #23AaronOfBarbariaOct 15, 2014 22:02:47 | Thanks, Lawrence, in at least joining me in not continuing the debate into Tarrasque territory.
I wasn't originally going to mention it, but I actually edited my earlier post (re: stretching English) down for specifically that very reason - it was going to include definitions of the words in play and a step-by-linguistic-step walkthrough of the sentence, but I thought better of it and realized it doesn't at all matter which of us, if either, are right. |
| #24jonathonhawkeOct 17, 2014 12:10:59 |
|
| #25jonathonhawkeOct 17, 2014 12:11:49 |
|