Range on area self-centred area spells [3.5/PF1]

[Aotrs Commander]

I am in the process of copying over spells from core 3.5/PF1 to a document (don't ask...) but as part of the process, I'm taking a pass over them as well.

One of my players has pointed out an apparent inconsistency in some spells with areas which have radiuses centred on he caster, in that they sometimes have a range, sometimes are personal, and sometimes don't have a range at all..

E.g. PF1's Tactical Acumen has the following;

Range 30 ft.
Area The caster and all allies within a 30-ft.-radius burst, centered on the caster.

My player's quite reasonable question is what purpose the range entry serves in these spells, as he says it is somewhat confusing to have the spell tell you "range 30', but it isn't really."

I picked Tactical Acumen, since it's the (first) verified Pathfinder spell (as I'm crossposting on the PF1 reddit too) of the ones I have found with similar entries, but there are a few other spells (from 3.5) too*, with a range and radius centred on the caster (some are emanations, some are not). (A Cntl-F search of my spells document (which is, like 300 pages and thus by no means a complete list of all 3.5 and PF1 spells, at least a fairly large statistical sample!) has located several such spells, some of which have a range equal to the radius and one or two which have a range of personal (despite affecting a radius centred on the caster).

(3.5's Spores of the Vrock doesn't have a range entry, just an Area: 5' radius centred on caster.))

My gut feeling is that he has a point, and that the range entry for these spells could stand to be removed (or at least changed to something else, either 0ft (like flameblade, but one might question that) or personal; and at least be consistent about it.

Can anyone give me a substansive reason why these "radius centred on caster" spells strictly NEED a range entry? I cannot, offhand, see one, but there might be something I'm missing.



*Fimbul Winter, Aligned Aura, Aura of Greater Courage (another PF 1, with a range of "Personal"), I'd found enough I'm not going to try listing them all or I'll be ending up spending the day doing that instead of trying to get through (some of) core "f" spells...!

[Kurald Galain]

My gut feeling is that he has a point, and that the range entry for these spells could stand to be removed

I agree. These wordings seem to be based on colloquialisms like "affects all allies within range", but it's confusing because the term "range" is already in use for something else. I'd say "personal" is also wrong for such spells, and leaving it out may lead people to ask what the range actually is, so I'd go with "0".

[Aotrs Commander]

I agree. These wordings seem to be based on colloquialisms like "affects all allies within range", but it's confusing because the term "range" is already in use for something else. I'd say "personal" is also wrong for such spells, and leaving it out may lead people to ask what the range actually is, so I'd go with "0".

PF1 reddit suggests this is because of the wording of Range entry, in that (for spells not centred on caster), you can only affect targets with the range of the spell (even if the portions of the area fall outside it). Which indicates that you cannot have a Personal-range spell with an area (makes sense, but nobody has appeared to be 100% consistent, but that's why OCD little crappers like me exist); nor would a range of 0ft be technically correct.

But if this is such a technical RAW artifice, unless there is a good reason not to, though, It seems to be me it could be solved with less page-space by just (when copying up the magic section...) by adding a line which states that all spells whose area is centred on the caster by definition have a range equal to their area.




Edit: On consideration of how many spells I'd have to go through to find and correct (I started back on copy-over and hit another one, Globe of Invulernability), though, I may not actually bother, aside from correcting the spells which have an erronous (or lack of) range.

[tyckspoon]

PF1 reddit suggests this is because of the wording of Range entry, in that (for spells not centred on caster), you can only affect targets with the range of the spell (even if the portions of the area fall outside it). Which indicates that you cannot have a Personal-range spell with an area (makes sense, but nobody has appeared to be 100% consistent, but that's why OCD little crappers like me exist); nor would a range of 0ft be technically correct.

But if this is such a technical RAW artifice, unless there is a good reason not to, though, It seems to be me it could be solved with less page-space by just (when copying up the magic section...) by adding a line which states that all spells whose area is centred on the caster by definition have a range equal to their area.

There is a rule, at least in 3.5 (and I presume carried forward to PF1), that a spell cannot have any effect in excess of its Range - if the placement of the Area would cause some of the Area to go past the Range, you just discard that part of the Area. It is usually thought of in relation to things like casting an area spell at the edge of its range (draw a circle with radius = range. Place another circle within it with area=Area, which is what the spell can affect. The smaller circle cannot leave the bigger one, any part of the smaller circle that would cross the boundary of the large one just gets deleted.) It is also often ignored or forgotten about by writers, especially in splatbooks. Which has resulted in a few RAW dysfunctional or nonfunctional spells that were pretty clearly supposed to be big area effects but because they didn't give them matching Range they actually just do something like cause a localized earthquake on the caster.

The spell(s) you're looking at are from people remembering that rule exists and trying to be compliant with it.

[Aotrs Commander]

There is a rule, at least in 3.5 (and I presume carried forward to PF1), that a spell cannot have any effect in excess of its Range - if the placement of the Area would cause some of the Area to go past the Range, you just discard that part of the Area. It is usually thought of in relation to things like casting an area spell at the edge of its range (draw a circle with radius = range. Place another circle within it with area=Area, which is what the spell can affect. The smaller circle cannot leave the bigger one.) It is also often ignored or forgotten about by writers, especially in splatbooks. Which has resulted in a few RAW dysfunctional or nonfunctional spells that were pretty clearly supposed to be big area effects but because they didn't give them matching Range they actually just do something like cause a localized earthquake on the caster.

The spell(s) you're looking at are from people remembering that rule exists and trying to be compliant with it.

Clearly. As noted in the edit I made to post (literally as your post came in), there are a sufficiently large number of spells I'd have to go through to remove the entry if I re-worded the range basic rules that I'm not sure I can be arsed, frankly, so it might be better (or at least less effort) for me to just find the ones that are technically RAW disfunctional and fix them.


Edit: frack's sake, not EVEN CORE 3.5/PF1 is consistent; by the logical, invisibility sphere doesn;t work, because it has a range or personal/touch (the range at which you cast the spell) but then has an area of 10' radius. Guuuh. Frack it, I'm just adding "; then 10 ft." and calling it a day.