Psionic Dominate Question

[jcsw]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/dominatePsionic.htm


Dominate, Psionic
Telepathy (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Telepath 4
Display: Mental
Manifesting Time: 1 round
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target: One humanoid
Duration: Concentration
Saving Throw: Will negates
Power Resistance: Yes
Power Points: 7

As the dominate person spell, except as noted here.
Augment

You can augment this power in one or more of the following ways.

1. If you spend 2 additional power points, this power can also affect an animal, fey, giant, magical beast, or monstrous humanoid.
2. If you spend 4 additional power points, this power can also affect an aberration, dragon, elemental, or outsider in addition to the creature types mentioned above.
3. For every 2 additional power points you spend, this power can affect an additional target. Any additional target cannot be more than 15 feet from another target of the power.
4. If you spend 1 additional power point, this power’s duration is 1 hour rather than concentration. If you spend 2 additional power points, this power’s duration is 1 day rather than concentration. If you spend 4 additional power points, this power’s duration is 1 day per manifester level rather than concentration.

In addition, for every 2 additional power points you spend to achieve any of these effects, this power’s save DC increases by 1.

When I augment the power to increase the number of targets, does "Any additional target cannot be more than 15 feet from another target of the power." mean all targets must be within a 7.5 ft radius circle, or that all targets must be 15 ft from one other target?

[leperkhaun]

it just means that the next target has to be within 15 feet of the last target. so you can dominate a straight line where the mobs are standing 15 feet apart.

1--15'--2--15'--3--15'--4...etc

however you can only affect targets up to 100 10/foot a level away.

so if your max distance is 150 feet. you target a critter thats 145 feet away and your next target is 160 feet away, you cannot dominate the second target as its out of your range.

[kamikasei]

it just means that the next target has to be within 15 feet of the last target. so you can dominate a straight line where the mobs are standing 15 feet apart.

Really? I would have judged it the other way: "no more than 15 feet from another target" meaning "no other target can be further than that distance", not "at least one other target must be within that distance".

Is there an FAQ or Sage ruling to clear it up?

[Rad]

When rules provide exceptions to others they usually say so. The "15' within another" line is another restriction on top of the range of the power. The power cannot have effects beyond that.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Let's break this down, phrase by phrase...

"Any target…" Simple enough. Pick one of your targets.

"…cannot be more than 15 feet from…" Once again, pretty simple. Establishes the limit.

"…another target of the power." Just "another target". Doesn't seem to imply you have to compare the first target to all others That means you can arbitrarily pick any one target—whichever one is most beneficial to you, really.

So, yeah, I'd say leperkhaun is pretty much correct. Except for the fact that all targets are targeted at once—there is no "last target." For every target, you can pick whatever other target is most beneficial as a reference point, whether or not it was used as a reference point for another target.

Note that this varies from the more common spell wording on spells that "no two targets can be more than <x> feet from each other." That particular phrasing does mean all targets have to be tightly clustered because your picking every concievable combination of two targets and they all must pass the test.

[kamikasei]

"…another target of the power." Just "another target". Doesn't seem to imply you have to compare the first target to all others That means you can arbitrarily pick any one target—whichever one is most beneficial to you, really.

I would argue that "cannot be more than X from another target" can be interpreted as: "Ah, target A is more than X from target B. Though both are less than X from target C, nonetheless each is 'more than X from another target', and thus not valid."

However:


Note that this varies from the more common spell wording on spells that "no two targets can be more than <x> feet from each other." That particular phrasing does mean all targets have to be tightly clustered because your picking every concievable combination of two targets and they all must pass the test.

I was wondering why I hadn't seen any ambiguity on this point before, and this is probably why - I missed the difference in wording and was thinking of the more usual version which you quote. Given that they used different wording I think it's only reasonable to assume it's to give a different meaning, so I agree that in this case the intended interpretation is that each target has to be in range of at least one other.

[jcsw]

Thanks for the answers... This is gonna make my Thrallherd very happy. XD

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I would argue that "cannot be more than X from another target" can be interpreted as: "Ah, target A is more than X from target B. Though both are less than X from target C, nonetheless each is 'more than X from another target', and thus not valid."
It's possible that is what was intended. But "Another" in actual use refers to just one other being as opposed to all others (i.e. "an other vs. anys all others (big EDIT)). So I'd say what I said is what it actually means.


I was wondering why I hadn't seen any ambiguity on this point before, and this is probably why - I missed the difference in wording and was thinking of the more usual version which you quote. Given that they used different wording I think it's only reasonable to assume it's to give a different meaning, so I agree that in this case the intended interpretation is that each target has to be in range of at least one other.
I'd say different authors could also cause a difference in wording even where intent is the same.

All in all, the wording is somewhat ambiguous, especially when you throw in some interperative overhead. Given the way the rules usually work, I'd say the Rules as Intended may be that it's supposed to be the closely clustered interpretation. But the actual Rules as Written comes out with this more liberal interpretation.

[ColdBrew]

It's possible that is what was intended. But "Another" in actual use refers to just one other being as opposed to all others (i.e. "an other vs. any other). So I'd say what I said is what it actually means.

In this case, "an other" and "any other" are functionally identical. I support the "clustered" interpretation over the "line" interpretation because that's just how the sentence parses. There's really no ambiguity here. If the power said "Any additional target must be 15 feet or less from another target of the power" then the "line" interpretation would be valid. However, the actual wording is more restrictive: "Any additional target cannot be more than 15 feet from another target of the power.

In the "line" scenario, the targets on either end are more than 15 feet from another target (each other), which they cannot be. Therefore that target selection is invalid.

[NEO|Phyte]

In this case, "an other" and "any other" are functionally identical. I support the "clustered" interpretation over the "line" interpretation because that's just how the sentence parses. There's really no ambiguity here. If the power said "Any additional target must be 15 feet or less from another target of the power" then the "line" interpretation would be valid. However, the actual wording is more restrictive: "Any additional target cannot be more than 15 feet from another target of the power.

In the "line" scenario, the targets on either end are more than 15 feet from another target (each other), which they cannot be. Therefore that target selection is invalid.
...Yeah, you lost me on the italicized part. :edit: make that underlined, quotes are all italicized. Lets use your line scenario. The targets on either end are more than 15 feet from each other. This means that they are not 15 (or less) feet away from each other. So how does your rewording magically work?

Also, I agree with the line interpretation, if they wanted it to be a cluster, they'd use wording like this: "Up to five creatures or objects; no two targets can be more than 15 ft. apart." (taken from the Target line of Energy Missile)

[Rad]

I would argue that "cannot be more than X from another target" can be interpreted as: "Ah, target A is more than X from target B. Though both are less than X from target C, nonetheless each is 'more than X from another target', and thus not valid."
As in several assignments I graded until yesterday, I have to note that the negation of "to be more than X from another target" is "to have any other target more than X away". This kind of wordings only have one meaning.
This rule is distasteful since it is not consistent with many other similar cases, but this is RAW (unless it has been corrected in an errata).

I still do not see how that would override the power's range though.

[kamikasei]

...Yeah, you lost me on the italicized part. :edit: make that underlined, quotes are all italicized. Lets use your line scenario. The targets on either end are more than 15 feet from each other. This means that they are not 15 (or less) feet away from each other. So how does your rewording magically work?

It's "must be... at most... from another" vs. "cannot be... more than... from another". The stipulation that the target must be within 15 feet of another target is satisfied if he's within 15 feet of just one other target. The stipulation that he cannot be more than 15 feet from another target fails if he is more than 15 feet from any other target. Positive vs. negative. It only takes one example to prove a positive, but one counterexample to prove a negative.

As stated above, this was more or less my interpretation but in light of the alternative phrasing used elsewhere I now think it's too strict.

[ColdBrew]

It's "must be... at most... from another" vs. "cannot be... more than... from another". The stipulation that the target must be within 15 feet of another target is satisfied if he's within 15 feet of just one other target. The stipulation that he cannot be more than 15 feet from another target fails if he is more than 15 feet from any other target. Positive vs. negative.
Yes, thank you.


As stated above, this was more or less my interpretation but in light of the alternative phrasing used elsewhere I now think it's too strict.
Whether it's too strict or not, and regardless of what other powers say, it's how English works. You're more than welcome to house rule it to work any way you like, but the only way to satisfy the conditions laid out in the power description is if all targets are with 100' +10'/ML and all targets are within 15' of all other targets.