Hullo, folks,

On page 134 of the DESOLATION rulebook, second column, under Range, Area of Effect, and Line of Sight, the example beneath the table may be wrong. Hitting two targets has a DIF modifier of +1, and having a range of 30 feet away has a DIF modifier of +2, so in that example shouldn't the Final Difficulty be +3, and not +2, as is suggested?

Heya -

The modifier (+2) in the example in the book is correct, HOWEVER, it should say there is a +1 for two target and +1 for extended range. The mention of area of effect is incorrect.

Matt

Hullo, Matt,



Okay, then this just confuses me slightly... The text right below the table states that "Each additional level of dificulty acciomplishes only one benefit; however, they are cumulative." So, affectiing 2 targets has a DIF of +1, and affecting a radius of 30 feet has a DIF of +2. So why isn't the cumulative DIF here +3?

What have I completely missed?

I think the confusion revolves around the area of effect.

In the example, area of effect plays no part - so forget area of effect. We are dealing with extended range.

To affect 2 targets that are 30' away, there is a total modifier of +2.
+1 modifier for extended range
+1 modifier to affect 2 targets.

===

As an aside, you do not have to "pay a modifier" for both affecting a # of targets and the area of effect. I choose which one makes the most sense and apply the modifier appropriate for that.

For example: Let's day there are 4 bandits huddled together about 100' feet away and I want to capture them in a spere of lightning. I would apply the area of effect mdifier for a 10' radius (+1) instead of basing it on the number of people, which would be +2 (for 4 people). I would also have to apply an extended range modifier (+2), for a total modifer of +3.

Make sense?

Hullo, Matt,



Okay, I tend to agree with that...please explain...



Oh!! So, what you're saying is that you pay a +1 for the 2 targets, and a +1 for the *Range* of 30 feet, rather than the radius of 30 feet (which would be +2). That's what confused me in the example; it states "area of effect", but it actually should be "range". Gotcha.



When you phrase it this way, yes, it makes perfect sense. The example above, where you use the fact that the 4 bandits are huddled together means that the character can use an area of effect, rather than a number of targets. What this proves is that phrasing on examples needs to be very precise.

You were right that the problem was the use of the term "area of effect" in the original example, and this second example clears this up nicely. Thanks, Matt.