My DM remembers that when he was a player, they would cast light on people's eyes to blind them. With the added mechanism of called shots, could you do that?
Also, does making the touch attack to land the spell provoke an AoO?
So, light specifies the target as object touched.
A creature isn't an object. And trying to target it's eyes doesn't make it any less of a creature.
You are trying to simulate a 2nd level spell (Blindness/Deafness) by instead using a 0 level spell.
So no, not even a little allowable.
As far as using called shots with spell attacks...it's unclear if they work together. I suspect that they do, but only spells that deal damage.
You could shocking grasp them into their eye, and if you did well enough blind them in a single eye. See the called shot rules for further details.
It was continual light that could do it, if I remember correctly - don't have my AD&D books here. I don't think it could at all in 3.0.
But RAW, you could not. It specifies an object as the target.
Constructs are the only creature type that is also possibly an object. There status as whether they are or aren't objects isn't completely clear within game terms.
Generally speaking, I do not consider constructs objects. I've actually been looking for a definite answer on the status of constructs.
Just slap your hat though and BAM! you've got your own light source now though. Completely off topic. And true.
Okay. What about the AoO?
If you make a touch attack with the light spell? Yeah...that probably would provoke. Damaging touch spells don't provoke because you're considered armed, but non-damaging touch spells...those probably would still provoke as you're not armed.
I am assuming that generally speaking, objects and creatures are two mutually exclusive things in game mechanics terms. Which is supported by the way in which the magic and spell system works.
Again, constructs are the only creature that might possibly blend the two. And as you note, there are unfortunately not particularly strong rules for defining what is and isn't an object (in the game mechanics sense).
Such as, plant creatures are definitely creatures and not objects.
Plant
This type comprises vegetable creatures. Note that regular plants, such as one finds growing in gardens and fields, lack Wisdom and Charisma scores and are not creatures, but objects, even though they are alive. A plant creature has the following features.
That strongly implies to me that there is relatively strict separation of creatures and objects, and that at least for the most part anything that is mechanically a creature is not also mechanically an object.
So you're saying you think that a spell like Obscure Object should work on a human? Because they are a creature and object?
Even though spells like Nondetection and Mindblank exist which are either higher level or don't work as well?
Creatures and object are completely separate in the game, other wise spells and the rules text would not bother to specify them. Some spells work on both, but if a spell works on one, then it does not work on the other.
A creature may not be "alive" but it has a life force, when is what people mean when they say a vampire or construct is still living, even though they know it is not alive in the same sense that a human is.
Kazaan just to be clear is your argument just for the sake of discussion or do you really think spells that call out creatures or objects are intended by the devs to also affect something in the other category?. And do you also think it is really hard to distinguish between when something is a creature or an object in an actual game?
|
If you make a touch attack with the light spell? Yeah...that probably would provoke. Damaging touch spells don't provoke because you're considered armed, but non-damaging touch spells...those probably would still provoke as you're not armed.
It won't provoke. Any touch spell make your touch attack a armed attack:
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.
If you make a touch attack with the light spell? Yeah...that probably would provoke. Damaging touch spells don't provoke because you're considered armed, but non-damaging touch spells...those probably would still provoke as you're not armed.It won't provoke. Any touch spell make your touch attack a armed attack:
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.
I'm aware, but I think that is really about spells that are meant to be used as touch attacks, which generally cause some sort of damage. However, using light which has a target of object touch (but doesn't actually grant a touch attack) might still provoke. It is a little unclear.
That said, I think it's unlikely to actually come up in a meaningful way in most game.
Let me put this another way, if they specifically call out affecting creatures(such as "target: creature touched" in a spell do you also think they intend for it to also affect objects?