| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
How is the Seeking Spell metamagic feat supposed to work with target spells?
Does it ignore total cover and total concealment, effectively allowing me to target someone if I know they are present, such as when an enemy flees and hides around a corner? If not, then I fail to see the point of using this feat on target spells, which generally ignore cover, concealment and other obstacles anyways.
I'd always imagined seeking let you target someone without line of sight, especially since it specifically talks about going around corners. It's a good question though so I'm FAQing it.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
How is the Seeking Spell metamagic feat supposed to work with target spells?
Does it ignore total cover and total concealment, effectively allowing me to target someone if I know they are present, such as when an enemy flees and hides around a corner? If not, then I fail to see the point of using this feat on target spells, which generally ignore cover, concealment and other obstacles anyways.
It ignores cover and concealment and requires a ranged touch attack.
Some examples:
- You see the target but it is behind wall of force, so seeking goes around.
- Your target has displacement.
- You have line of sight but not line of effect.
- You can't see them but you know what square they are in.
If you don't know their square and can't see them, it doesn't sound like this Metamagic helps.
The spell says you trace the path of the spell's range. Doesn't that mean I could potentially trace over or around a wall granting total cover? If the path hits a target, then they get targeted by the spell. I wouldn't even need line of sight, though I would risk hitting nothing if I traced the path along the wrong squares.
This could be extremely useful with long range spells that could have paths zigzagging back and forth, covering lots and lots of squares in search of a target.
Is this a possible/valid interpretation of the feat?
It doesn't say it affects the first creature the spell runs across or anything of that sort, so that's pretty much out. It just says "define the route yourself". It sounds like you would need to declare where the spell ends up as a part of declaring the route. You could have it travel in whatever wacky path you desire, but eventually you would need to pick a spot for it to *stop*, unless the GM is generous enough to allow you to throw out "smart" seeking spells (which is basically what you are asking).
If all it did was ignore cover and concealment, why would it call out target spells at all (which don't usually bother with such things anyways)? Also, why would it say the following:
If I can see the target, I would always choose the latter option in that sentence, not the former. So...why does the former exist except to allow you to target something you otherwise couldn't?
At +2 levels it should be a pretty nifty effect.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Is this a possible/valid interpretation of the feat?
Not to me.
why does the former exist except to allow you to target something you otherwise couldn't?
So you don't need to trace a line when it is obvious to you and the GM that there is sufficient range to get there and it allows the GM to handwave the line trace.
Except that if I was hitting them with a target spell (such as charm person), no line tracing would be required at all anyways! If I can see them, and they are within range, then I can target them. That's the normal rules, sans feat.
Ergo, this feat creates an exception to that rule. There would be literally no point in calling out target spells otherwise.
A wild guess would be scrying or other semi-remote viewing methods (say the Scryer subschool Send Senses power). Then if you are watching a scene within range of your spells (say the inside of a house down the street) you could send a spell at them that is typically implied to only travel in a straight line (like Fireball).
But yeah, seems like it would be very situational in every way that is not concealment fix on rays.
But if you had to go to such lengths, why did they bother phrasing the feat the way they did?
I am with Ravingdork on this - if the feat isn't intended to ignore total cover and total concealment then the sentence "In order to benefit from this feat, the selected spell must have a range greater than touch and target one or more creatures, or it must require the caster to make a ranged touch attack" makes no sense because regular cover and concealment does not affect targeted spells that don't require attack roll.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If I can see them, and they are within range, then I can target them.
Actually that is not how it works.
If they have cover like behind a wall of force, you can see them but you don't have line of effect to them. This feat gives you line of effect.
makes no sense because regular cover and concealment does not affect targeted spells that don't require attack roll.
Again, you might be able to see someone in a house through a glass window, but you can't cast a spell on them without this feat.
If I can see them, and they are within range, then I can target them.Actually that is not how it works.
If they have cover like behind a wall of force, you can see them but you don't have line of effect to them. This feat gives you line of effect.
Because it is total cover, unless the target peeks from behind the edge of the wall. The very definition of total cover is "lack of (direct) line of effect".
You are right that Ravingdork is wrong because you not only need to see the target but also have a line of effect to it.
makes no sense because regular cover and concealment does not affect targeted spells that don't require attack roll.Again, you might be able to see someone in a house through a glass window, but you can't cast a spell on them without this feat.
Again, this is case of total cover that doesn't happen to provide total concealment.
Ok, I made an error in estimation that it allows ignoring total cover and total concealment (I thought that seeking ranged weapon property used the same language, while it works a bit differently).
Still, I'd say that the feat allows ignoring total cover but not necessarily total concealment (though the phrase "unambiguously identify a target and allow the spell to determine its own path" looks to me like the language used in GURPS, where regular spells don't require line of sight or line of effect).
To sum it up:
Subject has regular cover: Targeted spells without attack roll is unaffected.
Subject has regular concealment: Targeted spell without attack roll is unaffected.
if the feat only allowed ignoring those two conditions, listing targeted spells without attack rolls a viable subject of this feat would make no sense.
Subject has total cover but no concealment (like the examples of wall of force and closed glass window): Targeted spell cannot normally work on such target, though bending the line of effect (thus no longer requiring it to be straight) would make the subject targetable. For it to make sense the feat would have to require to ignore total cover, though.
Subject has total cover and regular concealment (like the subject sitting behind the glass window and being only partly visible): Still the targeted spell with no attack roll is thwarted not by concealment (which does not affect it) but by lack of line of effect. The bending of the line of effect would make the subject targetable.
Subject has total cover and total concealment (like the regular wall): The targeted spell with no attack roll is being thwarted twice - by lack of line of sight and lack of line of effect.
Can you target an invisible creature when you've pinpointed it's square but can't see it? I thought you couldn't, so wouldn't this help with that?
Or am I wrong. And what would happen if multiple tiny invisible targets are in the same square.
Choose a square that you cannot directly see. Seeking allows you to shoot the spell there as long as the total travel distance is in it's range category. Think Darkseid's eye beams.
If you know an enemy is in square X but cannot directly see him, seeking spell will hit it as specified in the feat.
It allows you to target squares and targets that you know are there but do not normally have line of effect to. It makes line of effect zig zaggy/seeking so as long as you have RANGE to them you have effect to them.
Knowing where a target is is still adjudicated by the GM so you could choose square X behind that small tree there and still miss if the target is not there. But at least seeking spell will get your spell to that square where you would not be able to normally.
Like if a target readies an action to move behind cover when your fire a spell. Seeking tells that target AHA! and hits it any ways.
If you have pinpointed the invisible target, this should eliminate the invisible problem. Same for a pinpointed tiny target, in a square of unpinpointed targets.
Nope.
It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance).
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
Except in some edge case where a target has total concealment but you can still see him (so not darkness or invisibility) you have to actually see a target to negate its concealment, not just pinpoint its square. It sounds like this feat helps with that, you can still target it with a Hold Monster (or whatever) as long as you can pinpoint the square with perception (or blindsense) and use this metamagic.