Attacking imaginary objects? Really? That's all you've got? Spheres of annihilation and imaginary objects?
This thread has jumped the shark.
Quiz
Where did the idiom "Jumped the Shark" come from?
man I wish my APG was here
No no no, it TARGETED the shark.And intentionally missed.
....the darkness.:)
F6,F6,F6,F6,F6,F6,F6,F6,F6,F6,F6,F6,F6,F6,F6,F6,F6,F6,F6,F6,F6,F6
The funny thing here is that ... targeting imaginary points in space does not go against logic or rules of the game.
Yes, actually, it does.
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.
You cannot see or touch an imaginary object.
Furthermore, intentionally missing to get an effect that's more beneficial than hitting is such obvious munchkinism that it would be met by application of the Orbital Bovine Launcher by any DM I know.
But you cannot target an empty space. It must be an object or creature.
"Each round, as a standard action, you can attempt to hurl the target at any creature or object within 30 feet of it."
Exactly. Empty space is not an object, it is the absence of an object.
Also,
"I cast it at ... the darkness!"
If your actual D&D actions replicate Summoner Geeks, you've got problems.
|
Would you allow a player to target a coloured light on the ground?
What about projected 2D image?
How about a translucent image (illusion)?
How about targetting a hologram (3D illusion)?Where is the dividing line between Object, and absence of an object?
No.
No.No.
And No.
Because none of them are actually there. Spell fails.
Edit: Unless it can target an area or an object. But the previewed spell does not.
why all the argument about this? I think that this one comes down to what the GM says unless you are in an official game.
... OK so now you guys can attack me.
Would you allow a player to target a coloured light on the ground?
What about projected 2D image?
How about a translucent image (illusion)?
How about targetting a hologram (3D illusion)?Where is the dividing line between Object, and absence of an object?
1) No, but he could target the ground where the light is. :)
2) Yes. An image is a an intangible object, and can be targeted (just as you can target an image with an attack, else mirror image would not work).3) Yes (See 2)
4) Yes (See 3)
I would not allow someone to target an empty point 3 feet above the ground (there's no object there). If you want to attack a point in space over a canyon, then :
1) Cast Hammer.
2) Cast Flaming Sphere adn put sphere over empty spot 25 feet from hammer target. Use standard action to target flaming sphere.
3+) Repeat 2 until flaming sphere goes away, or until target fails save.
Would you allow a player to target a coloured light on the ground?
What about projected 2D image?
How about a translucent image (illusion)?
How about targetting a hologram (3D illusion)?Where is the dividing line between Object, and absence of an object?
Illusions of objects are objects until the saving throw is made. Illusions of not-objects (ie, a hole in the ground) aren't objects. Non-objects aren't objects. It's really not very difficult a concept.
... OK so now you guys can attack me.:)
Awesome, I now am rooting for you in this fight, so
you guys that don't believe TriOmegeZero are dumb and should just believe him and stop being dumb.
also what is you point.
Ok, what about targetting a green gaseous cloud?
And, the obvious follow-up, what about a transparent gaseous cloud?
(And yes, I can see easily how I'd rule things, I just find the differing answers to these questions an interesting point of discussion).
No. "The air" isn't an object (see my Summoner Geeks note, above). Differently colored air is still air. Spells that specifically interact with clouds say so and don't target "an object".
Hmm. Further reflection leads me to think I might be persuaded to rule differently than originally stated. Will have to ponder some more.
No need to be formal, TOZ is fine. :)
you guys that don't believe TriOmegeZero are dumb and should just believe him and stop being dumb.
I did not want any mistakes TOZ on my first post also it is funny how the posting keep happening with no regard to the lampooning of the argument.
Keep fighting guys soon the world and The Internet will be a better saver place form people who disagree with you.
But you cannot target an empty space. It must be an object or creature.
"Each round, as a standard action, you can attempt to hurl the target at any creature or object within 30 feet of it."
So, basically, if I use self-hypnosis and make myself believe that there is something at certain coordinates, I will be able to target it, right?
Though of course, the shorter way would be to use a mind-affecting illusion and target self (willingly foregoing disbelieve test).:)
Ah, the cruel world of logic.
Regards,
Ruemere
Yes, the cruel cruel world of complete and utter illogic.
|
But you cannot target an empty space. It must be an object or creature.
"Each round, as a standard action, you can attempt to hurl the target at any creature or object within 30 feet of it."
So, basically, if I use self-hypnosis and make myself believe that there is something at certain coordinates, I will be able to target it, right?
Though of course, the shorter way would be to use a mind-affecting illusion and target self (willingly foregoing disbelieve test).:)
Ah, the cruel world of logic.
Regards,
Ruemere
Wow, you realize that while your wizard is setting all of this up, in order to make this spell useful, the rest of the party has killed all available opponents in the area, grabbed the treasure, and are now back in town drinking and indulging in explicit activities?
|
|
So, basically, if I use self-hypnosis and make myself believe that there is something at certain coordinates, I will be able to target it, right?
Though of course, the shorter way would be to use a mind-affecting illusion and target self (willingly foregoing disbelieve test).:)
Ah, the cruel world of logic.
Regards,
Ruemere
So basically, if I use self-hypnosis and makes myself believe that elf is a human, I can cast sleep on him, right?
No, because the spell doesn't care what you think, only what is. You try to cast the spell on something that doesn't qualify, the spell will fail. No matter how much you believe it will work.
Yeah, logic is a real b#!+%, not just bending over for for your slightest whim.
|
|
Okies, provide a RAW definition of an object please. The one where object is required to be physical (and probably solid). Otherwise, notion of an "object" does not disallow use of liquid, illusionary, imaginary or gaseous objects.
Quoting from RAW: You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target.
Illusionary objects can be touched, by the way.
Oh, and you still did not disprove ability to intentionally miss a real object to try to hit imaginary object.
I'll get back to you on that once I am near my books. That is a good argument on first blush.
See above. Being irritable does not help. Fact (and quotations) do.:)
Regards,
Ruemere
You obviously don't know me very well if you thought I was irritated. :P
Oh, jeez, all this on ONE spell in the preview. You're all definitely going to make this the first thing to be errata'd/clarified when the APG Errata is released eh?
I, at first, thought this spell was underpowered compared to other 6th-level spells. Until I caught sight of its range, the fact it can target any creature, and there's no saving throw, just spell resistance. Yes, there is a save, but only when you attempt to throw the enemy. No initial save against the spell. Which means, at 11th-level, you potentially have 11 rounds to force an enemy to make a Fortitude save to force move them all around...which can be pretty nasty if used right and used in the proper environments. Or even to use for tactical purposes (fling it at a wall, it lands prone adjacent to the party's warrior who can now Full Attack it).
I think the point of this spell is mainly Control. And for 1 round/level, Fortitude negates the effect but not the spell itself? That's pretty nifty. One spell giving 11 uses at 11th-level pretty much. At 20th, that's 20 uses. Not bad at all. This can be just as devastating as an evocation if used right.
LOL
I love it when people use logic to prove the rules say they can do something not in the rules.
Logic works wonderfully well as long as no one is trying to game the system (the system of logic in this case). As soon as someone tries to game the system though, logic goes out the window. My professor had a great example of it that proved that it would rain if he didn't eat a pancake for breakfast on Wednesdays.
The basic idea is, I state 3 facts, one conclusion, and then base an assumption off the whole thing. It basically comes down to 'It's not in the rules you can't, ergo you can'. This is of course a 'Burden of Proof' fallacy. It's like saying Nessie exists in Loch Ness, because you can't prove she doesn't. Or, psionic powers are real, because you can't prove they aren't. It's legal in the rules, because you can't point to a rule that says you can't do it (also a fallacy).
The rules are not a set of statements telling you what you can't do, they are a set of statements telling you what you can do. Therefore, you can attack target A. You can attack target B. You can howl like a monkey and attack him with spit and provoke an attack of opportunity from downwind virtually ensuring you never hit him. The rules simply give penalties for disadvantageous situations. What they don't do is allow you to take all those statements of 'what you can' do and allow you to use them to break a rule that says 'You can only do A' by inferring that B is sort of like A but not quite but it is better for you.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
You want a definition of object? Something that deals 1d4-3d8 points of damage to a creature getting slammed into it by enemy hammer.
Use any other definition and the spell does not make sense. Target an empty square as an object? Roll your attack against the air's AC! You hit? Sweet, deal damage to the guy as he impacts nothing.
Same thing for illusions. If an illusion counts as an object, then hitting one with your enemy should damage him and it. Illusion spells (short of shadow illusions) do not deal damage. It says so right in the PRD, check the bold section:
Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. Figments and glamers cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding foes, but useless for attacking them directly.
If an illusion can't cause damage, then it isn't an object as far as enemy hammer is concerned.
Targeting a real object and intentionally missing is a better try, but the spell specifically says your enemy lands adjacent to the object you targeted, not next to the imaginary object you were trying to hit by missing.
Not that I think you can actually intentionally miss into something else in the first place. If you're aiming a stone at one target and trying to hit a second target instead, I have news for you: you're aiming at the second target. You just happen to be giving that first target an intense, soulful look while you do so.